As amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 1, perhaps Deputy O'Leary would agree to discuss the two together?
Marriages Bill, 1972: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
Yes. I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, subsection (1), line 8, to delete "sixteen" and substitute "eighteen."
In discussing this Bill on the last occasion I thought we were a trifle irresponsible in introducing the age of 16 as the statutory minimum age of marriage in this country. In the light of the legislative background to our marriage law, our fundamental law under the Constitution, providing that ours is a society which permits no dissolution of the marriage bond, it struck me that as a general rule 16 was too early an age for any young person, no matter what the safeguards, to make a decision that would be binding for life.
Last year I think the number under the age of 16 who were getting married was about 30 and so it is not a very widespread problem. I accept that the marriage age of 16 in the Bill allows of exceptions which are mentioned as being permitted by the church or religious body involved. My amendment to make the age 18 would also permit of exceptions and would not prohibit all marriages under that age. It would simply say that the law sets the statutory minimum age for marriage at 18 and would permit of exceptions where necessary and approved. In regard to giving permission for people under the age of 18 to marry the bodies mentioned in the Bill as competent to give that permission for exceptions are solely religious bodies. I ask that there should be a place for parents when such permission is granted for a marriage under the minimum age. There is no amendment to that effect but it is certainly the spirit of my amendment that if the amendment were carried and the minimum marriage age becomes 18, obviously there should be a place for consultation with the parents involved as well as the religious authorities.
Some may think it is a bit of a joke that anybody should pause or ponder about the minimum age for marriage in this country. I think it is a very serious matter. I do not believe in the possibility that by any legislative means we can prevent the wrong people marrying each other; obviously we cannot; our legislation cannot remove all unhappiness from human affairs. In latter years, too, we have become rather sceptical about the possibility of passing laws which would promote the good of the greatest number at any one time but at least we all realise that any legislation we pass or any social system we may yet create cannot abolish unhappiness or provide automatic happiness for the majority.
But we have the duty as legislators in this Assembly to go on our own experience and make up our minds as to whether this legislation we are passing is for the benefit of the community and would serve the interests of those whose interests it purports to serve. From my own experience as a working Deputy, listening to constituents over the past seven or eight years, I should say that, considering the problems that lie in the path of married couples, we should not pass airily into legislation the idea that a proper age to make a contract of matrimony which is binding for life would be the age of 16 and that would be regarded as the minimum age. I think that would be irresponsible legislation.
The fundamental law of the State under our Constitution accords the highest praise and gives a very august place in our legislation to marriage as an institution and our Constitution which will be only slightly amended by the removal of Article 44, will continue in full flower the various constitutional provisions in relation to the family, woman's place being in the home and, in the social directives part, all the fine things it has to say about the important place the family has in Irish society. So, it would be part of the same bombastic rhetoric—that is what it is when contrasted with the reality of the Irish marriage; the inadequate things we do, the absence of any real help for the family in the actual conditions of Irish society—if we were to set the minimum age at 16. This would be to continue in much the same vein of rhetoric unrelated to the reality of the family in Irish society because the family in our society is not catered for; it is not looked after in our social welfare code.
Until we come to the point where we can say in our social legislation that there is in existence a charter for the family in Irish society we cannot say we are giving the family the place it is given in our Constitution. Our entire welfare system looks at the individual in isolation; the sick in isolation, the deserted wife, the father out of work. None of our legislation looks at the family in the circumstances of Irish society and attempts to assist them.
We know that a man with five children earning £20 per week is living below the poverty line. How many such families are there in a country where the Constitution guarantees the family so high a place? There are thousands of families living below the poverty line; neither our legislation nor our social welfare system gives them any help. There is this contrast in our attitude towards the family. It costs very little to give the highest praise in the Constitution to the family as a unit but in material terms little of the nation's wealth is given to the family in want, in sickness, or in trouble.
This does not arise on the Deputy's amendments which deal with the matter of age.
It does not arise on the Bill.
We are legislating for the minimum age of marriage in this country. I am making the point that the age of 16 is too young an age for any couple to make a decision that will be binding on them for life and I am suggesting the age should be 18 years. There is no guarantee that at 18 years people will not make mistakes, that they will not marry the wrong people, but I am suggesting that at 18 years a couple have a greater opportunity to consider certain of the problems they will have to face. If we pass this legislation setting out the minimum age at 16 years, the problems of young couples will be more acute when one considers the deprived situation of the family in Ireland who are below a certain income level. In conscience we could not pass such legislation unless we were doing far more than we are doing for the family who are below a certain income level. There are marriages that are formally called marriages where the family relationship has broken down totally because of the lack of concern shown to them and the lack of help given to them in their financial and other troubles.
In view of the problems that beset married couples in Irish society, problems of which a couple of 16 years could not be aware, it would be a grave error to pass legislation setting out the minimum age of marriage at 16 years. Even considering parental consent and the various exceptions made here, it would be irresponsible on our part to pass this legislation. It would be committing the same kind of error that was committed in our Constitution. In our Constitution we pay many rhetorical tributes to the family but in reality we give very little aid to it. Just because we say in our Constitution that there is no dissolution of marriage it appears we have waved away a problem. So we think, but I suggest that in our aid to the family we do very little to keep it together.
This does not arise on the Deputy's amendments. It has nothing to do with the section. The Deputy's amendments deal with the question of age. He is going outside the ambit of the Bill in this discussion.
I am talking about marriage in our community. The feature of marriage in our society is that it is a contract for life and this is why this is such a serious matter. It would not be so serious a matter if it were not a life contract. That is the reason I am suggesting that the statutory age should be 18 years. There is a great deal of hypocrisy surrounding our approach to marriage; we do little to help the institution of the family although we pay it much lip-service.
We do not assist young married couples to buy their own houses. In fact, there is no possibility for most of them to buy their own homes. A man earning £30 a week finds it practically impossible to pay a deposit for a house; we do not assist the deserted wife because the income of £5.15 per week we give her is inadequate, as is the amount of £1.35 given for each child.
These are some of the reasons why this is an important and serious matter. We should not airily pass into legislation a statutory age of 16 years considering the difficult circumstances of married partners in Irish society. Those below a certain income level are in a very difficult position. Anyone who has been looking at this problem in the last few years in a city context will realise that there are many families here who find it impossible to make ends meet. Marriages are breaking up because of economic difficulties. Whatever constitutional measures may be involved, fundamentally it is the economic straits of the Irish family that are mainly behind the greatest amount of marital unhappiness.
We should ponder and consider the results of our action before we put into legislation the idea that people can make this decision at the age of 16 years, at least until our society does more to help the family. In a society that gives no support to the family, this minimum age is too young. At any age the decision to marry is a serious one in society, but 16 years is too early an age for any young couple to anticipate the problems they will meet.
We all know how families below a certain income level find it very difficult to keep going. We are all aware of the mother of the large family, or of the family that is existing in poverty-stricken circumstances, who is a nervous wreck. Many such people are frequently treated in out-patient departments so bad and so harsh are the emotional disturbances of such families who are faced with the daily struggle of living in our society.
Unless we consider more seriously the plight of the family in society, unless we consider what aids and help we can give it, very soon in Ireland marriage will become a luxury of the rich because the poor will no longer be able to afford it. We must consider very seriously any formal legislation passed here setting an age limit for people marrying. We cannot pass that legislation with the comfortable feeling that the married couple will go out into a society which gears its social aids properly, guarantees a minimum income, and believes in giving the married couple a chance amidst the economic hazards. Instead, they will go out into a society which has a harsh 19th century view of marriage, a society which says that if you sink in the economic seas that is too bad but the State will not assist you, a society which gives a great deal of lip-service to the Christian ideals of marriage but which has, in fact, the capitalist view of the 19th century and which could not be more harsh in its approach to the marriage contract.
Unless we do something about this very soon, marriage will become a luxury of the rich because the poor will not be able to afford it in Irish society. We must think again before we say 16 years is the correct age at which people may marry. Those who disagree with me may say that only a tiny minority are involved but it seems to me that, if the minimum age for marriage can be as low as 16 years, we are giving a false lead to the country. The House is being irresponsible because we all know that the contract upon which people are entering is a lifelong one in our society. We all know that families on a certain income limit can be in very serious trouble indeed. We all know that the housing situation is inadequate, that the social welfare system is inadequate, and that the question of looking after children is not reflected in our Social Welfare code.
In that type of society the majority of Deputies are willing to accept 16 years as the statutory age for marriage. I do not share that opinion and that is why I put down this amendment. I ask the Minister to reconsider his approach. He explained that he would prefer a more comprehensive Marriages Bill. He explained that this Bill was introduced some years ago, that it is now the product of a great deal of consultation and that, if we hesitate any longer or postpone a decision, there is little likelihood of any legislation being introduced to improve the situation. I accept the Minister's sincerity but, if we cannot have a comprehensive Marriages Bill, at least whatever changes are introduced should go in the correct direction as far as possible. I do not think this is the case in relation to the minimum age in this Bill.
The Minister said he agreed there was some point in the suggestion to raise the minimum age above 16 years. The point can be made that we could lower the age for voting from 21 years to 18 years, and the minimum age for marriage should be raised to 18 years if we are serious about the effects of this legislation on the couples who will be involved. The Bill permits of exceptions where necessary. In the case of these exceptions I would hope that the parents would also be consulted as well as religious bodies. So far as I can see in the Bill as it stands there is only place for the religious bodies.
We cannot pass legislation of this kind in vacuo. We cannot pass this legislation without considering the place of the family as we know it in the society in which we live. We cannot cod ourselves about the problems facing men and women and their children in Ireland today. We know the problems they face and how ineffectual our legislation is to meet that situation. Therefore, how can we pass this legislation airily and say that 16 years is the age at which young people can face the terrible problems posed for those who marry in Irish society?
This contract is lasting for children and parents, in a society which gives little aid to the family, a society which is rich in plámás for the ideals of the family. In the Constitution we pay a great tribute to the idea of the family, the sanctity of the family and woman's place being in the home but, in reality, little is done to help the family. No assistance is given to the family in trouble. Many families are in trouble today in this country. There may be contributory factors but the major cause of that trouble is the financial one. I am sure Deputies are aware that there are married women who weep all day when they consider their financial problems.
It does not arise on the Bill.
We cannot consider this Bill in isolation from the way families exist in our society. We must consider the family. My general contention is that we do little in our social legislation to defend the institution of the family. It would be irresponsible for us to pass this legislation when we consider how little has been done. It would be otherwise if our social legislation sincerely attempted to protect the family. In such a situation my reservations about the minimum age limit of 16 years would disappear but, as it is, I cannot see how in good conscience we can legislate a minimum age of 16 years.
Some of us might go a certain distance with Deputy O'Leary on this matter and I am sure he is quite sincere in what he has said about a minimum age limit of 18 years. In introducing this legislation the Minister said:
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.
Bringing the limit up to 16 years is at least a step in the right direction. Surely it would be a matter for the parents to advise their children, with the guidance of ministers of their own religion. I know the Minister would have preferred to bring in a completely new Marriages Bill but, at this stage, I think we would be wrong if we objected to increasing the minimum age limit to 16. I am sure girls and boys of that age will be properly advised by their parents and by the leaders of their religious denominations. I have no objection to the section.
I have mixed feelings about this Marriages Bill. I have a certain sympathy with the Minister in his attempt to bring in a Marriages Bill. Is it possible to bring in a Marriages Bill which would be of any real value in attempting to mitigate or reduce the amount of hardship which human beings continue to suffer, no matter what we decide here in the Dáil? At the same time, a number of things occur to me in considering this amendment to raise the age from 16 to 18. The odd thing is that the debate should take place exclusively between men, between male Deputies, and we should be trying to decide this very important question without the help of the female side of a marriage. It is such a muslim sort of society in its make-up in that of the 145, 146 or 147 Deputies, there are three or four women and they do not discuss this provision. I think their advice would be very helpful.
When one gets around to this idea of age, one wonders what virtue there is in either 16 or 18. Is there any great virtue in either, any great value? Should there be not only this minimum age limit but a maximum age limit because, as is said frequently, some very foolish marriages are made by people in their sixties, never mind people of 16 years? It is just that the whole idea of deciding that somebody at any age is a mature personality is a complete non sequitur. Age and maturity have little or nothing to do with one another and, therefore, in some ways it could be said that the Minister's 16 and Deputy O'Leary's 18 are equally irrelevant or equally valuable if you wish.
At the same time, Deputy O'Leary's main point is not that he thinks 18 years is better than the Minister's figure. He accepts the fallibility, as I suppose the Minister also accepts the fallibility, of any figure or any age. It is just that in the circumstances of a society in which there are so many more threats to the stability or security of a marriage Deputy O'Leary feels that another two years would be a wise precaution to take so that a person entering into marriage might have a little more experience, a little more understanding, a little more knowledge of quite what this tremendous challenge—probably the greatest single challenge that two human beings enter into and certainly the most demanding contract that two human beings enter into—involves. As he points out, except for the possibility of nullity, of getting an annulment in relation to the Catholic Church in Ireland, there is the absolute permanency of this contract in our particular culture, our society.
For that reason, therefore, I share his concern about the great dangers involved in the whole question of two young persons marrying and his attempt to see that these are reduced to the minimum. The truth, of course, is, as again he pointed out, that you cannot be completely and absolutely protected from making the wrong decision. At the same time, some very happy marriages have been made by people of 40, 50, 60 and 70 and some very unhappy marriages have been made by people of 40 and 50, but where there is the question of the indissolubility of marriage involved, quite obviously all the safeguards that can be put into a law passing through this House should be introduced.
One of the difficulties which all of us face is that the whole idea of marriage, particularly for young people, is so trivialised by mainly women's magazines of one kind or another. Certainly the problems involved are greatly under-estimated and the difficulties involved are not as carefully defined by those who have been married or have been through marriage in order to help young people who wish to get married—not to frighten them but to warn them that marriage can be full of unexpected difficulties which they may not be in a position to deal with or to resolve. While it is true, as all of us have said, that age is not inevitably associated with the breakdown or success of marriage, statistics show that the highest level of divorces in countries where divorces are permitted, the highest percentage of breakdowns occur in the younger marriage group; and if Deputy O'Leary wanted to make a case based on considerations other than his own instincts and the case he made about the indissolubility of the contract, statistically I think he could support his plea to the Minister that in these circumstances the younger age group type of marriage is more likely not to survive the stresses and demands of married life as well as those made at a later age.
There are many factors in all modern societies, and not only our own, which are making it impossible —there is no good in saying difficult —for anybody to try to decide what the ideal preconditions for a happy marriage could or should be, because throughout modern civilisation, in the most advanced communities, even in rigid Muslim-type societies in which a woman has little or no place in the scheme of things, right across to the most permissive sort of society where marriage is entered into without any sense of serious commitment, the whole institution of marriage is seriously under question simply because nobody seems to be able to give any idea what the ideal or essential prerequisites to a happy marriage are.
The Minister could be right in his proposal for 16 years of age and Deputy O'Leary could be right in his suggestion of 18 years. All I can say is that for most of one's professional life one is involved with persons who have entered into marriage, frequently, mostly, I must confess, young people, without understanding the truly superhuman stresses to which they will be subjected throughout their married lives. There is not only the conflict of one immature personality attempting to live with a mature personality but of two immature personalities trying to live together.
There are other factors to which Deputy O'Leary referred. There are the stresses of living in overcrowded conditions, of living in badly designed housing estates, if one is lucky enough to get a house; there are the changing patterns of urban and rural societies, the breaking up of the old family structure with all the wonderful supports there were, particularly in rural areas and in certain parts of cities like Dublin. These are all missing. More frequently young people are finding themselves marrying without the support of their parents, brothers and sisters, people they could lean on in times of stress when the marriage looked like breaking down.
Everybody knows now that the whole institution of marriage is gravely in question. It is in question nearly every year. The question is can it survive and if so how? This concern, this distress I frequently feel when I am presented with two people living together and turning from loving to hating one another. They are finding it intolerable to live together, and to suggest that this is something which must go on and on is the origin of my own concern about issues in which I have become involved in Irish public life, specifically because I have been concerned with the difficulties of young married couples.
There are the questions, naturally, of family planning, the fear of the next child, the stress of a too large family, the lack of the legal rights of the woman in our society in a marriage about to break up, in which there is serious conflict between the two parties——
That does not arise on the Bill.
I was bearing with the Deputy, appreciating he will not dwell on these points.
I still believe it is involved in the conflict between the Minister and Deputy O'Leary on the question of age. The amendment seeks an increase from 16 years to 18. I support Deputy O'Leary's attempt to try to reduce to the minimum the number of young people who enter into marriage, whether they are 18 years, 20 or older, because they may not understand that the contract they are entering is indissoluble, because within that contract there are demands on them from which they cannot escape—for instance, the large family —because there is the threat in our society of the broken home from emigration, because there is the threat in our society of unemployment and bad housing. These factors in our society should colour the kind of laws we pass here.
I could support the Minister's proposal for the age of 16 years if he were to propose it and at the same time say that because the whole process of marriage is a difficult one he would recommend that our society would stand by with certain provisions for protecting the institution, protecting those people who find themselves unable to work that institution—to facilitate them in making their marriages work. Such recommendation should encompass all the things to which we are attempting to draw the House's attention as we pass this Bill.
I do not know why it should be presumed that persons other than the people who are about to get married, whether at 16 years or 18 years, should be put into a position of making a decision as to why a marriage should take place at all. I do not understand why that provision is needed. If there are organisations or institutions which are to be given that authority, I certainly think the parents should be included for the giving of permission to marry. With so many deficiencies and defects in our society, the need for the education of mothers in respect of marriage, and fathers too, the need for the education of mothers in motherhood, the conditions under which many of them will live, the conditions under which most of them will have to have their families, the fact of the indissolubility of the contract, Deputy O'Leary's amendment is a reasonable one and should be accepted by the Minister.
I disagree very much with my colleagues on this amendment and I agree with the Minister. I do not think we have the right to deprive people who are under 18 of the right to marry. We may talk about the social services not being adequate but we must not deprive these people of their right to marry.
We do not.
If we were to raise the age to 18 we might be depriving people. It would be a retrograde, regressive step if we were to do this. In this modern age, when we talk about people maturing at a much earlier age—and we are admitting this fact in calling for a referendum in connection with votes at 18—I wonder why we should be thinking now of shoving the minimum age up from 14 to 18. We are going back to the Victorian era in demanding this. I think any girl or boy is very mature at 16 and I do not see how we could have the right to deprive them of the right to marry. It would be very wrong. We are not saying they should get married at 16. What we are saying is that the minimum age should be 16, which is a completely different thing.
We cannot say, and statistics have not shown, that where people have married younger they have broken up. My experience, as a doctor in family practice, is that those who have got married later in life are more inclined to break up because of incompatibility and not being able to adapt to each other. This is a big problem I have found in my experience as a family doctor. I think this is an important experience. It is not necessarily the younger people who break up.
Of course, we know there should be education and better social services for them but that does not give us the right to legislate against them and that is what this amendment would do. When I went to a former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Neil Blaney, about the housing crisis in Dublin he said to me: "They are marrying too young." He did not get married until he was 38. That to me is illogical. What we should be doing is providing the social services so that people could get married younger.
I was wondering what happened to him.
We are not saying that two people of 16 should marry each other. It may be that a man of 20 or 25 would marry a girl of 17. Does anyone in this House think that is abnormal? Not at all. The argument here is that two people of 16 are going to marry. That is completely illogical. We must consider ourselves as responsible legislators and it would be a retrograde step to deprive people of this right. It is accepted by everyone that people are maturing very much earlier now and with the mass media there is no girl of 16 or 17 who does not understand the problems of having a family and who does not understand the problems of building up a home for herself and her husband. Indeed, girls from a very early age, as early as ten years of age, are actually planning about marriage. I cannot accept that 16, 17 or 17½ is too young to marry.
These people are paying taxes and they are responsible people. To say that a person under 18 is not responsible is an illogical argument. I accept that we might have more training and education in schools. I agree with the Minister that 16 should be the limit.
(Dublin Central): I agree with Deputy O'Connell that we have no right to legislate in this way but I certainly would not share the view that people are mature enough at 16 to marry. I believe that 16, and even 18, in today's society is too young. We know the complications of married life today. I do not believe that a boy or girl of 18 is mature enough to take on the responsibilities of marriage. We see the tragedies in this city of many boys and girls who have got married young. There are housing problems and other problems. I do not believe they are capable of taking on this heavy responsibility at 16 or 18 and I do not believe that at that age they would have sufficient means to maintain a wife and family.
Family advice centres are sadly lacking in this city. There are many problems for young married couples. We have very few of those centres in Dublin. I was appalled to read recently that in one city in this country one of these advice bureaux was closed down. We should give more help to these people. I would disagree with Deputy O'Connell that they are mature enough at this age.
I believe it is right to have 16 years in the Bill. We should not deprive them of that right, but there should be more advice and it should be pointed out to people in schools that there are obligations and problems in marriage and that it is not such a romantic undertaking. I think the Minister is right in making it 16 years but it should not be an encouragement to young people to get married at 16. There should be proper guidance, proper education and instruction in the home. We need more marriage advice centres.
The discussion has ranged over a wide variety of topics. I notice that there was disagreement among Members of the House as to what the minimum age for marriage should be. I cannot really discuss in detail here the problems of married life as it is today. I think, in relation to the passage of this Bill, that we should all approve of the growth of community centres throughout the country and we hope that the churches will pursue ever more vigorously the need for education for living and education for marriage. I would like to express the hope that marriage guidance counselling will reach a far greater number of people than it does at present. I know from talking to the people concerned that the great majority of those who go for marriage guidance counselling are people who are already well disposed for marriage and have come to learn more. We need a great deal more marriage guidence counselling.
The whole matter of discussions among people aged 16 and 17 years on courtship is only beginning. There is a fair amount of it but it is in its initial phase. On this occasion I should like to pay public tribute to the work done by his Lordship, the Bishop of Ossory, Dr. Birch, who conducts discussion classes at weekends for boys and girls between the ages of 16 and 17. The boys and girls attend the discussions together. We need a great deal more of that developing kind of community work. It does not really arise on this Bill but I wanted to make quite sure that the House understood that I recognise the difficulties that arise in marriage today.
I would say from my knowledge of the psychiatric disturbance element in it that you can find psychiatric disturbances arising among young married people and middle aged married people of all socio-economic groups. The troubles certainly are not confined to those who are unable to get housing or who, in the opinion of some Deputies, receive inadequate social welfare allowances. In relation to the social welfare element, the Minister for Social Welfare indicated the other day that in the period when the cost of living went up by 72 per cent the cost of social welfare services was increased by 350 per cent, so some progress is being made in that direction although naturally people will always claim it is insufficient.
I quite accept everything that has been said by Deputy Browne and Deputy O'Leary in regard to the hazards people have to face in marriage. I once read in a book that a marriage could be compared to one partner holding a violin and the other partner holding the bow and being able to play a tune well together. It can be as difficult as that.
In relation to the actual amendments the great majority of marriages are conducted by religious organisations. We consulted the religious organisations in 1957 and later. The religious organisations as a whole, together with women's societies, suggested that the minimum marriage age should be 16. I do not think I need read out the account of the meetings which were held. My Department received views from the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, and, as late as 1971, from the Dublin Council of Churches, representing a number of churches other than the Roman Catholic Church. They also received the views of the Catholic Hierarchy. The deputations argued that the minimum age for marriage should be 16 without exception. They believed that this was necessary on physical, moral and social grounds and would bring Ireland into line with other countries.
I have already given to the House the picture abroad and I do not think I need repeat it. We are to some extent in a medium position. Perhaps I should say again that a minimum age of 16 years obtains in Britain and in Italy—although there will be an amendment of the law raising the age I believe—and in Portugal and Spain. This is in regard to males. There is a minimum age of 18 in Belgium, Finland, Sweden, France, West Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Turkey. A minimum age of 20 years obtains in Denmark and Norway.
What is it in Denmark?
It is 20. As regards females, a minimum of 12 years obtains in Spain for civil marriages only. A minimum of 14 years obtains in Italy, Portugal and Spain; a minimum of 15 years in Belgium, France and Luxembourg; a minimum of 16 years in Britain, Northern Ireland, West Germany and the Netherlands. A minimum of 17 years obtains for females in Finland and a minimum of 18 years for females in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Turkey.
If you look at the states of America you will find a wide variety of rules there. A minimum of 16 for females obtains in 34 non-European countries and states of the United States. A minimum of 17 years obtains in one state, a minimum of 18 obtains in three states and a minimum of 19 obtains in one state. Below the age of 16 a minimum of 14 years obtains in seven countries or states outside Europe, a minimum of 15 obtains in ten countries or states outside Europe and therefore 16 years is not an excessively low age judged by that comparison.
We have to have regard to the position in Britain and Northern Ireland where the age of 16 years for a male and 16 for a female obtains. Any difference in minimum ages for these adjoining areas tends to encourage under age couples to attempt to marry in the country with the lowest age. We have had this problem with couples who have come here from Britain, who were aged under 16 and came to marry under our law. We have to have some regard at least to the position obtaining in neighbouring countries to which people can go and where they can obtain work—it is more difficult now—and I think on the whole the churches were right in establishing 16 as the minimum age for marriage.
I should draw the attention of the House next to section 1 and section 6, as newly amended, which have to be read together, that all persons under the age of 21 have to get parental consent before going to the churches, in the particular cases, or to the courts in other cases, where they will engage in a civil marriage. I must bear in mind, in offering this Bill to the Dáil, that religious organisations are to an overwhelming degree responsible for the marriage institution in this country and we must have regard to the views of these religious organisations. A great many of the clergy of all the denominations mentioned in the Bill should be able to make wise decisions. If their decisions are disputed, the parents having given their consent, there is always the possibility of going to court.
Has the Minister any facts on the age of divorce relating to youth?
It does not apply to this country but half of the marriages in the United States, where the partners are either 21 or under, result in divorce but I think it is equally true to say that because marriage is indissoluble here a far greater proportion of young men and women walk out together, so to speak, and face the realities of what marriage means than they do in countries where divorce is so easily procured. I really think they do. We have no figures in this country as to the number of marriages that break up or to the extent to which marriages are unhappy in any age group. We have only the warning from figures across the ocean and in the US which, I hope, will lead young people to reflect on what they are doing when they are considering marriage. We all know of young couples who married while under the age of 21 and who seemed to be well able to cope with matters of domestic life but who were totally immature emotionally. In some cases the reverse is the position. A wife who cannot cook or a couple who cannot budget might at least be mature emotionally but, also, there can be cases where a couple are neither mature emotionally nor able to cope with domestic life. It is a very mixed picture.
Did the Minister say that the divorce rate in America was very high in the under-21 age group?
I said that about half the marriages entered into while a couple were younger than 21 resulted in divorce.
In suggesting 18 as a minimum age, I did not intend that allowance would not be made for exceptions. In proposing the minimum age of 16, the Minister, too, is making provision for exceptions in particular cases. I was making the point that our minimum age must not reflect a view that this is a rather transient relationship but rather that our fundamental law on the subject and the minimum age that we would set out in statutory form should not give so low an age as I consider 16 to be in view of the far-reaching consequences of the decision in a society which says that marriage is a lifelong contract.
Listening to the Minister's reply I got the impression that the overriding consideration was that in Britain and Northern Ireland the minimum age is 16 and that this was the overriding element in the decision to propose the same minimum age here. Admittedly I am looking at the situation in terms of the Constitution and the jurisdiction we have at present in the Twenty-six Counties. It is primarily in relation to the state of affairs in that jurisdiction that I propose a minimum age of 18. If the general approach of society in its social legislation in our country was different, in other words, if various aids were given to the family, this matter might not be so important, but in view of the total absence of such aids and since the contract is a lifelong one, I consider the age of 16 to be too young. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether the position in the neighbouring country was the overriding element in his proposal. Also, can he tell us whether he got any suggestion from any of the bodies he consulted—the churches, other religious bodies or women's organisations—that the age might be somewhat higher than 16? In most of the countries mentioned by the Minister the dissolution of marriage is permitted. If the legislation of Northern Ireland and Britain was the main consideration it was not the best basis for reaching our decision. Perhaps the Minister can tell us, too, whether women's organisations were consulted on the matter.
Some years ago the women's societies informed us that they considered 16 to be a suitable minimum age and they have not come back to us since with any further representations. The religious organisations with whom we consulted approved of the age of 16 and, in connection with the discussions we had, they did not mention that their opinion was in any way influenced by the position in Britain or Northern Ireland. For their own religious and social reasons they proposed the minimum age of 16.
The general opinion seems to be that 16 as a statutory minimum age is sufficient for permitting a couple to marry. I do not accord with that view but since Deputy Browne and I and, perhaps, a couple of others, are the only ones who do not accord with it, I have no option but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In subsection (3)—
(i) to delete subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (a) and to substitute:
"(iii) in any other case, to the President of the High Court (or to a Judge of that Court nominated by the President thereof),"
(ii) to delete paragraph (d) and to substitute:
"(d) if it is made under subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (a) of this subsection—
(i) it may be made by or on behalf of either party to the intended marriage and without the intervention of a next friend,
(ii) it may be made informally through the Registrar of Wards of Court in accordance with rules of procedure directed by the President of the High Court,
(iii) it may be heard and determined in private,
(iv) no court fee shall be charged in respect of it, and
(v) no further application in respect of the marriage may be made under that subparagraph.".
This amendment is simply to state very clearly the means by which parties under 21 can apply to the courts. It is a simple procedure and we have put in the amendment in order that there should be clarification of the method of appeal to the court.
On that question of appeal to the courts, would the Minister not consider this to be both undesirable and unnecessary, or is he endeavouring to cover cases where there would not be the consent of parents?
In one case this is an appeal to the religious organisations while in the other it is an appeal to the courts.
What is intended by the reference to "the intervention of a next friend"?
This is because in the ordinary way people under 21 would have to have some form of intervention.
Would a "next friend" be a person other than the parents or the various religious groups?
The idea is to enable the parties to make the intervention in the court.
Through a third party?
Through themselves.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In subsection (4), page 3, lines 13 and 14, to delete "or Wesleyan".
The deletion of the words "or Wesleyan" was requested by the authorities of the Methodist Church.
Was there any particular reason for making this request?
They have ceased to use the word "Wesleyan". It is the Methodist Church now.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 5:
Before section 5 to insert the following new section:
"5. (1) Where the governing body of the Dublin Jewish Progressive Congregation notify an tArd-Chláraitheoir that a person has been appointed by them to be the secretary of their synagogue, that person shall be deemed to be a person who is certified under section 63 of the Marriages (Ireland) Act, 1844, to be the secretary of a synagogue, and until an tArd-Chláraitheoir is notified by the governing body that that person has ceased to be the secretary of their synagogue, he shall continue to be so deemed.
(2) In case of the absence from illness or other reasonable cause of any such person, he may, with the approval of the governing body and subject to the obligation of notifying an tArd-Chláraitheoir, appoint a deputy to discharge his duties under the Marriages (Ireland) Act. 1844, and the other Acts relating to marriages during any period not exceeding twelve months.
(3) References in the Marriages (Ireland) Act, 1844, to a secretary of a synagogue shall be construed as including references both to a person who is deemed under this section to be certified as aforesaid and to a deputy appointed under this section".
Members of the Dublin Jewish Progressive Congregation wishing to marry currently hold a marriage ceremony in their synagogue but for civil purposes they must have another marriage ceremony in a registrar's office. This amendment will dispense with the need for the civil ceremony and will enable the registration, for civil purposes, of the synagogue marriage. The amendment entitles the secretary of the synagogue who will be responsible for the registration of the marriage to have a deputy to act for him in his absence. The proposed revision was agreed to by the governing bodies of both the Orthodox and Progressive Jews.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:
Before section 6 to insert the following new section:
"6. The following section is hereby substituted in the Marriages (Ireland) Act, 1844, for sections 19 and 20:
`19. (1) A marriage shall not be solemnised where either of the parties, being neither a widower or widow nor a ward of court, is under the age of twenty-one unless there shall first be obtained (a) the consents of the guardians, or the consent of the sole guardian, of such of the parties so under age or (b) if there is no guardian, the consent of the President of the High Court (or of a Judge of that Court nominated by the President thereof).
(2) The foregoing subsection shall have effect subject to the proviso that the requirement of consent of a guardian shall not apply in a case in which the consent is refused or withheld, or in which the guardian is unknown, of unsound mind or of whereabouts which would be unreasonably difficult to ascertain, if consent of the President of the High Court (or of a Judge of that Court nominated by the President thereof) to the intended marriage is first obtained.
(3) The following provisions shall have effect in relation to an application under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section—
(a) it may be made by or on behalf of either party to the intended marriage and without the intervention of a next friend,
(b) it may be made informally through the Registrar of Wards of Court in accordance with rules of procedure directed by the President of the High Court,
(c) it may be heard and determined in private, and
(d) no court fee shall be charged in respect of it.
(4) This section applies, notwithstanding section 3 of this Act, in relation to all marriages."'
This amendment is necessary because of the new amendment specified below. The important changes specified by the new section are as follows: the application of the provision of statutory parental consent for the first time to marriages solemnised by Roman Catholic rites and ceremonies. The new section makes it quite clear that the marriage of any under age person solemnised in the State must have the consent of parent or guardian. Secondly, the amendment ties in the provisions of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, with the requirements for parental consent. In broad terms, the Act specifies that parents are the guardians of their child; if one parent only is alive he or she is sole guardian; the mother of an illegitimate is the child's guardian; a testamentary guardian may be appointed by a parent to act, after his or her death, jointly with the surviving parent. The new section accordingly requires the consent of both parents or guardians, where there are two, to an under age marriage. This is a change.
Where there is only one, his or her consent is required. Where there are two parents or guardians and one agrees and one disagrees to the marriage, the party to be married may look to the courts for consent. The assistance of the courts may also be sought where a parent or guardian withholds or refuses consent unreasonably; where the parent or guardian is unknown, is of unsound mind or is unreasonably difficult to locate. This is quite an important amendment the character of which was suggested on Second Stage. It is an important departure in that, in regard to marriages solemnised by Roman Catholic rites and ceremonies, parental consent of both parties is now required for the first time for those who are under age.
As the Minister says, this point arose in discussion here. The Minister's amendment meets the spirit of our amendment. The Minister makes the point that both parents are now involved in the decision and that in the event of disagreement recourse can be had to the courts. In the original drafting of the amendment the decision was given solely to the father. The Minister's amendment satisfactorily meets the point and our amendment can be withdrawn.
Could I ask the Minister in the case of an annulled marriage or divorce a mensa et thoro by decision of the courts, what is the position then of a child of that marriage? Would the child have to have the consent of either or both or which of the two? For instance, would he go to the person of the marriage to whom the children were awarded by the courts or by the Church in a nullity case?
Section 18 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, reads:
(1) In any case where a decree for divorce a mensa et thoro is pronounced, the court may thereby declare the parent by reason of whose misconduct the decree is made to be a person unfit to have custody of the children (if any) of the marriage or of any children adopted under the Adoption Act, 1952, by the parents jointly; and in such case, the parent so declared to be unfit shall not, on the death of the other parent, be entitled as of right to the custody of the children.
Under this section, consent is not required of the parent who, according to the decision of the court, is unfit.
I have known of a case where the daughter would be awarded to the mother and the son to the father. Would they then have the authority in respect of each of the children as awarded to them by the courts?
This entirely depends on the decision of the court as to the guardianship of the children. The parent who is regarded as the guardian of the children as the result of the separation would be concerned with the consent for marriage.
With absolute right?
Yes.
In the case of a marriage annulled by the Catholic Church and the disposition of the children, does this same principle apply?
I gather that no one but the courts could tell the Deputy the answer to that question.
What would be the position of the child of an annulled marriage who wanted to marry?
There seems to be some doubt about this, but apparently the consent of both parents could be got. However, if there was any doubt in regard to the matter, the matter would have to go to the courts.
To the civil courts?
Yes.
In this connection was any consideration given to reducing the age of consent from 21 to 18?
That arises on amendment No. 11. The Minister is given the power to reduce the age from 21 to 18.
I agree the Minister is given the power there, but was no consideration given to reducing the age without making it a matter for special appeal?
No.
Could I also ask the Minister under this section——
Could we dispose of the amendments first and then go on to the section?
In view of the fact that annulment is really about the only facility for the setting aside of this contract—the point raised by Deputy O'Leary in his amendment— would it not be appropriate for the Minister to amend this section in order to clarify the position for a child of such a marriage, or is there any possibility of helping a child in such a situation?
If they cannot get the consent of the parent whose marriage has been annulled, they go to the courts. It is a simple matter. That is the law as it stands at the moment.
The Minister is not declaring anything on this problem in the Bill?
No.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6 deleted.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Sections 7 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 8.
To add at the end of the section "and by the insertion of `and, in case of the absence from illness or other reasonable cause of a bishop or a vacancy in a see, the grant of such licences may be effected by the person authorised by the laws of the said Church to exercise the functions of bishop' " after "episcopal superintendence".
This amendment we have put into the Bill at the request of the authorities of the Church of Ireland. It is simply enabling that in case of illness or other absence the bishop of an adjoining See will be authorised to act for the absent bishop for up to 12 months and where a See is vacant the dean and chapter officiates. Consultations were going on at the time of the Bill and they asked us to put in this amendment which applies purely to marriages under the authority of the Church of Ireland.
The same permission is not given to the bishops of any other denomination?
They have not asked for it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 9:
To delete "and" in line 12, page 8, and to add at the end of the section:
"and
(e) by the addition of the following paragraph:
`In case of the absence from illness or other reasonable cause of the moderator, chairman, secretary, president, head, clerk or rabbi, he may, subject to any directions which his religious authority may issue, appoint a person to grant special licences on his behalf for any period not exceeding twelve months.' ".
This amendment permits a person who is authorised to issue a special licence other than a bishop or archbishop of the Church of Ireland, who are dealt with in section 12, to appoint a deputy to cover his absences for up to 12 months.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 10:
In subsection (1), page 8, lines 29 and 30, to delete "so seriously ill as not to be expected to recover and could not" and to substitute ", for reasons of health certified by a registered medical practitioner, unable to".
It just so happens that the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches suggested to us that we should amend section 15 and provide for a certificate of inability to attend at the registry office for reasons of health rather than for what is in the section at present, i.e., that the party is not expected to recover. In other words, arrangements can be made in accordance with the amendment which reads "for reasons of health" and not because a particular party is not expected to recover.
Amendments agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 11:
Before section 17 to insert the following new section:
"17. (1) The Minister for Health may, by regulations, substitute, for any reference to the age of twenty-one contained in any Act specified in the next subsection, a reference to any lesser age.
(2) The Acts referred to in the foregoing subsection are:
(a) the Marriages (Ireland) Act, 1844,
(b) the Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1863,
(c) the Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) Act, 1870.
(3) Every regulation under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
This section replaces in more specific terms the provisions in the present section 6, subsection (1), in other words "or such lesser age as the Minister for Health may by regulations appoint". It also provides for the tabling of the regulations in the usual terms. The intention is that, if the voting age be reduced from 21 to 18, the age for parental consent should be similarly reduced. That would seem to me to be inevitable under our present circumstances.
Would the Minister not think that in such circumstances, if the age is to be reduced, instead of being left to the discretion of the Minister, it should come back to the House?
I would not say so, really, because persons who are 18 can now make wills and if persons are considered able to vote in an election it would seem to me that they ought to be able to make a decision in regard to marriage. I do not think it is a very controversial change. Persons are very much more aware of the realities of life at 18 years of age than was the case. Great numbers of people are employed before the age of 18. In general, the consent of the House could be assumed as automatic. If we make the very serious decision that citizens can vote at 18 years of age, the age at which consent of the parents to a marriage is no longer required could equally be reduced.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Ordered that the Bill be sent to Seanad Éireann.