Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the amendment. Solidarity-People Before Profit argued for it on Committee Stage because we thought it inappropriate to have this restriction in the Constitution. We would argue against having any restriction in regard to this issue and I will go on to address that point.

As a slightly more general comment in line with the comments of the Minister on the nature of the Bill, we should not be complacent about the referendum. We must campaign for it to be passed. Most political commentators would quite confidently predict that it is likely to be passed. It is to be hoped that it will be passed by a substantial margin. One could contrast the current situation with the referendum in 1995 in terms of the extremely narrow 0.5% margin of victory and the type of rhetoric employed by the Catholic right-wing "No" campaign, such as "Hello Divorce ... Bye Bye Daddy". It is a sign of the massive societal shift in a very progressive direction that has taken place and the Bill is to be welcomed as part of that change. Fundamentally, we need a separation of church and State in this country and the Bill is part of that process.

There should not be any time restrictions in regard to divorce. It is a civil right for any couple to marry, as affirmed by the marriage equality referendum. The necessary corollary to that is that people also have the right to divorce without interference or judgment by the church or State regarding why they are choosing to so do. The Government should legislate to allow people who wish to divorce to so do.

I would be interested to hear an assessment of the impact of the restrictions. Obviously, we know the impact of the current restrictions. Although the restrictions proposed in the Bill are preferable to those currently in place and it is preferable that they to be enshrined in legislation rather than the Constitution in order that they may be more easily amended, we know that the current restrictions have very negative impacts. Lesser restrictions will continue to have negative, although lesser, impacts. In particular, those who will be most affected by the restrictions are the most vulnerable. The reality is that a couple, possibly without children, seeking an amicable divorce may be able to agree to say that they were living apart for two of the past three years, etc., and that the judge will accept that if it is not contested and the divorce will be very quickly processed. However, in other cases the divorce may not be amicable and may involve an abusive former partner who may dispute the amount of time spent separated in order to make it difficult for the partner seeking a divorce to obtain it. In such cases, the restriction would come into play in a negative way for those who are more vulnerable, such as people in abusive situations. I would be interested to hear the Minister's assessment of the impact of the restrictions in such instances.

Solidarity-People Before Profit welcomes the legal progress represented by the Bill.

In order for legal rights to become a reality, however, they need to be accompanied by economic and social changes that make them accessible. The truth is that many individuals, particularly women, are trapped in marriages or relationships that are abusive or that are simply unhappy. Without the family home or joint income, they could be made homeless.

There is some irony in the fact that at the same time as Fine Gael is proposing the liberalisation of divorce laws, of which we are in favour, there have been quite substantial cuts in funding for refuge services for those fleeing domestic violence. Ireland has fewer than one third of the refuge spaces it should have according to European guidelines. There are only 11 refuge unit spaces available in Dublin city, and one in three counties across the country has no spaces whatsoever. The costs of getting legal advice and representation can be prohibitive in the case of a disputed divorce. To make accessible the legal right, which we welcome, economic and social changes are needed. It needs to be combined with the right to free legal advice and free legal representation for all who need it.

Essential to all this is the discussion we were just having on the housing and homelessness. The right to safe, affordable housing and an adequate number of refuge spaces are key if people are to exercise freely their choice to be in relationships or marriages as opposed to being compelled to remain in them by economic circumstances, which is an all-too-common reality in this country.

See this speech in context