Nationalist MP Jean-Pierre Farrugia said today that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando was right to raise the divorce issue so that it could be discussed by the nation.

Speaking in Parliament, he said he disagreed with having a 'yes or n'o question on divorce (as suggested by the government) but he appealed to the opposition to amend the question it had proposed where it spoke on guarantees to the spouse and the children, once such guarantees could not be given in all circumstances.

Dr Farrugia said divorce was a grey area issue and he praised contributions in parliament by MPs Karl Gouder and Peter Micallef.

Mr Gouder had spoken on how the issue was a grey area where one could not be fully in favour or against, while Dr Micallef argued yesterday that with the referendum question being what it is, he did not feel he would be bound by the outcome when voting took place in Parliament.

Dr Farrugia said the PN needed to be clear that it was not a confessional party. As Fr Peter Serracino Inglott said recently, with regard to IVF but equally applicable for divorce, the government should not be looking exclusively at the Church's view on this, but its impact on society.

Dr Farrugia said he had his dilemmas on the subject and he felt that Jeffrey Pulicino Orlando had done well to raise it, so that it could be discussed.

Information given to him in reply to a parliamentary question showed, surprisingly, that over the past 20 years, the number of marriages was constant. This led him to think that the young still believed in the value of marriage.

Obviously, there was a gorwing problem of marriage breakdowns. This was what made this issue a grey area. He knew many people who had separated and found new love. He asked whether he could deny them a fresh beginning, but the common good had to come first.

The divorce referendum would be consultative, not abrogative. Turnout in the former was not as important as the latter where turnout of at least 50% was necessary.

In his constituency, Dr Farrugia said, no one had asked him for the introduction of divorce. However he believed that once the state would hold the referendum, the question would be clear. He disagreed with a 'yes or no' question (as proposed by the PN) but he also disagreed with parts of the question proposed by the Opposition on guaranteeing maintenance to the estranged spouse and care of the children. That was right in spirit but he did not know how this could ever be guaranteed.

His appeal to the Opposition, therefore, was to amend the question.