1.  I received my PhD from Harvard University and have been a professor of philosophy and principal of a Cambridge College.  I have served as President of the British Academy.  Who am I?

2. I come from a legal family.  I have served as a Lord Justice of Appeal and as President of the Family Division of the High Court.  I chaired a major child abuse inquiry.  Who am I?

3. I am a journalist and have been city and business editor of The Times and editor of The Sunday Telegraph. Who am I?

4. I am a broadcaster and writer, and have served as chair of the National Campaign for the Arts.  I am well known for appearing on and presenting television programmes.  I became a Dame in 2008 before later being elevated to the peerage.  Who am I?

There have been conflicting stories in the press this week about how and whether the government intends to change the law in order to ensure that both parents see more of their children after divorce.  Some reports said that there would be introduced a legal presumption of equally shared parenting; others that it would not go this far but that there would be encouragement of equal access, or visitation rights.

In the Family Justice Review 2011 the proposal that England adopt the shared parenting law as applied in Australia was rejected, because reports from Australia indicate that judges found it difficult to apply and divorce cases there were dominated by decisions about how much time each parent would be entitled to see the child. The Review concluded that the courts here should continue to apply the principle of the paramountcy of the welfare of the child.  It is often reported that 40% of children lose all contact with their fathers after divorce.  Lobby groups for separated and divorced fathers blame this on the law; other studies indicate that even where fathers are granted legal access, they simply fail to show up when the children are expecting a visit.  As the divorced fathers make a new relationship with another woman, who may have her own children, they distance themselves from their children of the earlier relationship. Wherever the blame lies, there is no doubt that children suffer from the loss of a father after divorce, and that over 100,000 children fall into this category every year. There are probably more because this takes no account of children affected by the breakup of parents who are not married but cohabiting or were always single.

This relates to my post Against my Will, where I repeated my objections to attempts to make the law of marriage apply to cohabitants who do not want to or cannot marry.  I heard recently of the growth of a new practice by men, nicknamed the “Hugh Grant” syndrome.  That is, they take care not to marry or live with the mother of their child, or girlfriend, because they fear that once married or cohabiting, their assets are vulnerable to the law and that a split will expose half of their property and income to transfer to the woman.  (It could be the other way round where the woman is wealthier than the man.) They see maintenance law as unfair and so uncertain that its application by lawyers will in itself cost thousands of pounds.  Maintenance law has become a field where women with well-off husbands seek someone to fund the litigation in return for a cut of the proceeds. This is a really bad result for the children involved.  The solution is not to apply the existing unfair and uncertain marriage law to cohabitants, but to simplify the existing law and make it fair to men and women in a society where women can and do earn a living and where, sadly, relationship breakdown is all too common and unsurprising.

Formally, as the Leader of the House Lord Strathclyde said in our chamber, “Matters for privilege are not a matter for the Government but a matter for the House of Commons and the Speaker of the House of Commons on advice from his clerks. The position of privilege has of course been jealously guarded by the House of Commons since 1671. It is well precedented and there is nothing unusual, although the second Chamber might always think that the Commons using financial privilege is a little unfair.” Just a year ago the Constitution Committee considered ‘Money Bills and Commons Financial Privilege’ (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldconst/97/97.pdf) and concluded that in any reform of the House these privileges would need to be re-examined.

But of course the Leader’s statement did not fool anyone; the Clerks in the Commons would have been persuaded, and probably quite easily given the financial implications, of the merits of using the Financial Privilege to scupper further delay by the Lords. There was considerable anger in our chamber yesterday afternoon about this decision. Personally I felt the use of the Privilege was unnecessary, the Lords usually agrees to abide by the elected Commons’ decisions after one bout of Ping Pong. But Cameron must have known that the press and public were largely on the Government’s side. Quite what rump of the bill will return to the Lords for discussion is a mystery although apparently something will appear next week.

I shall be abroad for the next two weeks and miss the excitement of the return of the Health Bill. I’ll catch up with it on Day 3 of Report Stage. Lord Owen is plotting rather noisily against almost all the Bill’s provisions and the Minister Earl Howe has tabled a myriad set of new amendments for the Government which take account of our discussions in committee. At least we know that the Government can’t throw out discussions about the Health Bill on the basis of financial privilege since few have financial implications.

“Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I commend the Minister for dealing with three out of four of today’s Questions in such detail. Will he confirm that he will still receive only his basic salary and not a performance bonus? Is that not an example to others?

Lord Howell of Guildford: I cannot confirm that because I do not receive a salary.”

Congolese demonstrators opposing election violence- Kinshasa, November 2011

  On December 17 2010, a young Tunisian man set himself on fire.  This desperate act helped to spark a political revolution in the Arab world.  Images of people revolting against notoriously oppressive regimes captivated onlookers worldwide.  More than a year later, the world is indeed a different place – long-term dictators have been unseated, governments shuffled or disbanded altogether, and competitive political parties formed.  Leaders of states like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen have managed to retain a hold on power, but only with some combination of repression and concessions in the face of powerful collective civic action.

For the states whose citizens won political freedom, myriad challenges remain.  Indeed, the shift to democratic elections has proved more difficult than anticipated.  This should come as no surprise – for while revolutions are swift and dramatic by definition, democratic transitions can be, in contrast, painfully gradual and mundane.   

Not so long ago, sub-Saharan Africa underwent the same sort of radical transformation sweeping North Africa and the Middle East.  In the 1980s and 90s, what scholar Samuel Huntington called the “third wave of democracy” changed the continent, unseating long-term dictators like Uganda’s Idi Amin, Guinea’s Sekou Toure, and Zaire’s Mobutu Sese-Seko.  Like the Arab Spring, Africa’s democratic phenomenon was the subject of intense international interest and optimism.  Some twenty years later, however, the political situation is more often viewed with a mixture of cynicism and despair. 

The truth is most countries in sub-Saharan Africa  remain among the poorest in the world and too many are ridden with corruption and conflict.  The United Nations Human Development Index – a comprehensive comparative measure that takes into consideration factors like poverty, security, equality, educational access, and political freedom – consistently ranks these  countries in the lowest tier.  In 2011, African states occupied three-quarters of the lowest 40 rankings.  Even Ghana and Senegal – democratic standouts in relative terms – ranked 135 and 155 respectively.  Dead last is the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The DRC has had a particularly difficult transition to democracy.  After gaining independence from Belgium in 1960, the country – like so many others in sub-Saharan Africa –attempted its first democratic elections, only to undergo a period of armed conflict that brought a fierce military dictatorship into power.  As a one-man political institution, Mobutu Sese-Seko employed harsh and exploitative tactics to maintain control for a remarkable 32 years, until internal opposition and neighbouring conflicts forged a successful armed resistance movement.  However, despite victory – and the symbolic name change from Zaire to the Democratic Republic of Congo – the new state looked much like the old.  Within months, it slid back into a brutal civil war that only officially ended in 2003.  In the years that followed, widespread violence remained prevalent, and a transitional government held only tenuous control. 

In 2006, however, the DRC held its first multiparty elections in nearly 40 years.  It did so with the monetary and administrative support of the international community, many of whom were present to oversee the process.  Voter turn-out was around 80%, but the results were highly contentious and ignited violent clashes around the country.  The results were postponed, and an extensive legal process ensued.  Nevertheless, MONUC argued that they were broadly satisfied with the level of transparency and the overall results.  In December, Joseph Kabila was declared President. 

Similarly, the elections of 2011 have been widely condemned for allegations of violence and fraud.  Although much of the criticism is merited –and I condemn absolutely voter intimidation and conflict incited by politicians– we must not forget the incredible difficulty involved in democratic transition, nor the DRC’s unique, brutal history.  If we cannot expect Egypt, with its strong tradition of military neutrality, to transition without hiccups, we must also develop a set of reasonable expectations for the Congo.  Its 15 years of “freedom” from dictatorship have been marred by civil war, mass migration, and a near-lack of decent self-governance.  The simple fact that Congolese-led elections took place at all should be viewed as a significant step on the path toward democracy. 

Democratisation is a process, not an event.  It is a long, protracted, and difficult transition that involves a radical rehaul of political leadership, institutions, and culture, and a shift in societal views on political participation, deference and civic ownership.  When this occurs in the wake of long-term violence and civil war, the process is even more complicated.  In the same way that the Arab Spring has reignited international discourse on democracy’s value, I hope that the Congolese elections can spark a discourse on reasonable expectations for democratic progression.  If we view these events in their own historical context, perhaps we can develop a better gauge of whether and how things have improved, and a deeper understanding of what remains to be done.  And, if this can be achieved, we all stand to benefit.

The chair of RBS and of the remuneration committee is Sir Philip Hampton. A Sir Philip Hampton was the author of the Hampton Report on Good Regulation in 2005, which recommended principles of best practice, such as accountability and proportionality.  Surely not the same man?

The vote on the Child Support Agency charges was fascinating. I was one of the very few Crossbenchers who supported the Government but it was clear before the debate that the Government would lose. Why? Well it was fascinating to watch the way the Lords works. Peers had received  briefings funded by Barnardo’s the children’s charity and other children’s charities. Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a former Lord Chancellor who moved the amendment  on behalf of Barnardo’s, is a respected and well-loved figure and was convinced that charging for those who could not reach an amicable agreement, mostly women trying to get child maintenance money out of a former partner, would be treated unfairly. The lawyers in the House piled in behind him. Peers had worked themselves up into an emotional righteousness against the new disincentives in the Bill to use the Child Support Agency as a matter of course where parents are separating. I confess that before I looked into the detail of the matter I was going to vote with Lord Mackay too. But then I read the independent reports that have consistently said that over 90% of the 300,000 couples with children who separate every year could make their own arrangements  if encouraged to do so but are using the agency unnecessarily, adding to the severe pressure on the Agency, and the huge cost. A small charge would be a disincentive to using the agency for all except those who need it and help the agency tackle the support needs where one party, usually the man, is reluctant to pay. The Government had obviously had discussions with Lord Mackay and recognised his concerns. The Government therefore tabled its own amendments for discretionary waving of charges. But these amendments came up BEFORE Lord Mackay’s and no-one was really listening, so keen were they to get on with the vote.

Lord de Mauley, the assistant minister/ junior whip, was taking this section rather than Lord Freud; this was unfortunate since the ineffably elegant Eton educated Rupert Ponsonby, 7th Baron de Mauley gives the impression that 1000 years of good breeding may not have prepared him to deal with the issue of welfare benefits. This is actually deeply unfair since he has taken a serious interest in this business and is far more clued up and on the ball about the detail than he may be given credit for. And then three former Social Security ministers weighed in against the changes. But there we are…and the one backbenchTory who spoke for the Government, a recently appointed member, barrister Baroness Berridge, said the right things (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120125-0002.htm#12012551000542) but somehow struck an unfortunate tone which does not emerge from reading Hansard. Like a pack of fox hounds peers had scented the quarry…and there was no stopping them.

The Government will think carefully I am sure about its response but I am pretty sure the Commons will reject these amendments.

So the proposal would take the estate away from children and family and divert it to the surviving cohabitant.  At the moment the onus is on the cohabitant to make a claim under the 1975 Act if she has been left nothing; if  the law changed, the onus would be on the family to dispute the entitlement of the cohabitant.  They certainly would do this, in part because the definition of a cohabitant under the Bill is rather vague and leaves lots to dispute over, and also because there may well be resentment on the part of children and family if a “jilly-come-lately” moves in with the old man five years before his death and takes his property.

Of course if the deceased had made a will, he could leave the property as he wishes.  Many more married people make wills than do cohabitants, and it may be that the failure on the part of the latter to do so is precisely because they do not see themselves in that sort of relationship or because they want to preserve what they have for their children from a previous marriage. Of those who responded to the Law Commission consultation, more opposed the change than supported it.  But the Law Commission gave greater weight to the views of the organisations that supported it than the ordinary individuals who opposed it. 

I have blogged about cohabitation before – (Law in Action 23.11.09, Love and Marriage 7.1.11) – pointing out that people know very well what the difference is between marriage and cohabitation and that most people do not want to have the legal effects of marriage thrust upon them when they have chosen to cohabit in order to avoid these. I have received hundreds of letters from the public saying they do not want cohbitation to become marriage. The recent blogs from readers of the Guardian and the Telegraph make the same point.  The law should not force people into a status they do not want.  We condemn forced marriages.  We should also condemn forcing legal status onto two people who have done their best to avoid it.  The Bill would also discriminate against people who live together, but not as spouses, e.g. sisters or lifelong friends.  The surviving cohabitant would presumably get the inheritance tax deferment that spouses get at the moment, but which is denied to sisters living in the same house. 

This Intestacy Bill is a recipe for trouble.  Family disputes will become bitter; older parents will be warned off allowing someone to live in their home and take care of them; there will be no legal aid available for litigation, so the costs will eat up the very assets disputed; and the surviving cohabitant may take all the property away with her to a new relationship without benefiting the children.

The vote on Monday on the amendment moved by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (to exclude those in recepit of child benefit from the cap) was:

For the amendment:  Bishops 5, Crossbench 37, Labour 175, Liberal Democrat 26, Other 9  [Total: 252]

Against the amendment:  Conservative 152, Crossbench 41, Liberal Democrat 39, Other 5 [Total: 237]

In yesterday’s vote on the amendment moved by Conservative former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to remove parents from being subject to fees by the Child Support Agency if they have taken reasonable steps to establish if it is possible to make a maintenance agreement, the voting figures were:

For the amendment: Bishops 1, Conservative 34, Crossbench 57, Labour 155, Liberal Democrats 16, Other 7 [Total: 270]

Against the amendment: Conservative 97, Crossbench 1, Liberal Democrats 30 [Total: 128]