Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

The first thing I would like to say on the proposal of a thirty-fifth amendment to the Constitution to change the timeframe for divorce is that when the referendum was passed in 1995 it included a requirement for a four year separation period prior to divorce proceedings being started. I think it is not known by many people outside the House that this is stitched into the Constitution. I think most people do not realise that. I want to raise the issue of our putting legislation into the Constitution in the first place because this set a dangerous precedent and the discussion today bears that out. Some 22 years after the original proposal we are now catching up with the reality for those who are going through a divorce, which is that four years is far too long and onerous.

While we support the Bill and may consider tabling amendments to it should it get to a debate, there should be no time restrictions at all in the Constitution. The Constitution could make reference to divorce being allowed. However, why should it be necessary to have a majority vote every time we need to change a timeframe? This relates to people's personal lives. We should not have to hold a popular vote on whether we will allow Mary and Jack to have a divorce, which is essentially what we are saying. The danger of the decision that was made to tie legislation into the Constitution to get the referendum passed will come up again with regard to the eighth amendment. Those on the Government side and others have continually raised this as an issue and stated that we must show people the legislation, which is fine, but they also state that we must stitch it into the Constitution to get people to pass it. We oppose the push to amend and not repeal the eighth amendment.

The political establishment wants to insert regulations and restrictions in the Constitution to tie the hands of the Oireachtas to legislate on abortion and the rights of women. There is a view that forcing people to remain married for years after separation will persuade them to get back together. I query the proposal to have a two-year waiting time for divorce. In most cases, marriage breakdown is the outcome of a process lasting years. People do not wake up and suddenly decide to divorce.

Most women who experience domestic violence do so within marriage and this violence can continue for years. Why should people face any impediment to ending a marriage, which is an arrangement they have made with another person? This matter should not be decided in a popular vote.

The housing crisis is having a significant impact on people who are enduring the anguish of separation. Many separating couples are unable to move and are forced to stay together because they cannot afford to find other accommodation. Even if the separation is amicable, their ability to move on is frustrated. When the decision is not amicable, however, violence, psychological abuse and other issues can arise. I am aware of many such cases.

Reference was made to the census figures. The figures published today are historic in that they show a 74% increase in the number of people who profess to have no religion. A total of 468,000 people do not have a religion and I would wager that some of those who stated they were Catholic or belong to another religion do not practise their professed faith. This Dáil must start recognising this reality, including in its daily customs. For example, in what other workplace would a prayer be said every day? The idea that the church would interfere in people's decisions is also an issue.

I am glad to support the Bill, which we may seek to amend if it proceeds. We need full separation of church and State.

See this speech in context