Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Legislation and Security debate -
Friday, 6 Oct 1995

Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 2) Bill, 1995: Committee Stage (Resumed)

An Bille um an gCúigiú Leasú Deag ar an mBunreacht (Uimh. 2) 1995: Céim an Choiste (Atógáil).
Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 2) Bill, 1995: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Atógadh an díospóireacht ar leasú a 1:
I leathanach 7, roimh an Sceideal, an Sceideal seo a leanas a chur isteach:
"AN SCEIDAL
Cuid I
2th D'ainneoin aon fhorála den Bhunreacht seo, féadfaidh an Stát socrú a dhéanamh lena dhlíthe go bhféadfaidh cúirt a bheidh ainmnithe le dlí scaoileadh ar phósadh a thabhairt sa chás go gcinnfidh an chúirt de réir na ndlíthe sin go bhfuil cliste go doleigheasta ar an bpósadh sin agus go mbeadh sé cóir an scaoileadh sin a thabhairt.
Cuid II
2th Notwithstanding any provision of this Constitution, the State may by its laws provide for the grant by a court designated by law of a dissolution of marriage where it is determined by the court in accordance with such laws that such a marriage has irretrievably broken down and that such a dissolution would be just.".
—An Teachta Keogh.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
In page 6, before the Schedule to insert the following Schedule:
"SCHEDULE
Part I
2th D'ainneoin aon fhorála den Bhunreacht seo, féadfaidh an Stát socrú a dhéanamh lena dhlíthe go bhféadfaidh cúirt a bheidh ainmnithe le dlí scaoileadh ar phósadh a thabhairt sa chás go gcinnfidh an chúirt de réir na ndlíthe sin go bhfuil cliste go doleigheasta ar an bpósadh sin agus go mbeadh sé cóir an scaoileadh sin a thabhairt.
Part II
2th Notwithstanding any provision of this Constitution, the State may by its laws provide for the grant by a court designated by law of a dissolution of marriage where it is determined by the court in accordance with such laws that such a marriage has irretrievably broken down and that such a dissolution would be just.".
—Deputy Keogh.

Members will recall the rather abrupt manner in which we adjourned proceedings yesterday afternoon. Deputy Keogh was in possession. She indicated that she was about to embark on a number of new points in relation to the Schedule which had not been heard in the course of yesterday's debate.

I open proceedings on the basis that Deputy Keogh will address matters not already addressed by the Minister or herself and confine her remarks to material which we did not cover yesterday. This is a Committee Stage debate and we must try, if possible, to avoid repetition of material over which we have had considerable debate and deliberation, not only during the course of a 16 hour Second Stage debate but for four hours yesterday.

Deputy Keogh has yielded to me. I reflected overnight on a point mentioned yesterday. I was somewhat sceptical about the point about the four year separation requirement when I heard it yesterday, but I am less sceptical now. It is not necessarily the case that this amendment will require people to have been married for four years before they apply for a divorce. I do not see that it will necessarily involve that. Yesterday when Deputy O'Malley mentioned the matter my eyebrows went up, but they are staying down this morning.

Will the Minister indicate if the parliamentary draftsman, the Government and his Department have taken into account a concern which many people have expressed, that if we stipulate four years out of a five year period there may be an inductive effect in that people may say that a marriage is going off the rails and the longer they hang around the longer it will be before the clock starts running and they can get to court? Rather than have a stabilising effect, it may have the opposite effect of encouraging people not to hang around indefinitely because if they spend another year trying to make a go of their marriage it will put off the evil day for another year.

The Government considered all aspects of the matter, including that point. To anyone the break-up of a marriage is a serious business. I do not believe anyone regards it lightly. A four year wait plus the time it would take to get the decree is a long time. I do not believe people will think in that way — it would be surprising if they did. That type of scenario sounds like a marriage in great difficulty, not one that is over. These people are obviously still living together at that point, albeit in difficult circumstances.

As regards the concept that somebody would say they will leave because they want to work towards a divorce in four, five or six years time, I do not believe their mind would work in that way. It is a serious decision. The fact is that people who have been living apart for a long time, if it is their determination that their marriage is over and if that stands for four years or more, can make an application.

On Second Stage I referred to the difficulties which people living in local authority housing may face. They may find themselves in the position of having to get a judicial separation. Does the Minister have a view on how to alleviate their circumstances?

A judicial separation, even if they got one, does not move the matter any further. The amendment does not deal with judicial separations and it does not require anybody to have a judicial seperation. It could be argued that, even if they had one, it is not necessarily self evident that they were living apart. There could be a situation where a decree of judicial separation was obtained and the people were not living apart. In such a case, the qualification would not apply.

In the overwhelming majority of cases which will come within the ambit of this Bill, people will be living in separate residences. Where difficulties have occurred, barring orders, separation agreements and judicial separations will apply. As Deputy Keogh is aware, over 4,000 people apply for barring orders each year and many of these people are in local authority dwellings.

Regarding "under the one roof" cases, which is the thrust of Deputy Keogh's question, the number which will come under the category will be relatively small and the overwhelming bulk will be clear-cut. People will have been barred or will have agreed to separate or have been separated. An appreciable number of "under the one roof" cases will be quite clear. They will be living in separate households and the evidence will clearly show that.

If there is a doubt as to whether they have been living in seperate households, that matter must be determined by the court. If the court determines that they are not living in separate households, we do not want to and do not intend to permit a divorce of that marriage. It is not a marriage which is over, rather a marriage which is in great difficulty. We do not intend to permit a dissolution in respect of that position.

Is Deputy Keogh pressing her amendment?

I am not pressing it yet.

It is the feeling of the meeting that we should proceed to the amendment as quickly as possible on the basis that the Minister has answered almost all possible questions which could have been put to him. If the Deputy has any new questions, perhaps we could proceed with them.

I said to the Minister yesterday that there were a number of questions in relation to the Schedule which I wished to tease out with him. I do not think that is unreasonable.

Are they questions which we still have not addressed?

Perhaps we could proceed with those as quickly as possible.

On a point of order, should a time be set for a division, which is the usual practice? Could we find some way to accommodate Deputies who have tried to make other arrangements so that they can be here? They are trying to be in two places at once. Is there any way we can be assisted in that regard?

On the basis of travel arrangements, I assume we will be out of here by 5 p.m. However, it is outside my control.

I had hoped to receive a slightly different answer to my question. Perhaps the Chairman could try a little harder.

With respect to the Deputy, it is outside the Chair's control. We are discussing the amendment in the name of Deputy Keogh. I assume, in the normal course, that when Deputy Keogh has put her various questions and concerns before the committee we could then proceed to the amendment. On the basis of the debate on the amendment lasting in excess of four hours, I thought we could have proceeded to pressing the amendment within the next 30 minutes or so. However, that will be determined by Deputy Keogh's contribution and those of her colleagues who may or may not join the meeting during the day. We do not have any evidence in that regard at this stage but perhaps Deputy Keogh could enlighten us as to the likelihood of party colleagues, who will undoubtedly have significant contributions to make, joining her.

I think Deputy Keogh indicated she was prepared to say something which might be helpful to the committee.

That was before the five minutes contribution from the Chairman. The debate should proceed. As I said earlier, I have a number of questions to put to the Minister. The amendment has been debated quite thoroughly. As I said to the Minister, there are a number of questions in relation to the Schedule which could be teased out. It is important that the Minister's responses are on the record. I hope this is helpful.

Would it be possible to ask the Deputy for some indication of the timescale which will be involved? She is quite legitimately seeking clarification to questions and she wishes that clarification to be on the record. However, some Members legitimately wish to have an indication of the timescale involved.

Deputy Fitzgerald is being reasonable in the circumstances, Deputy Keogh. As Chairman, I have the power to foreclose on the debate. I do not wish to exercise that power because it is an important debate and I hope the points which remain to be made are of significance. I do not intend to exercise that power but I ask Deputy Keogh to bear in mind the point made by Deputies Smith and Fitzgerald on this matter.

One of the measures is that judges will be required to ensure that proper provision is made for spouses and children in a divorce. This is right and proper, although it is unnecessary to include it in the Schedule. Will the Minister indicate how guidance can be given to judges in that regard? Will the onus be totally on the Judiciary, as I believe it will be? Does the Minister agree, if that is the case, there should be some element of training of judges? Although they will be aware of case law, some form of background knowledge should be provided to them. What is the Minister's view on how this could be achieved?

That is a fair question. As Deputy Keogh and members of the committee will appreciate, the circumstances of every case of this nature which come before the courts are different and this is why particular matters cannot be specified as far as providing guidelines is concerned. However, in section 16 of the Family Law Act, we have set out a long list of items which must be taken into consideration by the court in each individual case.

The court is enjoined to take the following matters — I will not cite all of them because the list is long — into account: the income earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the spouses concerned has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future; the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the spouses has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future; in the case of the remarriage of the spouse or otherwise the standard of living enjoyed by the family concerned before the proceedings were instituted or before the spouses separated; the age of each of the spouses and the length of time during which the spouses lived together; any physical or mental disability of either of the spouses; the contribution which either of the spouses has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make to the welfare of the family including any contribution made by each of them to the income earning capacity, property, resources of the other spouse and so on.

They are the guidelines. However, at the end of the day it is left to the discretion of the court, having taken these factors into account as may be appropriate in each case, to make its decision as to what the provision is to be.

Where spouses have separated amicably and have arrived at a resolution of financial matters and so forth, must they go through all of the procedures again or can that agreement be accepted on application for a divorce?

There is provision in the Bill that the court can recognise any arrangements they have already entered into.

That is important. It would be most unfortunate if, in the context of an amicable arrangement, people's lives were to be dredged up again and they had to go through the many permutations involved.

The draft divorce Bill provides in section 18 (3):

In deciding whether to make an order under a provision referred to in subsection (1) and in determining the provisions of such an order, the court shall have regard to the terms of any separation agreement which has been entered into by the spouses and is still in force.

We had discussions previously about disclosure of assets and so forth.

We discussed that during our consideration of the Family Law Bill.

I presume the same provisions would apply with regard to disclosure of assets.

They do.

What is the penalty for failure to disclose?

The procedure is that an order for disclosure would be made by the court. That is an order of the court and failure to comply with it is contempt of court. The penalty for contempt of court is draconian — a potentially unlimited fine and unlimited imprisonment until the order is complied with. Failure to comply with an order of the court is a serious matter. There can be no higher penalty or enjoinder.

We also agreed that there is an inherent difficulty in that regard. How does one discover this?

These things must be established by evidence and not by supposition. A person cannot come into a court for any court case and say: "I believe such and such". These matters must be established by evidence. Supposition will not do. No court system could operate on the basis of beliefs, opinions, ideas and concepts. Courts rely and can only rely on evidence. There might be a conflict of evidence between two parties but the court makes its decision in such cases. That is what courts do.

However, the court has discretion in relation to financial provisions. Couples might have reached an agreement and even though, under the draft Bill, the agreement might be accepted the judge will still have discretion to open it up again.

The court must be satisfied that proper provision having regard to the circumstances of the case exists or will be made for the spouses and any children. That will be a constitutional requirement if this amendment is accepted. The court must be satisfied in that regard. Conceivably, in a case where a woman — it could be a man or a child — has agreed to accept solution X, the court might decide, having looked at all the means and the particular circumstances of the marriage, that it is not sufficient. The couple can be sent off to reach a revised agreement or the court would make the determination. The court can and must refuse to grant a divorce unless it is satisfied that in the particular circumstances of the family proper provision is made for the spouse and the children.

It is not up to us or the Minister to second guess what the Supreme Court will decide.

This will be the Circuit Court.

In the context of there being a constitutional imperative, it could be subject to challenge.

It would not be subject to challenge; it would be subject to appeal like any other court finding on a matter of evidence. If a person felt that they got a wrong deal or that the decision of the Circuit Court, which would hear such a case, was wrong they can appeal it. That applies to any case.

What about a situation where people have reached an amicable settlement on financial matters and they are satisfied with it? Despite their satisfaction the judge might decide to re-open the agreement.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, if the two spouses were legally represented and had legal advice available to them, it would be unusual for the court to say that it was not satisfied. However, the obligation is on the court to be satisfied.

What the Deputy suggests might arise in a case where one of the parties was not legally represented and was attempt to deal with the matter on his or her own. The court would look critially at any proposal being put forward. Judges tend to do that in any case where one of the parties is legally represented and the other is not. In such a scenario a judge would scrutinise what is proposed with particular care.

However, it is not the agreement of the parties that is the ultimate deciding factor, it is and must be that the court is satisfied that what is being suggested represents proper provision. The probability is that a court would consider that, as the two adults are both legally represented, it has been dealt with in an adequate and proper manner but the responsibility and the decision is that of the court. In other words, the parties cannot come before the court and say that they have agreed a solution and that must be the end of the matter. It is not structured in that way, deliberately so.

It is important to ask these questions. It is important to signal to people in advance exactly what is meant by this provision. Unfortunately, many judges have no background in family law. What guidance on reasonable prospects of reconciliation can we give the Judiciary?

It will be difficult to give guidance on this issue because the circumstances of every case will be different. These are matters of evidence to be assessed by the court. The judges who hear these cases are experienced in dealing with family law cases and have spent many years at the Bar or as a solicitor. They must decide, having heard the evidence, whether there is a reasonable prospect of reconciliation. It is for both parties to the case to satisfy the judge that there is no such prospect. If the judge has any doubt about this, he or she may not grant the decree and the court has power to adjourn the matter and it can requisition a welfare report.

If the court is satisfied there is no prospect of reconciliation between the spouses, there is a requirement placed on it by this constitutional amendment to issue and enjoinder to that effect. This would be a recognition that the marriage in question is dead. If the judge thinks there is a possibility of reconciliation, we are not talking about a marriage which is dead and it would not be appropriate for a dissolution. This is why the constitutional amendment is structured in this way.

I am concerned that the wording of the proposed amendment is vague. The Minister said that judges are experienced in family law cases. However, a number of cases— I am open to correction on this — are heard by judges who do not have experience, particulrly when there is a large backlog of cases.

Does the Minister think the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989 is working well? The judges who deal with this Act are, more or less, the same judges who will hear divorce cases. We are talking about a regime which will not be very different from that which obtains under the 1989 Act. If we suggest that judges are not properly trained to deal with divorce cases, we are calling into question their training to operate the 1989 Act. This may not be a fair assessment.

I do not accept there is anything in the wording of the Government's proposed constitutional amendment which is vague. It is clear, specific and written in plain English and Irish. It indicates the conditions which must be proven to the satisfaction of the court before it may grant a decree of dissolution. These conditions are clear; couples must be living apart, there must be no prospect of reconciliation, proper provision must be made and so on. There is nothing vague about this. I do not want to get into further hassle with Deputy Keogh and the Progressive Democrats about the wording of their amendment by saying it is vague. It is clear what the Government's amendment means and it was carefully worded so that people would understand it and would know for what they are voting.

There have been 12,000 applications under the 1989 Act. In 1989 judges did not have experience because the procedcure was new. We did not have this system in 1986 when the previous referendum took place. Judges are now hearing these cases day in and day out and have acquired a great deal of experience. Many judges have practised and were experts in the area of family law. Judge Catherine McGuinness is one name which comes to mind. I practised in the Circuit Family Court for a number of years. I was enormously impressed by the approach of judges to family law cases, particularly judicial separation cases. I was greatly impressed by the care, knowledge, detail, sympathy and understanding they gave to these cases. My experience is confined to Dublin but I have no reason to believe the position is different elsewhere.

If people can apply for divorce after the referendum there will be a far greater onus on the courts because of the backlog of cases. It is reasonable to assume that not every judge will have the experience which would be beneficial in these cases. I accept that backlogs are not the Minister's fault. To give credit where it is due, he has improved the situation immeasurably.

There will be additional judges. We discussed this yesterday when I stated that additional judges will be appointed which will help clear the backlog.

Will they be experienced in family law?

Some of them probably will. I am not certain because they have not been appointed yet. The question raised by Deputy Keogh goes way beyond what we are talking about here. Judges have a wide brief. Some of them practise in specialised areas and others in more general areas. It is desirable that judges hearing family law cases have some knowledge and experience in this area. The appointment of Judge Catherine McGuinness, who is one of the top specialists in family law, to the Circuit Court dealing with family law cases is an example of how Governments view the appointment of judges for particular specialised functions. I have no reason to believe that similar considerations will not apply in future appointments.

The Minister spoke about his experience in Dublin. From my experience in the midlands I can say there is no evidence of lack of confidence in Circuit Family Court judges. It would be unfair for the committee to give the impression that this is the case. The 1989 Act is working well and the lack of confidence implied by Deputy Keogh does not exist.

I cannot understand your intervention, Chairman, I am not implying there is a lack of confidence. We know there are backlogs.

A backlog is different from a lack of training. Tthe ground is shifting. The difference in wording between the Deputy's amendment and the Minister's one has little relevance to the training of judges.

I am talking about the schedule and about cases where there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation between the spouses. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss family law courts and the training judges should have. It is unreasonable of you to refer back to the amendment in the circumstances. I am interested in what the Minister has to say about this. These are vital problems. If somebody is going to get divorced they should be confident in their own representation and they would be glad if the judge they appeared before was experienced in family law matters.

I have not implied that I have no confidence in the Judiciary. I am stating what people believe. If, Chairman, you are drawing an inference from that then you are wrong and should not take that inference. It is reasonable for me to make these points. It is helpful for people to hear the Minister's response within the realm of the debate.

Just because somebody does not agree with me on the amendment we should not ignore problems. I do not agree with the Minister's amendment but that does not mean that I am not prepared to discuss the various elements to see how we can interpret them. That is valuable. I am sorry if other people do not believe that. I am quite entitled to ask questions of the Minister, who has been open in his replies. He has not objected to replying to my questions. Maybe he would prefer not to but he has not said that.

I will reply to any question the Chairman rules appropriate for me to answer.

I was referring to the area of family law and the Minister said new judges will be appointed. I am glad of that. He cited the case of Judge Catherine McGuinness who has a good knowledge of that area. Everybody was delighted that someone with that type of experience was appointed to the bench. My point relates not to how good or bad people are — I am not evaluating them — but to their experience. The wider context of training judges, particularly in the area of law, may be something that people do not want to hear about but every independent body is concerned about it.

The committee heard representatives from Women's Aid, FLAC and Lawyers for Divorce talking on different matters. Those groups made the point, which the Chairman agreed with, that a vast area relating to family law needs to be addressed. It is helpful to talk about that in the context of this Bill. I would like to have the Minister's views on that and to hear whether he believes that he will be able, in conjunction with the Minister for Justice, to speed up the process.

It is certainly not my function to defend the Minister in the matter but I have to say that his views, both formerly as Opposition spokesperson and now as Minister for Equality and Law Reform, are well known and have appeared in the record of the House time after time. Of all the Ministers, Deputy Taylor's views on this matter are well known. However, I will ask the Minister again to answer the question.

As the Chairman said, my views on that are well known. The appointment of judges and matters in connection with the Judiciary come within the ambit of the Minister for Justice. There have been many debates and discussions on that both in the House and in Committee. It is open to any Deputy, including Deputy Keogh, to raise questions about it. The Minister for Justice has made pronouncements about it from time to time. Judges who are appointed to hear cases are well qualified. Not everyone can be appointed a judge because special qualifications are required for such appointments.

The question of which division a judge is appointed to is, of course, a matter for the Minister for Justice. The appointment of somebody like Judge Catherine McGuinness to the Family Court is an indication of the way the Government is moving. There is every reason to believe that kind of appointment will be continued in future.

Could we not go a step further on that? Would it not be beneficial if, regarding the appointment of judges, and bearing in mind the type of experience needed, the Minister were to say, not "we must", but "it would be good if we appointed, and I would like to see appointed, people who have the type of experience that would be valuable".

That would be very good.

Which would be good, that we should do it or that it would be good?

It is very desirable that the best possible people to do the job should be appointed as judges. I believe that is being done, as has been signalled by a number of recent appointments by the Government. I have every reason to believe that that position will be continued by the Government in future appointments.

With respect, I think the Minister slightly dodged the issue there.

I am sorry, Deputy Keogh, I do not wish to intervene and interrupt you but Deputy Woods has been offering for quite some time. You spoke on a very specific question with a number of supplementaries that I feel would, perhaps, be more appropriate to Question Time than Committee Stage.

We were concerned about family courts and their operation, and we examined that problem recently prior to this debate. We presented those views on Second Stage and said that, notwithstanding what has been done my the Minister, there is a need to upgrade family courts in terms of facilities, rooms and numbers of people being dealt with. We specified that there is a particular need for specialist members of the Judiciary and we looked at the question of how they are performing.

This brought us to the point of considering how exactly it is operating. Is there a problem with the Judiciary in relation to children? We found that in practice the judges were very concerned about their responsibilities to children and did their utmost to protect and look after them. The deficiency is more in the presentation and co-ordination of children's needs rather than in the way the Judiciary operates.

We can all use training and we have emphasised that point, but in practice as it operated——

Training for politicians.

Yes it is a long training course.

We are not experienced in the first place.

That examination and consideration led us to the need for a commissioner for children. We presented those views on Second Stage which is where they were relevant. All that has to happen in conjunction with the proposed development in the referendum. We went though that yesterday and, in addition, we put down a number of other things as part of a five year strategic action plan. We said we would return to that point later because while both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Equality and Law Reform have given generalised commitments on it, we believe they should be more specific.

Having gone through the Minister's proposals yesterday on Committee Stage you either accept the need for safeguards and insert them in the Bill or you do not. We accept there is a need for safeguards and we feel the Minister is going a long way to meet that need. His amendment is, therefore, an appropriate one. We realise there is a political difference as to whether there should be an amendment at all.

Lawyers will discuss issues in a sanitised way — the country cannot be run by lawyers. Yesterday we had an example of lawyers dictating to this committee and some of the things they said were scandalous. The views of the ordinary Members are relevant in that there should be safeguards and protections.

There has been much discussion about the "living apart" concept. Other countries seem to be able to use it. It is better than the one put forward by the Progressive Democrats. It may not be perfect but nothing in this area will be totally perfect. It was also suggested that one might not be able to use a "living apart" clause in Ballymun. However, the Department of Social Welfare is aware of many such relationships in Ballymun. That some of our learned and distinguished lawyers do not seem to be aware of that is irrelevant. The reality is that those terms are used in practice.

Deputy McDowell was not entirely committed to what he was saying. That is why I asked about our involvement in this issue. Are we involved in an honest discussion of the issues or in a game? I thought we had overcome that attitude some years ago. People used to play games at the committee and tried to filibuster for outside political public relations reasons. I thought we were more mature than that. The Progressive Democrats claim to have brought us into this great state of maturity. That is why it is extraordinary that we are discussing all types of issues which were debated fairly comprehensively on Second Stage. We will continue to press our strong views on these issues.

The issue at present is whether we accept the amendment and the Schedule. We do not accept the amendment, but we accept the Schedule.

We asked that Committee Stage be taken in the House. We are talking about an amendment to the Constitution, not about who is playing on a soccer pitch. This is an important matter. I am astounded that Deputy Woods should suggest that people are playing games.

There will not be game playing at this committee. There has been no evidence of game playing. I ask that we resume the debate on the amendment and that we proceed with the important questions.

After 14 or 15 years here I am reasonably familiar with Standing Orders. I ask you, Chairman, for an assurance that there will not be Second Stage speeches on Committee Stage. I am not criticising your handling of the proceedings.

I am as anxious as any Chairman to ensure that every Member of this committee or Member of the House who wishes to contribute has an opportunity to do so on Committee Stage. I take your point that Committee Stage debate should be confined to what Standing Orders state it should be. I ask Members to bear that in mind.

I am depressed that experienced Members of the Dáil should resent a lengthy debate on such an issue.

There is no resentment.

It is not a question of the length of the debate but its substance. I ask Deputy Keogh to confine herself to remarks on the amendment and the Schedule so that we can proceed in an orderly fashion.

I thought I was doing that. I refer to Part II of the Schedule which states "there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses". There is a logical link between that and the training and experience of the Judiciary.

With respect, Deputy Keogh, we have dealt with that matter and the Minister has addressed the question you raised about the public's confidence in the Judiciary, family law matters and the various appointments made. There has been specific reference to individual members of the Judiciary in order to answer your concerns. The Minister also dealt with the question of training, experience and appointments. I fail to see how much further we can scrutinise the appointment and training of the Judiciary because we have been doing that for the past three quarters of an hour.

I did not realise there was a time constraint. I was disappointed with the Minister's response in this regard. He is concerned about this issue and he has gone a long way to ensure that there will not be long delays in court. I am not casting a reflection on the Judiciary, but there will be an increase in the number of cases before the family law courts. The Minister said that judges will be appointed. I want to ascertain if those people will have the relevant experience.

I ask the Deputy to avoid repetition.

I am asking the Minister a question.

With respect, Deputy Keogh, the question was already answered by the Minister this morning.

It was not answered to my satisfaction.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I admire Deputy Keogh as a solid individual in her party. The point she is making would be just as valid with regard to the appointment of a District Court Judge who would need to have experience of dealing with a cyclist. A judge may have experience of being in court, but may not have experience of judgment. Every judge who is appointed will have the same difficulty. We could discuss this until Doomsday, but we still would not know the answer. Judges regardless of their background must gain experience by giving judgments. We had to start off in the Dáil and perhaps we made wrong decisions. Judges will probably make wrong decisions, but that happens in every walk of life. I ask Deputy Keogh to accept that the Minister has done his best to answer her questions, but he cannot guarantee a judge’s experience. He is doing his best to get those with experience to fill vacant positions.

There are qualifications for the appointment of judges and the Government has shown that appointments it makes are directed to particular areas of expertise. I gave an example of that. I cannot tell the committee which people will be appointed as judges in the future. However, the Minister for Justice has indicated that a number of additional judges will be appointed. The administration of the family law system is working extremely well except that there are delays in the hearing of cases. It is quite clear that additional judges should, and will be, appointed by reason of the large increase in marital breakdown we have, sadly, experienced in Ireland.

That is fine. It would be useful if the judges who are appointed have relevant experience in the area.

That appears to bring the debate on the amendment to a conclusion. Is the amendment being pressed?

Question put.
Rinne an Roghchoiste vótáil.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 1; Níl, 18.

Keogh, Helen.

Níl

Ahern, Noel.

McDowell, Derek.

Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).

Nealon, Ted.

Callely, Ivor.

Ryan, Seán.

Connolly, Ger.

Shortall, Róisín.

Connor, John.

Smith, Michael.

Crawford, Seymour.

Taylor, Mervyn.

Fitzgerald, Liam.

Timmins, Godfrey.

Flaherty, Mary.

Walsh, Eamon.

Flanagan, Charles.

Woods, Michael.

Fáisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis diúltú don leasú
Amendment declared lost.
Aontaíodh an Sceideal.
Schedule agreed to.
Aontaíodh altanna 1 agus 2.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Aontaíodh an Réamhrá.
Preamble agreed to.
Aontaíodh an Teideal.
Title agreed to.

I propose the following draft report:

The Select Committee has considered the Bill. The Bill is reported to the Dáil without amendment.

Report agreed to.

I understand that Report Stage will be taken in the Dáil next week.

Thank you. Chairman, for your patience and the Members of the committee for their contributions on Committee Stage. The key point was Deputy Keogh's amendment which dealt with an aspect of the question as to whether a divorce jurisdiction should be introduced in Ireland. The House has decided that this Bill will pass and will provide that the conditions be written into the Constitution. However, the underlying matter facing the country following the passage of this Bill through the Oireachtas will be the provision of a much needed divorce facility in Ireland. On that issue all parties in the House, including the Progressive Democrats, are agreed.

I ask that we put our discussions on the technicalities behind us and, in the course of this referendum campaign, try to ensure that the needs of many thousands, including members of our families, friends, relations and colleagues, can be met by passing this referendum and, ultimately, legislation. I ask for the assistance and co-operation of all parties in the House to attain that end on which I think we all agreed.

I thank the Minister for his patience and understanding of the lengthy debate we have had. It was and is very important that such legislation is thoroughly examined and debated and even from that point of view, it was worth putting down an amendment to the Bill. However, the amendment was not put down solely for the purpose of idle discussion. It was put down for genuine motives and out of the genuine belief, which I still hold, that the Government's approach is wrong. I said that on Second Stage and during this debate and there is no need to repeat it.

Notwithstanding that, as I said on Second Stage, it has been a tenet of our party from the very beginning that the prohibition on divorce should be ended. It is ironic that, despite the fact that the opposition in terms of putting down amendments came from our party, the Minister will find that those he expects to be on his side may not be as firmly on his side as he would wish. I hope that all political leaders will give the type of leadership we need. Although I am not happy with the detail of the provisions, I am happy that people will at last have the opportunity to vote in a referendum on divorce.

In fairness to the Minister, I must congratulate him. He brought this forward. It is something that our party has striven for over the years. I am glad that those people who have been in an unhappy situation for a number of years may find their wishes catered for and that as a result we will have a pluralist society.

I was a little saddened by some of the reaction to the fact that we sought such a vigorous debate. I am new to this game having only been elected in 1992. We all have our own ideals and our own beliefs.

Experience will come with time.

I believe in what I am saying and I do not like people to think or in any way infer that I would say anything that was not my belief. I wish the Minister well. When we have finally wrapped this up my party and I will be campaigning. I hope we will have the result we wish to see.

I thank the Minister for his work in this area. Most Members are aware of all the work that went into the preparation of the White Paper. I and other Deputies discussed the matter at length when we looked at marriage breakdown in the pre-1986 period. We examined all the requirements and the matters which needed to be dealt with. There has been vigorous examination of the matter since that time. An excellent report was produced by Members in 1986 just before the referendum was held. The problem at the time was that the recommendations of the Members were not put into place before the referendum was held. We all know about that at this stage. That led on to further development, more legislation over the years and the White Paper in 1992, which involved thorough preparation with a great deal of detail and a draft Bill should there be a "yes" vote in a referendum.

That brings us to more recent times when the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, has been dealing with the issue. He has certainly dealt with it in a painstaking way and has done everything he could to consult and to achieve as good a Bill as possible. It is on that issue that the amendment, and the difference of opinion, arose. There is no rancour over the debate. If there are issues which are being repeated extensively — as there were yesterday, not today — it has always been the custom for that to be pointed out to the people concerned. There is nothing new about that.

I hope they are not going to be repeated now.

Deputy Keogh raised issues which I must deal briefly with. I do not want her to get the wrong impression. Nobody intended to curtail debate on this issue, specifically, but when it was drawn out at length with a repeat of Second Stage, that caused difficulty. Fianna Fáil wants to see the protections and safeguards inserted in the Constitution. We believe that is right and that the Minister has got it as near to being right as may be humanly possible. From that point of view, we support the passage of the Bill through this stage. We wish the Minister every success on Report and Final Stages and subsequently.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I also thank the Minister for his courtesy in answering questions. While I appeal to Deputy Keogh to accept his answers, I also appreciate her efforts on behalf of her party in arguing her case.

I thank my colleagues who turned up today at some inconvenience. No matter how busy we are and that it is our duty, there is a practical side to politics. A lot of people should be in different parts of the country today so I thank them for turning up. As convenor, it was important I found them here when I needed them.

I thank my colleagues in Fianna Fáil for participating in the debate. It was heartening that so many of them stayed the distance. I thank the Minister for being so forthcoming and clarifying matters as they arose. I wish him well.

It only remains for me to express my thanks to the Minister and his officials for spending a considerable period of time with us on Committee Stage and for dealing in quite a comprehensive way with all of the questions which were raised.

The debate now proceeds to the plenary session of the House. As the referendum date draws closer, it is clear there are strong and sincere convictions on the part of people on both sides. It is vitally important the arguments for or against the removal of the constitutional ban are put in as clear and concise a way as possible. It is equally important the arguments be put without smoke screens, rancour or humbug. We need a reasoned debate between now and 24 November, one which deals with the issues to the exclusion of the many extraneous matters. Over the last 24 hours, the Minister has helped by meeting a lot of the points of confusion and clarification. As the Dáil debates the matter next week, there will be little doubt and a few questions which have not been answered. I thank members for their contributions.

The committee next meets on Thursday, 12 October, for the long awaited meeting with the representative of the Garda Commissioner to deal with the drugs matter. It will be a joint meeting with the Joint Committee on the Family.

The Select Committee adjourned at 11.56 a.m.

Top
Share