Stage 1 Debate Family Law (Scotland) Bill, 15/09/05 [S]

The Family Law (Scotland) Bill was passed at stage 1, following a parliamentary debate on its general principles, on thursday 15 September 2005.

The key principles of the bill are to:

• safeguard the best interests of children
• promote and safeguard stable families
• reflect the reality of family life in Scotland

The debate was opened by Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry. He thanked the Justice 1 Committee for their efforts in preparing a comprehensive stage 1 report. He reiterated the fact that the bill is designed 'first and foremost to protect the best interests of children and young people'. He referred to concerns that in many areas insufficient support is provided for family support services (the Justice 1 Committee called for a review). The Minister stated that he would discuss the issue of funding with CoSLA but stressed that the 'Scottish Executive cannot be a substitute for local decision makers making local funding decisions on services for which they are currently responsible'.

Stewart Stevenson (SNP) said that the proposals in the bill was 'strangely silent on children' although he did welcome the move away from punitive measures to positive support for families. He went further by saying that the core policy intentions in the bill for children were far from clear. He commented on the ambitious timetable for consideration of the bill (as did other members of the Justice 1 Committee). He called for more support for local voluntary organisations.

Margaret Mitchell (Cons) opened the debate for the Conservatives. She highlighted the complexities around family law and welcomed the reflection of the key principles in the non-legislative measures announced alongside the bill, the Parenting Agreement and Charter for Grandchildren.  She argued however that there is little or no evidence that the measures to reduce separation periods for divorce, introduce legal safeguards for cohabitants, and to reform the forbidden degrees of marriage, to remove the barrier to marriage between individuals and their former in-laws, are in the best interests of families and support stable families. She also argued that the proposals support the assertion that separation will end in divorce and do not promote reconciliation. She added that the conservatives would abstain from the vote.

Mike Pringle (Lib Dem) welcomed the bill but acknowledged that there were contentious issues to be addressed. He called for further scrutiny of step parent parental rights and responsibilities (PRRs) at stage 2 and resources to promote the Parenting Agreement.

Pauline McNeil (Convener of Justice 1 Committee (Lab)) reflected on the complexities of the issues raised by the bill particularly as the stage 1 report highlighted many issues not currently contained in the bill.  She supported the extension of PRRs to unmarried fathers but said that this will be 'meaningless unless they are able to exercise those rights...a lot of work needs to be done with health boards and schools to ensure that unmarried fathers have the right to get information about their child. It is not acceptable for our public authorities not to comply with legislation that we pass'. Ms McNeil commented that the system that she believes has failed parents post separation, is too costly and outcomes are not always in the interests of children. She highlighted the fact that delays in the system have led to parents and children becoming alienated unnecessarily and therefore contact orders are not granted. She called on the Minister to urge Sheriffs and the legal profession to join the debate on how contact orders can be effectively enforced and the system can be improved. Ms McNeil also stated that she feels that reference is needed to the Parenting Agreement on the face of the bill so that it has relevance in court and parents who break an agreement can be questioned.

Fergus Ewing (SNP) spoke about his concerns in relation to reducing the separation periods required for divorce.

Patrick Harvie (Green) highlighted the fact that divorce is not the end of family relationships, 'parents remain parents and children remain children' and the impact of other legislative measures on family life including the forthcoming adoption and fostering bill.

Murdo Frazer (Cons) argued that children from married parents have better general outcomes and in terms of health and education than those from unmarried parents and therefore measures should support reconciliation.

Mary Mulligan (Lab) spoke about the need for support services beyond mediation, if the legislation is to have effect. She called on the examples of family group conferencing (CHILDREN 1st) and the one-stop-shop model in Australia to be examined.

Sylvia Jackson (Lab) highlighted the issue of enforcement of contact orders stating that there are three issues involved. One is the legal costs, two is the delays in the court process and three, the fact that the non-resident parent and the child become more and more alienated as a result. She called for non-resident parents PRRs to be upheld.

Marlyn Glen (Lab) raised awareness of Scottish Women's Aid's safe contact campaign and the call from the Children are Unbeatable! alliance to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement of children.

The Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson summed up the debate. She argued that the Executive was not progressing with the bill with undue haste. She said that further consideration will be needed at stage 2 around enforcement of contact orders and the separation periods involved in divorce. She also acknowledged that more needed to be done around contact arrangements where domestic violence is an issue.

The Bill was passed with 86 votes for, 4 against (SNP and Con), 23 abstentions(SNP and Con).

Further information

A full transcript of the debate is available in the Scottish Parliament Official Report 15/09/05

Home     More Articles