The family, still a strong value in society, should be nurtured, not destroyed, supported not attacked. In his last article in a series on divorce, Austin Gatt insists such a value is not conservative but, possibly, the most progressive value of all time!

I think it is more than evident the European experience has shown divorce has not in any way strengthened the marriage bond. It has certainly given the individual the right to do as he pleases but society has not gained anything from it. In fact, the opposite is true.

It is also as evident that once divorce is introduced, the numbers of persons applying for divorce tend to increase over time and very rarely decrease. Different studies also show that, once a divorce law is introduced, most European states have tended to liberalise rather than restrict the causes on which divorce can be applied for.

The Malta numbers cannot directly be compared to any European equivalent because there is no same-basis criteria. It is little use imaging whether we would develop as an Italy or as a Luxembourg. We should not crystal ball simply for the fun of it or because it might suit us. We need to analyse our situation on the basis of our own data. That data tells us that:

1. The crude number of marriages has been pretty stable in the last 20 years although the marriage rate has gone down. Within those numbers, civil marriages are increasing with the main contributing factor being undoubtedly the rise in the number of foreigners within the resident population. This also means religious marriages are on the way down but that is a problem for the Church and has no impact on the divorce debate.

2. The percentage of persons who are separated (or even divorced) is still statistically insignificant when compared to the percentage of persons living in a marriage. This is the clearest possible indication that, notwithstanding all arguments, from a society point of view marriage is still by far the foremost type of social condition in Malta.

3. While the trend in separations is to increase, numbers peaked in 2005 and for the last five years have seen a gradual decline. Notwithstanding this, standing at 25 per cent of marriages, the rate is still cause for concern but the downward trend reinforces the impression that society is still very strongly pro-marriage and that a pro-active family policy can affect numbers.

4. EU data all point to one simple conclusion: divorce numbers have mostly increased over time, which means that, following the introduction of divorce, more marriages tend to break down.

I am a layman as far as the sociological consequences of the introduction of divorce are and will leave it to others to debate the finer points of any studies there are. But you do not need to be a sociologist to come to the conclusion that society does not gain anything from divorce. I do not contest the argument that divorce is great for some individuals but, as a politician, once we are not talking of fundamental human rights, then the good of society has to come before the good of the individual.

Using that yardstick – which, ostensibly, is also the yardstick of the divorce lobby – the inevitable conclusion is that Maltese society still views marriage as a worthwhile institution and, despite all the knocks it is recently receiving, the family is still a strong value in our society.

That value should be nurtured and fed not destroyed. That value should be supported not attacked. That value is not conservative but possibly the most progressive value of all time!

So what next? What next is, I think, rather obvious.

My party needs to wind up the internal discussion we are having at executive committee level. It is a mature discussion being conducted with no holds barred but with mutual respect of the contrasting positions being advocated. In my view – already expressed during the discussion – that discussion should end with a clear position of where the party lies on the question, should ask the parliamentary group to adopt that position but should also make it clear that, being a matter of conscience, a free vote should be allowed.

It is perplexing that, at least according to what is publicly known, a similar discussion is not taking place within the Labour Party. How can it ignore the moment? This is a defining moment for our country and, by implication, a defining moment for the political parties. Refusing to take a stand shows cowardice or, worse, the callous reasoning of the ballot box over principle.

Giving a free vote does not excuse a party from taking a position on one of the most important social reforms that have been discussed in recent years. It is a reflection on the party’s present leadership and their attitude to what leadership means that they are totally absent from this discussion preferring to leave individuals to stick their necks out rather than taking a position as a party that certainly will not agree with some part of their potential electoral vote.

We, as a party, should not reason that way because we have always believed principles are not for sale. So we will continue going our way, independently of how we may be viewed. We will not duck the decision that has to be made hoping those who do not agree with us will understand that our obligation is to give a fair run to the discussion and not necessarily to agree with what is being proposed.

So as a party we will conclude that process. I believe the next step should then be a discussion in Parliament. Actually that discussion cannot be avoided because we have a motion (two, in fact) that needs to be discussed in the usual way we do in Parliament. I am under the impression – and I stress it is only an impression – that the pro-divorce lobby will be pushing the second motion rather than the first one that was presented in Parliament and, personally, I think this is a much more structured motion than the first. If we go with the second motion, we will in effect be discussing a proposed Bill and will therefore go through the usual procedures of first, second and third readings with the committee stage in between.

It is illusory to view this as an ordinary Bill, one of many that Parliament debates. It is not and, therefore, we should treat it as such.

The party business managers should sit down and formulate a timetable that schedules as early a debate as realistically possible, allows ample debate time (I would even suggest a suspension of the 40-minute rule) provided it is done within a determinate timeframe – basically all the required sessions provided they are, by and large, on consecutive days. This is not a Bill where sessions are separated by days if not weeks.

My view ordinarily would be that this is a matter for Parliament to decide because individual rights cannot be subjected to referenda for a variety of reasons, too many to enumerate. Apart from the fact that politicians need to stand up and be counted in matters such as this, the most compelling reason is that minority rights will never be recognised as rights if the qualifying condition is a referendum where, by definition, the majority prevails! So my view would normally be to say that once the final vote is taken in Parliament that should be it.

However, this is no ordinary situation because no one has an electoral mandate to bring forward the issue and Parliament will be discussing the issue on the strength of a private member’s motion.

It is ludicrous to argue that the same thing happens with many Bills approved by Parliament but are not specifically within the political mandate of a governing party. This, I repeat, is no ordinary Bill. This is no ordinary issue and we all recognise it is an issue not only that deeply divided the country but also that will deeply transform Maltese society. In recognition of this reality, I have to agree with the pro-divorce lobby that a referendum is also necessary in this case.

That referendum should be held as our laws already provide, namely by putting before the people either a motion or a law previously approved by Parliament and, once we are going to be debating a law in Parliament, it is that law – and not any motion – that should be put to the vote. It is also fairer on the voter because, by subjecting a law rather than a motion to the vote, the voter knows exactly what he is voting for and what legal conditions would prevail if divorce were to be approved.

Inevitably, there will be winners and losers and, hopefully, we, as a country, can accept the result whatever it will be without imaging any personal affront if our view has not prevailed. I have already stated and will repeat: I do not expect Maltese society to share my values and if it does not it is my problem not that of society. I have an option to live somewhere more congenial to me. I have the right to do my utmost to change opinions but I have no right to belittle, insult or take it out on someone else. Hopefully, that sentiment will be shared by all, no matter on which side of the divide they lie.