An Bille um an gCúigiú Leasú Déag ar an mBunreacht (Uimh. 2), 1995: An Dara Céim (Atógáil). Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 2) Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).

Thairg an tAire Comhionannais agus Athchóirithe Dlí an tairiscint seo a leanas ar Dé Céadaoin, 27 Mean Fómhair 1995:

Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair.

The following motion was moved on Wednesday, 27 September 1995, by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform:

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Atogadh an díospóireacht ar leasú a 1:

Go scriosfar na focail go léir i ndiaidh "Go" agus go gcuirfear an méid seo a leanas ina n-ionad:

"ndéanann Dáil Éireann—

(i) ós eal di mian iliomad daoine an Bunreacht a leasú tríd an gcosc iomlán ar an gcolscaradh a aisghairm, agus

(ii) ós í a tuairim go mbeadh sé neamhiomchuí coinníollacha mioncruinne sonracha chun colscaradh a thabhairt a chur isteach sa Bhunreacht, diúltú anois an Bille a léamh an Dara hUair.".

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Daíl Éireann—

(i) conscious of the desire of many people to amend the Constitution by repealing the absolute ban on divorce, and

(ii) being of the opinion that it would be inappropriate to insert in the Constitution detailed and specific conditions for the granting of divorce, declines now to read the Bill a Second Time."

—(Deputy Keogh.)

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): When we last had a debate on divorce in 1986, the tactics of fear and intimidation adopted by both sides in the campaign left a sour taste all round and were quite frightening. I would like to think that we, as a nation, have matured since then and have become more tolerant and accepting of each other's views. I hope that the debate this time will be more reasoned and calm and that the firmly held views and opinions of both sides will be tolerated and respected between now and polling day.

The debate in the Dáil on divorce has been interesting with many divergent views, which are firmly held and believed on both sides. There are Deputies in all political parties who are for and against divorce and Fianna Fáil is no different from any other party — over the past few days some of our Deputies have spoken in favour of divorce while others have been totally opposed. The only difference is that the anti-divorce Deputies in Fianna Fáil have given their views and ideas in this House while Members of other parties seem to have been silenced. I hope that Deputies, particularly in Fine Gael, who have expressed their views privately or otherwise will speak in this House on why they are opposed to divorce.

I have no problem with holding a referendum as it is the very essence of democracy. We, as legislators, must give the people an opportunity to decide to say yes or no to divorce. Irish voters are a highly sophisticated and intelligent electorate and will make the right decision at the end of the day.

The Minister, Deputy Taylor, is a very reasonable man whom I had the pleasure of working with when we were in Government with the Labour Party. He should clarify once and for all during this debate how he proposes to spend the £500,000 of public money allocated for this referendum. There seems to be a great deal of confusion and the public is very annoyed at the secrecy surrounding this expenditure. We heard that an advertising agency has been selected to undertake a national advertising campaign to promote a yes vote, which is very wrong. During a recent referendum campaign, the then leader of Fine Gael, now the Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, said that he would like to see moneys allocated for referenda being used to give both sides of the argument. Taxpayers' money should not be used to fund one side of a particular argument — it should be made available to both sides. This is Government propaganda at its best and the public is very annoyed by the way it has been handled.

The issue of divorce and remarriage was always going to be a difficult problem for legislators and society. While we have a very strong family tradition, I accept that marriage breakdown is a reality of life and affects some families, including those of TDs. Although our marriage breakdown rate is less than 5 per cent any marriage breakdown is a tragedy for the couple and the children involved — who, more often than not, are the ones who really get hurt.

However, rushing down the road of legal remedies may not be the only answer to marriage breakdown. Surely, we are obliged to look at other options and to try to find the reasons for marriage breakdown. Issues such as poverty, bad housing and unemployment are major causes of marriage breakdown and are also leading to the decline in marriage among young people. There has been a sharp decline in marriage over the last eight years: in 1986 there were 18,500 marriages while there were only 16,200 marriages in 1994. The lack of a job, inability to get a house and high mortgages have a devastating effect on those who wish to marry.

The Fianna Fáil Party has put forward a number of proposals for enhancing the status of marriage and saving marriages through counselling. In the past, tremendous counselling services were provided by the church and voluntary organisations. The time has come for the Government and all of us to look at providing proper funds for skilled, professional counselling services throughout the country. These services exist in Dublin and some of the other major cities but are not as strong or well funded in rural areas. It is essential to look at the whole area of providing skilled professional counselling — in other words, saving marriages through counselling.

Helping families in need is another area we must look at. There must be State support for families under stress, including household budgeting, money advice centres and personal development courses. We should also look at education for marriage. It is very important that young people are educated and prepared for marriage as a life long relationship. The school curriculum can be used for this purpose. Children and young people should learn about the importance of marriage as a source of well-being for most adults and of its importance for the stability and general welfare of society. We have seen too often in the past young people getting married without any knowledge of the responsibilities and, more importantly, without any adequate funding for providing a home or resources. We have seen pregnant young people rushed into marriages which do not work. This area has to be looked at seriously. Our young people should be educated to see life long marriage as a desirable status for adult life and the Government should develop an educational programme of this kind as quickly as possible. We should look at mediation and protection for our children. Our spokesman, Deputy Woods, has proposed that a commissioner for children, attached to the courts, be appointed.

We should look seriously at the upgrading of family courts. The type of courts we have is a cause of scandal, especially in rural Ireland. The Circuit Court in country towns hears family law cases only one day every three months, or four days a year. Delays of from over one year to 18 months are average before a person gets his or her case to court. It is a scandal that should be tackled immediately. We should have, at the least, increased numbers of Circuit Court judges. We should have separate family law courts with specialist judges in country areas, as is currently the practice in Dublin, together with the upgrading of court houses to provide private consultation rooms and waiting rooms to ensure that spouses do not have to wait together. From my knowledge of the courts system in rural areas, it is clear that it is totally inadequate and undesirable, given what families are expected to put up with.

At present there are 75,000 people in broken marriages. There are 29,000 unmarried mothers, 15,000 deserted wives and approximately 8,000 separated spouses. Many of these cases have arisen because of violence, abuse and other reasons. All political parties have taken credit in recent months for the number of pieces of legislation that have been introduced since 1986. I welcome the legislation introduced by different Governments and I compliment Ministers on introducing legislation that has benefited women especially in many instances. For example, the deserted wife's allowance has been substantially increased, the lone parent's allowance and the unmarried mother's allowance have been improved and better rights for part time workers have been introduced. This is very important because in many cases where the wife finds herself no longer supported by the husband she has had to take up part-time work, too often with little rights. Legislation recently introduced to address this area is welcome as it provides for proper redundancy payments, proper holiday leave and holiday payments for many part-time workers, many of whom are women.

I would not be in favour of divorce. I am concerned about the implications it would have for children. This has not been well researched or thought through properly. We should consider seriously many of the solutions I have suggested to deal with the problem of marital breakdown.

It is important that the views of the people be reflected in the House. Too often in the past Deputies who have been prepared to speak out on what they believe to be right have been described as backwoodsmen, bogmen, countrymen or whatever. While I respect the views of the media, ultimately the people will decide "yes" or "no". While I am not in favour of divorce, I will not be shoving my view down the throats of the people I represent in County Wexford. It is only right that I make my views known to the constituents I represent. It is, however, up to constituents to reflect between now and polling day and to decide what they believe is best.

I take exception to recent remarks made by Mr. Niall Stokes, chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, when he said that approximately 20 Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fine Gael Party should be banished from Dáil Éireann because of their views. We are elected to this House by the people of our constituencies. Mr. Stokes has been appointed chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission because of his political affiliations. I invite him to stand in Wexford, Dublin or anywhere he chooses to see if he would get elected to this House. If he does, I will be the first to congratulate him. However, I will certainly not tolerate a man who has been given a high powered position in the area of communications saying that Deputies in the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party are not fit to represent their constituents in the House. The House accommodates all kinds of Deputies. The people of the constituencies we represent have some type of respect for us when they return us here year after year. Mr. Stokes should go jump in the lake or wherever he likes.

My views are personal. I believe I should put them on the record of the House because they are views which I believe I should communicate to the people whom I represent in my constituency. However, I will not be shoving them down the necks of any of them.

Mr. Creed

I propose to share my time with Deputy Shatter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Creed

I concur with the latter points expressed by Deputy Browne regarding the opinions expressed by a column writer outside the House about certain Members within it. In preparing a few words I had decided not to dignify such trash with a reply. Deputy Browne has dealt adequately with the matter.

All of us bring certain perspectives and personal experiences to this debate. I am fortunate in that I come from a stable family background. My parents are happily married. I am single so my views cannot be informed by any direct experience of the state of marriage. As a Catholic I hope the proposals before the House for enactment will never directly impact on me.

A fact which gives me considerable discomfiture is that I represent a constituency which has invariably found itself at variance with the so called liberal agenda. In the 1986 referendum my constituency voted approximately 80 per cent against the referendum proposals. In view of this, I differ from the personal and political opinions of the majority of the people in my constituency.

However, there is a more rational, sane and temperate attitude to much of the debate on this occasion than was the case nine years ago. I have had informal discussions with many people in my constituency on this matter, some of whom I agree with, but with many of whom I disagree. However, there is an element of willingness to agree to differ in the present debate which is welcome.

It would be hypocritical of me if I were to see myself solely as a mouth piece for my constituents on this issue. It is our duty to explain why we believe the proposal before the House is laudable. In the wider context, much ado has been made of the fact that the Government is spending State funding on this issue. On such a complex issue it behoves the Government to ensure that the facts are clearly spelt out to the public in a coherent fashion.

Whatever about personal experiences, there is an inescapable, unavoidable context to this whole debate, which is the enormity of the problem of marital breakdown. In 1986 much of the debate was characterised by those who wished to have the proposals rejected on the basis that the introduction of divorce would destabilise marriage and lead to marriage breakdown. The sad reality is that the rate of marriage breakdown has increased enormously even in the absence of divorce. A Central Statistics Office survey shows that in 1986 18,000 marriages were categorised as broken while this figure had increased to 38,000 by 1993. There are approximately 76,000 people directly involved in marriages which have broken down while an indeterminable number of other people, children and family members, suffer the pain and human misery associated with marriage breakdown. It behoves us as legislators to tackle the realities of marriage breakdown rather than to legislate for an aspirational or Utopian society which clearly does not exist even in the absence of divorce.

This debate is essentially about the right to remarry. Apart from the legislation which will give people the right to remarry, all the necessary legislation to deal with the problems associated with marriage breakdown has been put in place. It is important to give recognition to those people in second unions and who have had children with their new partners. Since the introduction of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, which further recognised the reality of marriage breakdown, there have been more than 9,000 applications for judicial separations. In 1993 there were more than 4,400 applications for barring orders. These statistics are testament to the enormous human misery suffered by people whose marriages have broken down.

Even though the age profile of the population suggests that an increasing number of people should be getting married the reality is that since 1986 there has been a decline of more than 2,000 in the number of people getting married. These statistics are proof positive that there is an enormous problem in society which requires the urgent attention of the Legislature and which can only be tackled by gaining the approval of the electorate to a constitutional amendment which will allow for remarriage.

There has been much debate on whether this matter should be dealt with by way of a simple amendment to the Constitution and a consequent legislative response. There is no need to remind Deputies that the public are sceptical of politics and politicians. We must strive to bring this distrust to an end and build up trust in legislators. While there is a culture which recognises the sanctity of marriage and its positive contribution to the good of society, it is also recognised that many marriages have broken down. However, people want assurances that in responding to that problem they do not open the gate and allow in floodwaters which will wash away the stability they have come to associate with the family and marriage. This is why the Government has proposed that the broad terms under which a decree of divorce may be granted should be written into the Constitution. These are as follows: couples must have lived apart for four of the five previous years, there is no prospect of reconciliation and proper provision is made for spouses and children.

The other fundamental problem associated with divorce relates to property. There is a letter to this effect in today's edition of The Cork Examiner. To use this issue as a mechanism to secure a “no” vote is patently dishonest. The legislative machinery is already in place to deal with all aspects of marital breakdown and adequate and proper provision is made for spouses and children. In my constituency people have many concerns about family farms, milk quotas and property in general. In the context of the money which will be spent, it should be made clear that there is a deliberate campaign of misinformation on these issues. The provisions to deal with these issues are already in place and people should not seek to distort the facts.

It has been stated that the Government is anti-family. Nothing could be further from the truth. In general, this House is pro-family and there is no conspiracy to destroy the pillars of society which have served us well. Nevertheless there is an obligation on us to recognise the realities. We have invested enormous amounts of money in counselling services provided by the church and voluntary organisations which carry out excellent work and the family mediation service. We have set up the Commission on the Family which will report to the Government and the Joint Committee on the Family which will report to the House. We have also increased from 16 to 18 years the age at which people can get married. These measures and the consensus on their introduction prove that there is no anti-family movement or conspiracy within the Oireachtas.

Mr. Shatter

In his foreword to a new book "The Physics of Star Trek" by the American astronomer, Lawrence Krauss, Professor Stephen Hawking acknowledges that time travel is possible. He says: "One of the consequences of rapid interstellar travel would be that one could also travel back in time". Professor Hawking, who is one of the world's greatest scientists this century, is also quoted in the 1 October edition of The Sunday Times as stating: “If you combine Einstein's theory of relativity with quantum theory, it does begin to seem a possibility”. If Professor Hawking visits this island in the coming weeks he will discover that not only is travelling back in time a possibility but it is a factual reality. The additional building block required to power the necessary quantum leap back in time has now been fully constructed by some of those groups and organisations campaigning against constitutional change.

The contribution so far by the Anti-Divorce Campaign Group and the No Divorce Campaign Group is based on the pretence that we are still locked in a 1986 time warp. They believe that all that is required to continue to lock the casualties of broken marriages into a constitutional twilight zone is to dust off and regurgitate the 1986 slogans, having sprinkled them with a smattering of 1990s public relations sound bites. I believe that many of those who trusted the slogans in 1986 or were frightened by the scare stories into voting "no" will vote "yes" this time because of their experiences and understanding of social reality. In addressing the personal tragedy and trauma of those whose marriages have collapsed many people now recognise that it is time to end our constitutional groundhog days.

In 1986 we were told that the prohibition on divorce in the Constitution prevented marriages breaking down. The Labour Force Survey published that year showed there were 37,000 separated people in the State while the 1994 survey shows that this figure had increased to 75,000. Is it not now time for those who oppose constitutional change to explain what they said in 1986 and why they got it so wrong? In 1986 Mr. William Binchy and others warned that if we allowed for divorce the rate of marriage breakdown would double within a decade. A majority voted against divorce, yet the rate of marital breakdown doubled in less than a decade. I challenge William Binchy, Joe McCarroll and all those campaigning against change to acknowledge the reality that the presence of the prohibition on divorce in the Constitution makes no contribution to ensuring the success or viability of anyone's marital relationship. Marriages break down for a variety of complex reasons and neither constitutional nor legislative measures can ensure all marriages are harmonious, loving and successful.

It is fortuitous that the referendum in 1986 failed. What would be happening today if it had been successful? We would be confronted by statistics which would show a dramatic rise in the number of separated couples and we would be told that the sole cause for the increase in the number of marriages collapsing was the availability of divorce. The groups and individuals now campaigning for a "no" vote would be actively seeking a new referendum to reinstate the prohibition earlier removed. About that, there can be no doubt. Despite their success in 1986 they now choose to ignore social reality and the fact that their social analysis of the importance of the constitutional prohibition in protecting marriages has been proved entirely wrong.

A central issue in the current debate relates to what we mean by marriage and what it is about it that is valued. Central to marriage is love about which we have not heard a great deal to date. Also central to marriage is partnership and the capacity of a couple to interact with each other in a harmonious, compatible and understanding way. When the love is gone, the relationship has broken down, normal communications end and a couple separate. The marriage is essentially over. What is the purpose in maintaining as the legal fiction a marriage which is long since sadly dead and buried?

It is far too easy in this debate for either side to make generalised sweeping statements in authoritative tones about the lives of others. Frequently, those statements have no reality or application to one's life and there is no basis for assuming they are of any real relevance to anyone else's life. What do I mean by that? The prohibition on divorce is seen by those opposed to change as binding people together in marriage who would, if divorce were available, separate, divorce and swiftly marry someone else. Divorce, the slogan goes changes marriage from a permanent to a temporary relationship. What the slogan means is that every night in this State husbands and wives go to bed together quietly saying to themselves that they are doing so only because divorce is prohibited. What this slogan means is that every morning husbands and wives stepping out of bed sneak a sideways glance at their marital partner and think if only divorce were available I would not be here.

That profoundly depressing and distorted view of marriage has no basis in social reality. That perspective of marriage is alien to the overwhelming majority of people in this State who perceive the central ingredients in their marriage to be love, trust and partnership. In the world of those campaigning against change, love, trust and partnership appear to play no central role of importance in marriage. Love, trust and partnership are the essential ingredients and binding force in marriage which makes it so fulfilling. The constitutional prohibition on divorce does not play any such role.

I ask all those who are committed to their marriage and who believe in the importance of marriage if they are only living with their husband or wife because of the constitutional prohibition on divorce? If living with one's husband or one's wife is not due to the presence of a constitutional prohibition on divorce, why would one believe any other man or woman here is only living with his or her husband or wife because of the prohibition? I put that question also to those members of Fianna Fáil who today, and earlier, made it clear that they oppose constitutional change. I also pose the question as to whether anyone who lives in the Republic truly believes that married couples in Northern Ireland, be they of a majority or a minority religion are any less committed to their marriages than those who live in the Republic because of the availability of divorce in Northern Ireland for almost 60 years?

It is time to move away from the slogans and to talk about and confront reality. What is the position today? In particular what has happened since 1986? In the period 1986 to 1994, 35,000 applications were made by spouses to our courts seeking barring orders to obtain protection from violence or other conduct which threatened their safety or welfare or the safety or welfare of their children. The vast majority of those applications were made by wives. A total of 16,000 barring orders were made in that period. In many instances the issuing of barring proceedings did not result in a court hearing and orders being made, but in couples agreeing to separate.

In the same period more than 20,000 applications were brought by wives for maintenance support against their husbands and there were in the region of 18,000 custody cases between separated or separating couples. Since the commencement of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, which I put through the House and which became operative in 1989, approximately 12,000 separation proceedings have been instituted. In 1994 there were 23,000 separated spouses, mostly wives, in receipt of single parent allowance, deserted wives benefit and deserted wives allowance.

To deny a battered wife or an abandoned husband the opportunity of a second chance and the possibility of experiencing a happy married life with another can serve no social policy purpose. To do so is an extraordinary cruelty. To advocate that denying the possibility of a new marriage to a battered wife or an abandoned husband who has been separated for more than four years, in some way bolsters and protects other people's marriages is not only a perversion of truth, but a distorted view of marriage and what is central to the preservation of the marriage relationship.

This referendum is about extending to those whose marriages have long since died the opportunity to remarry. It is about that and about giving them hope for a better and happier future. The agenda of those opposed to constitutional change is essentially to extinguish that hope.

Mr. Cullen

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, to make my position on divorce clear and to support my party's position on it. As a party, we support the right to remarry and recommend a "yes" vote in the forthcoming referendum.

I commend the political parties, particularly my party, which, since the failed referendum in 1986, introduced legislative measures that largely dealt with the issues raised prior to that referendum. Some people in the rush to oppose the proposal in the forthcoming referendum forget that much of the legislation introduced in recent years was radical. It was very much at the cutting edge of social legislation. It was compassionate and well thought out legislation the reason for which people, not only in this House but in the public domain, could understand. Those steps were taken by successive Governments to face the social reality that sadly exists here. We are not unique in that. That situation exists in every country and is one with which we must come to terms. We do not have a choice in that regard.

It is wrong to suggest that we should retain the status quo. That does not contribute anything to the development of society here or the improvement of social legislation. Many measures have been introduced, including judicial separation legislation. I despair when listening to those who speak of divorce as if it is the beginning of the process when it is the end of what is a very painful, difficult procedure involving a couple and their children. I have no doubt that people do not want to see their marriages end but when they do they might want to be divorced. We must approach the issue in those terms.

I read articles in recent weeks written by people outside this House who oppose divorce. Most of the arguments advanced in them are based on technical legal language as if the whole debate is being discussed in the abstract and compassion and humanity appear to be missing. That is disheartening and, in some respects, dishonest, but it does not diminish the need for a proper legal framework to ensure that people separating or contemplating divorce understand the implications for the status of their children and their status concerning property and pension rights. Those issues must be properly dealt with, but the question of humanity is far more important than all the other issues combined.

If we were to ask the vast majority of people whether they opposed the right of people to remarry, I believe the consistent view would be that they do not. Unfortunately, when we deal with the issue as we are doing now, it is hijacked by high flying legal minds who seek to complicate the issue to such a degree that it raises unnecessary and baseless fears. Such fears diminish the confidence of people to vote "yes" in this referendum.

I do not propose to take up the argument as to whether this provision should be written into the Constitution or whether the period a couple must live apart should be three or four years. I might have some views on that but the sacrosanct issue in this debate is the right to remarry and it is on that issue I wish to focus. The amendment to the Constitution brought forward by the Government deals with that issue and, if passed by the people, will allow for divorce under a strict and narrow regime and, if the opportunity arises, the chance to remarry.

I reject the notion that the introduction of divorce will somehow put all marriages under threat. Marriage is tough enough for all of us. I am married with four young children and I am aware of the difficulties of marriage but it is nonsense to suggest that my marriage will be threatened by the introduction of divorce. It would be sad to think that the only thing holding my marriage and the marriages of hundreds of thousands of people together was the existence of a legal situation which prevented me from dissolving that marriage. I do not believe that to be the case and it is a falsehood to suggest that it is so. We are dealing here with the painful reality of marriage breakdown. Many people, following much soul searching and trauma, have come to the conclusion that it would be better for them to dissolve their marriages.

It is not true to suggest that because divorce may be allowed, individuals will rush out within weeks of getting divorced and marry somebody else. We are allowing people time to reflect on their situation and perhaps have the opportunity of forming a second relationship which may or may not lead to a second marriage. There is nothing compulsory in this and I do not believe people will see the introduction of divorce as an opportunity to remarry after a divorce. It will probably be the case that only one of the spouses involved will remarry but that choice should exist under Irish law. It is the compassionate and honest approach.

We all know people who are in second relationships, some of whom have been in those relationships for 20 or 30 years. They have reared families, created wonderful homes and enjoyed loving relationships. I do not believe people are telling those couples that they should forever remain as two single parents when they are obviously part of a loving family. I do not believe our society would want to prevent people in that situation having the right to remarry. Why should we want to do that? It is not the right way to approach all of the difficult situations that exist in society today. The pressure and the difficulties of marriage are much greater now and they are realities not created by politicians or the legislature but by society. It is our duty to face up to that.

I respect people who come into this House and express a contrary view to mine. I dislike the people who do not express any view for fear it will upset some vested group outside this House. If I have a view on a subject I have a duty to the people who elected me to outline that view to them openly and honestly. They may agree or disagree with me but on any issue that may come before us in this House we must try to make an honest assessment. We must make our positions clear and follow through on that. If I have a view I do not expect everyone else to agree with it but I should have the right to persuade people on that issue, to express my point of view and to listen to convincing arguments put forward to change my views of others. That is what democracy and debate is all about. I welcome this opportunity to put forward in unequivocal terms my view that people should have the right to remarry under Irish law.

In recent years the church has broadened its interpretation of marriage. Figures are available on the number of annulments granted and, while I do not know the details of those, I can make the simple analogy that the church recognises there are certain circumstances in which people have the right to have their marriage annulled under church law and, because of that, have the right to remarry under church law. I am not a desk thumping Catholic but I am a member of the Christian church in the broadest sense. If that right exists under church law, I do not see any reason it should not exist under civil law. It is a contradiction in terms to allow an annulment under one set of circumstances but to disallow it under another. That argument simply does not stand up.

The church has faced enormous difficulties in recent weeks. Those difficulties are real, not only for the church but for all of us. In a modern world we must communicate our message in a modern way. The church should learn from the experience of politicians over the past decade, namely, that one cannot afford to be economical with the truth. People should be honest and upfront because they will always be respected for that. If people are not honest it leads to speculation, innuendo and the possibility of wrong conclusions being drawn. If the church adopts that attitude it will be serving itself and society in general very well.

In producing his paper, Measures Needed for Children in Marital Breakdown/Divorce Situations, Deputy Woods has made a helpful contribution to this debate. It indicates that as a party we recognise that divorce is not a cure for all ills but that there are many other issues which must be dealt with if this referendum is to be passed. The paper produced by my party is a substantial contribution to the whole area of dealing with children in cases of marital breakdown. I have a healthy scepticism of statistics which suggest that children of divorced parents are worse off than those who are living in an appalling home situation. I have doubts about that but there should be a choice for families and children who find themselves in that position.

What is missing from this debate is compassion and humanity in dealing with this whole area. No two marriages are the same in the sense that the circumstances prevailing in each marriage are different, the financial and social positions are different and children with their skills and abilities can be different. All of these things go into the package that makes up family life. It is wrong to take a general set of statistics and apply them as if that is the way it is in all marriages. All marriages are different and are under different pressures. They will break up for many different reasons.

The issue of the four year separation period is put across in a way that suggests a husband or wife arrives home some day at lunch time and decides they want to get divorced, as if it were a sudden decision. It may happen that way in some cases but the impression is given that it generally happens that way. When a marriage begins to unravel difficulties begin to build up, to a point where the couple decide the best option for them and their children is to separate and ultimately to get divorced. That period could be six, seven or eight years. It is not a sudden decision.

To draw comparisons with the divorce regime in the UK or the USA and to use statistics from those countries to back up arguments regarding divorce in Ireland is not facing the facts. The divorce regime that exists in the United Kingdom and in the United States is fundamentally different from what we are attempting in this constitutional amendment. They do not have the same approach to divorce as we would have, following a successful outcome of this referendum. There is a conservative and painstaking set of procedures to go through before, ultimately, a person will be granted a divorce. In those circumstances, comparing issues in the United Kingdom or the United States with Ireland is not comparing like with like.

If divorce is introduced here there is no doubt people will seek a divorce. Its absence has not stopped people seeking to become separated, but they do not have the opportunity or the choice to remarry. That is what is missing in the equation here. Everything else has been put in place. I ask people to look into their hearts and to their own family situations, the vast majority of which are happy. Why would they want to deprive somebody of having that same opportunity, even if it is second time round, with children and a happy family home? I do not believe for one minute that the people are saying that. Their fears, as I said at the commencement of my contribution, are being raised by legal arguments which tend to put the whole issue in an abstract way and remove the human aspect of this difficult and traumatic problem of marriage breakdown.

I ask the electorate to give serious consideration to this amendment and to ask themselves if they are of such a mind that they would deprive somebody of the right to remarry. Life is not about putting ourselves in a box and if we happen to find ourselves in the wrong box that is it for ever and a day. Life is about much more than that. It is about understanding that we make mistakes, that we are not perfect. It is about understanding that the future can be different for all of us and that none of us has the answer, that our set of rules should not exclusively be applied to everybody because it works for us. It does not. We might wish that it would. Unfortunately, all marriages are not made in heaven. Those of us who have the happiest marriages would want that opportunity to be available to everyone else.

In the next few weeks we have an opportunity to make a positive contribution in favour of those who, for various reasons, do not find themselves in the same situation as the majority and to say to them that we do not want "quickie" divorce in Ireland or a divorce culture per se. By voting for this referendum they are not voting for those things; they are saying categorically that they will not allow that and in my view that is correct. What they are saying is that if, after a sustained period, a marriage has ended and a person in separated and in a new and loving relationship and wants to marry and have children, we will give our blessing, so to speak, in legal terms. Nobody on their own has all the answers. All we can do collectively is try to be honest, compassionate and fair and hope that the justice we all want in society is available to everybody.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I wish to share my time with Deputy Crawford.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I am conscious to this debate that we have serious responsibilities as legislators and as representatives of the electorate. There is not one Member of the House who does not, on a day to day basis, whether in clinics or through personal contacts in communities, deal with the facts and consequences of marital breakdown. No section of our community is immune. People make mistakes and break the vows they made or their marriages simply come under a level of strain that proves intolerable. With the best will in the world, we all know that marriage is not a perfect institution. No matter what we do in terms of preparation and supports, some marriages will not work.

I see the process in which we are engaged and have been engaged for the past decade as one of constructing the circumstances in which people who marry have the best possible chance of that contract not simply working in some mechanical way but enhancing their lives and the lives of their children. We need to take this positive and affirming approach if we are to get the equation right in this debate. It is not about marriage versus divorce; it is about the quality of marriage, how we give marriage the best chance of success and acknowledge and deal with those marriages which do not work.

I am struck by the reductionist approach which pervades much of the debate. Simplistic messages with which we became familiar during the 1980s are emerging again and they serve no useful purpose. They distract us from dealing with the complexity which is at the heart of any marriage in difficulty or which ends. We should be clear about one thing. Marital problems are not the product of the latter half of the 20th century. The fact that people were consigned to silence when their marriages were not working reflects only the times which also sought to shut out violence and other abuses which we are seeing all too painfully these days. Gradually the facts emerged initially as shameful and society reacted by ostracising people who separated or divorced, particularly women. The word "divorcee" carried heavy tones of judgment and exclusion.

Our parents, grandparents and their parents did not enjoy universally happy and contented marriages. If we are honest we acknowledge that for many, even when separation or, in some cases, divorce was available, it was socially and financially impossible to separate. It is not that we had the perfect model and have lost it, but that we have opened our eyes to the frailty and the demands of the human condition.

It is argued that for the common good divorce must not be allowed because with it will come a lessening of resolve to meet the commitments made. The common good is not served. I believe, by ignoring the problems. Consigning people to stay in bad situations in the interests of some wider experience of a good situation is a very strange argument. I do not need anyone to be forced to stay in a contract which is over to work at maintaining my marriage contract. I believe the common good is served by openness, by clear social standards of what constitutes meeting the contract of marriage and by a focus on love and honour as a prerequisite to being able to meet the commitment until death do us part. Nor is the common good served by warning women that men are just waiting to run off with another woman. The misogyny reflected in that is breathtaking. I believe that women are able to spot the fundamentally insulting nature of that argument and I think many men resent the insult to them as husbands and fathers which underwrites the view that the only reason they remain with their families is that they cannot divorce. Yet we hear these arguments again and again.

What we are trying to do in this legislation and in the forthcoming referendum is to deal with a real issue for many of our citizens. The reality is that there is a wider family, a circle of friends and a community that shares in different ways the upset of marriage breakdown. How many people today can say they know of no one, not one family member, no friend or acquaintance whose marriage has not ended? As in all individual situations we see the strains and the pressures, the attempt to solve the problem and reconcile and sometimes the acknowledgement that the marriage is over. We all know the lengths to which people will go to try to improve the situation and the sadness very often when that result is not achieved. We see people rebuilding their lives and, in spite of great difficulties, getting back their self-esteem and raising and educating their children against impossible odds. For so long our support for those people was completely grudging and inadequate. I am glad this is changing and it is a major success that no Member of this House would deny people the help they need, whether counselling, mediation, support services or legal aid, inadequate though they are sometimes.

There is still a wish to make the fairy tale come true and blame those who do not conform to the "happy every after" ending for the problems of society, to suggest that those whose marriages end are irresponsible or promiscuous, to present women as passive victims to whom marriage breakdown happens and on whom divorce is forced. As a legislator, a woman, a wife and mother and someone who has worked with and represented women in many different areas, I reject that model and those arguments. I believe, as I have said already, that we are beginning to work towards a model which is about putting marriage as a central element of life but around which we need to construct far more explicit conditions of support so that when a marriage ends there is a way of formalising that end and for some at a subsequent time the right to remarry.

What strikes me about those who argue against divorce is how unchanging and absolute their arguments are and how they accommodate the facts of marriage breakdown, accept separation and even a second relationship yet deny the right to formalise that relationship should the couple wish to do so. This position leads to one very simple point. By acknowledging the reality of marriage ending we face a choice: a growing number of informal second relationships without all of the positive supports that a formal marriage can bring or the right when all of the conditions have been met for those people to remarry.

In the last campaign a great deal of attention was paid to women's position. Women everywhere are making choices which our mother's generation could not have made, whether in deciding to end a marriage that has ceased to work or initiating separation proceedings, and very often women are the prime movers. Is it that this generation of women is suddenly irresponsible, promiscuous, stupid or could it be that today women have high expectations of marriage and when in spite of every effort the partnership disappears the possibility of rebuilding a new life is seen as a realistic and preferable option?

There is a great deal of comment on the poverty of women. There is no doubt that in society generally women experience poverty disproportionately to men. Women are more likely to be dependent and to be in low paid jobs with less access to education and training. I do not think these sorts of structures should remain and we need to challenge them. It is a very negative model of marriage which requires that we encourage dependency over partnership and sacrifice those for whom marriage has not worked in order to preserve it. Marriage gains nothing, as Deputy Cullen said, from knowing that someone else is trapped and if the only reason a person stays in a marriage is that they have no economic alternative we have a serious problem with marriage itself. Arguments based on fear, common in 1986, are re-emerging but I do not believe they will hold sway in a society which prides itself on the quality of education of its young people.

The feminisation of poverty is not caused by separation and divorce but by the economic and social status of women world-wide. To tackle the poverty that women experience whether in separation, divorce, marriage or as single parents is about tackling the inequalities that women face. It is about second chance education and economic opportunities for those who have missed out. Most women continue to be bunched at the lower end of the labour market. It is about valuing the unpaid work that women do and somehow creating a society where doing the unpaid work of child rearing and volunteerism in the community does not lead to a punitive economic status in society. These are the broader challenges and I urge women to look at these challenges and not equate women's poverty with the arrival of separation and divorce. It is an inaccurate picture and we have to tackle those broader challenges which I have outlined, with or without divorce in this society. Every other society must do so as well. Creating an equal society for women in Ireland and world-wide is the task, not frightening women into thinking that divorce is the bogey they need to fear. Frightening women about divorce does nothing to improve either their mental health or their economic status. Staying in a marriage out of fear of the economic consequences is extremely understandable, however, in a society which does not support women in vulnerable situations and does not really offer women equal opportunities.

I am very glad we are having a great deal of discussion about children. What is important is to support children and have a child centred society, whether the child is from the first or second marriages or no marriage. Recent events have reminded us of the appalling lack of child centeredness in this society. Scandal in the church may be the headline but the central issues are about arrogance and the potential for a mismatch between what one powerful group says and what some of its members do. Today the church which has had much responsibility in health and education must put in place the high standards for safeguarding children's rights. A church that has been so sure of itself on the issue of private morality and quick to condemn contraception and say that women must have any number of children has been quite derelict in its duty to protect those very same children. It is a harsh lesson in reality. Complex social problems have to be dealt with carefully and slowly. What I want from my spiritual leaders are spiritual messages and I do not want them trying to frighten the State when it is doing its duty in catering for a pluralist society. In this regard I welcome very much Fr. Bernard Tracey's comments in the October issue of the Dominican magazine Doctrine and Life— unfortunately I do not have time to quote from it now.

The Minister, Deputy Mervyn Taylor, his Department and staff have worked assiduously and carefully on this referendum campaign. Much detailed background work has been done and women and men should be reassured that the legislation, in so far as possible, is in place. Let us be honest and accept that new needs will arise and there will be new demands on all our services. We are an evolving and changing society but we have tried to learn from the experience of those in other jurisdictions where divorce is easily available. It is insulting to continue to insist that because some people have access to separation people will give up their relationships and commitments incredibly easily. That is the challenge and test for our culture. We must have confidence in our culture. Let us not look back on the past through rose-tinted glasses but face the future with courage and a belief in the quality of our educational system, of our parenting and of our church. Let us not move out of fear. Let us have a vision of a society that supports marriage and puts good things in place to help young people to grow up and make serious commitments.

Many of the changes within marriages are very good for women and offer much more opportunity and choice for them. However, our laws should reflect the reality. There has been much discussion on putting this into the Constitution. I personally would have preferred a simpler approach, namely, the deletion of the clause followed by legislation. I recognise that ambivalance on social issues in Ireland leads us to wish for an ideal while legislating for the reality of the present.

The proposed amendment sets out searching and rigorous terms. It demands that arrangements be made for children and for a dependent spouse before any dissolution is granted. I urge those people who are concerned about writing it into the Constitution, who would have preferred a simple deletion followed by legislation, to support this referendum, because our overriding concern has to be for those whose marriages have ended and who deserve the opportunity to remarry.

There is strong evidence that children can cope with separation but that it is very difficult for them. What is important is how separation is handled and the supports we put in place. The vital message is that there are important psychological risks to children associated with major family discord and conflict, with or without divorce. Denying the reality of marital breakdown and the reality that individuals wish to remarry is not the best way to help families and children.

Mr. Crawford

I support the amendment of the Constitution to allow persons who have been separated for some years and between whom there is no hope of reconciliation to divorce and remarry. I thank the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and especially the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Mervyn Taylor, for the tremendous amount of work they have put into bringing forward this Bill and for trying to meet the demands of all those who discussed their worries and anxieties about it.

The main Opposition party have claimed credit for the inclusion in the Bill of the four year requirement. I too asked the Minister not to allow for a "quickie" divorce system such as that in the UK and other countries. Like others, I have had direct and indirect experience of the working of that system. However, that does not mean we should deny the right of people to remarry where their marriage has irretrievably broken down.

At the time of the last referendum the anti-divorce lobby said that the introduction of divorce would double the number of separations. That has happened without divorce and many children and families have suffered. Although I appreciate their right to their view, I ask those who are against divorce to put the same effort into tackling the things that sometimes lead our young people into marriage without proper thought.

There is no proof that divorce means more marriage breakdown. Comparisons have been made between this country and the UK. In the UK fewer than 15 per cent of young people go to any place of worship on Sundays. We should compare our situation with that north of the Border where a divorce structure is in existence which has not lead to a greater incidence of marriage breakdown than here, because they have the same Christian ethos as we have south of the Border.

I am amazed at the lack of unity among the members of the main Opposition party. Of the ten speakers who spoke before today, five were for the referendum and five against. I was most amused by Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív's contribution. Some months ago he suggested that we should rejoin the Commonwealth, but he has come out most trenchantly against the referendum and the rights of minorities whose marriages have failed, regardless of what church or group they belong to. If we are to be inclusive we cannot continue in that entrenched manner. I encourage people to consider seriously what has been said and not to listen to clichés. We cannot remain in the dark ages and close our eyes to the fact that, with or without church annulments people who were previously married are living together outside of marriage, that children are being born with no proper status and that women in such second relationships have no legal rights.

I appreciate the opportunity of contributing to the debate. I encourage people to support the referendum and give those who are in dire need the opportunity to which they are entitled. It will not damage those who are in happy marriages and it will not change the status of the marriage ceremony.

Mr. Kirk

I propose to share my time with Deputy McDaid. This debate on the proposed fifteenth amendment of the Constitution affords us an opportunity to consider in a rational way the Government's proposal to remove the constitutional ban on divorce. This matter was the subject of a previous referendum in 1986. On that occasion the decision of the people was clear and unmistakable. It was an emphatic refusal to remove the ban.

There is no arguing with the assertion that over the last 12 to 15 years social change in Ireland has been quite dramatic. Social norms which were accepted for centuries were suddenly replaced by the attitudes of a very liberal society. The unquestioning acceptance and support for institutions which were part and parcel of Irish life diminished. Over a relatively short period the value system which stood us in good stead, despite many shortcomings, became diluted and was no longer subscribed to by many people. The changed attitudes fuelled demand for change in social legislation which would have been unthinkable 20 or 25 years previously. In many ways the electorate in this referendum has the advantage of being able to assess the impact of the free availability of divorce in other jurisdictions. The nearest example is the UK. Divorce has been a fact of life there for a long time. We must ask ourselves if we honestly regard that kind of society as being the most desirable and in the best long term interests of the Irish people.

We must ask ourselves if the availability of divorce has contributed to the development and evolution of the societal structures they have there at present.

Available statistics indicate that at present stable marriages are in the region of 96 per cent. That figure does not indicate that there is a major underlying demand for change or for the removal of the ban on divorce. I am not suggesting that all those marriages are in a state of blissful happiness; the position is far from that. Human nature is full of imperfections. Absolute compatibility in marriage without any problems throughout life is not a realistic expectation. The ups and downs of daily life may be too much for many people. The removal of the ban on divorce from our Constitution will mean that in time marriage will become merely a temporary arrangement, with all the psychological and emotional trauma that entails for those involved. However, I do not have any difficulty in supporting the putting of the referendum to the people on 24 November.

In the UK where divorce is freely available approximately two in five marriages end in divorce, the highest divorce rate in Europe. There is scarcely any argument against the assertion that in those circumstances the state of marriage is seriously trivialised. The number of children born outside wedlock has increased steadily, from one in ten to one in three since the 1970s. The devaluation of marriage because of the easy availability of divorce is a major contributory factor. Those are not my words, but the summarised words of a UK lawyer involved in family law who wrote an article in The Irish Times last week.

Divorce has a devastating impact on the living standards of divorced couples with an immediate demand for State support in many cases. I have been involved in public life for more than 20 years and on a daily basis I deal with the difficulties faced by lone parents and those who are separated, many of whom live in abject poverty. Unless the State is prepared to put the necessary financial support structures in place in a divorce available society that problem will accelerate.

Divorce leaves people traumatised and devastated and the implications for children are equally devastating, carrying an emotional and psychological impact for life in many cases. Fianna Fáil introduced necessary measures to cater for the children of those whose marriages have broken down, illustrating that structures are necessary to deal with the difficulties associated with marital breakdown.

I believe that in this referendum people will consider the issue at length before voting. The collective decision of the electorate will have a profound impact on our society in the future. At least one Member stated that because divorce is freely available in Europe we should also have that facility. I fail to understand the logic of such an assertion. That Member is simply stating that as divorce is freely available in the rest of Europe, for good or for evil, it should be automatically available here.

The introduction of a divorce culture will have an adverse effect on the commitment to marriage. The conventional family has exerted a very steadying influence in our society. I believe members of all parties subscribe to that view and any undermining of its role in society is undesirable. Consequently, in the referendum on 24 November I will vote "no".

Dr. McDaid

I thank my colleague, Deputy Kirk, for sharing time with me. The primary purpose of this debate is not to enable Members of this House to make a decision on whether to introduce divorce. We are engaged in the exercise of submitting a question to the people as a whole — democracy at work in the best possible sense. It is one of those rare occasions when we cannot be accused of imposing the will of a handful of politicians on the population at large.

The debate has already shown that there are at least some Members who are so fervently opposed to the idea of divorce that they would much prefer if a referendum were not held. There appears to be a notion in some quarters that a solid vote in this House in favour of holding a referendum will in some way ensure that a "yes" vote is inevitable. Our highly sophisticated electorate has demonstrated more than once that this is far from the case. Any Member of this House who seeks to prevent the people from making the ultimate decision is, in effect, saying that they, the people, must not be given the opportunity of disagreeing with what he or she happens to believe.

Many people demand that their public representatives should always come clean and declare their positions on important decisions such as this. I will try to explain my position as briefly and as concisely as possible, but I have no intention of seeking to impose my views on anyone. It should go without saying that the family unit is the single most essential element in constructing the fabric of a healthy society and that the ideal framework for that unit is a marriage freely entered into with a life long commitment. Irrespective of whether the referendum is carried, it will continue to be the solemn duty of this State to ensure in its laws and administration that the institution of marriage is respected and protected as far as possible. As other Members pointed out, this would include much more support than there is at present for agencies and groups involved in marriage counselling and much more important advice and preparation for those entering marriage. A few years ago I suggested that a marriage licence should not be issued until at least 12 months had elapsed after the application, a sort of compulsory engagement. It was interesting to note that the Minister made a similar suggestion subsequently, although with a much shorter timespan. We must urgently carry out research to ascertain the causes of marriage breakdown. This could be done by checking the records of judicial separation cases. It is time to begin looking at prevention so that we can minimise the number of breakdowns.

We have all heard the simplistic expression that all marriages are made in heaven, but this is patently not the case. If that were true, it would mean that men and women would be denied the freedom of choice in selecting their partners for life. Unfortunately, in some cases marriages are decided on too hastily and for all the wrong reasons, a fact recognised by the Catholic Church which in its wisdom granted many thousands of annulments throughout the world down through the years. In our case, the State is much less realistic. If either of the parties to a church annulment were subsequently to enter into what the church would regard as a valid marriage, he or she would be guilty of bigamy in the eyes of the law.

Marriage was never intended to be a guaranteed bed of roses. I am always wary of people who boast, after many years of marriage, of never encountering even the slightest difference of opinion, not to mention the possibility of the marriage breaking down. Such an unlikely scenario would demand the inclusion of at least one saint in such a union, if not two. For the majority of us lesser mortals our marriages have had their ups and downs but they managed to survive and emerge even stronger at the end of the day. However, in a minority of cases the marriage which has irretrievably broken down should never have taken place and it has become necessary to dissolve the partnership in the interests of all concerned. This is happening already under the judicial separation legislation. It is time for the State to recognise reality and follow the example of the Church by declaring such marriages to be invalid so that the people concerned may subsequently enter into a proper marriage, if that is their wish. Accordingly, it is my intention to vote "yes" in the referendum.

I did not make my decision lightly. I thought deeply about all of the implications, including the alleged risk of creating what has been described as a divorce culture and the implications this might have for the institution of marriage. This later point I was concerned about until I discovered that the rate of divorce in Northern Ireland is extremely low when compared with Great Britain, despite the fact that the divorce laws in the United Kingdom do not provide for the restrictions that we propose to insert in our Constitution.

Only yesterday I discussed this matter with an eminent Protestant churchman in Northern Ireland. He confirmed that divorce was a comparatively rare occurrence north of the Border and explained that this was a reflection of the strong Christian views on marriage held by both Catholics and Protestants alike.

In proposing that we should allow the right to remarry I am convinced that we are not about to create a divorce culture or undermine the institution of marriage. We are Irish and have our own tradition and culture and retain our own Christian values. People should stop comparing us to other nations. The great mass of our people will continue to have sufficient faith to persevere in the maintenance of life long marriages, as has been the case down through the centuries. We can do this while at the same time facing the reality that not all marriages are made in heaven.

I am reminded of the words of my highly respected colleague, Deputy Brian Lenihan, when he eloquently made the case that if the ideals of our Republic are to mean anything to us we must be prepared to frame our laws in such a way that the rights of even the smallest minority are respected.

Mr. D. McDowell

I wish to share my time with Deputies Shortall and Broughan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. D. McDowell

I support this Bill and the Government's proposals. I have publicly stated my view in this House and elsewhere that in an ideal world the detailed provisions for divorce should not be set out in the Constitution. That view is shared by many on this and the other side of the House. Unfortunately, we are not living in an ideal world.

I am aware that many Irish people do not share my view and will not be easily persuaded. I am convinced that this amendment will pass and believe strongly that a majority of Irish people now accept that we in this State cannot continue to deny people whose marriages have broken down the right to have a second chance. I am convinced that a majority of the people wish to face up to the problem of marital breakdown and to do so in a way which is compassionate and humane, but I am equally persuaded that the Irish people do not want a quickie divorce culture. They believe the State should do everything possible to encourage life long marriage.

The overwhelming duty of Government is to the 70,000 plus separated people who are relying on us to propose an amendment that will be passed by the people. We cannot and must not fail in that duty. If, in order to do our duty. we have to provide reassurance in the way suggested, then so be it.

I wish to reflect for a moment on the nature of marriage. Marriage is an agreement between two people to share their lives, to provide for each other and their children. It is by far the most important legal contract which most of us will ever enter into. Any person entering into marriage takes on a raft of legal responsibilities and duties, many of them set out in common and statute law, but marriage is more than that — it is also a Christian sacrament and an important part of most world religions. It is the only Christian sacrament which parallels and complements a social and legal institution. The Christian churches preach that marriage is for life; they do not provide for divorce or officially recognise second marriages.

For many years Irish law reflected and enforced the teaching of the Christian churches. In effect, the State implemented the social teaching of the Christian churches, particularly that of the Roman Catholic Church. It is time for this to stop and to re-establish the distinction between the legal nature of marriage and the Christian sacrament. The law must be developed so as to deal with the reality of marital breakdown. Those who accept the teaching of the Church will continue to do so and nobody would have it otherwise, but the State has a duty to provide for those who do not accept the Church's teaching, we have a duty to cater for minorities.

It is worth asking ourselves what the ban on divorce says about Irish society. Proponents of the ban would no doubt claim that it endorses our commitment to life long marriage. I do not doubt the bona fides of those who hold that view, but I take a profoundly different view. The prohibition speaks of intolerance and paints us as people who refuse to accommodate minority views.

I wish to say a few words about the peace process in Northern Ireland which is supported by every Member of this House. This referendum marks a critical stage in the process. Let me be clear. I do not believe the introduction of a right to remarry in this State would make the South any more attractive to Unionists. We should not think of it as a means of bringing a united Ireland any closer, but the two issues are strikingly similar. At the nub of both is the issue of tolerance and the acceptance of diversity. It ill befits us to lecture Unionists about accommodation and pluralism if we are not prepared to practise them ourselves. If we are serious about the peace process, we must lead by example and do so now.

Let us not forget that the ban on divorce has not prevented marital breakdown, men from leaving their wives and parents from abandoning their children. Over the past 25 years we have introduced a wide range of family law, much of it to deal with the consequences of family breakdown. The Anti-Divorce Campaign would have us believe that disputes about property, maintenance, the custody of children and so on are a new and horrible spectre ready to descend as soon as divorce is introduced. The reality is very different. The courts, the legal system, the welfare system and the Garda Síochána all deal with the consequences of marital breakdown every day of the week, largely at the behest of women.

Women suffer most in circumstances of marital breakdown and it is women who most need and seek help from the State and the law in dealing with its consequences. Almost all barring orders and most maintenance applications are made by women. Custody of children is awarded to the female partner in 90 per cent of cases. Crucially in terms of this argument, a large majority of applications for judicial separation are made by women. If it is women who suffer most when marriages break down, then equally it is women who stand to gain most from establishing a second stable relationship. Remarriage offers many women the chance to restore living standards and dignity. Not everyone will choose to remarry, but the State should not and cannot stand in the way of those who do.

It is argued that divorce undermines marriage and causes marital breakdown. This argument has a simplistic appeal but is dangerous and also spurious. It is like saying that the existence of Band Aid plasters causes more cuts and rotten teeth should not be extracted lest the extraction should cause further decay. In all those countries where divorce has been introduced in recent decades, such as Spain, Portugal and Italy, legal change has been dictated by social change which was already happening. The law has been changed in response to attitudinal changes resulting from the increased incidence of marital breakdown.

We in this House can scarcely be accused of responding prematurely to social change. On the contrary, we in this Legislature have regularly allowed others to do our job for us. Much of the legal response to sensitive ethical questions has been dictated by the courts, not by the Oireachtas. In areas such as homosexuality we ceased to implement a discredited law many years before we found the guts to change it. Even in the area of divorce we are not without our little hypocrisies in that we continue to give de facto recognition to foreign divorces which would never stand up if they were tested in court. It is time to stop this hypocrisy. The ideal of a life long happy marriage is one to which we all aspire but we cannot create an ideal simply by inserting it into the Constitution. The reality for many people is a good deal less than ideal and we must deal with that.

Ms Shortall

I thank my colleagues for sharing their time with me. There has been much talk in recent times about marriage breakdown, its many causes and devastating effects but many of those who are most vocal have paid scant attention to the causes of marital breakdown since the last debate on divorce almost ten years ago.

Marriages get into difficulty for a variety of reasons. These vary from people being too young when entering marriage to couples not being able to withstand the pressures of poverty, poor housing conditions, ill health, addiction of one kind or another or domestic violence. Sometimes people who are insecure have difficulty coping with their relationships. Sometimes people are incompatible or become so and drift apart.

Modern life puts many pressures on couples and families. Unfortunately many of those who oppose the introduction of the right to remarry have been slow to tackle the social problems which contribute to marital breakdown. If we are serious about being a caring society we must do more than merely pay lip service to these problems. We must ensure that we build a society which nurtures and supports families and puts the family unit at the centre of the political stage. Politicians and Church leaders must put people first. That is why the Labour Party, on entering Government in 1992, made it a priority to increase child benefit, fund an education system which affords all children an opportunity to develop their potential, restart the house building programme and make improvements in the health service. Those are concrete ways in which families can be supported, protected and given the best chance of survival.

It was a priority of the Minister, Deputy Taylor, to develop marriage counselling services to help people to prepare for marriage and provide much needed support and help for those with marital difficulties. He has increased funding to this vital service by 150 per cent since 1992. Under this ministry the age of marriage has been raised from 16 to 18 years. The plans of the Minister for Education to introduce the long promised programme in relationships and sex education to prepare young people for adulthood and married life are well under way.

Much has been achieved in supporting families and marriages in recent years but more remains to be done. Although progress has been made, sadly there will always be marriages which will break down, marriages which should never have taken place and marriages which may have worked once but which in essence no longer exist. We are all aware of the truama caused by marital breakdown and, sadly, sometimes the most earnest efforts are not sufficient to rescue a marriage. In practice people leave broken relationships only after long and careful consideration, usually after many years, on the painful acceptance that the marriage has finally ended. It is not acceptable that such people should be legally tied to a marriage that has ceased to exist and denied a second chance.

At the end of the day this debate is about treating people whose marriages have irretrievably broken down in a fair and compassionate way. As a Government and as a society we must do all in our power to support and strengthen families and, at the same time, we must respect those whose marriages have ended and allow them their civil rights — the right to remarry and the right to have a second chance at happiness.

Mr. Broughan

I wholeheartedly support this amendment of the Constitution. The State has a deep obligation to assist the perhaps 10 per cent of our population who are affected by marital breakdown, to assist separated people to rebuild their lives, secure recognition for marriage in a second union for spouses and dependants and to protect spouses and children who have suffered as a result of marital breakdown.

The Bill before us echoes faithfully the provisions of the 1989 and 1994 family law Bills which were generally welcomed at the time and the raft of family legislation enacted in the last decade with one important addition, the right to remarriage for separated spouses. The Government's guiding principle in drafting the Bill and the amendment to the Constitution is one of deep compassion for those involved in the breakdown of a marriage. To their credit this administration has shown a strong sense of justice in seeking to remedy the current unsatisfactory position where remarriage is forbidden under the Constitution.

Marriage breakdown is a reality in society. The figures issued by the Central Statistics Office show that the number of separated spouses doubled to 75,400 people between the time of the last referendum and 1993. Judicial separation applications are now running at 3,000 per annum. When one adds the number of affected children almost 10 per cent of the population is touched by marital breakdown. Although forbidden to remarry by Article 41.3.2º of the Constitution many separated spouses have formed second unions. The number of marriages has declined from 18,500 in 1986 to 16,300 last year.

I was surprised at the speeches made by two of my colleagues, Deputies Noel Ahern and Haughey, who did not seem to recognise the problem of marital breakdown and separation although they deal with constituents similar to mine. They would do well to look at reality. While we all have aspirations it is our duty to face up to reality and minister accordingly.

Marriage breakdown and separation have complex social, cultural and economic causes but they are a fact of society. Having dealt with the problems which result from marital breakdown as fairly as possible since 1986 only one injustice remains to be remedied and that is the right to remarry. It is striking how pressure groups that opposed the referendum in 1986 and are doing so now have so little to say about these problems, nor have they any answers to marriage breakdown. Economic forces, especially unemployment, and the consequent squeeze on family income is disruptive of family life. As Fintan O'Toole reflected recently, anti-social legislation pressure groups have delighted in hogging the limelight on these issues while the broader economic causes of social problems have been largely ignored. With the passing of this amendment on 24 November, like that commentator I look forward to turning national attention to the key economic issues, especially unemployment and the elimination of deprivation.

The Minister, Deputy Taylor, and the Department of Equality and Law Reform are to be congratulated for steadfastly extending the necessary legislation for the protection of separated spouses and children. The Minister's calm and rational approach to carrying through this amendment is surely the people's preferred approach to this complex and delicate matter. All parties in the House who contributed to the debate on legislation since 1986 should be congratulated. The Children Acts 1987 and 1991, the Maintenance Act, 1994, and especially the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, which was extended in the 1994 Act have laid the strong legal basis for the resolution of problems caused by marital breakdown. The programmes of the partnership Government have been largely fulfilled. The much needed Domestic Violence Bill is before the House. We are now addressing the issue of the right to remarry.

I am one of those many Deputies whose gut instinct is not to include the conditions for divorce in the Constitution. Like many colleagues I would have preferred the simple deletion of Article 41.3.2º. However, I understand the decision of the Minister and the Government to insert the strict remarriage conditions before us into the Constitution. Since the family's vital role as the fundamental unit of society is enshrined in the Constitution there is a presumption that the people should be consulted directly on the conditions of such a crucial change in family law. The Government's correct desire to secure the widest possible backing for the right to remarry also necessitated the formulation of this amendment.

The requirement to refer future proposals for constitutional change to the electorate copperfastens the strict conditions for divorce and the assurance that divorce will not be available on a casual basis.

During the next seven weeks the anti-remarriage lobbying groups no doubt will search for a formula of frightening slogans, not to mention the scary music Deputy McCreevy and others are beginning to hear, in their urgent endeavour to prevent the introduction of the right to remarry. No doubt we will be told incessantly that divorce is unjust to an unwilling spouse but surely it is the breakdown of marriage which is the major problem. Surely it is profoundly unjust to prevent separated spouses, having fulfilled the strict conditions specified in this amendment, from remarrying. Following the Family Law Acts of 1988 and 1994, the draft divorce Bill affords provisions for spouses and dependent children similar to those under the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989. In addition, the family court has extensive powers in drawing up maintenance orders, property adjustment orders and financial compensation orders to protect dependent spouses and children.

We have been told by some Members that the introduction of divorce will encourage a divorce culture and obsessive comparisons are made between circumstances prevailing in the United Kingdom and United States of America. Without divorce, the incidence of marriage breakdown has increased enormously since 1986. As my constituency colleague, Deputy Woods, noted last week, 95 per cent of Irish marriages will remain intact whether or not this referendum is passed.

On behalf of Dublin City Council I was delighted to welcome Mr. David Trimble here yesterday afternoon. Talking to him, I was conscious of another Irish political entity, Northern Ireland, within which divorce has been available for many years past, where society remains intact; yet very few comparisons are drawn with circumstances prevailing there. Those opposed to the right to remarry conveniently forget to make this comparison or the comparison between countries of the Iberian peninsula or other European Catholic countries with a culture similar to ours.

Undoubtedly the case against the introduction of divorce will concentrate on the position of children affected. We shall hear much of the University of Exeter and other studies suggesting that children are harmed by divorce whereas it is the breakdown of marriage which provokes such damage. Research has demonstrated that the breakdown of marriage can damage some children while other studies conclude forcefully that many children are far better off when partners within a high-conflict family separate, and they can resume normal development without the risk of turmoil and violence.

Researchers who have studied the incidence of marriage breakdown are aware that it can be hurtful and damaging to children but there is also evidence to demonstrate that children in severely conflict-ridden marriages can benefit from separation and divorce. The frequently quoted University of Exeter study, because of its serious methodological flaws and inherent confusions, fails to undermine that finding. In the Irish Social Worker, Dr. Paul O'Mahony says that study, as scientific evidence on this key issue, is almost entirely worthless. As Deputy Shortall noted, the Government is spending £750,000 per annum to assist 54 marriage counselling groups while funding for the Family Mediation Service which assists separating couples to resolve or at least manage their differences in a manner least damaging to their children has increased dramatically.

Existing family law legislation also lays down the duty of the family court to render the children's welfare its paramount consideration in any agreement concerning custody or access, which condition will continue to operate if and when divorce is introduced. It may well be that our "no divorce" regime has contributed to the large percentage of children — perhaps 20 per cent of first births — who live with cohabiting couples who are not married.

We shall probably hear much about the cost of introducing divorce but, under our existing taxation and social welfare provisions, there are extensive provisions for separated spouses and their dependants. For example, this year's Social Welfare Act ensures that divorced people and their dependants will not be at any loss under our social welfare code. Of course, there is a cost to the breakdown of marriage. Although recent Governments have endeavoured to recover maintenance costs, the solution must lie in dealing with the cause of marriage breakdown rather than in victimising those who wish to remarry and regularise their unions. In a spirit of compassion and maturity this House should fully support the Minister and Government by voting in favour of the Bill on Second Stage, with all Members campaigning responsibly for a "yes" vote on 24 November.

Miss Harney

A strong principle of the Progressive Democrats since its formation has been that people whose marriages have irretrievably broken down as a civil right, should have the right to have them dissolved and the right to remarry. An equally strong principle is that, in a parliamentary democracy, the duty of an Opposition, in particular, is to analyse and scrutinise legislation. The duty of any legislator in this House is to speak the truth without fear or favour. It is the duty of this House to ensure that — whether it be regular legislation or legislation to amend the Constitution — we pass legislation that is clear, effective and most appropriate to prevailing circumstances.

That duty falling on us is particularly strong when dealing with a constitutional referendum because, unlike most people, Members of the Oireachtas have two votes — a vote as a legislator and in the referendum, as a citizen. We will have an opportunity this evening to vote on this Bill. We shall have an opportunity to decide on an appropriate course to take when the vote is called at 10.30 p.m., or to go along with the crowd having failed to learn the ghastly, painful lessons we should have learned from 1986 which resulted in a huge cost not just to Miss X and her family but to the nation.

When the vote is called this evening all of us will be afforded an opportunity either to learn that lesson, to put this constitutional referendum in an appropriate form to the electorate, or to simply wash our hands of our responsibilities saying that we cannot be trusted and hand over that responsibility to the Judiciary. The duty we have is a compelling one which we should not ignore.

This debate is one the Government wish had never occurred. The Government wished this Bill would have gone through the House on the nod, it having been cobbled together behind closed doors. The Government wished earnestly that no questions would be raised and great efforts were made to get everybody on board. Once the largest Opposition party, Fianna Fáil, came on board, that strategy seemed to have been successful. However, it is a failed strategy for which we shall pay a very heavy price. In adopting it, we have abdicated our responsibilities.

I can think of no more significant duty falling on this House than to provide a forum for a full, constructive and, where possible, non-partisan debate on the amendment of our Constitution. I say "non-partisan" because, in a Republic, a Constitution must take on board the rights of minorities, those with different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds. In a Republic the Constitution has to respect diversity and give expression to the wishes and allegiances of many different people. If we have a constitutional referendum that does not command the support of significant minority groups in our society, we have taken a partisan approach, not the pluralistic approach for which many people have campaigned for years. I will deal later with what some of the minority churches have had to say on this issue.

The Progressive Democrats have been pilloried by many members of the Government, particularly by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, for daring to speak out. We have been criticised and castigated for giving expression in this House to the misgivings of so many people about the Government's approach. It is our duty to speak out when we believe the approach is wrong. Having examined the nature of this debate, it is a sad reflection on this House that Government Deputies, who said in 1992 the very things I am about to say, seek to castigate and pillory us for giving voice to the exact same view. For example, in this House last week the Minister of State, Deputy McManus, said the Progressive Democrats sought to stand in the way of lifting the ban on divorce in order to score cheap political points. If we were interested in scoring cheap political points we would have gone along with the crowd — it is always easier. We would have sat on our hands this evening and we would not have sought to put ourselves in our present position. We are not in the business of scoring cheap political points or adding to the trauma many thousands of victims of marital breakdown have had to endure for so long.

The issues at stake in this debate are crucial for this House and for society, not just for the present but also for the future. They are issues which will also have an effect on our relationship with Northern Ireland. I touched on some of those issues in my meeting yesterday with Mr. Trimble. In the Downing Street Declaration the Government vowed to look at aspects of Irish life alien to the majority community in Northern Ireland.

On behalf of the Government the Taoiseach said the Irish Government would examine those aspects of the law and the Constitution which were not pluralistic with a view to changing them. When the first opportunity arises to do so the option is taken of writing into the Constitution the wishes of a certain social group — we fail to give leadership. This strategy and this debate is being conducted on the basis that the Government took an opinion poll and is seeking to give the people a photofit of what it believes they want at a particular time.

If there is a lesson to be learned from the last campaign on this issue it is that only when the debate begins that people will begin to consider the issues. In seeking to write the provisions into the Constitution the Government is misjudging the wishes of the electorate. The concerns are not about whether they are in or out of the Constitution but about how spouses, children and other parties are affected by the introduction of divorce. The Government should have concentrated on those issues, not the strategy of writing the matter into the Constitution.

I am not the only person who takes this view. The Lawyers Divorce Campaign — a coalition of barristers and solicitors who practise in family law — has said in relation to the Minister's proposals:

We believe it is unworkable, unfair and will lead to another sprawling and expensive constitutional mess. It will mean more trauma for couples in crisis, more expense and more uncertainty. We strongly believe that the Constitution is not the place to legislate. It is there to guarantee rights, freedoms and duties and to set up structures of the State.

The group called on the Oireachtas to have a Constitution for the common ground, not a Constitution that seeks to start what it calls "the battleground". It ended by saying: "If we proceed along this road we will need further referenda to sort out the legislative and constitutional mess." The views of such experts should have been considered.

I also wish to refer to what the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, said with regard to a different referendum in 1992, although his arguments are compelling in the context of this referendum. In the Official Report, 21 October 1992, volume 424, column 26 he said:

The history of this sad and sordid constitutional mess is rooted in something which I find to be offensive, fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-republican. The claim made by some people is that politicians are not to be trusted and therefore into our Constitution had to be written a provision for the protection of the life of the unborn, so that no group of elected politicians could at some future stage remove that protection.

He went on to praise his party leader for telling that group where to go and he ended by saying: "That rest is history, but history has a tragic way of repeating itself." History certainly has a tragic way of repeating itself just as the Minister, Deputy Quinn, has. I am sure he did not realise history would repeat itself in a tragic way when he became Minister for Finance.

The Leader of Democratic Left, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Proinsias De Rossa said in the same debate on 20 October 1992, Official Report, Vol. 423, cols. 1996 and 1997:

Democratic Left does not believe that it is possible for appropriate for a modern democratic state to attempt to deal with complex issues or personal morality such as abortion, in the Constitution. The 1983 Amendment which sought to impose the views of one section of Irish society, who oppose abortion in all circumstances, was fundamentally anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of genuine republicanism.

...The interests of democracy can never be served by one group using the Constitution to force its view of a complex matter of personal morality on others who take a different view. It should not be the role of the Constitution or our laws to impose majority — or minority — ethics on everyone.

In its submission to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in May this year the Church of Ireland said:

One of the major challanges facing the Republic of Ireland is the creation of a genuinely inclusive society which tolerates and respects variety and diversity. We have been heartened in recent years by the efforts of successive governments to legislate in areas and on matters which would not necessarily command the support of a majority but which have been aimed at creating a more inclusive society... Much, however, remains to be done and the Church of Ireland wishes to register its strong objections to the use of the Constitution as an instrument of determining complex social and moral problems.

Its submission went on to point out that as well as providing a framework for the laws of the State, the Constitution is an instrument which embodies the ideals and aspirations for the character of society and, as such, it must be an inclusive document which encourges the allegiance of all citizens.

Why do we in the House wish to ignore the wishes to the minority church when they are expressed so forcefully at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation? If we are genuinely interested in having a republic and a pluralist society, our duty is to win support for that. It is not our duty to seek to undermine the creation of that society by writing into the Constitution the complexities of social legislation.

The Minister for Equality and Law Reform has given us many assurances as to the wording proposed in the Bill. He tells us it is clear. The Minister's words do not matter; what matters is their interpretation by the courts. As the Minister for Health, Deputy Noonan said during the debate on 21 October 1992, Official Report Volume, 424, columns 319 and 323:

The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court decides it means at any time, so clearly we can never be absolutely certain what any Amendment to the Constitution means when framed, debated, passed by this House and endorsed by the people.

...The Minister's assurances were so wrong in 1983 that one must regard similar assurances given by the Minister... with awe and a mixture of fear and wonder. Only a man with the ego of the Minister could give the kind of assurances the Minister gave yesterday after being so wrong in 1983.

The specific wording of complex social legislation when written into the Constitution always creates ambiguities and uncertainties. I can do no better than endorse the words of the Ministers, Deputies De Rossa, Quinn and Noonan. In 1992 they were in Opposition and perhaps it was somewhat easier for them.

We have learned nothing from the X case. History is about to repeat itself and we will force Mrs. X, who is not an abortion case but a marital breakdown case, to follow the same course as that unfortunate Miss X. Can we say with certainty what the living apart provision means? Is it appropriate to write such vague concepts into the Constitution? All we can say for certain is that the Supreme Court will decide, not the Minister. Can we say with certainty what "appropriate provision" is for the spouses and children? What is appropriate to one may not be appropriate to another. Instead of abdicating our responsibilities and deciding these issues we are passing the buck to the Judiciary. Can we say with certainty what a "reasonable chance of reconciliation" constitutes? I do not think we can. By writing vague, ambiguous and uncertain words into the Constitution we are storing up enormous difficulties for the victims of marital breakdown.

It is certain that if people ask for legal advice in relation to living apart no lawyer will tell them to stay in the same house and live separately and they will get a divorce. Any lawyer, in order to be certain, would have to advise their client that a physical separation would be better. The provisions and the wording used will have the opposite effect to that intended.

During this debate many Deputies have taken the view that this Bill will help some people if passed and will undoubtedly provide a legal remedy for many victims of marital breakdown. However the fact that it will help some does not mean we must accept anything. We have an opportunity to give real leadership and put appropriate legislation on the Statute Book. The only effective way to do that is to have appropriate legislation in conjunction with the deletion of the constitutional ban on divorce. We are offering the people an unreal choice — either an absolute ban or an inflexible formula which cannot be changed except by another referendum — and that is unfair.

The Tánaiste and Leader of the Labour Party, speaking about these issues, said on 20 October 1992:

By writing the words into the Constitution we will confuse people... This confusion also serves to make the point that it is almost impossible to legislate for a complex set of circumstances by seeking to insert a sentence into the Constitution.... Almost every single word in the Government's proposed amendment is loaded with potential meaning. No one can predict at this stage whether or not the issue will be the subject of litigation in the future. What is clear is that statements of "Government intent" are a meaningless basis for predicting the outcome of any future test by the Supreme Court. The words will be judged on what they mean, and not on what the present Government would like them to mean.

What the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, said then applies equally to the provisions of this legislation, and I agree with it.

The Government has not given adequate consideration to the interaction between the proposed Bill and existing provisions of the Constitution, as my colleagues Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Keogh highlighted last week. For example, Article 41 states that the family based on marriage is "the natural, primary and fundamental unit of society and ... a moral institution possess[ing] inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law".

Will this refer to the first or second marriage? The Article goes on to say the State "guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State... The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

When the amendment is written into the Constitution it will conflict with existing provisions. Only the Supreme Court can adjudicate on how that will be resolved. Besides the time factor, the expense and delay, it may well be that within four or five years, when all the Supreme Court interpretations have been made, many Oireachtas Members will deeply regret the course taken in this debate.

Last week the Taoiseach said that when he became Leader of Fine Gael, he declared that his party had the political courage to place difficult social issues before the Irish people. It does not take courage to place issues before the people — that is the strategy of letting the people decide. What takes courage is to give leadership, to seek support for an unpopular cause. In 1992 the current Taoiseach said:

The real tragedy of the Government's approach is that it is unnecessary to force the electorate as this amendment does, if it goes through in its present form, to guess, guesstimate or take a chance on what the sentence will actually mean when the Supreme Court comes to interpret it. It is unnecessary to force the electorate, unfairly, to select between competing and conflicting legal assertions... The very existence in this House of doubt and debate about the meaning of the various words shows that we should stop this progress now and choose a different course... The proffering of a formula involving that level of uncertainty represents a grave failure of leadership.

I agree with that. Do we want a Constitution which prevents this legislature from legislating on the details of family law? Do we want unchallengeable and unalterable court decisions as to what does or does not constitute "living apart" or "a reasonable chance of reconciliation"? Do we want judges, not democratically elected politicians, to have the last word? Do we believe that in three to five years the conditions we write into the Constitution, which we now regard as strict, will not be regarded as grossly unfair and inflexible?

Recently a commentator said we were good in Ireland at half-grasping nettles but to half-grasp them is much more painful. If this House votes for the Government's Bill it is voting no confidence in itself. It is endorsing the view of a growing number outside the House that politicians cannot be trusted. I urge the House to reconsider the approach and ask the Government not to be so inflexible with the reasonable arguments put forward by the Church of Ireland, lawyers with expertise in this area, and so many others. The Government will not be doing so for the Progressive Democrats but to create more favourable, effective and flexible circumstances where those citizens who are victims of marital breakdown can have realistic and compassionate legislation.

Mr. S. Kenny

The purpose of the proposed referendum is to provide the people with the opportunity to decide whether the Constitution should be altered so that divorce and subsequent remarriage will be possible for those whose marriages break down. All Members of this House who deal with their constituents on a daily basis are aware that marital breakdown is a fact of life in today's Ireland. We know the problems and costs of breakdown, both social and financial, are with us already. We are also aware that many whose marriages have broken down have formed subsequent relationships which have endured and in which children have been born.

This Government, in common with previous Government, is committed to protecting the family and marriage and there is clear evidence of this. The Family Mediation Service, in operation since 1986, has been expanded, with funding of £300,000 this year. It has a network of nationwide mediators. Grant-aided voluntary organisations are providing marriage guidance counselling service and pre-marriage courses with funding of £750,000 in 1995. The legal aid service has seen its most radical nationwide expansion since its establishment 16 years ago. These services are proof of the Government's support for marriage.

As to the grounds for divorce, the Bill provides that the four year period of separation can be accumulated over a five year period. This allows a couple to attempt a reconciliation without jeopardising the possibility of obtaining a divorce, should that be the ultimate decision. The four year period is a guarantee that spouses will not enter into divorce lightly; they will have the necessary time to reflect on the serious step they are undertaking.

There will be no "quickie" divorces under the constitutional amendment, which reflects this society's awareness that marriage is a process which must be worked at and is intended as a lifelong commitment. However, where that commitment has come to an end over a long number of years, it is a denial of what we understand by marriage to demand that spouses continue to be bound by a legal relationship which is devoid of any real meaning.

The amendment ensures provision for vulnerable spouses and children. Detailed arrangements have been made for the position governing occupational pensions so that a court may earmark a proportion of the retirement benefit of a spouse who is a member of a pension scheme to provide for a benefit to be paid to a former spouse where the pension scheme contributor dies. The vital contribution of a spouse who has chosen to look after the home and care for the family cannot be overlooked and must be taken into account by the court when deciding the overall adjustment of property.

The Family Law Act increases the upper limit for the maintenance obligation for children in full time education from 21 years to 23 years. Where the child has a mental or physical handicap the maintenance obligation may be indefinite. The Act also provides for financial compensation orders, which may assign all or part of a spouse's interest in a life insurance policy in favour of the other spouse or a dependent family member.

The Social Welfare Act, 1995 ensures that provisions of the social welfare code apply equally to those in need, regardless of whether their status is deserted, separated or divorced. This means, in effect, that a divorced person will not be at a loss in terms of his or her social welfare entitlements, as is the case for individuals who obtained a divorce abroad.

The main areas in the social welfare code where protection of this kind is being provided is in regard to widows' and widowers' pensions, lone parents' and deserted wives' schemes, occupational injury benefits, family income supplement and prisoners' wives' allowances. A divorced person in employment who is supporting his or her former spouse and children may now qualify for a family income supplement if their pay is below the threshold. The cost of these improvements has been estimated at less than £1 million over five years.

This Bill proposes to give effect to the commitment in the programme, A Government of Renewal, to hold a referendum in 1995 to remove the constitutional ban on divorce and remarriage on the basis of irretrievable breakdown. The Government has honoured its commitment to address in advance issues such as the protection of children, taxation, social welfare, inheritance laws and pension entitlements.

This House should take a broad, humane view and address the reality of life and the welfare of people. Much has changed since the last referendum in 1986 and many people who voted "no" in 1986 have changed their views. This Bill is about the lives of 75,000 citizens in broken marriages and seeks to enable them to put their lives and legal affairs back in order.

I wish to pay tribute to my Labour Party colleague, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, for the calm, compassionate, reasonable and firm manner in which he has handled this very complex issue. I am sharing my time with Deputy Boylan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory.

Mr. Boylan

I thank Deputy Kenny for sharing his time with me. I will not say that I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate, nevertheless I will not refuse the opportunity because that would be a soft option and one which a number of people will be taking. We were elected to this House to face up to our responsibilities as legislators and we must also take the hard options, of which this is one.

This is a difficult subject to debate but we must be realistic and honest with ourselves and those who sent us here and accept that many couples here have marital problems. The family structure is very strong and will remain so as people are committed to marriage. Ninety per cent of marriages are successful. However, we must recognise that some people can get it wrong. For some unknown reason it is not acceptable to say that some people have marital problems as if it is the one area where mistakes are not permitted.

People can make mistakes, for various reasons, and they affect every strata. I am aware of couples living in the poorest of circumstances on small farms or with small business who are struggling to bring up their families but one can sense the happiness in their homes. Similarly, if a spouse is struck by ill health they support each other, which is marvellous to see. Those who are comfortably off also enjoy life. However, the reverse is also true. Difficulties in making ends meet or health problems place stress on families.

I am not addressing those cases but in others a spouse may let his or her partner down or a person may change. The old attitude was, "you made your bed, now lie in it"— that they knew what the person was like before they married them. However, people hope that there will be changes when they get married, that drinking, gambling and socialising habits will change, but that does not always happen. They, and their children, are then trapped.

It is the children whom I am concerned about. The children of broken marriages need guidance, more so now than ever as there are so many distractions and opportunities for them to get into the wrong company. If the parents are not living together, the State has a duty to ensure that those children receive a proper upbringing until they are 18 years of age. None of us had any say in how we came into the world and we look to our parents for guidance. If they are not living together children must have some other safeguard. This Bill will introduce a safeguard and put structures in place to guarantee children their rights. Similarly, wives should not have to put up with being battered.

Some people are claiming that this Bill will open up a minefield of social problems and that marriage as we know it will break down completely, which is an insult to the thousands of happily married couples. I do not accept the scaremongering of the anti-divorce lobby who see only doom and gloom. Marriage and family life are very strong here. We can see people's commitment in building homes and taking out mortgages. However, we have to accept that marriages can go wrong. I cannot say that divorce is the solution but I am prepared to address the problem. The Church and the State have a role to play, although people's commitment to their own Church is a matter for themselves. I am not imposing divorce on anybody or asking anybody to remarry. However, there should be a proper legal separation procedure which will give rights to the partner who bears the brunt of the separation and to the children. I have no doubt that the people will make the proper decision on referendum day and I have every confidence in the people of Cavan-Monaghan to do so.

Mr. Flood

I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this important debate. I recall the last debate on this subject in the mid-1980s which, although I was not a Member of this House at that time, I felt was very divisive, difficult and harsh, particularly for those in broken marriages. On this occasion, the approach by both sides has been much calmer and rational, at least up to this point. I hope that the remainder of the campaign will be conducted in a similar fashion. On the last occasion, there was too much bitterness in the campaign for many people to make a rational decision. I hope that all the arguments advanced by both sides will be clearly understood so that people can make their decision on this very important issue.

Last week I addressed the Separated Spouses' Association on the issue and I was somewhat amazed at their lack of understanding of the complex issues involved, their unawareness of the legislation which has been put in place since 1986 and their inability to understand the meaning of that legislation for them. The second issue they raised — I felt it was crucial — was the financial implications of obtaining the right to remarry. They expressed great concern that if the referendum is carried, those with money will be in a position to get a divorce much more quickly than those who will have to wait for free legal aid. As we know, while the service has been expanded considerably over recent years, there are still long waiting lists. That group expressed great concern that severe financial hardship would be imposed upon those who would have to wait for free legal aid. Consequently, these issues will have to be substantially addressed at considerable cost by the Government to ensure that the service is developed whereby people do not have to wait as long as some would expect they may have to, thereby believing themselves discriminated against with regard to what may well become for them a right.

When I hear people speak in defence of marriage I listen carefully to what they are saying and then try to examine the record of our defence of marriage. In many cases we have not supported marriage and merely paid it lip service. For example, regarding the counselling services which have been put on a statutory basis, there are approximately 75,000 families now in crisis. Our allocation to this service was £750,000 in 1994 and the same figure in 1995. If we were committed to defending marriage we would probably consider investing far greater resources in this very important service. It is something the Government will have to look at.

I am also concerned when I hear those who are opposed to the introduction of divorce and the right to remarry spell out the economic arguments against amending the Constitution to allow for divorce. They speak of the effect of divorce on children. Sadly, I have been in many a house in my constituency where I have found two people living together who should not do so in any circumstances. These are people who married in good faith many years ago, who had children and who continue to live in the same house although it does not benefit them and certainly does not benefit their children.

I appreciate that the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, probably addresses situations such as this effectively. However, there is a culture which says there should be no divorce, that families should stay together and that husbands and wives should stay together at all costs. This ought not to be the case for the individuals themselves and for children. It is saddening and sickening to see, as I have seen, children broken and traumatised by the effects of what goes on in their homes where the partners have stayed together. We see children who will not or cannot stay at home, who end up in detention centres and other institutions because they are living in a totally dysfunctional home that long ago should have gone through the process whereby the issues involved were addressed in a calm and rational way, and where, if it was the case that the parents could no longer live together in peace and harmony, they should have parted. Such a course of action would have a far better effect on children than forcing them to live in a situation that is totally unsuitable for them.

I have seen women impoverished in homes in which there is marital discord but, following a divorce there is no reason to think that the economic circumstances of those concerned would get worse, they would get infinitely better because those concerned might have better control over whatever income is available to them through social welfare and so on.

Women are impoverished not only economically but in other ways. If a couple has to stay together because the culture is such that they should not part, that there is no divorce and, therefore, no right to remarry, the situation then emerges where individuals find themselves in second relationships. They have come through a marriage that has broken down and, having lived together happily for many years, find themselves in the difficult situation where they cannot, according to their remit, go through a second marriage ceremony in order, as they see it, to put things right. I recall a case where a lady had lived in a situation where nobody in her family, including the person who thought he was her husband, had realised that she had been married 30 years before. She carried the cross and worry for 30 years that somehow a document would appear, such as a birth certificate, marriage certificate or some other State certification, that would blow her cover. She lived with this through her life and all her children had, according to the law which I do not fully understand, effectively the wrong names.

I see no good reason, in so far as a partnership has broken down and a certain amount of time has elapsed to confirm this, that those who then wish to remarry should not have the right to do so. If we are capable as a nation of tackling this issue in a compassionate way we will have developed significantly as a society from when we last discussed this issue in 1986. If we implement much of the legislation already in place to cope with family breakdown and the breakdown of marriage between husband and wife we will be doing a terrific service for society.

For a long time we have lacked compassion and have always taken the view that things should be swept under the carpet, whether it be child sex abuse coming from a specific section of society, harsh regimes in children's centres and in schools in the past and so on. Our way of dealing with these issues has always been to sweep them under the carpet. If we do not talk about them openly they will not be discussed and they might go away. Similar considerations apply to wife battering etc. I visited a women's aid home in the past week and was saddened to see young children with mothers who had come through very traumatic situations and were there because of a variety of problems within the family setting.

It is time we recognised that even though we claim to be a great Christian country and adhere to a specific religious persuasion, we have not acted any better than many other countries which do not strongly adhere to any specific religious belief. We have much progress to make. We can tackle this issue in a social and compassionate way and, therefore, mature as a society.

Many issues must be tackled. Some have already been addressed in the different Bills that have been introduced since 1986. This issue should have been properly and rationally addressed long before now. The fact that it is again before us and that it is being addressed in perhaps a more reasonable way means that at least those with a different point of view will be able to put it forward in a calm way and in a way that is not as divisive as previously and which led to the defeat of the introduction of the right to remarry.

I supported the right to remarry and divorce then, I do so now and will continue to do so right through the campaign. I do not request that people be swayed by my arguments. I simply say that in my experience as a public representative I have learned a great deal about the problems of family and married life. I, therefore, believe it is essential that all the information is put fairly and squarely on the table so that all the people can understand the issues. If this referendum campaign fails it will be because the people are still not satisfied that they have all the information to enable them to make up their minds in comparison with the past occasion when there was much doubt, worry and concern genuinely held by people who failed to grasp the complexities of what we were trying to do.

I hope we get it right on this occasion.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 3 Oct 1995

An Bille um an gCúigiú Leasú Déag ar an mBunreacht (Uimh. 2), 1995: An Dara Céim (Atógáil). Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 2) Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Oct 1995