Central to the divorce referendum was the question to be put to the people, Labour MP Evarist Bartolo told Parliament yesterday.

Opening the nine-sitting debate on the opposition motion for the holding of a referendum on the introduction of divorce, he said the motion proposed that the people would be asked if they backed the possibility of divorce when a marriage would have irrevocably broken down, couples would have been separated for at least four years, and maintenance and child care arrangements would have been made.

This meant that Malta would not have a Las Vegas style divorce. Mr Bartolo said he could not accept anything other than this form of responsible divorce, because the issue could not be something which was decided lightly and overnight.

The motion was moved by the Labour MP, who with Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, is also co-sponsoring a Bill for the introduction of divorce.

Mr Bartolo said it appeared that the motion was being backed by a majority of the House, including the whole Labour group and some members of the PN group.

He said he hoped Malta would have a mature debate on divorce without any crusades.

A key element of democracy was that while the majority should govern, this majority should safeguard the rights of the minority. Everyone should have the right to family unity. He had been happily married for 33 years and he was unlikely to ever need divorce. But his good fortune did not mean that he should deny others whose marriage had broken down from the right to start afresh.

As things stood, persons could obtain an annulment, a separation (yet the marriage would still be considered valid), or obtain divorce from some other country if they had the financial means.

While Malta recognised divorce obtained from abroad, it did not provide such remedy locally. At present, those whose marriage broke down often ended up in cohabitation, but this was not what many people looked for.

Mr Bartolo said responsible divorce would not result in marital breakdown. This came about because marriages would already have irrevocably broken down. The percentage of marriage breakdowns in Malta, at some 22 per cent, was higher than that of Italy and other country. The rate of marital breakdown in Italy was 20 per cent and 15 per cent in Ireland.

Several people argued that while they did not agree with divorce, they should not deny such right to those who needed it.

The rate of children born out of wedlock would increase if divorce was not introduced. Moreover, with the introduction of divorce legislation, children born out of wedlock would be considered as born in wedlock.

Legal structures would be justified even if one person needed them. The common good should not be measured by percentages.

Mr Bartolo said that in 1995, there were already 5,000 individuals whose marriages were annulled, separated or obtained divorce from another country. This had risen to 11,000 by 2005, and to 13,000 by 2009.

One should not be forced to cohabit because one could not remarry. There was a rise in cohabiting couples in the Philippines, where on a span of a few years, these had risen from 900,000 to around 2,300,000.

The state had no right to deny this civil right to those who could not go abroad or who could not annul their marriage after it had broken down. One had to give the chance to separated couples to start a new married life.

Parliament had to proclaim itself on the divorce issue as a civil right and not on marriage as a sacrament. Those who were believers had the duty to follow the teachings of the Church. But in an open and democratic society one could not deny the civil right to divorce where marriage had definitely broken down and there was no chance for reconciliation. One could not speak of separated couples on the same level as those who were happily married.

Mr Bartolo praised the leader of the opposition for giving full freedom to its MPs and to the electorate to express themselves freely and according to their conscience on such an issue. Labour believed in the freedom of expression, in the diversity of opinion, in an inclusive society and in the full respect of human and civil rights.

If one had to tow the party line on issues of minority rights and civil liberties, the debate would not be free and the electorate would not be free to decide according to their conscience. In such a case, towing the party line meant that one followed the tribal culture which ignored the reality of cohabiting couples and of children born out of wedlock.

Mr Bartolo said he could not understand those who spoke on the beauty of marriage and the family but then were in favour of forced cohabitation. Couples, whose marriage had broken down beyond any hope of reconciliation, could only revert to cohabitation. This amounted to forced cohabitation. Cohabitation did not lead to a strong relationship and children were considered born out of wedlock. People who took this stand were showing double standards.

The victims of separation were often the children, who suffered the worst trauma where the separated couple continued to live under the same roof, in situations of domestic violence and where there was a lot of fighting.

In introducing responsible divorce, one had to think also of such human circumstances where people were suffering. Mr Bartolo said that persons who proclaimed themselves against no fault divorce surely knew that in Malta there was a situation of no fault separations where the spouses separated by agreement. Countries that legislated on fault based divorce found that this made divorce easier because there was no condition that the couple had been separated for a number of years. He said that the fact that the referendum question conditioned divorce to the fact that the couple had been separated for four years within the last five years beyond any hope of reconciliation made for responsible divorce.

Mr Bartolo declared that he strongly believed in the family and in the institution of marriage. However, thousands of couples who were forced to live in cohabitation had to be given the opportunity to form a new family through remarriage. This was the main reason why he had co-proposed the divorce motion based on the most conservative model in the world.

Mr Bartolo said that the state had to strive for strong families. This could be done through family friendly policies which did not put pressure on families for economic reasons. Economic and social conditions where families were struggling to make ends meet also contributed to marital breakdown. Family friendly measures included economic measures which did not put families in financial difficulty because of utility bills and taxation.

Mr Bartolo concluded that a significant sign of an open and democratic society included taking care of vulnerable people and granting of rights to minorities.