A pre-nup is a contract two partners sign before entering into a marriage. One of the less romantic processes before tying the knot, a pre-nup allows husband and wife to outline their assets and reach an agreement on how property and finances would be divided in the event of the marriage failing.

Generally, custodial issues are also dealt with regarding existing or future offspring.

De rigueur in the US for wealthy couples, pre-nups are also legal in Canada and Australia and are gaining popularity in Europe.

Instances of pre-nups have also risen in the UK, although like here, they are not legally binding . . . they are, however, often more influential in divorce cases, as Britain has none of the constitutional blockades that currently complicate the status of prenups in Irish law.

Inevitably, the idea of pre-nups has now come to our shores. In February 2003, the keynote speaker at a family law conference in Dublin heard that it would only be a matter of time before the law is forced to recognise the place that pre-nuptial agreements have in modern marriages. Clearly, that time has come.

What's with the sudden Irish interest?

Pre-nuptial agreements have always been held by Irish courts to be void on the basis that no contract envisaging the dissolution of a marriage should be enforceable. But since divorce became legal in 1996, that basis has been weakened. The state is now considering allowing pre-nuptial agreements to have legitimacy before the courts.

On Wednesday, the Senate passed a motion calling for an expert working group to be appointed to produce a report examining the current state of pre-nuptial agreements in Irish courts. The consequences of their possible introduction will also be investigated.

In family law courts in Ireland, assets are usually halved and shared, generally meaning that the male partner loses out. With our divorce rate rising . . . and two farming couples a week separating and causing disputes over the division of land . . . it's probably time to examine what pre-nuptial agreements could add to the landscape of marriage breakdowns.

Where do we stand at the moment?

The courts have no statutory obligation to consider the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement during divorce proceedings. But there is also no statutory bar to their consideration. In fact, if such an agreement does exist, it can form part of the case, and be considered in court as it shows the intentions of the partners at the time of making the agreement, pre-marriage. But at the same time, a pre-nuptial agreement at the moment has far less influence on the final decision than the factors a family court is required to consider by law.

The courts currently have the jurisdiction to decide on maintenance payments, lump-sum payments, property and pension adjustment orders upon divorce. The introduction of a legal recognition of pre-nuptial agreements would guide the courts regarding the couple's own wishes, depending on the content of the agreement. Such clauses could contain 'penalties' for the circumstances of a marriage break-up or infidelity, or other more pleasant agreements, such as one reached between actors Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas, which sees the former reportedly 'earn' $2.8m per year of marriage.

Surely if you need a pre-nuptial, you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place?

That's what the purists would say. But in this uncertain world, you never know when your husband will leave you for a 9/11 widow, or your wife attempts to pull a 'Mills' and take half of your billion-plus fortune. So reality often overrides romance.

Pre-nups are big in the world of celebrity. Then again, so is divorce. Not signing a pre-nup is generally seen as a public declaration of true love. Paul McCartney refused to sign one before his marriage to Heather Mills. He now looks to lose a fair chunk of his 1.5bn fortune Are pre-nups just for the rich?

Regarding the division of assets, more or less, the answer is yes. Otherwise, why would you bother hiring a lawyer to draw up a document over who gets the Sopranos box set and the GHD?

A spate of massive settlements in the 1980s and 1990s . . . notably Rupert Murdoch's settlement with Anna Torv in 1998, which earned her $1.7bn . . . prompted a reevaluation by the super-rich who wanted to save their assets if/when their marriages ended. Pre-nuptial agreements were created.

On the other hand, one of the key elements is custody and welfare of children attached to the married couple. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are rumoured to be considering penning a pre-nup that refers only to their children in the event of a split.

And let's face it, it's probably a good move given their track record with marriage.

Who is seeking the introduction of pre-nuptial agreements to Ireland?

Our politicians appear to be in favour of their introduction, or at least the idea of it.

Fine Gael Senator Fergal Browne proposed the motion originally, McDowell also supports the concept, as does Independent Senator David Norris. Fianna Fail Senator Dr Martin Mansergh supports the idea of a study of the relevance of prenuptial agreements to Irish society.

When can we expect them to come into force?

According to the Department of Justice, the committee that will look into the issues surrounding pre-nups is yet to be appointed, so there is no immediate action planned.

Paddy Power bookmakers, as usual, have jumped on the legislative bandwagon, offering odds on the timing of the introduction of pre-nuptial agreements. They've set 6/1 odds on pre-nups being introduced to Ireland and recognised by Irish law before 1 February next year, while it's 5/8 on a date after January 2008.

And if you're so inclined, there are also odds on the next celebrity to sign a pre-nup, with Eddie Irvine at 3/1, Robbie Keane at 6/1 and Brian O'Driscoll at 16/1.