asked the Taoiseach his Government's policy in regard to the continuing constitutional ban on divorce; and whether it is proposed to recommend any changes in this regard.
Ceisteanna — Questions Oral Answers. - Divorce Ban.
1.
This matter will be fully considered by the All-Party Committee of the Oireachtas which the Government propose to establish to report and recommend on the problems of the protection of marriage under modern conditions and of marriage breakdown, and on any legislative or constitutional action that may be required.
I hope that it will be possible to get all-party agreement on the establishment and terms of reference of the committee at an early date.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the annulment of marriage by the Catholic Church and does this not form a type of Catholic divorce? Is he aware of the increased number of annulments by the Catholic Church over the past few years? Is that not an indication that we should consider divorce in this country?
I did not catch the Deputy's last phrases.
Is the Taoiseach aware that annulment of marriage by the Catholic Church is a Catholic form of divorce? Is he aware of the great increase over the last few years in annulments by the Catholic Church and is that not an indication that we should move with the times and think further of divorce in this country?
I would not wish to enter into theological dispute with the Deputy but I do not think it can be properly described as a Catholic form of divorce. I am aware of the many problems and anomalies that arise from the process of religious annulment and the difference between the annulment expedient of State and Church. Presumably this would be one of a number of issues which the Committee of the Oireachtas would consider.
The figures for the number of annulments would be available to the Taoiseach. They are not available to me but apparently over the past five years the number of marriage annulments in the Catholic Church has increased by over 2,000 per cent.
I have no figures available to me as of now although I am aware of reports that the number has increased over that period.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that this is just another example of refusal to grasp what Jack Lynch called the nettle that should be grasped? Is it not a fact that nearly 20 years ago—was it 1967?—there was such an all-party committee and while its recommendations were not acceptable to most of us its conclusions were that there was a need for divorce? Why are the Government continuing to put off taking a badlyneeded decision in his regard.?
Largely because the recommendations of that committee were in my view unacceptable as it proposed to introduce a different legal regime for people of different religions which I think would have been unworkable and undesirable leading to a situation where there would not be equality before the law.
I made a present of that to the Taoiseach.
The matter of what course of action should be pursued in relation to a subject as complex as this is one that I think would be best dealt with in the first instance by an all-party committee of the House. I would be concerned that that committee would be established speedily, would take its work seriously and issue its report speedily so that the House would face up speedily to whatever decision it reaches. I do not see this as an expedient for putting this matter off and I shall endeavour to ensure that the task of the committee is such as to give this House the necessary advice as to the course of action to be pursued as soon as possible.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that there is a need for civilised and comprehensive divorce laws to take account of the suggestion of Deputy Loughnane in terms of the distress and hardship caused by the present annulment system which is divorce under a different name and which causes tremendous problems as regards inheritance and succession laws and which in my humble experience seem to favour the wealthy rather than the poor. According to my knowledge of this area poor people experience tremendous delay and difficulty in getting annulments while wealthier people seem to be able to do it with greater speed and alacrity.
I am aware of the anomalies that exist including others to which the Deputy has not referred, such as bigamous marriages, which hitherto have not proved acceptable to being dealt with by the State and which bring the law of marriage into contempt. There are many anomalies here. That is why it is not a matter that can be dealt with in a simple way. It needs to be dealt with by an all-party committee to examine each of these different aspects and come up rapidly with conclusions as to what is the best way of tackling a situation which is now very much entangled and which for many of the people concerned and for their offspring, is very unsatisfactory.
Just like your predecessor you are afraid of getting a belt of a crozier—is it not as simple as that?
I shall refrain from replying to that comment although other people have not always suffered——
It is time you did something about it; you are now Taoiseach.
Does the Taoiseach think that the new Government will have difficulty in taking on board the propaganda expressed by Deputy Kemmy here today, that rich people find it easy to get divorce in the Catholic Church and poor people do not?
I will make no comment on that. I have no information to that effect. It is not a matter for this House to get involved in the procedures of particular churches.
Will the Taoiseach permit a free vote in his own party or will he put the whip on when any recommendation comes from the All-Party Committee?
The Taoiseach: The Deputy is anticipating. The first thing is to get agreement to the All-Party Committee, to get it established and working.
My question is whether the Taoiseach will allow a free vote in his own party or in the Coalition parties or will he put the whip on?
It is a matter which we will deal with in due course. The matter before us is the establishment of the All-Party Committee.
Will we have a repetition of the contraception vote by the Coalition?
(Interruptions.)