John Lyons (Dublin North West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill, which is one that has been some time in the making. It is exceptionally positive. Much of the time, people who occasionally glance into the political world in the Dáil Chamber might ask about the relevance of some of the Bills passed through the House. Although we might know how relevant each Bill is that becomes law, the Children and Family Relationships Bill is one to which everyone can relate because of its vast, positive impact on society and how we view the diverse types of family life that exist.

One could ask what is the purpose of a law. For me it is about protecting citizens, reflecting the society in which we live and enhancing the quality of life of everyone in society. In themselves, laws should never intend to displace citizens or create a hierarchy of citizenship. In essence, the Children and Family Relationships Bill, of which we are debating the technicalities, is really about the vast, collective human story of Irish people – families, Mams and Dads, and children. It is about recalibrating the legal perspective of how we view family life and the lives of children in this country in terms of the legal protection offered to them.

I wish to keep the debate straightforward. Most speakers will focus on the technicalities of the Bill. The thrust of the Bill is about creating better family law that represents the type of society in which we live. Let us be honest: whether it is good, bad or indifferent, a one-size-fits-all law is not a good way for a progressive, inclusive society to do business. Previous family law, especially in the early days of the State, did create a hierarchy. It excluded people rather than including them. Perhaps that was unintentional, or perhaps it was intended to create a particular type of society or values, but the knock-on effect was that it relegated many people to the shadows of society. When we do that and the law does not recognise people, the effects include stigma and the creation of cultural norms. A hierarchy develops in terms of who we view as important. In the past, the fact that one lived with one's granny, through no fault of one's own, was something of which one might have felt ashamed. Questions were asked about the reason a person did not live with his or her mother or father or why someone’s parents were not married. In the past, the legislative solution to people who did not fit the norm was to send unmarried women with children to mother and baby homes. That was the type of law that was created in the past, which had the knock-on effect of creating a stigma against some types of family that existed. It was not acceptable to do that back then and it certainly is not acceptable now. Thankfully, we have addressed the issue. The Bill before us will create a new platform, one that tries to right the wrongs that have always existed in family law and to include the excluded who were never even acknowledged in family law but exist none the less.

Unfortunately, as legislators we can get caught up much of the time in the legislation. I remind the House that behind the Bill is the human story of the reality of life. Life is not what advertisements try to sell us on the front page of a travel brochure - the perfect family with two children in the swimming pool and Mammy and Daddy passing the beach ball to them. We must recognise that families exist in many forms. That is exactly what the Bill aims to do. It is trying to get rid of the stigma that has often been attached to hundreds and perhaps thousands of families. Particularly in the 1970s, when I was growing up, it took a brave single parent to rear a child because it was not culturally accepted. In previous times, when girls got pregnant at a very young age they could be forced to get married because it was the thing to do. The effect of this was a very unhappy relationship for the adults involved and sometimes traumatised relationships for children in such situations. That was not right.

Overall, I wholeheartedly commend what the Bill seeks to do. Its purpose is to create a modern platform to put every child and his or her family circumstances on an equal footing and to get rid of the cultural stigma that was previously attached to families. I hope it will create a gateway into the future whereby we will view families for who they are and accept that while they are all different, importantly, they have equal protection under the State. As a secondary school teacher for 13 years I am all too familiar with the diverse families who presented in schools. I have encountered teenagers who lived with their grandparents due to very tragic family circumstances, some who did not know one of their parents, and others who were living with a parent and his or her new partner. Laws are only good if we reflect the people who live in society. That is what the Bill seeks to do.

I was very disappointed with the approach taken by some elements of the media, including those whom I hold in high regard. I accept that they have bosses who pay their wages. It is very disappointing that a Bill with 170 sections was described on the front page of one of the leading broadsheets as the gay adoption Bill, given that the vast majority of those who will benefit from the Bill are heterosexual families. One of my colleagues mentioned this morning that 36% of children are currently born out of marriage, which is approximately one in three. Currently, there are approximately 230 families involving same-sex couples. It is very disappointing and misleading to give a title to a Bill which is much more far-reaching than its effect on gay and lesbian people, as if that was what the Bill was about. There is a very important connection between the Bill and future events, but the Bill should not be seen in that way because it is about recognising families that were not previously allowed to exist under the law in this country and that were essentially airbrushed out of society.

I thought I had more time, but as I do not, I will bring my contribution to a conclusion. The ancient philosopher Aristotle developed a concept known as "human flourishing". It subsequently became known by others through the centuries as "the good life". Essentially, his concept was that every human being is good and decent in his or her own right, and in the right circumstances each person can thrive and reach his or her full potential. He believed we should always ensure that the right environment is created in order for people to flourish or to lead the good life. For far too long in society we have prevented people and sectors of society from leading the good life. When we eventually create laws that allow every individual - be it through gender recognition, gay and lesbian rights or children who are raised by diverse or blended families, which is the term used today - to reach his or her full potential, society as a whole benefits. If I am correct, when Martin Luther King marched on Washington he spoke about the white people who turned up at the march. He said they were there not because of the lack of rights afforded to their black fellow citizens, but because, by not giving black citizens full rights, white citizens in America were denied access to a better society. That comes back to the concept of human flourishing. We create a two-tier society if we continue to allow people to live in the shadows of society. The Bill is long overdue. I commend the previous Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, the current Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, and the officials in the Department, as I am aware that the preparation of the legislation has been exceptionally tricky.

The real impact of this will be felt by the people we all know who are single parents, parents who have chosen not to get married, which they are entitled to do, children who live with their grandparents and same-sex loving couples who have children from a previous relationship. They should all be entitled to equal protection under the law. Families de factoare unusual. If one asks two people living next door to each other about the traditional family, both of them will say that every family is a little bit diverse, even the one in the picture on the front of the brochure with two parents playing ball with two children on their summer holidays.

See this speech in context