The Nationalist Party's executive committee has paved the way for a delicate internal debate to discuss whether there are grounds for the party to revise its anti-divorce stand.

During a meeting on Friday evening, the PN broke its long silence on the subject after backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando recently forced it onto the agenda by presenting a Private Member's Bill.

There was broad consensus during the well-attended meeting that the divorce issue should be decided by the electorate, though it has not been established whether this should be through a referendum or otherwise. So far, the PN has not established any time frames.

It is still not clear how the majority of the 80 or so members of the executive of the traditionally pro-Church party feel about the divorce issue.

But sources said around eight speakers on Friday (including ministers Tonio Fenech, Tonio Borg and Carm Mifsud Bonnici) advanced arguments against the introduction of divorce while three expressed themselves in favour. Some others merely put their thoughts on record in what sources described as a "surprisingly positive" meeting.

"The majority at the meeting made it clear we can't keep ignoring this issue. We are heading towards a clear, unequivocal stand on divorce," one official said.

When contacted, PN Information Director Frank Psaila said there was agreement that though the PN was "by its nature" against divorce, it was wide open to discussion - aware of a changing society and families facing problems.

"Thus, the PN thinks it is appropriate to embark on a wider discussion within its ranks wherein party members express their opinions freely," he said.

During Friday's meeting there was broad consensus that the strengthening of the Maltese family needs to be at the core of the on-going discussion, Mr Psaila added.

Asked whether the party will set up a commission to provide it with scientific data regarding changing trends within Maltese society, the family and marriage, he said he had personally put forward this suggestion for consideration.

The executive did not rule out setting up a commission to draw up a scientific report in the future, though it was agreed that at this stage the discussion should continue within the party using official statistics.

Though party leader Lawrence Gonzi opened the discussion by reiterating his opposition to divorce, Mr Psaila said the Prime Minister made it clear he did not wish to impose his personal beliefs on the executive.

One executive member in favour of divorce said the ultra conservative elements in the party had no right to impose their morals on colleagues who had so far remained silent.

One source said though Dr Pullicino Orlando was widely criticised for the way he presented the Bill, he was gaining support from unexpected quarters, especially since there appears to be broad agreement that the MP's unexpected move burst the Labour Party leader's bubble on the subject. Joseph Muscat had said he would allow a free vote on divorce once elected.

The same source insisted, however, that the PN had no mandate to introduce divorce in this legislature and should instead stop dragging its feet on the cohabitation law it had promised.

The PN group is also expected to eventually decide whether any future referendum would be based on a pre-prepared divorce law, so that the electorate would have a clear idea of the details of such legislation.

One executive member who expressed himself against divorce lashed out at the backbencher's Bill, telling The Sunday Times it was riddled with legal loopholes.

"If we're really going to move forward on divorce, we need to do some serious soul searching on the state of the family... and so far there's nothing of the sort."

The next PN executive meeting will take place in September.

Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando's presentation to the PN executive committee

The reasons

1. It is unjust that only Malta and the Philippines deny the rights for citizens to apply for divorce locally, while recognising divorces granted overseas.

2. Divorce is requested more by those who had the bad luck of seeing their first marriage break down and who want to rebuild a new life and family with their partner. Does it make sense for the state to discourage this? The state should relate more to a formal family unit rather than a cohabiting couple.

The Bill safeguards

1. No couple may apply for divorce until it proves in front of the Family Court it has been separated for at least four of the last five years. This should ensure nobody takes any frivolous steps without weighing the repercussions.

2. The court has to be satisfied that there is no possibility of reconciliation. Lawyers should be obliged to formally certify that every means of reconciliation have been exhausted.

3. The court has to be satisfied that the necessary provisions for the dependent members of the family have been taken. The children and dependent members of a broken family will always suffer.

Opposition to introduction of divorce

1. The argument: 'Men will leave their wives for younger women should divorce be introduced'. This is unfortunately already

taking place, and will continue happening with or without divorce. Men who conveniently leave their wives to care for the children will be forced to regularise their lives as well as that of their estranged partners. It suits such men to retain the status quo.

2. The argument: 'Divorce brings about a breakdown to marriages'. The two biggest factors leading to matrimonial troubles are adultery and financial problems. Adultery will never go away, but financial burdens are likely to increase should the route to divorce be taken.

3. The argument: 'God does not want divorce'. Many object to divorce because of their beliefs. I don't blame these people but the country cannot legislate according to religious beliefs. Should this be the case, contraceptives, adultery and homosexuality should be rendered criminal acts.

4. The argument: 'Each country that introduced divorce saw a breakdown in families'. Nobody can say scientifically this statement is correct unless countries that bar divorce are included in studies. Each country that introduced divorce saw the initial wave of applications wane, which means that a large number of couples were simply waiting to pounce at the opportunity.

5. The argument: 'We have no electoral mandate'. I agree with the Prime Minister that the electorate should take the final decision on such an important subject. Such a decision should be taken in an informed manner. People should be presented with a law which is subject to amendments where required, with the participation of society's representatives. It should then be presented for approval through a referendum.

6. The argument: 'Divorce goes against the PN's basic principles'. If this was the case, this executive would not have approved certain pro-divorce candidates like Georg Sapiano and Edward Demicoli for the general and European Parliament elections respectively.

The political argument

Does it make sense for our political opponents to make political gains from this issue? This should be a secondary consideration but a political consideration like this should be considered.