Labour MP Marlene Pullicino told Parliament on Tuesday that while strong and united families were the best asset in society, reality reflected that there were a number of separated families and cases before the Family Court, where the present backlog of the workload continued to increase hardship for children in broken families.

Speaking during the debate on the Private Members’ Motion for a consultative referendum on the introduction of divorce, Dr Pullicino said cases could not be protracted and everyone had the right to justice which should not depend on one’s financial means. There were estranged couples who did not go for separation because they could not afford the expenses involved. These people should receive financial assistance so that their hardship could be alleviated.

It was important to strengthen the family unit, even if different from the traditional pattern, as long as the children were loved by both parents. She called on the government to revise its policies to support newly-weds and couples with young children when they were facing difficulties. The government should also give support to engaged couples.

She herself had passed through psychological trauma in her separation proceedings because she had been brought up in a Catholic family and had even pronounced herself against divorce. After consulting others, including theologians, she had come to the conclusion that although she was against divorce, as an MP she could not impose her belief on others. Her Christian belief could not be imposed on those who understood the concept of marriage differently. The law was a tool for those taking the option to divorce.

The divorce issue was sensitive, and a referendum had to be called because there was no electoral mandate on the issue.

The opposition motion incorporated the question which formed the basis of future legislation. It was not for an easy type of divorce. On the contrary, the government’s alternative of a yes or no question seemed to favour any type of divorce.

Dr Pullicino noticed that the many speakers in the debate had not focussed on the motion but on whether one agreed with or opposed divorce.

She confirmed that within the Labour Party no pressure had been made on MPs to change their opinion. Labour MPs were being left free to vote according to their conscience. This choice was also being extended to the electorate, who had to reflect on whether a person had to have the option of a divorce law.

On the contrary, the Nationalist Party had politicised the issue by taking a stand against divorce. It had also tried to hinder the electorate from pronouncing itself on the issue.

Justyne Caruana (PL) said that the government’s MPs were abusing the word “sincerity” while trying to demonise pro-divorce activists.

The debate should not be turned into a politico-religious conflict. While the Church had the right – and, indeed, was obliged – to express its opinion, it was also required to ensure that people were prepared for marriage.

If divorce were to be introduced, it should be part of the reform towards strengthening the family. Dr Caruana said that if the issue was prolonged, problems would be exacerbated.

While there were various reasons for marital breakdown, the principal factor was the burdens that families had to face. The government had not set up the Family Commission, which should have had an instrumental role.

The legislation on children and the reform in family law had been promised for several years, but they were still to be introduced. Children always suffered in marital breakdown, but the government was still silent on the issue. The legal counsel for children had proved to be inefficient.

Dr Caruana argued that the courts were not child-friendly.

After separation proceedings, most parents would frequent other partners with children being put in a difficult position, sometimes being even sexually abused. As a result of such actions, some children resorted to violence and alcohol abuse. Unless there were structures to give the children the opportunity to be heard, they would not want to have anything to do with marriage.

Speaking on the opposition’s motion, Dr Caruana said people should decide on the matter and no-one should demonise those in favour of divorce.

It would have been irresponsible to suggest a “yes or no” question in the referendum. Marriage would become a betrothal if an unconditional “yes” would have been accepted.The motion set the four conditions for a couple to obtain divorce: there should be no hope for reconciliation, they should have been separated for four years, an alimony agreement must have been agreed and moreover, there should be an agreement on the protection of children.

While the children’s best interests should be ensured, at present these interests were being undermined. This was a matter that needed immediate attention.

Dr Caruana said there was the need to strengthen marriage, but not at the expense of those in favour of divorce.

The government should protect the family and children, but it kept placing burdens on them.

Admitting that she was against divorce, Dr Caruana said the motion was responsible and just. One should not place obstacles to the people’s will.