Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997

Vol. 478 No. 2

Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1997: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.—Section 32 of the Act of 1995 shall not apply to marriages solemnised between the 1st day of August, 1996 and the 31st day of June, 1997.".

I wish to clarify a point made by the Minister of State. Is it true that a number of people did not give notification of their intention to marry? The Minister said the remaining 41 cases are currently being examined to establish if the requirements of the Act have been met. She also said the Bill does not provide for the validation of marriages where parties failed to give notice in time or failed to give any notice. If they failed to give notice in time of their intention to marry, are their marriages valid? Will the Minister of State indicate how many couples who believe they are married are not married? There must be a number of people who fall into that category. The amendment seeks to give those couples another chance to validate their marriages because, for one reason or another, they did not give proper notification. Does the Minister of State know if there are a number of people who did not give notification who believe they are married but are not legally married? What can be done for those people who did not give proper notification because they did not know about that requirement?

I gather approximately 25 couples did not give notice of their intention to marry. They would have been informed they had to give notice, but went ahead with, say, a Church ceremony knowing that they should have given adequate notice. It is now open to those people to have a civil marriage ceremony and to give the registrar three months' notice of that ceremony. The Bill validates the marriages of people who knew they had to give notice, but gave it to the wrong registrar.

The Deputy's amendment would waive the three months' notification requirement for marriage, which is substantive and important as marriage is an important undertaking. It was a commitment and the intention of all sides of the House that the three months' notification requirement would be binding. If we lift that requirement in respect of marriages up until June this year, we are saying that requirement is trivial. The marriages of people who knew they should have given notice, who had been informed they had a right to go to court to seek an exemption and who would have got one if they had good grounds for seeking it but went ahead with a religious marriage ceremony will not be retrospectively validated. Those people walked into the situation with their eyes open.

My advice is that the marriages of the majority of people in the period in question are in order. A total of 167 notifications were sent to the registrar general and it transpired that most of them were in order, but a number were sent to the wrong registrar and the marriages of those couples will be retrospectively validated.

I am confused. A couple who have a Church ceremony are not married in the eyes of the State unless they register their marriage. Surely all couples who registered their marriages had to ensure the correct notice was given and would not have proceeded with the ceremony unless the correct notice was given. People can pledge their troth under a tree, but that is not recognised in the eyes of the State. Are the marriages in question invalid through the fault of a registrar who said to a couple that even though they did not give the correct notice they could go ahead with the ceremony, or is it the fault of a clergyman or clergywoman who went ahead with the registration procedure even though he or she should not have done so having been told that three months' notification was required?

I understand the first two points made by the Minister of State and I do not have any problem concerning the area of registration. She also said that some people, for one reason or another, did not give notification. In addition to the couples Deputy Keogh mentioned, there are also couples who, despite the television coverage and advertising campaign on this requirement, did not know they had to give notification. The Minister of State said a number of couples fall under that category. What will the Department do for those couples? How many couples are involved? Have they been told they can get an exemption at this stage, to reregister their marriage, or does this Bill cover them? We need to tie up the loose ends. I appreciate this is a legal matter, but this appears to be a grey area where people, for one reason or another, did not give notification of their intention to marry and at some future date may find they are not legally married.

The purpose of my amendment is not to seek to minimise the notification requirement. While I fully agree notification must be given, my amendment gives people one last chance. I do not know if the wording of the amendment is correct or if it should be worded differently. I will accept any recommendations the Minister makes. The amendment covers marriages, notification of which have not, for one reason or another, been given.

The Minister dealt properly with registration but there may be people who have not given notification who believe they are married and she mentioned 25 cases. What is the position of the remaining 41 cases currently being examined to establish if the requirements of the Act have been met? Has legal action been taken against the registrar general in relation to the operation of section 32?

Legal action has been taken in one case. The registration of marriages is a matter for the Department of Health, which runs the registration service, while legislation is a matter for the Department of Equality and Law Reform. If somebody marries in a religious ceremony, whether that marriage is valid will only come to light when the celebrant registers the marriage with the registrar who must check if all the conditions have been met. It is at that point an examination would take place as to whether the couple had given notice or if they had a valid exemption. When the registrar checks the paperwork, the parties will be told the marriage is not valid and advised as to what to do or that the marriage is covered by this legislation and that it will be retrospectively put in order. Nobody will be left in the dark as to their status.

It is ironic that the Minister will produce a new form for notification. Will the words "Republic of Ireland" be changed to the word "Ireland" on the new notification form, as I suggested? The Republic of Ireland relates to the Republic of Ireland Act. That is a territorial issue and does not apply to the legal entity of Ireland. I have reservations about that. The Republic of Ireland Act concerns territorial issues but this legislation deals with a legal matters.The term "Republic of Ireland" is not correct in this context. Will these forms include the word "Ireland" as opposed to the words "Republic of Ireland"?

Does this mean something has clicked in the Department? For the sake of those who will have problems in the future, would it not be better to ask people who have used this notification form to reregister? If notification is a substantive measure, despite the fact this is not a statutory matter with which I have problem, I would be afraid that in the future legal eagles will use this issue when dealing with marriages which will run into difficulties. This begs the question, will it be possible to further amend section 32? The Minister's speech did not deal with the problem I have highlighted. I am not trying to be difficult but to ensure this matter is ironed out once and for all. This is a legal document and, therefore, must contain the word "Ireland". This is a grey area. Will we be able to further amend section 32 because it may be another six months before we deal with this issue again?

As I explained, it does not matter if people write on blue or pink paper or on the form once they give notice of their names and the date of the intended marriage and send it to the registrar. Whether or not the form contains other writing does not affect its validity. I am grateful to Deputy McDaid for raising the point about the Republic of Ireland. He is correct in that the name of the State in the Constitution is Ireland. The form is being reprinted to state "Ireland" rather than the "Republic of Ireland". However, it does not matter if a person uses a form or a piece of paper they find on the floor to notify the registrar, their marriages are valid.

We also checked out a number of points raised by Deputy Shatter with the Attorney General's office. We are satisfied the points he raised do not require amendments, that the legislation is in order and that marriages to which he referred are valid. The marriages which are not valid are those where couples did not give notice or give adequate notice. This Bill addresses cases where the notice was sent to the wrong registrar or where a person may have received their exemption from the wrong court. The marriages of those two groups are being retrospectively validated.

I do not want to labour this issue unduly. I accept the point in relation to jurisdiction.The Minister is saying that some clergymen or women went ahead, despite the information they were given and requests made to them, and performed marriage ceremonies giving people the impression the ceremony was valid in the eyes of the State as well as the church. Is that not the case?

I do not know if those clergymen or women gave the impression that it was anything other than a religious ceremony or if it was a religious and a civil ceremony. The substantive requirement is that three months' notice be given. It is not good policy to introduce a measure and then not implement it until June. We are dealing with cases where people made an attempt to meet the substantive requirement and missed it for technical reasons. Such cases are being retrospectively validated. The marriages of those who did not meet the substantive criterion of the three months' notice are not being retrospectively validated. Those people will be informed that what they went through was a religious ceremony, whether under a tree or otherwise, and not a civil ceremony and that they will need to go through a civil ceremony. It will be open to them to go to the courts to seek an exemption. I am sure the courts will deal with them sympathetically.

Notifications of intention to marry have been received in respect of 17,500 marriages. As the Minister pointed out, notification may be given on any form of paper, jointly or separately. I doubt if any of the 17,500 notifications were given on any but this specific form. I doubt if anyone wrote on a piece of paper that they were getting married and I presume everyone who used the notification process used this specific form. If they did not, how did they know what questions to answer? Anyone can give notice they are getting married by writing it on a piece of paper. If they did it this way, how would they know the questions on the form which requires certain details? The notification form is the main method of giving notice and I am sure none concerned has given notice in any other manner. While I accept the Minister's point and do not wish to be contentious, I raise the issue to highlight what I see as grey areas which may still cause problems and which I presume will be a matter of legal argument.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.

I move amendment No. 2:

In Page 6, lines 8 and 9, to delete "Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997" and substitute "Family Law (Amendment) Act, 1997".

I am advised that, as this Bill covers a number of different issues, the Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997, is the more appropriate title.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank the Deputies opposite for their contribution, especially the useful point made by Deputy McDaid in relation to pointing out the error on the form. I am thankful it does not affect the validity of marriages concerned. I hope people's minds will be put at rest after this is passed. I appreciate the broad welcome for the point on barring orders, which is an important change to ensure the intent of the Domestic Violence Act, 1995, is put into practice for cohabiting couples. I also thank my staff for their advice and support.

I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill before the House. Our Chief Whip stated there would be no problem passing this legislation because we felt it necessary as this Dáil is shortly to be dissolved. Had it not been passed now, it would have possibly taken a further six months to a year to deal with the matter and more problems might have arisen during that time. I hope the Domestic Violence Act is now in order as a result of our deliberations today so that those who were worried about its provisions can be reassured. I understand that it is sometimes only with hindsight that one can see the shortcomings of new legislation. We are happy to see this Bill passed in this House and I want to be associated with the Minister's gratitude to those administrative staff who have been helpful. The matter will now be sent to the Seanad and I hope the Bill will be law before the Dáil dissolves.

I am glad this Bill will now pass and go to the Seanad because the election is imminent.I hope the Seanad can receive the Bill early next week and perhaps the Minister would keep us informed about that. Notwithstanding any remarks I made, I am glad certain elements relating to family law have been clarified, that people's minds can be put at rest and that unforeseen difficulties, which arose in relation to barring orders and were not the intention of the Domestic Violence Act, have now been cleared up. People who work in the area will be glad to see that loophole plugged. I thank the Minister, who I know has an interest in the area of domestic violence, for taking the Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill through the House and I also thank the officials involved. I wish the Bill a quick passage.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 6.20 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
Top
Share