Marriage (Scotland) Bill
We move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion S1M-2780, in the name of Jim Wallace, which seeks Parliament's approval that the Marriage (Scotland) Bill be passed. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now—or at least very soon. I call Euan Robson to speak to and move the motion.
I want first to thank members of the committees who have taken a keen interest in the Marriage (Scotland) Bill, in particular the Local Government Committee, which was the lead committee. That keen interest and the responsiveness of the Executive to members' views resulted in a bill that will provide considerable service to the people of Scotland.
I want briefly to remind Parliament about the policy objectives of the bill, which are to permit civil marriages to be solemnised at locations other than registration offices; to authorise local authorities to approve locations for that purpose; to authorise local authorities to charge fees to meet related costs and for connected purposes; and to enable the registrar general for births, deaths and marriages to give guidance on the above to local authorities.
The bill will extend the choice of marriage venues for brides-to-be and bridegrooms-to-be. The bill's principles have been widely supported in the Parliament and beyond.
Members have, in addition to considering the bill, paid close attention to the draft regulations and guidance that were published when the bill was introduced. It was important that members of the lead committee had access to the regulations and guidance in order to compare and contrast them as they developed, and to assist the committee in its consideration of the bill. The drafts have been revised and amended in response to the views of the working group that the registrar general formed. I thank for their work the working group's members who are representatives of local authorities and registrars.
A new draft of documents has been produced for members' information in time for this debate. I am sure that the efforts of the working group will prove to be valuable when the Parliament finally and formally considers the regulations after the bill has been enacted. Copies of the latest version are available in the Scottish Parliament information centre and on the General Register Office for Scotland website. Copies have been sent to the committees that have been considering the bill.
It is also important to say at this stage that we are pleased to acknowledge the Local Government Committee's concerns, and that we will use the affirmative order process for the regulations.
I close by reminding members of the key advantages that the bill will bring. The main benefit is that the bill will significantly extend choice. Many members receive letters from couples who are planning their weddings, asking when it will be possible for them to be married in a civil ceremony in a place of their choice. We want to allow them to do that as soon as possible. Another benefit is that the institution of marriage will be strengthened if the couple's memorable day is in a place of their own choosing.
There will be incidental gains. Scotland is doing a great deal to promote itself as an excellent place to visit. Romance and an historical connection with marriage will add significantly to that. The bill will allow greater choice to visitors as well as to people who live in Scotland.
Because the Marriage (Scotland) Bill will extend choice and bring benefits to Scotland, I commend it to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Marriage (Scotland) Bill be passed.
As the Marriage (Scotland) Bill returns to Parliament in the last stage before it becomes law, I again put on record my party's support for it. I congratulate Euan Robson on the bill, which started out as his proposal for a member's bill before it was adopted by the Executive. When the bill was first debated in the chamber, I said that I was pleased that we would be able to act to make the happy occasion of marriage happier still for the individuals involved. During that debate, I was please to be able to put on record the good Scots word "winching".
In too many cases, couples who are considering marriage have been forced to make a choice between faith and location. In a multicultural society, we should not allow the matter of personal religious belief—or the lack of it—to put limits on where a wedding should take place. One in three people who were married in a religious ceremony would have had a civil ceremony if a suitable location had been available. The bill will offer people such a choice, which is why it is important.
To fill in time in a previous debate on the bill, we highlighted many tourist spots in our constituencies. I will not do that again, but I point out that we have some nice castles in Fife.
The legislation is relatively uncontroversial and members should be able to unite in support of it. I welcome the Executive's sensible amendments on the matter of appeals over decisions that are taken by local authorities on the designations of approved places.
When first the bill was discussed, we had a problem with the fact that many of the provisions would be dealt with in regulations. The Subordinate Legislation Committee said that the bill did not strike the correct balance between primary and secondary legislation. The Local Government Committee was forced to consider a set of draft regulations, but would have preferred to consider more provisions in the bill. The minister's stage 2 amendments to make such regulations subject to parliamentary approval is a welcome step, but it falls short of allowing the Parliament and its committees fully to scrutinise and amend the regulations as we could have done had we been dealing with primary legislation. Those are minor points at this stage, but I hope that the Executive will consider them when introducing other bills.
I am pleased to support the bill, which should allow the Scottish Parliament to make the nation a happier place for those who happen to find themselves engaged and those rosy romantics in pursuit of marriage.
Once again, I apologise for my late arrival. However, it is quite normal at weddings.
I congratulate Euan Robson on introducing the bill to Parliament and the Executive on its taking on board of many of the amendments that were suggested by the Local Government Committee. Any legislation that helps to promote marriage and to increase the stability in family life that marriage offers is to be welcomed. However, the bill will not cover all eventualities or all problems; indeed, current legislation for church ceremonies does not do so either.
I recall my own marriage in Africa some 28 years ago. We wished to marry in the Church of Scotland church, but it was closed because the congregation could not get a minister. The Dutch Reformed Church agreed to our using its church, but it had no minister either. Eventually, the Salvation Army agreed to consider marrying us, but to finalise arrangements, we had to drive 200 miles into the African bush to meet a major at a leper colony that he ran with his wife. What we do for love!
The bill is worthy and the Scottish Conservatives are pleased to support it.
The Local Government Committee welcomes the objectives of the bill, which will permit civil marriages at locations other than registration offices, authorise local councils to approve locations for that purpose and to charge fees to meet costs, and enable the registrar general to give guidance to local councils.
There is no doubt that, as other members have said, passing the bill will allow couples who choose a civil ceremony to choose from a wider selection of locations for their weddings. However, during the bill's progress through the Parliament, I have received rather interesting letters from people, some of which I certainly cannot repeat in the Parliament. However, I will mention one in which I was asked whether I considered that a descending, exploding platform above a circus ring would be "seemly and dignified". I felt that that was an exploding platform too far.
There are positives in the bill. For example, it will allow islanders who desire a civil marriage in their own community that option, which did not exist in the past.
I am pleased that the minister has listened to the Local Government Committee's concerns and addressed them to our satisfaction. I am particularly pleased that he rejected the notion that the registrar general, who is an unelected official, should be given the power to revoke a local authority's approval of a location. The local authority should be given legal responsibility for such decisions.
Although the committee was of a mind not to lose sight of the significance of the marriage ceremony, it is nearly impossible to define "seemly and dignified". My example of the exploding platform perhaps clarifies that. I am pleased that the minister has taken "seemly and dignified" out of the regulations and will rely on the sensible decisions of registrars.
The two amendments that were agreed to today, concerning the right of appeal to the sheriff on the appropriateness of the proposed marriage site and the outlining of the grounds of appeal on points of law, are helpful. Those grounds relate to local authority decisions that are based on errors of law or incorrect material facts, or where a local authority has acted contrary to natural justice or acted unreasonably in the exercise of its discretion.
When the bill was introduced, the Local Government Committee had concerns, which we expressed at stages 1 and 2. Those concerns have been addressed to the committee's satisfaction.
I thank Euan Robson for introducing the bill to the Parliament and urge members to support it.
I welcome the bill. It is a very good example of the sort of thing that the Parliament can do that would not have happened before the Parliament was set up, because such a small piece of legislation would never have found time in the Westminster timetable.
The bill started life, as has been said, as a member's bill proposal from Euan Robson. When greatness was thrust upon him, he managed to persuade the Executive to take over and make it into an Executive bill. The fact that the Executive was willing to do that is also to be welcomed.
I am pleased with the way in which the matter has been dealt with through the committee structure, because it has shown that that structure works. As Trish Godman said, the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Local Government Committee both expressed a number of concerns at stages 1 and 2. The minister considered those concerns and brought back positive amendments.
The draft regulations that were published a couple of days ago are very different from those that we saw at stage 1, about which we had great concerns. I, in particular, had concerns about their heavy-handed nature. The new draft regulations have a much lighter touch. I asked whether we needed regulations at all and was told that local authorities wanted them. Local authorities seem to feel that they must be regulated and the new draft regulations allow them a framework rather than a prescriptive set of rules. That is a much better way forward.
The amendments to the provisions that cover the appeal procedure are also sensible. It would be nonsense were sheriffs able to second-judge the appropriateness of discretionary decisions that have been taken by local authorities. It is obviously up to local authorities to take account of all the factors, some of which sheriffs might not take into account, for example in relation to health and safety. Local authorities have a duty to protect the health and safety of their employees—the registrars who will carry out the ceremonies at the various places. A sheriff might decide that he is not particularly concerned about that issue in determining the outcome of an appeal. It is right that sheriffs will no longer be able to second-judge the discretionary element. They will be able to judge only on questions relating to whether there has been an error in law, questions concerning material facts, questions of natural justice or questions whether there has been inappropriate use of discretion. That marks an improvement.
I was a bit disappointed with Tricia Marwick's speech. I had hoped that she would go a bit further than she did in her summing-up speech during the stage 1 debate, in which she made some very interesting points about some of the locations in Fife that she visited as a youth. In that debate she said:
"I shall stop at that point, in case my youthful indiscretions come tumbling out."—[Official Report, 17 January 2002; c 5571.]
I hoped that we would hear episode 2 today but, sadly, she decided to be more discreet on this occasion—perhaps bearing in mind the solemnity and dignity of the occasion. It is useful that the words "seemly and dignified" have found their way out of the regulations. They are replaced by a more appropriate phrase:
"that the place will not compromise the solemnity and dignity of civil marriage".
That marks a much more sensible approach than a phrase whose meaning no one really knew.
The bill is now very good. It is overdue in this country, and will allow a great boost for the tourism industry. I will not repeat the passages in the Official Report about the many excellent locations in North-East Fife where weddings can now take place. I know that we have plenty of time left—members could probably spend the next 40 minutes or so advertising tourism in their areas.
I hope that members will take advantage of this opportunity, and that we will get some excellent wedding venues registered. I again congratulate Euan Robson on introducing the bill. I thank him, the Scottish Executive and the Local Government Committee officials for the way in which the bill has been handled.
I call Alasdair Morgan. [Members: "Alasdair Morgan?"] Your name was on screen, Mr Morgan. I conclude that you possibly did not wish to contribute.
I will certainly rise to speak briefly in favour of the motion, even though I do so simply because I pressed my request-to-speak button by mistake.
Be careful never to get married by mistake.
In any case, it is entirely appropriate that another member from the SNP benches rises to support the proposed legislation. Thank you.
I think that that was an "I do." I call Euan Robson to respond to the debate.
This has been an interesting, if short, debate. I am grateful for the support that the bill has received from the Parliament. When I looked at today's business bulletin, I was anxious that if we did not get the procedure right, people might end up having a civil marriage in the middle of an intermediate diet, and that accused persons might suddenly be able to have their intermediate diets held at a location of their choice in Scotland. I think, however, that we have got the procedure straight and I am pleased that that is the case.
In response to the Parliament's wishes, the Executive has fine-tuned the bill. We lodged stage 2 amendments to provide that, on the first occasion when regulations are made under the bill, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Today, the Parliament has passed our amendments to include in the bill the right of appeal against a decision made by a local authority, but—as the Local Government Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee suggested—on limited grounds.
We have amended the draft regulations and guidance to take into account members' views, and so that they fit more closely the procedures that local authorities currently use in licensing locations. I agree with Iain Smith that the regulations as they were originally drafted looked cumbersome, but I was pleased to hear that he feels that they have been simplified considerably.
With your indulgence, Presiding Officer, I turn now to the comments of the convener of the Local Government Committee on the nature of the regulations. I know that it is not strictly within the scope of the debate on the bill, but it would perhaps be useful to dwell on a couple of points that arose from the discussion about the regulations.
First, the draft regulations were made available so that the committee had them when it was considering the bill, rather than having to proceed in some form of vacuum. I appreciate Tricia Marwick's point about the balance between regulations and primary legislation, but I think that that balance was struck incorrectly to start with. I am pleased that she feels that the balance has tilted back in the appropriate direction.
I was prompted to write to the convener of the Local Government Committee because of views that were expressed in the stage 1 debate on 17 January. That debate focused on two aspects of the draft regulations, which will be published when the bill is enacted. In my letter, I indicated what the Scottish Executive planned to do to address the concerns that were expressed.
As previously drafted, the regulations required a local authority not to approve a place of solemnisation of civil marriages unless that authority was of the opinion that the place was a "seemly and dignified" venue for the solemnisation of the marriage. The regulations required that an authority be
"satisfied that the place has no recent or continuing connection with any religion or religious practice which would be incompatible with the use of that place for the solemnisation of civil marriages".
The clear preference of local authorities and registrars is that the draft regulations should continue to include provisions to guide local authorities on the suitability of places for civil marriages and to draw a clear demarcation line between civil marriages and religious marriages.
As has been discussed, there was concern about the rather antiquated language of "seemly and dignified". There was also concern that the use of that language would require local authorities to make an essentially subjective judgment. In making such a decision, local authorities' main focus should be on the primary use of a location. A local authority should reach a view about whether the primary use of a location would render it unsuitable if that use could be regarded as demeaning marriage or bringing it into disrepute.
Bearing that in mind, we have—as Iain Smith said—amended the draft regulations to provide that the location should not be approved if a local authority is of the opinion that it would
"compromise the solemnity and dignity of civil marriage".
That provides local authorities with adequate guidance and deals with the matter of exploding platforms, which were mentioned earlier.
With regard to the religious connection, there was concern about the provision that a place should have no
"recent or continuing connection with any religion or religious practice".
The stage 1 debate focused on that aspect, but did not fully acknowledge that the provision in the draft regulations is essentially a two-stage test.
First, a location must have
"no recent or continuing connection with any religion or religious practice".
The second test is that the location must not be
"incompatible with the use of that place for the solemnisation of civil marriages".
That means that a place that is used occasionally for religious practice, but whose primary purpose is non-religious, may be suitable for the conduct of civil marriages. A place in which a religious group meets occasionally would be suitable if its primary use was secular. Similarly a place that has the appearance of a religious building, but which is currently used primarily for secular purposes, might be suitable. In determining whether such places might be approved as venues for civil marriages, local authorities would examine and take into account present-day circumstances.
Although the Executive appreciates the comments that were made during the stage 1 debate, we feel it necessary to restate the purpose of the Marriage (Scotland) Bill, which is to make arrangements for civil marriages.
The arrangements for religious marriages are unaffected by the bill, so couples who wish to have a religious dimension to their marriage may opt for a religious marriage. The bill addresses the needs of those who would prefer religion not to be part of their marriages. Therefore, we still consider it necessary for the draft regulations to draw a demarcation line between the arrangements for civil and religious marriages. I hope that what is now provided in the draft guidance will be of better assistance to local authorities.
In both the matters of a place having no religious connection and being a "seemly and dignified" venue, the Executive believes that the local authority that is considering the application is the best arbiter of whether a place meets the conditions. We acknowledge that in some circumstances it might be difficult for a local authority to make such a decision, but we also feel that it is an important part of local democracy that such decisions are taken by the local authority concerned, rather than by the Executive. I hope that that has been of some assistance to members.
I would like to thank all those who have supported the bill. I am particularly grateful for the continuing support of those who supported the original proposal for a member's bill back in March 2000. I was interested to hear of Keith Harding's nuptials; his fortitude in getting married has clearly sustained him in his 28 years of marriage. I am grateful for the cross-party support that the bill has received and I would like to thank the Local Government Committee for its thorough consideration of the bill. Although it is a small bill and a modest measure, it is important. I commend the Marriage (Scotland) Bill to the Parliament.
That concludes the stage 3 debate on the Marriage (Scotland) Bill. I advise members that as a result of the business motion that was agreed to earlier, we can begin our committee proceedings on the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill no sooner than 4.24 pm.
Meeting closed at 15:56.