Maurice Hayes (Independent)

I congratulate Senator Norris on his helpful contribution which, as always, was very stimulating. I am grateful to Senator Henry and her colleagues for bringing this matter forward for debate and to the Minister for the way in which he responded to it. I agree with the Minister that the House should not divide on this issue. We all seem to be heading in the same direction, possibly at different speeds. Therein may lie a compromise because Senator Henry described the amendment as the longest of long fingers. If the Minister could give an assurance that it was not a long finger but that these matters would be brought forward quickly, in due course it might be possible to withdraw the motion and the amendment. It is wise in these matters to wait until the consultation period of the Law Reform Commission has been completed. I recognise too the very helpful contribution of Archbishop Brady to that debate.

We need to be concerned about children. I support Senator Norris' view on long-term domestic arrangements rather than marriage and I would continue to make that distinction. A happy and stable marriage is the best place in which to raise children. There are, however, some marriages, which are awful places in which to rear children. Stable and loving relationships, however structured, are as conducive to the solidity and stability of society as many others. Times are changing. I was Chairman of the Mater Hospital in Belfast for several years and the midwives told me that a generation ago unmarried mothers coming in would buy or borrow a cheap ring in order not to be conspicuous in the ward. Now the married women take off their rings.

We may ultimately need to consider a constitutional amendment too. There is always a problem with constitutional provisions founded on a particular view of society at a given time and on a certain set of social mores because mores change. The family has changed. I commend to the Minister a very useful book by a French sociologist, Philippe Aries, Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life which traces that change. While I acknowledge the form of marriage and family based on the nuclear family that obtained at the time of the drafting of the Constitution and which continues, this is changing for many reasons and we must recognise that fact.

I am concerned at the idea that there should be a marital relationship, which is somehow more "pukka" than a non-marital one because it creates the danger of stigmatisation. It requires a great deal of thought and discussion and I can understand why the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution shied away from it because when one moves away from the rock of the definition of the family created by marriage, it is extremely difficult to find a form of words to encapsulate the other types of relationships that exist. As long as our debate is informed by a sense of decency and respect for the individual, of the value of difference, and recognises that we must deal with people as they are and that life is changing, we have started a useful and helpful debate which I hope continues. We should wait until the Law Reform Commission completes its consultation.

The Minister might think it useful for the Human Rights Commission to compare and contrast the positions of protection available in Ireland with the EU Convention and others. I would like us to agree that the debate should go on and that it is not necessary for us to divide the House. I commend the debate and I was particularly struck by the content and humanity of the Minister's response. These are the values that we must recognise.