Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We supported this Bill on Second Stage and I commend Deputy Madigan on introducing it. There are, however, a number of issues with it. The main issue is that the Bill proposes to change the time period during which people must live apart from each other. The current situation, which goes back to 1996, is that people have to live apart from each other for four out of the previous five years. That was introduced for a particular reason at that time and was put in the amendment in order to assist it being passed. When we consider how close the vote was at that point, the amendment probably would not have passed otherwise. However, it was done for a particular purpose. We are now of the view, however, that it is cruel to force people to wait for four years or so before they can get on with their lives on a more formal basis. Life is short. People should be entitled to move on from previous relationships and enter into new marriages quickly.

That said, there is a benefit to having a time period in the Constitution. People will not, of course, seek to get divorced overnight. The situation in England is that people have to be apart for two years before a divorce can be granted. There is a benefit to that and it protects the institution of marriage. One could argue that it should perhaps be one year. A complete absence of any time period in the Constitution would, if not undermine, certainly diminish the value of marriage, which Irish people have shown they value and believe is an institution that should be supported.

In terms of the detail of the text, the proposed change, as I said, is the change from four to two years. As well as that, Deputy Madigan has introduced new words into the Schedule. At present, it states that the spouses have lived apart from one another for the required time period but Deputy Madigan's proposal states that the spouses have lived separate and apart from one another for a period of two years. I would be interested to hear from her the reason for the inclusion of the word "separate". Words in the Constitution mean something. A court looking at this will conclude that the Oireachtas and the people carefully decided to include this particular word and will thus give it meaning. We might be better off leaving the word "separate" out of this Bill but it may have a special purpose. In the Irish version, which is always given pre-eminence, the reference is to "ina gcónaí ar leith". This is a new meaning to "ar leith", which usually means special. We need clarity on the reason for the inclusion of the word "separate".

In terms of the amendments, on balance, when we are considering a constitutional amendment Bill, we cannot only consider what it is we want. We also have to consider whether it will get through the people. I think Deputy Madigan's proposal would succeed in a referendum. I would be concerned, however, that the removal of any time period from the Bill would jeopardise that. It would generate a big campaign against it. I think people would be able to state it completely undermines marriage because it gives no protection given that people must live apart from each other for a period of time. On balance, and notwithstanding the issue with the word "separate", I like how the Bill is drafted at present and I will probably not be supporting the amendments.