Nationalist MP Jean-Pierre Farrugia said today the PN should not have pronounced itself on the divorce issue.

Speaking in Parliament during the debate on the Divorce Bill, he did not declare how he would vote on the matter but said that the bill needed clarifications, such as on child support and maintenance of the other party.

He said that although these were mentioned in the bill, the details were lacking.

Dr Farrugia said that he had proposed amendments to clarify these issues in the PN group set up to discuss the bill.

Dr Farrugia said the referendum had been very tough for the yes to win but it won against all odds and the referendum result was supreme.

However, what the question offered and what the people had agreed upon, had to be sustained, he said adding that he would not vote for something which was not clear. More details and clarifications were needed, he said.

Bill does not reflect referendum question - FZD

Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech said the bill did not reflect what the people voted for in the referendum.

He said that all MPs should do their utmost for Malta to have the best possible law and to seriously safeguard what the people voted for.

Dr Zammit Dimech said that if the bill was amended in a way to reflect the referendum question, he would not have a problem voting in its favour during the third reading.

He pointed out that the bill did not exclusively present a no-fault or fault divorce exclusively. It presented both.

Four divorce scenarios were presented - two forms consensual, two non-consensual.

In both consensual and non-consenual a couple could have been already separated or not.

In a case of non-consensual divorce where the couple was not separated, which would reflect most cases in court in future, fault divorce was being proposed since the articles in the legislation for separation were being reproduced.

Some of these provisions in the divorce bill did not have the four-year separation rule.

On the maintenance guarantee, he noted that people did not vote to safeguard the right for maintenance but for maintenance to be guaranteed.

Would those who could not give such guarantee, even through a bank guarantee if necessary, have a right to divorce, he asked.

He appealed that if divorce has to happen it should be done in a way that somehow protects the innocent.

Structures to assist families needed - Galdes

Labour MP Roderick Galdes declared his vote in favour of the divorce but said that adequate structures to help the family were needed.

Divorce, he said, was a civil right which would be used by those who needed it.

People's mandate has to be respected - Gino Cauci

Labour MP Gino Cauchi underlined the importance of respecting the people's mandate as given in the referendum. Parliamentary procedure for enacting the law had to be respected, he said, but once the people had decided, the second reading stage, where the principle is discussed, was now largely irrelevant. What was important was the committee stage, when the Bill would be refined while respecting the referendum question.

He would be voting for the Bill, Mr Cauchi said, because that was what the country needed in view of the problems to society caused by the growing number of marriage break-ups. 

David Agius - will respect will of the majority

Nationalist MP David Agius said the people were sovereign. It was true that the PN electoral programme did not include the introduction of divorce. That was why the referendum was held. But now that the people had decided. He had been against the introduction of divorce and voted against in the referendum. But he would respect the will of the majority because he was a Member of Parliament first, and a member of the PN second. Church documents, he said, spoke on the different duties of a secular society and the Church, although they should be reconciled as far as possible. His duty in the secular society, he said, was to respect the majority, although he personally remained against divorce and believed in the indissolubility of marriage.

Noel Farrugia praises Church campaign

Labour MP Noel Farrugia also spoke in favour of divorce but stressed the importance of love under its various forms. He would not judge anyone about the way he/she expressed her love, Mr Farrugia said.

He said that all parties and other institutions including the Church should now work together to bring about greater observance of the fifth commandment, for children to respect more respect to their parents and vice-versa.

Mr Farrugia was full of praise for the way the Church had conducted itself during the referendum campaign, in line with its beliefs, saying it had exercised discipline and consistency. He also praised Joseph Muscat for having responsibly declared that the divorce issue was a matter of conscience and he would leave everyone free to decide on this issue.

Chris Said: One cannot represent the people and go against its will

Parliamentary Secretary Chris Said said he would have preferred it had the Bill been debated in the House and then presented to the people in a referendum.

Once parliament had opted to go to the people, one could not represent the people and go against its will. The PN was promising that the will of the people would be respected.

His constituency was Gozo, which had voted heavily against divorce Dr Said said. He has explained to the people in his district, however, that the decision was on a national level and parliament was there for the whole country. The will of the majority had voted for divorce and the House had a duty to vote in its majority to respect that mandate.

However there should be no problem if some MPs opted to vote against. There was nothing wrong in the popular vote being reflected in the vote in Parliament.

The Nationalist MPs were being given a genuine free vote, but he doubted whether that was the case on the Labour benches. They were being told to abstain or vote in favour, but not against.

In his address Dr Said spoke on family friendly measures taken by the government, including tax cuts and incentives to encourage women to work. He said the government was committed to propose more such measures.

Silvio Parnis - More needed to help families

Labour MP Silvio Parnis said he would vote in favour of divorce in line with the views of the majority. He stressed, however, that this country needed to do more to strengthen marriages.

More also needed to be done to safeguard the rights of minorities.

Peter Micallef - Couples need to work to keep their marriage alive

Nationalist MP Peter Micallef said Parliament had a duty to enact the divorce law following the referendum. The law needed to be clear and respected everybody's needs. He stressed that the family was an essential element of society and it was important that couples worked on the strength of their marriage, like one checked his physical health. Couples needed to allow quality time for each other. Money, he said, was important, but not the most important thing for family unity.

Dr Micallef called for better state structures to help couples prepare for marriage and assist those whose marriage was in difficulty. Schools, too, should educate children on the importance of permanent marriage.

Dr Micallef said that while he was against divorce, he would abstain in the vote in order to ensure that the will of the majority prevailed.

Nationalist MP Francis Agius said he was against divorce. It might benefit some people at a personal level, but it was not good for society.

Dr Agius said his vote would be motivated by the fact that the view of the majority had to be respected, but he also believed that most of the people who elected him to the House never wanted him to legislate for divorce.

Dr Agius said he hoped that the Bill would be fine-tuned and said that consideration should be given to comments made by legal experts as reported in today's The Times.