Chamber
Plenary, 15 Dec 2005
15 Dec 2005 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Family Law (Scotland) Bill:<br />Stage 3
This is one of the more controversial areas of the bill. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that was similar to amendment 8, but I would not have lodged amendment 8 had the Executive been willing to accept the compromise position that was reached by the Justice 1 Committee. In fact, the committee only narrowly failed to support the amendment that I lodged at stage 2.
The effect of amendment 8 would be to retain two years as the amount of time of separation prior to a divorce when there is consent. The reasoning behind that is that I am not in any way convinced that it is unreasonable for a couple to seek a divorce when they have failed to cohabit for a consecutive period of two years. I accept that the current stipulation of five years in situations in which there is no consent is unreasonable.
Figures have been produced that show that, when the law on divorce has been liberalised, the number of divorces has increased. The committee was anxious not to change the law in a way that would increase or decrease the number of divorces; it wanted the law to be neutral in that regard. However, the effect of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976 was a 21 per cent increase in the number of divorces that took place in 1980 and a 30 per cent increase in 1982. The committee might want the law not to increase the number of divorces, but I suggest that evidence from previous liberalisation in the divorce laws shows that there is likely to be a further increase in divorce.
I also understand the argument that we should try to make the process as painless as possible and that a long period in the limbo of separation can lead to greater conflict, but I am not convinced that that is necessarily the case. After all, it can take people a long time to work through difficulties in their relationships.
I accept that we cannot make people stay together and I do not think that divorce should never happen—although that is a perfectly honourable position to take. I believe that there is a place for divorce, but we should not take steps that actively encourage it. When, at stage 2, I asked the minister how the bill's provisions would support and encourage marriage, his silence was deafening. In my view, section 10 will actively encourage more divorce.
A briefing from Couple Counselling Scotland delineates a number of the consequences that result—
The effect of amendment 8 would be to retain two years as the amount of time of separation prior to a divorce when there is consent. The reasoning behind that is that I am not in any way convinced that it is unreasonable for a couple to seek a divorce when they have failed to cohabit for a consecutive period of two years. I accept that the current stipulation of five years in situations in which there is no consent is unreasonable.
Figures have been produced that show that, when the law on divorce has been liberalised, the number of divorces has increased. The committee was anxious not to change the law in a way that would increase or decrease the number of divorces; it wanted the law to be neutral in that regard. However, the effect of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976 was a 21 per cent increase in the number of divorces that took place in 1980 and a 30 per cent increase in 1982. The committee might want the law not to increase the number of divorces, but I suggest that evidence from previous liberalisation in the divorce laws shows that there is likely to be a further increase in divorce.
I also understand the argument that we should try to make the process as painless as possible and that a long period in the limbo of separation can lead to greater conflict, but I am not convinced that that is necessarily the case. After all, it can take people a long time to work through difficulties in their relationships.
I accept that we cannot make people stay together and I do not think that divorce should never happen—although that is a perfectly honourable position to take. I believe that there is a place for divorce, but we should not take steps that actively encourage it. When, at stage 2, I asked the minister how the bill's provisions would support and encourage marriage, his silence was deafening. In my view, section 10 will actively encourage more divorce.
A briefing from Couple Counselling Scotland delineates a number of the consequences that result—
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
Good morning. We start with stage 3 of the Family Law (Scotland) Bill. I will make the usual announcement about the procedures to be followed. First, we deal...
Section 2—Void marriages
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Group 1 is on void marriages and civil partnerships. Amendment 1 is grouped with amendments 2 and 5.
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Hugh Henry):
Lab
Section 2 is concerned with putting on record certain elements of the common law in Scotland. It will place on a statutory footing the existing grounds at co...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
What a welcome relief it is that we are at stage 3 at last. I will support all three of the amendments in the group. I welcome the rejection of a manuscript ...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
I confirm that I will support amendment 1, which is welcome in that it will fill a gap in current law.
Hugh Henry:
Lab
We do not believe that there will be any unforeseen consequences of manuscript amendment 55's not being selected. In effect, that amendment referred to somet...
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—Hugh Henry—and agreed to.
Section 2A—Abolition of marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Group 2 is on circumstances in which marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute may have effect. Amendment 6, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is the only...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
The doctrine of marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute was defined by the Scottish Law Commission as follows:"If a man and a woman who are free to ma...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
Like other Justice 1 Committee members, I have wrestled with the issue during our deliberations at previous stages. I concur with the view that has been expr...
Margaret Mitchell:
Con
I am happy to support amendment 6. It would retain the provision in law relating to a couple who genuinely thought that they were married but who subsequentl...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
In response to the request from the committee in its stage 1 report, the Executive reconsidered its decision to retain marriage by cohabitation with habit an...
Pauline McNeill:
Lab
I am pleased that the Executive will accept amendment 6. It is clear that there will no longer be a doctrine of marriage by cohabitation with habit and reput...
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Section 5—Occupancy rights: dealings with third parties
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Group 3 is on occupancy rights: dealings with third parties. Amendment 7, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, is grouped with amendment 26.
Hugh Henry:
Lab
Amendment 7 will make a minor technical change to the wording of section 5 of the bill, which concerns the conveyancing of a matrimonial home and protection ...
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Section 10—Divorce: reduction in separation periods
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Group 4 is on separation periods for divorce and the dissolution of civil partnerships. Amendment 35, in the name of Brian Adam, is grouped with amendments 8...
Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP):
SNP
This is one of the more controversial areas of the bill. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that was similar to amendment 8, but I would not have lodged amend...
Mr Jim Wallace (Orkney) (LD):
LD
Will the member give way?
Brian Adam:
SNP
I am more than happy to do so.
Mr Wallace:
LD
Figures suggest that, in Finland, where the non-cohabitation period is six months, the divorce rate is 1.8 per 1,000. However, in New Zealand, where the peri...
Brian Adam:
SNP
I beg to suggest that arguments that are based on the culture in Switzerland or New Zealand cannot necessarily be transferred to Scotland. Today, we are maki...
Richard Lochhead (North East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Does Brian Adam agree that, if children are involved in relationships that break down, it is sometimes to their benefit if their parents are allowed to move ...
Brian Adam:
SNP
Throughout the long debate on the bill, I kept hearing that the bill was about trying to help children, but there is very little focus on children and none o...