Chamber
Plenary, 15 Dec 2005
15 Dec 2005 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Family Law (Scotland) Bill:<br />Stage 3
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 of the proposals suggests that we should take different views in respect of whether children are or are not involved in such situations. I accept what my colleague Mr Lochhead said, but it does not automatically follow that a quick divorce is less painful, particularly for children.
I also understand the—I have to say, totally erroneous—argument that has sometimes been advanced against the terms of amendment 35 that, in cases of spousal abuse, waiting for two years could have dangerous consequences for the individual who is being abused. I draw members' attention to the fact that abuse is specifically in and of itself a ground for divorce. Under the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976, where a marriage has broken down irretrievably, a divorce can be granted by the pursuer if one of five factual circumstances exists. In such cases, abuse is a ground for divorce in itself, so it would not have any influence in a situation in which there is consent.
I do not think that we will be able to get to a point at which things will be done and dusted within a year. If amendment 35 does not gather sufficient support to win the day, I shall urge colleagues to examine the bill as it has emerged from the Justice 1 Committee. The committee's position is reasonable and takes cognisance of the fact that many people are concerned about devaluation of marriage, which it is perceived might happen as a consequence of the change that is proposed by the Executive. I certainly do not want the arguments in favour of longer periods to go by default, just because there may have been stresses and strains in the Executive parties in delivering what they perceive to be a commitment.
I urge members to support amendment 35, which would leave the position as it is today. I believe that two years is a perfectly reasonable time and I do not accept that five years is reasonable. The Justice 1 Committee took the position that, for cases where consent is not given, three years is an appropriate time. I urge members to reject moves to introduce periods of one year and two years.
I move amendment 35.
I also understand the—I have to say, totally erroneous—argument that has sometimes been advanced against the terms of amendment 35 that, in cases of spousal abuse, waiting for two years could have dangerous consequences for the individual who is being abused. I draw members' attention to the fact that abuse is specifically in and of itself a ground for divorce. Under the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976, where a marriage has broken down irretrievably, a divorce can be granted by the pursuer if one of five factual circumstances exists. In such cases, abuse is a ground for divorce in itself, so it would not have any influence in a situation in which there is consent.
I do not think that we will be able to get to a point at which things will be done and dusted within a year. If amendment 35 does not gather sufficient support to win the day, I shall urge colleagues to examine the bill as it has emerged from the Justice 1 Committee. The committee's position is reasonable and takes cognisance of the fact that many people are concerned about devaluation of marriage, which it is perceived might happen as a consequence of the change that is proposed by the Executive. I certainly do not want the arguments in favour of longer periods to go by default, just because there may have been stresses and strains in the Executive parties in delivering what they perceive to be a commitment.
I urge members to support amendment 35, which would leave the position as it is today. I believe that two years is a perfectly reasonable time and I do not accept that five years is reasonable. The Justice 1 Committee took the position that, for cases where consent is not given, three years is an appropriate time. I urge members to reject moves to introduce periods of one year and two years.
I move amendment 35.
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...