Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I support this amendment on the basis that it is not right that the length of the notice should be determined solely by the applicant. The present definition of the start of the application is settled by the rules of court. It would be a good idea if the rules of court committee examined this matter because if it is willing to change the present rule to a rule that accommodates the...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I understand that the question to which this clause is an answer was in the consultation and that the answer in consultation was 12 months, whereas here it is six. I just wonder what superior knowledge the Government had in mind in going to six months when the consultation seemed to say 12. I have had some experience in this area, 20-something years ago. When I proposed the 1996...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I support both amendments. I want to look at Amendment 21 first; it contains a reference to Section 22 of the Family Law Act 1996 and one of the provisions supported by Professor Walker in the passage that my noble friend quoted. I regard it as absolutely essential that the Government should support families in difficulties. There are plenty of reasons for difficulty in family...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I need no conviction that children are better when their parents continue together, undivorced. I am strongly in favour of helping people who run into difficulties in their marriage. Various things can happen that require help. One of the amendments today refers to part of the 1996 Act that is still in force, providing money to help people to overcome these difficulties. I need no...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the unfortunate thing about that is that it is the application: once you have applied, you have carried out the intent. It is an application for a divorce, and the divorce procedure lays out what has to happen before the divorce is granted. When you apply, you are applying for a divorce. I cannot see any other possible way of proceeding. It does not seem to make sense to say, “I...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I was not wishing to push myself forward too soon, but one has to look quite closely at the wording of this amendment, which says: “The divorce process under subsection (1) consists of three stages and must be accompanied by … for the first stage, a statement by the applicant or applicants, if a joint application, on the filing of the application for a divorce order that they...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, will the Minister consider whether Section 2(4) of the 1948 Act should continue, as it tends to swell these claims for damages? Is there any procedure followed when a particular claim is accepted to see whether the same accident is repeated again, and, if so, what should be done to stop it?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I wonder whether this question of landing obligations will need to be resolved in the fisheries negotiations during the coming “passage of arms” with the EU. I believe that there is a good deal of voluntary landing in our ports by foreign fishing vessels at the moment, and one of the reasons for that is the efficiency of the transfer from these ports to the European market. They...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I can see that, if it is restricted to British vessels, it is perfectly within the powers of this Parliament, but I am not at all clear that it would be right to impose that kind of obligation on British vessels without attempting to encourage foreign vessels to do the same. As I mentioned at Second Reading, something like this is already happening, and in pretty small ports—though they...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, my Amendment 19 is trying to deal with the same matter, but it attempts to use the activities of fishing fleets to bring “social, economic and employment benefits to the United Kingdom or any part”. In other words, it is intended that the activities of fishing boats should not merely benefit the fisheries, but also the rest of the United Kingdom, and in particular produce...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I will not apologise to your Lordships for not speaking at Second Reading. It is, rather, a matter for congratulation—noble Lords have not had to listen to me twice. The situation is one of severe crisis in respect of the damage that has occurred as a result of the release of persons described in this Bill. That is a matter of the utmost importance for Her Majesty’s Government,...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, it gives me the greatest possible pleasure to follow the excellent maiden speech of the noble and learned Baroness—which, of course, having known her for some time, I expected to be of the highest quality. This Bill forms part of the extremely valuable consolidation procedure. For a short time, I had the honour of being the chairman of the consolidation committee, but I was saved...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I begin by associating myself with what the Minister said about the dangers encountered by those who go to sea, especially those who go fishing. In my connection with Trinity House, I come across some of these from time to time. My first connection with the common fisheries policy was shortly after I became Lord Advocate in 1979, when a number of cases were brought by the Commission...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, in view of my having introduced the Family Law Act in its previous form, it will not surprise your Lordships that I entirely support this Bill. I think that I understand the nature of marriage and in my long-ago youthful days I took part in quite a number of defended divorce cases. The idea that these were conducive to saving marriage, elevating its status or anything of that kind...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I would like to say a word or two about the two amendments in which I had an interest. I am sorry that my voice is not quite up to it, but it is better than it was yesterday. I am very glad that the situation now is that Parliament can act and get on with what is required. Clause 26 is the one I am interested in. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, moved an...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I have spoken to and certainly want to move the amendment. It is with great regret that I am voting against the Government, but that is what I want to do. Ayes 206, Noes 186.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It would be right for the noble Lord, Lord Beith, to continue with his two amendments, because I am proposing the option in my amendment in the event of his disappearing. I think I am right in saying that. I may be wrong; I stand to be corrected. I understood from the Public Bill Office that I did not need to put my name to Amendments 12 and 13—in fact I could not, because there were four...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, when we debated this clause in Committee, we looked at two key provisions: which courts should be able to look at this matter, and what the test should be. I was particularly concerned about saying what the test should be, because I regarded that as an interference with judicial independence—and I still regard it as such. If Parliament sets out the test, as it did in the 2018 Act,...
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The Dublin III arrangements will continue until the end of this year. The Government’s purpose is to make arrangements that will take effect immediately after that. That is what this is about. It is not about taking anything away. It is about construction after the end of this year, assuming that—I am assuming what was said in the last debate—still stands.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: There is no guarantee that anything is going to happen particularly, but Dublin III is in and the Government have expressed their intention to replace it with an arrangement that applies to children here who have family in Europe and to children in Europe who have family here.
