Justice 1 Committee, 14 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Official Report 300KB pdf

---

Family Law

Item 3, on family law, has been put on the agenda at the request of Mary Mulligan, who unfortunately has not been able to stay for it. It concerns the provision of family support services, which the committee discussed in relation to the Family Law (Scotland) Bill.

Although the committee is busy, I agreed to put the item on the agenda because I felt that other members might wish to comment on the matter. If Mary Mulligan had been able to stay, she might well have asked the committee to consider carrying out a series of short pieces of work on certain issues that run alongside and beyond the bill, particularly with regard to family support services.

We will debate that issue in the chamber tomorrow; indeed, Stewart Stevenson has lodged an amendment on the matter and other members hope to contribute to that debate. Although we might vote differently on various amendments, we were unanimous at stage 1 that this aspect of the bill was important and might require more work. We should wait and hear what the Executive has to say tomorrow, but this is an opportunity for members to say now whether our business is finished or whether we should do a wee bit of work on the matter.

We will clearly need to do some work on the matter, because I do not think that the whole question of the services that will be provided will be determined tomorrow. The speeches will be short, if not sweet, and the prospect of being able to form an overview, never mind a forward direction, is somewhat remote. I am sorry that Mary Mulligan is not here, because we had hoped to discuss the item last week and did not get the chance to do so. It could be argued that, irrespective of what happens tomorrow, this is unfinished business, although perhaps we should wait until after tomorrow's stage 3 proceedings before we decide what work should be carried out.

I agree. Indeed, it might not be the only business left unfinished after tomorrow's stage 3 proceedings. We might well have to consider other matters.

I see that members are nodding at that.

When we started our consideration of the bill, we found that it placed a heavy emphasis on mediation and, as we progressed through stages 1 and 2, we began to feel that the counselling process and reconciliation mechanisms had not been taken into account. That ties into the question of how best to support a wide range of different services to meet the needs of people who have an interest in the bill's provisions. The issue will be debated to some extent under Stewart Stevenson's amendment and I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss questions such as whether local authorities should take the role of the voluntary sector into account in this matter. Like other members, I doubt very much whether the issue will be resolved tomorrow, but we will be able to flag up aspects that need to be examined.

My amendment is amendment 44 and, by my estimate, it will be debated at 3.45 pm tomorrow, so be there or be square. Of course, it is not really my amendment; it was provided to me and I simply lodged it in my name. I hope that, whatever the outcome of the debate tomorrow, its relatively comprehensive focus on relationship counselling, family mediation and contact centres will provides a locus for discussing the various issues. I certainly know that there is wide interest in the matter out there. Representatives from my local mediation services will be sitting in the gallery, watching our deliberations, and I know that they will not be alone. I believe that, even if amendment 44 is agreed to, more discussion on these matters will be required.

I agree with other members that there will be lots of unfinished business to attend to after the bill is passed. However, what kind of work will we be able to carry out effectively? I presume that, after stage 3 and after we see exactly what has emerged from the debate, we can once again put the matter on the agenda.

Marlyn Glen has raised the most important point. We are simply putting down a marker that we know that more work will almost certainly have to be done. The question is whether we will be able to do any justice to that work in the time that we have available. Members will want to hear how the debate goes tomorrow, so I suggest that, on that basis, we should put the matter back on the agenda. However, when that happens, I will be looking for proposals for work that will add value to the subject area and members' thoughts on whether, for example, we should have a short or long inquiry. If members feel that we need to examine areas other than family mediation and relationship services, they should be able to specify what those areas are. Do members agree to that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

We will move into private for a very brief discussion with our adviser of some of the evidence that we have heard and to check whether members are aware of the arrangements for next year.

Meeting continued in private until 13:28.