Plenary, 15 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, December 15, 2005

Official Report 851KB pdf

---

Family Law (Scotland) Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3628, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Parliament agrees that the Family Law (Scotland) Bill be passed.

We come to the final stage in a process that started some 15 years ago with the groundbreaking work of the Scottish Law Commission. As we have seen throughout the consideration of the bill, family law is a serious topic. Because of the wide and deep impact that family law has on society and individuals, the subject deserves a measured, well-tempered and open debate, and that is what the Parliament has given it. Not only today but throughout proceedings on the bill, the Parliament has shown that it is more than capable of conducting debate and discussion on this complex issue.

I thank the Justice 1 Committee and its staff. Following the introduction of the bill last February, the committee was responsible for progressing it and for giving it careful scrutiny. I also place on record my appreciation for the contribution that Hugh Henry, the Deputy Minister for Justice, made to the Executive's handling of the bill. [Applause.] Along with members of the bill team and the Justice 1 Committee, he worked to improve the bill. He also tried to build agreement in areas where there was clear consensus, to iron out any difficulties, to deal with some of the complex issues and to allow the debate to take place in an open and constructive manner.

I thank all the individuals and organisations who commented, first on the Executive's proposals and then on the bill at its various stages. I say to them that we welcome their participation in the process and admire their commitment to good law—we benefited from their insights into the ways that the law affects people's lives and the bill is all the better for all their contributions.

The Executive has a clear and broad vision for children and families in Scotland. Above all, we are committed to safeguarding the best interests of children and to promoting and supporting stable family relationships. We try to express that vision across all our policies, whether in health, inclusion, education, youth justice, services and support for families, work-life balance or a range of other areas.

The bill proposes realistic and measured reforms that uphold our core values and recognise the special place that marriage has for many people in Scotland and the fact that stable family life gives children the best opportunity in which to reach their full potential. The bill also recognises the reality of the Scotland in which we live today. It addresses the need to update the safeguards that are available to vulnerable people when relationships break down and when families change shape as a result.

The bill is wide ranging. It covers the rules that regulate divorce and parental responsibilities and rights for fathers. It offers protection against domestic abuse and introduces new legal safeguards for cohabiting couples and their children. Its provisions are more wide ranging than the issues that caught the public and media attention. It completes a process, which began with the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, to develop a body of family law that would deal with the reality of modern family life in Scotland. I recall when the 1995 act was going through. Then—in another life—I was working to secure changes that would benefit children and young people. Since that time, others, including my predecessor Jim Wallace, have moved the agenda on.

The bill is the product of possibly the most extensive and intensive consultation process that has yet been mounted for a bill that has come before the Scottish Parliament. There have been three consultations since 2000 and a further consultation by the Parliament itself. The Parliament has scrutinised and adjusted the provisions in the bill in useful and positive ways. Again, I pay tribute to all the members who were involved in the process.

The bill takes account of both national and international evidence on family law and its impact on people's lives. The Parliament showed a strong interest in the approaches that other countries take and in how those work. That is exactly as it should be: many jurisdictions are grappling with similar issues and we can learn from each other.

We need to go beyond legislation of itself; in isolation, it can be a blunt tool. That is why, from the outset, we sought to develop non-legislative measures alongside the bill. I refer to the parenting agreement for Scotland, the grandchildren's charter, the new investment in family support that will encourage integrated services, the pilot project on contact compliance that will inform future policy development in this difficult area and the major public information campaign that will begin in spring 2006 when the legislation comes into effect. All that complements, reinforces and supports the bill. We will consider family justice issues in more detail in the context of our work on the broader civil justice system. Our commitment to family justice does not end with this bill.

The bill provides a principled, fair and sensible framework for regulating family relationships in the Scotland of the early 21st century: it is a modern law for a modern Scotland. The bill is anchored in principles that have commanded wide support—the best interests of children and stable families—and which are central to what we have done all the way through; the bill is fair in that it does not intrude unnecessarily in family life and provides a sensible framework for resolving disputes and enabling individuals and families to move on; and the bill is sensible in acknowledging the realities of family life today and in reaching judgments that balance freedoms and obligations.

The bill is supported by practical measures to help people to use the law where they need it, which will help them to avoid recourse to the law if there are other means of resolving problems. They will help the law to work well.

Our vision is ambitious and our commitment to families is unshakeable. We believe that the bill will deliver sensible change in a changing world. I am happy to endorse the bill and I commend it to the Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Family Law (Scotland) Bill be passed.

At this stage in the progress of a bill, it is always interesting to look around the chamber to see who are the few hardy chiels who have managed to survive, awake and engaged.

I conclude from today's debate and from debates in committee and elsewhere that no one in the Parliament wishes to do anything that would damage relationships of whatever nature or adversely affect the children of Scotland. At our core, each and every one of us shares a common set of values. We continue to differ on the detail and on whether the bill supports or degrades progress in that respect. However, we are likely to pass a bill tonight, and I will vote for it. We have heard that not all my colleagues will necessarily do so, and we may hear from them later.

I will start with matters outside the bill, to which the minister made reference, by paying tribute to the work that former sheriff Alan Finlayson did on the parenting agreement. It is a most impressive document that was produced by a very impressive process. Alan Finlayson's engagement with the committee and his willingness to interact, respond and adapt as a result of that interaction is an interesting model for extra-legislative ways of dealing with some of the complex issues that arise when one deals with matters such as those that the Family Law (Scotland) Bill encompasses.

I welcome the abolition of marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute and its replacement with something that I hope will be rather clearer and which provides a range of objective tests, although there remains some disagreement about their nature.

We have reformed the waiting times for no-fault divorces. Everyone in the Parliament accepted that we had to reduce by some degree some of the waiting periods under that heading. Anyone outside the Parliament who suggests that members were holding a line and seeking to abolish divorce or to restrict access to it by obstructionism is entirely mistaken. We have differed in degree and in detail, but not, by and large, in principle.

We have addressed an historic wrong in relation to the power of some Jewish men—a very small number—over Jewish wives, and that is welcome.

We have addressed the issue of contact orders to some degree. The minister must continue to work with members to convince us that contact orders will be complied with, given that there are cases in which severe hurt is inflicted through what appears to be wilful disregard of the judgment that the court hands down. By the same token, the minister made some useful moves on support services, but she should not take her hand out of her wallet yet. There is more to do and we will be watching her carefully.

I continue to regret that the Parliament did not respond to my invitation to ensure that information is made available to people about the effects of the various choices—and, indeed, about the effects of their not making certain choices, particularly when children are involved.

We have changed the law of succession in Scotland, but I am worried that we have done so in a relatively non-systematic way that might have unintended consequences. For many years, under a number of Administrations, there has been a desire to reform the law of succession more generally. That is one of the most difficult and technically complex projects that we could consider, but that must not be a reason for further delay. I am worried about the matter and I know that others are too.

We have been told that children are at the core of the bill, but I have to say that it mentions children relatively infrequently and its effects on children are rather imprecise. Nonetheless, I have been persuaded that there will be benefits to children and to vulnerable people who leave a relationship or whose relationship ends due to a death, so I will support the bill.

The Family Law (Scotland) Bill is a hugely important bill. Its provisions have the potential to affect almost everyone in Scotland because it covers such a wide range of relationships. It addresses a huge number of complex issues. I pay tribute to the convener of the Justice 1 Committee, Pauline McNeill; to the committee's adviser, Professor Norrie; to the committee clerks; and to the Scottish Parliament information centre advisers. They have all done an outstanding job in supporting the committee in its deliberations.

I had better take this opportunity to set the record straight in relation to Christine Grahame's contribution this morning. I assure the chamber that I was not divorced when I woke up this morning and, despite the Parliament having reduced the separation times for divorce, I will not be divorced when I go home this evening—a fact that will, no doubt, elicit mixed emotions from my husband.

On a more serious note, I am disappointed that the compromise separation times of 18 months and three years were not agreed to. In the absence of any hard, empirical evidence, I hoped that members would agree that those times were a reasonable compromise. I now seek an assurance that the Executive will take steps to record statistics on the effects of both the current separation times and the new separation times. That information was not available to the committee when it scrutinised the bill, but I hope that it will be available when the Parliament reviews the bill.

I do not have enough time to cover all the provisions in the bill but I will make some comments on marriage. I support the various comments that were made during the day on the need to recognise the special status of marriage. Marriage has a special status in society because it is a legal and public lifelong commitment by a man and a woman to spend a shared life together to the exclusion of all others—to quote the Christian definition. As such, it is the most stable relationship and it provides the best framework within which children can be brought up.

Having said that, I fully take on board Susan Deacon's comments. I recognise that, for some cohabiting couples, the commitment will be a lifelong one, but the fact is that cohabitation remains an open-ended relationship. That is why marriage automatically attracts rights that are not available to cohabitants. It is regrettable that Patrick Harvie, who I am sure considers himself always to be fair minded, has doggedly refused to accept that fact.

Without doubt, some provisions in the bill will not only clarify the law but—importantly—address gaps or unintended consequences left by previous legislation. On that basis, I will vote for the bill, especially given the minister's assurance about the measures that will be put in place to strengthen the enforcement of contact orders and to encourage a child-centred approach.

I, too, acknowledge the enormous amount of work that the Justice 1 Committee's convener, Pauline McNeill, got through. I also thank the committee's clerks.

The bill is intended to improve the law for children, to support stable relationships and stable families and to update the law in our modern society. In future, the Executive must acknowledge that more time is needed to deal with such complex legislation. We have all seen that, and it was shown in the debate when we heard about the many matters that we will have to consider after the bill has been passed. I will support the bill, but we will have to follow up several issues as a result of it.

One issue that we did not discuss in great detail today is the abolition of illegitimacy under Scots law. When I joined the Justice 1 Committee and heard that discussed, I was very much in favour of abolition. In a modern society, it is time for that; illegitimacy has no place in our modern society. However, as the minister said, we in Scotland cannot abolish it. The committee's stage 1 report says:

"Although the abolition of the status of illegitimacy may be largely symbolic and have little … impact, the Committee believes that it is right in principle to take this opportunity to do so and requests that the Executive explore with the UK Government ways in which the remaining statutory obstacles … can be removed."

I accept that the bill introduces several provisions that go towards abolition. I urge the Executive to talk to the United Kingdom Government about removing the remaining obstacles.

I will talk about two or three issues. The first is parental rights and responsibilities for step-parents, which I have pursued and which have an impact on children. If the committee revisits issues from the bill, I intend to reconsider that matter. I lodged an amendment—which Jim Wallace pursued, because I did not attend the committee meeting when it was discussed—about giving step-parents parental rights and responsibilities. The committee did not see its way to supporting that amendment, which was withdrawn. After considerable discussion with the minister, I was persuaded not to pursue the amendment at stage 3.

I am delighted that we have reduced the separation periods before divorce from two years to one and from five years to two. Again—unfortunately—I was not at the committee meeting when that was discussed, because I was dealing with another bill, but I am delighted that we have brought the bill's provisions back to the Executive's line.

Although I am a member of the Justice 1 Committee, because the debate was oversubscribed I did not have the chance to speak about fathers and the question that Sylvia Jackson pursued. I am delighted that the minister announced several measures to address the situation. It is beyond me that some people can ignore court orders, which cannot be right. People cannot be allowed to ignore court orders, yet Sylvia Jackson has shown that people have done so for a long time. I understand why—people do not want to fine mothers or put them in prison. I am delighted that the minister has announced the contact compliance officers in courts and the other measures.

I support the bill. I believe that it is a credit to the Executive and the Parliament that we have been able to introduce such a hugely complex piece of legislation, which, as Margaret Mitchell said, will change the life of almost every person in Scotland. I commend the bill to the Parliament.

As we move into the general debate, time is very tight. I think that I will manage to have only four speakers, who will have three minutes each.

As other members have said, the Family Law (Scotland) Bill has been a marathon bill by reason of not only its contents but the number of people that it is likely to affect. I cannot remember scrutinising a piece of legislation that is likely to affect more people.

Like other members, I put on record our thanks to our adviser, Ken Norrie. Without him, we—or at least I—could not have understood many of the issues. I also give special thanks to Hugh Henry, who not only listened a lot but did so with good grace. I am grateful for the hard work that he and his officials have done. Other members will vouch for the lever arch folder upon lever arch folder of notes and advice that went back and forwards between the committee and the minister's officials on an almost daily basis. The bill required hard work on everyone's part, but I particularly thank our clerks, Dougie Wands and Callum Thomson, who ensured that all that information flowed backwards and forwards and who set up our meetings. I also thank the SPICe researchers who remained with us throughout the process.

Committee members from across the parties have made their mark on the bill. I certainly saw some proactive thinking. Although we had disagreements, I know that members thought hard about where they wanted to be in relation to the main positions on the bill.

The bill will deal with void marriages, simplify interdicts, abolish illegitimacy, create a legal framework for cohabitants, reduce time limits for divorce—despite our disagreements—provide domicile rules and even save a wee bit of marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute for foreign marriages. Thus, the bill contains a lot of things, but it will probably be more noted for what it does not say, so I want to say a word about that as well. I agree with Stewart Stevenson and others that the parenting agreement, which was created by Alan Finlayson and others, will be a useful tool. A great deal of work went into that and I believe that it will be well used.

As has been demonstrated in other countries, reforming family law often ends in dissatisfaction on all sides, so I suppose that we will hear only after tonight whether we have achieved a consensus. However, other work is on-going, including research on contact orders and on access to justice. The pilot projects that were announced today will also have a role and the money for family support services will be very welcome indeed.

Another 10 years might pass before we have a chance to legislate again in the area of family law, but members must ensure that they are proactive in the intervening period, because family law affects not only justice but every other portfolio. Marlyn Glen has been particularly dogged about ensuring that equal rights are provided under the bill. I pay tribute to her and to the officials who ensured that all aspects of the law—including, believe it or not, the Anatomy Act 1984 and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003—will be reformed to ensure that equal rights are provided for those who are in a civil partnership.

In conclusion, there is more work to be done, as we will need to debate the consequences of European legislation on family law. I hope that members are listening, as there is more work to be done.

I am sorry to hustle members along, but I can give members only three minutes.

The temperature in the chamber—not only the actual temperature but the way in which we engage in debate—has dropped a lot, but I must tell Pauline McNeill that we will not end up with a consensus on the bill. However, we will have a degree of respect, as I certainly respect the position of those with whom I have disagreed. I will also respect the decision that the Parliament is likely to take later this evening.

I am very much aware of how long it has taken for the proposals in the Scottish Law Commission report to reach this stage. The Executive has made many courageous decisions, not all of which I have agreed with. In half an hour or so, I will show my disagreement by voting against the bill, but I will do so with perhaps a heavy heart, as the bill contains some good elements.

I accept that the Executive has approached the issue in a spirit of trying to recognise all the different kinds of relationship that exist in Scotland today. However, I am disappointed that the Executive has not shown leadership in saying that some relationships should be valued to a greater degree than others. I know that that view will not be universally accepted. I am not saying that any relationship is not valid. However, the evidence will show that marriage and bringing up children within marriage are the most successful ways of allowing people to fulfil their potential.

It is absolutely true that we do not know what will happen in life. Margaret Mitchell said that, as far as she is aware, she is not divorced and hopes not to be divorced when she goes home. Whether we are in a marriage or a civil partnership or are cohabiting, we do not know what is before us—I am not making any predictions. We have to deal with these things, and I recognise that addressing the realities is what motivates those who have taken a different view from mine. What I have found more difficult to accept is the fact that, although the motivation is good, the execution in a number of areas—especially cohabitation—is not going to deliver the results that people want. One of the most helpful things has been the fact that, after stage 2, we received a letter from Hugh Henry that clearly delineates the differences between the different relationships.

I am disappointed with the outcome of today's debates and the votes, and I am not going to vote in favour of the bill.

Various members have reflected on their own family relationships. The only such reflection that I can make as a single man is that the long succession of civil partnership receptions that I hope to attend over the coming year will provide excellent opportunities for a little harmless self-indulgence and perhaps even opportunities not to be single for much longer.

The issue that Brian Adam has addressed, and to which Margaret Mitchell has referred, is the perceived primacy of marriage. The view was expressed by representatives of the Christian Institute, at a briefing here, that marriage is simply superior and more effective at providing a family home and a relationship within which children can thrive. I reject that view fundamentally. The love, the commitment and the emotional investment that parents make are about the people, not their legal status.

Even if I accepted the Christian Institute's position, I would say to people who believe that marriage is just better—superior because of its legal status—that the policy response from the state should be the same for people in my position as for married people. If it is not, it would be like an employer who, considering that the people who work in their office have a range of different abilities—some of them being good at their jobs and some of them being less good—starts to take away annual leave from the less good employees, give them inferior equipment to work with and make them sit on seats that give them back pain. We should be asking our employees how we can best support them to do the best job that they can do. That support will be different for different people, based on their various skills, abilities and qualities. Similarly, as we design family law for the 21st century, Government should be asking people in family relationships how it can best support them—on their terms—to be the best families that they can be for each other's benefit, for their own benefit and for their children's benefit.

The bill goes a long way towards achieving that and towards recognising the equal dignity of all types of families. I congratulate the Justice 1 Committee on its work and I congratulate the Executive on the bill.

We should enjoy a great sense of achievement at the end of this stage 3 debate. However, as the minister has said, this is not the end of the work. Even the Justice 1 Committee will have a follow-up discussion on its agenda in the new year. That may seem amazing, but it is a fact.

Families in Scotland are not particularly open to the idea of outside help, so a great deal of work needs to be done to promote mediation, counselling and early intervention—particularly counselling, such as that available through Scottish Marriage Care's FOCCUS service, which is aimed at those who are planning a long-term relationship.

Couples need to be aware of their responsibilities towards each other and their rights and—most important—their responsibilities towards any children and those children's rights. However, we cannot realistically expect young couples to focus on possible break-up or bereavement at the beginning of their relationships. We can at least promote information, education and knowledge about relationships and the legal responsibilities and rights that come with them. I therefore welcome the minister's announcement of additional funding for services and I add my voice to the call for on-going information campaigns.

It is a frightening statistic that only one third of adults take the trouble to make a will. People do not realise how vulnerable they make themselves and their families when they do not make a will. The Family Law (Scotland) Bill is, in part, an attempt to protect all families in circumstances that young people starting out rarely contemplate. Part of any information campaign must give out the message, which Pauline McNeill also mentioned, about the importance of making a will.

I mention specifically the detailed amendments on domestic abuse and contact orders that were made to the bill at stage 2. There was a good deal of negotiation with the recognised expert in the field, Scottish Women's Aid, which drove the call for safe contact and for courts to take domestic abuse and safety issues into consideration before making a contact order. Women and children fleeing domestic abuse have often been tracked down via the courts and forced to comply with orders. Given that, on average, two women every week are killed by a partner or ex-partner in the United Kingdom—the most dangerous time being when a woman and her children try to leave—protective provisions are a must, and section 17 is a great step forward in enhancing the safety of women and children.

I am really pleased by the progress that has been made towards equal treatment by the law of same-sex couples and their families. We have not as yet removed all the inconsistencies, but I recognise that there has been a fundamental change to the approach of legislation. I look forward to the necessary further changes in both UK and Scottish legislation.

I support the bill.

My regrets to Mary Mulligan and Fergus Ewing, who were not called to speak.

As others have remarked, much of the origin of the bill goes back to the work of the Scottish Law Commission in 1989. Those who campaigned for a Scottish Parliament said that one of the things that it would do would be to ensure that that work of the Scottish Law Commission was put into legislation. I welcome the fact that that is happening today.

I had some involvement with the bill along the way. I published one of the white papers and the consultation paper. I pay tribute to Cathy Jamieson and to my erstwhile deputy and current Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry, who has put so much work into the bill. As I had the opportunity to serve as a substitute member of the Justice 1 Committee and was able to take part in three meetings at which the bill was debated at stage 2, I equally acknowledge the work that Pauline McNeill and her committee have done in dealing with some complex issues.

We need only look at the bill to see its wide range. For example, we are abolishing marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute, except for the saving provision that Pauline McNeill introduced earlier today; as far as we can in this Parliament, we are removing the stigma of illegitimacy; and we are abolishing the action for declarator of freedom and putting to silence. I am sure that we have all wanted to use that from time to time, but we never knew how to, and now we cannot.

When Hugh Henry replied to the debate on the length of time before divorce proceedings could commence, he said that each and every one of us is a product of our upbringing and the choices that we have made about our beliefs. It is inevitable that that shapes the way that we think; it makes us the people and the politicians we are, with the political views that we have. However, it is important that when we legislate, we take into account the life circumstances and approaches of people who do not share our values and beliefs.

We are dealing with relationships of marriage, civil partnership and cohabitation. The bill clearly tries to recognise that Government cannot legislate for everything. Heaven help us: we do not want Government to legislate for that most basic thing—people's relationships.

However, the role of Parliament is to ensure that, where relationships exist, we try to buttress their stability and to give protection to people who are in them but may be vulnerable or subject to abuse. Crucially, we must give protection to children within relationships. I believe that the bill does that by reducing the waiting period for divorce with and without consent and by making provision for enforcement of contact orders, which is important for children.

As Cathy Jamieson said, we must remember that legislation can take us only so far. Important issues have arisen that do not require legislation. The grandchildren's charter, parenting agreements and the support that will be given to family support organisations are crucial. We cannot legislate for them but, in tandem with the bill, they indicate that we are trying to discharge our responsibility to ensure that, whatever relationships people are in, we make them stable. When people find that their relationships no longer work and have broken down, we should enable them to move on, so that their relationships can be wound up in a fair and just way.

I support the bill.

There is much in the bill that is worth supporting. Among the provisions that I believe are very worthy are the improved protection against domestic abuse, the ending of the problem of non-evacuated survivorship destinations in title deeds and the granting of additional parental responsibilities and rights. So the list goes on.

Those of us who have concerns about bills that contain a mixture of good provisions and provisions with which we are uncomfortable face the challenge of deciding how to proceed. I have serious concerns about some of the provisions in the bill. In the stage 1 debate, I flagged up some of my concerns about the new rights that will be granted to cohabiting couples. That debate has had a good airing this afternoon. People have the right to cohabit, if they wish, but by cohabiting they have taken a conscious decision not to enter into the legal contract that is marriage, with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. As someone who practised law for many years, I see it as perfectly obvious that, if people want to have the rights and legal protections that come with a relationship, they should get married. We have civil marriage on the statute book because it was created as an alternative for those people who, for whatever reason, do not want to go through a ceremony of religious marriage.

I am concerned that the bill creates rights for cohabiting couples, but only in certain circumstances—where the sheriff is persuaded that a case has been made. I listened with great interest to the speech of Susan Deacon, who is unfortunately no longer with us. She made an eloquent case for more rights to be granted to cohabiting couples. I do not agree with her argument, but in my view it makes much more sense to say that cohabiting couples should have rights similar to those of people who are married, rather than the halfway house that the bill proposes, which will do nothing but create confusion and send out mixed messages. I am a lawyer and have examined the bill carefully, but I am confused by its provisions regarding cohabiting couples. I cannot imagine how the general public will be able to understand it.

My more fundamental concerns relate to the divorce provisions. When looking at family law, we should start from the clear point that marriage is good for society. I accept that society orders itself in different ways. People are perfectly entitled to order their lives as they wish and to enter into different forms of relationship. Other relationships can be just as stable as marriage and can provide homes for children that are just as loving for children as those that marriage provides. However, in general marriage is a good thing and should be supported by public policy. On that point, I disagree with Patrick Harvie. I suspect that my views are more in line with public opinion than his are.

For me, the test for the bill is, are its provisions good for society? Do they support marriage? Will they help couples to stay together? I welcome the announcement this morning of additional sums for counselling and mediation, but that does not outweigh my concerns regarding the separation periods. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments from this morning, as there is not time for that. However, it is a pity that the Parliament did not accept the middle way that was proposed by my colleague Margaret Mitchell and accepted by the Justice 1 Committee. That was a compromise between two different positions. It is a pity that the committee, which considered the matter carefully and looked at all the evidence, was not listened to. It is a pity that the Executive did not allow a free vote on what should be a matter of personal choice and conscience. Whatever careful arguments are heard in the chamber, the bill will be seen by others as support for quickie divorces, even though public opinion is substantially against that.

The Conservatives will have a free vote on the bill. I will vote against it, but some of my colleagues, including Margaret Mitchell, will vote in favour. I will vote against it because I am not convinced that the bill meets the important test of building a better and stronger society in our country.

It is difficult to sum up when there is no party line to follow—as the Scottish National Party has a free vote, I am speaking as an individual. I support the bill; indeed, long before it was published, I said to the minister that I would fully support it.

We must respect the fact that the issues that the bill raises clearly divide not only political parties but households and Scotland in general. I take cognisance of what my colleague Brian Adam said. Although he opposes the bill, to his credit he correctly acknowledges that change has to occur and that he will respect the Parliament's decision.

Marlyn Glen said that the bill should give us a great sense of achievement. I hope that she will not take this as a criticism, but I think that she meant to say that significant progress has been made. I accept that many aspects of the bill will make Scotland a better place. However, some aspects will make us vote with a heavy heart. Some members will vote against the bill, but it is likely that the majority will vote in favour of it.

Some members mentioned their time as legal practitioners, which takes me back to the 20 years during which I practised family law. Apart from the odd instances of buffoonery and bluster, I do not remember anybody celebrating their divorce. Divorce was always tinged with sadness. No matter whether the divorce was clearly justified—perhaps there had been a fundamental breach or violence—there had always been something that had brought the couple together in the first instance. Aspects of the relationship could never be taken away.

Although we normally celebrate stage 3 debates and the passing of legislation, we will do so today in the knowledge that there are some aspects of family law on which we would rather not legislate. However, we live in the real world, which is why I support the bill. The minister correctly said at the beginning of the debate that our society has changed. Indeed, Scotland has irrevocably changed. Many of those changes have been for the better, although much of our economic progress has come at a severe social price, which is paid in divorce and the dislocation of families. We cannot hide from, ignore or refuse to recognise that fact; we have to accept it and deal with the changes.

Whether people prefer to cohabit is a matter for them; I do not judge them. I have been married for many years, but another type of relationship now exists. There have been clear cases of hardship when rights or moral obligations were not met. I do not see the two kinds of relationship as mutually irreconcilable, which is why I am happy to support the bill. In recognising a new situation, we do not seek to exclude the position of marriage; it is accepted that marriage has a position in society. Like others, I disagree with Patrick Harvie. I believe that it is important to recognise that marriage is the cornerstone and foundation—

Can the member point to one occasion when I have criticised the institution of marriage or proposed some way of undermining it? I have always valued it, but I also value other relationships. That is the only difference.

I did not suggest that Patrick Harvie criticised marriage. However, the majority of parties recognise that marriage has a special position; it is a pinnacle and should be treated as such, although that does not mean that it is necessarily deified or sanctified. It is special when people come together. As I mentioned earlier, marriage is not something that one enters on a whim or a fancy in the same way as some American pop stars enter salons in Las Vegas. That kind of behaviour fundamentally detracts from what marriage means.

We should recognise that, because marriage brings with it obligations, it should have a special position. That does not mean that people should not be allowed to choose not to enter into marriage and should not be given rights when they choose not to enter into marriage but to regulate their affairs in a different manner. However, we have to recognise that marriage is pivotal in our society and we should seek to protect it.

Given those circumstances, I will be voting in favour of the bill. I recognise that progress has been made on a variety of other issues—those issues will not be touched on in tomorrow's press, but they represent a significant change for the better in our society. Progress had to be made. That has been difficult and it is to the Executive's credit that it chose to introduce the bill. With power comes responsibility. We had to recognise the change in our society and I will be supporting the Executive and the bill.

I start by clarifying a point that arose when we were dealing with amendments. Stewart Stevenson asked about the tense of a word in the bill. I apologise for any confusion about the meaning of "attended" in schedule 1, paragraph 6, new paragraph (b)(iv). We mean the school that is being attended; the word is used in the present tense. I hope that that puts the matter to rest.

I join others in thanking a number of people. I thank the Justice 1 Committee for its work, which has been a good example of the Executive and a committee being able to work together. There has been give and take on both sides and we have had to listen. I understand the pressures on the committee. The bill is complex and it took a long time to get through. I recognise that the committee was working to deadlines. Committee members, supported valiantly by their clerks and others, did a fantastic job in getting us to where we are today.

I also thank the Executive's bill team: Carol Duncan, Moira Wilson, Alex Mowat, Neil Robertson, Kirsty Finlay, Anne Cairns and David McLeish. Not only have they been tremendous in supporting Cathy Jamieson and me, but they worked with committee members and attempted to support them where further clarification was needed. They have helped us through an enormously difficult job.

I agree with what Marlyn Glen said about having a great sense of achievement, although I hope that it is not too churlish to say that I also feel a great sense of relief now that we have got to this stage. There have been achievements and it is right to put the bill in context. It will not resolve every failure or every problem in our country. In a sense, we need such a bill only because problems exist. If everybody got on well together and was able to resolve their difficulties without any aggravation or dispute, there would be no need for the bill. However, human nature being what it is, with people not being able to agree, we have had to build in certain degrees of protection. That is why there is a huge sense of achievement. We have righted a number of wrongs that it has taken some time to address. As Jim Wallace said, one of the benefits of having the Parliament is that we have been able to do that.

I hope that, on reflection, people will recognise the significance of what we are doing. We are legislating not for the Scotland of our personal beliefs, not for the Scotland in which we grew up and not for the Scotland of the church or group in society to which we belong, but for Scotland as we find it—a Scotland in which people make decisions in their own way. We are legislating to address not just the wrongs but the problems that existed. For many years, there were myths about the rights of unmarried fathers in relation to their children. Those rights just did not exist, but now we have introduced parental responsibilities and rights. It is right to talk not just about the rights but the responsibilities that parents have to make a difference to their children. It is a disgrace in many respects that many men in particular walk away from their children, turn their back on them and do no more for them. It is right that we give them rights but also responsibilities.

It is right that we have done away with the wrong in relation to the concept of illegitimacy. It is right that we should examine how to help parents to do what is a difficult job. Alan Finlayson has done tremendous work in developing a parenting agreement that will be of enormous value and benefit over the coming years. It is right that we had the opportunity to discuss the difficulties that many grandparents faced in trying to maintain contact with their children. It is right that we were able to give recognition to the fantastic job that grandparents do across Scotland. I hope that the bill will help to create a better context in which grandparents can be seen as valuable parts of an extended family. We should have a sense of pride in being able to address a problem—[Interruption.]

Order. This is an important speech on an important bill. There is far too much noise in the chamber.

It is right that we were able to address an anomaly that existed for certain people in the Jewish faith. I am proud that we were able to do something about that. It is right that we were able to address the myth that, in so-called common-law marriages, women had certain rights and protections. They did not and we have recognised that there is a need to protect people—usually women—who find themselves in a vulnerable position in a relationship. It might disappoint Susan Deacon and others but, by doing that, we have not extended the same rights to those people as are available to people who are married. Marriage still has a certain status in our society that we value. Nevertheless, that should not prevent us from trying to right the wrongs that many people who live together have experienced. It is right that we addressed some of the problems that fathers had in getting access to their children. I am pleased that we have introduced measures that will, we hope, help to make contact orders more effective. We have righted a number of wrongs and can take great pride in that.

After this debate, I will also be left with the words of Murdo Fraser ringing in my ears. He said: "I am a lawyer and I am confused." What is new about that?

The Scottish Parliament has much to be proud of in passing the bill. Being a member of the Parliament is a privilege. It is a privilege to be allowed to make a difference for the people whom we represent across Scotland. Sometimes that means making difficult decisions, falling out with people and perhaps not pleasing everyone. Sometimes, however, we simply have to do what is right; I think that, in the bill, we have done what is right.

That concludes the remarkably tolerant, compassionate and well-argued debate on the Family Law (Scotland) Bill.