We move on to consideration of petition PE333, which was lodged by Mr Charles Douglas on behalf of the Humanist Society of Scotland. I refer members to paper J2/01/16/1, produced by the clerks, which gives background notes to the petition. The purpose of today's discussion is to decide whether we wish to take further action, note the petition or, if members feel that it might be helpful to know more about the subject of the petition, ask questions.
I have read all the papers on petition PE333. Given that the petition raises interesting points about human rights principles under the European convention on human rights, I plump for writing to the Minister for Justice. We should ask him whether Scotland is compliant with regard to the provisions of the existing Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977. It might also be worth asking the Scottish Law Commission, which is usually the source of ideas for reforming the law in Scotland, whether it feels that this is an area that requires to be visited. We are to consider family law in due course, although I do not know the committee's timetable for discussing that and whether we will consider the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977.
I want to clarify that the note from the clerks states:
Yes, but that is the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. Our consideration of family law might include consideration of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977, as that is the act that regulates marriage ceremonies in Scotland. That act would have to be amended, not the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985.
I go along with what Christine Grahame said and I support her suggestions. As an aside, the note from the clerks draws attention to the possibility of Euan Robson introducing a member's bill, which I signed, as such a bill has merit. Given Euan Robson's elevation, where does that proposal now stand? I should perhaps have raised the matter with the convener in advance of the meeting. I assume that Euan Robson cannot take the bill forward, but another member might wish to do so.
We will ask for clarification on the point that Scott Barrie raised about Euan Robson's member's bill. We can then put the position on the record. Scott Barrie's assumption is correct: a Scottish Executive junior minister would not be allowed to introduce a private member's bill, as that provision is open only to back benchers. I note that the bill would deal with the expansion of the locations that can be used for marriage ceremonies.
Having read the notes that accompany petition PE333, I am not particularly concerned that the issue has not been addressed, but Christine Grahame has asked that we seek further information and I am happy that we do so. I agree with the convener; my mind will remain open on the issue. Some of the issues have been addressed in the Registrar General for Scotland's response, but more information will contribute to our decision.
I will summarise the discussion so far. The committee agrees that we will write to the minister for his view on whether the subject of petition PE333 is ECHR-compliant and on whether the rights of the Humanist Society of Scotland are breached under the ECHR. We will also seek clarification of the status of Euan Robson's member's bill.
Do we require a register of groups that, according to certain criteria, are recognised and entitled to conduct marriage ceremonies? I suggest that we ask the Scottish Law Commission whether it has any views on the subject. That way we can open up the issue and see what we get back.
I put Christine Grahame's suggestion to members. Are we agreed that we will write to the Scottish Law Commission?
Meeting continued in private until 11:29.