Tairgim leasú Uimh. 1:
AN SCEIDEAL
I leathnach 7, línte 1 go 32 a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina n-ionad:
"AN SCEIDEAL
CUID I
2º D'ainneoin aon fhorála eile den bhunreacht seo, féadfaidh Cúirt a bheidh ainmnithe le dlí scaoileadh ar phósadh a thabhairt sa chás gur deimhin léi go gcomhlíontar na coinníollacha go léir a bheidh forordaithe le dlí.
CUID II
2º Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where it is satisfied that all the conditions prescribed by law are complied with.".
I move amendment No. 1:
SCHEDULE
In page 6, to delete lines 1 to 32 and substitute the following:
"SCHEDULE
PART I
2º D'ainneoin aon fhorála eile den bhunreacht seo, féadfaidh Cúirt a bheidh ainmnithe le dlí scaoileadh ar phósadh a thabhairt sa chás gur deimhin léi go gcomhlíontar na coinníollacha go léir a bheidh forordaithe le dlí.
PART II
2º Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where it is satisfied that all the conditions prescribed by law are complied with.".
Following the Minister's decision not to accept my Committee Stage amendment I considered some of the difficulties he had with it and put down an improved amendment. Everyone is aware of the many arguments we have had about the wording of the Bill and my Committee Stage amendment. It is essential that our views are on the record so that we can prove we are consistent in what we say. I have come across an attitude — not shared by the Minister or Deputy Woods — that the legislation should be passed on a sort of nod and wink basis. This would not be appropriate as it deals with a very important matter.
The amendment seeks to differentiate between our approach and that of other parties. It is my firm belief that divorce should be available and people should have the right to remarry. That view has been articulated by my party over the past ten years. In saying this we believe that the Constitution should set out in broad terms the fundamental laws of the State. It is the job of politicians to legislate and notwithstanding our belief that people should have the right to remarry — we are ad idem with the Government on this point — we fundamentally disagree with the tactics and approach adopted by the Minister in this regard.
The Constitution should claim the allegiance of all people. It is important to point out that many people hold the same views as we do. In its submission to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation the Church of Ireland stated that the Constitution is not a suitable vehicle for dealing with detailed social legislation. Unfortunately this is what we will end up with if the Minister includes his proposed wording in the Constitution. Difficulties arose in 1986 because the necessary legislation was not in place. However, we have not learnt from that experience, the later amendments to the Constitution or the débâcle in the X case. An amendment must be made to the Constitution but we, as legislators, should put the question to the people in the full confidence that they will allow us to legislate. We should ask them about the principle and then apply the detail to it. That is the most appropriate direction to take.
The amendment states "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution,...". I am not one of the constitutional lawyers in our party but many people, particularly those in family law, are extremely concerned that the amendment tabled by the Minister will have to be read in conjunction with other provisions of the constitution. A cursory glance at the Constitution reveals that difficulties may arise in that regard. I am not convinced that the Minister's strategy is appropriate because his method of seeking to reassure people is unnecessary and inappropriate. I know what he is trying to do and understand the reasoning behind it but it is fundamentally flawed. People who will vote "no" in the forthcoming referendum will not care one iota about any reassurance the Minister seeks to provide by means of constitutional amendment. I do not believe he should have embarked on this course.
During the Committee Stage debate I was distressed to hear the reason he went down this path. We are all aware of Deputy Woods' position on this issue. He stated that the Minister had accepted the criteria in this regard set down by Fianna Fáil. I do not agree that accepting the criteria laid down by a particular party is the right way to go about amending our Constitution. We should listen to the views of various groups. The Minister is aware that I am voicing an opinion held not only by my party but by many Members of the House. I believe it was Deputy O'Keeffe who said on Committee Stage that he was sympathetic towards my view but did not believe it was the correct path to follow. A number of other Deputies expressed that view publicly at that forum and privately at that time. That view is held by minority groups such as the Church of Ireland and by not only constitutional lawyers but, more importantly, by lawyers directly involved in family law cases who are concerned about the constitutional imperative contained in the Minister's amendment.
The amendment I tabled today is simple, straightforward, easy to comprehend and, if accepted, there would be complete understanding that the laws of the land would set out the provisions for divorce. Notwithstanding the Minister's view regarding reassurance and so on, which I appreciate, I believe it is fundamentally wrong. There are other ways of reassuring people. Unfortunately, the fact that the Minister is saying that we must reassure people by enshrining something in the Constitution rather than saying we will legislate properly, is sending out the wrong signals about ourselves. Unfortunately, he is saying we do not trust ourselves and we do not believe that the public trust us either, and that is not appropriate.
Another reason I tabled this amendment, although it is not the main one, is that I would be concerned if there were a two minute debate on this issue. Members should put their views on this issue on the record of the House. Even at this eleventh hour I appeal to the Minister to accept the many arguments made about the approach to amending the Constitution and to accept my bona fides that there is a genuine case for changing the approach to this issue.