Clause 2 - Additional considerations if parties are cohabitants or former cohabitants
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm
Ms Sandra Gidley (Women and Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)
New clause 12 is a slightly different attempt to get round the same problem. Both the measures that we are discussing are variations on what emerged in the other place. As described by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, non-molestation orders are equally available regardless of marital status and may be made for a specified period or until a further order. That is not the case for occupation orders. I welcome the changes that have been made so far, which get rid of the discrimination between married couples and non-cohabiting couples, but we can still improve things a little further. The problem at the moment is that with the exception of where an applicant is entitled, the occupation orders cannot be issued to cohabitants for longer than a year. They run initially for six months, with the possibility of their being extended for up to a year.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal said in the other place that, when making an occupation order, the level of commitment involved in a relationship should be taken into account, rather than the courts being required to look at the fact that the couple had not married. She did not
''wish to plant the seed of doubt into the court's mind that the level of commitment, or lack thereof, is no longer important.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2004; Vol. 658, c.860.]
Although the one-night stand or the short-term relationship is relatively easy to understand, there are cases where women have been contributing to the family home and possibly paying a part, or all, of the mortgage, but have not got around to regularising the situation. Not everybody works like that. Sometimes there can be a psychological pressure on the woman, with the partner saying that that was not important and did not mean that he loved her any the less, and so on.
A number of instances are missed, because although there is an ongoing relationship, the entitlement is lacking. It would be much simpler if the courts had complete discretion over the duration of an order and could adapt it according to particular circumstances. If the Government are not minded to go head first and totally adopt those principles, our amendment would allow for an extra extension of six months, because a number of instances cannot happily be resolved in a year. If the period were extended by an extra six months, thereby giving a total of 18 months, it could be possible for more cases to be brought to a happy resolution.
I am sympathetic to the Conservative amendments and look forward to the Minister's response.