The Minister is proposing to make approximately 75 amendments to the Bill. This represents substantial change at this late stage. We have agreed to recommital on the grounds that it appears to be necessary. When it was recommended to the Government and initiated in the House the Bill was put forward by the Minister as the cornerstone or foundation of the preparatory work before asking the people in a referendum to amend the Constitution to enable the introduction of divorce legislation.
The Minister acknowledged that before the question was put to the people once more the issues of property, pensions and maintenance which caused so much concern in the last referendum should be dealt with comprehensively and that clear and unambiguous laws should be put in place well in advance of holding a divorce referendum. The Minister recognised that this was a necessary precursor.
We all remember of the unhappy history of the matrimonial home Bill which was expected to give women a secure share in the family home. Notwithstanding the fact that a year has now elapsed since the Supreme Court struck down that Bill the Minister has failed to bring forward new legislation to deal with that vital issue and it appears he has no proposals to address it. In the context of that disturbing failure, what amounts to the decimation of this Bill with the removal of 75 parts is particularly depressing. Above all, there is a need for great clarity and simplicity and a direct and open approach if we are to avoid confusion in the lead up to the divorce referendum and meet the legitimate concerns of citizens in this area.
The Minister said that the issue of nullity will be dealt with in separate legislation but did not say when it will be introduced. Will he indicate when it will be published? It is important that this legislation should be referred in its entirety to the select committee or else it should be so clear that it can be dealt with by Members in a helpful way so far as the referendum is concerned.
The Family Law Bill was supposed to address all the other financial problems associated with marital breakdown such as maintenance, property and pension adjustments and succession rights. The clear strategy of the Bill as initiated was to put in place appropriate reliefs and to cater for judicial separation and nullity so that in the event of divorce being approved by the people in a referendum those reliefs could be extended to divorce. Whether a person sought a judicial separation or a decree of nullity their position would be recognised by the State and their rights and entitlements would be preserved under this major Bill. It is important to remember that the essential feature of this stepping stone approach was the extension of the reliefs already available in cases involving legal separation under the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, to nullity.
This Bill has now been decimated and it is unprecedented to make such major changes on Report Stage. That is an understatement in light of the amendments proposed at this extraordinarily late stage by the Minister under the guise of technical amendments but when one analyses them one finds that they strike out almost all references to nullity and the extension of reliefs to nullity. For whatever reason — I hope he will offer a good explanation — the Minister is now in the extraordinary position of being unable or unwilling to extend these reliefs to nullity as intended in the Bill as initiated and when passed by the Select Committee on Legislation and Security which dealt with the Bill on Wednesday, 18 May 1994. At column 651 of the Official Report of that date the Minister said:
The nullity issue must be addressed by the Oireachtas. The Law Reform Commission recommended measures in this regard as far back as 1984 and it is time the matter was addressed. This Bill covers a range of areas in family law and the measures dealing with nullity are incorporated in it.
All aspects of the matter, including the constitutional question, were examined with great care by the Attorney General who took the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Matrimonial Home Bill into account. This is the advice I have received and I accept it.
He went on to insist that the Bill would proceed as it was on Committee Stage.
I will not delay the House by going into the other questions raised but many were not answered in committee. Indeed, the Minister seemed to be certain about the line he was taking and about the constitutionality of the Bill. Now on Report Stage he has changed tack entirely and has said he recognises the possibility of constitutional challenge.
When I considered the various measures in the Bill it seemed a little strange that the provisions should be the same for judicial separation as they were for nullity. As a lay person I found that difficult to understand, although I could see that some aspects would be quite similar. Nevertheless, I questioned that immediately on reading the Bill in the past week, since I have only recently become directly involved.
Obviously there has been a major change in the Bill. There is an onus on the Minister to explain at greater length the reasons for the change, because in terms of the passage of legislation here, it is quite an extraordinary development to have such a major change on Report Stage. As I said, I will go along with the Minister in making the change. My initial feeling was that there was a need for a change but the extent of it and the major impact it has on the Bill is disturbing.
I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the original stepping stone approach to a divorce referendum is intact and if, for whatever reason, he cannot deliver on this strategy, he will tell us in an open and direct way. If such measures are not to be taken in this Bill, the Minister must move immediately to introduce separate legislation dealing with these issues. In that way they will be clarified and dealt with well in advance of the holding of a referendum.
I appreciate there is a great deal of pressure on the Minister, and his Department, with the variety of legislation with which they are dealing but it is particularly important that these issues be tackled before the Government moves forward with the divorce referendum. This can be done without much delay but I accept it places additional pressures on the Minister and his Department.
The Bill has been altered considerably since it went through Committee Stage. There has been, of course, the addition of a number of tax provisions which will be of value. When one closely examines these tax provisions it becomes apparent that they will have little impact on the vast majority of people involved in marital breakdowns. Indeed, the apparent anomalies in these provisions are clear evidence that they have been strung together hastily in order to save the Minister from acute embarrassment over the extent of the changes which must take place. The tax provisions do not comprehensively address the tax implications of marital breakdown. This is an issue about which people are very concerned and one that frequently arises. I am glad the Minister is, in a general sense, tackling the issue of the tax implications but when one examines these provisions, it will be obvious they will not make much difference to the vast majority of people in addressing the tax implications of marital breakdown in the context of judicial separation, nullity or divorce.
The Minister must get it right on these important issues. Whatever the reason that has driven him to dismember the Bill, he should face up to the situation now rather than proceed with an inadequate measures. It would be better for all concerned if the Minister reconsidered his position with regard to the Bill. If he is prepared to give an assurance that he will introduce separate legislation to deal with these issues in relation to nullity, I will accept that as a reasonable approach on his part in the difficult situation in which he finds himself. A new Bill will, I hope, address the issues which must be tackled and which this Bill was originally intended to address. The many proposed amendments will leave those who seek a decree of nullity out in the cold. Does the Minister intend to provide for them in any other way? It is essential that there is a well thought out scheme of reliefs for people who have attained a decree of nullity.
This is a delicate and difficult subject because one can, through legislation, create a situation whereby people will see no value in seeking a decree of nullity in that all the reliefs would relate to judicial separation or to divorce. In effect, we could be disadvantaging those who might, in accordance with their own consciences, be interested in seeking a decree of nullity. It is most important, therefore, that we get these measures on to the Statute Book as soon as possible.
In the case of voidable marriages it is not uncommon that couples may live together for many years and take on the usual variety of financial commitments and assets, the house, property and commitments to dependants. At present there are no statutory reliefs for them. As far back as 1976 it was recommended to the then Attorney General that statutory reliefs be provided in this area. In 1984, the Law Reform Commission in its report on nullity stressed the need for similar statutory reliefs.
Report Stage is a difficult one for discussion. Members can only speak once and that is a limitation as Members do not have the opportunity to questions the Minister on proposed measures. That is one of the reasons why it would have been preferable to recommit this Bill to the select committee and continue the debate which was taking place there. In fairness that committee raised that issue, identified the possibility which is now accepted and recognised by the Minister and expressed concern about it. However, the committee was prepared to go along with the steps taken by the Minister at that stage. I assume this measure is not being used as a device by the Minister. I assume also that he is facing a genuine difficulty and that the quickest way to get himself out of that dilemma is to remove the 75 Parts — that is why I used the word "dismember"— from the Bill agreed in select committee.
We on the Opposition side of the House do not get a comprehensive opportunity to discuss or question the changes because one may only speak once on an amendment on Report Stage. One could insist on speaking on every amendment but I do not want to do that. I realise the Minister has found himself in this situation and that this is probably the quickest way of dealing with it, but it is not the best way to handle a Bill. The Minister was right in the first instance — it would have been preferable to include the issue of nullity in this Bill and have a more comprehensive Family Law Bill. I would like the Minister's assurance that he intends to bring in further legislation as a matter of urgency. Otherwise we will be dismembering this major piece of family law without catering for those who look to us to provide remedies and reliefs in the areas of judicial separation, foreign divorce and nullity. I trust the Minister will deal with the issues I have raised. We will certainly facilitate him in processing the Bill through the House.