Update 2 - Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando insisted today that the no-fault concept has to be retained in the Divorce Bill.

He was speaking in Parliament as the debate on the introduction of divorce got off in earnest, a year after he surprised everyone by presenting a private member's bill on the issue - leading to the referendum in May.

Opening the debate, Dr Pullicino Orlando expressed his gratitude to the people who had voted in favour of divorce. He said such people had given those whose marriage had broken down the opportunity to remarry rather than live in cohabitation.

It would be a mistake, he said, if anyone now tried to go against the spirit of what the people had approved in the referendum, he said. This included, he said, the concept of no-fault divorce.

(There were reports this week that the PL would propose amendments to the no-fault concept. Separately, a PL spokesman in a statement said the PL would ensure that the main principles of the bill, including those relating to no-fault divorce, would remain unchanged.)

Dr Pullicino Orlando said this matter had been discussed in the referendum campaign. The No camp had campaigned against the no-fault divorce concept and the people had then voted. He felt very strongly that Malta should learn from the experience of other countries and not introduce a fault-based divorce.

There were various forms of no fault divorce, from Las Vegas style to the Irish model, which was the most conservative in the world and the one on which the Maltese Bill was based.

Having no-fault divorce meant that one did not need to reopen a blame game in court, when separation proceedings would have already have been concluded anyway. Having this blame game all over again was also harmful to children.

No fault divorce in Malta's case did not meant quick fix debate. In Malta, the no-fault divorce would be granted after four years of separation in the most responsible of manners.

Indeed, the no-fault concept already existed in separation proceedings.

Dr Pullicino Orlando said that in terms of the referendum question, it was important that the divorce law provided that divorce could only take place after four years of separation, and after arrangements for the maintenance of the children. The Bill, he said, provided a guarantee of maintenance not a guarantee of payment, since provisions on payment of maintenance already existed under the law governing separations.

Children, Dr Pullicino Orlando said, suffered whenever marriages broke down. What was important was not to make the children's situation worse. Indeed, under this law, the duty for maintenance of children would be extended until the children completed post-secondary education (23 years old) rather than 16 as at present.

The Bill, he said, also laid down that the court may, in the case of disagreement, lay down arrangements for the granting of maintenance for the children. It would take cognisance of the contributions to the family made by the two spouses.

The court would also establish arrangements, if requested, of the custody of the children and one of the spouses may be denied access if he/she was deemed unsuitable.

It was also important to ensure that the granting of divorce did not alter arrangements made in separation agreements.

Dr Pullicino Orlando said divorce could only be granted if possibilities of reconciliation were exhausted and lawyers had a duty to seek such reconciliation, when it appeared possible.

He augured, Dr Pullicino Orlando said, that the new law would best protect the interests of all those people who suffered the trauma of marriage break-down and wished to remarry.

In his address Dr Pullicino Orlando thanked Deborah Schembri, former leader of the Divorce Movement for her work, including the drafting of this Bill.

Dr Pullicino Orlando was followed by Evarist Bartolo (PL) co-sponsor of the Bill, who praised the way how people from across the political divide had worked on this issue and said that the country had a lot to gain of this model was followed on other issues.

DIVORCE MOVEMENT'S CAMPAIGN COST JUST €30,000

He said that he calculated that the Divorce Movement only cost some €30,000, but the movement was assisted by many hard-working volunteers. (The No Movement said last month it spent €236,000 on its campaign)

The people showed in the referendum that they were more advanced than the institutions which represented them, Mr Bartolo said.

Malta had had a need for the civil right of divorce because marriage break-ups were comparable with other countries. So too was the percentage of babies born out of wedlock.

The Divorce Bill was therefore in the interests of the common good.

Times columnist Ranier Fsadni had written how in 2008, there were 738 marriage break-ups, a crude divorce rate of close to 2%. The EU average was also 2%.

The referendum vote, he said, was a vote of solidarity since many people had voted for divorce not because they needed it, but to give the opportunity for those who did.

The Members of Parliament, Mr Bartolo said, were now bound by the mandate handed to them by the people and legislation should not be altered in a way which went against the word and the spirit of the referendum question and what was said by the Divorce Movement during the campaign. The main principles were the four year separation period before eligibility for divorce, the assurance that there was no possible reconciliation, guarantees of maintenance and the concept of no-fault divorce.

Dr Bartolo denied a report in another section of the press that the PL would amend the no-fault concept and said all the principles of the Bill would be preserved.

On the role of the Church during the referendum campaign, Mr Bartolo said the Church had a duty to speak up but during the campaign, it did not show the best people within it.

Divorce, he argued, was not a dogma of the Church and it would have been better if the institution had read the signs of the times.

It could have been loyal to its doctrine without going through a repetition of what happened in the 1930s and sixties, thus risking alienating people from both sides of politics.

It could have been different if certain people within the Church were allowed to speak up on the lines of a thesis which Bishop George Frendo had written or what Fr Rene Camilleri wrote in 2000 and 2010. The latter had written that voting for divorce was not about sin and conscience because the religious and civil matters were separate and the Church should not obstruct the state from taking its decisions.

LOUIS DEGUARA TO VOTE NO, WILL NOT CONTEST ELECTION

Nationalist MP and former health minister Louis Deguara in a short address said he would vote against this Bill on second reading because he wanted to be loyal to his constituents and he had always insisted that divorce did not solve the problems of those couples whose marriage was breaking down.

Dr Deguara said he was not influenced by notes he had received by those in favour or against divorce, since he would not seek re-election. And, he argued, when he was elected to the House, it was not on a promise to vote for divorce.

In what appeared to be a reference to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, he said that no one should stand for election with a party, and then act as he wished in parliament.

Although most people on his district had approved divorce, he was convinced that his core of voters were against divorce. Furthermore, he was also guided by his religious conscience.

Jose Herrera (PL) disagreed with Dr Deguara's reasoning, arguing that the basic element of democracy and also referenda was that the will of the majority prevailed. A party governed, on its own, even if it got a majority of just a few hundred, he said. The minority, however large, did not have a say in it.

Therefore it did not make sense for some to argue that they should vote No in Parliament to also represent those who had voted against.

The fact that the referendum was consultative, and hence not binding, was also irrelevant. Parliament, not the people, enacted the laws, but MPs had a duty to follow what the people delegated.

Conscience also had nothing to do with it, once the MPs had asked the people to decide.

And, Dr Herrera said, although he was a practising Catholic and respected the Church and its leaders, the State was separate from the Church and had a duty to legislate for the common good.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.