Finance Minister Tonio Fenech declared in Parliament that he would abstain on the Divorce Bill in order to respect the wishes of the electorate and not hinder the legislative process. Gozo Minister Giovanna Debono, Family Minister Dolores Cristina and Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi said they would be voting no.

Speaking during the second reading of the Bill amending the Civil Code, Mr Fenech defended members’ constitutional right to vote according to their conscience.

He said it was difficult to abstain. He had a lot of apprehension of the impact that divorce would have on future generations. Its introduction in other countries had diminished the value of marriage, substituting its permanence with a temporary nature.

The obligation to see that the Bill was approved rested with the MPs who had voted for the referendum question. It was unfair to exert pressure on MPs to declare their vote before the Bill was properly defined.

Minister Fenech said that one had to ensure a sound foundation for marriage. The state had taken initiatives to create a work-life balance. Preparation for marriage in a society where its strength was weakened had to start through the educational process from childhood. Parliament had to be proactive to strengthen marriage and the family.

There was consensus in Parliament that the Bill did not fully reflect the referendum question. The law had to have in-built mechanisms so that couples opting for divorce would know beforehand what their responsibilities were. One also had to safeguard guarantees for children and see that their voice was heard in court.

Gozo Minister Giovanna Debono declared her intention of voting against the Divorce Bill because divorce went against fundamental Christian values which were of the greatest benefit to society and had guided her throughout life.

She was concerned and disappointed about remarks made on those MPs who had declared their intention to vote. Some had even been advised to resign. But democracy functioned best where there was diversity in opinion, and recognised freedom of conscience as a right.

Minister Debono said that the Gozo vote in the referendum had contrasted with those in the other electoral districts. There were those who voted in favour because of solidarity and altruism and not personal reasons. It was, therefore, unjust to interpret the Gozitan vote negatively. Gozitans were mature people and they were changing the island’s insularity into opportunities.

Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi said the Bill should include an amendment for a two-thirds majority or another referendum for any amendments of substance made to it.

Dr Azzopardi said that as he had no right to judge those who felt they should now vote yes, neither did others have the right to criticise those who, like him, felt they should vote no on the second reading, when the vote on the principle of the Bill would be taken.

He would be voting against divorce because he believed that the Bill was not loyal to the referendum question. Certain clauses were not legally correct, and he proposed a number of amendments to improve the Bill especially with regard to alimony. He said that if at committee stage the Bill was amended correctly he would be willing to re-examine his position.

Edwin Vassallo complained that it was intolerant for MPs to say colleagues should not vote against divorce. Before any other choice, he could only vote no because first and foremost he had to safeguard his beliefs, which were witness to the truth and went beyond any choice made in the referendum. There were no variables in faith and moral matters; there was consistency and not convenience, he said.

Earlier, Mr Vassallo said that the debate was not exclusively based on divorce: certain people had used the debate to attack the principle of truth and to annihilate the value of conscience and what was right or wrong.

Interjecting, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (the co-sponsor of the Bill) asked him to clarify who these people were, claiming that Moviment Iva had conducted a clean campaign.

Mr Vassallo said his remarks were of a general nature.

Dr Muscat had argued that one should respect the majority, yet one could not ignore the minority. Mr Vassallo expressed that he would be part of the minority, and questioned whether such minority would be respected.

Ċensu Galea said the divorce issue could no longer be postponed because society had changed drastically with single mothers, births out of wedlock and lack of church attendance. The no-divorce campaign had contributed to people voting in favour.

He said he had always fought for democracy, even when suffering attacks for doing so. The issue was if persons were ready to be tolerant. MPs had a duty to express their ideas and represent their constituents, otherwise they would be doing a disservice.

Divorce did not solve any collective problem, and that was why he was personally against divorce. However, the common good included different ideas and concepts which could pertain to different persons. This entailed that new realities were becoming more easily acceptable to Maltese citizens, and MPs should thus face this reality.

Charlò Bonnici said MPs should be allowed to express themselves freely on divorce, not just through voting yes or no but also through abstaining. Although there were no rules on abstentions, there were precedents and arrangements could be made.

The people’s decision had to be respected and hence he could not vote against the introduction of divorce, but he was ready to abstain. Abstention was not a sign of weakness. It would be a sign of weakness if he gave in to pressure and voted against his conscience.

Mr Bonnici said he still believed divorce was not beneficial to society; it would affect the mentality on marriage and its effects would be determined when it was too late.

Peter Micallef said the divorce issue led people to reflect on the family and work harder to strengthen their relationships. This legislation would have a huge impact on society, but he respected democracy and declared he would be abstaining from voting. However, Parliament had a duty to introduce divorce.

People getting married should be well prepared. After all, their aim should always be to marry for life. Education should start as early as possible and institutions should teach that family life was as important as a job or a career.

Dr Micallef appealed to lawyers to refer spouses in difficulties to reconciliation and mediation before divorce proceedings. On the other hand, he said, the state had the duty to ensure lawyers had enough qualified persons at their disposal.

Stephen Spiteri said one needed to respect the will of the majority but the legislation should not discriminate, because divorce was a civil right which needed to be available to everyone. This was important because sometimes marital breakdown brought with it financial difficulties.

Similarly, more attention needed to be given to clarifying the socio-economic impacts of this legislation on society. Parents had to be responsible and prepared to take on responsibilities in the second family. Despite the possibility of divorcing, the breadwinner needed to take note of the fact that he should still maintain the first family.

Dr Spiteri said families were facing many problems and still needed to be safeguarded. With the introduction of divorce the rights of both spouses and children should be clarified, and therefore the debate should serve to create the most responsible legislation possible.

Karl Gouder (PN) said he had always been in favour of divorce but he had to respect the decision of the party executive. He had been given all the space necessary within the PN to express his thoughts and beliefs, despite the party’s position against.

Family challenges were getting bigger, maybe even as a result of increased pressures at work. The fact that both women and men were working could lead to problems. The government was trying to find a work-life balance through family-friendly measures.

Children had to be kept in focus because they were the ones to suffer most in the divorce process. Other factors which had to be considered in order to prevent suffering included pensions, inheritance, community of assets and the children’s surnames.

Philip Mifsud said that the referendum had been a consultative one for people to voice their opinion. While he felt he had to respect the wish of the majority he himself was against divorce. Both democracy and his personal values were very important concepts, and he had thus decided to abstain from voting.

He did not agree that Parliament should be unanimous. The electorate itself had not been unanimous, and although the will of the majority should prevail, the minority should not be forgotten.