Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I thank the Cathaoirleach for giving me the opportunity to second Senator Henry's motion. I admit that when Senator Henry took me through her views on this a couple of weeks ago, I was unaware of the intricacies and problems involved. She has articulated these very well in a number of areas. I commend her for introducing the motion and I have much pleasure in seconding it.

I hope this debate, together with the publication last week of the report of the Law Reform Commission, will spur the Government into action. I seek an indication that it will approach the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights Act in a proactive way. I was disappointed that the Government put down an amendment which does not encourage a proactive approach. Senator Henry put down a non-aggressive motion hoping there would not be an amendment. The Government's amendment states that Seanad Éireann "calls on the relevant members of the Government to keep the law on these matters under review and bring forward legislative proposals on them as appropriate." If there is such a thing as putting something on the long finger, this is it. The wording of this amendment could have been more proactive and could have given Senator Henry's motion some more attention.

I hope the State will not wait to be taken to court before it brings about changes in our legal system. If that was all we did as a result of the European Convention on Human Rights Act, it would be a passive, grudging and unworthy approach. If, as I hope, we approach the Act positively, we will seek to search out those of our laws and procedures that conflict with the convention and put them right before we are compelled to do so. That is the essence of tonight's debate. Nowhere is this more necessary than in the field of family law, which has not caught up with either the changes in European practice or the changes that have been happening before our eyes in this society.

As Senator Henry said, things have changed. The world in general, and Ireland in particular, have changed vastly since the Constitution was first enacted in 1937. In those days it made perfect sense to define the concept of the family as a group based on marriage because at that time that was overwhelmingly the norm. There was practically nothing else. Nowadays, as we all know, that is no longer the case. There are many single-parent families. Senator Henry mentioned some figures in this area. We have an even larger number of people living together outside the framework of marriage, with or without children. It is vitally important that our law should change in step with these changes in our society.

What is the purpose of family law? It is not to protect or promote the institution of marriage, however much some of us might want to.