Opposition spokesman George Vella yesterday called for a revision of the 1995 agreement regulating relations between the Church and state to eliminate anomalies within this accord.

Speaking during the second reading of the Civil Code (Amendment) Bill providing for the introduction of divorce, Dr Vella said there was the need to distinguish between the competences of the Church and the state. A discussion needed to be entered into to decide how division needed to be carried out. The church could still play its influential role with regard to those who had a religious belief since the legislation only applied to civil marriage. One had to acknowledge that Malta was no longer staunchly catholic but a lay state.

Dr Vella said he would vote in favour of the Bill because he believed in individual freedom and due to the fact that social justice meant providing a second chance to those whose marriage had broken down.

The electorate had voted for divorce and it was the MPs’ responsibility to see in what form and shape divorce had to be introduced. In no other situation, he said, have MPs expressed their views on the importance of the family and the need to protect this institution. He said that once the divorce issue was over, one still needed to address all aspects which have arisen in order to always protect minors and strengthen families.

Dr Vella said he respected those who were against divorce but were nevertheless going to vote in favour for democracy’s sake. However, he was not condemning those who, for personal reasons or religious beliefs, thought it best to vote against. But he did not understand those MPs who were abstaining. He questioned whether an MP was allowed to abstain, arguing that to do so an MP had to stay away from the chamber during the vote.

He condemned e-mails and letters recently sent to pro-divorce MPs, asking whether this was a case of corrupt practices. He said he could not understand how some of these letters alleged that the entry of divorce would lead to other practices such as abortion and same-sex marriages. While he was in favour of divorce he was not in favour of abortion and the PL had, on numerous occasions, stated that it was against abortion.

The referendum campaign also served one to focus on the condition of some marriages. The reality was that young couples were not mature enough to carry the burden. Dr Vella said that government should strive to reduce present burdens, like bank loans conditions.

Education was needed for marriage preparation. The government has done nothing in this respect, he said. Proper education could also address domestic violence and the government should do something for those children who were being mistreated.

Dr Vella said that all the elements decided upon in the referendum question had to be upheld and the legislation needed to be clear to avoid unclear legislation which would mean more years of painful court proceedings.