Alan Shatter
Question:5 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the amendment that he proposes be put before the people in a referendum to provide for divorce.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Divorce Referendum.
Liz O'Donnell
Question:6 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has to hold discussions with the leaders of the Opposition parties on the forthcoming Divorce Referendum.
Liz McManus
Question:7 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform if a date has been finalised for the promised referendum on divorce; when a decision will be made on which of the options contained in the White Paper on Divorce will be put before the people; the reason, in view of his public statements regarding the desirability of political consensus, no approach has yet been made to the other political parties; when these consultations will take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Trevor Sargent
Question:17 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the procedure and timescale leading up to the holding of a referendum or preferendum on divorce.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 17 together.
The procedures and timescales for the holding of constitutional referenda are governed by provisions in the Constitution and in legislation. The holding of a referendum requires initiation in the House of a Bill to amend the Constitution and when the Bill is passed by both Houses it is for the Minister for the Environment to make an order appointing the polling day, which must not be less than 30 days and not more than 90 days after the date of the making of the order. No time limit is fixed within which the Minister must make the order.
In the course of replies to questions on 12 October last — Official Report columns 627-632, volume 434 — the Taoiseach indicated that the referendum is more likely to be held in the second half of 1994 than in first half of that year. The Government will indicate its position on the matter in due course. The date of the referendum will, of course, fall to be fixed following the approval by both Houses of the necessary Bill to amend the Constitution.
I am unclear as to what exactly Deputy Sargent has in mind when he refers to a preferendum on divorce. I am not aware that there are any provisions in our law on that approach. Any enabling legislation on the matter would be the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment. However, I should like to point out that the White Paper on Marital Breakdown, on which the views of the public and interested parties have been sought, sets out five possible amendments to the Constitution on divorce, and these have been the subject of continuing debate. Those options offer a very good basis for canvassing views on the form the Constitutional amendment migh take. These options are not necessarily an exclusive set of all possible amendments and in the course of my discussions with party leaders or with other groups it is possible that other amendments or variations may be suggested.
I propose to complete my examination of the submissions received on the White Paper in the very near future.
I have previously made clear my intention to embark upon consultations with political parties to secure the maximum possible consensus on the various issues in the divorce debate. The consultations will be held sooner rather than later and I assure Deputies that my commitment to consult will be honoured.
Having regard to the fact that it is over a year since the White Paper was published and that the Minister has been in Government for nine months, will he indicate to the House which proposal he believes should be included in a Referendum Bill to amend the Constitution? Will he indicate whether he had discussions at Cabinet on the wording to be put into the Constitution? Will he clarify whether it is his intention to have cross-party discussions in the context of the Government suggesting a preference for the proposed wording?
The Government has not yet considered or decided the parameters or the format for the divorce referendum. Obviously there will not be a final decision until the consultations, which I intend to hold with the other political parties, have been concluded. I wish to note their comments and their views and having taken them into account to go to Government where the final decision will be taken on the parameters of divorce.
That is leadership.
I am glad the Minister is planning to consult very soon the leaders of the other parties. I hope the Fianna Fáil and Labour coalition Government will not present a fait accompli when it engages in the process of consultation with the other parties as we need prior consultation to arrive at a consensus.
That is the intention.
Consensus does not arise out of complacency. Does the Minister agree that following the process of consultation we should engage in vigorous advocacy among the general public and in this House to inform the moderate opinion which might be pro-divorce in theory but has legitimate concerns regarding the impact of the divorce referendum on family life? I am aware of very many people who are pro-divorce but who have legitimate concerns and I am sure the Minister will agree that those concerns must be dealt with. Family law reform legislation is due to come before the House, will the Minister agree that this presents an opportunity for Government——
The question is becoming overlong.
It is a very complicated area, evidenced by the fact that Members have tabled a number of priority questions on the topic and it is very important that the Government takes this opportunity to introduce progressive legislation and procedures that will be supportive of the family unit as well as allowing for the dissolution of marriages which have broken down. The Government, with the full support of the House, should grasp the opportunity to allow for support structures, such as mediation conciliation, and ensure that the maintenance presently envisaged does not just encompass financial maintenance, but also the maintenance of the attachment between both parents and the children.
I am sure the Deputy realises that is adequate.
Will the Minister guarantee that he will examine the matter of new models for custody rather than those inherited from other institutions?
I agree with the constructive comments made by Deputy O'Donnell. I am anxious to achieve the maximum possible consensus on this issue and that is the purpose of my intended consultation with the other political parties. I am awaiting a response from the Fine Gael Party for the purposes of setting up a meeting following which I will be consulting with——
The Minister should talk to Fianna Fáil before talking to us. He should find out what his partners in Government want first.
Let us hear the Minister's reply, without interruption.
Deputy Shatter may relax. I have already consulted with Fianna Fáil and my own party. Fine Gael is next and then I will be contacting the Progressive Democrat Party, the Democratic Left and the Green Party.
We cannot do all the work for the Government, we can do only some of it.
I thank Deputy O'Donnell for her comments and, having achieved the maximum possible consensus, I expect that all parties in the House will support the need for a referendum on divorce and actively participate in the campaign. I assure the House that the Government will play its role in conveying the appropriate information and persuasions to the people so that in 1994 they will realise and accept that the time has come for this important amendment.
I want to know how long we will be waiting. My suspicion tells me it is like asking how long is a piece of string. I would remind the Minister that it is not only a long time since a White Paper on this matter was produced but it is also a long time since he first announced he would meet Opposition leaders in regard to this matter. In August last newspaper reports stated that he would be approaching all Opposition parties, but at that stage I was not aware that there was a pecking order involved. In September the newspapers stated that it would be only a matter of weeks before the discussions would take place and those reports were not contradicted. In October last the Minister is quoted as saying that "it has gone well beyond the talking stage". That is news to Opposition Members. We are now told that the talks will take place sonner rather than later. Is the Minister not aware people want to know when the referendum will be held, what form it will take and how it will be presented to them? Is he not aware that it is vital that there is clarity and an opportunity for debate so that the fudging and mistakes of the last occasion are not repeated? That will take time, leadership, direction and openness and that is not what we are getting at present. We are going in circles. If there is some type of mating dance going on between the Government and Fine Gael we should know whether it is helpful to the debate or getting in the way of debate. If there is not, it is simply an excuse for lack of clarity and direction.
I am not aware of any attempted seduction so far.
There is no question of any seduction. I sympathise with the impatience of Deputy McManus and I agree that we should move forward in regard to this matter. However, the Programme for Government states clearly that the referendum will be held in 1994. That is a firm commitment and the Taoiseach reiterated that it is likely to take place in the latter half of 1994. Deputy McManus should realise that important preparatory work needs to be carried out and consultations must take place. The Government's decision will be made in adequate time to debate and explain the issue and I look forward to working with Deputy McManus and her party when the campaign gets under way. The usual amount of time will be made available and the details will be published and submitted at the appropriate time. The degree of impatience shown by Deputy McManus is not required a present as there is still plenty of time to deal with the matter before 1994. Preparatory work must be carried out and legislation must be passed and that is proceeding apace at present so that the appropriate building blocks will be in place in sufficient time to allow the referendum to proceed on schedule.
On a point of order——
Order, please, we must now proceed to other questions.
On a point of order, there was an implication in the Minister's reply that an invitation was given to the Fine Gael Party to have discussions with the Minister. Lest that is left floating in the air, I ask the Minister when the Fine Gael Party was invited to discuss the issue other than through the news media?
That is not a point of order, the time for dealing with priority questions is exhausted
I would like clarification——
I am calling Question No. 8.
Has a letter been submitted to the Leader of the Fine Gael Party or to spokespersons of Fine Gael?
The Chair should be obeyed in his House. Deputy Shatter should desist and resume his seat.
The Minister has given that impression.
A communication has been sent to the Deputy's Leader.
I asked for clarification——
Deputy McManus should resume her seat. This is uncalled for. I am calling No. 8 in the name of Deputy Shatter.
This is obfuscation on the Minister's behalf.