Orders of the Day — Succession (Scotland) Bill – in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 19 Chwefror 1964.
Mr William Ross
, Kilmarnock
12:00,
19 Chwefror 1964
I beg to move, in page 18, line 25, to leave out paragraph (b).
Mr William Ross
, Kilmarnock
Clause 26 deals with orders for financial provision on divorce. It wipes out the equation of divorce with death in Scottish law and replaces it by the provision that
the pursuer may…apply to the Court…for the payment by the defender…of a capital sum or an annual or periodical allowance…
I do not take exception to that, but I take exception to paragraph (b) which says:
either party to the marriage may apply to the Court for an order varying the terms of any settlement made in contemplation of or during the marriage, so far as taking effect on or after the termination of the marriage.
This presupposes a legal settlement being freely entered into before marriage in contemplation of that marriage ending in divorce.
It is a little beyond me to understand why we are giving a new right to vary a settlement entered into in this way. It is as disturbing as the idea of the settlement having been made in the first place is offensive. In an interjection an hon. Member opposite talked about equating blood relationship with money, but it is evident that the bonds of matrimony have a literal meaning for some people. I could not allow the Clause to pass without making reference to this point. No doubt I shall receive the reply that this is simply realistic and prudent, but if it is all that realistic and prudent I do not see why the settlement should not remain. We should not give an additional right to vary it.
If there is to be no sanctity in relation to the vows of marriage I hope that hon. Members opposite will see to it that the long proclaimed principle of the sanctity of contract is upheld. It seems that marriages are made in much more mundane circumstances and with much more mercenary motives than are usually attributed to them in song and story. My hon. Friends may think that I am too much of a Presbyterian puritan, but I feel rather strongly about this. When, before going into a church to take vows of marriage—"till death us do part"—people openly and realistically enter into a settlement concerning what will happen when the marriage ends in divorce, in my opinion that settlement should not be open to variation.
Lady Grant of Monymusk
, Aberdeen South
I am afraid that I must ask the House to reject the Amendment. I quite understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross): they are not merely Protestant or Presbyterian feelings. But although marriage settlements are not made very often, when they are made it is not with the express intention of their ending in divorce. The purpose of this kind of marriage settlement is to make provision for what should happen when the marriage terminates, and that means when it terminates at death. The hon. Member concluded that settlements were made because people thought that their marriages might possibly end in divorce, but the real purpose of such settlements is to decide upon some arrangement as to what should happen to property on the termination of a marriage. Unfortunately, even the happiest of marriages are terminated by death.
That is why this paragraph is necessary. Its purpose is to empower the court, upon granting a divorce, to order a variation in the terms of the marriage settlement. By the changes in the law which we are making in this part of the Bill we are giving courts a discretion to make an award to the pursuer, from the defender's estate, in terms which it thinks fit, laving regard to all the circumstances of the case. The court will be responsible for making a financial settlement which is satisfactory to both parties.
The provisions in the marriage settlement dealing with what is to happen on the termination of the marriage must affect the issue, and a court might find itself unable to make satisfactory provisions because the property of the parties was tied up in the terms of the settlement. That is why, if the court is to do what it is asked to do here, it must have power to vary a settlement, and that is why I suggest we should retain this provision.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
The Speaker is an MP who has been elected to act as Chairman during debates in the House of Commons. He or she is responsible for ensuring that the rules laid down by the House for the carrying out of its business are observed. It is the Speaker who calls MPs to speak, and maintains order in the House. He or she acts as the House's representative in its relations with outside bodies and the other elements of Parliament such as the Lords and the Monarch. The Speaker is also responsible for protecting the interests of minorities in the House. He or she must ensure that the holders of an opinion, however unpopular, are allowed to put across their view without undue obstruction. It is also the Speaker who reprimands, on behalf of the House, an MP brought to the Bar of the House. In the case of disobedience the Speaker can 'name' an MP which results in their suspension from the House for a period. The Speaker must be impartial in all matters. He or she is elected by MPs in the House of Commons but then ceases to be involved in party politics. All sides in the House rely on the Speaker's disinterest. Even after retirement a former Speaker will not take part in political issues. Taking on the office means losing close contact with old colleagues and keeping apart from all groups and interests, even avoiding using the House of Commons dining rooms or bars. The Speaker continues as a Member of Parliament dealing with constituent's letters and problems. By tradition other candidates from the major parties do not contest the Speaker's seat at a General Election. The Speakership dates back to 1377 when Sir Thomas Hungerford was appointed to the role. The title Speaker comes from the fact that the Speaker was the official spokesman of the House of Commons to the Monarch. In the early years of the office, several Speakers suffered violent deaths when they presented unwelcome news to the King. Further information can be obtained from factsheet M2 on the UK Parliament website.
