Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jul 1983

Vol. 344 No. 8

Joint Committee On Marriage Breakdown: Motion.

I move:

(1) That it is expedient that a Joint Committee (which shall be called the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown) consisting of 11 Members of Dáil Éireann and five Members of Seanad Éireann be appointed to consider the protection of marriage and of family life, and to examine the problems which follow the breakdown of marriage, and to report to the Houses of the Oireachtas thereon.

(2) That the Report of the Joint Committee shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas within a period of one year.

(3) That the Joint Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and, subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it for the purposes of particular inquiries.

(4) That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its Members to be Chairman, who shall have only one vote.

(5) That all questions in the Joint Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes by the Members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative.

(6) That the Joint Committee shall have power to print and publish from time to time minutes of evidence taken before it, together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

(7) That five members of the Joint Committee shall form a Quorum, of whom at least one shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and at least one shall be a Member of Seanad Éireann.

(8) That the Report of the Joint Committee shall, on adoption by the Joint Committee, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith, whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such Report together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

I move amendment No. 1:

In paragraph (1) to delete all words after "life," and substitute the following:

"to examine the problems which follow the breakdown of marriage, to make recommendations on any legislative or constitutional action that may be required, and to report to the Houses of the Oireachtas thereon."

The purpose of the amendment is to require the committee to make recommendations on any legislative or constitutional action that may be required and to report to both Houses. We have a second amendment that would require the committee to report within six months rather than the year which was provided for in the motion. Both amendments would restore the position to that agreed in the Joint Programme for Government and the position which was outlined by the Taoiseach in reply to a question I had tabled on the matter. Both of these amendments would restore the position to that agreed in the Joint Programme for Government. They also restore the position outlined by the Taoiseach to me on 26 January last, in reply to a question on the matter, when he said that an all-party Oireachtas committee would be established which would make recommendations on the protection of marriage in modern conditions, on the problems of marital breakdown and on any legislative or constitutional action that may be required. It also restores the position of the motion which was moved by the Government parties in the Seanad and passed on 15 June. That motion stated that it was the proposal of the Government to establish a Joint Oireachtas Committee which would make recommendations on the protection of marriage under modern conditions, on marital breakdown and on any legislative or constitutional action that may be required.

The reason these amendments are moved is that the present motion does not require the committee to make any recommendations. In their terms of reference there is no mention of the fact that they should discuss the question of divorce, or of recommendations for legislative proposals on any matter whether constitutional or otherwise. I am willing to go along with the idea that Members of this House require an all-party committee in order to provide some form of cover for themselves moving in the direction of divorce. But it would be totally nonsensical to have a committee discuss the whole question of marital breakdown, how marriage can be protected, and ignore the fact that they must, if their work is to have any effect at all, come up with recommendations with regard to the dissolution of marriage.

It has been estimated that something in the region of 70,000 adults in this State are at present affected by marital breakdown. Indeed, the public are way ahead of the politicians in this House in their attitude to the dissolution of marriage. Furthermore, we have the extraordinary position in which at least one church in this State allows marriages to be dissolved through their own courts. As a result people are remarrying, which second marriages are not recognised by the State. There are no procedures whatsoever by which a person can remarry in this State. It must be remembered that marriages have been breaking down and that people who can afford to do so can go abroad to obtain divorces. They can also obtain separations in the State through the courts. It is totally ludicrous for us to continue to ignore these facts. Therefore, I would press the Government to accept the amendments, as proposed, thereby giving this committee some positive role in relation to the matters they will be discussing.

I want to support what Deputy De Rossa has said on the need for hardening up the terms of reference of the all-party committee on marital breakdown. It must be nearly ten years since the last all-party committee on this issue deliberated. There has been much talk over the years as to what should or should not be done. Meanwhile nothing has been done. Therefore, the committee now being established will constitute a start on the part of this House in giving some leadership on this issue of grave concern to many people. There are something in the region of 70,000 people — not just couples, but people generally, including families — involved in marital breakdowns. Their position has been almost totally ignored by this House, people who have enormous legal problems both with regard to themselves and their children.

There are many different types of separations in this State. There are annulments, divorces a mensa et toro. There are legal separations. Then there are separations of no legal character at all, couples who voluntarily and mutually agree to separate. Then there are people who have obtained divorces outside the jurisdiction. All of these people encounter different problems. What we are really talking about are people whose marriages have irretrievably broken down, which is recognised by everybody in the community who has been involved with them — social workers, clergy, lawyers, solicitors and so on. They endeavour to reach some settlements within the constitutional provision that they can never remarry. Of course that leads to further problems, co-habitation, other families and perhaps even another separation. All sorts of legal complications result. It is very important that we assist them in sorting out these problems and provide some solutions for them.

For that reason presumably the committee when they sit will examine all of these problems. It will be vitally important that they make some recommendations to us in this House, giving us some kind of lead on what should be the next line of action. It is to be hoped that it will be a firm committee, able to make recommendations on which we can then act or not, as the case may be. It must be seen by the public to have some effect. Otherwise it will be seen by them as an attempt to brush all of these problems under the carpet to be forgotten about for 12 months. Reports may be issued but if they do not have recommendations they do not have any effect. If a recommendation is sent to the House it will be seen that the committee had some purpose and that we are giving a commitment and some leadership on this matter. It was expected by the public that the committee would be an all-party group that would examine the matter and make recommendations to the House.

Our first amendment asks that the committee make recommendations on any legislative or constitutional action that may be required and our second amendment seeks to shorten the time from 12 months to six months from the date of the passing of the motion. I ask the Government, the Government Chief Whip and the Fianna Fáil Chief Whip, to accept our amendments.

I should like to make a comment on the amendments tabled by The Workers' Party. I welcome the decision to establish these committees but I do not believe they will commence deliberations until October. Six months from now will bring us into December and that is not sufficient time for the committee to do all its work. It would be impossible for the committee to carry out all its work in that time. I disagree totally with the amendment which seeks to reduce the amount of time from 12 months to six months. The first part of The Workers' Party amendment is catered for in the motion which states that the committee will report to the Houses of the Oireachtas and I imagine that report will contain recommendations. I do not think the amendments are relevant.

Do I take it that if the Minister of State concludes the debate now I will not have a right to reply to the points raised about our amendments?

The Deputy has already spoken on the amendments.

Have I a right to reply to the points made on them?

Acting Chairman

No. The Minister of State moved the motion and the Deputy moved the amendments. The Minister of State has the right to reply. Before I call on the Minister of State is any other Member anxious to contribute? We are dealing with the motion and the amendments together. The order was that the Minister of State would move the motion and two amendments to it were moved. We are dealing with the three together.

Arising out of what Deputy Lemass said, I should like to know if the committees will meet during the recess, as we were given to understand yesterday by the Government Chief Whip? If what we were told yesterday is true then Deputy Lemass's comments are not relevant because the committees will be meeting from now on.

How many meetings will be held between now and October? It is obvious to me that there will not be any meetings in the month of August.

I take it I am entitled to ask a question?

Acting Chairman

I cannot allow a second speech by a Deputy who has already spoken but I will allow the Deputy to raise questions with the Minister of State when she has concluded.

If the Minister of State contributes now will any other Members have a right to speak after her?

Acting Chairman

Not under normal procedure. The Deputy may speak before the Minister concludes the debate.

Is the Chair making that ruling in relation to item No. 6? When I moved my motion I asked to be given the right to speak at the end.

I am anxious to raise some points on the other motion and, presumably, we are debating them separately.

Acting Chairman

The position is that the other motions have been agreed. In reply to a question by Deputy Ahern I agreed that he could come back on points relating to the previous items. We should do that before the Minister of State replies on No. 6 because otherwise there would not be anything left to discuss when she has completed.

The only difficulty is that the Minister of State who will be replying is not the person who moved the motion.

Acting Chairman

The procedure is that any Member can contribute before the Minister of State is called upon to reply.

Therefore we can contribute on any motion provided we stipulate the one.

Acting Chairman

Yes.

I am anxious to refer to the motion in my name, the committee on crime, lawlessness and vandalism. I should like to thank the Government who in a short period agreed with my party to the terms of reference for this select committee. All the committees being established today are important and I trust they will receive the support and interest of all Members. The committee I am referring to is probably the most important one to be established. It may not be for those representing rural areas but it is for Members from city areas. I gather from my colleagues who represent other cities that the problem of crime, vandalism and lawlessness is second in importance only to the unemployment question.

The three aspects that must be dealt with by the committee are the administration of justice, the implementation of the criminal law and existing legislation. They will open up a massive area for debate. Whatever about completing the work of another committee in six months, I know that the committee under discussion now will be able to complete only sections of their brief over a number of years. It is also expected that the committee will report back to the House. The Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill, which will be circulated shortly, will provoke a lot of discussion; but a lot of the legislation covering crime and vandalism has not been looked at for years. Most of the rulings have been made under Acts which date back to 1850 or 1890. Those interested in doing something constructive to overcome the major problems we have in crime and vandalism in Dublin and other cities should work actively on the new committee. Many Members have legal experience and, consequently, we can bring in reports quickly and get some of the matters which cause problems in the courts dealt with.

We have the bizarre situation in regard to the drugs scene and the crazy laws in regard to car thefts. Last year there were 21,894 car thefts in Dublin city but a person apprehended is charged only with not having a driving licence rather than a more serious offence. We have outdated laws in regard to bail and the difficult position of the Garda who try to implement the law. Our outdated courts continue to hand down rulings from a different age. The new committee will be a continuous voice in regard to those problems. I hope it will meet through the summer with the exception of the month of August. I am sure people will accept that we are entitled, like everybody else, to four weeks holidays. I hope to be selected to act on this new committee and, if so, I will be very active.

If we have a general understanding that Members should attend the meetings without being whipped to them, the committee system will succeed. It should not be a question of Members paying lip service to them or running away from them. Our friends in the press should spend whatever time they can covering the meetings of those committees. The House is too formal for a normal debate and we get caught up too often in party politics and silly issues to the detriment of important issues. On the Order Paper today there is reference to very important legislation but much of it is far removed from the problems affecting the country. All the committees can contribute in a major way to reform of this House and this will be acknowledged by people outside the House. If the committees are effective the press — they are fair regardless of what some may say — and the people will realise we are doing our job in a proper manner.

Even though he is absent I should like to congratulate the Minister for Industry and Energy, Deputy John Bruton, for his hard work in all this matter. After Christmas we had a debate on Dáil reform. Even though people criticised us and said we must have nothing to do, we followed up the matter with meetings between the Taoiseach, the leader of my party, the Government Chief Whip, the Minister of State, Deputy Fennell, and others in order to come to final agreement. I should like to thank the Taoiseach for his co-operation in facilitating our party in the recommendations we put forward.

Acting Chairman

Before the Minister replies I wish to remind the House that the question must be put at 1.30 p.m. Two more speakers have offered to speak but I think we should hear the Minister's reply before we put the question. Therefore, I ask Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Fitzgerald to be reasonably brief in their comments.

I should like to know if I may speak again. I only spoke on the amendments of The Workers' Party.

I realise that there is a difficulty with regard to time and I will not take up any more time than is absolutely necessary.

Acting Chairman

Is the Minister concluding? In order to be fair to everyone. I will allow the two speakers to make their points very briefly and then the Minister may conclude.

I did not realise the debate would be limited to 30 minutes. It is most unfair that an important matter such as the setting up of committees is allowed only 30 minutes.

Acting Chairman

The Chair is a prisoner of the orders of the House.

I should like to register my objection.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will have to take that up in the appropriate manner. The Chair did not make the order.

(Dún Laoghaire): For the information of Deputy Lemass, both of the committees will come back to this House after they have been dealt with in the Seanad.

I have been pressing for this for a considerable time and I am very pleased that the Minister has set up the committees. I have a question down today on the matter and I will pursue it then. I hope the committee will take power to deal not just with crime but with organised crime and with the Bugsy Malones and the A1 Capones on the north and south side of the city. I should have liked to speak on the subject at length but I realise the Minister wishes to speak. I will make further comments on the matter at Question Time.

I realise the difficulty with regard to time but, as the Government Chief Whip pointed out, there will be other opportunities to discuss the matter in depth. I welcome the setting up of the committees. I have served on committees of this House before now and I join in the appeal made by Deputy Ahern to Members to give of their time. In the past committees sat during recess and no doubt these committees will do the same.

All the committees are important in their own right but the committee dealing with crime, lawlessness and vandalism is one that I welcome more than any of the others. I compliment Deputy Ahern for pushing ahead with this committee which I consider is more relevant to the immediate problems not only of cities and urban areas but also of rural areas. The administration of justice and the implementation of existing legislation dealing with criminal law will be considered by the committee. I understand that in the near future we will have the long promised Criminal Justice Bill and this will give us some indication of the Government's proposals. There is no doubt that the courts system — this applies certainly in my city — has been clogged up completely and this is a major concern. Criminal cases are frequently held up for three years and this means people are aware that the law cannot act against them for a long period. If people are on bail they can continue to commit offences.

It is most important for young people in particular that they be given leadership in their community. They should be proud of their area. Proper facilities should be provided for them; I am not talking about expensive facilities but minimal facilities. If young people have a pride in their area it will do more to eliminate vandalism than most other actions.

I should like to ask a question in relation to motion No. 5.

Acting Chairman

I cannot allow it.

My question was in relation to the Committee on Women's Affairs.

Acting Chairman

I am sorry that time does not permit the Deputy to ask a question. I am obliged by Standing Orders to follow the orders of the House. We must hear the Minister before the question is put.

I have only one point to put regarding the legislative proposals which the Committee on Women's Affairs will be discussing. Is there not sufficient legislative work for the Government to do in this area which is not being done — for example, equality in social welfare payments? Are the Government proposing legislation to deal with that matter? Have they any proposals regarding the working party on day-care facilities for working parents? Do they propose to sign the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women?

Acting Chairman

I am sorry. I will have to call on the Minister to reply.

For the benefit of Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy De Rossa I should like to read out the agreed statement on the terms of reference. These terms of reference will enable the committee to consider every aspect of the matter, including whether any legislative or constitutional changes are necessary. There was agreement on the terms of reference in relation to the committee on marital breakdown. All of us are concerned about this problem. If the Deputies wish I will send them a copy of the agreed statement. Having regard to the time limit I do not think it would be doing full justice to the committee if it was restricted with regard to time.

I pay tribute to the Opposition and to Deputy Haughey for their co-operation, even at the last moment, in agreeing to set up the two committees. Both of them are very important. We believed all along that it was desirable to have a consensus and to have agreement. Since I came into this House in June 1981 there have been discussions and question about the problem of marital breakdown. I hope the committee will meet as soon as possible. I know many people will be watching the work of the committee with great expectations. Again, I should like to pay tribute to Members on the opposite benches who have helped us to set up the committees.

I should like to put one question to the Minister. I should like to know why it was considered necessary to deviate from the normal procedure in establishing committees. For instance, motion No. 7 talks about the committee making recommendations but motion No. 6 does not. The reason we put down our amendment was because we considered it necessary to require the committee to make recommendations. However, the terms of reference do not require the committee to make recommendations and I wish to know if there is some reason for that. It is a change from the normal procedure for establishing committees.

They speak for themselves.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and agreed to.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:

In paragraph (2), to delete all words after "period" and substitute "of six months from the date of the passing of this Resolution".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.
Message to be sent to Seanad Éireann requesting its concurrence in this Resolution.
Sitting suspended at 1.32 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share