Motion on Pre-Nuptial Agreements - 18th October 2006

Motion on Pre-Nuptial Agreements - 18th October 2006
Mr. Norris: I thank my colleague, Senator O’Toole, for sharing his time with me. When I looked at this matter, I thought it was another facile idea of the Government to amend it. I did not see the point in the amendment. Now I do, having listened to the Minister. The Law Reform Commission is over-burdened. The Minister has commissioned a special report and I take it that this is in response to the debate in the Seanad and the call from Senator Browne. I congratulate him on it. It does the Seanad a great deal of credit and there was considerable coverage in the political columns of this move.
It shows how our society is changing and becoming more sophisticated in its response to change. Until recently, marriage was indissoluble. If that was still the situation, this agreement would undermine it because it involves making an agreement before the marriage in anticipation of its potential dissolution. The pre-nuptial agreement protects people. We have seen the reports in the media about people of substantial wealth both in America and Britain who make these arrangements before marriage to protect themselves against the attentions of gold diggers. That is understandable.
However, we must examine marriage as a whole rather than pick at things piecemeal. Senator O’Toole said the most simple people are entitled to marry. They are not. I am not. Gay people are precluded from marrying even though we are part of the human spectrum. There is also the issue of foreign divorces whereby Irish citizens can be, and are being, disadvantaged. There is an ongoing case at present in which an Irish woman is being divorced by her husband in France. Her husband is a French citizen. She was starting proceedings here but he gazumped her and got into the French courts. The reason is that French courts have a tradition of protecting the male interests more effectively than the interests of the female spouse. We may well be seeing a type of cherry picking taking place, whereby European citizens can move their domicile and can decide, for their own advantage, to initiate proceedings in a court where they would get more favourable treatment. We must examine this situation.
My final point about the amendment is that it contains a final surviving absurdity, that is, it states that the law already gives some recognition to pre-nuptial agreements. However, I heard the Minister say that pre-nuptial agreements are traditionally held to be void by the courts. The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, is signalling otherwise so perhaps the Minister said that they were previously held to be void. Perhaps the position has changed slightly.
(6 o’clock)
I thank the Chair for allowing me to contribute to the debate. I would prefer this issue, which involves marriage, divorce, pre-nuptial agreements and the rights of same-sex couples, to be dealt with in its entirety.