Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 May 1986

Vol. 366 No. 6

An Bille um an Deichiú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1986: An Dara Céim (Atógáil). Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1986: Second Stage (Resumed).

Atairgeadh an cheist: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair".
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

As I said last night, it is vitally important that we have a balanced debate on this subject with no great display of emotion one way or the other. No one can claim a monopoly of wisdom or knowledge on this subject. On the other hand, it is our duty to point out as far as we can the various problems that might arise.

It is clear from the experience of other western countries that divorce was introduced in a restricted fashion but gradually the grounds for divorce were extended from adultery to include desertion, cruelty, insanity and so on. The idea of a no fault divorce — irretrievable breakdown — was introduced to replace divorce on a fault basis due to practical considerations. The experience of other countries shows that where no fault divorce was introduced it led eventually to divorce on demand. It is not realistic to imagine that we will remain impervious to trends which predominate in other western societies.

The impact of divorce on these societies is indicated by some very chilling statistics. For example, 33 per cent of all marriages in the UK are subject to divorce proceedings — that is, one out of three marriages.

In 1972, the number of divorces, which increased steadily from some 2,000 in the twenties, was 110,700. By 1981, the number of divorces had increased to 200,000. In 1981, some 100,000 English children were in care.

At the start of this decade, one in every three marriages in the US ended in divorce, now the figure is one in every two marriages. The US divorce rate doubled between 1967 and 1977. Marriages in the US last for an average of six years, and one in every three children lives in one-parent families. In the US, in 1980, some 18.2 million children lived in single parent homes. The long term consequences for any society in which this happens are clearly obvious. We should note that when divorce was first introduced in Great Britain, a period of five years had to pass before either spouse could bring a divorce case before the courts.

It is fair to say that all of us in this House are motivated by the need to protect family life and also by a growing awareness of marriage breakdown as a reality of life in Ireland today. There are increasing numbers of people who, because of incompatability, the pressures of life in our modern society, violence and other causes, are experiencing broken marriages, with tremendous pressure and pain on the individuals involved.

In their deliberations on divorce, the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown accepted that any amendment to the Constitution which might be proposed to allow the introduction of divorce legislation should ensure that the rights of the family as set down in Article 41 are not diminished. The committee expressed the opinion that any such amendment should be drafted in such a way as to ensure that the basis of Article 41 is not altered, that it should continue to place a duty on the society to protect the family and the institution of marriage and to recognise the family as the natural, primary, fundamental unit of society.

How will adequate provision be made for the protection of dependent spouses and the welfare of dependent children who might be affected by the grant of a decree of divorce? It is unrealistic to think that the average spouse will be in a position to maintain two households and that is precisely what will happen in many cases. The problems caused by the initial divorce and the subsequent legal interpretations and implications for wives and children make it clear that divorce, far from being a remedy, very often exacerbates the difficulties that have previously arisen. Evidence from other western countries overwhelmingly underlines the sad fact that women and children undergo considerable financial hardship as a result of divorce. As two dwellings must be maintained and, consequently a second family, inevitably in the vast majority of cases there must be a drop in the standards of living of the parties involved. If, as usually happens, the wife obtains custody of the children, very often she is not in a position to take up paid employment leaving her vulnerable on financial grounds, and that is in addition to the social and emotional vulnerability which can be even more painful as separated women find themselves isolated and their status undermined.

A recent ten year academic study conducted in the United States was critical of the impact of no fault divorces. At the time of its inception the law was aimed to reduce the acrimonious element in marriage breakdown by eliminating the need for one spouse to prove that there are grounds for divorce. What no one envisaged was that a by-product of this legislation would be the emergence of a new class of impoverished women as wives had lost their bargaining leverage. Some 85 per cent of divorced women are awarded no alimony at all. When judges divide the family income the husband often gets two-thirds and the wives one-third. This study concluded that divorced women and their children experienced a 73 per cent drop in their standards of living during the first year while their husbands enjoy a 42 per cent rise in theirs.

According to the US Census Bureau figures, of the eight million women in the United States who raise children without the father's domestic presence, one-third of them are officially classified as living below the poverty level; two-thirds of those entitled to child support actually get none at all and millions of fathers avoid payments; seven out of ten ignore court orders; three out of every five children born in the United States today will experience a divorce in the family before they are 18 years.

It is tragically clear that women and children are impoverished by marital breakdown. This is particularly acute where women devote their lives to homemaking and rearing children and find it impossible, because of lack of professional skill, business goodwill, inadequate educational qualifications or the needs of the children, to find paid employment. It is clear that the decisions of the courts in Ireland and elsewhere are inadequate; nor can they be properly enforced in such a situation.

The present system of dealing with matrimonial property in the event of a marriage breakdown is most unsatisfactory as was outlined by the report of the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown. It effectively discriminates against women since in most marriages the wife is obliged to give up work outside the home for at least some time, and in many cases permanently, to look after the family. This suggests that because she is not earning she is unable to make contributions which would entitle her to an interest in property acquired in her husband's name. This is particularly inequitable as the Constitution, in Article 41.2 recognises the special importance of women within the home.

At present, it is clear that a whole range of issues relating to the interpretation of the law relating to family property requires clarification. The situation at present is that we cannot be sure that a dependent spouse is not prejudiced in any determination of property rights by the fact that she gave up employment in the course of a marriage to attend the duties in the home.

If divorce is introduced here, it is probably inevitable that our marriage breakdown rate will follow the sharp increase of other countries. If this happens, is the State prepared to guarantee proper and adequate maintenance for the families involved? That is something we have to evaluate seriously. Under Article 41, the State is constitutionally obliged to provide for the maintenance of women and children, who will be the helpless victims of divorce. The cost to the State of such support has not been calculated but in terms of local authority housing, social welfare payments and health care, it must be reckoned to be considerable.

Is it possible to ensure that the law relating to maintenance will be enforced? The evidence suggests not because this has not happened in other countries. Can we guarantee that the wife and the children of the first family will be supported by the estranged husband?

The joint committee noted the instances of persons who default on payments under the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act, 1976, and recognised the relative difficulty which can be experienced in enforcing maintenance awards, particularly against self-employed maintenance defaulters. It is clear that the person against whom maintenance is awarded can defeat the effect of the order by disposing of his assets, leaving the jurisdiction or, if self-employed, by simply refusing to obey the order of the court and requiring the dependent spouse to have endless recourse to the courts with little hope of success. The structure of families in Ireland differs from our continental counterparts in that families are larger and only 10 per cent of the married women work outside the home, so there would be considerable financial considerations involved in the implementation of a divorce law.

None of us has a monopoly of knowledge and wisdom on this subject. However, it is our duty to point out the various dangers as we see them which might result from the proposed legislation and to point those out clearly and emphatically without prejudice, without displays of emotion. Ultimately the people of the country are very wise and will decide whether or not this legislation is proper. It is appropriate that we should point out the implications judiciously and the people will then decide.

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill represents the culmination of an approach to reform of many aspects of our social affairs. Although it is probably the most significant reform attempted by this Government, it is nevertheless only one of a number of very substantial reforms that have been prepared or undertaken.

Within the last couple of days, for instance, we saw the publication of the Status of Children Bill, an important measure which is aimed at ensuring equality of treatment for all children in several vital areas, irrespective of the circumstances of their birth. It is a Bill aimed at giving expression to the constitutional provision committing us to cherish all the children of the nation equally. In addition, a law relating to the issue of domicile is before the Dáil. In itself it is an important measure of equality, and it will also address the anomalous position in which many women find themselves.

Work is now in hand to draft a new Bill extending the right of women to protection against discrimination. This Bill will broaden the orientation of the Employment Equality Agency and strengthen its power, in addition to giving powers to the Minister for Labour to tackle discrimination on the grounds of gender wherever it occurs.

We have already enacted a Bill to provide more rational family planning facilities and services, following lengthy debate. The enactment of that Bill was also important in the context of overall reform.

And the statement of intent published at the same time as the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill demonstrates a continuing commitment to reform. Many of the measures contained in that statement are not dependent on the outcome of a referendum and are the product of a great deal of thought and work. I would like to say a few words about these proposals before returning to the main issues in this debate.

Among the measures about which we are proposing to bring forward legislation are these. First, the establishment of a Family Court, with the powers of the Circuit Court, but with less formal and less confrontational procedures. The Family Court will do its work away from the glare of publicity. The establishment of the Family Court will require the appointment of a number of additional judges — I believe that it will be necessary to appoint at least three initially — and judges of the Family Court will have a quite different orientation in their work from the normal court procedures.

Second, we are proposing to widen the grounds for judicial separation. At present separations can only be granted in cases of cruelty, adultery or unnatural practices. In future it will be possible to secure a judicial separation on these grounds, and in addition on the grounds of desertion; or in cases where the behaviour of one party forces the other to leave — this is known as constructive desertion — or in the case of separation, for a period of three years or a period of one year where both spouses agree.

Third, we are proposing to introduce the concepts of mediation and conciliation as parts of the separation process. In future, the Family Court will have the power to strongly encourage couples to avail of mediation services so that a reconciliation can be seriously attempted as a desirable alternative to separation. Even in cases where reconciliation is not possible, conciliation will be used to encourage the partners to agree on the terms of a separation in a non-confrontational and non-adversarial way, the better to protect the interest of dependent spouses and children, and to protect children in particular from the trauma that often results in such situations.

Fourth, the Family Court will have the power to make financial orders with a view to ensuring the interests of spouses and dependent children are adequately protected and appropriately provided for. These orders will relate to maintenance, lump sum payments and property owned by the spouses, including the family home. An important item which will be seriously considered in this context will be a provision to ensure that a woman, for instance, who had given up work to raise a family would not lose out in the share of property rights to which she is entitled as a result.

All of these provisions have a number of things in common. Firstly, they cannot, by any stretch of logic or imagination, be described as "anti-family". There is nothing in these proposals which can be, or has been, objected to by any churchman or politician on those grounds. They are in essence a set of proposals designed to bring greater equity into troubled situations, and greater protection into the way in which dependants are regarded.

Secondly, these proposals are not in themselves dependent on any change in the Constitution. If we in this House find merit in them, as we should, they can be enacted irrespective of the outcome of this referendum. I believe it is vital that, no matter what the outcome of the referendum, we should press on immediately with these major reforms. I intend to do whatever is in my power to ensure that that happens, whether we win or lose the referendum.

But I intend also to do whatever is in my power also to ensure that the referendum is won, to enable this House to take the next logical step to follow reforms such as these. All of the reforms I have mentioned so far, taken together, constitute a recognition that marriages do break down. In the face of that reality, while we legislate to introduce mechanisms to strengthen the family, to endeavour to save troubled marriages and to help to bring the pain, suffering, and financial hardship that marital breakdown can cause — as we do all of these things, the essential purpose of this referendum is to enable us to go one step further: to give people a chance to start again, in a new and legitimate union.

In short, we have the power, as our Constitution is written, to introduce a range of measures which take account of the truth that marriages die. It is essential that we use that power wisely and compassionately. But we should also have the power to legislate to enable people to remarry, and at present we do not. I have never advocated, and I do not do so now, that we should use such a power lightly or indiscriminately. Indeed, on every occasion on which I have spoken on this subject, I have pointed out forcefully that unless we in this House exercise great care, we can make the situation worse rather than better.

I do not believe that any Member of this House wants to introduce easy divorce to this country. Neither do I believe that there is any Member of this House who wants to see the emergence of a so-called "divorce culture". And incidentally, I do not accept the silly slur that there is any Member of this House, or of the Government, who is anti-family.

But I do believe there are a growing number of people, both here and in the community, who are prepared to face the reality that action is necessary to enable thousands of families to escape from the trap of a broken marriage, with hope that they can make a fresh start. However reluctant some people may be in coming to that recognition, and however much we may want to ensure that divorce is a last resort rather than an easy option, we have now arrived at the point where a recognition of reality is crystallised into positive action.

The proposal before this House today — the essential reason for this debate — is that the people should be allowed to choose. It is not in itself a proposition about which there is a great deal of controversy — indeed I think it is fair to say that there may be a virtual consensus in the House that the people, the electorate, the voters, have a right to have a final say. I would like to think that there would be a consensus among us also in urging as many people as possible to exercise that choice on the day. It is important that at the end of the day, after all the sound and fury, that choice is exercised in a calm and reflective way, and in a way that is truly representative of all the people. The outcome of this referendum will have an impact on the future — I believe that the impact will be for the better — and thus it is important that younger voters in particular, to whom the future belongs, be encouraged to vote in the greatest possible numbers.

If I would make any other appeal it would be that the debate for the next several weeks be conducted in as dispassionate a manner as possible. What we are debating is a serious issue — it is not an occasion for name-calling, or for the use of simplistic labels. As one who has been personally attacked in the past for my position in relation to such issues as this, and who has had to listen to attacks on my family, I am very conscious of the level of pressure that can be involved. But I am more conscious of the need to respect the deeply held views of others, as I would wish them to respect mine.

If I could turn to talk about the actual proposition on which I expect we will ask the people to make a choice, I am conscious also of the fact that on this issue there is not a consensus. We will be asking the people: "Are you prepared to allow the introduction of a limited form of divorce, in very specific circumstances, in such a way that only you can change those circumstances?" I would like, by way of setting out the reasons why I believe people should answer "yes" to that question, to explore some of the arguments that have been made against change. I find is noteworthy that the argument is not now being put forward, in any sort of blatant way, that what we are proposing will "open the floodgates" to quick and easy divorce.

It seems to be accepted that by inserting the five year qualifying period into the Constitution we have eliminated that possibility. Only the people can in future relax the conditions for the granting of a divorce, through a further referendum. Indeed, the insertion of the further clause, referring to "any other condition prescribed by law", has ensured that the Oireachtas can only tighten the conditions under which a divorce may be granted, as indeed we are proposing in the Statement of Intent.

Thus, since the argument that divorce will become easier to get will not stand up to critical examination, the arguments used against the proposition have to be more subtle and more subjective. The principal arguments left run are as follows:

The legal availability of divorce builds up a social pressure which, for large numbers of people, becomes stronger than moral or religious resistance...from being defined in law as indissoluble, marriages, all marriages, become immediately defined as dissoluble. Marriage as a lifelong union becomes legally obsolete.

Likewise:

...the concept of "irretrievable breakdown" is the basis for the most advanced and unrestrictive form of divorce in the world today...restrictions on divorce are in practice impossible to maintain, and expectations of a moderate and limited divorce law are pious hope more than well-founded expectation.

Likewise those who argue against state that:

None suffer more than children do from the divorce of the parents. Children are the chief casualties and victims of divorce...divorce is a spouse-centred, and not a child-centred development.

The passages I have quoted above are taken from the bishops' pastoral on this subject, as reported in yesterday's The Irish Times. Before commenting on them, I would like to make a few brief points.

First, I respect fully the right, indeed the obligation, of the bishops to issue a comprehensive advice to the members of their Church in relation to this subject. The fact that I do not agree with much of its reported contents cannot obscure that fact. Second, there is, in fact, much in the document that I agree with and admire.

The document, while making the essential point that divorce is never acceptable to the Catholic Church, accepts that marriages break down. It does not seek, ostensibly at any rate, that Catholic doctrine should be enshrined in law — indeed it accepts that private morality cannot be legally enforced. The arguments put forward in the document are not, therefore, based on moral and religious grounds but on sociological ones, and it is these arguments that I find it impossible to accept.

For example, in the passage I have quoted above, which I hope is a fair summary of the views contained in the whole document, there appears to be an imputation that divorce creates a social pressure of its own. This may be the case but, can it be compared to the range of pressures that lead to broken marriages? These pressures — the causative ones — range from financial and health pressures to psychiatric disorders and brutality. There are other pressures, the pressures consequent on broken marriage — the stress, frequently the violence, the neglect of children amounting sometimes to traumatisation.

The document goes on to say that from now on, with the passage of this legislation, all marriages become immediately defined as dissoluble. How can this be true, except in the purely technical sense? Our Constitution recognises the family as the "natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society" and accordingly it guarantees "to protect the Family in its constitution and authority". The Constitution goes on to pledge to "guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack". The Constitution places a heavy onus on the State, on the courts and on the Oireachtas to honour and to uphold these guarantees. Nothing we are doing, even if we wanted it to, could undermine these provisions of the Constitution.

It is quite clear, therefore, that in our Constitution and laws, we cannot attack the family and we cannot attack the institution of marriage. In short, we cannot declare that marriage as a lifelong union is legally obsolete. What we can do, and what we are doing, is to recognise, as the churches, do, that marriages die. In that situation, and only in the case of the marriages that have satisfied the difficult criteria by which they can be declared dead, we can, if this Bill is adopted by the people, permit a right of remarriage.

The pastoral goes on to describe "irretrievable breakdown" as the basis for the most unrestrictive form of divorce in the world. That might be true if we did not have a written Constitution, changeable only by popular referendum. It might be true if we were not prepared to write a careful and restrictive definition of irretrievable breakdown into the Constitution, where only the people could change it. It might be true if we were not prepared in our laws to make it difficult for people to part, and to encourage them to come together again. Because we are prepared to do all these things, a moderate and limited divorce law is much more than a pious hope.

Finally, the document says that children are the main victims of divorce. Divorce, is says, is a "spouse-centred development". I cannot disagree with this but I would have to ask in what way are broken marriages a child-centred development? Who are the victims of dead marriages, and what can be done for them? What hope is there for the child of a bitter, angry and perhaps violent couple?

There is, of course, a great deal of sociological evidence on both sides of this question, particularly in relation to the position of children. There is also the evidence of our own eyes and our own experience, in a society which has no divorce but more than its share of broken marriages. Most of us, I believe, know of children who have been neglected, even malnourished. Most of us know of children who have been alienated not only from their homes but from schools and from society in general. How many of us, I wonder, really believe that what we are proposing will make the situation worse for them?

The amendment, if passed by this House and enacted by the people, will give to this House a liberty that it has not previously enjoyed. It is, of course, a liberty to be exercised under the constraints of the terms of the amendment itself and under the terms of the legislation that the Government intends to enact. It also confers rights on those people whose marriages have, tragically, failed and who also satisfy both the constitutional and the legislative conditions. These rights are firstly, a right of access to the courts to seek a decree of dissolution of a marriage; secondly, a right to be legally aided to enable persons of insufficient means to seek such a decree and thirdly, consequent upon a decree, the right to remarry. It is also important to note that the proposed amendment confers the right upon children and upon dependent spouses to have adequate provision made for them and if this is not done no divorce decree can be granted.

To argue that this amendment will lead to unrestricted divorce is an insult to our Judiciary because it assumes that judges who have been appointed and who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws will suddenly reject their oath of office, ignore the fundamental law of the State and wrongfully use the limited jurisdiction that will be granted to them by the people and by this House. I know that, in fact, nothing of the kind will occur.

This amendment represents a turning point in the development of our constitutional law and specifically of the relationship of every citizen under the State. Our conception of the fundamental rights enjoyed by our citizens has developed significantly since the judgement of Mr. Justice Kenny in the case of Ryan v. the Attorney General in which he held that there were unspecified personal rights contained in and protected by the Article 40.3 guarantee of the State to protect, defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. But, these unspecified fundamental rights have had to be established by litigation before the courts and not by other means such as benevolent legislation. It is perhaps a poor reflection on this House that commentators, looking at the way in which our laws of fundamental and human rights have evolved, allot all the credit to our courts and not to our legislature. However, I believe the passage of this amendment will represent and will be seen as a significant shift in our conception of the liberty which we allow our individual citizens. I believe we as a State will no longer be seen as prohibitive, as a State which denies its people that which other democracies have regarded as a legitimate civil right. I also hope that it might cause us to reflect on the nature of and possible need for constitutional reform in its broadest sense. It is, perhaps, time for not only the legislative reform already mentioned, not only the selective, limited and responsible constitutional reform contained in the Bill before the House, but also a broad reassessment of the manner in which we govern ourselves, our aspirations as a people and our destiny as a nation.

Members of Fianna Fáil, the largest party in the State, hope this very important issue will continue to be debated in a responsible and informed manner and that any assessment arrived at by the people after the debate will be informed, sensible and balanced. The whole thrust of our approach to this matter is precisely in that spirit and we do not want any confrontational approach. We do not feel it is a matter of conflict, rancour or prejudice and, for that reason, we have decided as a party not to participate in the referendum in a political sense. We respect the fact that many members of the party have their own views on this matter. We respect those views and say to those people, our good friends, that they should make their assessment of the issue individually after consideration of all the aspects and vote accordingly. We have left this matter open to individual members of the party at local and parliamentary level to make their own choice.

We feel very strongly that this matter involves a personal right, individual conscience and personal morality in one's approach. In the best traditions of democracy, matters concerning personal conscience in regard to morality should be left not just to our Members in the Dáil and Seanad or to our organisation but to people in general to make their assessment after a mature and balanced appraisal of the facts emerging from the debates in this and the other House. We have already make this very plain.

I should like to refer to the speeches made already by the Minister for Justice in introducing the Bill and by the Minister for Energy in regard to the sociological problems involved. I will elaborate on the legal, constitutional, property and succession problems involved. I suggest that the fullest possible assessment should be made by the people in regard to how and in what way the spouse and children will be affected by the ramifications of property, succession and financial aspects of the matter. A very frank assessment is required and the Government have been lacking in candour in approaching this matter and in spelling out precisely what is involved in so far as legal rights are concerned.

Protection for the first family is written into the Constitution under Articles 41 and 42 and the legislation already adopted by the House within the ambit of those Articles. I refer particularly to the Succession Act, the Married Women's Property Act and other legislation passed by this House within the context of the Articles to which I referred. There is a corpus of legislation giving rights to the surviving spouse and particularly to the children by way of court applications. There is also a whole area dealing with property, succession and financial rights. I should like to know, and the public should be informed as to precisely how these rights will be implemented in future if this amendment is passed.

The Government have a bounden duty to spell out precisely what is involved in their proposed amendment in the way of impingement on existing legislative rights in respect of property, income, testamentary disposition and financial implications as far as the family is concerned. It is legitimate to say that, if this amendment is passed, a very real issue of conflict will arise in relation to the rights of the first family as against those of the second and third families.

The Minister may say that according to the proposed amendment a court must be satisfied that adequate and proper provision is made in regard to the circumstances of the dependent spouse and child, that that defence mechanism would be written into the Constitution, but I ask the Government to consider seriously how that can be made effective and enforced. Will the Minister tell us how an order made by a court in respect of the surviving spouse, child or children, of the first marriage can be enforced under the procedures that exist in regard to enforcement here or in any other country?

As all Members are aware, we are into a very difficult area in regard to the enforcement of court orders. Theoretically—

I emphasise that word — the spouse or the family can be accommodated under a court order but subsequently there is a total lack of capacity on the part of the apparatus of the State to enforce that order. The family of the first marriage may find themselves deprived of property, income and financial support and that may pass on to the second and third family. They are legitimate areas for investigation and the Government should explain fully to the public what is involved. It is not enough to pass a simplistic amendment to the Constitution providing for the dissolution of marriage where it has irretrievably broken down. All other aspects must be taken into consideration by a mature electorate. Hopefully, the electorate will consider all aspects in a sensible manner when they are given the opportunity.

I appreciate the need for a compassionate and concerned approach as far as the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is concerned. We have adopted a mature approach to this matter and we see the social imperative of being able to deal with cases where marriages have been broken down irretrievably in a sympathetic and compassionate way. That is the reason why Fianna Fáil have decided, in a responsible and constructive way, not to oppose the referendum. We want it put to the people for their mature consideration after the full facts have been explored in parliamentary debate without any confrontational rancour. I deplore those outside the House who try to induce confrontational rancour into the debate because, thankfully, it has been noticeably absent in the approach adopted by all sides of the House. I hope the debate proceeds on that basis. This matter is highly sensitive and requires compassionate and mature treatment and consideration. We should proceed on that basis and help the public to make up their minds after considering all the facts.

I should like to enter one or two caveats against the Government's approach to this. The adoption by them of a quasi-confrontational approach in the sense that they are backing this in a quasi-political way has led to an interpretation by some commentators that in some way this is a confrontational matter. We reject that approach. Speaking on behalf of my party I must stress that we reject totally any confrontational approach to this highly sensitive matter which involves an area where compassion and concern should be the predominant considerations. The legal, constitutional and property aspects must be given mature consideration by the people in the referendum.

I should like to make it clear that I deplore any mischievous attempt to divert the public mind away from our approach and our attitude. As far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, we will not be diverted from our approach between now and referendum day. It is tremendously important that the Dáil and Seanad maintain an attitude towards this matter which will secure respect from the people. The people will accord us that respect if we adopt the approach I have outlined. That has been the basic motivation behind our party's attitude to this matter and we will continue to occupy that high ground throughout the debate here and until the people make their decision in the referendum. I should like to assure the House, commentators and the public that that is our position. There should not be any ambiguity about it.

I will not engage in any other detailed criticism of the matter before us apart from reiterating the real problems that are involved as between the various families and their legal, constitutional and property succession rights. I appreciate that they are matters for subsequent legislation, but I want the public to be aware that there are real problems involved and that this is not a simplistic matter of granting divorce as a right without other implications or complications. There are massive, serious implications and complications involved and it is the duty of the Government to inform the public accordingly. This is not an occasion for any smoke-screen public relations exercise. It is an occasion for very serious and mature debate, an occasion for the Government to inform the public fully on all the implications and complications involved. It is not an occasion for making emotive speeches, or debating the matter in a simplistic black and white fashion. There are very real problems of a highly complex nature on which the public should be informed, allowing them to come to their mature conclusion having been so informed.

As one who has watched at first-hand activities and operations of this Government since their inception, especially their abject failure to grapple effectively with the social and economic problems of the country, with particular reference to the social evils in our midst of mass unemployment, crippling taxation, falling standards, rising poverty, crime and enforced emigration, all of which loom around us, it is extremely difficult to understand why, at this critical time, the nation's attentions and resources should be focused on an amendment of our Constitution with the intention of introducing divorce into this country. It is as if we had nothing else to do, nothing else to worry us. The need for many thousands of jobs, the welfare of our youth, the need to conserve and improve our social services, to stave off further cut-backs and stem the ever-rising tide of crime and taxation would seem to be of no consequence at present. I would be a much happier man had the Tánaiste, when he spoke here a few moments ago, talked along those lines, had he dealt with the real issues affecting our people, the real social and economic issues without which one cannot have a worthwhile moral code or social justice.

Since the inception of this Government they seem to have been obsessed, not with economic or social issues but with the moral issues of our society. The questions of abortion, contraception and now divorce would seem to have pre-occupied the minds of the members of the Cabinet. Can anybody suggest that, without a job, without a reasonably secure means of livelihood, any responsible young couple could, or would, embark on marriage? Love on the dole is a romantic concept but, invariably, when poverty comes in the door, love flies out the window. Does anybody deny that idleness is essentially the devil's workshop, that the more and more jobs we provide for our people the more crime and violence will wither away in our society? Does anybody deny that very many of our broken marriages — which we all truly deplore in this House — could have been saved had appropriate State aid and support been provided in time? I am glad something positive is being done in this area on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown.

I contend that poverty, unemployment and insecurity constitute the greatest threats to marriage and stability of family life. They are the great demoralising features in Irish society today. The degree and extent of unemployment and poverty in Ireland, North and South, are simply inexcusable and unacceptable, in a Christian society such as ours. I contend there are very many families in Ireland today whose meagre income does not provide them with sufficient food, clothes or fuel, families who suffer from malnutrition, inadequate hygiene facilities, who live in sub-standard conditions and accommodation, in squalid environmental conditions. To my knowledge there are more and more families today who simply cannot make ends meet. The result is unhappiness, deprivation and discord, especially among young married couples. They can no longer maintain themselves even in frugal comfort. We know that many young couples are unable to meet their hire purchase payments, their house mortgage repayments, their repayments to the banks, building societies or to the unscrupulous moneylenders who stalk about our housing estates preying on young housewives in particular. In the Ireland of today a marriage needs to be doubly blessed to survive. It is assailed on every side by economic, alien and sinister forces. All the signs are there for all of us to see.

I believe that the founding fathers of this State, especially those who drafted our Constitution, built wisely and well when, in the first instance, they laid the main emphasis on the importance of the family. It is declared in our Constitution that the family is the natural, primary, fundamental unit of society, possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law. The suggestions now being made in this House would seek to undermine that fundamental principle. Moreover, it should be remembered that, in our Constitution, the State guarantees to protect the family, its constitution and authority as the necessary basis of social order, as indispensable to the welfare of the nation and the State. Let us mark well in this House, in the deliberations of the present day, that our Constitution contains this important stipulation:

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

That is an aspect of our Constitution on which every Member of this House needs to dwell long and deeply before voting for or supporting the measures now before us. To trifle with the institution of marriage, therefore, is to undermine the family which must remain the bedrock of our society. It seems to me that that would be a truly retrograde step which no Member of this House should contemplate lightly.

The clamour now is for divorce. Regrettably we have many broken marriages. Like so many of my colleagues, I believe that all the resources of the State should be brought to bear on resolving these marital, great human problems. I believe the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown should be implemented quickly in respect of all fundamental aspects so as to assist in resolving these problems. A comprehensive education programme to prepare young people for marriage and proper counselling should surely be available in dealing with marital difficulties. The compilation of relevant statistics is of vital importance. Many of the figures which I hear quoted in this House would seem to be picked out of thin air. There is nothing to substantiate them. We need hard facts and the statistics appertaining to marriage breakdown. I trust that the figures emanating from the recently held census will be really worthwhile and ones upon which we can act.

The legal remedies mentioned by the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown in respect of such important factors as nullity, separation agreements, maintenance, guardianship, the custody of children, matrimonial property and all these things must be considered urgently. I look forward with much enthusiasm and support to the idea and ideal of the new family court structure, that is to say, the creation of a family tribunal with full powers, duties and responsibilities to deal with marital difficulties and family problems generally. If this is backed up by a comprehensive system of free legal aid, we will have gone a long way towards stabilising, strengthening and supporting the institution of marriage.

Divorce is not the answer. I believe that marriage is an ancient, well tried, noble institution upon which the family is based. For me and the vast majority of the people whom I represent, marriage is a sacrament. It is indissoluble. We accept as our credo that what God hath brought together no man has the right to pull asunder or, to quote the words of the Master: "Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female"? He also said: "This is why a man must leave father and mother and cling to his wife and the two become one body. They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So what God hath united man must not divide". These are the words of the Gospel.

Divorce, therefore, is alien to the Christian way of life. The experience of other countries and all the facts and figures quoted here by Members show clearly that the introduction of divorce leads rapidly to a worsening of the situation which it was designed or intended to remedy and more and more broken marriages are the result. From being defined in law as indissoluble, all marriages become defined as dissoluble. Marriage becomes in legal principle a mere temporary union. The permanency of marriage is destroyed. Marriage as a lifelong union becomes legally obsolete. The commitment for life is replaced by a legal commitment to stay with one's spouse unless and until one decides otherwise, in, say, about two, three, four or five years time, when one can be legally separated or divorced.

It is not just broken marriages which are affected in this situation. All existing marriages are in principle implicated. The multiplier effect goes into operation and divorce spreads as it has spread in every country, like a plague throughout the land. As for the concept of irretrievable breakdown as put forward in the proposed legislation, I believe that concept will simply facilitate and accelerate the incidence of divorce in this country. It is tantamount to divorce by unilateral repudiation imposed upon an innocent and unwilling partner by an unfaithful or unscrupulous spouse.

These are some of the reasons that we oppose all these measures. Irretrievable breakdown, it would transpire, is the easiest ploy in the world for one unscrupulous partner to impose upon the other. If one looks into that aspect of the matter, one can see clearly and plainly how it can work. The five year waiting period will quickly become four, three and two years, as has transpired in other countries and within a relatively short time we shall have virtually instant divorce, postal divorce in this country. In the resulting tragedy it is the children who are the greatest sufferers. Children are the chief casualties and victims of divorce. Divorce is experienced by them as a rejection of them by their parents and this can and does give rise to psychological and emotional problems and personality disorders in such children, involving in very many instances a crisis of identity. Divorce is always a disaster for the unfortunate children involved. There is no gainsaying that fact. Divorce is bad for men; it is very bad for women, but the real sufferers are children.

To raise the divorce issue now is certainly a diversionary tactic by the Government. So far as the people are concerned, it is the old saying, "If you cannot give them bread or work, give them a damn good circus. Let the populace indulge themselves; let them think that you are conferring some new-found freedom on them, or that they are getting something for nothing". So, we have this new Coalition circus of divorce to contend with.

A kite is also being flown, a hint that to amend our Constitution on the lines indicated and bring in divorce would do much to resolve the Northern problem, that the liberal approach and the withering away of things Irish, Republican, Gaelic or Catholic might conceivably placate Big Ian and the Orange Boys and pave the way for the acceptance of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I believe that to be utter nonsense and stupid folly. I believe that honesty with our fellow Irishmen and women in North-East Ulster is the best policy. We are what we are and we should make no apology to anyone for it. We are the proud inheritors of a great tradition, a rich culture, a religion to which we have held fast down through the ages and will never relinquish. We respect the traditions and beliefs of our Northern brethren and I believe that they must surely respect us for our beliefs, honestly and honourably held and not open to compromise. Even if we were to offer certain Unionist leaders of today the privilege of rewriting our Constitution as they would like it, I believe that the answer would be the same: "Not an inch, no surrender". So let us not cod ourselves, let us not debase ourselves and let us not sell our birthright for a mess of pottage. They are fundamentals on which we cannot and must not compromise. The integrity of the family, the sanctity and the dissolubility of marriage are some of these fundamentals to which I refer and on which we in this House and we in this country must stand fast.

Let us be careful that we of this generation do not win for ourselves the name of the new soupers who sold their souls for soup, for two penny rolls and for hairy bacon. I must confess that I find nothing edifying, nothing good or noble in divorce. It simply degrades and demoralises. While marriage will remain the ultimate in love and romance, in respect and fidelity, in everlasting union for our young people of today, tomorrow, and always, I want to play my part in trying to solve the problem of broken marriages; but, clearly, divorce is not the answer. Divorce destroys the concept of marriage as a sacrament. It makes a mockery of marriage as a permanent institution.

Let me quote, before concluding, the words of a man who was chiefly responsible for bringing divorce into England in 1857. That man was Lord Campbell. He was the great initiator, who pushed through this legislation and claimed all the glory for it. But, having seen divorce operate in England for a number of years, having seen the tragedy which resulted, the spiralling of divorces, the break-up of family life and the worsening of moral standards in society at large, Lord Campbell wrote:

I have been sitting two days in the divorce court and, like Frankenstein, I am afraid of the monster I have called into existence. There seems some reason to dread that the prophecy of those who opposed the change may be fulfilled by a lamentable multiplication of divorces and by the corruption of public morals.

That was his view after witnessing the operation of divorce even at that time over 100 years ago.

These are some of the reasons why I am implacably opposed to amending our Constitution with a view to bringing in divorce to this country. I urge the House and the country to reject divorce. I urge my constituents in South Tipperary to reject divorce. They are a proud people, a wise people who have never accepted a lowering of standards be they moral, social or economic. I believe I speak for Tipperary on this vital issue. I trust and hope that where Tipperary leads, all Ireland may follow. To those of my colleagues in this House who wish to see divorce brought in, I would ask them to think again and to beware the monster they are creating and which they cannot control. Like our friend, Lord Campbell, they may regret their action. They may regret for the rest of their days their action in condoning such proposals.

We are here to discuss the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution was enacted in 1937 and this is only the tenth amendment in 39 years. I believe that this is the most important amendment which has been put to the people. If this amendment is passed it will make a fundamental change in the status of marriage in the State. Marriage is now recognised by the State as a permanent contract. If this amendment is passed and divorce legislation introduced, the State will no longer recognise marriage as a permanent contract and marriage will become to be seen as a temporary state and a contract to be ended at the will of either partner when they so desire.

I spoke here on 14 November 1985 and said that when the Government, if they did, produce legislation to put to the people Fianna Fáil would approach it in a mature and balanced way. Because of the seriousness of the issue we held a special parliamentary party meeting on 25 April following which we issued a statement pointing out clearly the position of the party. Could I quote a paragraph from that statement:

The Party carefully considered all the many aspects and implications of this proposal and in particular its profound effect on the position of families and the nature and quality of our society. It also had regard to the many different but sincerely held views in the community on this issue and decided that the question should be left to the people as a whole to decide. Accordingly, the Party will not oppose, in the Dáil or Seanad, the proposal to hold a referendum.

I believe that that is as it should be; because of the complex nature of the issue it should be left to the people to decide. We do not have the right to deny the people the opportunity to vote and to give their views on this issue.

The referendum should have awaited the results of the census. The census was held on 13 April and, for the first time in the history of the State, the people were asked to give their marital status, whether they were married, single, separated or deserted. It would have been very beneficial to have the results of that question in the census before proceeding with the referendum. We are told that there are 70,000 persons with broken marriages, but it is difficult to substantiate this figure. I was a member of the all-party committee dealing with the protection of marriage and family life and looking into marriage breakdown. We did not have any figures which could be confirmed for the benefit of the committee.

There has been a tremendous change in the pattern of marriage over the past number of decades. Persons are marrying at a lower age; and there are smaller families, with the result that the childbearing and rearing years are shorter for the couple. The couple spend more of their married life on their own as a result of marrying younger and smaller families. There has been a change in the pattern of the extended family. We do not now have to the same extent the close relationship between grandparents and parents as we formerly had, as people have moved to the city, which has grown out of all proportions with the result that they are away from their homes and their roots.

The status of women has changed. The pattern of marriage has changed in another dramatic way also. If we look back to the turn of the century, when a couple married the man went out to work. He provided shelter for his wife and family. The housing at that time was not anything like the standard it is at present. He handed over the money to his wife, who stayed at home to rear and feed the family. They had to strive against disease because infectious disease was rampant and wiped out one or other spouse early in life. The average length of a marriage was 20 years whereas now it is 42 years. Because these physical difficulties existed, if a couple succeeded in providing a home and food the marriage was very successful. Nowadays people expect more from their marriage. Companionship and emotional bonding has become a major expectation of couples at present.

We all accept that marriage breakdown is on the increase. This results from pressures within the marriage and also from external pressures. Contributory factors are unemployment, inadequate housing and the changes that occur in society. The influence of alcohol and drugs, the illicit use of drugs and the proprietary use of drugs is something that we do not give enough attention to. We do not have the exact figures of those who suffer from marital breakdown. The only figure which is available, apart from the estimated figure of 70,000 which I do not think was properly assessed, is that of the labour force survey of 1983, which was properly assessed and which states that 21,000 persons are involved in marriage breakdown.

In the UK in 1982 there were 146,698 divorce decrees. These affected 158,268 children under 16 years of age and 27,898 children over 16 years of age. What we should have done in advance of legislating for divorce was to look at all the measures that could be taken without the need for a referendum and to take those measures. It has been fairly obvious for a number of years that there are many areas where the State should update the law or introduce laws to support those whose marriages are in difficulty.

The joint committee, which was set up over two years ago and reported a year ago, put forward a number of measures which were agreed by all the members of the committee and for which the Government should have legislated. One thing that concerns me about this referendum is that the Government seem to be linking changes in the existing law to the referendum, changes which it is not necessary to have a referendum to bring about. The referendum refers specifically to the right to remarry.

The Irish Constitution explicitly guarantees that the State will protect the institution of marriage. It is expected therefore that the State do everything possible to ensure that those entering marriage are fully aware of the seriousness of the life long commitment which they are undertaking. The State provides financial aid to marriage preparation and counselling agencies. Its social services attempt to deal with such marital problems as come to their notice. There is no overall policy regarding the provision of planned programmes of preparation or of counselling services for couples when problems arise in a marriage. Neither does the State have any comprehensive policy for the support of families. The State should make greater support available for pre-marriage courses, for counselling for those who have difficulties in their marriage and for those who have separated and need support afterwards. There are a number of measures which the State can take. They could raise the minimum age for marriage to 18 years, which is something that the all-party committee unanimously agreed should be done. In schools the curriculum at primary and post primary levels should enable young people to realise their total potential, help them develop skills and inter-personal relationships and create some awareness in them of the demands of marriage and parenthood.

In an oral submission to the all-party committee, Dr. Jack Dominian, clinical psychiatrist at the Central Middlesex Hospital, said:

My image of the prevention of marital breakdown starts in the family. I would like to see the family as being the model. In regard to the schools, I have said again and again that in addition to "The Three R's" I want a fourth "R" which stands for relationships to be an essential part of education in schools. We are doing research at the moment. I am not saying that you can teach boys and girls about marriage, because it is too big a step for that age group, but you can teach them about personal relationships, about trust, about communications, about affection and about understanding. I would like to see that, which is the infrastructure of marriage, being an essential part of education.

At present voluntary organisations do much work and they receive some support from the State. The Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and the Marriage Counselling Service of the Church of Ireland are doing very valuable work in this regard.

While much can be done by specific forms of intervention at different levels to assist young people in preparation for the tasks of marriage and parenthood, the primary source of preparation is their life within their families. The success or failure of that preparation depends on the quality of family life which they experience. The quality, in turn, will depend upon the degree to which the family is able to fulfil its role. Families in modern society are not able to do this unaided. At present State responsibility for family care is divided between several Departments with the result that services are fragmented. They respond to needs in a piecemeal manner. The establishment of a Department specifically for family care, as is the practice in a number of European countries, would ensure the appropriate development and implementation of such a policy. Dr. Jack Dominian, who has very wide experience and is a well known authority on the subject of marriage, the prevention of marriage breakdown and the problems that arise from breakdown, when he came before the all-party committee recommended that there should be such a Department, that it is better to have a Department within an existing ministry than to create a new Department with a junior Minister.

There are many measures the State could take, many legal remedies which do not need a referendum. The referendum is purely about the right to remarry. For example, the laws of nullity could be updated because the present law is in an Act of 1870, the Matrimonial Cause and Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act. Though in the past ten years there has been a wider interpretation of that law by various judges, the law needs to be updated in the light of advances in medical and psychological sciences.

There should be an updating of the law on separation, with more support for separation by agreement, particularly in regard to judicial separation, to take account of problems not included in present law, such as breakdown.

The law on maintenance should be updated. The family law in the Maintenance of Spouses and Children Act, 1976, is working satisfactorily but there is the matter of default in payments to victims. The State should pay those persons and then pursue the responsible spouses who have defaulted in payments. The law on guardianship and custody needs to be amended. The joint committee took the view that a joint custody order is meaningless if it means that a child would have to live part of each week with one parent and part with the other. This would not be in the interests of the child except in very exceptional circumstances. The committee felt that the law on that should be amended.

The law on matrimonial property needs to be revised. At present it deals with property interests on chance decisions made over the years and it discriminates against many women if they work outside the home and do not make contributions that would entitle them to an interest in property in their husband's names. The Family Home Protection Act, 1976, was found to be defective in a recent High Court decision when a creditor applied to sell a family home for a debt judgement. That law should be updated.

The law on barring orders could be updated so that such orders could be obtained when the health, safety and welfare of the spouse or children are at risk, as well as in cases of physical violence which appears to be the position since the 1983 case was heard of O'B versus O'B.

The Minister for Energy referred to family courts. We believe there should be family courts. Particularly since the committee reported, there should have been some move towards the establishment of family courts, with a High Court judge or judges who would have power to deal with all family disputes with a duty to investigate the state of marriage relationships. Such a tribunal should have at its disposal the assistance of marriage counsellors of the couples choice, pyschologists, social workers and other relevant persons. The tribunal should make its decisions on the basis that paramount consideration must be given to the welfare of any children involved. The tribunal should have available reports from psychologists, social workers and teachers.

Another area in which the State has not played a proper role is in regard to reconciliation and mediation. There should be more State support for voluntary groups involved in reconciliation. The areas of agreement rather than of disagreement should be dealt with. The State could have improved existing legislation in this regard and brought in new legislation where appropriate and this would not involve a change in the Constitution.

Divorce is about the right to remarry and it is true to say that not all persons whose marriages have broken down want that right. There is no need for a constitutional change except for those who wish to remarry. The support systems of which I have spoken could be introduced and improved and laws changed without the need for a referendum. It is dishonest of the Government to be linking these changes to the referendum because it is not necessary to hold a referendum to bring about very important changes which we all agree are necessary.

The issue to be put to the people is a very clear one. We all have compassion for those whose marriages have broken down and we must be sensitive to their needs and to their wish to remarry. We must decide between allowing individuls to remarry and the common good, the good of society if the status of marriage is changed so that it will no longer be a permanent contract in the eyes of the State. I believe divorce is not in the best interests of the people because of the serious social consequences and the financial implications that inevitably ensue. My concern is that the cure could become the disease.

Article 41 of the Constitution is the basis of the legal protection for the family. It has influenced all legislation affecting the family since the Constitution was enacted. A question I ask is whether it is possible to delete Article 41.3.2º, as is proposed in the Bill, without diluting if not negating entirely the value of the entire Article as a protection for the family, and particularly for the first family where a divorce takes place. It appears to me the new family would have the protection of the Constitution at the expense of the first family.

Divorce would have serious consequences for the succession rights of women because the effects of divorce on the laws of succession would be significant. Under existing law a married woman has substantial succession rights. Where the husband dies without making a will and where there are no children, the wife is entitled to all of his property and if there are children she is entitled to two-thirds and the children share in the remaining one-third of the property. Where the husband has made a will the wife has a legal right to half of the property if there are no children and to one-third of the property if there are children. These legal rights over-ride any attempt by a husband to disinherit his wife by leaving his property to another person. These rights are substantial and cumulatively they afford the wife considerable protection, especially where her husband may not have her best interests at heart.

The question must be asked how a woman would fare as regards succession rights if we had divorce. All the evidence from other countries shows she would fare badly. The general tendency is to reduce the succession rights of divorced women and in some cases to abolish them completely. At best the rights of the first wife would be diluted and at worst she would have no rights whatever. This would be a matter of major concern.

The same applies to children. They suffer in the case of divorce. Some people argue that divorce is better than continual parental fighting in the home but that is not a real alternative. In any case where it would be better in the interests of the children for the parents to live apart, they may separate. They do not need a divorce to do that.

The financial implications of divorce are important in that experience in other countries shows that in the main the State has to support the divorced wife and her family. Where an unemployed man whose wife is dependent on him gets a divorce, the State may find itself supporting both the first family and the second family. It is estimated in the United Kingdom that it costs a sum of £1 billion per year to support persons who are divorced and their families.

I am concerned about the amendment that will be put to the people. The interpretation of the word "failure" by the courts will mean that persons separated for two years will be entitled to a divorce providing they fulfil the other conditions. I believe the five-year period will become two years. It is wrong for any member of the Government to suggest that in order to reduce the five-year period a further referendum will be necessary. Anyone who has read the Bill before us will accept it is a matter of interpretation of the meaning of the word "failure" and that it is the two-year separation period that will apply.

I am not satisfied with the section dealing with the need for support for dependants. I do not think it is possible to put in wording that will guarantee provision for them. If we look at the experience in other countries it is obvious that increasingly the State is being called to the rescue of first families and to support them.

I appreciate this is a complex social issue and that there are sincerely held views by many people one each side. The debate should be held in a mature and balanced way. I should like to quote again from the statement we issued on 25 April after a lengthy and mature debate in our own party. It stated:

Fianna Fáil would hope that this important issue will be fully and responsibly assessed by the people and a wise decision arrived at after an informed and balanced debate, free of rancour or prejudice. To ensure that the debate does not take place along party political lines, Fianna Fáil have decided that the party will not compaign politically in the referendum. Because, however, many members of the party feel deeply about the issue, individual Deputies and Senators will be free to participate personally in whatever way they wish in their individual capacities.

It is correct that we should not campaign as a political party. We are the largest political party in the State and it would be wrong for us to politicise this matter in any way. Our duty is to inform the people on the issues and the consequences of the amendment in a balanced way. Then, with mature judgment the people will make their decision on whether to amend the Constitution in the way proposed by the Government.

I must admit I am a little confused at the attitude of the main Opposition party with regard to this legislation. As Deputy O'Hanlon has stated, they have indicated they do not wish to oppose the holding of the referendum. Yet, in all the speeches I have heard from that side of the House so far, it appears to me a clear indication has been given that they are opposing the referendum in one way of another. I agree with Deputy O'Hanlon that all sides of the House should try to ensure that the people get a fair chance to make up their minds and to hear the various sides of the arguments in a rational and unemotional way. The Opposition seem to be preoccupied with the anti-divorce view and a great deal of time has obviously been put into the presentation of a case against the legislation rather than having reasoned arguments, which the statement of 25 April indicated would be party policy.

There is a case to be argued for and against divorce. We must accept that. We have an obligation to present both sides of the argument to the people and then to let them decide the issue. The case presented by the Opposition so far deals with the danger to the family, the consequences of a second marriage and the possibility of easy divorce being on option in the future. There is no sense in us burying our heads in the sand and pretending that serious marital problems do not exist. Society has changed in the last 15 years. Those affected by marital breakdown will proceed on their own course regardless of the outcome of the referendum. There is an obligation on us to present legislation to the people and to let them decide if they wish to accept it as an attempted resolution of the problem.

The legislation is reasoned. There is provision for mediation and conciliation. When I ask most people who attend my clinic if they went through any type of conciliation process, they say they did not. A dispute arose and as a result of that they sought legal opinion and ultimately were legally separated or living apart. I am sure that is not only my experience but also that of other Deputies. There is need to some legal mechanism which would direct people towards a process of mediation and conciliation. Some such procedures do exist at present but they are not sufficient to encourage many people to go through the process of trying to bring their marriages back onto the straight and narrow path.

The welfare of children has been mentioned and this must be taken into consideration. The welfare of children in broken marriages is in something of a twilight zone at present. I am sure we all know of cases where there was a broken marriage and one or other spouse entered into another relationship and formed another family. That is unofficial divorce with very little provision made for the welfare of the children of either relationship.

Many people say that if divorce is introduced it will become easy to obtain one over the years and the fabric of society will break down as a result. The case is also made that in countries where divorce was introduced a few years ago the laws have been liberalised and it is now easier to obtain a divorce there. I do not accept that.

As legislators we should present all aspects of the case. Regardless of their political affiliation the people who are affected by this could decide in an election to take the action which is open to them if their views are not responded to.

Deputy Lenihan made a speech this morning. It is to be hoped that we will not have a highly emotional atmosphere such as developed when debating other social legislation. I hope this debate will be conducted in an orderly fashion and that the people will listen to all the arguments and then make up their own minds. Deputy Lenihan raised a number of interesting points in relation to the legal procedures involved. He mentioned succession rights and inheritance and the entitlements of the children of a second marriage under the Succession Acts. That is something which must be examined when the Bill is being drafted, assuming that the people allow the House to proceed with the legislation. It should be readily possible for the courts to resolve those problems within such a framework having regard to the fact that they are expected to resolve them now. It should be possible for the courts to resolve those problems in this framework having regard to the fact that those same courts are now expected to resolve the problems as they exist at present and which will continue if we do not attempt to introduce this type of controlling legislation.

Deputy Treacy referred to the Coalition circus. He said this legislation was now being introduced to divert people's attention from other more serious issues. I refute that entirely. This is a serious issue which requires far more careful consideration than that, and I hope nobody inside or outside the House will treat it lightly. It is an issue that requires more serious consideration than that.

It has been suggested on the opposite side of the House that the five year period which was the criterion prior to the granting of divorce in Britain when it was first introduced was subsequently changed and that now it is relatively easy to obtain divorce there. I am not a legal person but I feel the fact that this proposal is to be written into the Constitution should be sufficient guarantee to all the people that nobody is going to change the law without the permission of the people who are going to vote on this or some further referendum. That is reasonable enough. Let me also point out that we have a written Constitution and many other countries do not.

We have a serious problem at present, the problem of marriage breakdown. I accept that divorce is not going to solve that problem and I would not try to argue that it will. But it does attempt at least to try to do something about legalising the situation that follows on a broken marriage. For that reason we, as legislators, have a serious duty to try to come to grips with the problem which has been there for some years and is obviously growing because society is changing. There are far greater pressures now than there were some years ago and these will continue.

If we do not move with the times and introduce legislation which will meet the requirements of modern society, society will pass us by and this House will become less relevant than it is at present, and that has been raised on many occasions both in and out of the House over the past few years. Ultimately the people will decide, having listened to the arguments put forward by those of us in this House. They will also, I am quite sure, decide having regard to the arguments put abroad outside this House.

I do not wish to become involved in any such arguments but I feel that in any State it is the right of any Church to express its views on moral or social issues to its flock and expect them to have regard to them. I am not entirely happy with the theory that a Church in any State should have the right to have those views legislated for or imposed through legislation because that would put people in many denominations, particularly minority denominations, at a distinct disadvantage and is something which flies in the face of our Constitution which purports to treat all people equally. Again I emphasise that it is undoubtedly the right of the Churches to express their views on such issues to their people without fear.

Likewise I believe that we, as legislators, also have a duty to legislate for all of the people having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time. Perhaps somebody, at some stage in the future, will have a different view as has happened in the past. But we, at this time, should try at least to do something to move along with the requirements of the present time. It is a difficult thing to do but one would hope that when the people come to make their decision on this issue — and I think they will decide in favour — they will have regard to the fact that circumstances as they now are are not ideal and certainly change is needed. The changes proposed by some Members on the opposite side of this House are the same except in name.

This is going to become a vital issue. I implore those on the opposite side of the House to try to come to grips with this important issue. Deputy Lenihan accused those on the Government side of adopting a confrontational stance on this matter. That is not true. Since this is Government-sponsored legislation those on this side of the House will obviously have regard to the fact that it is Government legislation and will try, in so far as they can, to set out the case as they see it. There is no question of adopting a confrontational stance. The confrontation will come from those who see a need to change but will not accept the change as proposed in this legislation.

If we do not change, if we do not move with the times, then the times will move without our approval and the law and the initiative will be taken out of our hands. For that reason, I hope the people in their wisdom will decide in favour of this legislation on the basis that it is moral and caring, far more caring than the present system, with particular reference to one spouse or the other and also to dependent children. In this case provision will be made through the courts in relation to settlements which will give some semblance of order to a situation where there is now total disorder.

I am very pleased that this matter has now come before the House in this form and that, for the first time, the people are likely to be given an opportunity, in a matter of weeks, to vote on the important matter and to allow us, the legislators, to bring into law legislation in relation to divorce.

I must say at the outset that, as a result of some of the comments I have heard in this debate, I will be worried about the success of possible divorce legislation in this House. Some of the stances taken by some of the Members in this House lead me to believe that, irrespective of what the people decide on 26 June, it may still be impossible to steer divorce legislation successfully through this House and that would be most regrettable. I certainly hope that the fears I have, based on what I heard yesterday and this morning, will not come to pass.

At the outset I want to make a few comments about the language used in yesterday's debate in particular. We heard words like "sledge hammer" from Deputy Woods, and "Frankenstein is going to stalk the land". This morning we heard words like "the monster" from Deputy Treacy. Yesterday Deputy Glenn said that any woman voting for this legislation would be like a turkey voting for Christmas. As a woman Member of this House who has rarely sought to divide issues as to whether they apply to women or men, I reject this and I feel insulted that women are treated like this in this House and in this country on matters of this kind. It is degrading; it is offensive; it is insulting to Irish women and I hope that throughout this debate people will refrain from discussing women in this way and from implying that this legislation will make women and children suffer any more than they have suffered over recent years as a result of the kind of legislation we have and the trauma so many of them have to live with during their lives. When we discussed the contraception legislation some time ago the same kind of language was used. Women were being frightened. We had hysterical reactions from many Deputies inside and outside this House trying to scare women into believing that they will be more vulnerable.

I was very struck by Deputy Flaherty's remarks yesterday because her experience is similar to mine. When we give examples of hard cases we are accused of being emotional and are told that hard cases do not make good law. Of course they do not but we have to deal with hard cases. We have to have compassion and understanding. Above all else, as legislators we must make sure that as far as they can the laws reflect the circumstances so many people find themselves in today.

Divorce is not new in Ireland. We have had it for many years, but we have closed our eyes to it. We pretend it does not exist. We have divorce Irish style. We have people living in marriages who do not speak to each other for many years. I dealt with one particular case where the husband and wife had not spoken to each other for more than ten years. They lived together. They had all the outward signs of having a marriage, but that marriage had failed; it did not exist. Those people — and they are the only people who should matter — and their children, knew there was no marriage, but they stayed together because to separate would lead people to believe they had failed in some sense, that they had not lived up to society's expectations of them. There are many people in that category.

How often have I dealt with people who lived together as husband and wife who have never been married because one of them has been married before? They do not tell many people about this. In some cases even their families do not know one of the parties was married before. The reason they do not let people know the true facts is that they feel ashamed, they feel they are failures or that they are doing something wrong. It is no longer right that in a republic we should treat people like this. It is not just because of the hard cases or because I believe we must face up to the issue in a realistic way, but because I want to see our Constitution and our legislation reflect the ethos of a republic and not the ethos of a State dominated by one particular Church.

We should go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the rights and views of minorities are respected and vindicated in our laws and that the views of one particular Church, no matter how much it may be in the majority or how influential it may be, should not dominate our Constitution and should not, to the exclusion of other people, dominate our legislation. We are told by many clerics that the law of the land does not necessarily have to reflect the views of one particular Church. I do not believe that is the view they really hold, because, when we come to change the law of the land and ensure that it does not reflect only the views of that Church, every obstacle is put in the way. It is a shame that that is the case.

It is no different for women and children if their marriages have been declared null and void. The children still have the problem of growing up without a father or mother. Yet we are told in the document published yesterday that children will suffer if they grow up in a house without a father or a mother because the parents have separated. Of course, this will create difficulties for children and, unfortunately, in many cases children prefer to see their parents together. They hate one parent to be away from the family home. If that marriage has been declared null and void and if one of the parents has married again, are not the consequences for those children exactly the same as they would be if their parents had been divorced?

For some people it is better to say that the marriage never took place rather than admit that the marriage existed for a number of years but that it had broken down. Why can we not be honest and recognise that marriage, which is essentially a relationship between two people based on commitment, does end for various reasons — unemployment, alcoholism and so on. We are all aware that relationships end. People are not machines. They cannot be forced to stay together in those circumstances. If they do stay together and if they have all the outward appearances of a marriage, that is not a marriage and that should not be good enough.

We should not force so many people into accepting second class standards in their marriages when many of them may have an opportunity to start life again. Are we to tell people who make a mistake, who recognised that marriage was not what they expected, a young girl who married at 21 or 22, that for the rest of their lives they will have to pay for making that mistake and that they will never be able to have another chance? That is not acceptable and I know the majority of younger people will not tolerate that kind of society.

Like other Members of this House I had the opportunity of sitting on the all-party Oireachtas Joint Committee. I learned a lot from my experience on that committee, just as I learned a lot from my work as a Deputy in this city and county. Some of what I learned frightened me to some extent. Some people who came before the committee recognised that marriages break down. When the Knights of Columbanus were questioned as to what we as legislators should do, they said we should advise the people involved to pray for success. With no disrespect to anybody, that is not the response of a politician. It is the duty of a politician to try to ensure that legislation reflects an understanding, care and thought for the people in that situation. It is not enough to tell people to live with their mistakes, to pray for success and to hope the problem will go away; or, as some people suggested yesterday, to extend the law in relation to nullity, to extend the law which may allow them to imagine the marriage never existed. That is dishonest, it is false and it is not the duty of legislators to behave in that fashion.

I believe this Bill, which will be put to the people, is to a large degree the result of the work of my constituency colleague, Deputy M. O'Leary, who has just left the House. I would like to pay tribute to him. It is interesting to note that we share a constituency where thousands of people are affected either directly or indirectly with the problems of marital breakdown. At a recent Dublin County Council meeting 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the people who were allocated houses in Dublin county were the victims of marriage breakdown. These were people who, according to our Constitution, were not families because they were not families based on marriage. In many cases they were unmarried mothers, some of whom were having relationships with married men and in many other cases they were deserted wives. That is a very high percentage, but it reflects what is happening around the city. Some people, may not confront the issues in the way I do, because in other parts of the country the problem may not be as great. But of this I am sure: the problem exists throughout the country and it is no easier for the people involved if the marriage breaks down in rural or urban Ireland. What people expect of their politicians is that they face this issue, not ignore it or try to sweep it under the carpet.

I was interested to read a few nights ago the remarks of two members of Young Fine Gael when they read Minister Cooney's views on this matter. I do not share his views, but I respect his right to articulate them. I am disappointed that young people in particular would ask for him to be sacked because he holds such views on this kind of legislation. We must get away from the paranoia in Irish politics of assuming that everybody must be whipped into line on every matter and that, no matter how strongly one feels, particularly in relation to private morality, if one does not subscribe to the views of the majority one must in some way be made to feel guilty and must be sacked or not be acceptable. Why should somebody with those views not serve in Government? Why should somebody be expected to be out of that Government because he or she held views which he or she in conscience felt to be correct?

We need more people who are prepared to state their views and campaign for them if necessary and, as a consequence, to respect the views of others who differ from them. I am disappointed that young members of a political party would behave in that fashion and would support this rigid disciplinary system whereby nobody is supposed to be free on any issue, particularly on issues of this kind, or to differ in any way from the majority of one's colleagues at a given time. That will not be tolerated for all time. That is why in this party we recognise that people in all parties have very serious differences based on their sets of values, religious views and personal views on private morality. Those views should be respected in every way and people should not be thrown out of political parties, or embarrassed in them, or forced to toe the line, simply because they hold views based on their own set of convictions. The more people of strong convictions we have in politics, irrespective of how much we may dislike those views, the better the parliamentary system we will have and the more that system will reflect the views of the people throughout the country.

I want to speak about the role of women in this and, in particular, about the views expressed by Deputy Glenn. She is not exceptional. Such views are expressed by many people, unfortunately, when issues of this kind are discussed. Women are generally supposed to be the moral guardians of all that is right and proper and, if something goes wrong, it has to be the fault of a woman. We all know many unmarried mothers. Very few of us meet unmarried fathers but, for every unmarried mother, there is a father of the child. It is sad that so few such fathers play their part in support of the person who carries and has their child and thereafter support the child or in very many cases ever want anything to do with the child. I hope throughout this debate, people will refrain from the kind of language used yesterday, not just the "turkey" phrase which I thought most insulting, degrading and offensive and I hope it will not be repeated——

Hear, hear.

——but in particular remarks like "women are going to be cast aside" as if they were some kind of chattel or machine to be cast aside by men and made to feel inferior, vulnerable, frightened and threatened. I know women who are worried about the financial consequences of this kind of legislation. Women who are concerned to know the reality become frightened, worried and upset because they are being fed false information for some people's purposes. This kind of information is fed in order to distort the result. The result will be fine, no matter how it is achieved. Even if you frighten and terrorise people into achieving your results, that is fine once you get the right result, but it is not fine with me and it is not acceptable.

Deputy Glenn chose the figure of 70,000 couples who are affected by marital breakdown. She calculated as a result that obviously 35,000 women would be new in the marital breakdown difficulty area who were not in the system already, none of them a deserted wife, or on maintenance from her husband, or on separate payments. All would now be coming into the system and the State would be expected to look after them. She calculated the cost of that at around £200 million. When Deputy Glenn and others like her argue about marital breakdown, they tell us that the 70,000 figure is grossly exaggerated, that it is nothing like that, that it is much smaller. I do not know what the figure is. My view is that it is much bigger than 70,000. It may be much bigger or much smaller.

Unfortunately, one problem we had on the all-party committee was the fact that there are no official statistics. All of the statistics are ad hoc, drawn together from the numbers of people claiming deserted wife's allowance, going before the court for barring orders, trying to get maintenance from spouses and so on. These figures are grouped together in an ad hoc fashion. I am delighted that, as a result of the census recently carried out, we may have some idea later in the year of what the figure might be, but it does not really matter what it is. Our Constitution and laws must reflect the ethos of a republic which is a place that guarantees, vindicates and protects in every sense the rights of minorities and does not seek to have the views of one Church dominant at the expense of protecting the rights of all our people, particularly those who subscribe to minority religions. Many people say Protestants do not want divorce, or Catholics do not want divorce, but people want divorce and not just because they want the right to re-marry.

Divorce is not just about giving people the right to remarry. Many people who have had very bad marriages, whose marriages have irretrievably broken down, want recognised in Irish law the fact that once and for all that marriage is over, has ended. They want the status they deserve which is legal recognition of the fact that their marriage has ended. Of course, that legal recognition will give them the right to remarry, but it is not just about the right to remarry. It is about giving people the status they feel they deserve, about recognising in law that a marriage that existed, and may have been very happy for a long time, has broken down. They are entitled to that, irrespective of the numbers who wish to remarry, who want to have their marriages dissolved, who know that their marriages have ended. None of us has the right to decide whether a marriage has ended.

Deputy Woods said yesterday that these proposals would allow for unilateral divorce; that where one party wishes to have a divorce irrespective of the views of the other party, after five years one party could get a divorce. If one party to a marriage wants a divorce, that marriage is over. The views of the other person do not matter, unfortunately; if one party feels that the marriage is over and wants the marriage dissolved, that marriage is over. Marriage is about a relationship between two people based on love and commitment. If one party recognises and feels that that love and commitment are no longer there then, unfortunately, the marriage is over and has ended, whether it is unilateral or bilateral divorce.

Whether the proposals are too restrictive or too liberal, depends on one's point of view. I share the view that they are far too restrtictive but I accept the political reality that possibly nothing else may succeed at this time. However, restrictive as they are, it is sad that we are still told by some people that it is the most liberal form of divorce of all. People who say that must recognise that it is not the truth. It is not the most liberal form of divorce; it is not divorce on demand; and it is not easy divorce.

If anything it is going to be an extremely expensive type of divorce. Lawyers in many cases may have a field day trying to establish whether a marriage has failed and whether there is any real possibility of these people coming together again. On the next Stage of this debate I will be putting forward two amendments, one in relation to the word "failure", a very subjective word. I would have much preferred the word "breakdown" which is a more objective analysis of what has happened. It is not for us to decide whether a marriage is a failure. Take two couples in similar circumstances. In one case they can have a perfectly viable and happy marriage because of their expectations, views and circumstances. The other couple may feel it is not good enough and that the marriage has broken down. "Breakdown" would have been a better word than "failure".

In relation to the campaign, many people prefaced their remarks by saying they would advise their constituents to vote yes or no as the case may be. Others said they will be campaigning for the legislation, hoping that the amendment will be passed. Some people feel it is above party politics. It is. Unfortunately, we have not been able to come together in such situations and forget about party politics. Within most parties there are differences in approach to this kind of legislation. I certainly will be campaigning, and so will most of the Members of my party, to ensure that this legislation passes, not in a party political way or because we want to score political points but because we feel so strongly that the Constitution and the laws should reflect the views and ethos of a real republic. If we believe that, we have a duty and responsibility to campaign for it and to encourage as many people as possible to see that it becomes a reality.

I hope over the next few weeks that we will have a real and meaningful debate on the issues involved and that it will be rational and concerned. I hope it will not be a debate where people choose to score political points either against their political opponents or others who will play a major part in this campaign. I am interested in particular in the views of the Catholic Church in relation to this legislation. They must recognise, for example, that in the Archdiocese of Armagh, which crosses the Border, there is divorce legislation in one part and none in the other. I am sure they would agree that there is no real difference in the rate of marital breakdown on one side of the Border compared to the other.

What reflects the quality of marriage is not legislation or the Constitution, but the ethos and the values which society holds. For that reason I could never see a situation where the standards and values which are common in many parts of the world would ever become commonplace here. In fact, the rate of marital breakdown, in so far as we have statistics, is lower in Northern Ireland than in the South. One thing is certain, whether it is lower or comparable, there is no marked difference between the two and one cannot say that across the Border there is any difference in the kind of marriage that exists there compared to the South. In both parts of the country people have very strong values and convictions about the way society should be ordered. It does not matter what the law or the Consitution say, they live accordingly.

Most people in this country, even if they are experiencing difficulties in marriage, go for help at an early stage, when difficulties can often be overcome. Others refuse to go for help, and in cases I have dealt with it seems to be very hard to get the man to seek help. Most men run away from help, which is a pity because difficulties can be overcome in the early years if they seek professional help. I hope that we will soon have the kind of professional help which is required in these situations, because unfortunately in recent years we have left it to voluntary and Church groups to fill the void and to provide professional help. I should particularly like to praise the work of the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council, who do an excellent job in conciliation, reconciliation and in helping couples who have difficulties to overcome them. Their work is a credit and an example of what could be done. They filled a void which should have been filled by the State.

I am not as familiar with the courts system as Deputy Shatter but I have been outside the Family Court on Monday mornings and, despite the fact that family law matters are supposed to be dealt with in camera with nobody knowing what goes on, the fact is you get a list that tells you the case of Murphy v. Murphy or whatever will be heard that morning. Those involved are standing outside in a dreadful corridor and it is quite obvious to everybody passing that they are going into the Family Court. This is not good enough in a small country where everybody knows your business. It is not acceptable; and, if we really want to protect family life and to help those in difficulty, we will have to establish a proper family court system.

It should not be a court in the normal sense, a place where you score points off one another, where you try to establish who committed the matrimonial fault and who the guilty party is. That is degrading, not just for the parties but for the children involved, who are given great details by their parents about what goes on in court. In some cases the judge asks people to see the children and sometimes they are brought outside the courtroom. Even children as young as seven or eight years of age know what is going on. It is horrible for them and they should not be subjected to this sort of treatment. Many of us who deal with people who have come up against the court system for the first time in relation to family law say that they would prefer to get £20 per week less from their husband's than to have to go through the court system to have maintenance provided. The court structure is not adequate and a court in the normal sense of the word is not the place to deal with disputes between husbands and wives. Our adversarial court system thrives on pulling people apart and on keeping them apart and any chance of reconciliation is usually destroyed when people enter the courtroom.

We should have informal surroundings away from the normal court structure where people are not asked to go in with criminals or to stand around corridors for hours waiting for their case to be heard. Very often such cases are heard by elderly men who are not trained in family law, it is many years since they graduated and they have little understanding of the problem involved in family law. They feel that the people should put up with difficulties and that it is their duty to do so. That type of attitude tends to be adopted by elderly judges who hear family cases. We need young people who have had specific training in family law, who are understanding and have worked in the area of counselling and so on.

We should also have a proper conciliation service with psychologists, social workers and others who could work at bringing people together. Trained counsellors work in a professional way with people who are experiencing difficulties in their marriage. At present many people, expecially young couples, who come up against marital problems go to doctors, priests or politicians for guidance. None of us is trained or capable of giving the kind of advice required. Many of the comments made in the debate in relation to the bad effects which this legislation, if passed, would have referred to succession rights and financial matters. It is the old story; the same attitude prevails in regard to illegitimacy. Everybody is in favour of removing the stigma until it comes to the financial arrangements.

Why is it that matters such as succession, property and money are the first things that come to mind when we are debating legislation of this kind? We are all very caring, but when we get down to the nitty-gritty we find all the pitfalls and create all the difficulties we can. We make sure that every hurdle is put in the way so that the legislation which we all seek in general terms to have enacted becomes impossible to achieve. Unfortunately, that was the way in which some people approached this debate. They went through the legislation very critically — although I do not object to that because it is their duty to analyse legislation in a critical fashion — and they found nothing good to say about it. Everything was an obstacle or a difficulty and would make life worse for people in that position.

The reality is that there is marital breakdown and people are living together in second relationships outside the law. They have said to the legislators, those whose responsibility it is to enact legislation: "You have not done anything about it; you have swept it under the carpet; you have ignored our problems and we are going to ignore your law because it does not suit us or in any way reflect the type of life we want to live". They have said: "Your law does not reflect what we want for ourselves or our children and we are much better off out of our bad marriages and living with somebody who cares for us in a real marriage even though in law it is not a marriage, rather than living in the circumstances the State is trying to force us to live in all our lives".

Some people do not like mentioning hard cases because they are the exceptions. I recognise and realise that there are thousands of happily married people there and there will be after the legislation is passed. The legislation will not make any difference whatever to couples who are happily married because divorce will not be compulsory and nobody will have to have a divorce, just as judicial separation is not compulsory, or going to court in any sense to reconcile marital difficulties is not compulsory. If people can sort out their problems, if people can have a happy marriage, they need not be one bit worried about the consequences of this legislation. However, the hard cases must be considered. We must provide for those who live together despite their own best instincts.

Some months ago a woman told me her husband was having a relationship with her young daughter. That woman did not want to talk to people about that and she felt she had to continue living with it because society tells her that she must stay living with the person who is treating her daughter in that fashion rather than leaving the house, and that she must ensure that her daughter is not adversely affected for the rest of her life. Despite what we think about the country, there is a big problem in regard to incest and many of us who work in this city are aware of that. I am not saying divorce is the answer or that recognising that marriages break down is the answer. However, we must not make people feel guilty, so guilty that they continue living in such circumstances and will not get professional help. Why is that the case? The reason is that priests and legislators keep telling those people that they are supposed to live with it all their lives, they are supposed to accept it and pray for success. They are told they are supposed to try to make the marriage work.

One cannot tell a person living under such conditions that anything will make the marriage work because that marriage has failed. We should recognise that now. There is no point in the debate in the House, or in the course of the debate in the country, in people beating old drums and pretending the problems which are prevalent in our society are not that great. Similar problems prevail throughout the western world. There is no point in our pretending that, if the legislation is passed, the problem will be made any worse just as it will not be made any better. However, if the legislation is passed we will be recognising that people who live in those circumstances have a right to have their marriages dissolved and say: "That is the end. My marriage is over and I do not have to live in fear of the person I have come to dislike". That person will be able to say he or she does not have to live in fear of another person breaking into the house at night or having to be made the subject of a barring order. That person will not have to live in fear of the other partner getting at the children. I accept that there are many cases where men are battered. The battering is not all one sided. Many men, unfortunately, are battered by their wives. Their wives do not speak to them and when they come home in the evening they discover that their wives have been drinking all day. Whether drink causes the bad marriage or the bad marriage causes drink I do no know, and I do not think anybody else knows.

I hope the amendment is carried but, like others, I am worried if it is carried, whether subsequent divorce legislation will be passed by the House. Some of the comments I heard in the course of the debate lead me to believe that there are many people who will say one thing in public, adopt one kind of political stance, but when it comes to the crunch will find all the obstacles, will beat this down all the way and will find problems with the small words, the "i's" will not be dotted and the "t's" will not be crossed. That is not the way to approach this important matter.

There are many who are looking with interest at what is happening in the debate. I hope the debate will not again be one where we will have a confrontation between Church and State, where we will have a nasty political confrontation based on people wanting to score political points. I hope we will not have people rolling out the women and children in order to create mass hysteria. I hope people will not be terrorised or frightened into staying away from the polls or into voting against something which in conscience they would prefer to vote for. Those people may feel that because of the consequences, their financial position, their house, their succession and their fear of losing their children, they must vote against divorce. That type of jargon has already been used in the debate, but it must end if we as a mature society are to face up to the problems that confront so many of our people and if we are to ensure that the laws here reflect a real republic.

This is the second major opportunity the House has had since the New Ireland Forum, and the forum report, to indicate our willingness to deliver on some of the offerings made by all parties at the forum as to the type of society we want to have here and our willingness to acknowledge that we would recognise and cherish different traditions. The first of those opportunities was on the Family Planning Bill introduced last year. We saw clearly then that the views of all parties were not all what they appeared to be at the forum. We are now presented with a very historic opportunity to indicate our willingness to recognise that the rights of people with different traditions or views from the major established Church here should be accommodated.

For many years I had difficulty in my mind with the subject of divorce but in recent times the difficulty I have had has disappeared because I have come clearly to the conclusion that divorce is a civil right. We should not change the law to deal with hard cases — the new legislation will certainly provide solutions for them — but I take the view that divorce is a civil right which should be available to people, Catholics or non Catholics. I do not think we should change our Constitution to facilitate the views of people of different traditions on this island but we should change it because it is the right thing to do.

As a commentator pointed out in the past few days, divorce will not be compulsory and nobody will have to get it. If a person's marriage breaks down, he or she can continue to live with that if they wish for the sake of the children or if they believe it is in the best interests of the children to do so. However, those who find themselves in a marriage that has failed should have access to the divorce law and access to permission to remarry in the eyes of our State law. Obviously, the State must put some control on this to ensure that social order is maintained. It is difficult to bring about that balance. I know there are different views on the provisions the Government propose to put into the Constitution. Some say the Government have gone too far in being restrictive and others argue differently. Certainly, it is not the case, as the Catholic Church have claimed, that this is the most liberal form of divorce available. Frankly, that is a nonsense. In all the circumstances, and given the fact that it has taken so many years to get this measure into the House, we should take it as it stands and propose to the Irish people that if they wish to create the type of community all parties to the New Ireland Forum said they wanted they should adopt this.

It has been an outstanding characteristic of the debate that Members referred to the position in the United States and in the United Kingdom. That may come from the fact that in the pastoral letter revealed in yesterday's issue of The Irish Times the Church referred at considerable length to the position in the US and the UK. However, as Deputy Harney pointed out, we are a completely different society. Our ethos is utterly different from the ethos that exists in the US. The ethos that exists in parts of the United States is different from the ethos that exists in the UK. I am not saying that our society is ideal or better. We certainly have some warts, particularly unique ones, in the type of life, community and society we have, but our society is fundamentally different and we recognise it to be so. We would have to change in many different respects, apart from changing the divorce law, to make our society like American or British society.

I will read the pastoral letter of the Bishops in full but I find it strange that they do not appear to have referred at all to the position in the North. Bishop Cathal Daly in the forum report referred to that position but it must not have suited in some way to refer to it in the pastoral letter. The Divorce Action Group have published statistics which indicate the number of decrees nisi granted — they become absolute in the North of Ireland after six weeks. They state that in 1981, 1,498 were granted; in 1982, 1,467; in 1983, 1,279 and in 1984, 1,313.

Cuireadh an díospóireacht ar athló.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Barr
Roinn