Vol. 444 No. 7
3 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform if he has further considered the form of constitutional amendment to be put to the people in the proposed referendum on divorce; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
5 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to recent Government figures which show that the rate of marital breakdown in Ireland is increasing and that one in eight marriages now end in separation or desertion; if the Government has agreed upon a wording for the proposed constitutional amendment; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 5 together.
Consideration continues to be given to the form of the proposed amendment of the Constitution concerning divorce and the legislation which should follow on the introduction of divorce were divorce to be accepted by the people. As in the case of previous referenda, the definitive proposals of the Government for amendment of the Constitution will be announced by way of publication of the Bill to enable the referendum to be held. The date of publication of the Bill and, therefore, of the form of the constitutional amendment, will depend on the timing of the referendum.
As already indicated in reply to questions on 24 May 1994, the timing of the referendum will, if necessary, take into account the outcome of the decision of the court in the case pending concerning provisions in the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, and it will take into account progress made with implementation of the Government's wide-ranging programme of family law matters. The referendum is now more likely to be held in 1995 than this year.
The Government's programme of family law measures, which takes into account, among other matters, the White Paper on Marital Breakdown is well advanced. The Family Law Bill, 1994, is awaiting Report Stage in the House, having been dealt with by the Committee on Legislation and Security. That Bill deals with a very wide range of matters including age of marriage, notice of marriage, as well as financial powers of the court to provide for all marital breakdown short of domestic divorce. The Maintenance Bill, 1994, having passed Second Stage, is before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security and will facilitate the recovery of maintenance on an international scale.
A Bill to put the legal aid scheme on a statutory footing is at an advanced stage of drafting. As part also of the Government's programme, a Bill to amend and extend the provisions of the law regarding protection of persons from domestic violence is in the course of being drafted.
My Department is, at present, examining proposals for legislation to provide simplified arrangements for voluntary conveyances of family homes to joint ownership. The aim of such provision would be to enable couples to give full and effective recognition to the contributions made by the spouse who works in the home.
The Government has recently made important decisions on the tax and social welfare aspects of marital breakdown. It has decided that property transfers between spouses in the context of marital breakdown should be dealt with on the same basis as transfers between spouses. The necessary legislative proposals are being prepared. The Government also decided that changes in social welfare should be made to ensure that no spouse will be disadvantaged in terms of social welfare entitlements as a result of his or her legal status being changed following separation, annulment or divorce. The necessary legislative proposals in this area are also being prepared.
Substantial additional funding has been provided in my Department's Estimates for 1994 for the development and expansion of legal aids, mediation and marriage counselling. The details of those Estimates were discussed by the Select Committee on Legislation and Security on 15 June last.
The House, I think, will agree that the Government's programme of family law measures is a comprehensive and wide-ranging response to the problem of marital breakdown.
The Minister has given a lengthy list of the legislation he hopes to put through the House, but it has nothing to do with the question he was asked. Does he think that putting all that information before us will hide the fact that nothing has been done about the format of the constitutional amendment to be put to the people? During the debate on marriage breakdown in March 1993 the Minister said he would welcome views from inside and outside this House. Has he heard views and, if so, what does he think of them? What will be the formula of the proposed constitutional amendment to be put to the people? Will we have an opportunity to debate this matter in the House so that the Opposition parties, who are very supportive of what the Minister is doing, will have an input before the amendment is put to the people?
I much appreciate the promised support of Deputy Keogh and her party on the divorce referendum. The Government, in good time, will consider what the format of the divorce referendum will be. I will ensure that when the legislation is introduced there will be an opportunity to discuss it. This is a matter for decision by the Government. We have consulted widely on the issue and I will bring the matter to Government at the appropriate time. It will be discussed and the Government will reach its decision which will be announced in the normal way.
I understand there is a difficulty between the Government parties on the divorce referendum — that is acknowledged by all concerned. Any offer of co-operation with the Government from my party is contingent on knowing what precisely the Government intends to propose by way of a change to the Constitution. Does the Minister intend to consult further with the Opposition parties on the wording of the proposed referendum and constitutional change? He has had a first round of consultations with the parties; does he intend to have a further round of consultations, having considered the presentations made to him and presumably the views expressed by his party and the Fianna Fáil Party? Will the Minister be a little more precise about the timetable for a referendum? Does he expect it will be held in the spring or the autumn of next year?
I am not aware of any difficulties between the Government parties on the holding of the divorce referendum. On the contrary, both parties agreed in the Programme for Government that a referendum on divorce will be held. I cannot be more specific as to when exactly in 1995 the referendum will be held. That depends on a number of issues, not least of which is the matter already referred to on more than one occasion, namely, the pending challenge to the Judicial Separation Act, 1989. The issue of divorce is inextricably bound up with the judicial separation position and we must await determination of the proceedings on the challenge to that Act. I understand the hearing of that case is due to take place in the High Court next week and the likelihood is that a quick decision will be given. We do not know whether that decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court, but we must await the outcome.
I have had a round of consultations with the other parties in the House on the divorce referendum. I met Deputy De Rossa and a colleague to discuss the matter. He set out the position of his party on the issue and we had a broad-ranging discussion. If Deputy De Rossa believes there would be a useful purpose in having further discussions on the matter or if the position of his party, as indicated to me on that occasion, has changed, I would be very happy to meet with him at any time to discuss the issue further. If any of the other party representatives believes it would be useful to have further meetings my door is open and I would have no problem with that.
It is remarkable the Minister is unaware of the comments made in the House by members of the Fianna Fáil Party on the divorce referendum. Is it the case that the Opposition parties are more willing to have discussions on the proposed divorce referendum than are the Minister's colleagues in Government? Has the Minister had an opportunity to sit down with his colleagues from Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party to discuss the proposed wording of the referendum?
There is nothing in the questions tabled about the position of the Labour Party or the Fianna Fáil Party. The position of the Government is set out in the Programme for Government, and that is the position of both parties. Deputies are at pains to suggest there is a difficulty about this issue between the two parties in Government. I emphasise in the clearest possible terms that there is no such difficulty; both parties in Government are agreed that there will be a referendum on divorce. There have been hold-ups in progressing the matter due to circumstances entirely outside the Government's control, and the Deputy well knows that. All necessary discussions within the Labour Party have taken place, as have other wide-ranging discussions. I hope there will be support from all parties and that this support will translate into action in advocating the need for divorce. I look forward to the Deputies opposite and their parties taking a unified, non-partisan approach on this issue.
I regret there is an underlying tone of admonishment from the Minister on this issue. We must accept the Government is united on the principle of putting forward a referendum for a change in the divorce law. Is there agreement between the two parties in Government on the wording of the proposed change to the Constitution? If not, perhaps it has not been discussed by them or presented to them. Is the Minister prepared, having heard our views, considered the matter and discussed it with his colleagues in Government, to come back to the parties in Opposition to discuss the proposal so that we can undertake the most united campaign possible in pursuit of the desired objective?
The detailed wording of the proposed referendum has not yet been considered by the Government, but it will be considered at the appropriate time. I already met the Opposition parties and listened carefully to their views, which varied from party to party, and have taken them into account. I would be happy to meet them again if they have anything to add to what they said to me at our previous meetings. I do not see a particular need to have a further meeting with them unless the views of the parties changed since then. Having said that, my door is open and if they feel it would serve a useful purpose, I have no difficulty discussing this important issue with them or anybody else.
Members will observe that the time available to us for priority questions is exhausted.
I draw the Chair's attention to the fact that we are dealing with Question No. 5 which, under Standing Orders, permit us to spill over to the time allocated for questions.
The questions concerned came up under priority time proper.
My understanding is that Question No. 5 can spill over into ordinary Question Time.
Everybody, as well as the Chair, should observe the clock.
The Minister is giving an indirect negative answer. I put it to him that he will not come back to the Opposition parties with his proposal for change to seek the widest possible unity for his proposal. Will he be more specific about what he means when he says the working will be published at an appropriate time? What is an "appropriate time" bearing in mind that at least 27,000 couples are separated, many of whom are involved in second relationships and that we do not know the number of children involved? It is urgent that the position be clarified.
I assure the House this Government is extremely sympathetic to their position and that is precisely why the Government wrote into its Programme for Government its determination to have a referendum on the issue of divorce to give those who wish to regularise their positions the opportunity to do so.
The Government is held up in the advancement of this issue for the reasons I indicated already. When the path is clear the Government will reach its decision and at the appropriate time, as soon as may be after that in preparation for the holding of the referendum, the details will be published and open for discussion, in this House in the first instance. I heard the views of Deputy De Rossa and his party, and I sympathise with him to a great extent. If he wishes to put anything further to me I will listen.
The object of the consultations has been to listen to all parties who wish to make representations and put a point of view to the Government and me. I have held wide-ranging consultations for that purpose. The views of the political parties and outside groups will be carefully considered. Taking everything into account, and, of course, the views of the Government parties, the Government will make its decision. It is its job to do so.
If we were on line with the original timeframe for the constitutional amendment, and if we had kept to the timetable, the referendum would be over and done with. Does the Minister not consider it extraordinary that we do not have the wording for the constitutional amendment? Will the Minister agree that during the hold-ups in other areas he should be working on this issue? Everybody has been consulted at this stage and it is now time to do something about the issue. Will he provide the wording as soon as possible?
We are having a great deal of repetition.
With respect, Sir, Deputy Keogh is being disingenuous on this issue. It is true that there have been hold-ups but they are due to matters outside the control of the Government.
I only want the wording.
The Government's decision on the precise wording of the referendum will most certainly not hold up the progress of this matter. The hold-ups are due to different issues outside the Government's control. When the decks are clear and we are ready to proceed, I will bring the matter to Government who will make its decision very quickly.
There has been plenty of repetition.
As a result of the questions.
The answers were repetitious.
It was the same question.
