If I might very briefly respond to that, under the Minister's original proposals a wife or a husband, if their spouse had committed adultery on one occasion 25 years prior to issuing court proceedings, could have issued court proceedings and sought a decree of separation based on that single act of adultery or single occasion in which the husband or wife strayed outside the marriage relationship. I think, and anyone who has worked in this area of marriage breakdown would be of the view, that a couple cannot have a normal marital relationship if one or other of them knows that if on one occasion they strayed and did something wrong, despite the fact that the problems that occurred within the family as a result of that behaviour have been resolved, forever more there will hang over their head the possibility that that one marital aberration or that one straying outside the family bed could be kept as a stick to beat them with over their heads for many years and could be relied on 10, 15, 20 or 25 years later for the seeking of a decree of separation. It is, I believe in the interests of the husband and wife that when they do resolve their differences that one or other of them cannot some years later rely on some single instance that occurred during the marriage to create difficulties for the other party to that marriage.
This provision in section 3(1) would allow a husband or a wife where the other does commit an act of adultery to seek a decree of separation. If the court was of the view that the marriage had broken down, a decree could be granted but it would not allow a husband or a wife to rely on a single act of adultery over a year after it had been committed as being sufficient of itself to grant a decree. If during the course of the marriage other problems arose, the fact that a husband or a wife had engaged in an extramarital relationship could be one of a number of things that an applicant spouse could rely upon to seek a decree of separation on the basis of trying to establish that the family and marital circumstances were such that it was reasonable that separation be effected. This provision does not try to force couples into the courts, it seeks to ensure that couples will not unnecessarily go to court, that they will resolve their differences; but when they do that one cannot many years later cast stones at the other simply because of a single incident that occurred during the course of the marriage.
I am very surprised that the Minister would disagree with this provision. It is a provision that is common in most countries in the world who have reformed their marital laws. It considerably changes the current law. It does, I believe, accord with the thinking of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Marriage Breakdown. I know the Minister is not opposing this section. I would say to him that this term of one year referred to in it is not something that is necessarily the ideal period. Maybe it should be a longer period referred to in that section. Maybe it should be one, two or three years that is referred to in section 3(1). One year is the usual sort of time span that other countries in the world provide in dealing with this sort of approach.
If during Report Stage the Minister comes to the House with an amendment in which he suggest that one year period should be extended somewhat I certainly would not see that as something that would be necessary to oppose or it would not be something that I would necessarily disagree with. It may very well be that we could on Report Stage consider whether the period referred to there should be two or three years rather than one year.
I just do not believe it should be possible in a marital situation to let a situation lie where some 25 years after a husband or a wife had one single incident of straying outside the marital home they were at risk of that being relied upon to bring the marriage completely to an end. I do not think that. I think that is inimical to reconciliation and is contrary to the approach that most people believe is necessary in helping couples not to separate but to resolve their marital problems.