I move:
That the period for reporting back of the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown be extended to 1st December, 1984.
Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown: Motion.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann noting:—
(a) the increasing social problems created by the breakdown of marriages, and
(b) the specific undertaking given in the Fine Gael/Labour Joint Programme for Government that the Committee would report by the end of 1983,
calls upon the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown to make its report not later than July 31st, 1984."
In debating the establishment of this Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown last year the point was made by the Minister at the time that clearly the committee could not report by December 1983 because it was being established in July of that year only. The promise given in relation to divorce and marriage breakdown by the Fine Gael/Labour Parties in their Joint Programme for Government indicated that that committee would report by the end of 1983. At that time the Government refused to accept our amendment that that timetable be adhered to.
Now we are being asked to extend their period for reporting for a further six months, and my amendment requests that the timetable agreed last year be adhered to. It is interesting to note that, as a result of the amendment we tabled, a news item appears in this morning's The Irish Times indicating that the committee propose to recommend various changes in relation to separation. I suppose we should be thankful for that in itself. But whilst those changes are very definitely required in our law, in the way in which separated couples are dealt with and the way people can gain separations, the very nub of the problem of marriage breakdown and the remedies available to people in that position appear to me to have been avoided by that committee. Very many submissions have been made to the committee in relation to marriage breakdown and the need for divorce legislation. I have made the point time and again to the committee, by way of submission, inside and outside this House that the first step that must be taken in order to deal adequately with this question is that of a constitutional change removing the ban on divorce. It would appear to me, taking into account the number of submissions made to this committee, bearing in mind also that they have been sitting now for almost a year, that they should be now in a position to make a recommendation in relation to this key area of constitutional change.
I suppose we should note that the original Terms of Reference proposed before the committee was established indicated that they would deal with the question of constitutional and legislative change but, when the final Terms of Reference were agreed, the reference to constitutional and legislative change had been removed.
I feel very strongly that this committee are not tackling the basic question in respect of which they were established. The establishment of the committee emanated from the very widespread concern about the absence of divorce legislation. At the time it was established, I expressed the view that it was an attempt simply to shunt the problem into a byroad and forget about it for another 12 months. On this occasion my observations have been proven to be correct. The promise was given in November 1982. We are now in June 1984 and we are told that the committee will not be in a position to report until December 1984 — two years in all in which to come to terms with a problem crying out for resolution. The problems of marriage breakdown and the remedies available to people finding themselves in that position will not be solved or advanced simply by burying our heads in the sand, refusing to accept the inevitable, that divorce legislation is required in very many cases.
I accept fully that there are very many people in this country who will not avail-of the facility of divorce for various social and religious reasons, but that does not constitute any good ground for denying the right to those who feel they have a right to divorce. For that reason I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment ensuring that the committee report in time, as agreed last year.
I should like——
I presume this is in reply?
No, sorry, I did not realise the Minister was replying. Is the Minister replying?
No.
If you are not replying, I call you; if you are replying then I do not. Is the Minister concluding the debate?
No.
Then I am calling on the Minister of State at the Department of Justice.
I want to speak against this amendment. I can understand the Deputy's frustrations and the reasons for him putting down his amendment, but I would ask him to bear with the committee and with the motion as tabled. It is totally unrealistic to expect the amount of work that had to be done by this Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown to be completed in that short space of time. The statement about its establishment was released only on 24 June 1983 and it was quite some time after that before the committee began meeting. It was one of the most important initiatives taken by this Government, and has proved to be more relevant than many people expected prior to its establishment. The report is awaited with great interest.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend the chairman, Deputy O'Brien, on the manner in which he chaired the committee meetings and the members on the manner on which they are conducting their deliberations. This is the proper way to approach a legislative programme in this area of human relations and conflict. Nothing major has been done through the Dáil since 1976 on the whole area of material breakdown or family law reform. At present law reform in regard to family and marriage is in a state of paralysis and requires great deliberation. I cannot see how the work of the committee could have been done more quickly and efficiently. I would agree with the recommendation that there be an extension to December, and I feel that the report was well worth while.
It is of benefit to put on the record of the House what has been achieved so far by this committee and the difficulties under which they laboured. Most members of the committee hope that we will conclude our deliberations as quickly as possible.
This committee, although established by resolution of the House in June 1983, only got around to commencing their work proper in December 1983 due to difficulties in obtaining staff. Since December of 1983 they have had all the staff they require. They acquired additional staff when it was necessary to do so. So far this committee have received almost 700 written submissions from individuals, groups, organisations and religious bodies on the whole area of marriage and marital breakdown which comes within their terms of reference. They have heard 23 different groups and organisations, including representatives of many of the leading churches, by way of oral hearings. Already in their discussions and decision-making process the committee have reviewed substantial areas of marital law many of which had not been dealt with or properly reviewed or debated in this House since the foundation of the State. Their preliminary decisions have been referred to in the newspapers and are available to the public by way of the minutes of the committee.
The committee have already made decisions on reforming the law in relation to the age of marriage and regarding the formalities of marriage. They have dealt substantially with nullity law. Yesterday evening they dealt in great detail with the law relating to judicial separation and many of the problems ancillary to marriage breakdown, such as maintenance, support, family property and custody of children. This committee have in a very brief period reviewed a substantial area of family law.
As a member of the committee I say — I do not think this is a contentious point because the committee were in agreement in regard to the time required — that I see no reason why this committee should not report to the House at the very latest by 1 December which the extension of time that has been granted to us allows. I find Deputy De Rossa's amendment a little curious. I understand that his anxiety and that of everybody outside this House is that the committee does not become a waffle shop, that they must be seen to be making decisions, recommending reforms and tackling areas that have long needed to be tackled by this House, and that they produce a substantial, coherent report that can provide the basis for legislative action. To do that we on the committee must deal with a whole series of issues.
The question of divorce and the dissolution of marriage is one of the issues the committee have within their terms of reference and which they will discuss in their July meetings. That is the next item on the agenda. I think that Deputy De Rossa and his party do not understand the length and breadth of the work being done by this committee and the needs in this area. I say that more in sadness than in criticism because of their failure to comprehend fully the nature and importance of the work and the wide area that needs to be covered. I do not mean to say this in a way that might distress Deputy De Rossa, but to some extent that was reflected in his party's written submission to the committee. Deputy De Rossa's party also had an oral hearing from the committee and I think the Deputy would acknowledge that. However, it seems that The Workers' Party believe that this is a very simple area that does not require great detail or much thought. The submission that we received from The Workers' Party on marriage and marital breakdown ran to three and a half pages, half a page of which referred to resolutions passed at the Ard Fheis of The Workers' Party and virtually another page quoted an extract from F.S. Lyons's book entitled Ireland Since the Famine. The Workers' Party's submission did not deal with areas such as the need to provide proper education for marriage with State involvement in the educational process. For example, it did not provide for the need for proper organised pre-marriage courses encouraged and, where possible, subsidised by the State. It did not deal with the need for changes in the age of marriage, to which the committee have already agreed. It did not deal with the provision of counselling services or family courts.
I take it that these submissions are public knowledge?
They are. These submissions were published, as I think Deputy De Rossa will agree. It did not deal with the need to reform nullity laws——
On a point of order, I do not know where Deputy Shatter got that information that the submission was published. The submission was by way of a preliminary to an oral discussion.
That is not a point of order.
It dealt with all questions.
That is not a point of order.
In addition to the point I am making——
(Interruptions.)
It did not deal with the need to reform aspects of the law relating to children affected by marriage breakdown. It did not deal with the need to reform separation laws which were dealt with in great detail yesterday evening. It did not deal with the need to simplify and reduce the cost of legal procedures so that people facing marital problems who find themselves with no choice but to go to court would not incur the sort of costs they incur at present and would not face some of the complex legal procedures——
Deputy Shatter will appreciate that the issue here is the deadline for reporting, not the merits of the matter.
Deputy De Rossa's amendment talks about Dáil Éireann noting the increasing social problems created by the breakdown of marriage. His party seem to believe that the only issue in this area is whether we should have divorce. I have no doubt that that is a very relevant and important issue which comes within the terms of reference of this committee, and this committee will discuss, debate and make decisions on it during the next couple of months. Deputy De Rossa by putting the resolution in this form is doing it in a way that somehow suggests that either the Government are postponing tackling this problem or the Members of the committee representing all parties in the House are putting off tackling this problem.
The reforms that are to be made by this committee, the areas they are covering, are a great deal more involved and complex than the only issue Deputy De Rossa refers to. That issue is important to many thousands of people in this country, and this House and the committee must face up to that, but we must deal with all the other areas that come within the committee's terms of reference. The committee have now made decisions on substantial areas relating to marriage and marital breakdown which will require the Government of the day, this Government and the Ministers responsible, to introduce substantial legislation and substantial social reforms many of which will cost nothing and are very desirable. Deputy De Rossa's suggestion that this should all be completed by the end of July might be realistic in the context of the minimal submissions his own party have to make in this area, but it is not realistic because of the comprehensive way this committee are dealing with this area.
To put all this into context, before I was a Member of this House I criticised the Members for not tackling this issue. The terms of reference of this committee require the committee to recommend comprehensive reforms in the totality of the areas of marital laws and social services relating to marriage. Having begun our work in December 1983 and expecting to complete it by December 1984 we will have spent 12 months in all on our deliberations. In other countries where there are law systems similar to ours, law reform commissioners and other commissioners have taken from five to ten years to complete their deliberations. It is not correct for Deputy De Rossa to suggest that members of the committee are reluctant to tackle problems or are not making decisions.
We will know in December whether they are making decisions.
The Government are not running from the decision-making process. The committee have made considerable recommendations to date. One would be far more impressed by the approach of The Workers' Party in this matter if their submissions had been a good deal more substantial. I regard this type of political posturing by that party to be simply a self-seeking publicity exercise. They are not trying to solve problems or to tackle the question of marital breakdown. Basically The Workers' Party are trying to use this motion to score political points at the expense of those who are victims of the tragedy of marital breakdown.
A Cheann Comhairle, that is a disgraceful allegation.
It is not disorderly.
This is typical of the Fine Gael liberal wing.
When one touches a raw nerve, The Workers' Party react. It is fine when they are allowed to get away with this sort of political posturing but when they are caught out it is another matter. When someone looks for substance behind their political postering, they have a problem. What I have here represents the substance of their contribution to this area. They think that by way of motions such as this they can fool the general public into believing they have a substantial contribution to make.
We shall find out in December whether there is substance in the contribution from the Government. What is the likelihood of their having any decision accepted by Deputy Flynn, for instance?
There is no reason for our not completing our deliberations by 1 December. The committee have been most constructive and one must pay tribute to all the participating parties. We have had constructive discussions and have teased out various issues in a sensible and constructive way. I am confident that the report of the committee will include a comprehensive programme recommending wide-ranging social and legal reforms that will demand a very swift legislative response. Following the publication of the report I will be looking forward to the introduction of the appropriate legislation that will provide us with the system of family law this country requires as we approach the end of this century. We must move away from the system of marital law which we inherited and which has remained largely unchanged since the last century.
Lest anyone should think that not all members in all parties associated with the committee are not in support of the motion, I rise on behalf of Fianna Fáil to support the motion. I am somewhat disappointed with Deputy Shatter's contribution in that I did not expect that in our discussions here we would in any way go into the substance of the submissions being made to the committee. It was clearly understood by the participating members that most of these submissions were confidential. I understood they were purely for reference purposes in helping the committee in their deliberations and that they would never be discussed here. However, there are other aspects of the Deputy's contribution with which I wholeheartedly agree.
There have not been any stalling tactics in so far as the committee are concerned. I join with the Minister of State, Deputy Fennell, in complimenting the chairman of the committee on the manner in which he has succeeded in keeping the committee to their task. We are dealing with an area that is very difficult for many people and which will have a major effect on the lives of many future generations. A considerable amount of time is needed to deal with this whole area. It is an indication of the seriousness with which the public view the matter that there have been so many written submissions. Some of these have been heartrending and some have been in great depth. Some, too, have been skimpy. There were others, and not only The Workers' Party, from whom we would have expected more but who did not take the interest that one would have expected them to take. However, the committee have received a large number of well-thought out and researched submissions and these have been an enlightenment to many of us, even some of the so-called ultraconservatives.
If the record were gone into in greater detail it would be understood clearly that this committee have met more times in the short time of their existence than have any other committee ever set up by the House. Not only have a very large number of meetings been held but having regard to the other commitments of the participating members, the attendance has been remarkably good. Not everyone found it possible to attend all the meetings because of their conflicting with other commitments and with the needs of other places but by and large the success rate in terms of attendance has been outstanding. That is an aspect on which the members should be congratulated.
It must be understood by the public generally that we are not talking merely of a question of whether to introduce legislation to enable a referendum to take place on whether to allow divorce in this jurisdiction. As the members of the committee understood it, that was never the intention. It forms part of their deliberations but the committee, and rightly so, regard it as their responsibility to act strictly in accordance with the terms of reference outlined in the Government order and agreed by this House in setting up the committee. That concerns the whole area of the protection of the institution of marriage and the whole question of dealing in considerable detail with the reasons for the apparent breakdown in some marriages. That includes an enormous range of subjects which must be dealt with at great length.
Despite what seems to be suggested by some individuals the terms of reference are not narrow though perhaps that is the kind of publicity with which some would wish to surround the committee. We are dealing with a whole range of social and economic issues and related problems and how they impinge on the institution of marriage. I expect that when an agreed report is issued by the committee, it will include recommendations to up to half a dozen Departments in respect of reforms and that over a period of years, these various Departments, be they Education, Justice or any other, will be taking due note of a whole range of recommendations. We would have failed to deal adequately with the problem if there was not a concerted effort made by the various Departments to take note of these changes. It is not necessary at this stage to go into details about the work of the committee. That would be counterproductive.
It has been slow in certain areas but that is due to the deliberations of the committee. When we consider the large number of oral submissions the committee were prepared to hear we have an indication of the genuine interest of the members of the committee. I was among those who pressed that as many as possible of the oral submissions should be heard. We do not want to have a position in future where organisations who might have had a contribution to make would churn out something to the public which they were denied the opportunity of making to the committee. It is very important to do the job well because of the complexity of the issue rather than to do it quickly to satisfy the sectional interests of any group in society.
For that reason I am disappointed that Deputy De Rossa's party should seek to make capital from a publicity point of view out of what he sees as the apparent delay by this committee. The length of time taken by the committee is an indication of the depth of discussion the members are prepared to give. I wish to put on the record the fact that members of the committee, irrespective of their party, have made a great effort to do a good job on behalf of their parties and the public. I hope no stalling tactic will be adopted by any party or individual in the committee.
I look forward to the final report and recommendations of the committee. I understand why it has to be extended to 1 December 1984. I hope it will be completed by that time.
It is right that this committee should concentrate on the social implications and the rights of the individuals within marriage and marriage breakdown. I pay tribute to the members of the committee who met weekly and worked very hard. I also pay tribute to the staff who have endeavoured not only to produce the weekly work but the large amount of material needed for circulation to cover the number of written submissions received and who arranged for the oral submissions.
We should not forget that this committee are dealing with one of the most urgent areas. The fact that over 700 written submissions were received by the committee in the early stages shows the incredible need there was for such a committee. There is need for progress because, as Deputy Flynn said, of the heartbreaking tragedy and human damage that can be caused by delay. Deputy Shatter said that in other countries law commissions have sat from five to ten years to deal with this area but we cannot afford that luxury because we are already ten years behind in even recognising the problem, much less having the courage to tackle it. There is not a family, road or street which has not been affected by marriage breakdown. We know that there are no legal or legislative procedures to cope with it much less a support or advice system. None of us can feel comfortable that we have to extend the time for the committee to report until 1 December although we all accept the reason why this has to be so.
I pay tribute to the staff and to the members who have compiled the report. I hope there will be no stalling with regard to facing up with honesty and courage, in an all-party sense, to all areas. I hope we will not just deal with the recommendations we find easy. We must grasp the nettle which we should have grasped long ago. It has left this country with a legislative mess and human tragedy which we, as legislators, must feel ashamed of. I should like to think we will not add to the sense of disillusionment and disappointment experienced by those in these intolerable situations nor to the cynicism of an electorate in regard to the treatment given to this committee and its recommendations by the House. We must take up their recommendations urgently and with courage. We must not allow this situation to continue. It should have been repaired long ago. I look forward to the recommendations of the committee and to the legislators in this House facing up to the problem as they should have done long ago.
I take this opportunity to thank members of the committee. I was appointed as chairman and confess I had doubts about how an all-party committee would work. I am proud to say that I found all parties committed to the people who need our help. The political hats were left outside the door. It is a pity this amendment has been put down. It is bad to try to give the impression that any party is the conscience of the nation. That attitude did not exist in our committee.
We are very grateful to those who sent in written submissions. There were approximately 700 of them. I place on record our appreciation of their interest in society and their recognition of the great value of such a committee. We are also grateful to the many people who travelled long distances to make oral submissions. It is nice to come before a committee and make an oral submission knowing that your views will be recorded verbatim and that everything will be on record. I sincerely hope that when we have completed our deliberations our report will be acceptable at least to the vast majority of people and that we will be recognised as a committee which did their utmost to help the people who needed help.
Is amendment No. 1 being pressed?
Yes.
I am putting the question that amendment No. 1 in the names of Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa be made.
Question put and declared lost.
Motion put and declared carried.