Marriage (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2463, in the name of Jim Wallace, on stage 1of the Marriage (Scotland) Bill. I think that Mr Robson is just about ready to start, so I ask him to speak to and move the motion. The target time for his speech is about 10 minutes.
I am pleased to be here to introduce the Marriage (Scotland) Bill to the chamber.
I will briefly summarise the policy objectives of the bill. Those are: to permit civil marriages to be solemnised at locations other than register offices; to authorise local authorities to license locations for that purpose; to charge fees to meet related costs for connected purposes; and to enable the registrar general for births, deaths and marriages to give local authorities guidance on the above.
The bill will extend the choice of marriage venues for brides-to-be and grooms-to-be. The principles of the bill have been widely supported, including by the lead committee considering the bill—the Local Government Committee.
Couples who opt for a religious marriage have long been free to select any location for their wedding, provided that their chosen celebrant agrees to it. As a result, ministers, priests, imams and other authorised celebrants have performed marriage ceremonies in castles and hotels as well as in churches and other religious buildings.
Couples who choose to have a civil ceremony have been limited to picking one of Scotland's 247 registration offices where a registrar is authorised to perform civil marriages. The bill would do away with that anomaly and give couples a wider choice of venue at which to celebrate their special day.
Civil marriages in England and Wales have taken place in buildings other than registration offices since 1995; the bill would go one step further by permitting civil marriage ceremonies in Scotland to be performed in approved places that are not necessarily buildings. That measure increases still further the options for couples.
Perhaps I should highlight briefly what the bill does not do. As I explained when I gave evidence to the Local Government Committee, the bill makes no provision to change either the nature of the civil ceremony or the celebrants. Those matters are beyond its scope.
The bill follows the extensive consultation carried out in 1998 by the registrar general for Scotland; my lodging of a proposal for a member's bill in March 2000—at this point, I thank my co-sponsors; and the publication on 21 June 2001 of the Scottish Executive's proposals and draft legislation in the white paper "Civil Marriages Outwith Registration Offices". The white paper included a draft of the bill and the regulations that might eventually be made under the bill's powers.
The white paper was widely circulated, including to all local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, individual registrars, the Association of Registrars of Scotland, Action for Churches Together in Scotland and the main political parties. Copies were placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre and the document was also made available on the General Register Office for Scotland's website.
A particularly helpful suggestion was that a working group should be formed to consider the detail of the draft regulations and draft guidance that will be introduced once—and if—the bill is enacted. The group is chaired by a representative of the General Register Office for Scotland and includes representatives from COSLA, the Association of Registrars of Scotland and some individual local authorities and registrars with a particular interest in the subject. The working group has met twice so far and is due to meet again next week. It has already done much helpful work to amend the draft regulations and draft guidance to ensure that they fit more closely with local authorities' current procedures. The General Register Office for Scotland has published the latest version of the draft regulations and draft guidance, copies of which are available in SPICe and on the GROS website. Copies have also been sent to the committees that have considered the bill.
I thank the working group members for their efforts and look forward to the final outcome of their work. Much of what they have done will go far to address the points of detail that were raised in the Local Government Committee's stage 1 report.
I will now say something about those matters and about what the Executive is doing to address them. The stage 1 report on the Marriage (Scotland) Bill sets out the views and recommendations of the Local Government Committee—the lead committee—the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Crucially, the majority of those views and recommendations focus not on the bill or its principles, but on the detail of the registrar general's draft regulations and draft guidance.
Does not the minister think that it is wholly wrong that most of the comments that have been expressed concentrate on the regulations? The committees should not have been considering the regulations but the contents of the bill. Is not it the case that, because the draft bill did not contain important information, we were forced to consider the regulations and make the issue part of our stage 1 report?
I cannot comment on how the committee constructed its report, but I point out that the draft regulations and draft guidance were provided at the same time as the draft bill to facilitate the committee's discussions and to give members a picture of the whole primary and secondary legislative process. I must move on and address some of the report's detailed points.
The report noted that the consultation on the draft bill had been adequate, but suggested that there could have been more consultation on the draft regulations and draft guidance. The consultation on the draft regulations and draft guidance was not limited to the period of consultation for the white paper and, indeed, is on-going.
An important part of that is continuing consideration of the draft documents by the working group that I mentioned. Versions of both documents will be available on the Executive website. I expect that the draft regulations and guidance will be scrutinised again when the Parliament examines them when, if the bill is enacted, they are made formally this year. To assist the parliamentary process, the Executive accepted what the lead committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee said. We propose to lodge an Executive amendment at stage 2, which will provide that, the first time that the regulations are made under subsection (4) of new section 18A of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The lead committee's report recommended that the Executive consider whether there is scope to amend the bill to remove the need for a separate regulatory framework and to make amendments to enable the regulatory framework of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to be used for the purpose of approving places for carrying out civil marriages. We have given the matter thorough consideration and we do not propose to make any amendments to the bill. However, we aim to ensure that, in operating under the draft regulations and guidance, Scotland's local authorities will be able to use existing licensing procedures in committees to approve places for the solemnisation of civil marriages. There is nothing in the Marriage (Scotland) Bill that will prevent that. The joint working group's consideration of the draft regulations and guidance will ensure that there is no conflict in the fine detail.
I turn now to the right of appeal. Both the Local Government Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee considered that an applicant should have a right of appeal against any local authority decision in relation to an application for approval of a place as suitable for the solemnisation of civil marriages. There is a provision for appeals in the draft regulations. It is a matter of natural justice that there should be such a provision. However, both committees thought that the bill should contain a provision that sets out the right of appeal and that the procedure should be provided in the regulations. The Executive has accepted the committees' views on the matter and we will lodge an Executive amendment to that effect at stage 2.
The lead committee's report highlighted other matters in the draft regulations and guidance, which have been acknowledged in the latest drafts of those documents. The committee recommended that there should be no statutory duty in the regulations to require a local authority to consult the district registrar. There was no quarrel from local authorities with the fact that it would be good practice for a local authority to consult a suitably qualified registrar, but they expressed dislike at having such a provision in the draft regulations. That requirement has now been removed from the draft regulations and placed in the draft guidance in a form that is acceptable to local authorities and registrars.
The Local Government Committee also considered that the Executive and COSLA should consider special mechanisms to secure conditions and remuneration arrangements for registrars. Although the provision of the registration service in Scotland is a partnership between the GROS, local authorities and local registrars, it is the local authorities that decide on the terms and conditions of service of their employees. Registrars are employees of 32 local authorities; therefore, it would be inappropriate for the GROS and the Executive to intervene in the matter. However, I understand that COSLA is taking a central role in assisting local authorities to determine the remuneration arrangements for registrars who will carry out civil marriages outwith registration offices. The Executive considers that that is the most appropriate way forward and the one that is most likely to yield a satisfactory solution.
The Local Government Committee had concerns about the power of the registrar general to revoke an appeal. It was considered that that power should rest solely with local authorities. The committee called on the Executive to amend the bill to ensure that local authorities are given full responsibility for decisions on the granting and withdrawal of an approval. That, again, is a point for the regulations rather than the bill. The Executive always regarded the registrar general's power of revocation as a backstop that was unlikely to be used frequently, if at all. After consideration, we are prepared to accept the views of the committee and the joint working group, and the draft regulations have been amended to remove the registrar general's power of revocation.
The lead committee also called on the Executive to amend the bill at stage 2 to include a provision that would allow third parties, such as the neighbours of a place that is to be approved, to object to the application. The joint working group expressed a similar view. We have considered that point and agree that it would be helpful for provision to be made to that effect, although we consider that, for the sake of consistency, such a provision should be contained in the regulations. Such a provision is in the latest draft of the regulations with suitable commentary in the draft guidance. The committee also made recommendations concerning provisions for the suspension, revocation and variation of approvals. The draft regulations and guidance have now been amended to take those matters on board.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee suggested that some provisions that are set out in the draft regulations should appear in the bill. One of those provisions was the right of appeal, which I have dealt with. The committee also asked the Executive to consider including in the bill the definition of "place" but we are not minded to do that. Nor do we think it appropriate to transfer from the draft regulations to the bill conditions on granting of approvals and the duty of the registrar to issue guidance. That would make the bill unwieldy and the Executive takes the view that the proper place for such detailed provisions is in the subordinate legislation.
The committee was concerned about the need for local authorities to interpret and arbitrate on which places may be seemly and dignified and about the requirement that the place have no recent or continuing connection with any religion or religious practice. Again, we want to keep such matters in the regulations as they are currently drafted.
When I sum up, I will be able to answer the detailed points that members want to raise. We considered the draft regulations and guidance because we thought that it was important to do so at the time of writing the primary legislation. I have given undertakings to amend the bill and the Executive will lodge amendments at stage 2.
It is perhaps fitting that I close my speech by reminding members of the key benefits that the bill will bring. The main benefit is that it will extend choice. Members regularly receive letters from couples who are planning their weddings and want to know when it will be possible for them to be married in a civil ceremony in a place of their own choosing. We no longer want to limit such people to using registration offices.
The bill will have incidental benefits. Scotland is promoting its image as a wonderful place to visit. Scotland is also romantically connected with marriage, be it in Gretna Green, a Highland castle or a magnificent hotel in the Borders. There have been a number of celebrity weddings in Scotland and the demand for that might increase after the passage of this legislation. Let us use the opportunity to develop further tourism in Scotland.
The bill will give Scots and visitors to Scotland more choice than they have at present and I commend it to members.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Marriage (Scotland) Bill.
I gave the minister a little latitude on time in view of his valiant attempt to read his speech as quickly as he possibly could and of the fact that four members who had notified me of their intention to speak in the debate either are not present or have not yet pressed their buttons.
I call Tricia Marwick. You have been allocated seven minutes, but you can treat that with a reasonable degree of flexibility.
There will be a degree of difficulty in reaching seven minutes, Deputy Presiding Officer.
I welcome the last part of the minister's speech, which talked about the reason why we are discussing the Marriage (Scotland) Bill. The bill is designed to allow people to get married in a greater variety of places than they can at the moment. Of course, as I think the minister said, marriage should be a happy occasion and it is only right that people should be able to choose where they get married. That said, no one can pretend that this is a particularly happy debate; indeed, it is a bit boring. Judging by the small number of people in the chamber, I believe that people may wonder what the bill has to do with their lives.
The fact is that the bill has the potential to make a special day an even happier day in the lives of many couples. On behalf of the Scottish National Party, I am pleased to support the general intentions behind the bill.
At the moment, there are clear restrictions on where people can marry. In too many cases, the choice comes down to one between faith and location. In a truly pluralist and multicultural society, the idea that a couple's lack of religious belief should limit their choice of where they can be married is outdated. When almost a third of people who got married in a religious ceremony would have preferred to have a civil ceremony if a suitable location had been available, it is clearly time for change.
That is why the SNP has no hesitation in supporting the aims of the bill. However, we have considerable reservations about the mechanisms and the specific proposals in the bill and regulations. I will make two points on that.
First, I return to a theme that I mentioned earlier: the use of secondary rather than primary legislation to hoard power, which limits the ability to make necessary amendments at stage 2. It is fundamentally wrong that, when we consider a bill, its important aspects are hidden away in secondary legislation. Although I accept the minister's assurances that the secondary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, I do not think that that is the same as the committees having the opportunity at stages 1 and 2 to give the bill the scrutiny that it deserves and to amend it.
That is significant. The Executive shows a pattern of putting more into regulations. The bill is a bad example of that trend. As James Smith of Dumfries and Galloway Council said in evidence to the Local Government Committee:
"We do not want the paternalistic approach that all the regulation and guidance represents.
Government officials should not issue guidance on matters that are way outwith their remit."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 27 November 2001; c 2421.]
To put it bluntly, the approach is incorrect. Matters of a constant nature, such as the appeals procedure, should be contained in primary legislation. That is also the opinion of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, whose opinion is that the bill does not strike the right balance between primary and secondary legislation.
That was reflected also in the Local Government Committee's consideration of the bill. So many of the powers of the bill are exercised through secondary legislation that it was felt necessary for the committee to examine the draft regulations which, technically, are not part of what we should have considered. It was a useful exercise, not least in highlighting the dangers of the Executive reserving so much power by means of secondary legislation.
If I recall correctly, the minister talked about "seemly and dignified" venues and said that the phrase would not be subject to amendment in the regulations. There was considerable and widespread concern about matters such as the definition of seemly and dignified venues. The Executive's wish to retain that phrase in the subordinate legislation and regulations means, in effect, that there is no opportunity to amend it at stage 2. That is wrong. I ask the minister to go back and think again. The Equal Opportunities Committee, other committees of the Parliament and individuals are concerned about the wording.
There is a considerable body of opinion, including in local government, that says that the approach that has been taken in the bill is incorrect. It has been widely suggested that to use the existing expertise and resources of civic government licensing would be more efficient and cost-effective than setting up a separate framework to regulate the places in which marriages may take place. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities favoured that model and outlined how it might be done. Dumfries and Galloway Council—which conducts one in four of Scotland's marriages thanks to Gretna Green and the success of the tourism industry there, which brings people from all over Scotland and elsewhere to be married—has outlined how amending the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 would achieve that. It indicated that a minimal amount of legislation would be required if that alternative route was used.
I am pleased to be able to support the policy intention of the bill. I note what the minister said about amendments. I am disappointed that he seems to be suggesting that the Executive will continue down the road of regulations, thereby limiting amendments at stage 2. I am also concerned about the mechanisms by which the Executive is attempting to achieve the policy intentions of the bill. All members support those policy intentions, but we are concerned about the mechanisms. We believe that the Executive has made the bill unnecessarily complicated and has not taken the right route.
I ask the Executive to reconsider seriously its position on amending the bill and the regulatory framework before it comes back to the committee at stage 2. I also ask the Executive to consider carefully how the policy aims of the bill, which we all support, could be better achieved.
That speech was nicely timed. I call Keith Harding to open for the Conservatives. He has a minimum of five minutes.
Thank you, Presiding Officer—that is generous of you. I applaud Tricia Marwick on achieving her seven minutes, but I am afraid that I will not achieve my five minutes.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. We support the policy intention of the bill and we believe that the bill, if passed, will increase the choices that are available to couples who wish to marry in Scotland. Like other members, we approve the general principles of the bill. However, we share some of the concerns and reservations that Tricia Marwick expressed. We trust that the Executive will consider and address those reservations as the bill progresses through Parliament.
In the evidence taken by the Local Government Committee, concerns were expressed about the necessity of a new regulatory framework. It was suggested that the powers that local authorities already have under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 could be extended to include the registration of approved places where marriages can take place. In the circumstances, we question the need for a separate regulatory framework.
We agree with the local authorities that the proposed statutory duty to consult district registrars should not be included in the regulations. I am pleased that the minister has accepted that.
In their evidence, witnesses pointed out that there is no mention in the bill of a right of appeal to a sheriff. That will not be necessary if it is decided to utilise the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, as the right already exists in that act. If the bill progresses in its present form, we will ask the Executive to lodge suitable amendments at stage 2 to ensure that the right of appeal is included in the bill.
We support the Local Government Committee's recommendation that the registrar general should not have the power to revoke local authority approval—we agree that such decisions should be made by democratically elected councillors. Again, we are pleased that that point has been taken on board.
Aberdeenshire Council raised the lack of provision in the proposed regulations for objections to applications from neighbours where approval is being sought for a venue to hold civil weddings. We ask for that to be addressed at stage 2. Venues are an area of concern. The requirement for them to be "seemly and dignified"—which is practically impossible to define—is inappropriate in this day and age and should be removed or reworded. I am disappointed that the Executive has not taken that point on board.
The proposal that local authorities should be satisfied that places have no recent or continuing connection with any religion or religious practice that would be incompatible with their use for the solemnisation of marriage is overly restrictive. We ask the Executive to reconsider the necessity of that proposal.
I trust that the minister will address our outstanding concerns. As I have said, we support the general principles of the bill.
The Local Government Committee welcomes the objective of the bill, which is to allow marriage ceremonies to take place at locations that have been defined as approved places—in other words, away from register offices. That will appeal to many couples who are planning to marry but who wish to tie the knot outwith a register office.
As the policy memorandum points out, the bill would allow islanders who desire a civil marriage to avoid travelling to the nearest register office and marry in their communities. That is a good thing. The memorandum suggests that some of our beautiful Scottish islands could well become a desirable location for holding civil marriages, which the minister mentioned.
Members of the Local Government Committee—along with colleagues in the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee—have serious reservations about elements of the bill. We believe that it would be much improved if the minister took our concerns on board. I am pleased that he has listened and that, in the main, the Executive is responding to our report.
For example, we do not believe that a statutory requirement should be placed on local authorities formally to consult district registrars. Naturally, we would expect an authority to seek the views, advice and guidance of its registrars on certain matters, but there should be no legal requirement. We would not expect registrars to be ordered to officiate in locations that they deemed to be offensive, intimidating or downright embarrassing.
The right of appeal is an issue that was raised with the committee and by members today. I am delighted that the minister has acknowledged our concerns and has accepted the committee's recommendation that the right of appeal should be in the bill. Will the minister assure me that the appeal will be allowed only on a point of law? We do not want sheriffs to be the final arbiter on what is an appropriate location. Given some of the sheriffs that I know, that would be rather bizarre.
My colleagues and I rejected the notion that the registrar general, who is an unelected official, should be given the power to revoke local authority approval of a location. In my view, that would be undemocratic. I am pleased to hear that the minister agrees with that point. The local authority should be given the legal responsibility for decisions on the granting, withholding or withdrawal of approval of a location. That would be in line with the provisions of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
We are of a mind that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 could be amended, as Tricia Marwick said, to allow its regulations to be employed for the purpose of licensing places for civil marriages. Sylvia Jackson will expand on that point when she speaks later.
We are also concerned that the bill contains no provisions for approvals to be challenged, so we call on the Executive to amend the bill at stage 2 to allow for objections to be made. I understand from what the minister said that the draft regulations have now been amended accordingly.
Although we do not want to lose sight of the significance of the marriage ceremony, we believe that it is near impossible to define what "seemly and dignified" means. We agree with the Equal Opportunities Committee's observation that:
"What is "seemly and dignified" in life, let alone on one's wedding day, is entirely subjective."
I am pleased that the minister agrees that there is a need for further discussion. I look to the regulations for that matter to be resolved. We shall keep our eye on that.
I note the minister's comments on the requirement that venues for which approval is sought should have no recent or continuing connection with any religion or religious ceremonies. It is interesting that both the Local Government Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee took evidence under a stained glass window in an old church. Had it not been freezing cold, the building could have been a good wedding venue. On reflection, had we had rather a large whisky and a few dances, we might have produced a different kind of report. The place was definitely very cold.
Although we ended the committee's report with the words,
"The Committee agrees to recommend that the Parliament approves the general principles of the Bill",
I still had serious concerns at the time about some of the issues that have been highlighted today. However, as the minister—whose bill this is—and the Executive have moved significantly, I am satisfied that if the promised changes are made, we will have a good bill.
We will still keep an eye on the unresolved issues; they are being discussed. We will again bring people before the committee to cross-examine them, especially on the regulations. I am sure that the minister will appear before the committee again.
I urge the Parliament to support the general principles of the bill.
We move to the open part of the debate. I have had six requests to speak, so we should get everybody in if members do not take more than five minutes.
Like other members, in principle I welcome the bill, which is basically about equality and choice. As Euan Robson said, couples who wish a civil marriage are at present limited in their choice of location. The bill sets out to rectify that.
Like other members, however, I have reservations about what might be seen as over-legislation. Some witnesses, such as the one from Dumfries and Galloway Council, stated that extending the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to include within local authorities' licensing powers the power to register approved places would suffice. That could be done without the bill.
Perhaps the minister will correct me if I misheard him when I was trying to listen to his speech, but as the 1982 act is under review I would like him to say whether he knows what the outcome of that review is. When will we know the outcome of that review? I ask that question because speed is of the essence.
I would like clarification on another point the minister made. Did he say that nothing in the 1982 act prevents local authorities approving suitable places?
I am sorry, but I cannot answer that detailed question just now. I shall try to write to Ms White to answer her point.
What I was trying to say earlier was that procedures under the regulations to be made under the legislation that we are discussing today would be made compatible with the procedures under the regulations in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. In other words, the practical implications for the local authority committee that might consider the regulations would be, simply, that the committee would meet at the same place and at the same time but would make any approvals under a different piece of legislation. The transition from one set of regulations to another should be seamless. The working group has been trying to ensure that that is what will happen. I hope that that answer has been reassuring.
I did not catch all that Mr Robson said first time round, but I think I understood exactly what he said. That is why I want to ask this pertinent question: why do we need a separate piece of legislation? Local authorities and individuals are asking that question, and I too am asking it now, because I have reservations about what is being proposed.
At the moment, many local authorities are cash-starved or cash-strapped. In evidence to the Local Government Committee, a representative of Dumfries and Galloway Council said that the council might have to use more resources going through the approval scheme under the proposed legislation and that that would be a waste. Why do we need separate legislation if what is being proposed can be incorporated in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982? I have raised that issue before. However, having made that criticism of the bill, I repeat that we support it in principle. I believe in it.
I will be parochial on this point. Everyone who reads the newspapers knows that Glasgow is to become St Valentine's city because St Valentine's bones were found in the Gorbals a number of years ago. There will be a week-long festival, which is absolutely marvellous. Glasgow is already a great tourist attraction, but if the current proposals came into force—through a separate act or as an add-on to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982—they could promote Glasgow's chances of becoming even more of a tourist attraction. If people came over to celebrate what I hope would be an annual St Valentine's week festival, they could perhaps even get married in Glasgow—on Glasgow green, in the botanic gardens, or wherever they wanted.
I approve of the proposals in the bill—it is marvellous that people should have the choices that they will offer—but I wonder whether separate legislation is required.
I call Iain White. I am sorry—Iain Smith.
I think, Presiding Officer, that you are making assumptions about marriage that I am not willing to enter into. In fact, I thought that I would start by declaring that I have no personal interest in this subject at all.
I would like to answer Sandra White's question. The bill is needed because we have to amend the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977. This is not about regulations—those that come under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 or otherwise. If we are to allow marriages to happen outwith a register office, the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 has to be amended—and that requires legislation. That is my reason for congratulating Euan Robson on introducing this legislation as a member's bill and then, when he became a minister, persuading the Executive to take it on as a piece of Executive legislation.
This is a good example of the type of legislative reform that—even though everyone agreed it was a good thing—would never have happened had we not had a Scottish Parliament. Time would never have been found for it in the legislative programme at Westminster. It is one of those small things that could never have happened before devolution.
The bill will bring particular benefits for tourism. As the minister said at the end of his speech, tourism is an important part of all this. I foresee applications coming in for a number of the excellent tourist venues in North-East Fife. Many people will want to get married by teeing off at the first tee of the Old course at St Andrews; or within the grounds of Falkland Palace; or down in the east neuk at picturesque harbours such as the one at Crail; or even on a fishing boat out at Pittenweem; or in the fisheries museum at Anstruther. Close to where I was brought up in the little village of Gateside, the Maiden's bower under the Lomond hills might be an interesting location for a wedding.
Conservation villages such as Collessie and Ceres, and even Kellie Castle, would be suitable venues for weddings. For those who want to be more serious about it, there is Scotland's secret bunker at Crail. The list goes on and would include the many excellent hotels in the area. The bill is a valuable piece of legislation and of particular benefit to the tourism industry.
The Local Government Committee has a reputation for being able, as a result of committee deliberation, to persuade ministers of changes that need to be made to legislation. I congratulate Euan Robson on accepting many of the recommendations of the Local Government Committee's report. Our main concern is the level of regulation. Personally, I think that it is unnecessarily prescriptive and heavy handed. In general, the bill is enabling legislation that should allow local registration authorities the discretion to make decisions about where marriages may be conducted outwith register offices. Instead, we have a fairly detailed set of regulations that will prescribe the way in which local authorities can exercise that discretion. Surely it should be left to the registration authorities and locally elected councillors to determine how to exercise that discretion and what places in their areas are appropriate for marriage ceremonies.
My colleagues have already addressed some of the issues, but I want to draw attention in particular to the regulation on approved places. Regulation 8(2)(a) of the new draft regulations that were published yesterday refers to a
"seemly and dignified venue for the solemnisation of a marriage".
In the committee, I attempted to get a definition of "seemly and dignified". I put the question to the deputy registrar general, who was responsible for drafting the regulations and guidance. He said that the wording would be left to local authorities to interpret:
"we are content to let them interpret it as they will. To some extent, an elected member of a local authority will have a view on what might be seemly and dignified … We do not want to dictate from Edinburgh what might be regarded as seemly and dignified in the Western Isles or the Scottish Borders."—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 27 November 2001; c 2453.]
That is fair enough, but why bother putting it in the regulations? There seems little point putting something in the regulations that has no definition and is going to be left to other bodies to determine in each case.
A similar problem exists in relation to draft regulation 8(2)(b) and religious practice. Trish Godman and I have made jocular mention of the Hub, which was formerly a church. Could one hold a wedding there? COSLA raised a question in its written evidence about a hotel that regularly uses a room for religious marriages. Would the hotel be able to use the same room for civil marriages under the regulations? It seems an unnecessary piece of legislation; such matters should be left to the discretion of local authorities.
The new draft regulations refer to a restriction on successive applications. I wonder what that is for. I envisage Liz Taylor being caught up by that regulation when trying to get through several more marriages in a year. It seems a little restrictive. Regulation 11 says that someone cannot make an application for the same place in one year. The standing orders of most local authorities allow for delaying reconsideration of a decision—usually that is a period of six months. The appropriate time for reapplications should be left to the local authority to determine.
I know that the draft regulations are not part of the bill and are open for amendment. I hope that the minister will take on board the need for a light touch. We require enabling regulations rather than prescriptive ones. There must be an opportunity for the committee to consider the regulations before they are published in a form that requires an affirmative instrument. It is important that we have an opportunity to suggest amendments before the regulations are laid.
We welcome the proposals. They are good for the Scottish tourism industry. This is a good piece of legislation—let us not mess it up by following it with a bad statutory instrument.
I welcome the general principles of the Marriage (Scotland) Bill. Seeking to extend the choice of venue for those who want to have a civil marriage in Scotland is a very worthwhile aim and one that deserves the support of the Parliament. It is high time that the present anomaly was addressed. I congratulate Euan Robson on doing so in the bill. Proposing legislation that will allow couples to get married in the venue of their choice, rather than being restricted to one of Scotland's 247 registration offices, makes perfect sense. People should not be penalised, as they are at the moment, purely because they opt for a non-religious ceremony, so I welcome the modernisation of this aspect of the marriage ceremony in Scotland.
However, there is always a but. By and large, I agree with the bulk of the proposals in the bill, but there are a number of issues that need more clarification. I am pleased that Euan Robson has accepted that to be the case in making many changes to the bill in line with the concerns that were raised during consideration of the bill in committee.
I am disappointed, however, that Euan Robson will not accept the changes that were proposed by the Equal Opportunities Committee, which centre on a local authority's requirement to pass judgment on what is "seemly and dignified" and "morally disreputable". How can it be reasonable to ask a local authority to judge on the suitability of a venue by having to interpret such highly subjective and vague terminology? Those terms are almost impossible to define in a meaningful way that would be acceptable and inoffensive to all. I urge the Executive to reconsider the requirement for that apparently unnecessary, restrictive and downright impractical definitive description. Is it not enough that the ceremony should be conducted in a safe, practical and trouble-free setting?
Furthermore, the requirement that the local authority should be satisfied that the venue has
"no recent or continuing connection with any religion or religious practice"
is also too restrictive. I cannot conceive of a current religious building being used, but I have to question why a former religious building or connected establishment could not be suitable for a civil ceremony. As such buildings would no longer be consecrated, the restriction appears ludicrous.
Trish Godman and Iain Smith mentioned the former church building across the road from this chamber—the Hub, which is a case in point. If it, a former church, can be home to a cafe, bar and internet facilities, and be a venue for meetings of parliamentary committees, why should it not be a place where civil marriages can take place? Indeed, it could be argued that any parliamentary meetings that took place there would be more immoral. They are certainly likely to be more unseemly and undignified. If we can meet in a building such as the Hub, why cannot a civil marriage take place in a similar circumstance?
The bill should not burden local authorities with omnipotent decisions on what is dignified for a marriage service. A wedding ceremony is an individual and personal event and has different meanings for different people. To provide equality and impartiality, we must embrace cultural diversity rather than endorse the rules that restrict it. The aim of asking local authorities to assess the appropriateness of a venue's moral suitability is worrying and may lead intentionally or unintentionally to discriminatory practices and blinkered decisions.
If considerations are to be objective and avoid bias, the prerequisites in the bill must be revised. The subjectivity of the restrictions defeats the purpose of the bill's aims. Although I agree with the principles of the bill, I hope that the above points will be considered in future scrutiny of it.
I am not a member of the Local Government Committee, so I have not had the benefit of listening to all the evidence that has been given to it, although I have, of course, read its report closely.
I speak as someone who quickly signed up to Euan Robson's member's bill. I speak to him not in his role as a minister but as a member who feels strongly about the issue, as I do. Like Euan Robson, I have received lots of approaches from people in my constituency—probably as a result of having signed the bill—who are not religious, who choose to get married and who find it unfair that they are restricted as to where the ceremony can be carried out. That is a mark of how difficult it is for people who have no religion and who are not willing to pretend that they have a religious conviction to meet the standards of the society that we live in, which is firmly built on religious institutions such as marriage.
Such institutions also include funerals. It was difficult for my family when my father died unexpectedly: his wishes were that he should have a funeral that was in no way religious. We were not prepared for the event, and it was very difficult to carry out his wishes. Furthermore, some of the things that were said to us as a family when we were trying to arrange the funeral were hurtful. At some point, we must address the issue of people without religion.
I was pleased when Euan Robson published his draft member's bill and was pleased by its intentions, but when the Executive published the bill after Euan Robson was promoted, I found it cumbersome and not nearly as simple as I thought it should be. It seemed to me that the draft bill gave religious celebrants the option of marrying people anywhere, but the bill as introduced will restrict marriage venues to places that a local authority deems acceptable.
I agree with Michael McMahon's strongly expressed opinion that a local authority should not be left to work out whether a place is suitable as a marriage venue. I ask the minister to look again at that matter. After all, one person's meat is another person's poison. If ministers of religion are willing to marry people in such places as mountain-tops, they should be allowed to do so. I believe that this is an equality issue. Why should someone who wants a registrar to marry them not have the same option? Perhaps the person who carries out the ceremony should decide whether they are willing to do so in a particular venue or location.
I was a bit concerned about the views of the Local Government Committee and some councils that it should be easy to amend the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. One council—perhaps it was Dumfries and Galloway Council—said in evidence that that could be done by the insertion of only three words into the 1982 act. I urge caution on that matter, because in a job that I used to have I worked with the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. It is a cumbersome piece of legislation that is not clear. I am pleased that the 1982 act is being reviewed by the Executive, because it should be. Such a review is long overdue.
There was a recent amendment to the 1982 act in relation to houses in multiple occupation, which is an issue that we in the Social Justice Committee have been investigating. I will not pre-empt that committee's decision on the operation of that amendment, but my view is that it was wrong to make such an amendment, whose effects have been terribly cumbersome. It was a bad piece of legislating to amend the 1982 act to take on board something else, so I urge the Local Government Committee to be cautious about the view that it should be simple to amend the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to take the issue of marriage venues on board.
I err on the side of caution by believing that primary legislation is required on the issue of marriage venues, but I also have great worries about the volume of secondary legislation that will be required. I concur with the Local Government Committee's view: if we are to have primary legislation, let us have as much as possible in the bill to avoid discrepancies in the future and, indeed, vague legislation. Regulation is fine, but we must have something that can be enforced. I am sure that we can find a compromise between primary legislation and regulation that would allow decisions on the suitability of venues for marriage to be carried out equitably for everyone.
I begin by apologising to you, Presiding Officer, and to members for the delay in my arrival. I was called to a meeting with ministers on a constituency matter that was rearranged at the last minute.
I want to speak because, despite other members' attempts to sell their areas, we cannot have this debate without mentioning Gretna, which is Scotland's marriage capital. Indeed, on the basis of evidence that the Local Government Committee took, Gretna has the busiest registration office in the United Kingdom.
There were 1,062 marriages in Gretna last year, which is more than the adult population of the community. The marriages and their surrounding events are an important business for that community. I am pleased that, following the announcement that the Executive is minded to proceed with the bill, VisitScotland and other organisations are keen to promote that business aspect of the bill, because it will allow current services to be extended.
Dumfries and Galloway Council has made efforts to provide an attractive venue at the register office, but issues remain because the register office also serves the community and other activities are conducted there. The opportunity exists to widen the choice of location to the old blacksmith's shop, for example, which was traditionally a wedding venue. The area has a history of weddings and of people crossing the border for them. Tremendous scope is available for development. I am keen to give encouragement to all who are involved in that.
As members have said, if we are to have a system of designation, it must take into account the needs of those who marry. I have noticed that in Gretna a significant number of those who marry have children, either from a previous marriage or from their existing relationship, and they want those children to be a part of their marriage ceremony. That is where we start to run into difficulties with an expression such as "seemly and dignified", because it probably means "boring". We want to maintain the dignity of the ceremony, but we do not want to restrict how people organise their marriages.
I would be cautious about being over-prescriptive and about people assessing venues or getting bogged down in measuring them and in the regulation that sometimes accompanies such tasks. I agree with Iain Smith—we need to be a bit looser about that and allow local authorities their own approaches.
I do not know whether, over Christmas, any other members saw a late-night television programme called "Extreme Marriages", which I happened upon by chance. In fact, it was not about the extremities of the partners—that is an unfortunate expression.
Does the member agree that he is the saddest person in the chamber?
I think that the programme was on a subscription channel.
I disagree with Tricia Marwick. The SNP's former leader was a great Ceefax devotee. The pictures that I watched were moving.
The programme gave viewers an insight into the psyche of people who were marrying in the United States, from which we cannot learn much. I was fascinated by the simultaneous marriage of 400 couples on the steepest big dipper in Kentucky. That ceremony was shown along with ceremonies that took place not only underground, but underwater in full diving gear.
The system in Scotland should not encourage some of those American excesses, but it should allow people to have a marriage that is meaningful to them and allows them to celebrate their marriage in the way that they choose. I congratulate Euan Robson on introducing the bill. Having made that move forward, we should not step back by making the system unduly restrictive. Let us hope that the bill provides a basis for more marriages to take place in Gretna and its immediate environs, which are very attractive.
Before we commence the closing speeches, I call Richard Lochhead to bring the open debate to a seemly and dignified conclusion.
Despite someone saying that bigamy is having too many wives and monogamy is the same thing, I will sign away my freedom this July, when I tie the knot. That is why I wished to speak in the debate. I take a keen interest in the bill and say to members that if any of them have tips on how to have a successful marriage, I am all ears.
My fiancée and I have decided to go down the traditional route. We have decided to be married in Cluny parish church, a beautiful old church in deepest Aberdeenshire where previous generations of my fiancée's family were married. Getting married on a big dipper in Kentucky did not occur to us, but perhaps my fiancée will change her mind when I tell her about it.
I realise that the route that we are choosing is not the one that other people want to choose. That is fine—society moves on and times change. Our legislation has to reflect that. Neither politicians nor anyone else should moralise on marriage or make life difficult for anyone who wants to get married. There should be no restriction on where people get married, or on who can marry them. While some people will go to any lengths to avoid getting married, others go to great lengths to do so—we know that people go to Florida, Hawaii and Las Vegas. I remember seeing skydivers on television tying the knot mid-flight.
The benefit of the bill is that people will be given more choice about by whom and where they get married. It is only right that rather than have to choose between limited options, as is the case at the moment, people who wish a civil ceremony should have a number of locations from which to choose. That option is available to those who choose a religious ceremony. Civil ceremonies could be conducted in hotels, public buildings, historical locations and other venues. That would provide a boost to the economy, particularly in our rural areas, where people often have to travel to get to a register office.
I attended a successful wedding exhibition last weekend at the Aberdeen Music Hall. I confess I had to be dragged along to it. I am preparing to invest in the institution of marriage, but it was only when I saw the price of things at the exhibition that I realised how much we are supposed to invest in a marriage.
A number of people I met at the exhibition wanted to speak to me about the bill, which made the visit worth while. A local hotelier spoke to me, as did the local registrar. Hoteliers welcome the bill: they see opportunities, as the bill would widen the options that they can offer. They think that it would be good for their businesses and would help them meet the requirements of many of their guests. At the moment, they have to keep lists of ministers and help with arrangements for the visiting parties. The bill would save them that trouble, as it would make things a lot simpler. As has been said, the bill would be good for tourism nationally, as people could stay in this country—they would not have to go abroad.
The registrars I spoke to have concerns, many of which have been reflected throughout the debate. Registrars want to retain the dignity of ceremonies and their independence from religious ceremonies. I agree with many of the comments that have been made about that. Registrars take issue with the view, expressed by the Local Government Committee, that the term "seemly and dignified" is subjective, restrictive and should be left out of the bill. However, I agree with the committee on that issue.
We have to listen to the registrars' concerns. In that respect, the legislation should be as lax as possible. We also have to bear in mind that registrars might require time to adapt to the new legislation, as it will put extra pressures on their offices. Once the bill is passed into law, they could be inundated with a flood of applications.
I support the bill. It is a modern piece of legislation and the Parliament should support its general principles.
I must thank David Mundell for his most entertaining speech. It brought back fond memories of the European Committee. I may not be able to do likewise, but I will try.
The bill is one of the most interesting to be dealt with by the Local Government Committee. Many of the thoughts that David Mundell described have gone through our minds. One of the witnesses who came before the committee described how the banks of Loch Lomond might be used for the civil marriage service. I warmed to that suggestion when it was made.
As Iain Smith outlined, there is very little debate. We need the bill to amend the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977—there is no issue over that. It offers us a choice of venues for civil marriages, which not only brings us in line with England and Wales but goes a lot further because we are dealing with places as well as buildings. That said, there are a number of other issues that require to be aired, if only to encourage further discussion and consultation before we get to stage 2. It is necessary that we highlight those issues so that the working group can move on in its consideration.
The main point I want to discuss relates to the associated regulatory framework—which has been touched on as the main issue here—and the legislation that is needed for those regulations. The first witness, James Smith from Dumfries and Galloway Council, who has been mentioned by a few people, considered that only minor changes were needed—three words in one section and six lines somewhere else—to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. He spoke of the tremendous over-regulation in the draft regulations before us and said that it was a waste of resources to draft separate legislation. He quoted the example of houses in multiple occupation, which have been licensed recently, and how easily that had been tied into the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. He added that there is already sufficient law and practice in licensing for us to use easily. It is further argued that there should have been detailed consultation before this stage. That is at the heart of the problem. Dumfries and Galloway Council and the Association of Registrars of Scotland made that point and I am sure that they will welcome the further discussion.
The official that the member mentioned is now a member of the working group, so the suggestions that he is making are being taken on board by the group.
I take on board what the minister says, but if it had happened earlier we would have been further down the road and may well have had a slightly different way of approaching the problem.
The proposed regulation essentially came from the registrar general. It was the non-inclusiveness at that earlier stage that could have been changed. The Local Government Committee was told by the General Register Office for Scotland that a short-term working group was considering the regulations and guidance, the purpose of the group being to improve the initial draft. The minister has told us that that is now on the website—that is welcome.
We look forward to the final changes that will be made. I welcome the affirmative order that the minister mentioned, so that the regulations can be debated. Having said that, I have to go back to Tricia Marwick's point, which was very much, "Are we going down the right road?" We may have to take more evidence on how the regulations have been addressed by the bill. In paragraph 21 the committee questioned whether there was a need for separate regulations. The committee also said that it thought that there could be changes to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. We will have to go back and address that issue. There have been changes to the draft regulations but there may be more fundamental issues that we will have to consider again. Nonetheless, I welcome the bill and the general principles and have no hesitation in agreeing to them.
I was beginning to think that I had dropped off the end of the speakers list.
It is not unusual in a chamber that is predominantly left of centre to hear the greats such as Marx, Lenin and Mao Tse-Tung being quoted. I am surprised when I hear certain of my colleagues, including, on one occasion, Brian Monteith, getting up to that game. I would like to take the opportunity to begin my speech today by quoting Marx, for it was Groucho who said, "Marriage is an institution, but who wants to live in an institution?"
That is an old one.
It is extremely old.
The Conservatives have always tried hard to recognise the significance and importance of marriage. We have learned to accept a whole range of human relationships and their significance, but the pre-eminence of marriage is something that we will continue to speak out in favour of.
Marriage has become extremely popular in this Parliament. My colleague Ben Wallace recently got married and we have now heard that Richard Lochhead intends to make that same—
Sacrifice?
Journey.
Let us say that he intends to make the same journey in months to come.
We must recognise the fact that marriage is important. Anything that we can do in this Parliament to encourage people to get married in a way that they see as appropriate is well worth the effort.
The bill satisfies a proven demand. I congratulate Euan Robson on having introduced it, but I would like him to clarify in his closing remarks one or two points that have been raised in the debate. In particular, the question of whether what is contained in the bill could be achieved by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 was raised by Tricia Marwick and Keith Harding early in the debate. Iain Smith addressed that issue when he suggested that it was definitely necessary to amend the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 in order for that to happen. I ask the minister to clarify the situation when he winds up the debate.
We cannot leave the debate without going over some of the less serious points that have been made. Perhaps they are in fact serious in the sense that there are many benefits that can accrue to local economies as a result of providing the opportunity for civil ceremonies to take place in a range of other places. We heard Iain Smith's advert for the Fife tourist board, which was very effective. Perhaps Fife will begin to steal some of the business that is currently and deservedly held by Gretna, but I am sure that David Mundell will not give up without a fight. David was a late arrival to the debate, but he was certainly worth waiting for, as he introduced one of the lighter moments.
The Scottish Conservatives will, with others, ensure that the Marriage (Scotland) Bill receives appropriate scrutiny at stage 2 so that it meets the objectives set out in the policy memorandum. We broadly welcome the bill and will do all that we can to ensure that it succeeds in providing appropriate legislation.
Iain Smith spoke eloquently about the joys of North-East Fife, but not about the whole of Fife. One of the absolute pleasures of being a regional member is that I can speak for the whole of an area, as I can for God's own kingdom, Fife. If we do not stop at Falkland and look beyond that border, we find wonderful locations, not the least of which is Balgonie castle in Markinch. Dunfermline glen, although it is not perhaps a marriage venue, has certainly been the place for courting or winching couples for a long time. I am quite sure that Dunfermline glen might want to be considered as a place for marriages. I shall stop at that point, in case my youthful indiscretions come tumbling out.
The debate was brightened considerably by the contributions of David Mundell and Richard Lochhead. I am sure that all my colleagues join me in wishing Richard all the best in July. Having been married for 26 years, I am happy to give him all the advice he needs.
There is great willingness on all sides of the chamber for the Marriage (Scotland) Bill to become law. We are all very much committed to it. I thank Euan Robson for introducing it, both as a member's bill and as an Executive bill, but there are still problems. There is no desire on anyone's part to delay or try to destroy the bill that he has introduced.
I know that members can get precious about their own bills, but I do not want the minister to be precious about this bill. We should ensure that we pass a bill with a framework to take into the 21st century. Perhaps we can attract tourists from all over the world, who might want to marry in our glorious country.
I congratulate Euan Robson on the bill, but much work is still to be done. I am sure that, following discussions with the Local Government Committee and others, there can be a fine bill.
I call on Euan Robson to wind up for the Executive. He has nine minutes, although my script says that he has only eight.
The debate has been interesting and fruitful. I hope that members recognise from what I said that the Executive has been prepared to take into account the committees' views. The Executive will also take into the account the views expressed in Parliament today.
I record my grateful appreciation of the support for the general principles of the bill throughout the chamber. Before I respond to points that members have made, I will repeat what we have already done to meet concerns that have been raised.
We have set up a joint working group comprising the General Register Office for Scotland, local authorities and registrars to amend the draft regulations and draft guidance. That work is continuing. I say to Tricia Marwick that the intention was never to hide the regulations away—I think that she used those words. Our intention is to make the regulations open and subject to extensive parliamentary scrutiny. The bill referred to them and we thought that it was good practice that they should be there when the bill was being considered. The General Register Office for Scotland will be interested in members' comments during the debate and any additional comments.
The Executive has listened to what the lead committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee have said. As I said, we propose to lodge an Executive amendment at stage 2 to provide that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure the first time that they are made. I will see what I can do to ensure that the committees have an opportunity to comment on the final drafts of the regulations and the guidance. I hope that that will be helpful.
I also said that the Executive will lodge an amendment at stage 2 so that there will be a right of appeal against a decision made by a local authority. On Trish Godman's point, the appeal to the sheriff is limited. Details are in the draft regulations, but the right of appeal will be in the bill.
We have removed the statutory obligation on a local authority to consult the district registrar. The draft guidance now contains a form of words that is acceptable to local authorities and registrars alike.
The draft regulations have been amended to remove the registrar general's power of revocation and they now contain provisions to allow third parties to object to an application. There are also provisions for the suspension, revocation and variation of approvals.
I congratulate Richard Lochhead on his forthcoming marriage. It would be neither seemly nor dignified to comment on David Mundell's marital extremities, as he put it. On Sandra White's important point about the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, we need to amend the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977, as Iain Smith made clear. He made the key point that we cannot proceed without doing that. I am grateful to him for doing so. I am also grateful to Linda Fabiani for her initial support and her comments today.
Iain Smith spoke about a bar on successive applications. In fact, that was requested by the local authorities, but his comments will be taken on board. He also made a point about overregulation. It is necessary to set a framework to allow registrars to carry out civil marriages safely in places where they do not have direct control. We must ensure safety for them in their activities.
Michael McMahon and other members talked about the requirement that the venue must be "seemly and dignified". The Executive feels that it is appropriate for local decisions to be taken on that. We will bear in mind what was said about that and about the use of venues with a religious connection. We will consider those matters again. Although some members seem to think that those issues are dealt with in the bill, they are in the regulations. It is appropriate to discuss them when the regulations are discussed.
The balance between primary and secondary legislation gave considerable cause for concern among members. It was hoped that an appropriate balance had been struck. Again, that is something that the Executive will consider and review during stage 2 and when the regulations are considered further.
The requirement for local authority approval will ensure consistency of approval in local council areas. It is appropriate for local councils to have discretion to consider their localities, about which they know best. A requirement for approval by individual registrars might risk inconsistency in local authority areas.
It is worth remembering that the concerns that have been raised in the debate were primarily about the draft regulations and guidance, not the bill or its principles. I reiterate my thanks to members from all parties for their support for the general principles of the bill.
I will conclude with the issues of choice and tourism. It is important and welcome that the bill extends choice. On tourism, it is interesting to note some recent figures, which show that in 2000, 8,426 marriages took place in which both contracting parties did not reside in Scotland. That is 27 per cent of marriages. That demonstrates that people will come to Scotland to get married. The bill will build on a trend that has been evident for a number of years. Although in some ways the bill is modest, it is important because it will give Scots and visitors to Scotland more choice than they have at present.
I commend the bill to members and the chamber.