Jean-Pierre Farrugia (PN) expressed his agreement on a no-fault divorce legislation because instead of bringing up old emotions, one would focus on the consequential problems.

Speaking during the Civil Code (Amendment) Bill, he said that while a no-fault divorce system left more safeguards to children and illnesses, such safeguards were not clear in the current Bill.

Earlier, Dr Farrugia quoted Rev. Prof. Peter Serracino Inglott who had argued that in certain circumstances it would be better if divorce legislation was in place. It would also strengthen the marriage institution. Divorce was not similar to abortion because it did not involve the killing of an innocent person.

People had the right to follow their conscience and the referendum was beneficial to resolve such a division in society.

Before the referendum, Dr Farrugia said that he would have voted against divorce, as he believed his constituents shared the same opinion and that families were instrumental in cases of disabilities.

While the court was to consider any physical or mental disabilities of the spouses or of their dependants, he suggested that one should determine the grade of disability. No fault divorce did not consider physical or mental disability as a fault; yet nothing was mentioned in the preset Bill.

Adequate maintenance to children must be guaranteed even after the death of the spouses to be divorced.

The PN should not have pronounced itself on divorce and now it had to repair the damages, he said.

Dr Farrugia said that the result of the referendum was to reign supreme and the people’s will was to be respected. If not, there would be a constitutional crisis.