Before the interruption I was endeavouring to put the record straight on the size of the problem. I referred to the 1983 Labour Force survey appendix 3 of which indicated that 24,300 were involved. The figure of 3,300 was deducted from that number to take account of those in long stay institutional care. We must also bear in mind that many unemployed husbands, because of lack of sufficient support for their families feign desertion because the benefits accruing in that position are greater than if they stayed as legitimate spouses. That is another instance of how the State is militating against families. Account must also be taken of husbands who work abroad on a long term basis and return home periodically during the year and of the fact that those in the 55 age group or over who are separated would not be anxious to remarry. If that number of people is taken out of the number identified in the survey it will be seen that we are speaking about a problem that has been magnified out of all proportion by the Divorce Action Group, the media and those who bandy about figures they do not have any backing for.
We must also take account of another figure revealed in that survey, of 1,302,000 married couples most of whom are struggling to remain faithful to their marriage bonds and are doing their best, against tremendous odds, to provide all that is expected of them. We are setting up a very expensive paraphernalia to deal with a problem that is not as great as we are led to believe. I do not wish to minimise the trauma involved or suggest that I do not have compassion for those who are in this predicament. I have compassion for them and I understand the trauma they face. It is because I have such concern that I want to save our people from the trauma that those who speak in favour of divorce appear to be well aware of.
I suggest that the palliative would become worse than the disease and what we would set out to remedy would encompass many more families. I do not wish to give the impression that there is not anything good in the report because there is. For instance, the recommendation that the property rights of a spouse should not be prejudiced by the fact that she gave up employment to attend to the duties in a home, but there is no recommendation to protect the property rights of a wife who remains resident in the jurisdiction if her husband leaves her, obtains a foreign divorce and goes through a form of marriage abroad with another woman. That woman while she remains in this jurisdiction is entitled to have her marriage upheld by the State and have her inheritance rights to property here maintained against claims by any connections her husband may have formed elsewhere.
Some people are pleased with the recommendations on judicial separation being made more easily available but I am not too happy about them. As its legal title implies divorce mensa et thoro is a form of divorce without the right to remarry. It terminates the conjugal rights and takes away the legal rights of the spouse to inherit a share of the estate of the other party. In a decree of separation the spouse may have to leave the family home. A greater danger is that judicial separation could open the flood gates to divorce. Judicial separation has been a necessary preliminary to obtaining divorce under British law since 1922. The legal grounds for separation were adultery, cruelty and unnatural practices. These grounds have been extended and now in the United Kingdom one marriage in three ends in divorce and it looks as if every second marriage soon will end like that. That is not the kind of society that we envisage for ourselves.
I am obliged to the committee that they made it clear that Catholic marriages are not subject to any legislation, either by the British parliament or by the Oireachtas, except under the 1972 Act concerning the age of marriage. There is also the interesting information that the activities of the Judiciary in the field of nullity have "created uncertainty and made it impossible for lawyers to advise couples of the exact parameters of the law of nullity." This means, according to the report, that it is impossible for some couples to ascertain, without court proceedings, whether they are validly married. Judicial developments have produced a degree of judicial subjectivity by which it appears that some judges are likely to interpret the law in this area in one way where other judges might interpret it in an entirely different manner.
There has been much talk in all the contributions about the role of the Catholic Church. It appears that somewhere along the line that Church has become the big bogeyman in our legislation. It is seen as a hindrance and a stumbling block with regard to much of it. I have already referred to an attempt to undermine the ethos of the Christian people. The autonomy of Catholic marriages is of major importance in the consideration of any proposal for divorce. Of the marriages in the Republic, 95 per cent are Catholic marriages which are not regulated by statue law but are made and celebrated according to the laws and conditions laid down by the Catholic Church. This autonomy comes down to us from the Reformation, when Irish Catholics refused to join in the new church established by the King. The occupying power at that time were not pleased with the recalcitrant Irish and in 1597 the Protestant Bishop of Waterford was reporting that in his diocese there was "no marriage agreeing with God's law and her Majesty's proceedings" and that marriages were being carried out with Masses in Catholic homes. The Irish Catholics won autonomy for their marriages at the price of a long struggle under Elizabeth, Cromwell and the Penal Laws. They never yielded to the jurisdiction of a civil power whose concept of marriage was contrary to their religion. That is something to which we might pay heed when the clamour rises to discard the standards which our ancestors preserved steadfastly against the persuasion and persecution which they suffered.
After Emancipation, when the British set their hand to the Major Marriages Act of 1844, with detailed provisions for Protestant, Jewish and other marriages, they specially excluded Catholic marriage by a section declaring that the Act did not apply to these. Catholic marriages were thus left in the hands of the Church, without any licence, permission or requirement being prescribed by civil law. Our low rate of marriage breakdown can be attributed to the fact that our Catholic marriages are under the control of the Catholic Church which emphasises that Catholic marriages is a sacrament and of its essence indissoluble and also to the fact that the State does not exercise any function in relation to the making of such a marriage which could suggest that the marriage is under any jurisdiction other than the religious jurisdiction of the Church. This is what differentiates our Catholic marriages from Catholic marriages in other countries, where the State has managed, by force or manoeuvring, to claim dominance and jurisdiction over the making of all marriages. That is something we must resist. The State has no place in interfering in Catholic marriage. Since this State represents 95 per cent of the population who contact Catholic marriages, however anxious we may be to accommodate those who are outside that persuasion, if we believe that we have an obligation to those who elect us, whatever help is given to those outside, it cannot be at the expense of Catholic marriage.
The Church should also have jurisdiction over any question arising regarding the validity or nullity of Catholic marriages. It is the authority that prescribes the rules and conditions that should have the right to decide whether that marriage was valid. In that area this House has an obligation to examine that question. It is my honest conviction that since the House has no jurisdiction or the State is not invited into a Catholic marriage, it cannot adjudicate if the Catholic Church says that that marriage was void. It is not the business of the State to interfere there. It should accept that as the legal position. It is appropriate to mention that the Church's approach is not a heartless one. It provides this facility where mistakes have genuinely been made. It is far more progressive in that area than the State now is. It would be very acceptable if the State took due process to divest itself of any interference in the question of nullity, but accepted what the Church says in these instances. To say that people who have obtained annulments and have entered into second marriages should be regarded as bigamists or the children of those marriages illegitimate, is unreasonable.
I am unimpressed by the pretence that one must accept divorce as a necessary condition for Irish unity. If and when the day for unity comes, it will be a simple matter to provide a federal arrangement which will allow the Unionists to retain their existing divorce laws or, if they so wish, in the areas in which they have a majority. The effects of divorce and the cost factor involved in Britain — and I am sure the same applies to Northern Ireland — may make them very glad when that time comes to allow some order to be imposed on the whole situation.
To those who say that out of compassion they feel they must allow the laws of divorce to be extended to this minority and that society would somehow be better off if that were to happen, I say that either they say this from an irresponsible ignorance of reality or are engaging in a sadistic sense of black humour. The world at large is a vast sociological laboratory where it can be easily discovered that divorce leads to the impoverishment of women and children. Everywhere it has been introduced they have been the victims. It is a proven economic disaster for the unfortunate women and children involved. We have seen so many horrific instances in the media recently of the abuse of little children, when women who are left alone cohabit with other men, their little children becoming the victims, being brutalised in the most horrific manner. I am told that what we hear and see in our media would constitute the tip of the iceberg only vis-à-vis what happens in England where one marriage in every three breaks down and, out of economic necessity, women form other liaisons, to their cost and sometimes to the cost of the lives of their children.
I appeal to the House to take from this report that which would meaningfully help families. God knows, there are many areas in which families need support and help. Successive Governments have reneged on the support that is the constitutional right of the family. I have been rather surprised that, rather than engage in an analysis of the report, the debate has had the tenor of what would appear to be the promotion of the theory of divorce.
