S2M-4088 European Commission Green Papers (Divorce and Succession and Wills)

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 16 March 2006

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:15]

... ... ...

European Commission Green Papers (Divorce and Succession and Wills)

The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid): The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4088, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on behalf of the Justice 1 Committee, on European Commission green papers on applicable law in divorce and succession and wills.

14:55

... ... ...

15:44

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): The Justice 1 Committee brought this matter to the attention of the Parliament, because green papers have a habit of changing colour. There is little doubt that acting at an early point in the European legislative process increases dramatically the likelihood that one can influence the outcome. We have seen too often, when intervening at a late stage, that when a proposal has achieved a degree of momentum it can be difficult to dislodge.

The debate can be summed up in one simple phrase. Parliament is saying clearly and unambiguously to the European Union and its officials, "Get your tanks off our lawn; we're nae having it."

A number of members have raised the issue of the internationality of Scotland and the people in it and reference was made to some of my constituency work, which touched on that. It is worth saying that in the past couple of years a widow of a member of the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe has sought my help—her brother and her husband were both murdered by Robert Mugabe's men; I have heard from a Chinese acupuncturist who had residency problems; and I have spent something of the order of £500 on translation fees in seeking to help a Latvian father whose daughter had the misfortune to die in my constituency. I do not imagine that any member has had nothing of a similar nature in their constituency work.

The world is international; we cannot roll that back. That is not even a recent development. My great, great grandfather William Stewart emigrated to the United States, but did not like it much and came back. My great, great uncle Alexander Berrie went to Australia; he did like it, stayed there and became a multimillionaire. A rather distant cousin of mine, James Jeffrey, died in Shanghai in 1870 at the age of 33, thus cutting off his potential before it could be fully realised. In all the weddings that I have attended in the past 15 or 20 years, there have been six different nationalities among one or other of the partners. I am one quarter English, so I am used to cross-jurisdictional marriages.

I take particular interest in internationality because Banff and Buchan is the most cosmopolitan constituency in Scotland, which is reflected by the fact that we have three consulates. That might surprise some members.

There is little doubt that few if any of us have been approached by our constituents or by anyone else saying that the law that touches on international private affairs in either divorce or testamentary affairs requires to be changed. I have not met anyone who has been so approached. The reason for that is straightforward: by and large, the law works as well as it is possible for such things to work. None of us wishes ever to encounter either circumstance, but the reality is that death is inevitable and divorce is all too common. It is important that we have a well-founded, well-understood and well-established system for dealing with those matters. In Scotland, as in the majority of the countries in the European Union, there are well-established processes that mean that the law works pretty damn well.

Why are we considering change? Cynically, I say that it is perhaps because idle hands are looking for work to do. It would be proper for us to consider change that provides mutual benefit to people throughout the European Union, where there is a genuine, identifiable problem that requires it. We should make such changes by mutual decision making, which would ensure that the distinctive Scottish system was represented in whatever way was appropriate at the time. In that way, we would have mutual laws and practices. However, if there is no need for change, change should not be driven by officials.

We are clear that there is absolutely no blank cheque for EU proposals in this area. I do not believe that any political party, in the Parliament or beyond, wishes us to act in the way that the green paper suggests.

Under Scots law, it is straightforward to establish jurisdiction in divorce and testamentary matters. If we reach the position where people can shop for jurisdictions, applicable law will get really complicated. Recognition and enforcement work quite well at the moment.

Think of this: if the law were to change, fewer people might go to another country to marry. I am neither for nor agin that, but the people in Gretna might regret it if their business went down a bit because of potential complications for people who want to travel to another jurisdiction to marry.

The freedoms of people throughout Europe are protected by the status quo; the freedoms of people in Scotland are served adequately by existing Scots law. I hope that the minister either in her ministerial capacity or, if that is not possible, in her private capacity, will ensure that a copy of today's Official Report is delivered to the appropriate people in Brussels. I add my support to the motion.

15:51