Vol. 450 No. 2
30 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform in relation to the proposed divorce referendum, the further measures, if any, he plans to have in place before the referendum is held; and in view of the Supreme Court hearing of the appeal concerning provisions in the Judicial Separation and Family Law Act, 1989 on 25 April 1995, when he expects the referendum to be held. [4892/95]
32 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform his views on whether the divorce referendum will take place in 1995; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4886/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 30 and 32 together.
I can confirm that it is the Government's intention to hold a referendum on divorce in 1995 as promised in its policy document, A Government of Renewal.
I have made clear to the House on several occasions that the timing of the referendum would have to take account of the High Court's decision that is under appeal to the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989. We now know that the Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing of the case before it to begin on 25 April next. The House will appreciate that, since the 1989 Act provisions will influence any divorce legislation, the Government's decision on the form of that legislation may have to take into account what the Supreme Court has to say about those provisions. The provisions in question concern the important area of the grounds for a separation and the type of property orders that can be made in support of dependent spouses and children following the granting of a decree of separation by the courts.
The Government accepts that a decision on the date of the referendum must await the outcome of the Supreme Court's deliberations on the 1989 Act case. A date in the autumn is now likely to be most feasible for a referendum, assuming that the Supreme Court has given its ruling well in advance of that time. The timescale for a referendum must allow for about eight weeks or so between publication of a Bill, its passage through both Houses and the date of the referendum.
In reply to questions on 31 January 1995 I gave details of the legislative and administrative measures which have been, and are being, put in place for the protection and support of spouses and children following marriage breakdown. Many of those measures are important in their own right and demonstrate the importance which this Government and previous Governments have attached to this area. The current measures are the Family Law Bill, 1994, now at Committee Stage in the Seanad, having been passed by this House, the Civil Legal Aid Bill, 1995, also at Committee Stage in the Seanad and a domestic violence Bill which I propose to publish in the near future. In addition, substantial funding has been provided in the 1995 Estimates for mediation, marriage guidance and counselling services and legal aid. Provisions dealing with the tax aspects of marital breakdown have also been initiated by way of amendments to the Family Law Bill and important legislative proposals to ensure that the social welfare aspects of divorce are addressed are being prepared in the Department of Social Welfare.
The main measure required to be brought forward before the referendum is the Bill to amend the Constitution. Various draft amendments were published in the 1992 White Paper on Marital Breakdown and I have on a number of occasions indicated in the House that they are good examples of the different forms that the amendment might take. They should not, however, be regarded as a comprehensive list. The Cabinet sub-committee on divorce has been considering the possible avenues of approach and when the committee and the Government is in a position to decide on the final proposals, taking into account the Supreme Court's decision, the details will be announced in the normal way by publication of a Bill.
I propose to publish, in conjunction with publication of the Amendment of the Constitution Bill, the draft of a divorce Bill which would be enacted in the event of a "yes" vote in the referendum. That draft Bill will set out the powers which the court would have to make orders in support of spouses and children following the granting of a decree of divorce. The provisions will, in substance, be the same as provisions which I initiated in the Family Law Bill, 1994 for situations where a foreign decree of divorce is entitled to recognition in the State and they would include provision for orders in relation to maintenance and in relation to all property, be it the family home, a business, a farm or company shares, as well as pensions. The intention is to fully inform the voters about the details of the Government's divorce proposals in the run-up to the referendum.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. What timescale does he envisage for holding the divorce referendum? The hearing will be held on 25 April and the judgment will probably not be delivered for a month after that. It will take some time to consider it before a Bill is put before the House. Does that mean the Bill will not be before us until the autumn session? If so, does the Minister propose to publish any of the measures in connection with the Bill in the summer period?
I am not in a position to be more specific about the date beyond saying that the referendum will be held in 1995. There is the imponderable of the Supreme Court's deliberations — the hearing is listed for 25 April and may take a few days. It is difficult to say when the judgement will be given. It could be shortly afterwards or it may take some time. It is the wish and intention of the Government to hold the referendum as soon as practicable in 1995. The other legislation is on course. The tax provisions are dealt with in the Family Law Bill. The Minister for Social Welfare will publish a Bill soon dealing with the social welfare aspects of divorce which will provide that no person will be at the loss of any entitlement as a result of the introduction of divorce.
The Minister has given a different timescale from heretofore. How soon can we expect a draft of the proposed legislation? We can see from what happened recently the difficulties that can arise if people do not have the proposed legislation to discuss. How often has the Cabinet sub-committee met to discuss this? Is there a greater degree of co-operation among the members of the sub-committee than previously? The Minister should say if he expects to be able to give a final date when the appeal has been heard.
I cannot give a commitment on any specific date within any time frame. The Supreme Court's judgement on the appeal in the F case, depending on its substance, will be examined and considered. I assure the Deputy that co-operation among the Government partners on this issue is firm, equally as firm as when, with my former colleagues in Government, Fianna Fáil, we were making preparations for the divorce referendum under that programme for Government. I am pleased to note the ongoing messages of support from the Leader of Fianna Fáil in connection with the divorce issue. I look forward to working with Deputy Ahern and Fianna Fáil, with the Progressive Democrats and other parties in the House in maintaining all party support for the necessary provision of divorce in this country. I request Deputies to be patient about the details. We must ensure the best possible parameters are provided for. Work on those measures is at an advance stage in the Department and will be announced at the appropriate time, in accordance with the usual practice of the House.
We were told that the Social Welfare Bill, published yesterday, would contain these measures. Most of the measures were ready and only needed final decisions to be taken on them. It is disappointing that these were not included in the Bill because we are anxious to get on with that job. What will the Minister do if the case is lost? Has he considered alternative possibilities? Would he be ready to move without delay in such areas as exclusion orders which is one of the main areas of difficulty regarding property rights? Since the issues are fairly clear, it should be possible to have an alternative strategy ready. That might be helpful in progressing towards a referendum.
It is inappropriate to speculate on the outcome of the Supreme Court case. We must await the judgment. The judgment and its implications will be examined by me, my Department and the Government and the matter will progress after that. As regards the Social Welfare Bill no one knows better than the Deputy the position on the preparation of that legislation when he left Government. No commitment was given that the social welfare necessities for divorce would be included in the main Social Welfare Bill. The Minister for Social Welfare is preparing a separate Bill to make provision for the social welfare needs. That Bill will be introduced and passed in good time before the referendum.
The Minister referred to increased funding for counselling, mediation and so on. Does he agree that, in light of the amount of funding promised by the Minister for Health — £200,000 for a counselling service etc. — it is ironic that another Minister is spending £200,000 refurbishing Government Buildings?
Let us not tax the Minister present with that matter.
Since he is the Minister who has guaranteed funding for such services, would he agree that that is a message he might bring to his Cabinet colleagues?
The question of expenditure by another Minister is a matter for that Minister. Perhaps Deputy Keogh might table a question to whoever it is she has in mind, when I have no doubt she will receive a very forceful and adequate answer. As far as marriage counselling is concerned, I might point out that the funding made available to my Department for that purpose during 1995 has never been surpassed in the history of the State — £750,000, which sum has been warmly welcomed by all marriage counselling organisations who have been able to substantially expand the marriage counselling and mediation services they have been providing. It represents a very substantial increase in that funding — a similar sum was provided last year. More people have been taken on and training schemes have been put in place, all of which is an indication that the Government strongly supports the institution of marriage and, by reason of the provision of these funds, is doing everything within its power to support all marriages that can be maintained or saved. The Government is very much putting its money where its mouth is by making such funds available. I want to pay tribute to the various counselling agencies, for the most part voluntary, who carry out that work to very great effect.
Bearing in mind that a sum of £750,000 is rightly being directed toward these services, would the Minister agree that another £200,000 would be appreciated?
That does not arise now, Deputy.
