There are later sections on which we might more profitably go into this in more detail. What the Minister says raises a very broad field, indeed, which is relevant not only to this Bill but to a lot of other matters, not the least important of which are various social welfare problems which have arisen in recent years particularly as a result of some decisions taken by the Department of Social Welfare in relation to allowances for deserted wives.
I do not want to go into that in any great detail but the situation is not satisfactory to this extent. As the Minister says, there appear to be two judicial decisions which are in conflict. The one which seemed to stand for a long time was the Mayo-Perrott case which seemed to be quite clear. There was a subsequent one to which the Minister referred and there is also one the name of which I cannot remember, and I do not know whether it is reported, which was a decision by Mr. Justice Kenny in a case under the Succession Act.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach will fill us in on it if I go wrong. I understand that within the limitations of what he was asked to decide in that case, and within the limitations of the facts of that case, Mr. Justice Kenny recognised for the purposes of the Succession Act, 1965, the validity of a divorce in Britain between two people whose circumstances were particular. It does not necessarily follow from that, for the purposes of the Succession Act or any other purpose, other divorces would be recognised. Nevertheless, within those limitations that decision appears to conflict with Mayo-Perrott. Arising out of that are the non-judicial decisions, the administrative decisions of the Department of Social Welfare. The result is that there is a great deal of confusion amongst the people who are affected by British divorces, and who happen to be living here, as to what exactly their rights and their status are.
I appreciate that the Minister is not anxious to spell it out clearly. He said in replying to the debate on Second Stage that he did not want to purport to make judicial pronouncements, as it were, that these were matters for the courts, and that not much should be said about them in the debate on this Bill or similar Bills. I honestly do not think that is the right or appropriate attitude to take because the courts have shown that, to some limited extent at least, they are, on the face of it, in conflict on this point. It seems to me that this House and the Oireachtas generally should come to grips with a problem which will be a growing problem and should lay down precisely what the law should be on this point. It should not be left in the vague way it is at the moment.
This may not be the appropriate Bill on which to make very wide decisions in relation to the whole question of foreign divorce, but it is the appropriate Bill in which to lay down as the law of the Oireachtas what the situation is to be in regard to the obtaining and subsequent enforcement of maintenance orders where the deserting husband has gone to Britain and obtained a divorce, and where the wife here is either unaware of the divorce or is certainly not a consenting party to the divorce. She is in a very difficult position not just in relation to a maintenance order but in relation to allowances from the Department of Social Welfare.
I am afraid that the rather vague phraseology used in this Bill and the reluctance — although it is understandable, of course, up to a point— of the Minister to seek to put into the Bill the definitive expression of the views of the Oireachtas on this problem will continue the agony for many people. Quite a number are affected at present and one would envisage that with recent changes in divorce laws in Britain, and they are fairly drastic changes, the number of deserted wives who will be affected in the future will be quite considerable. We should seek in a Bill such as this to solve their problems. Why should somebody have to go to the Supreme Court, as it will have to be now, because on the face of it two decisions on different aspects of this problem appear to conflict, and possibly spend several thousand pounds, to have this matter clarified? In my view this matter is in doubt and it is the duty of the Oireachtas rather than the duty of the courts to clarify the doubt and lay down what the position is to be.