Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Oct 1995

Vol. 456 No. 3

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 Meán 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.
Atógadh 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 eol 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 neamhhiomchuí coinníollacha mionchruinne 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:
"Dáil 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 appropriate 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.)

The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Justice, Deputy Burton, is in possession and she has some 14 minutes remaining of the time available to her.

For those who are fearful about the introduction of divorce here, an examination of the position in the North would offer substantial reassurance. Divorce on a scale similar to the British model has been available since 1978. Approximately 2,300 divorces are granted per annum. Almost 3,000 applications for the equivalent of a judicial separation order are made each year and this compares with the figure of 4,000 barring orders and 3,000 applications for judicial separation in the Republic.

The existence of divorce on the British model in Northern Ireland, and its availability there, has not destabilised northern society. As I said the last day, if one were to look at those dioceses which straddle the Border, North and South, one would not find any great difference in marriage breakdown between, say, Dundalk and Armagh which are in the same diocese. When looking at examples of the experience of divorce in other countries we should carefully examine the position in those jurisdictions which have a cultural background and religious traditions similar to ours. In countries like Austria and Portugal which have substantial Catholic populations, and where divorce has been available for a period, it has not undermined the institution of marriage. Those countries suffer from problems in relation to marriage breakdown as do all modern societies.

The existence of the right to remarry can only undermine existing marriages if the only basis for those marriages is their legal status. Marriages take place and continue primarily because of the original consent of the parties involved and their continued consent and commitment. Couples who marry choose to give that consent and commitment a legal reality; the withdrawal of consent to the marriage is what brings it to an end. The withdrawal of consent may be by one or both parties — withdrawal of consent by one in itself ends the marriage. That is an unfortunate reality. The removal of the legal status of the marriage, whether by way of judicial separation or divorce, is simply a recognition that the marriage has ended; it does not bring about the end of the marriage. An individual may be divorced against his or her will — this is true; but it is no different from the present situation where an individual may be separated against his or her will; marriages may be annulled against the wishes of one party. Will the proponents of this argument also say that we must have no more annulments for this reason?

A new argument was introduced to the debate recently in that it has been suggested that the family of the first marriage will effectively be downgraded in favour of the second family. Children — whether born within a first or subsequent marriage or outside marriage — all have the same rights to be maintained by their parents and to succeed to their parents' property. The parents have the same duties towards them. Divorces will be granted, as are legal separations at present, only after arrangements have been made for the maintenance and support of the first spouse and children.

This requirement is of such significance that it is being written into the Constitution. Those people who are genuinely concerned about the first family and children need to look at the wording of the amendment which will put into constitutional form considerations for the position of the first spouse and children. There is no doubt that it is difficult to support two families but it is wrong to suggest that the first family will be in an inferior position relative to the second. This argument is made by people who have traditionally supported the concept of annulment as a means of dealing with problem marriages. The process of an annulment, where it can be declared that the parents were never married or that one or other parent is at fault, is potentially far more psychologically damaging than the process of judicial separation and divorce which, I hope, will be preceded by mediation and counselling.

The picture of the first wife and children being abandoned in penury is not a fair picture of the outcome of divorce. The may see a reduction in their standard of living because of the breakdown of the marriage and the need to establish two households — but this is already happening without divorce. All the information on poverty in Ireland and elsewhere suggests that women and children suffer disproportionately from poverty. This has always been the case and the absence of divorce legislation in Ireland has not made the situation of Irish women and children any better. What impoverishes women and children is the dependency status of many women — whether that dependency is on a husband or ex-husband or on the State. Tackling the feminisation of poverty is a major issue for all of us but let us not confuse it with the issue of the right to remarry.

I am a little disturbed by the concentration in the debate on the effects of divorce on women. There seems to be an underlying but unstated assumption that women are totally unable to cope with the vicissitudes of life, that they need protection by men and that all the protection is best delivered by refusing to recognise that a marriage can come to an end. These simplistic assumptions serve only to promote a limiting and inflexible view of women's role in society and of their capacity to assert their own rights and entitlements. The analysis also wrongly suggests that the absence of divorce guarantees women protection from poverty, violence and abuse. It manifestly does not.

Ideally we would all like to see children growing up in a stable loving family but, unfortunately, this is not always possible. I would like to be able to claim that we in Ireland have a better record than others in cherishing our children but, unfortunately, it is simply not true. The absence of divorce has not meant that all our children grow up in stable families, that our children are free from abuse of all kinds, that they are guaranteed a happy childhood. Requiring their parents to stay legally married to each other, in spite of the breakdown of their relationship, does nothing for children. There is no doubt that we need to concentrate further attention on children in marriage breakdown; denying their parents the right to remarry does not improve the position of the children.

I accept that many of the arguments put forward by the people opposed to divorce are reasonable, with which other reasonable people can deal and address in an appropriate way. However, I resent the suggestion that those of us who favour the introduction of civil divorce, do not have a moral vision or, if we do, it is of questionable value. I and my party certainly have a vision of the kind of society we want. It is a tolerant society where people's relationships with each other are governed by the rule of law, equality of treatment and respect for the views of others. I stand by that vision of a pluralist inclusive society and I deny any suggestion that it is somehow or other an inferior vision for Ireland today or at any time.

Many of our laws exist because people, in spite of their best intentions, often fail to live up to their own and society's highest expectations. We have laws which deal with the rights and duties of people in all sorts of circumstances where failure occurs — when their businesses fail; when they fail to deal honestly with other people etc. We have extensive legislation dealing with people's rights and duties within marriage towards their children and when their marriages fail.

The divorce referendum is about the right to remarry. The Government has put a range of legislation in place which deals with marriage breakdown. This legislation outlines the rights of spouses and children and deals with maintenance and property, custody and guardianship of children. The Government cannot legislate happy marriages into existence. If it could, obviously this Government and every other Government would try to so so. It offers support structures for marriage and is now dealing with the consequences of broken marriages. Providing for divorce is the last piece of the legislative jigsaw. Divorce is the formal recognition of the end of the marriage and the establishment of the right to marry again.

As my colleague, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, has said on a number of occasions, the language of winning is not appropriate to this debate. I am confident that the people will vote to allow the right to remarry. I do not expect that those who favour the introduction of divorce will rejoice at its existence per se, rather that they will celebrate the tolerance and compassion shown by the electorate; they will celebrate the choice in favour of a pluralist society and the recognition of minority rights that its introduction entails.

During my recent visit to Belfast when I met a wide range of family lawyers and the organisations dealing with marriage breakdown in the North, both Catholic and Protestant, I was struck by the comparisons one could make between the situation in relation to marriage breakdown, North and South of the Border. Unfortunately, both societies are experiencing relatively high rates of marriage breakdown.

In the North there is a final legal remedy which allows people the right to remarry if they so choose. That right has existed for a considerable period and there is no evidence that it destabilises marriage or the commitment of people of both traditions in the North to marriage. I am confident that the introduction of the right to remarry will similarly allow people here who wish to regulate their relationships, to enter into second marriages if that is their wish. Equally those who from conviction or otherwise do not wish to opt for that will not find the status of their marriages in any way affected. I would urge generosity and compassion on the part of the electorate when they go to the polls in November.

The Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party is supporting the passage of this Bill, but it is no secret that not every member of my party will vote or campaign for a "yes" vote in the referendum. This is true of every other political party in the Dáil. Neither is there unanimity in most families in Ireland on this issue.

Having been through many elections and controversies, one would think I would have been hardened against "voter surprise", but I was not the only seasoned politician who was amazed at the attitude of many voters in 1986. Friends who I expected to vote "yes" were of the opposing view whereas others, including persons who were most conservative in other areas of social policy, voted "yes". So it will be in November 1995. This is one issue on which individuals will make up their own minds, taking their consciences, prejudices, social values, personal experience and many other factors into account.

Some commentators are making an issue of the fact that some political parties are not canvassing on the doorstep for a "yes" vote. It will make no difference whether political activists stand on every doorstep and beg even their own die-hard supporters; the most committed party activist will make an individual decision on this occasion.

I voted "yes" in 1986 and will do so again on 24 November. If I can persuade any voters to do likewise I will gladly do so, but I respect the views of party colleagues, personal friends and voters who think otherwise and who will campaign against the proposal.

I take issue with the campaign to date of the organised anti-divorce campaign. I have identified its secret theme — if you cannot convince, confuse. The last time around those who were against the introduction of the right to remarry set out to convince, and they had supporting evidence. There were huge gaps in the corpus of law which could well have left individuals, families and first spouses in severe difficulties. The Oireachtas has addressed those gaps and we are now operating in a very different context. The people who are against divorce cannot now point to those dangers. Instead, they are like those Indian icons with six hands pointing in six different directions telling us to be frightened of this, that or the other. However, the people are not shaking in their shoes, in spite of those warning fingers. They are staying remarkably calm, and there is no panic. The reason is the basic, solid, commonsense of the people. They analyse even the most terrifying claims and come to a realistic conclusion about them.

It is claimed that divorce legislation will move us one step further down the road to a secular society. Would anybody be scared to live in a secular society? The dictionary definition of a secular society includes words like "civil" and "lay". I do not know about the people involved in the anti-divorce campaign, but I have no problem living in a civil society, and I am not scared by any of the other synonyms like "earthly". When someone outside the jurisdiction describes Ireland as being "run" by the clergy or by the Catholic Church, modern Ireland shrugs and laughs because it is simply not true. We live in a modern secular society with a strong traditional set of beliefs and an increasing tolerance of beliefs which differ from our own. It is astonishing that anybody believes we should roll that back.

There is no threat to the role of the Catholic Church in passing a law to allow remarriage after a lengthy separation following the breakdown of a first marriage. The church operates effectively and influentially in countless countries where divorce has existed for a long time. I said at the time of the defeat of the 1986 proposal that the Catholic Church played little or no role in influencing voters in that referendum. Subsequent to the defeat in 1986, many commentators wrote about the "key influence" of the Catholic Church in defeating the proposal. This was simply not correct, and I stated so at the time.

Some commentators on this issue are as guilty as those they accuse. Many are caught in a time warp of their own prejudice reflecting the Ireland of the 1940s and 1950s. Their view is one typically believed by the Dublin middle classes and reflected constantly in certain media outpourings. If the Irish people answer "yes" to this referendum the floodgates will not open, although it is often claimed that this is what will happen if we introduce certain legislation. They were supposed to open when we changed the laws on homosexuality. I have lived through several decades of predictions about floodgates opening and it has never happened.

Some floodgates have certainly opened. We are experiencing a wave of pregnancies outside of marriage, and many of the women involved are very young. That is a fact, not a dire prophecy and it carries negative implications. If the anti-divorce campaign is committed to the future of the nuclear family, why do not people like William Binchy and Nora Bennis devote their considerable skills and commitment to preventing teen pregnancies? At this end of the continuum, young people are living together without benefit of church or State approval; babies are being born to single mothers and the institution of marriage is being frayed visibly and measurably. However, the people who say that marriage must be protected are not working in the area where the institution is already being eroded. They are putting all their energies into the divorce issue. They would remind one of the man who dropped his keys on the street who, when someone, seeing him searching the ground under a lamp post asked if that was where he had dropped them, said "I dropped them over there, but the light is better here". When the anti-divorce campaign spread confusion, it does it with slogans that have little substance but carry a scary tune. It is like the minor key music which starts when the villain appears in a movie. It sets out to get a shiver going up the spine of the nation by telling the people that the minute divorce is on the Statute Book every marriage will become temporary and conditional.

That is such tripe, it is difficult to find a parallel but it is like saying the minute someone takes out car insurance he is dying to crash his car and make bits of himself. I have yet to meet a driver who was affected in that way by taking out car insurance and I have yet to encounter a good, loving, supportive marriage that could be made temporary by the introduction of divorce law. It is insulting to suggest that the structure, the essence, the reality of a relationship could be changed absolutely by the introduction of a new law. It is also very silly. The change in the law regarding homosexuality did not make hetorosexual relationships unstable. Nobody would even suggest that. Why would the introduction of law on remarriage make a happy marriage suddenly disintegrate? Nobody elects any of us to this House to create legislation built on fiction. It is fiction to suggest that divorce on the Statute Book will rock every good marriage in the country — that is pure fiction, comic book stuff.

We are elected to enact legislation that is responsive and realistic; legislation that meets the real needs of real people not the specifications of any group who have a notional Ireland in its head and wants us all to march into that notional Ireland in the way the children marched into the mountain when the Pied Piper of Hamelin played his tune.

In the real world where I live, marriages break up. Couples who believe in marriage and who married each other in high hopes and joyful expectations may experience marriage breakdown. They do not have contempt for marriage or the family and have no desire to inflict further suffering on anybody. They want to learn from their failures and commit themselves to a solid second relationship. They believe in marriage and the family to the extent that they want to make a public affirmation of their second relationship, to enter a State recognised formal commitment. There is nothing stopping them having a second relationship right now. Nobody can stop them living together. However, they take the relationship and marriage seriously.

It is wrong to assume that everybody who wants a divorce is shallow, unfaithful, trivial, uncommitted and uncaring about their children. Now there are many of those people around but they are not usually knocking on the doors to get married again or even married the first time. It is people who have suffered a marriage breakdown, yet have faith and belief in the structure of marriage who want the right to remarry; people who have made mistakes and learned from them. People who have a love for children want to make sure that children from their second relationship have the same, not better, supports as the children from their first marriage. I have made no secret of the fact that I am among that group, although personal experience is not the reason I support this move. I support it because I believe it is my job as a responsible legislator to provide the framework to allow people to live decently and responsibly within a changing Ireland and to protect children in the process. I will, therefore, make only one personal comment. It is infinitely sad and tawdry that anti-divorce people seem to believe that marriages and families should be buttressed by surrounding them with the wreckage of other people's marriages rather than letting those other people embark on a new commitment. I know a great many happily married people but I do not know many people who would feel better about their marriage because someone else is not allowed to remarry. It is a perverse and pointless suggestion and I am confident the electorate will reject it.

With your permission, Sir, I wish to share my time with Deputy Pat Gallagher (Laoighis-Offaly).

Is that agreed? Agreed.

That was a splendid speech by Deputy McCreevy, it was very well put. Marriage breakdown is a reality in Ireland and it is time our laws and Constitution recognise the realities and not the legal fiction. It is time that people who are happily married extended the right to those whose marriages are long over to formally end their marriage, if that is their choice. It it time that the State should give the opportunity to separated people who wish to have a second change in a way that is given legal recognition and legal protection. Anyone can make a mistake.

I married at the age of 21 and I could easily have walked into a relationship that did not work out. I would like to think that I — and my husband — would have a second chance if it did not work out. No one who walks up the aisle in hope knows how the interplay of two personalities will work out over many years. Most people hope it will be forever and are willing to work at it being forever and that is the situation for most people who get married in this State. However, it does not work out in some cases. It is about time we started to bury the hypocrisy and recognise the reality — to call someone married who has not lived with a partner for 20 years is not to recognise the reality of that situation. I think we have come a long way as a society since 1986 and we are more willing to recognise realities. I hope we will recognise realities on 24 November. We no longer pretend that marriage breakdown or child abuse does not happen in holy Ireland. We have evidence all around us that these things are part and parcel of the way we are. I hope we have less patience with legal fictions.

We have come a long way since 1986 in the very substantial corpus of legislation that has been put in place. There is protection for people affected by marriage breakdown. Whether people are married, separated or divorced our laws provide there are continuing obligations to dependent spouses and children. One cannot divorce one's children but if one divorces one's spouse we are recognising that the relationship as a two-way bond no longer exists. However, the financial dependencies survive beyond the divorce and under our Constitution it will be a condition of getting a divorce that appropriate financial provisions will be put in place.

Giving formal recognition to marriage breakdown does not cause breakdown. However, it does provide an important framework where couples can resolve what part of their marriage obligations are over and what remain because the relationship is over. Too often people who separate simply walk away from these issues and there is not any ending. I do not know how many times I have dealt in my clinics with women who have been left on their own and because there has not been a formal procedure none of the issues such as caring for the children or financial support has been dealt with. In a situation where people are in a position to formalise the end of a marriage and not just the halfway house of legal separation, we may well find many more couples who will sit down together with the assistance of the family mediation service and resolve those issues and face up to them rather than divorce Irish style which we have enjoyed for so many years where one partner walks away and the loose ends are not addressed.

One of the most sinister and subversive arguments being put forward by the anti-divorce campaign is that divorce will damage existing marriages. I think they are trying to appeal in some subtle way to the insecurities among people who are happily married and do not envisage divorce for themselves to deny what should be a civil right. Marriage is a voluntary relationship between a couple and I do not think its existence is threatened by what happens to other couples and the chance we give to other people to embark on a second relationship.

We are not talking about easy divorce. We are talking about divorce to be introduced only when all the obligations have been fulfilled and when there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation.

Another argument being used by the anti-divorce lobby is that people will be divorced against their will. They are fingering the notion of no-fault divorce. I do not believe William Binchy, Nora Bennis or others supporting the anti-divorce campaign want to see fault divorce introduced either, they are against divorce. It is a much more civilised arrangement for people who continue to have a relationship with one another as the mutual parents of their children to agree on a divorce through mediation and in harmony rather than on the basis of trading accusations and faults against each other.

In regard to the argument that people may be divorced against their will, what type of a relationship would continue if it was simply one sided? It cannot be a case of one person being married and the other not. Marriage, by definition, is something that is mutual and in circumstances in which the partners have been separated for a long time and the courts find that there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation, it flies in the face of reality to say such a marriage exists in any way other than on paper. Divorce is the only honest way to face up to such a reality.

The final scare tactic being used by the anti-divorce lobby is that it will cost £350 million in social welfare payments. That is nonsense and those promulgating that are aware of it, but it makes a nice sound bite for radio chat shows. Our social welfare system already supports the majority of lone parent families — whether they are alone as a result of separation, divorce or for other reasons — where there is no bread winner or adequate income to support the family. The legal labelling of a separation as a divorce will not change that reality and that is why the cost of divorce in terms of social welfare will be a modest £1 million after five years, a small price to pay. The cost in the first year will be £200,000.

It is important that people who become divorced now or in the future know that they will continue to qualify for widow's and other pensions. The 18 Bills introduced, including the Family Law Bill, provide for sharing occupational pensions for fair provision in regard to the family home. Such provisions will apply in the case of a judicial separation or a decree of divorce. The legal effect of divorce will simply allow the partners to enter a second marriage which may be formalised and viewed with respect.

The introduction of divorce is about choice, not about compulsion. We must acknowledge that it is a civil right of those who are separated to have their positions legalised. We cannot continue to perpetuate legal fictions in the name of protecting marriage. Such legal fictions do not have a bearing on happy marriages, but their preservations does a disservice and an injustice to those who are separated and is in contravention of their civil rights.

(Laoighis-Offaly): I welcome the opportunity to speak. The debate that has taken place since last week has been measured and reasoned and I will continue in that vein.

I am speaking as one who recently made a commitment to another person through marriage. The efforts necessary to live up to that commitment are not buttressed, supported or aided to any degree by denying others whose relationships have failed, the right to legally separate and to have a second chance in life. Anyone who propagates that theory is propagating a myth. It does a great disservce to the notion of marriage, to commitment and to healthy human relationships to assume and preach that imprisoning people in a failed relationship will do anything to help those embarking on a commitment through the institution of marriage.

It is unfortunate and oft-stated fact that in contemporary Irish society marriage breaks down and none of us is in any doubt about that. Those of us who deal with county council business, constituents' queries, housing lists and so on cannot have any doubt that separation and marriage breakdown occurs, causing much hardship. We must address this problem in a realistic manner and not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that by denying those whose relationships have failed the right to remarry we are doing anything to improve the lot of anybody else.

Divorce is not a catalyst for marriage breakdown and the consequential crumbling of the social fabric some claim it will be. It is simply a legal recognition that marriage has broken down and no longer exists in anything but name. Judicial separation is at present the most comprehensive remedy available to people in such circumstances here but, as we know, that denies the parties involved the right to remarry. The absence of divorce has not prevented marriage breakdown and our society will continue to have to deal with the social and economic consequences of marriage breakdown. The legal provision enabling the irretrievable breakdown of marriages to be recognised already exists in legislation on every aspect but one, the right to remarry. The Judicial Separation Act has at least demonstrated to people that when a marriage has broken down an arrangement can be entered into between the parties involved to provide for continuing support for the spouses and children and that the breakup of marriage is not the end of the world. However, unfortunately it does not allow people to embark on a legal commitment to a second relationship. As Deputy McCreevy stated, the Judicial Separation Act has demonstrated that the floodgates are far from opening in the manner that was predicted.

The claim that we are anti-family is a categoric falsehood without foundation. The family is the irreplaceable cornerstone of society and this has been illustrated by the commitment of the last and current Government to the preservation of the family through providing additional funding for marriage counselling organisations since the establishment of the Department of Equality and Law Reform. We are also realistic enough, while acknowledging our commitment of the family, to realise that marriages can and will break down. Therefore, as well as being committed to the family we are also committed to finding a remedy for those whose marriages have irretrievably broken down.

It is important to note that divorce is for those whose marriages have irretrievably broken down. There is no desire to create a divorce culture here and this proposal will not do so. For this reason we have ruled out any suggestion of easy divorce. There will not be "quicky" divorces under this legislation and this is spelled out in the provision which states that spouses must be living apart for four years of the five years preceding the application and the court must also be satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. I compliment the Minister for inserting that provision in the legislation. The court must be satisfied that efforts at reconciliation and mediation have been made and that is what the applicants want. That is further support for the institution of marriage. Those who oppose the proposal are doing the people a disservice by pretending the Government is not committed to protecting marriage. This is an illustration of its commitment to protecting the family. Spouses may resume living together for a short period of up to one year without affecting the possibility of applying for a divorce in the event of a trial reconciliation being unsuccessful. In addition, a further and important requirement of the amendment is that provisions will be made for the spouses and children involved as the court sees fit.

I wish to bring this question closer to home by considering the position in my constituency. I put it to the prophets of doom that marital breakdown is not a massive avalanche smothering all before it. The latest figures for judicial separations in my constituency show that there were 106 applications in 1993-94, about two per week, of which 27 were granted, approximately one every two weeks. What we are talking about is a definite but hardly overwhelming social reality. We cannot pretend this is not happening.

Those who oppose the introduction of divorce would deny those involved the right to remarry. They have a fixed vision of this country and do not believe in introducing any measures which do not fit in with it. However, at a time when tolerance is being actively promoted on this island one would think they would adopt a more pluralistic approach to social issues, such as marriage breakdown. One would think, in the light of modern Irish history, that people on this island would be much more open and receptive to the feelings and wishes of minority groups and others in society who may not agree with them.

Taken together, this Bill, the draft Family Law (Divorce) Bill and the Government paper, The Right to Remarry, represents the most comprehensive detailed presentation of a referendum proposal ever published by a Government and put before the people. This amendment has been proposed as a remedy to a social problem which clearly exists. The introduction of divorce has been proposed because marriages break down; it has not been proposed to facilitate the breakdown of marriages. Simply stated, divorce is the legal recognition of a social problem which already exists. I commend the proposal not alone to the House but to the people.

I wish to consider the context of the current debate on the proposed referendum on the question of whether divorce should be allowed under the Constitution. Regardless of one's personal standpoint on the issue, most people probably agree that the outcome of the referendum will be of major importance in determining the direction which society will take over the coming decade. Consequently, in anything approaching normal circumstances, the issue would have been debated fully and at length before the final decision was placed in the hands of the electorate. The report on marital breakdown notes as element No. 19 of its proposals: "The Government proposes to proceed with a divorce referendum after a full debate on the complex issues involved". If the scope and nature of the overall debate to date are anything to go by, the much needed examination of the complex issues associated with marital breakdown and the likely impact of introducing divorce is unlikely.

The debate to date has been extremely disappointing. Both sides of the argument bear responsibility in this regard with each party showing scant respect for the genuinely held views of their opponents. Many comments have been short on substance and objectivity but extremely vocal in terms of abuse and intolerance. For example, as recently as last Sunday, I read that the chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, Mr. Niall Stokes, launched an extraordinary attack on the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies who oppose the introduction of divorce. If one ignored the disgraceful language used by Mr. Stokes, the general tone of his comments was chilling and indicated a total lack of tolerance for opinions contrary to his own. In particular, the attitute adopted showed scant regard for the core benefit of democracy which is the opportunity to freely express one's own opinion while accepting the overall will of the majority.

I hope that such profoundly abusive and intolerant viewpoints will not figure prominently during the remainder of the campaign. They add absolutely nothing to developing our insight to the problem of marital breakdown and do not assist in identifying the most effective way of assisting those directly affected by such a family crisis.

To date media coverage of the issue also seems highly biased in favour of the pro-divorce side. If one was to attempt to summarise the basic message projected by a range of articles, the following two points are made again and again: first, the only acceptable vote is a "yes vote" and, second, if one opposes the introduction of divorce one is insensitive to the plight of those affected by marital breakdown, that one really supports the introduction of divorce but is afraid to do so publicly and that one is totally out of step with the opinions and wishes of the people. Many of these attacks are made by people who have never been elected to any public position. There must be objectivity and both sides of the case must be made in a civil and constructive manner. Both sides of the argument deserve a full and fair hearing by the media.

I have devoted the initial part of my speech to stressing the vital need for objectivity, openness and tolerance in the debate. Similarly, I strongly plead that we focus on the likely advantages and disadvantages of introducing divorce in society. It is only when this has been done by all participants to the debate that we will be able to say that we are properly exercising our duties both at legislative and executive level.

Despite the tone and nature of my comments to date I freely admit that I find the topic of divorce a particularly difficult one to assess with any degree of certainty. However, in preparing my comments for today I have focused on two key issues regarding divorce. Does marriage breakdown constitute a serious problem in current day Ireland and how can society best deal with the problem?

On the first count it would be extremely dishonest of me to state that there is no problem in relation to marital breakdown in modern Irish society. A number of findings point in the opposite direction. For example, there is increasing evidence of violence and abuse in the home. Such conduct is totally unacceptable in any society which considers itself civilised. While we often tend to recall the past in positive and sentimental terms there were also many unspoken problems in relation to the family and the widely observed practice was to maintain a discreet distance from obvious conflict within our families. While such a practice minimised the level of external interference in the life of the family, unfortunately, it sometimes allowed grossly unjust behaviour to go unchallenged. Despite the general air of gloom which is created increasingly by the revelations regarding violence and abuse in the home I have no doubt that such exposure is necessary to protect the many victims of such violence. When society makes it abundantly clear that any form of abuse in the home will be exposed and the guilty parties suitably punished then and only then is the problem likely to be successfully tackled across the community.

Before I leave the subject of abuse in the home I wish to stress that significant improvements in this area are unlikely until the development of the necessary legislative changes is complemented by the expansion of relevant support services. Changes in the law cannot be effective in isolation. Too often a Deputy encounters at constituency level a total lack of awareness regarding the safeguards which exists to protect and support the vitims of abuse. As a general point, the lack of such integration between legal innovation and the provision of State sponsored support services is one of the main reasons social problems of various types are not being tackled effectively.

Another indicator of the level of marital breakdown in modern Irish society is the level of dependency on deserted spouses' benefits and allowances. According to the 1994 report of the Department of Social Welfare, there are currently approximately 15,000 recipients of either the deserted spouse's benefit or allowance. While this level of desertion must be considered in the context of almost one million family units, it provides a further insight into the level of marital breakdown in modern Irish society. The onesided decision by a partner, generally the husband but not always, to ignore his or her responsibilities results in much pain and suffering for the family. The period of desertion can range from a short time to forever. While the easy response to desertion is to heap blame on the missing partner, little benefit will derive to the family from such posturing. The only responsible role we can adopt as legislators is to commission research into the various factors which provoke such behaviour. Only through the insights gained by such research can we move at the twin levels of legislative change and Executive action.

In general, most people agree with the view that our society is largely based on the family unit. There is almost universal agreement that we must do everything in our power to further the wellbeing of the family in every possible way. My worry is that while we have excelled in our aspirations for the family, we have not been as effective in introducing practical supports, especially for families that encounter serious problems.

We cannot bury our heads in the sand as far as the major changes which continue to take place in our society are concerned. The level of desertion I mentioned is one indicator of the deterioration in the stability of the family unit. The very worrying level of abuse and violence is another appalling indicator that the cosy idea we may have of the quality of Irish family life does not apply to all families. Yet another indicator of change is the rapid increase in the number of lone parents.

The 1994 report of the Department of Social Welfare indicates that there are 29,823 recipients of lone parent's allowance. They are classified as unmarried parents. A further 8,034 recipients of the allowance qualify as separated spouses. According to the most recent CSO report approximately one in five births occurs outside the traditional family unit structure. The implication of these issues for the future of society requires intensive consideration. For the ordinary married couple with a family, modern life involves facing challenges and crisis on a regular basis. One can only imagine the extra burden which must be carried by a single parent.

Marital breakdown is a major problem in modern Ireland. The ever increasing number of single parent families adds significantly to the challenge faced by the Government of the day as they attempt to cater equally for all citizens. I focused earlier on extreme examples of family breakdown such as those provoked by violence, abuse and desertion. There are two other categories. I have no doubt that a number of spouses remain in seriously damaged marriages without any official record of their plight. There are a number of reasons for this hidden suffering. Many partners, often women, remain in an unsatisfactory marriage for the sake of the children. Despite the major changes in our social habits over the last 20 years or so the almost universal commitment to children, thankfully, remains the core element of our society. However, it might be argued that remaining in a failed marriage may not ultimately be in the best interests of the children. Financial necessity leaves many women in particular with no apparent option but to remain in a bad marriage.

While we may fairly claim that the State's commitment to a variety of relevant social welfare programmes has been substantial over the last decade we tend to forget that the single most important material element of any family unit is the home. If in practical terms a woman would like to terminate a bad marriage and feels capable of securing the necessary weekly income to do so, accommodation poses a major problem. Selling the family home and dividing the proceeds can often leave both partners in limbo. They do not have a sufficient level of capital to enable them to purchase a new house and they may not easily obtain local authority housing.

Another category of family breakdown involves cases where one or both partners have formed a genuine relationship outside the marriage which they would like to establish on a permanent basis. Frequently both partners are anxious to dissolve their marriage and there is every likelihood that the children, if any, will continue to receive full emotional and economic support from both parents.

I have concentrated on the various reasons genuinely put forward to justify the introduction of divorce. Only the most insensitive people could doubt that marriages have broken down with little or no likelihood of reconciliation. How do we deal with this problem? A series of opinion polls indicates that unlike the 1986 referendum when there was a two thirds majority against divorce a majority of the electorate now wish to introduce such a facility. As a result of the persistent findings of the polls, there is a democratic necessity to afford the people an opportunity to give their verdict on the matter by holding a referendum and I have no problem with that. The day that we decide the people should not have the final say in a matter of critical importance will be a poor day for democracy.

As a public representative it is important to state my voting intentions in the referendum. Hopefully, my comments indicate that I have given extensive consideration to the matter over the past few weeks and I have narrowed my views on the issue to the following key questions: is marital breakdwon a major problem in Ireland and is the introduction of divorce the most effective way to deal with the problem? I have little doubt that many Irish marriages have broken down totally and a number of others are at risk. The second issue is more difficult. Apart from my personal beliefs I have three problems with supporting the introduction of divorce at this time. First, we have carried out far too little research into the cause of marital breakdown and the services which must be developed to provide maximum support for such couples. The level of investment in counselling services is grossly inadequate and, but for the tremendous work of the church and voluntary organisations, the position would be much worse. We have not seriously assessed the implications of introducing divorce, nor have we examined in detail the financial supports which will be necessary to ensure that the family and, in particular, children do not suffer significant loss in living standards.

Our own party committee stated: "the research shows that, in general, marriage breakdown and divorce have a negative effect on children both short and long term, psychological and social" although this was not universal. The introduction of divorce is likely to reduce the incentive for many couples experiencing difficulty to persist with their marriage. This has been the universal experience elsewhere. For these reasons the introduction of divorce at this time would constitute a major step into the unknown. Consequently, I will vote "no" in the forthcoming referendum while urging that we tackle the task of supporting the family with renewed urgency.

I should like to share my time with Deputies Hogan and Kemmy.

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

I am glad to be afforded the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The forthcoming referendum on divorce will be not only a momentous occasion in the development of family law but also in the development of a more pluralist, modern society.

As has been said frequently in recent weeks divorce exists in our society in everything but name. That is totally unjust especially bearing in mind the reforms in family law implemented over the past decade or so. Despite unprecedented reforms it is clear they cannot be brought to fruition without recourse to the prospect of remarriage.

In voting for divorce, we do not vote to undermine the family but rather for legal recognition of marriage breakdown. On too many occasions we chose to deny the existence of marriage breakdown. We have matured in the past decade or so and are no longer willing to sweep social issues, such as divorce, under the proverbial rug which has long ceased to constitute an adequate response to social ills. It is a measure of our growth that we have now come to realise that. Because of that maturity this Bill will be accepted.

It must also be pointed out that divorce is not an end but rather a response to a social ill affecting many of our citizens. We do not ask the electorate to vote for divorce simply for its sake but rather because it constitutes the only reasonable solution to the pain inflicted on those parties involved in difficult marriage relationships.

As a nation we pride ourselves on being fair to our fellow citizens and that is another reason it is important that the forthcoming referendum on divorce be accepted. A society within which a sizeable minority is constantly denied the right to remarry by the happily married majority is far from just. At a time in our history when we are endeavouring to heal divisions it is important to demonstrate that we are in tune with the feelings of the minority within our society.

There have been suggestions that the Government has not adopted the proper approach to the forthcoming referendum. On behalf of my Labour colleagues and the Minister I categorically reject such suggestions. The Minister and his Cabinet colleagues have gone to great lengths in their preparations for the introduction of this referendum and have introduced a total of 19 Bills — providing the legislative support for this referendum — whose provisions encompass the protection of children, pensions and social welfare rights. As a family lawyer the Minister has brought his considerable skills and knowledge to this exercise. I would go so far as to say this will be the best campaign in the history of constitutional referenda.

The Government proposals are aimed at avoiding the bitter divisions which characterised the 1986 divorce referendum. I congratulate the Minister on the work he has done on this issue since he assumed his portfolio.

I ask people generally to show compassion and charity to those seeking the right to remarry. It is unfair and wrong to deny them the right to legalise new relationships; indeed to do so would be to discriminate against them since the right to remarry is a civil right long established in many other jurisdictions. It is high time it was introduced here to cater for those in need of it. Some people contend that the right to remarry will lead to the initiation of a "quickie divorce" culture. Nothing could be farther from the truth since the Government proposals will allow parties to divorce only after they have adequately demonstrated their marriage has irretrievably broken down and they have been living apart for more than four years. This should more than satisfy those opposed to the concept of "quickie divorce".

I am not in favour of quickie divorce and those who engage in such argument merely engage in the tactics deployed in the course of the 1986 referendum. The proposals are sensible, fair, just and will protect the family, without affecting the many happy families within our society.

I call on all parties and Members to support the Minister and Government in their bid to introduce the right to remarry. The establishment of this right will not be served by engaging in the continuous bickering and negative campaigning witnessed already in this House.

I listened to Deputy Haughey say never has he had any constituent request that divorce be introduced here. He must be about the only Member who has not received such a request. All other Members to whom I have spoken told me that daily at each of their clinics — and the same is true of mine — people ask when this referendum will be held so that they can extricate themselves from their unhappy relationships and continue to live happily with another party thereafter.

I compliment the Minister on his balanced approach in bringing forward these legislative proposals with regard to the forthcoming referendum on divorce. I have no doubt it involved much reflection on the part of the Government and the Minister in particular, on what proposals were most likely to succeed in obtaining a majority vote on such a major issue.

By enshrining many proposals in the constitutional amendment the Minister and Government are reflecting the very wide spread of opinion within the House and nationally and the fears of many of the electorate about introducing a divorce culture in addition to the requisite safeguards for families, children and the many issues that arose in 1986.

Deputy Mulvihill pointed out that since 1986 there have been many legislative changes within the family law area generally, not the least of which was the introduction of 19 Bills which should help to reconcile many of the problems and fears held by the electorate in 1986 when they were concerned about property rights, pension rights, taxation and with the rights of children. As one who campaigned in that referendum for a "yes" vote I can readily understand the fears then expressed and with the benefit of hindsight, the reason the electorate was not prepared to take that major step without the necessary clarification, particularly bearing in mind the total confusion in the public mind, exacerbated by a considerable number of people who exaggerated or dramatised many of the difficulties that would ensure from the introduction of divorce at that time.

Notwithstanding those fears, the intervening nine years have afforded all Members an opportunity to reflect on the steps necessary in the family law area to eliminate such fears and confusion, thereby allowing those who have encountered marriage difficulties a second chance. I hope we shall not witness the scaremongering that obtained in 1986 when many fair-minded people, for one reason or another, voted "no". We look forward to adequate information being disseminated by the Government through this House, the media and elsewhere to dispel any fears or confusion about these legislative proposals.

No Member of this House wishes to encourage or facilitate the break up of marriage but equally no parliamentarian can legislate to prevent such an eventuality. We cannot bury our heads in the sand any longer, failing to acknowledge that there are 75,000 couples — judging from the last Labour Force survey — deemed to be separated, living in this State and that in excess of 23,000 people are dependent on deserted wife's benefit or single parent's allowance. This constitutional amendment is necessary to allow all of those people a second chance. The experiences of these people reflect the reality that marriages break down irretrievably. Between 1982 and 1987 the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown was established. Many of its members, some perhaps for the first time, heard evidence on the breakdown of marriages. There were differences of opinion about the solution, but all Members acknowledged there was a serious problem for a minority of families. Some public representatives not necessarily in favour of divorce sat on that committee with open minds and at the end of the deliberations saw divorce as the best and only option to return to some form of sanity through regularising the union of separated people whose marriages had broken down.

The first respite for separated people was the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989 introduced as a Private Members' Bill on behalf of Fine Gael by Deputy Shatter. The House agreed that it should form part of the legislation to assist separated couples. It was an important milestone in family law in so far as it has given people an opportunity to examine its effect. The fears about the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act opening the floodgates to separation and, eventually divorce were groundless because of the strict conditions the courts apply to the grounds for a separation. The Act has succeeded fairly well in meeting the needs of spouses and children, and meeting their family needs and obligations.

The proposal in this Bill is well balanced. It meets people's fears in that a "quickie divorce" culture is not contemplated. It enshrines the need for reconciliation. This Government and previous Governments have increased the funding in recent years to many organisations involved in mediation and counselling. It deals with the law's obligation to children and spouses in advance of divorce being agreed by the court. In other words, one will not qualify for a divorce unless one can show that a process of reconciliation was undertaken and the needs of children and the other spouse have been dealt with. Thus, it is reasonable to ask the people what other fears they may have in allowing a constitutionally restrictive second chance if the need arises for a minority of people.

The referendum is about drawing together in a legal mechanism the many unofficial family unions without damaging the existing family structure and without being irresponsible as to the needs of children and spouses and the need for reconciliation which is enshrined in the proposed amendment.

The right to remarry is required for a number of people and this proposal achieves that objective in the most restrictive way. Attitudes to the right to remarry have changed in the last nine years. This has been helped by the Government, and, in particular, the Minister, Deputy Taylor who introduced many family law reforms. With regard to the issues which are important, namely the right to remarry and the recognition that marriage breakdown takes place, we will not be found wanting by the people when they vote on 24 November. I hope needless confusion and fear will not be generated in the campaign. I hope the issue will be well debated in a balanced way so the fear that stalked the land in 1986 will not be generated in an irresponsible way in 1995. I will vote for this Bill; I will vote "yes" in the referendum and I will ask my constituents to do likewise.

Marriage breakdown and divorce are painful subjects. However, the problem will not go away and it has to be faced realistically sooner or later. There has been nonsensical talk of us as gatekeepers manning floodgates against the modern world. However, the modern world is here. There have also been fears expressed about the fabric of society. People have been emigrating since the 1840s and nobody cares too much about what happens to these sometimes illegal immigrants.

Divorce exists in many democratic countries, including all the European countries. The bishops and their churches are entitled to their say, but many of their statements have nothing to do with the referendum. The church is entitled to state its views but it must put its own house in order first. There was at one time an ambitious plan to send missionaries from Maynooth to China to convert 1.2 billion people; it might be more appropriate to send a mission to Maynooth if missionaries able to tackle the modern world could be found. The church has not been impressive in tackling the modern world in a realistic way.

I will stand up to any bishop on the issue of marriage breakdown and divorce. I have seen the pain and trauma of marriage breakdown in my clinics as clearly as any bishop. Let the bishops have their view but we are entitled to legislate and we must do so. Running away from the problem will not solve it.

I am not impressed with the posturing of the Progressive Democrats. It has been the most divided party in this House on social issues through the years. It has always allowed a free vote and has been like a pantomime horse — one side going one way and the other side going another. Its so-called unity only papers over the reality in the party. Let it behave in this way in the future on other issues. It has run for cover in the past on tricky issues and I am not impressed by it.

I wish this was a simple removal of the ban on divorce. The Government has, as Deputy Mulvihill said, put time and thought into putting legislation in place to prepare the way. We are also spending money to make all the relevant information available to the public to inform minds and consciences. As Deputy Hogan said, let us have no more scaremongering or panic as we had in 1986, when people without backsides in their trousers were worried about succession rights when they would succeed to nothing but poverty in many cases. However, they were stampeded and frightened by sermons from priests and lay people.

Many people give the impression that Christianity was founded somewhere in Ireland and we have patent ownership of our version. This is a small country of 3.5 million people with its own problems. We are not in a position to lecture the rest of the world or countries like China with 1.2 billion people as if we have a holy grail and our version of truth is more pure, honest and has more integrity than anyone else's. I am not impressed with that attitude.

Most politicians have been around and have had to emigrate and suffer unemployment. They meet people from the top and bottom of society. It is ridiculous to speak here of sanctimonious solutions. There is pain and trauma in the world and marriages break down. All we are asking is that people should have the right to remarry if they wish. We are not forcing marriages to breakdown; no sane, responsible person wishes to see that but all families have been touched by this and we know the pain it causes.

People who wish to abide by any church's teaching on this question are free to do so. We would not force anyone to end his or her marriage or to be divorced but we ask that people be treated as adults. In a democracy people should be able to make up their minds free from pain and pressure, and be able to decide for themselves if they wish to remarry. That is all we are doing. Legislation has been put on the Statute Book and this is the final step to allow people to remarry.

I was sick and tired of the fear and panic engendered during the last referendum nine years ago. I was in the middle of it in Limerick and heard the crude scaremongering. People with good background and education descended to the most base, mean, materialistic and mercenary arguments. There were no questions of religion, ethics or morals — it was crude materialism which won the day. This time I hope we have a more civilised debate. People should be allowed room to make up their minds. They will get information and leaflets from both sides and should be allowed to decide how to act.

Deputy Haughey must live in a rarefied world — he never met anyone looking for divorce or suffering from the trauma of marriage breakdown. I do not know how any politician, whether a councillor, Senator or TD, could make such a statement. Anyone who lives in the real world knows marriage breakdown is all around us. His argument is like saying if hospitals were banned, people would stop getting sick. However, divorce is banned in Ireland and that does not stop marriage breakdowns. Even if the referendum is defeated it will not stop. That must be accepted. Deputy Haughey is playing to a certain gallery but he does not fool me.

I hope this referendum is carried in November — I do not know what will happen if it is defeated.

In defence of my colleague Deputy Haughey, he has been a public representative since 1985 and does not live in a rarefied world.

He could have fooled me.

Each person should be allowed his opinion and we will not all agree.

This referendum is about whether people should have the right to remarry when their marriages have irretrievably broken down. I campaigned for a "yes" vote in the 1986 referendum and was disappointed at the outcome but in retrospect there were huge gaps in legislation. If the referendum had been passed there would have been chaos in the courts and great difficulties for people who would have filed for divorce under the new circumstances. In hindsight, therefore, it may not have been bad that the referendum was defeated so that the legislation now in place could be used to best effect to protect those seeking a divorce, their families and homes.

About 19 Acts connected with this matter have been passed since the last referendum. These provide for circumstances where marriages have broken down so that children and spouses can be protected. It is only right that this should have been done. Now, people are being asked whether couples whose marriages have irretrievably broken down should have the right to remarry. I believe they should be allowed do so. Although some will say if the referendum is passed the number of marriages breaking down will increase and the family will be undermined, I do not believe that will necessarily be the case. At present, marriage breakdown is a reality. We all know it happens and few families have not been touched by it — approximately 70,000 people have been affected.

Not anyone I have met whose marriage has broken down has approached this in a casual manner. All of them have gone through unbelievable heartache, pain and emotional distress during the breakdown. They did not suddenly walk out on their spouses and children. It happened over a number of years, the decision was difficult and emotional and much pain was caused. These people did not enter a marriage flippantly — they wanted to commit themselves to it for life but unfortunately, for one reason or another, it did not work out.

I reject the idea that the referendum will open the floodgates and hundreds of people currently married will decide to divorce. That will not happen; people have far too much invested in marriage and their personal lives to do that. In Northern Ireland, huge numbers of people have not sought divorces. The position does not seem much different from the Republic.

Various Governments have improved matters by introducing marriage counselling and mediation. These have been successful and many marriages in great difficulty have been helped. Counselling has resolved many problems. When one is in a marriage it can be difficult to see the wood from the trees; when one is so close to another person it is hard to stand back. Mediation and counselling help people to look at problems from the viewpoints of oneself and one's partner. I am delighted Governments have increased the moneys to these bodies so they can get on with their good work.

Like others, I do not believe divorce should be made easy. It should only be granted where it is proven that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The wording put before the people in this referendum will ensure divorce is not made easy and the vast majority are happy with that. I agree with the Progressive Democrats that in an ideal world the Constitution is not the best place to put such working but people want to feel that in voting in favour they are not assenting to quick divorces. There may be challenges to putting this in the Constitution but people do not want to vote for easy divorce and this wording gives them that assurance. It is a very personal decision and people will make up their own minds. To a certain extent, the debate will take place over the airwaves and in the printed media but it will not be the normal political campaign of knocking on doors. Most people know somebody who has been — or have themselves been — touched by marital breakdown so they will not be influenced by people knocking on their doors from the Divorce Action Group or anti-divorce groups. They have listened to the radio over the last few years and have watched programmes on television, they have their own personal experiences and have read about it in the newspapers.

If the referendum is defeated, there will be a huge number of foreign divorces. Such exporting of our problems would be regrettable and we must face up to the fact that this issue happens in this country. We may not like it but we must accept that it is happening. That is another reason I urge people to vote yes.

A newspaper journalist telephoned me this morning to ask my attitude to divorce and if I would be canvassing my constituents. I told him that I was going to vote yes and that I will be urging a yes vote. However, I do not think that knocking on doors urging people to vote yes or no will make any difference. I do not believe that this will be won on the doorsteps. I have been at meetings in my constituency where people are voting yes or no for their own reasons. It is a very personal decision and I do not believe that I or any other politician will influence them. It is important that we say how we will vote but I do not believe that we will greatly influence people.

If the referendum is lost some commentators will blame political parties or the church. However, the people will decide this and I do not think that anybody else can be blamed. We must respect their opinion as long as there is a proper debate without fear or confusion. Unfortunately, some of the debate so far has confused people. I talked to some people recently who are voting yes and they are more confused now than they were at the start of the debate. I hope that there will not be a great deal of confusion in the debate — it is a clever tactic for those against divorce to confuse people who will decide at the end of the day that they do not want social change and will vote no. People in every country are not very positive about social change because they are unsure what it will bring about. Unfortunately, that tactic is beginning to work and the Government and others must work to ensure that people are very clear about what they are voting for — the right of those whose marriages are irretrievably broken down to remarry.

The other issue is the church's problems and whether that will undermine its position in this debate. I do not believe that the church's problems have anything to do with this debate, this issue stands on its own. The church's problems are unfortunate but are not connected to this referendum and should not be used for or against. It is wrong for people to bring that issue into the debate as it is separate. It is similar to many other issues on the liberal agenda — if one is for contraception that means to many people that one is for abortion, divorce and everything else, which does not necessarily follow as they are all separate issues.

Many of my party colleagues have already stated that they will be voting no. I have no doubt that many members of Fine Gael and some members of the Progressive Democrats and Labour will be voting no. I respect their views which I believe are influenced by their personal experiences and to which they are entitled. I am delighted that they are expressing those views and I do not go along with the idea that if one votes no one is some sort of arch conservative. It is interesting to talk to people socially about why they are voting no and it is surprising which way some people are voting. I must respect somebody's right to vote not the way I want them to and they must respect my point of view. I will try to persuade them to vote yes and I know that I have no chance of doing so in some circumstances.

We should not start mudslinging and attacking people with different views. Some people believe that divorce will undermine marriages and society, which I do not believe. However, we should respect each other's views and it is very important for us to set a standard, not to mudsling and to be clear on the issues. I am voting yes and if I am asked — as I have been — I will be encouraging others to do the same. Divorce is a compassionate way to deal with a problem in our society and a realistic response to the needs of a modern and pluralistic society. If the referendum does not succeed I will accept the people's views, but I hope that people will vote yes and put this issue behind them.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Flaherty.

The people can feel far less threatened and fearful in 1995 than was the case in 1986. The reason for that, as stated by other speakers, is the vast amount of legislation we have put through this House over the last nine years. There is one fundamental piece of legislation in the area of family law reform — the right to remarriage — which we have not yet tackled, but we are now so doing. This must be put to the people because of the constitutional ban on divorce and we must do so in a very forthright and positive way. The defensive attitude of some of my colleagues in the House, especially from members of the party opposite, is regrettable. It was summed up for me in the contribution made by Deputy Eoin Ryan when he said that if asked he would tell people to vote yes. Why should the Deputy wait to be asked? I hope we can be positive about this issue.

One of the main planks in the legislation I mentioned was the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989. Nobody could say that this legislation has not been working well. It has worked very well and because of that we should feel positive about moving to the next step, which is to ask the people to give us the power to introduce the concept of the right to remarriage. The ban on divorce has failed to protect marriage. Why have we had this insertion in our Constitution since 1937? It is flawed to assume that by banning divorce and by consequently muzzling the Oireachtas we will not have marriage breakdown. This was the flawed assumption made by Éamon de Valera and the writing fathers of our Constitution in the late 1930s. It was a steadfast but very naive acceptance that the awful consequences of a failed marriage were better than the remedy of divorce. That is why we have this constitutional ban. We did not have it in the earlier years of the State. It was introduced in 1937 on the basis of a terribly flawed assumption on the part of the authors of our Constitution.

We must ask ourselves if divorce is a desirable mechanism for dealing with a complex social problem or is it itself a social evil. Is it, in the famous words of Dr. Woods, a Frankenstein stalking the land?

That was Lord Campbell.

Are we prepared to introduce a desirable mechanism? That is what the people must decide.

Of course there are no winners in marriage breakdown, and I do not believe anybody ever said there were. However, what and where is the evidence to suggest that divorce threatens the stability of marriage by lessening the seriousness with which the parties to a marriage treat their responsibilities? I have not seen such evidence and I have not seen the proponents of this argument, either on the last occasion or in the run-up thus far to this amendment, produce such evidence.

Divorce is not a cause of breakdown but a reflection of the changing attitudes in society towards a lifelong marriage. If we work from a premise that divorce will wreck families and break up marriages we must ask what were the adverse consequences of our family law legislation on marriage to date? What family law legislation has created the battered wife or the deserted wife, or has given rise to children being prisoners in a marriage that has become, for many reasons, less than harmonious? What family law legislation has invented the callous, calculating wife beater? These problems existed before the legislation was introduced and enacted. It is the same with regard to divorce legislation.

It is regrettable that we have had so many comparisons, from the so called anti-divorce lobby, with the USA and the UK. Are we saying that our system of judicial administration is similar to that which exists in the USA? The answer to that is no. One need only consider the nauseating O.J. Simpson circus to thank goodness that we in this country have not gone down the road of the USA in so far as our legal system is concerned. It is also fundamentally unfair to make a comparison between the USA and the UK.

I have not heard much, in terms of comparisons, between the likely divorce legislation here with the situation obtaining in Spain and Italy, countries that could perhaps be regarded as much more similar to Ireland. In both these countries society, by and large, subscribes to the Roman Catholic religion in statistical terms similar to those in this country. For example, in Spain there are fewer divorces than marriage breakdowns in this country and Italy has one of the lowest divorce rates in the world. In view of this, I hope that we could focus the debate on the consequences of divorce in so called Catholic countries, rather than seek comparisons, on a very unfair basis, with the situation obtaining in the USA.

If we as legislators introduce a programme of family reform it must be just and fair. In order to be both we must favourably consider the concept of remarriage as to deny it would be fundamentally unfair.

I am sure Deputies from all sides of the House agree that divorce will not solve the problems of marriage breakdown. These can only be solved by education, mediation, support and reconciliation. Divorce will not solve such problems and nobody ever intended that it should.

However, divorce will allow for an absolute end, a chance to rebuild, a chance to begin again and a choice of a second relationship with the lessons from the previous tragic breakdown hopefully learned from the sad experience. I am voting yes to the Bill before us. I will be asking, and am now again asking my constituents in LaoighisOffaly to enable the Government to introduce legislation to allow for a second chance and for remarriage.

When we as practising politicians look at the nuts and bolts of a campaign, it will not be sufficient in the course of that campaign for us to pass through the lobbies, then sit on the fence and say it is up to the people to decide. This is where I agree with the provision of information and spending Government money on information to support a yes campaign. If we are to be true to our ideals in politics, it would be illogical and a grave disservice for a Government to introduce a referendum and then to run away telling the people they can vote whatever way they like. There must be the initiation of a campaign and of influence. We must also encourage, in a positive manner, the people to go along with the proposal in the programme for Government to allow the tens of thousands of people in this country who are in a most difficult and traumatic situation the choice — nobody will force them — to commence or regularise a second relationship, with lessons hopefully and duly learned.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this important debate. As in 1986, I welcome the fact that the opportunity of introducing divorce to the country is being put to the people, and as in 1986, I will be supporting it and campaigning for a yes vote.

Circumstances have greatly changed since 1986 and many lessons were learned from the failures of that campaign. All of us in the House will have deep memories of it — there was such a dramatic change from the early part of the campaign where there was so much support for change — and because of them, many of us approach the matter with a good deal more wisdom and caution on this occasion.

The situation in which the matter will be considered by the people has dramatically changed, for a number of reasons. One is that nine years have elapsed during which we have not had divorce and regrettably, the level of marriage breakdown has continued to increase. The argument that divorce would, of its nature, cause an increase in marriage breakdown is not as simply put now because the levels of breakdown have been so high in the intervening period without divorce.

It is also clear that the problems associated with marriage in society do not relate to the issue of divorce, but to other pressures and a debate should give us an opportunity to consider these. The Joint Committee on the Family is looking at family issues in a broader context and this debate affords us an opportunity to consider the reasons an increasing number of marriages are breaking down.

Many speakers referred to the dramatic legislative changes introduced since the previous divorce referendum, for example, the status of children legislation, the landmark judicial separation legislation, the family law legislation and the legislation dealing with pension entitlements. During the previous referendum the concerns about property rights, etc., made it very easy for the anti-divorce lobby to encourage people to vote "no". Some Opposition Deputies said they would find it difficult to campaign in favour of divorce. I understand their concerns — it is very difficult for people to say they are passionately in favour of divorce — but we regard divorce as a means of solving the problems of marriages which have been broken down for many years. The groups who wish to maintain the status quo say they want to protect the role of the family and the kind of marriages to which everyone aspires on the day they marry. The inclusion in the Constitution of the four year requirement will ensure that we do not go down the same road as those societies which have made wrong decisions and added further pressure to an already pressurised institution.

The issue of costs, which gave rise to concerns during the previous referendum, has been clarified. During the debate on the social welfare legislation the issue of pension rights was debated in detail. This was an important debate as it highlighted the fact that while the double entitlements paid to widows and other dependent spouses in a small number of cases and the provision of increased legal aid will give rise to minor additional costs, the cost of divorce will not be much greater than the cost of separation, which is already borne by the State. This issue cannot, therefore, be used by the anti-divorce lobby to encourage people to vote "no" to divorce.

I read Dr. Garret FitzGerald's address to the 1987 Patrick McGill Summer School in Glenties which dealt with the 1937 Constitution on its 50th anniversary. At that stage Dr. FitzGerald was a veteran of a number of unsuccessful referenda. He referred to the historical background to the Constitution and the reasons Mr. de Valera imposed restrictions on divorce and strengthened the position of the Catholic Church. He believed de Valera had realised that he could not take on the political opposition and the Church together and, therefore, conceded to the demands of the Church to bring the political opposition with him. He was willing to give de Valera some kudos for having had that wisdom. He stated clearly that given his experience of the referenda on alternative wording for the anti-abortion clause and the introduction of a restrictive form of divorce and the scale of the minority vote in the referendum on the Single European Act, all future constitutional issues would have to have broad parliamentary backing and fairly wide national consensus if they were to succeed. The Minister for Equality and Law Reform learned from these lessons and undertook painstaking preparatory work for this referendum. Although support for the divorce referendum is not universal it has broad parliamentary backing. However, we are not sure about the level of national consensus on this issue. According to the polls, there is broad national consensus on it but as those of us who were involved in the previous campaign know some sections of the electorate are soft, so to speak, and may change their minds on polling day. Much work has been undertaken since the previous referendum and I hope we have learned lessons similar to those learned by Dr. FitzGerald.

Yesterday there was a historical meeting in Dublin between the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, the Taoiseach and the leaders of the other political parties. There was also a major meeting of a different kind north of the Border between business, religious and political people. We should give some consideration to the North-South element during this debate. I understand the views of traditionalists who value the family structure and the contribution made by the Church to society. However, it is possible to retain the best of these elements while giving other people a second chance.

I am very concerned at the increase in the number of decrees of nullity granted as a legal means of resolving the problem of marriage breakdown. I am aware of an extraordinary case involving a woman with two children who was married for seven years and who was told she could have a State annulment. The number of State annulments has increased greatly. They have been a legal means of responding to the problem of marriage breakdown, but they are a totally unacceptable means of doing so. They require people to declare that their marriage never existed and that gives rise to issues regarding various rights. Legislation has been advanced to meet the need to address the problem of marriage breakdown which Deputy Haughey denied exists and his remarks appear to have given rise to a good deal of comment. The problem of marriage breakdown needs to be addressed given the levels of utilisation of every current legal avenue open to people to sort out their problems, whether by judicial separation, desertion, lone parenting supports, use of nullity procedures or Church annulment having regard to the vast numbers who have received one and are remarried in the eyes of the church, but not in the eyes of the State. It is generally accepted that approximately 70,000 people in new relationships are living outside the law.

I hope the referendum will be passed, but I do not take it for granted that it will. It requires a major gesture of generosity on the part of people who are secure in their marriages and backgrounds to be willing to support it.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share