As the Parliamentary Committee for the Consideration of Bills continued its detailed scrutiny of the Civil Code (Amendment) Bill, the walls of the Chamber reverberated to analysis, criticism and endorsement of the proposed private members’ legislation, notably from the two second-in-command of the two parties – Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg and the deputy PL leader for parliamentary affairs Anġlu Farrugia.

The two committee meetings held on Wednesday and yesterday have already indicated that such comments are being given weight with the intention of producing the best piece of divorce legislation possible. In both cases the meetings lasted over four hours and fast progress was being registered, not least because of the consultations that the two legal teams from the opposite sides have had during the last few days to try to arrive at a consensus on the amendments.

Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Bill on Tuesday, Dr Borg told Parliament that divorce was not a fundamental human right and was not even recognised by the courts as such.

Malta had the sixth highest rate of marriages in the EU with statistics showing that 60 per cent of the Maltese were in a married relationship. This showed that, compared to other European countries the family in Malta was still strong.

Although there was a significant increase in births out of wedlock, rising to 30 per cent of all births, this was not comparable to the 50 per cent average of births to single parents in other European countries.

Dr Borg referred to an article by Professor Rev. Peter Serracino Inglott who had said that he opposed divorce but it could be accepted as a lesser evil in situations where it led to social disorder. Dr Borg said it was therefore legitimate to ask whether, in current circumstances, divorce created more harm than solutions.

Divorce changed the nature of marriage from one built on a permanent bond to one which was temporary. This was not a religious argument. In introducing civil marriage in 1975, the Labour government had recognised the nature of a permanent marriage and had not legislated for divorce.

Minister Borg said that it was a mistake to describe people who opposed divorce as being conservative or fundamentalists. Likewise it was wrong to label pro-divorce people as having no sense of values.

He said that although all present MPs opposed abortion, others could, in the future, use the same argument for introducing divorce as a civil right to introduce abortion. Those who argued that Parliament should be unanimous in legislating in favour of divorce were not reflecting reality. Some were making a mockery of conscience on the issue.

He believed that divorce meant a lesser commitment to a permanent bond and that provided an easy way out of marriage problems leading to an increase in marriage failures. He therefore took responsibility for his decision on how to vote on the matter.

He criticised the bill on points which he said were wrong and on other points on which it was silent. There was no provision on whether one needed to have another referendum if changes were made to the Bill.

What was wrong, if both sides agreed on the criteria for eligibility to divorce, in supporting this clause with a two thirds majority also without the need of entrenching this in the Constitution? If this were not done, a future government could change this through a simple majority.

Dr Borg said that the provision governing guilt as regards property and inheritance rights and the community of acquests in cases of separation should apply also for divorce. One should separate divorce from its consequences. It was not right for the innocent spouse in divorce proceedings to lose his or her right to the reserved portion on the property and the inheritance of the other spouse. In cases of separation the court considered all the circumstances. The rules for divorce should not be less onerous than those in separation cases.

The bill did not mention anything about pension rights. Did it make sense that spouses who did not work to take care of the children and were divorced by their husbands, were not entitled to the widow’s pension because it pertained to the second wife? The same applied to the issue of the matrimonial home.

Mediation in divorce cases should not be different from its application in separation cases.

The spouse of the second marriage had a legal right to alimony. This would put pressure on the right of alimony arising from the first marriage. It would be fair to give authority to the court to establish the mechanisms to ensure adequate maintenance.

Speaking after the Prime Minister’s contribution on Wednesday, Dr Farrugia accused Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi of being the first person who held the office and was voting against the electorate’s will after he himself had decided to hold a referendum. He echoed Nationalist MP Michael Gonzi – the Prime Minister’s brother – who had said that there was no difference from being a dictator if one did not respect the electorate’s wishes. He was disappointed that the Prime Minister had abdicated his responsibilities rendering his position one which was no longer tenable.

Dr Gonzi’s position and responsibility were above those of a Party leader. It was shameful to humiliate and challenge the electorate for deciding in favour of divorce. The Prime Minister was not representing the national interest. He should have applied the same democratic rules that he had applied in the EU referendum.

Dr Farrugia asked the Prime Minister where his conscience was when the government ignored the health dangers to residents in building a power station extension that worked on heavy fuel oil. Where was Dr Gonzi’s conscience when millions of euros had been waived in the transfer of land to Midi, when workers’ rights were trampled upon or when he had still not yet applied recommendations made by the Ombudsman on injustices committed by the army, government departments and national agencies?

It was the duty of the Prime Minister at committee stage to ensure the enforcement of maintenance guarantees.

Dr Farrugia also criticised Minister Austin Gatt for calling on PN electoral candidates to declare their intentions on same-sex unions, abortion and euthanasia. A PN candidate had boasted of being an atheist on his Facebook page. Dr Farrugia said the Prime Minister had failed to distinguish between civil and canonical law, preferring cohabitation rather than giving the right to divorce which regulated matters. The opposition had prepared amendments so that the bill could give the best results.