Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

One can hardly go into any doctor's surgery at present without being faced by a copy of Hello magazine. As one flicks through the pages, one can read about the marriages and divorces of celebrities, and there is generally an article on their nuptial agreements. Recently, I read of one well-known female film star who announced that she intended to marry for the ninth time. While I am unsure how much she has amassed or lost over the years as a result of pre-nuptial agreements, a note of added complexity is introduced when one begins to consider multi-nuptial agreements. Hence, Members must be particularly careful from the outset.

An aspect of the debate about which I have concern is that, in some way, the message might go out that Members are opening the door for the acknowledgement and legislation for pre-nuptial agreements. This would not be the correct thing to do because until very recently, pre-nuptial agreements were fantasies that took place in the international theatrical or film star world. Members may not have envisaged them in an Irish context and were always focussed on protecting the family inheritance and ensuring the weaker person would be protected by the State.

I listened to the Minister and I am certain he did not suggest legislators were not romantic. I understand his point to have been that their job is not to legislate for romanticism. However, that is a debate for another day. In fairness, one could also state that the time one makes a nuptial agreement is a time of emotional intensity in people's lives. Without being overly frivolous, one could go so far as to question whether some people are of sound mind when they enter nuptial agreements. I believe this is an issue that could come to the courts. We have seen the law become flexible, with parameters removed we thought would never be removed. We must remember that people in such circumstances are vulnerable, particularly those who may not have the wealth of the other party involved. Emotional intensity means people may be inclined to trust one another based on the concept of love, as Senator O'Toole put it.

A strange thought entered my mind. Do coalition parties have pre-nuptial agreements for when they fall out of love? I suppose that is the programme for Government. However, I do not wish to be frivolous. Many speakers referred to the situation that exists before and after a marriage, especially if rancour and bitterness are involved. Lawyers will get involved at this point, as they invariably do. We never considered pre-nuptial agreements for people with small amounts of wealth; we always thought they applied to those with with great wealth. To an extent they were seen as protection against gold diggers. I am concerned at the idea of broadening the legislation to cover ordinary people with houses, good jobs and pension rights. It is not far fetched to imagine this could become part of our culture. We need to examine all the complexities if we are to endorse pre-nuptial agreements.

Issues other than wealth determine our concept of pre-nuptial agreements, one of which relates to the instability of marriage. This is particularly true in the United States where close to 60% of marriages end in divorce and some people enter second and third marriages. I do not think that culture exists here even though we have divorce legislation. We are discussing a small number of people who want to reconcile their agreements with the law, yet we may make this appear to be the norm.

The Minister is correct on the subject of setting up a specialist group, possibly headed by a person with legal experience. We are not suggesting this body will receive a definitive role, this is a preliminary discussion. There may be eminent people involved in this group and, no doubt, it will be driven, to an extent, by the media. This subject, by its nature, extends almost into the realm of fantasy and therefore opens itself to the cult of personality regarding who has entered into a pre-nuptial agreement. I am concerned that the impression might be given that we would automatically give credibility to the findings of this body. When the Minister is examining this matter he might consider the group as a stepping stone to providing us, not with a Green Paper or White Paper, but with a discussion document to allow us consider the complexities involved.

The Minister pointed out some of the contingencies that are embedded in the 1993 legislation and how the divorce legislation has broadened the concept of marriage breakdown and the acceptance by judges of the idea of the division of property in cases where a marriage fails. All of these issues are present but not necessarily used in a focused way, as might happen were we to talk in terms of recognising pre-nuptial agreements.

The tone has been set, although Senator Norris has expanded it too much for my liking because he has taken the issue into other areas, which he is entitled to do. Trying to control the racehorses after the race has begun is not always easy and most people would sound a note of warning in that regard.

Senator Browne, while not acting as devil's advocate, presented a case for debate rather than a definitive argument suggesting we must enact legislation on pre-nuptial agreements. I welcome this debate and agree with the cautious approach taken by the Minister. I hope there is unanimity on this issue while I also hope it will not be seen as something we are pre-disposed to accept. I would welcome interim reports from the aforementioned group which might tease out some of the legal complexities regarding protection of vulnerable parties, such as children.