Chamber
Plenary, 16 Mar 2006
16 Mar 2006 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
European Commission Green Papers (Divorce and Succession and Wills)
Unless the world turns upside down at the conclusion of the debate, common sense will prevail. It was not always thus. The Minister for Justice has heard me banging on frequently about the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It would be total nonsense to fix this, because there is no problem with the existing system.
I am not the most Eurosceptic of individuals, but there is a school of thought that the Commission is staffed by little men and little ladies with not a lot to do, who look at what they can get up to pass the time and to become increasingly intrusive in people's lives. That is not a view to which I particularly subscribe, but when I see the measures that are being advanced I could be persuaded. From what I can tell from the Justice 1 Committee's report, there has been no statistical evidence under either of the headings in the legislation—the divorce and succession aspects—that would justify any change in the law. How much did it cost for the measures to be introduced, simply for them to be rejected by anyone with a scintilla of common sense? It is significant that the UK Government, a body that is not renowned for having that degree of common sense, has reacted negatively to the proposals.
Kenny MacAskill was correct to flag up the fact that we are becoming more internationalist in outlook and activity. That is no bad thing. People have holiday homes abroad, we have transferability and mobility of labour and, as we know, tragically, accidents happen all too frequently. However, there is nothing that could happen that would not be met within the law as it stands. The law of Scotland in respect of succession makes it clear that the immovables or capital assets should be dealt with in the country of domicile, whereas the movables should be dealt with in the country where the incident happened. There are no issues that need to be addressed.
Frankly, I despair when I see the European Commission advancing such measures. It is indicative of a body that is hell-bent on being much more intrusive and in which no great thought has been applied to the proposals. On this occasion, the Justice 1 Committee—steered ably, I am sure, by Margaret Mitchell and convened admirably by Pauline McNeill—has come up with the right solution to the problem: complete rejection of these nonsensical proposals. We can all carry on quite content that Scots law is in a position to cope with any problems that may arise.
I am not the most Eurosceptic of individuals, but there is a school of thought that the Commission is staffed by little men and little ladies with not a lot to do, who look at what they can get up to pass the time and to become increasingly intrusive in people's lives. That is not a view to which I particularly subscribe, but when I see the measures that are being advanced I could be persuaded. From what I can tell from the Justice 1 Committee's report, there has been no statistical evidence under either of the headings in the legislation—the divorce and succession aspects—that would justify any change in the law. How much did it cost for the measures to be introduced, simply for them to be rejected by anyone with a scintilla of common sense? It is significant that the UK Government, a body that is not renowned for having that degree of common sense, has reacted negatively to the proposals.
Kenny MacAskill was correct to flag up the fact that we are becoming more internationalist in outlook and activity. That is no bad thing. People have holiday homes abroad, we have transferability and mobility of labour and, as we know, tragically, accidents happen all too frequently. However, there is nothing that could happen that would not be met within the law as it stands. The law of Scotland in respect of succession makes it clear that the immovables or capital assets should be dealt with in the country of domicile, whereas the movables should be dealt with in the country where the incident happened. There are no issues that need to be addressed.
Frankly, I despair when I see the European Commission advancing such measures. It is indicative of a body that is hell-bent on being much more intrusive and in which no great thought has been applied to the proposals. On this occasion, the Justice 1 Committee—steered ably, I am sure, by Margaret Mitchell and convened admirably by Pauline McNeill—has come up with the right solution to the problem: complete rejection of these nonsensical proposals. We can all carry on quite content that Scots law is in a position to cope with any problems that may arise.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4088, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on behalf of the Justice 1 Committee, on European Commission green ...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Bureau for allowing the Justice 1 Committee this slot to discuss our report on what we regard as very important European i...
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I fully support the position that Ms McNeill and the Justice 1 Committee have taken. I see that Mr Gallie is present, so I put on record that although I cond...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
I have a great deal of sympathy with what Kenny MacAskill says, but if the Scottish National Party is against common European policies on fisheries, on some ...
Mr MacAskill:
SNP
Absolutely. I have written and spoken about that subject, so I think that Mr Purvis's intervention is an irrelevancy. He may have been attempting to make a p...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
I welcome today's debate. I do so not because I believe that there is anything contentious in the motion or that there is likely to be disagreement on the Ju...
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD):
LD
Members of the Justice 1 Committee must do all that we can to protect and enhance our legal system in Scotland. There is no doubt that the European Commissio...
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab):
Lab
It is important that Parliament's committees discuss, take a view on and influence the European Commission's decisions. Like Kenny MacAskill, I am a strong s...
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
I was not involved in the committee's consideration, but does the member agree that, in an international divorce, there may be assets and bank accounts in di...
Mrs Mulligan:
Lab
Such situations may arise, but the important point is that, at present, people know which law will be used to deal with them.On succession and wills, Scotlan...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
The Commission's green paper outlines what it considers to be shortcomings in the current situation in the European Union. On divorce, there should be some s...
Pauline McNeill:
Lab
Does the member agree that there have always been complex situations? We have dealt with private international law for a long time, using the Hague conventio...
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
Ultimately, I agree. We do not hear the S-word much, but subsidiarity should be the basis of legislation in Scotland, the UK and the EU, so that legislators ...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
Unless the world turns upside down at the conclusion of the debate, common sense will prevail. It was not always thus. The Minister for Justice has heard me ...
The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson):
Lab
I have no interests to declare, as I do not have a holiday home in Tuscany, Benidorm or anywhere else. I am, of course, domiciled in the central part of Euro...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
The Justice 1 Committee brought this matter to the attention of the Parliament, because green papers have a habit of changing colour. There is little doubt t...