Vol. 453 No. 6
2 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has to include a provision for a minimum period of separation in the proposed constitutional amendment to Article 41; the consideration, if any, that has been given to the inclusion of a clause to protect the rights of children and dependent spouses in the event of a divorce; and the present position in relation to the holding of the referendum. [9731/95]
4 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform if he has decided on the format of the proposed terms for the constitutional amendment; and the further discussions, if any, he has had with interested groups in the past number of weeks. [9680/95]
16 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the steps, if any, he intends to take to ensure cross-party agreement on the crucial wording of the divorce referendum; and the schedule of meetings he has laid out for this urgent task. [8551/95]
17 Mr. E. Byrne asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the specialised training, if any, in the family law area that is to be offered to lawyers working for the civil legal aid scheme in view of the forthcoming referendum on divorce; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9752/95]
27 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the moneys allocated for the Government's campaign for the divorce referendum that have been expended to date; if any public relations or advertising firms have been engaged; and, if so, the name of any such firm and the brief which it has received. [9726/95]
59 Mr. Calley asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the number of submissions that have been made with regard to marital breakdown; if he will give details of the submissions; the consideration he has given to these submissions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9838/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 4, 16, 17, 27 and 59 together.
The position remains that when the Government has made its formal decision on the proposed constitutional amendment on divorce the details, as they must, will be announced by way of a Bill. That is the basis on which the Government's decision must be announced because, as Members of the House will be aware, it is the proposal in that Bill that will form the basis of the debate in both Houses and, on the Bill being passed by both Houses, the proposal it contains will be the basis on which the people will be asked to vote "yes" in the referendum on the matter.
The timing of the Government's announcement regarding the details of the Bill will depend on the timing of the referendum. At this stage the target date of 30 November next would require that the Bill be published at the latest in October next and, as indicated by me on several occasions in reply to questions, one of the matters affecting a decision on the timing of the referendum will be the outcome of the case that is currently before the Supreme Court regarding a challenge to the constitutionality of provisions in the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989. In finalising proposals for divorce the House will appreciate that the Government would wish to be in a position to have the benefit of the Supreme Court's deliberations on the law in relation to judicial separations so that account can be taken of those deliberations in putting a shape on divorce law proposals. I can assure the House that in devising its proposals the Government will also have in mind the need to have comprehensive measures dealing with the financial and other consequences of divorce for dependent spouses and children.
In the meantime, I am continuing the process of consultations with interest groups and persons and I am examining all submissions made to me. Among the consultations publicly announced in recent weeks were meetings with the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats. Among other meetings I had in the same period were meetings with the ICA, the Council for the Status of Women, Women's Aid, AIM, the Divorce Action Group and FLAC. That process of consultations will continue with the aim of reaching the maximum consensus possible on the approach which should be taken on divorce in the referendum.
Consultations between the political parties have been, and will continue to be, part of that process and it is fair to say that recent debate has helped all sides to crystallise their views further on the matter. The Government is committed to the holding of further meetings with the Opposition so that its views can be taken into consideration as far as possible by the Government in making its decision on what should be provided for in the constitutional amendment Bill proposal.
The Government's information programme on divorce, for which £500,000 has been allocated to my Department, will be on similar lines to recent referendum programmes. The information will be of a factual nature. No public relations or advertising firms have been engaged to date in connection with the programme. However, the Market Research Bureau of Ireland was commissioned recently to carry out a poll on the views of people regarding the options for dealing with divorce in the Constitution. The cost of the survey is approximately £15,000. An information leaflet has recently been issued by my Department outlining the legislative and administrative measures in place to deal with protection and support of families. The leaflet puts in context some of the issues relating to divorce. The cost incurred by current printing of the leaflet was £868. The cost of the survey and the leaflet will be met from the sum of £500,000.
The vast majority of cases dealt with by Legal Aid Board solicitors are family law cases and many of those cases concern judicial separations. The issues involved in separations such as maintenance, what should happen to property, including the family home, rights of succession and the care of children would also arise in the context of divorce, and solicitor staff of the board will be in a position to deal with those issues as they arise in cases of divorce. I am informed by the board that, as in the case of the introduction of any new major legislation, the board would, in the event of divorce laws being enacted, be reviewing the position so as to ensure that its staff are fully informed to deal with new issues raised by the matter.
I have on several occasions given details to the House about the programme of family law reform to which the Government is committed in the run-up to the referendum. The main legislative and administrative measures which I am concerned to have dealt with by the time of the divorce referendum are the Family Law Bill, 1994, the Civil Legal Aid Bill, 1995, the Domestic Violence Bill, which will be published shortly, and implementation of further phases of development for the Legal Aid Board, the Family Mediation Service and counselling services on the basis of the substantial funding provided by the Exchequer to those areas. I can report continued progress on those matters in recent months. In large measure they address the many submissions which I have received on various aspects of marital breakdown.
I have promised that a draft of the Divorce Bill which would be introduced in the event of a "yes" vote in the referendum will be published at the same time as the amendment of the Constitution Bill. That Divorce Bill will set out for the information of voters the exact details of the powers the court will have to protect and support spouses and children following the granting of a divorce decree and it will contain provisions corresponding to those in the Family Law Bill, 1994.
Other matters which are primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Finance in relation to the tax aspects of divorce, of the Minister for Justice in relation to the courts and of the Minister for Social Welfare in relation to the social welfare aspects are also the subject of proposals for reform in anticipation of divorce.
Will the Minister give the findings of the Government's private research conducted in March for which the MRBI was paid £15,000? Did the majority of people support the inclusion of conditions in the Constitution? The Minister stated that clear conditions and grounds should be set out in the Constitution. Will he say what the present position is on the findings of the research and what is his intention at this stage?
The findings of the research were published in some newspapers and are common knowledge. That opinion poll has been superseded by a later one. That poll showed that 50 per cent of those surveyed believe that the conditions should be included in the Constitution. The final decisions on this matter have not yet been made by the Government; they are still under consideration by the Cabinet sub-committee on divorce. Details of the amendment will be published in due course at the appropriate time in the form of a Bill.
Will the Minister agree that by basing his divorce strategy on opinion polls he will be in a very difficult position because he will have no specific advice from that source of information? Will he make the findings of the poll available to Opposition Members so that we can ascertain his strategy and the kind of questioning he favoured? Is there a breakdown in terms of the view of the various parties' supporters about including the terms of divorce in the Constitution?
The Government will make its decision on all these matters at the appropriate time and will take into consideration all relevant factors. Any one opinion poll taken at a particular time is no more than a snapshot of the views of those polled at that time. A number of opinion polls have been taken subsequently and they are only one factor politicians and the Government study with interest. The Government will reach its conclusions taking all factors into account, including consultations with political parties in the House and various interest groups. When that decision is reached it will be published in the form of a Bill and Members will have ample opportunity to discuss it during its passage through the House.
The Minister expresses doubts as to whether he will meet the target date of 30 November for the holding of a divorce referendum. He was cited in one of the Independent newspapers on 19 May as saying that the Government might not meet the divorce poll target date. Will the Minister indicate the position regarding that? Does he expect to meet that target date? He has said that he expects to publish a Bill by October at the latest. Will he give a breakdown of timing from the publication of that Bill until 30 November bearing in mind 30 days must elapse between the passing of the Bill and the matter being put before the people in a referendum?
I can only repeat what I have said all along regarding the date of the proposed referendum. The date I gave of 30 November is a target date. I am hopeful of meeting it but, as I have indicated on many occasions, there are a number of imponderables, one of which is the awaited Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989. The hearing of that appeal by the Supreme Court is completed and judgment on it has been reserved. Neither I nor anybody cannot say when that judgment will be delivered. It could be delivered before or after the summer recess. That is one of the imponderables. The 30 November date remains a target and the Government will keep the position under review depending on how the situation evolves regarding our necessary legislative programme and the outcome of the Supreme Court decision on the "F" case.
The Minister omitted to answer my question on the findings of the poll his Department commissioned. Will he make those findings directly available to Opposition Members? He has returned to the question of all party consensus, something our party favours and has maintained continually to the Minister. It would be appropriate for him to make as much information as possible available to us. On the question of his strategy, he declared he wishes to have the provisions relating to divorce written into the Constitution. Is he still of that opinion or have the findings of other opinion polls dented his view in that regard?
My beliefs on that question remain unchanged, but it is a matter for Government decision. The Cabinet sub-committee is discussing it and the Government will discuss it and reach its decision in due course. That position is shared by some political parties in the House and was held by the Progressive Democrat Party in 1986. The then Leader of that party, Deputy O'Malley, indicated that was his position and that of his party on that occasion, but perhaps members of that party have changed their minds on the issue since then. Regarding the MRBI opinion poll commissioned by the Department, all relevant details of it have been published in the newspapers and the information is pretty accurate. The views of any party on it are not terribly relevant. No doubt the Progressive Democrat Party is aware of its members' views and does not need the benefit of an opinion poll commissioned by my Department to ascertain the level of support among its members on that issue.
Did the Minister commission the poll to find out that?
Perhaps understandably they have some doubts about the position they have taken on the matter.
No.
I look forward to having further discussions and consultations with them on the subject in due course.
I am reluctant to pursue this matter further because on the last occasion the Minister answered questions the second question was ruled out of order because the time allocated for questions had expired and I do not want that to happen on this occasion.
Time is fast running out.
It does appear that the Minister will give us further information on the issue. If the judgment in that case is not given until after the summer recess, does that mean that the target date of 30 November is not feasible?
I cannot answer a hypothetical question of that nature. I cannot prejudge when the judgment will be given or what it may be. Much will depend not only on when it is given, but on its substance. Members on both sides must be patient, await the judgment, examine its findings and then proceed as speedily as possible.
The Minister is sitting next to the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, who was impatient while we awaited an earlier Supreme Court judgment——
We acted on it.
——but we will have to wait and see what happens on this occasion.
I call Deputy Keogh for a final brief question as time is running out for dealing with Priority Questions.
Time is running out for many people who want a divorce. If the Minister wants all party consensus on this issue, which I thought he did, he should make all information available to Opposition parties so that they can help him to get the amendment passed. It is not helpful if the Minister continually avoids answering direct questions. On his remarks regarding 1986, as politicians we must learn to move forward. We cannot look back to old strategies, we must develop new ones.
We are having statements now instead of questions.
We have to ensure this amendment is passed.
I agree with Deputy Keogh that we must move forward on the divorce issue and that time is running out for people who have been waiting for divorce, many of them since 1986. It is precisely for those reasons that the Government is bringing forward a referendum on the issue of divorce to enable those questions to be addressed, something that apart from the previous Government no earlier Government since 1986 bothered about, mentioned or brought forward. The Government is bringing forward proposals for a referendum and hopes it will be held in 1995, in recognition of the very factors pointed out by Deputy Keogh. It is regrettable that other Governments and parties did not do that when they had an opportunity to do so.
