Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi yesterday formally announced that the government would be “confidently” voting for the opposition’s motion on the setting up of a Standing Committee on Family Affairs, with a few “minor” amendments agreed on during inter-party talks.

One of the proponents of the original motion, Labour MP Carmelo Abela, later withdrew the motion and replaced it with an agreed version seconded by Family Affairs Minister Dolores Cristina.

The idea of setting up a new committee to deal exclusively with the family, when the Social Affairs Committee was already doing a lot of work in that area, had initially been opposed by government speakers.

At the start of his speech, Dr Gonzi said he had already called the debate intrinsically important for the subject it treated, which was relevant at any time but even more so in the present circumstances. It had been the government’s conscious decision to bring the opposition’s motion up for debate immediately after the referendum result, independently of the outcome, because of its extraordinary importance.

He said there was now an instrument that focused the nation back to essential matters after the divisions of the referendum campaign with its passionate arguments. The point of departure of both campaigns had been common: the appreciation and wish for marriage.

His sentiments were of disquiet, with the people having had to go through rough times and still needing to settle down to the result. It was not common for MPs to find themselves in such circumstances.

There were MPs who still felt strongly that marriage should be a permanent institution but others who had departed from a negative position on divorce and were now thinking otherwise out of respect for the electorate’s mandate. Yet others felt their conscience was not a “question of majority”.

The solution to all this was mutual respect, because the family was a national jewel.

Dr Gonzi said he was hurt by the immense pressure being brought to bear on a number of MPs, who needed to feel serene on the way to vote in Parliament. It was useless for one to be asked how one would vote because the procedure had only just started.

Votes in the House were taken openly because all MPs were accountable to the people they represented. The people wanted their representatives to speak sincerely.

At first the government had suggested a sub-committee of the Social Affairs Committee, which had done so much through the years. He was now accepting the opposition’s insistence on a fully-fledged standing committee for family affairs. This was the way to attach more importance to the committee’s work. Dr Gonzi said he felt almost a double personality, insisting so much on the family’s value while having accepted the electorate’s vote in favour of divorce. The latter was the result of failure of a first marriage, but the new committee would help the family face its problems.

The nation had gone through so many changes that it probably was not conscious enough of their extent. But most had been changes for the better. All administrations had given the country the best possible in the circumstances, and both sides were very much in order to boast of what the country, rather than one party or another, had achieved.

In spite of the achievements there were still families that needed extra care in their circumstances. But care should be taken that the committee should not duplicate the efforts of so many other agencies and government departments in addressing certain sectors of priority.

Dr Gonzi said that among modern challenges there was the finding of a balance between the duties of working parents and the upbringing of their children. The government had forged ahead of the private sector with family-friendly measures. Their utilisation had more than doubled in most government departments, even though it was not always possible to accede to all requests.

He appealed to the private sector to understand the advantages of adopting similar family-friendly measures, which had helped so many families to achieve much-needed balance between work and family.

The sectors which he thought should form the new committee’s priorities included helping families that were already strong to enhance their standard of living; how to increase and enhance occupational flexibility; and family health and environment in general. Even those families that did not seem to be in difficulty deserved attention.

Families passed through different phases and their needs changed accordingly, especially as their children developed. It was no good talking about families as if one size fit all. Different circumstances called for different solutions, and it was hoped the committee would do well with the expertise it could command.

It would be expected to do much for the more vulnerable and for those preparing for permanent marriage. He saluted the huge contribution the Church had made towards such preparation.

Dr Gonzi said there were families with particular difficulties, such as unemployment or redundancy especially at an advanced age. A lot had already been done in this area to help, even with better use of ETC schemes. It was important to see how to help families in separation procedures, and how to help the courts with their judicial procedures. The Family Court had achieved a lot, and more could be done across party lines.

The committee must focus closely on families which needed much practical support, especially mental and psychological, with sensitive attitudes in times of sickness.

It was not right to hear of single parents being stigmatised and put in the same measure. Every single parent meant a child was involved, an innocent victim needing all possible support.

Dr Gonzi hoped the commission’s agenda would also include childless couples, as well as foster and adoptive parents and aged couples reluctant to enter old people’s homes.

Concluding, he genuinely hoped to see the committee working with political consensus across the board, because by so doing it would strengthen such a fundamental institution as the family.