Vol. 431 No. 6
10 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform if the Government's proposals for divorce and family law reform will be based on the Government White Paper issued in 1992; the proposed timetable for these measures; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
31 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he is making to ensure the success of the proposed referendum on divorce; if, in particular, he intends to have discussions with the Opposition parties in relation to this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 31 together. In line with a commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government, I am in the process of carrying out a major programme of family law reform which will culminate in the referendum on divorce in 1994. The programme reflects many of the proposals in the White Paper on Marital Breakdown and anticipated a number of recommendations on family law matters set out in the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. The implementation of this programme of reform will, I believe, help substantially to ensure the success of the divorce referendum.
In the context of the programme in question, a Bill on the enforcement of foreign maintenance orders, which I initiated this year, has been enacted. The Bill giving equal rights of ownership in the family home to spouses will be published in the next few weeks. The Family Law (No. 1) Bill, contained in the White Paper on Marital Breakdown, which among other matters will extend the powers of the court in the area of domestic maintenance orders, is in the process of being drafted and will be introduced later this year. Legislation which will put the scheme of legal aid and advice on a statutory basis is also being prepared and I expect to have it in place by the time of the referendum.
It is my intention to proceed with as many measures of family law reform as departmental resources permit.
As regards the divorce referndum, it is my view that the best contribution that can be made to its success is for all involved to conduct the referendum campaign in an informed and calm manner having regard to the importance of the issues involved and the human problems to which they relate.
To this end, I will be publishing in advance of the referendum the specific legislative proposals on divorce that will be introduced in the event of a positive referendum outcome.
Opposition parties have already had an opportunity to express their views on the divorce issue in the course of the debate in this House on the White Paper on Marital Breakdown on 26 March 1993. Nevertheless, I am prepared to have further discussions with all political parties on this very important issue and would welcome any proposals or suggestions which they may wish to put forward.
Does the Minister not believe it is time to move on? The information he has given to the House today is similar to that given by him on a number of occasions since the Government published its joint Programme for Government. The Minister's predecessor, Mr. Flynn, stated that he hoped to hold the divorce referendum this year and we are now told it will not take place until next year. The people want to know the option which the Minister considers correct in regard to the divorce referendum. Does he not believe it appropriate to begin to spell that out at this stage? There has been a great deal of consultation in that regard and I am sure the Minister is well aware of people's views on the matter. Would he agree with the Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, that this legislation should be enacted sooner rather than later and that the incorporation of five different options, each one more vague and cumbersome than the previous one, does not amount to leadership? Is it not time for the Minister to give us a little leadership and indicate his precise thinking in relation to divorce legislation? The public perception is that this matter has gone on for too long and that it is time to set down clear markers.
The Deputy need have no fear in regard to the question of leadership. At the appropriate time leadership will be given, the legislation will be introduced and the Government's determined option will be announced, debated and voted on. In the meantime, discussions are taking place and a debate on the White Paper has taken place in this House. The Deputy is not correct in stating that all parties have made their views known. The Progressive Democrats' spokesperson certainly made her views known. Other parties were not so forthcoming but that is a matter for themselves. The Government will discuss all the options and the one it selects may not necessarily be one of those stated in the White Paper on Marital Breakdown. That is not a comprehensive and exclusive list of possible options; there may well be a mix of other options which are not indicated in that White Paper. All aspects of the matter will be considered and the Government will make and announce its decision at the appropriate time. The support and co-operation of all parties on this important issue will be sought. For that reason, I am open to discussion and consultation on the issue with any Deputy or party who wishes to avail of that opportunity.
Will the Minister confirm the information he gave on the national airwaves last Friday on the important related issue of pensions? Will he indicate that the Government's approach to this matter will involve giving both the first and second spouses pension rights? Will he clarify if that will relate to contributory or non-contributory pension rights? This is an important issue and I would welcome the Minister's confirmation of the information he gave on the national airwaves last Friday.
As I stated on the national airwaves, I am not in a position to clarify the exact specifics of the position in regard to pensions but an interdepartmental committee, comprising representatives of my Department, the Department of Finance and the Department of Social Welfare, is examining the issues mentioned by the Deputy. I will be at pains to ensure that nobody loses out by reason of a change of nomenclature or because a person is not a widow. There should be no loss to such persons. The broad method by which that will be accomplished has not yet been determined and will be considered by my Department and the Government when the interdepartmental committee publishes its report.
Will the Minister accept that he has sent out conflicting signals in regard to his own thinking on this matter? Has the Government decided to hold a referendum in June of next year in conjunction with the European elections? Will he recommend a simple deletion of the prohibition in the Constitution or that something should be written into the Constitution? Will he ensure that there is access to the courts? The Minister referred to putting the legal aid scheme on a statutory basis but that, in itself, would not lead to access to the various provisions of the law. As the Minister is aware, it takes one year to secure an appointment at the legal aid centre in Tallaght. Unless we provide additional resources our legal aid system will not be able to deal with the volume of clients seeking advice following the enactment of divorce legislation.
We have dealt with the question of legal aid in this House on a number of occasions recently and there are other questions tabled today which I do not want to anticipate. I have not yet made recommendations to the Government as to the format of the constitutional amendment. Consequently I am not in a position to supply the information requested by the Deputy. Those matters will be considered and decisions will be made at the appropriate time.
When?
When they have been agreed by the Government they will be announced. The Government has not made a decision——
It is incapable of making a decision.
The Government has not fixed a date for the holding of a referendum. I hope to hold it as early as possible in 1994.
Therefore there is no question of its being held in conjunction with the European elections.
Given the large number of women working full time in the home and their particular vulnerability, will the Minister confirm that the interdepartmental committee is considering the question of pension rights for such women.
I confirm the committee is working on all aspects of the pensions position.
Will the Minister state unequivocally whether he is changing his publicly stated position that the divorce referendum will be held in conjunction with the European elections?
I never said that.
I thought the Minister had stated that. What negotiations and consultations has the Minister had with groups who are concerned about the introduction of divorce, in particular the Roman Catholic hierarchy? What steps does he propose taking to ensure that they in so far as the Minister can achieve such a result, go along with the holding of a referendum?
I have not had any consultation yet with the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Does the Minister intend having such consultation?
I will consider it.
Deputy Shatter has been offering.
I can anticipate what the Deputy might say.
Would the Minister not agree that there is little point in Opposition parties engaging in discussions with him when the approach he and the Government intend to adopt regarding divorce is a national secret? Is the Minister disowning what Deputy Howlin said some months ago in relation to the White Paper——
That was before the Deputy became a Minister.
——when he referred the five options? Most Members on this side of the House pointed out that the divorce issue could not be seriously discussed unless there was some indication from Government as to the form of wording it is proposed to include in the Constitution.
Once the Government determines the format and what the parameters for divorce ought to be, the question of discussion in relation to it will no longer be appropriate.
Does the Minister expect the Opposition to do the work for him?
If the Deputy wishes to hear the answer he should listen.
The Minister should be allowed answer the question.
The time to discuss what the option should be and the format it should take is now, but the party that is very reluctant to make its views known is the Fine Gael Party.
It is the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party.
Deputies of the Fine Gael Party ask questions but they do not wish to listen to the answers because they find the answers embarrassing. That is understandable.
We do not know what the Minister is thinking. Will he tell us which option the Labour Party favour? We do not know its position.
When we discussed the matter with the Progressive Democrats they made their position clear and that was welcome.
The Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party will not tell us their views.
The Fine Gael Party are reluctant to state any position on this matter and that is its privilege. If they do not wish to enunciate their position that is a matter——
What is the Government's position?
This is a total farce.
The Minister is endeavouring to answer the question and I ask Deputy Shatter for his co-operation in allowing him to do so.
I have never heard such waffle.
I wish to refer to a point raised by Deputy Shatter. I cannot imgine that Deputy Shatter is suggesting that I announce to the House what will be done on the issue of divorce when the matter has not yet been considered and decisions have not yet been taken by the Government. I do no imagine that he is so naive as to expect me to announce to the House the parameters for divorce when the Goverment has not yet taken a decision on the issue.
The Minister could have circulated proposals.
That decision should have been taken before the Government was formed.
I am bewildered by the Minister's response on the timing of the referendum. Will he tell the House what he said in relation to the referendum being held next June? What proposal will he put to the two parties in Government? If he has not already done so when will he put proposals to them? We are entitled to that information.
The referendum will be held as soon as possible in 1994. If the preparatory legislation is in place and decisions have been taken it may well be held in June 1994. I am not in a position to give an absolute commitment on that for obvious reasons. There are a number of intermediate factors that have yet to be decided before the date for the referendum can be fixed.
The by-elections in Dublin.
What was the Deputy's second point?
The Minister gave an undertaking in respect of June 1994.
I did not give an undertaking. I would not be in a position to do that.
The Minister expressed a preference.
I said I hoped to hold a referendum as soon as possible in 1994. It will be in June if the legislation is prepared and in place.
In relation to proposals to the Government——
We have spent 13 minutes on the question and we will now move to Question No. 11 in the name of Deputy Flaherty.
May I ask the Minister——
On a point of order——
Will the Minister kindly reply to Question No. 11 in the name of Deputy Flaherty.
I wish to raise a point of order.
If it is a point of order, I will listen to it.
The Minister replied briefly on the area of pensions. I seek your indulgence to ask a brief and relatively non-controversial question on that issue. Will the Minister clarify if it is the Government's intention, in advance of holding a referendum, that either the Minister or the Minister for Social Welfare should publish a paper on the effect of divorce legislation on social welfare law, particularly in the area of pensions? Will the Minister clarify the suggestion that if someone dies——
Brevity, please.
——having divorced and remarried, where in effect there are two widows, the State will provide two widow's pensions? Will the Minister indicate if that has been costed and whether it is intended to proceed with such costing?
It would be the intention of my Department and the Government to publish in advance the parameters of the referendum and all relevant matters. The question of pensions would be extremely important. The position in the event of divorce going through would be made known in full in advance of the referendum of explanatory papers or some other means. What was the Deputy's second question?
The second question related to the costing, whether it is intended to provide for two widow's pensions in circumstances where someone dies leaving both a divorced spouse who is dependent and a current spouse who would in legal terms be a widow.
A costing has not been done in regard to that yet. It will be done when we receive the report from the interdepartmental group and consider its recommendations. All necessary costings will be done in a 1994 context.
