Justice 1 Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JUSTICE 1 COMMITTEE Wednesday 5 October 2005 Session 2 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2005. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Licensing Division, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by Astron. CONTENTS Wednesday 5 October 2005 Col. INTERESTS ......................................................................................................................................... 2163 ITEMS IN PRIVATE ................................................................................................................................ 2163 FAMILY LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL: STAGE 2................................................................................................ 2164 REGULATORY POWERS INQUIRY ............................................................................................................ 2177 JUSTICE 1 COMMITTEE 30th Meeting 2005, Session 2 CONVENER *Pauline Mc Neill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) DEPU TY CONVENER Stew art Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab) *Mr Bruce McFee (West of Scotland) (SNP) Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con) *Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow ) (Lab) Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD) COMMI TTEE SUBSTITU TES Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab) Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con) *Mr Jim Wallace (Orkney) (LD) *attended THE FOLLOWING ALSO ATTENDED : Hugh Henry (Deputy Minister for Justice) CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E Callum Thomson SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Douglas Wands ASSISTANT CLERK Lew is McNaughton LOC ATION Committee Room 4 2163 5 OCTOBER 2005 2164 Scottish Parliament Family Law (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2 Justice 1 Committee Wednesday 5 October 2005 10:43 The Convener: Item 2 is stage 2 consideration [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 10:42] of the Family Law (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry, who has Interests with him this morning Carol Duncan, the bill team leader, and Kirsty Finlay, a solicitor at the Scottish Executive. David McLeish is also with the The Convener (Pauline McNeill): Good ministerial team. morning and welcome to the 30th meeting in 2005 of the Justice 1 Committee. I apologise for the late We are at the beginning of the stage 2 process start—the committee had a previous meeting in of the bill. private about the Family Law (Scotland) Bill. Section 1 agreed to. I have two apologies—Margaret Mitchell and Stewart Stevenson are unable to join us today. Section 2—Void marriages Mike Pringle has also sent apologies. Members might know that he is otherwise engaged with his The Convener: Amendment 9, in the name of member’s bill. I welcome Jim Wallace as his Marlyn Glen, is in a group on its own. substitute. As usual, I ask members to switch off Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab): mobile phones or other gadgets, because they Amendment 9 seeks to ensure that where a interfere with the sound. marriage is concluded on the basis of consent I ask Jim Wallace to declare any relevant induced by duress or error, that marriage shall be interests. void irrespective of where it takes place. I am sure that we all agree that consent is essential to the Mr Jim Wallace (Orkney) (LD): I am a non- formalisation of marriage. However, consent practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. I induced by duress or error is not consent. The do not know whether this is a relevant interest, but question is why the grounds on which a marriage when I was Minister for Justice, I was responsible is void under proposed new section 20A of the for one of the consultation documents that Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 relate only to a ultimately led to the legislation that we are marriage that has been solemnised in Scotland. considering today; I was also a minister when the The grounds for rendering a marriage void on the bill was presented to Parliament. basis of consent given under duress, error or a The Convener: How could we forget? It is nice failure to understand the nature of marriage or of to have you here for stage 2. I believe that we will consenting to the marriage should apply probably have you for most of stage 2 because irrespective of where the marriage is solemnised. Mike Pringle will be dealing with his bill at stage 1. I move amendment 9. The Deputy Minister for Justice (Hugh Items in Private Henry): I pay a particular welcome to Jim Wallace. It will be an interesting experience to be grilled by The Convener: I invite members to agree to him once again—this time, however, he is not my discuss in private item 4, which is consideration of boss. I am sure that our relationship will be as a draft response to the European Union green cordial as ever. papers. Is that agreed? The Executive is aware of the concerns that Members indicated agreement. have been raised in some quarters over the need The Convener: Item 5 is consideration of our to extend section 2 to cover marriages that have approach to the scrutiny of the forthcoming been solemnised outside Scotland. However, it is Scottish commissioner for human rights bill. Do our opinion that that would be an unnecessary members agree to take item 5 in private? provision, given our intention to lodge amendments to section 28 to deal with the matter. Members indicated agreement. Section 2 is concerned with putting on record certain elements of the common law in Scotland. Section 28, by contrast, is the part of the bill that deals with marriages involving a foreign element. 2165 5 OCTOBER 2005 2166 It is our intention to amend section 28 to set out My concern relates to the fact that there might the fact that a foreign rule as to the validity or be cases in which people genuinely think that they invalidity of marriage will not be recognised or are married but find, much later on, that they are applied in Scotland where doing so would be not legally married. I am thinking particularly about contrary to Scottish public policy. Duress or error those who got married abroad but, in doing so, did would be included in that category, and the not entirely conform to the laws of the country that marriage would be void regardless of where it was they were in, perhaps because the laws were celebrated. I believe that that should offer particularly difficult to understand or because of a sufficient protection to those who marry abroad language barrier. without the need to amend section 2. I believe that very few cases go to court of With those assurances, I invite Marlyn Glen to people who ask for their marriage to be withdraw amendment 9. recognised. Although I understand why most members of the committee want to get rid of Marlyn Glen: Without seeing the amendment to marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute as section 28 that the minister is talking about, it is a method of proving a marriage, my concern is quite difficult to be completely reassured on this that doing so may have the unintended point. However, I appreciate that what he has said consequence of catching some individuals who, about duress and error is now on the record. I look through no fault of their own or perhaps through forward to seeing the amendment to section 28, some misunderstanding that, in retrospect, they which will deal with the points that I have raised, should have anticipated, end up finding that they and seek leave to withdraw amendment 9. are not married. In such a case, if one party dies, Amendment 9, by agreement, withdrawn. the other is not entitled to the estate; if the parties divorce, the children of the marriage and the Section 2 agreed to. former spouse might not be properly supported. I would like to satisfy my concern about that before After Section 2 agreeing to the proposal. My concern is that, in The Convener: Amendment 1, in the name of tidying up a rule that we think is old fashioned, we the minister, is in a group on its own. might not protect people who are entirely innocent victims. Hugh Henry: I am sure that the committee will welcome amendment 1, which abolishes marriage The Convener: I know that the minister wants to by cohabitation with habit and repute. The come back on that, but first I will allow Jim Wallace committee examined this aspect of Scottish law to speak. during its stage 1 consideration of the bill and Mr Wallace: I am generally supportive of questioned whether this is an appropriate time to amendment 1. The rule that it removes is a abolish the doctrine. I have given the matter throwback to another age. If my memory can go further consideration and have concluded that the back to my lectures in family law—which started time has come to do so. about 30 years ago this month—my understanding However, we do not wish to prejudice couples is that people genuinely had to believe that they who might have already begun to constitute such were married, not that they had cohabited for a a marriage, so amendment 1 will have prospective long time and thought that if they carried on for effect. It will not stand in the way of couples who another few years they could consider themselves may have constituted a marriage by cohabitation married. I suspect that we have moved on from with habit and repute before the new section that that time. When we are dealing with something as abolishes it comes into force. The amendment will fundamental as marriage, it is important that, in ensure that, from the date of commencement, no this day and age, the law should be clear and further couples will be able to begin a cohabitation concise.