Lord Patten (Con)

My Lords, I happily join the congratulations the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on getting this timely debate, and the firm tone in which she addressed the Minister and the Government: for heaven’s sake, get on and do something and do not let things languish any longer. That having been said, in this debate, I shall concentrate only on the matter of financial provision for children. I am no lawyer; I have no financial interest to declare or any interest in any of my professional and business undertakings. For complete transparency, I have never had any involvement in divorce or legal separation. So I am speaking tonight as a generalist—an amateur in a Chamber full of experts in this matter. I have long been concerned about the correlation between children having divorced parents and the likelihood of later offending, as shown by the excellent longitudinal studies by its researchers coming out of the Home Office over so many years. It is a department of state, I have to say in passing, that I think is very often unfairly excoriated for being guilty of all sorts of things, when it is facing people who are guilty of lots of other things. It is a very difficult department to run. Of course, what the figures show is a correlation and not a causation—a guaranteed outcome. Lots of children from divorced families are at risk of unhappiness or issues of a behavioural nature. Most do not offend, but some do, and the statistics are as plain as a pikestaff. Together, these are facts and statistics that these days we almost dare not speak their name, because they do not often get a welcome in polite discourse. They are uncomfortable facts for a lot of people, but they should be much more widely known—that is why I am speaking tonight—to be dealt with more effectively through public education, challenging though that would be. I believe that too many young people do not get timely help in the midst of parental conflict, and therefore I have two suggestions. First, to take account of the longer-term effects on children, which go on and on, provision of financial support should be extended from 18 to 21 to help mitigate these issues, which take time to resolve—if they ever can be wholly resolved. Secondly, the law should now provide for binding nuptial agreements—not just hopes but binding commitments for future years—regarding future children yet to be born, or, in other words, a clear understanding and undertaking that they have lengthy responsibilities ahead of them. All this is happening at a time when, as I read only last week, people are pressing legal persons to consider taking into account the future of their pets in nuptial agreements.