I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This short Bill has two main purposes. The first is to determine a statutory minimum age for marriage; the second is to eliminate difficulties or doubts which the present legislation relating to marriage causes and to make some urgent amendments of the existing law relating to marriages.
Deputies will remember that a former Marriages Bill was circulated in 1965 and lapsed on the dissolution of the Dáil. This present Bill is much the same measure with some amendments and the addition of other provisions which have accrued since then. These provisions and amendments, the consequential consultations which were themselves rather lengthy, and legal complexities which were encountered, added up to considerable delay in bringing the new measure before the House.
Before speaking about the detailed provisions of the Bill, I would like to make some observations of a general kind. Deputies will see that this is an interim measure which makes no pretence of establishing a new marriage code. Its modest aim is to make desirable and rather urgent changes of a limited character. Most of the provisions of the Bill could, I think, be described as liberalising provisions; they either meet a specific need or remove or modify an existing restriction or give an additional power which has been sought or welcomed by the denomination concerned.
I would like to bring openly into the picture the relevant parts of the report of the Dáil Committee on the Constitution of December, 1967. The committee commented in paragraphs 128 and 129 of the report in the following terms—and I quote:
128. Article 44.2.3º0 (of the Constitution) provides that—
"The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the grounds of religious profession, belief or status."
Under the Marriage Acts different conditions are prescribed for marriages performed in accordance with the rites of (I) the Church of Ireland, (II) the Presbyterian Church, (III) other Protestant Churches, (IV) the Jewish Religion. These conditions relate to prior residence, district where the marriage is to be celebrated and place and time of the marriage. No similar conditions are laid down in connection with Roman Catholic marriages.
It appears that the Marriage Acts are now being revised but that it may be necessary to continue with the differentiation between the different kinds of marriage ceremonies. The abolition of the conditions relating to the marriage of non-Catholics is not regarded as an advisable step as some of the smaller denominations are not sufficiently organised to ensure that parties who present themselves for marriage are, in fact, free to marry.
129. The opinion has been expressed that these provisions constitute discrimination on the grounds of religious profession or belief within the meaning of Article 44.2.3º0 and that at least the penal provisions of the existing code would be declared not to have been carried over under the Constitution. We recommend that this difficulty be removed by adding a suitable provision to this part of the Constitution to the effect that the prohibitions on religious discrimination shall not prevent the enactment of different procedural rules relating to different kinds of marriage ceremonies with a view to ensuring that all legal rules are complied with by the parties concerned.
To summarise—paragraph 128 of the report spells out differences in law about conditions applicable to Roman Catholics and conditions applicable to other religions. Paragraph 129 quotes an opinion as having been expressed that these differences may be discriminatory for these other religions. The committee do not themselves pronounce on this opinion except by implication in recommending that the Constitution be amended to enable these different conditions to be continued. In so doing the committee, in effect, accepted that the differences should be respected and that any necessary changes should be made in the Constitution itself and not in the law which sets out those differences.
There are some important issues involved here and I want to be quite explicit about my view on them. First of all, it is, of course, correct to say that there are different conditions provided in the law; but I should emphasise that most of them are 100 years old or over. These differences arose for historical and developmental reasons and I sincerely hope that nobody regards them as arising from fresh impositions by the State on anybody—majority or minority. If anybody so regards them, then he is totally wrong.
These differences must be clearly seen as complementary to the rules and regulations of the religious denominations concerned.
Many persons, including myself, would welcome a general overhaul of the marriage laws, a consolidation and codification and modernisation of enactments which, as I have said, go back over 100 years. If this view is supported in the debate on this Bill, then, quite clearly, such a comprehensive measure will come. But, to achieve full effectiveness, I firmly believe that the need for it must be accepted generally and that, in its extent, its content and its timing, religious denominations must have a considerable voice. In matters so delicate, so complex and so important as the marriage laws, which affect every member of the community in one way or another, which are interwoven with religious beliefs and practices, which are interlinked with rights to property, and which have repercussions on the marriage laws of other countries, as they in turn must have on ours, I do not have to stress that the enactment of a comprehensive measure, however essential, will call for thought and care of an exceptional degree in its preparation. It will be a task of considerable difficulty.
The amendments effected by the present Bill are urgent and, even if they have taken a long time to mature, they cannot await the enactment of the comprehensive measure to which I have alluded.
The Bill, I have described as a small one, but it is not so small that the complexity attendant on any amendment of the marriage laws does not clearly emerge. I would not willingly undertake the sponsoring of a Bill of this nature through the Oireachtas were I not fortified, as I am, by the knowledge that the Bill respects those different beliefs and practices and is, in general sought or welcomed by the denominations affected by its provisions.
Where a provision affects one denomination only I think that I can say that in all cases I have given total satisfaction to that denomination. Where it affects more than one, I have endeavoured to afford the highest possible degree of satisfaction taking into account the views put forward and the involvement of the parties commenting.
Deputies should know that widespread consultations regarding this Bill were held with the authorities of religious bodies in the State before the terms of the Bill were formulated. Discussion on other aspects of the Bill were continued after that date. Indeed, in order to ensure that nothing was missed, on the day when circulation of the Bill to Deputies was effected, a letter issued on my instructions to each religious body enclosing a copy of the Bill and explanatory memorandum, inviting each to examine the printed Bill and, if desired, to furnish comments on its contents in time for consideration by me, for consultation with other religious bodies affected by the comments and for the preparation of Committee Stage amendments in appropriate cases. May I take the opportunity of expressing my gratitude for the co-operation so readily given by those so consulted? I shall have amendments to propose on Committee arising from all these actions. May I add also, that if, during the course of the passage of the Bill through the Dáil other desirable amendments are brought to my notice which can conveniently be incorporated in an interim measure, such as this, without delaying its passage unduly, Deputies and members of the denominations concerned may count fully on my good will and understanding.
As to the detailed provisions of the Bill itself, Deputies will already have seen the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill and I shall, therefore, be as brief as possible.
Section 1 prescribes a statutory minimum age of 16 years for male and female parties to a marriage with provision for marriage under that age subject to specified safeguards. This is the first time that a statutory minimum age has been set down here in legislation in this State and in itself this is a major step forward. Up to now reliance has been placed here on the common law under which minimum ages of 12 years for a girl and 14 years for a boy had been settled. I feel that the limits now set may in time come again under review in the light of changing conditions.
May I say that a convention of the United Nations in 1962, relating to marriage ages provided for participating States taking legislative action to specify a minimum age for marriage? Article 2 of that convention reads:
State parties to the present Convention shall take legislative action to specify a minimum age for marriage. No marriage shall be legally entered into by any person under this age, except where a competent authority has granted a dispensation as to age, for serious reasons, in the interests of the intending spouses.
It will be noted that no specific age was mentioned in the convention but a few years later, in 1965, the General Assembly of the United Nations recommended member states to fix the minimum age at not less than 15 years and repeated the reference in the convention to a provision whereby a competent authority may grant "a dispensation as to age, for serious reasons, in the interests of the intending spouses." Deputies will see that I have attempted in the Bill to follow the United Nations convention and recommendation and to keep the interests of the intending spouses at all times to the fore.
The numbers of marriages of persons, one of whom was under 16 years of age, are averaging about 30 a year and the statistics indicate that the great majority of those marriages were Roman Catholic.
Section 2 deals with a small number of Catholic marriages of Irish people contracted in Lourdes, by religious ceremony only, before the passing of the Act, where the requirements of the French civil law were not complied with. That law requires marriages to be by civil process whether or not a religious ceremony is also performed. In this country there is no separate civil ceremony and the Catholic marriage ceremony is, of course, recognised as legally valid. The number of marriages involved was 33 and the period covered was 1953 to 1960, when the practice ceased. It has been argued that, under common law, the courts here would surely recognise as valid in form marriages by religious ceremony only of Irish citizens at Lourdes. It is undesirable, however, that the validity of such marriages should be left for determination to ad hoc legal argument and determination by court proceedings and I am satisfied that this is a matter which should be settled by legislation once and for all. It is not a recurring problem; but I should point out that the section does not affect future marriages and, therefore, that Irish people if they marry abroad, whether in Lourdes or elsewhere, should satisfy themselves, that all legal requirements of the State in which the marriage is celebrated, are complied with.
Section 3 deals with certain marriages of members of the Church of Ireland. Some churches of the Church of Ireland have, in the past, been amalgamated or closed and the districts of the closed church or amalgamated church should have been attached for marriage purposes to a church which was still open. The section provides for any case where this was not done in good time.
Section 4 is of interest to the members of the Jewish faith and authorises the secretary of a synagogue to appoint a deputy to act for him to make the necessary registrations under the marriage laws if he is absent through illness or other reasons. This is a practical step to remedy an omission in the existing law.
Section 5 is of special interest to members of the smaller denominations which have very few churches and where marriages are performed on presentation of a licence or a certificate obtained from the district registrar of marriages. It will dispense with a residence qualification which has caused inconvenience up to now in obtaining registrars licences or certificates to marry. At present it is necessary for a person who is a member of one of certain religious denominations who wishes to be married in the church of his own faith by his own clergyman to live for at least 23 days in the registrar's district in which the church in which the marriage is to be solemnised is situated. When there is no church of his own faith in the registrar's district in which he normally resides, this involves a temporary change of residence. For example, it has sometimes meant coming to live in Dublin for this period although the person might reside ordinarily in Kerry or Donegal. This special residence requirement will now be dropped and the necessary residence qualification can be established in the district of normal residence.
Section 6 modifies the present law about the marriage of a person or persons under 21. Where a parent or guardian of a minor refuses permission to marry, the minor may at present appeal to the president of the High Court. In future under section 6 an appeal may be made in appropriate cases to the High Court. The same procedure will in future apply to cases where there is no parent or guardian and in this case the provision will stop a loop-hole in the existing law. Deputies will notice the provision whereby the Minister may by regulations reduce the age of 21 to a lesser age. If the voting age is reduced to 18, for example, a similar reduction in the age mentioned in the section would seem appropriate. I intend to move a Committee amendment which will effect certain changes in the provisions of this section.
Section 7 of the Bill will change the words "Meeting House" to the word "Church" and will bring the legal titles into line with the usage of the Presbyterian Church.
Section 8 gives the Assistant to an tArd-Chláraitheoir the same formal statutory powers in relation to marriages as he now has in relation to births and deaths.
Section 9 is concerned with the marriage in registrars' offices of members of the Church of Christ Scientist. Notice of intended marriage in these cases must now be published in the newspapers. In future this will not be necessary and the notice of marriage may be sent to the secretary of the church.
Section 10 removes a restriction on Church of Ireland marriage procedures occasioned by the strict wording of an Act of 1870 relating to those marriages. The reference in the Act to church rules in force in 1870 is being altered to relate to church rules in force from time to time.
Section 11 is of interest to members of the Church of Ireland who have continued to worship in a particular church after moving to another area. A typical example is where persons move from the centre city to the suburbs. One of the parties who intend to marry by ordinary licence is now required to live for at least 14 days in the district of the central city church if they want to marry in that church. This causes inconvenience. The section provides that this residence requirement will not be necessary if one of the parties has been a member of the congregation of the church for a period of three months before the marriage.
Sections 12 and 13 deal with statutory provisions about special licences. Special licences under the law are issued by specified religious leaders who may authorise the marriage of persons of the same religion as themselves at any time, without residential qualification, and in any place. These powers exist for over a century. Sections 12 and 13 provide that, in future, only one of the parties to the marriage need be of the religion of the person issuing the licence. Section 13 also authorises the Chief Rabbi to issue special licences; this is a new power in his case.
Section 14 will enable two or more religious bodies to combine in the use of one building for marriage services by the religious bodies if they wish to do so. Legal difficulties sometimes exist about the use of temporary buildings for marriage purposes where, for example, the main church building is being reconstructed or has been destroyed by fire. Subsection (2) of section 14 makes the necessary amendments about this.
Section 15 authorises an tArdChláraitheoir to issue a special licence for a marriage which would ordinarily be performed in a registrar's office if one of the parties is so seriously ill that he is not expected to recover and he or she could not travel to the registrar's office for the ceremony. This will relieve hardship in the occasional cases of this nature which arise from time to time.
Section 16 repeals the various statutory requirements whereby marriages solemnised by various religious denominations may be solemnised only between the hours of 8 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon. In future they may legally be solemnised at any time. A time restriction is maintained in the case of registrars' offices only; but in this case the hour during which marriages may take place are being extended. The present hours are from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. The new hours will be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
These, then, are the provisions of the Bill to which I hope Deputies will give a ready assent.
