Vol. 423 No. 6
2 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Justice his views on whether a person whose marriage has completely broken down should be afforded a second chance of a happy and viable marriage; and which, if any, of the five possible approaches to amending Article 41.3.2 contained in the document Marital Breakdown published by him on 29th September, 1992, is favoured.
4 Mr. Pattison asked the Minister for Justice if he will outline the timeframe he envisages for the implementation of the legislative proposals in the White Paper on Marital Breakdown; when a decision will be made on the preferred option; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
19 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Justice if he will outline the Government's timetable for the enactment of the legislation contained in the recent White Paper on Divorce and the holding of the promised constitutional amendment.
29 Mrs. Taylor-Quinn asked the Minister for Justice when he intends to take action on the Government White Paper on Marriage Breakdown; and if a referendum on the matter will be held within the next six months.
42 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Justice when the White Paper on Marital Breakdown will be published in the light of recent commitments; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
72 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Justice if, in regard to the comments made by the Taoiseach on the Radio Ulster programme of 7th September, 1992, the Government intend to introduce legislation to allow for a referendum to remove the constitutional prohibition on divorce; if so, when such legislation will be introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Priority Questions Nos. 2 and 4 and Questions Nos. 19, 29, 42 and No. 72 together.
As indicated by the Taoiseach, in reply to a parliamentary question on 7 October 1992, the Government's White Paper on Marital Breakdown, which was published on 29 September last, states that the Government propose to have a referendum on divorce after a full debate on the issues and following the enactment of other proposals on family law which are outlined in the White Paper.
The drafting of the proposed legislation giving an equal share in the ownership of the family home is in the process of being finalised and will be introduced very shortly. It is my intention to bring forward the Family Law (No. 1) Bill — the scheme of which is set out in the White Paper — as quickly as possible. The Bill will include important reforms regarding maintenance, new court jurisdiction and property and financial arrangements in cases of nullity, protection and support of people where a decree of divorce, nullity or judicial separation has been obtained abroad and is entitled to recognition in this country. It will also contain new provisions in relation to declarations of marital status.
Any submissions which I receive on those legislative proposals will be fully considered and taken into account as appropriate.
The purpose of setting out in the White Paper different examples of the form a constitutional amendment on the question of divorce might take was to initiate a full debate on the complex issues involved and elicit views from interested parties. As I indicated when the White Paper was launched, the Government in finalising their proposals will have full regard to the responses to the White Paper, including, of course, responses by Members of this House. It would be inconsistent with that approach and would not be helpful if I were to seek at this stage to anticipate the whole debate on this matter by expressing a preference for any of the examples of possible constitutional amendments contained in the White Paper.
Would the Minister agree that the careful approach adopted by the Government in publishing five possible wordings to a constitutional amendment due to the complexity of the matter is in stark contrast to the approach taken by the Government in dealing with the proposed amendments to Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution, in which the Government have lobbed up one amendment and told the Opposition parties to take it or leave it? Is the Minister unwilling to express a preference for any of the five possible amendments lobbed onto the political stage by way of the White Paper published by the Government? Can he clarify whether the Government recognise that couples whose marriages have completely broken down are entitled to a second chance and that this State should allow divorce?
The short answer to the final part of the Deputy's question is that it is a matter for the people to decide. What we are saying in the White Paper is that the people will be given that opportunity and that it will be given following the debate which, I think, will be useful. Many Members of the House as well as organisations and groups of people would like to make submissions and comments on some of the matters referred to in the White Paper. Also, it is important that the legislative measures I have detailed be put in place. It is the Government's intention to see what option would be considered after that debate and to have a referendum. I think that is a reasonable approach.
Can the Minister confirm that what he is saying is that the Government have no view at all, that the Government do not know whether people whose marriages have broken down should be given a second chance?
It is premature to answer that question and it would simply preempt the decision that will have to be taken before the referendum is put to the people. The proper way to do this is to allow the debate to proceed, see how it progresses and have further discussion on the legislative measures in the House. We will probably have a good opportunity to expand on that as these legislative measures are going through. That is the caring way to do it. After that we will have the referendum. Certainly before the referendum is put to the people the Government would have to take a decision on the matters referred to by the Deputy. I look forward to that.
I am calling Deputy Shatter for a final question.
If there is to be any debate — and this matter has been debated over the past 20 years — would the Minister not acknowledge it would be more informed in the event of the Government indicating whether they had any particular view on whether people should be allowed to re-marry? Second, it would be a more informed debate if the Government indicated which of the possible constitutional amendments to permit divorce, if any, they have a preference for. In the absence of that, there is a decision and policy vacuum and there can be no informed public discussion.
I do not believe the process of a full debate on the complex issues involved would be aided at this time by attempting to concentrate on personal preferences or on the Government's preferences. The whole idea about a debate is to seek opinions and submissions from interested parties. The Deputy is correct in saying that following that process it is proper that the Government express their view on the preferred option. It may be in that debate options will be put forward which people may consider more appropriate than those which have already been outlined in the White Paper. Taking all that on board at the appropriate time the Government will express their view and we will support that view.
It is a pity the Minister did not adopt that attitude on Sunday.
Some of the more alert people who are listening saw that.
Question No. 3, please.
