Updated:  Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca said today that she would abstain in the second reading stage of the Divorce debate in Parliament, but she would vote in favour of amendments to improve the law and thus she would also vote in favour in the final vote on third reading.

Speaking in Parliament this evening, the Labour MP, regretted that the divorce debate had become a partisan issue, with the PN having adopted a formal position. This issue, she said, revolved about the pain felt by a number of individuals. She also regretted the disgraceful threats and attempts at intimidation made at MPs.

Ms Coleiro Preca said she disagreed with criticism by Labour MP George Vella about the option to abstain. She would abstain on second reading of this Bill because that vote was about the principle of the law and she disagreed with divorce. This was an issue of conscience, but as a legislator, she could not vote No when the majority of the people were in favour of divorce in the referendum. Therefore, she would abstain so as not obstruct the legislative process. If Dr Vella could not understand how people could abstain on this law, how could one understand abstentions in the European Parliament and the United Nations?

Mrs Coleiro Preca said she had been nominated by Joseph Muscat to a group which was discussing possible amendments to the Bill. She had worked on this Bill as an exercise in damage limitation although she remained, in principle, against divorce. She would therefore be voting in favour of the amendments. According to teaching by Pope John Paul II, when MPs disagreed on the principle of a law, they had a duty to vote for amendments to improve the law. On third reading on the completed bill she would thus also vote in favour.

Mrs Coleiro Preca said she hoped that parliament would in future make clear distinctions between issues of politics and conscience and the two sides would work together on the latter, such as minority rights.

The Labour MP underlined the need for a mechanism to avert family problems and she therefore looked forward to the setting up of the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Family.

She stressed that more needed to be done in schools develop a sense of loyalty, commitment and responsibility in the upcoming generation. The state, she said, should also get involved in marriage preparation, not least because not all couples opted for church marriage

Mrs Coleiro Preca insisted that the law needed to ensure that the law really guaranteed maintenance. Also important, in the interest of family harmony, was accessibility to the children. Access should be provided not just for the children with the parents, but also with their grand parents. This was a problem which the new committee needed to discuss, along with the Family Institute at the University.

Like Education Minister Dolores Cristina, she agreed that the institute of mediation needed to be reviewed and strengthened, because even saving one marriage was a victory. For one thing, the environment where mediation sessions took place needed to be more conducive and some mediators needed to be better trained and prepared.

The government, she said, should also provide counselling services for couples in difficulty. At present, counselling was provided through the Cana Movement, or one had to pay for it. Such a service, surely, needed to be accessible to everyone. A marriage breakup had consequences not just on the individuals concerned, but also society.

Concluding, Ms Coleiro Preca referred to some comments made about her and said that Labour remained her natural home.

Earlier in the debate, Education and Family Minister Dolores Cristina underscored the importance of ensuring that payments made for pension purposes were used in that way.

She also argued that the Bill needed to be improved with regard to maintenance.

Mrs Cristina said it was important that as the country adopted divorce, the possibility of mediation was not sidelined, and efforts should continue to be made to save marriages.

Concluding, she said that more needed to improve marriage preparation. But the most important thing was role modelling. Society needed to show young people that the world was not what was shown on the media.

Mrs Cristina said the ministry will be offering scholarships for masters course in family studies. She also looked forward to the setting up of the House select committee on the family. The amendments to the standing orders have been prepared in agreement with the opposition and will be moved shortly.

Dr George Vella (PL), who said he would support the Bill, said it was important that the new law did not create a legal labyrinth for people whose marriage had hit the rocks.

Dr Vella said the new law gave choice to the people and did not impinge the rights of the Church and those who wished to follow Church norms.

Dr Vella said he disagreed with those who said they were abstaining in the vote and could not understand that course of action. In so doing, they were escaping responsibility.

He also regretted cases where people who had written to MPs warning them against voting 'yes' in parliament. This, he said, amounted to corrupt practice and was shameful. It was just as shameful that some people tried to link the introduction of divorce with abortion, which was completely different. He could never be in favour of the latter, and neither would his party.

Dr Vella said it was clear that the Church-State agreement regarding the tribunal which decided marriage annulments need to be reviewed, especially because of the practices of the tribunal, which lacked transparency. People could also not choose the lawyer they wished. Certainly, a sovereign state should not be subjected to the decisions of such a tribunal, Dr Vella said.

Dr Beppe Fenech Adami (PN) said he was clear, before the referendum, that the introduction of divorce would be harmful to society and families. He remained convinced that the social problems which divorce was supposed to heal would actually grow. More marriages would break up, cohabitation would increase, and there would be no reduction in the number of children born out of wedlock.

He would vote against this Bill also because it did not reflect the Referendum Question. The Bill did not guarantee maintenance, as promised. It did not really protect children. It just gave no fault divorce after four years of separation. This undermined the very foundation of marriage and families. This was the first step to the destruction of social order as it was now. This was a milestone in the attack on Christian values which had forged the country to date. He hoped, Dr Fenech Adami said, that MPs would truly vote according to their beliefs.

Gozitan Nationalist MP Frederick Azzopardi also said he would vote against divorce, insisting that divorce did not solve problems for society. One only needed to see what had happened abroad, he said. One could not ignore the social, cultural and financial impact of divorce on society.

Leo Brincat underscored the need for the two sides to work together on improving the law, and said the No Movement too should have proposed amendments on some of the points it raised during the referendum campaign. However the word and spirit of what was said by the Yes Movement during the campaign needed to be respected because the people had voted on that basis.

He insisted that the prime minister, once he had proposed the holding of the referendum, should now vote in line with the choice of the people.

Mr Brincat said he would not comment - given this difficult time - on arguments made post-referendum by Dr Eddie Fenech Adami.

However certain statements made after the referendum led him to now understand how some diplomats had been given indications by some important figures, that the divorce issue could lead to an early election.

Mr Brincat said that now that the people had spoken, rather than looking back, MPs needed to look forward, at improving the Bill in the interests of all parties, but especially the children.

The divorce issue was a victory for credibility to the PL which allowed a free vote to all, Mr Brincat said, while the PN had mobilised all the usual people and forces aimed at protecting its interests.

Jesmond Mugliett said he had not known in advance that this private members' bill when it was presented by Dr Pullicino Orlando a year ago, but he did not oppose it because he saw benefits in it. The PN did not have a position against divorce before the bill was moved.  Had divorce been part of the pre-election process, society would not have had the serenity to discuss it properly.  He was grateful that the prime minister had ensured that the bill was presented to the people at a referendum.

Both parties had now launched genuine process aimed at improving the Bill. This was very positive for parliamentary democracy.

His position in favour of divorce did not stem  from any liberal agenda or the need to back Pullicino Orlando. Nor was it anything about the Church. But he felt that a Catholic politician should not impose his values on others, especially as society was changing.

He felt that divorce was a civil right which reflected tolerance and compassion. Some had said that divorce would change and harm society. He disagreed, because society had changed. People who were opposed ti divorce had not proposed anything to people with a different lifestyle and needed that lifestyle to be regularised.

Nonetheless, he still felt that the government should continue to work for better families.

He was in favour of stable marriages, Mr Mugliett said, but he wished to offer the option of divorce for those who did not wish to end up cohabiting. It was better to have an orderly society.

He was in favour of measures which boosted families, like easing financial burdens and stopping abuse which undermined families, such as abuse regarding 'unknown fathers'.

It was wrong, Mr Mugliett said, that MPs who were critical of the Bill, were not working to improve it. He hoped, Mr Mugliett said, that the fundamental principles in the referendum question were safeguarded. Among possibilities which were under consideration, he said, was a proposal laying down that a referendum would be needed to amend the law once it was approved. Others were saying that a two-thirds majority should be required. He was open to all suggestions as long as the principles were observed.

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.