I do not have a problem with giving the public the opportunity to express its views on whether the ban on divorce should remain. This is a democratic process and we all agree that a referendum represents the ultimate in democracy.
I expressed my views on this issue during the debate on the Referendum Act, 1994. I could quote from that because my views do not cause me any embarrassment 18 months later. I expressed the view that Governments should facilitate referenda without controlling them. They should provide information fairly and give people the opportunity to put forward their points of view.
I support this referendum because opinion polls show that a sizeable number of people want the opportunity to express their views. We should have a referendum on issues such as bail laws or abortion if opinion polls show that a substantial number of people, for example, 35 per cent, want it. However, we must have a fair referendum and both sides in the campaign must be properly funded. It is an unequal battle if £500,000 is made available to the pro-divorce side and only a legal leaflet is made available to the anti-divorce people. This last gesture was only agreed to by the Government when it was reminded of the statements made before it came to Government by the Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte.
There is a case to be made for public moneys to be spent on both sides of the argument in this referendum and in other national debates on major constitutional change. Some agreement must be reached in the long term on the procedures for fair referenda and legislation should be introduced to control this area. The purpose of a referendum is to refer a matter to the people for their decision. For this purpose, the people should be given as much factual information as possible.
The Government's decision to give the advertising contract for the campaign to Quinn McDonnell Pattison Ltd. is a disgrace. We know that Mr. Conor Quinn, brother of the Minister for Finance, is a senior partner in this firm. I know nothing about the firm, but I am sure it is a professional and competent agency. However, if a Fianna Fáil Government gave a contract to the brother of a Cabinet Minister, there would be uproar in the media. However, this issue seems to have passed by with only a whimper. The media should examine why they seem to adopt different standards for different parties. Perhaps they feel the Labour Party is just being consistent in doing what it has done since 1992, that is, giving every possible job to their families or friends.
The argument for divorce is based on sad cases and relies on our Christianity and generosity for a fair hearing. We have heard of many sad cases where the understanding thing to do would be to allow divorce. However, many of these hard cases have been solved by the legislation introduced over the past ten years. Should we legislate for the individual sad case or for the common good of society? If divorce is introduced, are we helping some while, at the same time, destabilising and demeaning the 96 per cent of stable marriages? We are told it is a civil right to allow people to remarry. However, there are many civil rights and liberties which must be set aside or curbed for the common good. The cult of individualism has gone too far. Does it mean that the maximisation of individual rights or liberties is equal to the maximisation of the common good? I find it extraordinary that many commentators argue for the rights of the individual when discussing divorce and other social issues. When the same people are talking about economic issues, they speak very much against individualism. Experience of economic issues over the last 15 to 20 years has shown that individualism leads to greed and that which was fostered and promoted by Thatcherism. It is extraordinary that the people who find themselves on one side of the argument on social issues are on the other side when it comes to economics and issues of greed.
There are different groups on both sides of the referendum campaign. I hope that over the coming weeks there will be an open debate in which all the individuals and groups concerned will participate. I hope we will find some genuine liberalism and that people will be tolerant enough to listen to opposing views. To date I have found it extraordinary that some Government Ministers — specifically Deputy Michael D. Higgins and Deputy Burton — feel obliged to speak out loud and clear every time a Catholic bishop speaks his mind. Labour Party Ministers and Deputies will have to shed their arrogance and intolerance and control their own utterances and those of loose cannons such as Niall Stokes.
I hope that the church will take a full part in the debate in the coming weeks and that it does not allow itself to be frightened away from presenting its moral teaching. The church has a right and a duty to present its point of view, as has any other group in society. I hope they will make a timely and meaningful contribution to the debate and that they do not, as they did on previous occasions, make lofty theological statements in the last hours before polling day. If one wants to have an influence, there is no point in waiting until the race is nearly over.
The church has been almost browbeaten for 20 years by knockers and agnostics in the media, some of whom hardly know what the inside of a church looks like. If it were not for Archbishop Connell and a few of his colleagues, we would hardly know the Catholic teaching on many issues nowadays. The church has allowed itself to be browbeaten and has withdrawn. It is almost over concerned about offending parishioners by forcefully pressing their point of view as they and any other group has a right to do.
As legislators it is not our responsibility to uphold the church's view on morality. However, this is a mainly Christian and indeed Catholic country. It is right and proper that we bear this in mind when passing legislation which should conform with, or evolve from, the norms and ethos of our society. With all the demands for secularism and pluralism, one wonders when there will be a demand to have the rest day on Tuesday or Wednesday rather than Sunday lest it be identified with some church groups.
The campaign against some church figures in recent days has been an absolute disgrace and journalism should hang its head in shame. I realise that following the closure of the Irish Press, there is much competition in journalism but it must be one of the few professions where competition leads to a drop rather than an improvement in standards. I believe that this campaign is orchestrated and designed specifically with this referendum in mind and constitutes an effort to undermine and weaken the church's influence. I find it difficult to believe this has happened at this time by accident.
I have to be honest and say that I voted against the introduction of divorce in 1986. I am not an ultra conservative; neither would I be in the natural constituency of those who are constantly pushing for social change. However, I have heard nothing in this debate so far which would encourage me to vote in favour of divorce. If anything, as days go by, I find myself slipping further into the anti-divorce lobby. However there are many weeks left so the Minister should get working on me and others in society.
I am aware that almost 4,000 couples have been separated under the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989. However, I would like to see some further analysis of the numbers detailed in the last census. I would like to know specifically how many of them are on social welfare or paying differential rents to local authorities. We all know that there are many people in those categories who pretend to be separated for financial reasons. Because the State, in its wisdom, has been very favourable, it often pays people to move out of a private house and rent cheaply from a corporation or county council.
We are told that divorce exists in Ireland in everything but name — I think that was the Minister's own statement. Why then do we need it? This question has not been answered satisfactorily. Previously, there was an argument that divorce was necessary because of the legal limbo in which many people found themselves. However, we are told that over the last ten years legislation has dealt with most of those problems and that all we need now is the right to remarry. Must we have divorce so people in second relationships can refer to their partner as husband or wife? If there are more telling reasons, they should be spelt out and explained. This certainly has not happened to date. The Minister mentioned dignity and status and talked about giving people a sense of worth. Are we just talking about status and dignity at this stage? If there is more to it than that, the Minister should have it spelt out loud and clear for his own benefit.
I fully realise that every marriage is not made in heaven. We all understand that some marriages will, unfortunately, break down. This has long been recognised by church authorities which have adopted a much more caring and compassionate approach to such marriages than the State through the granting of annulments. They may have created a legal limbo but they represented a genuine attempt to recognise difficulties in some marriages. One must give credit to the church for trying to be more flexible and caring than the State in some cases.
Marriage is a commitment to a life long relationship. Many feel that the introduction of divorce will undermine every marriage in the State and inevitably have disastrous social consequences, as has happened abroad. We must ask what effect divorce would have on other marriages. Would it have a widespread destabilising effect on marriages which would otherwise remain intact? I firmly believe that divorce damages society and has a traumatic effect on children. I am aware of the marriage breakdown situation but the question is whether divorce will improve matters or make them worse. We may help solve the problems of the 3.5 per cent of marriages which, sadly, have broken down but will we put the other 96 per cent of marriages at risk?
Internationally, there seems to be a realisation that easy divorce is not a solution. Why must we go through the same trauma to learn the same lessons which can be observed abroad? Oddly enough, the liberal consensus on divorce seems to be weakening. People are starting to accept arguments about its psychological effects on children, the poverty culture and so on. Indeed, this attitude seems to have reached our own Cabinet Ministers. The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, recently said that Ireland must accept divorce because, with international opposition hardening, it is a case of now or never. Deputy De Rossa, like many liberals pushing for divorce, seems to be locked in his own time warp in the 1970s and is still trying to achieve a radical agenda from that time, although international experience would suggest that things have moved on. Are we trying to give people what is good for them or that towards which we or members of the Cabinet are ideologically driven?
The Minister has said the ability to remarry is the essential difference between divorce and judicial separation. If this is all we are trying to achieve, we must ask why bother? We are told that the legal framework is now in place to manage the breakdown of marriage and organise civil separation. Why must we go further and put the 96 per cent of sound marriages at risk in order to give a tag of respectability to a relatively small number of second relationships?
Bringing in divorce abolishes marriage as we know it. Marriage up until now was lifelong, based on a permanent commitment. If divorce is introduced, every marriage in the State is made temporary in the eyes of the law. Introducing divorce may, at first, seem to affect just a few separated people who want to remarry but it may soon spread and undermine many stable marriages to the extent that it abolishes lifelong marriage and the family which is based on it. With all the legislation introduced over the last ten years, is there anything now denied to a couple in a second relationship other than the official legal recognition of a married union? Can some form of notification or registration of the second relationship not be introduced which would give the status being sought without undermining all existing sound marriages?
I object to the use of the phrase the "right to remarry" in the Title of the Bill. This is a blatant attempt to disguise the real purpose of the Bill. It is about divorce. It is about the ending of a marriage and we may as well be honest and straight and call it what it is. In fact, one could say that we already have the right to remarry in certain cases if a spouse dies. The Bill is about divorce and not the right to remarry.
It is also extraordinary that we are moving so quickly to no fault divorce. Internationally, most countries started with a fault type of divorce and only after many years moved on to what we are currently recommending.
I have grave doubts about the introduction of divorce. In summary, my reservations are based on the effect on children and the damage it will do to society and the common good. I hope the public will study all sides of the argument deeply in the coming weeks. I hope there will be a high turnout on 24 November and that the people make a clear choice as to the future direction they wish society to take.
This is a referendum. It is the ultimate in democracy. The people have the final say. We have a duty to put the case to them fairly so that they can make an informed and reasoned decision. There may well be an argument that some people deserve to be given a second chance. However, there is no argument whatsoever that they should be given a third, fourth or fifth chance and that seems to be built into what we are putting to the people.
We cannot continue having a referendum on the divorce issue every nine years. Before the referendum, the Minister should lay down future policy on this matter. The Government should give an undertaking that, say in 15 or 20 years time, there will be a referendum if a substantial number of people request it. It should not be a case of having referendums to change the Constitution and allow divorce and continuing to push that door until it is finally opened. An undertaking should be given that in ten or 15 years time, irrespective of the result this time, if opinion polls show the people would like to vote again, they will be given that opportunity.
Since the Chair has allowed me to continue, I want to address the part of my speech which I skipped. One interpretation of the wording of the referendum that persons could get divorced if they were living apart for four of the last five years is that it means "quickie" divorce for somebody within the first year of marriage on the grounds that they were not living together before marriage. I know that is not what is intended but people are nervous after the previous referenda dating back to 1983 when, some years later, the courts ruled that people who had voted one way had really voted the other.
I also have great concern about how one proves people are separated. Are they separated or are they living under the one roof? It would not be right for people, by agreement or otherwise, to say that they have been separated for the last four years. I would like to think that this is the sort of issue we can take up on Committee Stage. There would have to be some system of notification of separation whereby, within the first year or so of separation, one would have to record that fact.
If there must be divorce, I totally agree with the philosophy that putting this into the Constitution is the most likely way to bring many fair minded people on board because people have found in the past that they could not trust their politicians. I want to see a little hardening on that issue. A couple could not say they were living apart or that the husband has been living in the box-room for the last four years and that they should be allowed divorce. If the four years provision is to mean anything, it must be tied down a little better.