Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Dec 2012

Vol. 787 No. 5

Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill 2012 [Seanad]: Second and Subsequent Stages

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I realise that we four Deputies are probably alone in the Dáil at this point but as Christmas is coming, it is an appropriate time to debate a Bill which proposes to extend the celebration of marriage. Although we may not have Christmas humanist weddings this year, subject to the enactment of the Bill, we may get Whitsun weddings celebrated by humanist celebrants or solemnisers.

I will outline the context for the Bill. The Civil Registration Act 2004 provides for the notification, registration and solemnisation of marriage. Only the Health Service Executive and religious bodies can apply for registration in the Register of Solemnisers established under the Act. The Bill will amend the Act by providing for an extension to the type of organisation that can nominate marriage solemnisers to include secular bodies.

In Ireland marriage and the family unit are central to the Constitution and part of our social fabric. When two people make a public commitment to each other by way of marriage, it is a cause of great celebration and an occasion on which not only do the two people wish to have their families and friends around them but also to celebrate in the belief system they hold dear. The Bill aims to extend the scope of marriage solemnisers across the spectrum of belief systems and formally acknowledge this in the registration system.

I propose to offer some general observations on the rationale and general principles informing the content of this amending legislation and then proceed to summarise the provisions of the Bill. The marriage provisions of the Civil Registration Act 2004 arose from recommendations of the interdepartmental committee on the reform of the marriage laws. The need for a universally applicable framework of clear and simple procedures to underpin the solemnity of the marriage contract was among the issues identified by the committee as requiring examination.

Section 7 provides for the amendment of section 55 of the principal Act to include the cessation of a body as a religious or secular body as a reason the registration of a person may be cancelled on the Register of Solemnisers.

Section 55 provides for the cancellation of the registration of a registered solemniser by the Registrar General on a number of grounds, including a request for cancellation or that the marriage ceremony does not adhere to the necessary declarations. A registration may be also cancelled if the registered solemniser is convicted of an offence under the Act, carries on a business solemnising marriage for profit or gain, is not a fit and proper person to solemnise marriages or for any other reason.

Section 55 sets out the requirements for the Registrar General if he or she intends to cancel a registration. The amendment provides an inclusion of secular bodies so that their registrations may be cancelled under the same criteria, if required.

Section 8 provides for the amendment of section 56 of the principal Act to include secular bodies in the provisions to appeal against refusals or cancellations of registration in the Register of Solemnisers.

Section 56 of the principal Act provides for leave to appeal to the Circuit Court if the Minister dismisses an appeal on the grounds that the body has ceased to be a religious body. This section provides the same appeal rights to a secular body. If the Minister dismisses an appeal on any other ground, a party to the appeal may appeal against the dismissal on a point of law to the Circuit Court. This section provides the same appeal rights to a secular body or to a party to the appeal who is not a member of a secular body.

Section 9 provides for the amendment of section 57 of the principal Act to allow for the granting of temporary authorisation to solemnise marriage to solemnisers from secular bodies. Section 57 of the principal Act already provides for the temporary authorisation of members of a religious body to solemnise marriage. An application made by a secular body under this section will be in such form and containing such particulars as may be determined by the Registrar General. The application must be made by an officer of the body. The certificate must be furnished in a satisfactory form, stating that the person to be temporarily authorised is suitably trained and accredited as set out in section 45A(1)(e) and, in the opinion of that person of standing, is a fit and proper person to solemnise a marriage.

In addition, this section will provide for the Registrar General to request further information regarding applications for temporary solemnisers from a religious or secular body. Currently, there is no provision for the Registrar General to request additional information from religious bodies and this amendment will provide for such a request.

Section 10 provides for the Short Title, collective citations, construction and any necessary commencement.

This Bill represents a significant and important change to the Civil Registration Act 2004, which sees us, as a nation, recognise the increasing desire of people to celebrate marriage in a way that includes their own secular, ethical and humanist beliefs. Marriage is an important institution and this Bill enhances its role in Irish law and society. I welcome the Bill, as it includes members of humanist organisations in the group of solemnisers, which to date has been confined to civil registrars and a wide set of religious faiths and bodies.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The main provisions of the Bill concerning marriage are to provide for common preliminaries and a single set of documentation for all marriages; the introduction of the marriage registration form, which is a single licensing system; the establishment of a register of solemnisers; and provision for a choice of venue for civil marriages.
Section 51 provides that a marriage may be legally solemnised only by a registered solemniser. Section 53 provides for the establishment of a register of solemnisers. Section 54 provides that a religious body or the Health Service Executive may apply to have a member of the religious body in question or a registrar, respectively, entered in the register.
It is clear that many of our citizens wish to celebrate their commitment to each other through a non-religious marriage ceremony. Deputies will be interested to learn that of the 19,828 marriages held in 2011, almost 6,000 were civil ceremonies. This represents 29% of all marriages performed in 2011 and compares to a figure of 6% of marriages in 1996. In 2011, there were 5,413 religious solemnisers and 113 civil solemnisers registered in the Register of Solemnisers to conduct valid marriage ceremonies.
This Bill will provide that valid marriages can be performed by bodies that fulfil the criteria of a secular body, as laid down in the legislation, reflecting the varied belief systems in a modern society which still holds marriage as a valuable life choice. In this regard, the Bill extends the definition of the term "body" in relation to marriages to include also a "secular body". It sets out criteria which must be met by a body before it can apply to have one of its members solemnise marriage. While this limits somewhat the bodies that would be eligible, it respects the obligation of the State to safeguard the institution of marriage and ensures the bodies involved are stable, long-standing and reputable organisations.
The body must be in existence for at least five years, be an organised group of people who have secular, ethical and humanist beliefs in common, have a minimum of 50 people and meet on a regular basis. It must also have an entitlement to an exemption under section 207 or 208 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 and cannot have the making of profit as one of its main purposes. In addition, there is a list of organisations which are deemed, for the purposes of the Bill, not to be secular bodies. These include chambers of commerce, organisations that are political, sporting, athletic, trade union or representative in nature and bodies that promote purposes that are unlawful, contrary to public policy or morality, in support of terrorism or terrorist activities or for the benefit of an organisation of which membership is unlawful.
The bodies will be required to meet the criteria on a continuous basis and will be obliged to inform An tArd-Chláraitheoir - the Registrar General - if they cease to do so. In the event of a body not meeting all of the criteria, the body's members will be removed from the Register of Solemnisers. There is scope within the Bill to allow for appeals and reinstatement on the register where it is seen fit.
In amending the Civil Registration Act 2004 the Bill adds in the concept of a "secular body" to those sections that had previously provided for a religious body.
I propose to summarise the main provisions of the Bill and in doing so, I acknowledge the work done on the Bill by the Upper House and my party colleague, Senator Ivana Bacik. Many religious bodies have been defined as solemnisers of marriage. They include not only all the major religions but also many religious bodies with which many Deputies will not be familiar. Section 1 provides for the definition of the term "Principal Act" used throughout the Bill as the Civil Registration Act 2004.
Section 2 amends section 45 of the principal Act and inserts and modifies definitions in the principal Act to provide for the broadening of the type of bodies which can apply to have a member added to the Register of Solemnisers by including secular bodies.
Section 45 provides for the definitions used in Part 6 of the Civil Registration Act 2004, which relates to the amendment of the law relating to marriages. At present, this section only provides that a religious body and the executive, namely, registrars appointed by the Health Service Executive who are included on the Register of Solemnisers held in the Office of the Registrar General, can conduct valid wedding ceremonies. This amendment and the insertion of section 45(A), as provided for in section 3, will allow bodies who fulfil the criteria of a secular body as defined to conduct valid marriages.
Section 3 amends section 45 and sets out the interpretation of the definition of the term "secular body" for the purposes of the Bill. For the purposes of this Part, a body shall be a secular body if it has not fewer than 50 members; its principal objects are secular, ethical and humanist; members of the body meet regularly in relation to their beliefs and in furtherance of their principal objects; any rules regarding marriage, or the solemnising of marriages, do not contravene the requirements of the Act or the law; it is shown to the satisfaction of the Registrar General that it has appropriate procedures around the selection, training and accreditation of solemnisers; it has been in continuous existence for at least five years; it has, for at least five years, an entitlement to an exemption under section 207 or 208 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 in respect of which a number stands issued by the Revenue Commissioners for the purpose of that exemption and that number stood issued for a continuous period of five years immediately preceding the date of its most recent application; and does not have the making of profit as one of its principal objects; and maintains a register of members.
In addition, this section provides for a list of bodies which are deemed not to be secular bodies for the purposes of this Part. These are as follows: a political party or a body that promotes a political party or candidate; a body that promotes a political cause; an approved body of persons within the meaning of section 235 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997; a trade union or representative body of employers; a chamber of commerce; and a body that promotes purposes that are unlawful, contrary to public morality, contrary to public policy, in support of terrorism or terrorist activities, whether in the State or outside the State, or for the benefit of an organisation membership of which is unlawful.
Section 4 provides for the amendment of section 51 of the principal Act to include solemnisers from secular bodies in the requirements to be met for a valid solemnisation of marriage. Section 51 provides that a marriage may be legally solemnised only by a registered solemniser. It sets out the elements required to be met so that a valid marriage takes place.
Section 5 provides for the amendment of section 53(4) of the principal Act to allow the Registrar General to refuse to register a person if he or she considers that the body concerned is not a secular body.
Section 53 provides for the establishment of a register of solemnisers to be maintained by An tArd-Chláraitheoir. The register holds the names of all solemnisers who have been approved to conduct valid marriages and is open to inspection by the public.
Section 6 provides for the amendment of section 54 of the principal Act to include secular bodies in the categories of bodies that may apply for registration of persons on the register of solemnisers. An officer of the secular body must sign a certificate to the effect that, in his or her opinion, the nominated person is a fit and proper person to solemnise a marriage and confirm that the nominee has been selected, trained and accredited by the secular body in accordance with its procedures. The section also sets out procedures for requesting additional information from bodies regarding an application on behalf of a member to become a registered solemniser.

I welcome the Bill and we have no notion of opposing it. In fact, we support it strongly. I acknowledge the great deal of work done on the Bill by a number of Members in the Seanad, in particular Senator Bacik.

On the surface, the Bill looks unexceptional and does not seem like it would make much difference. However, it represents a fundamental change. Hitherto, only two groups were enabled to solemnise marriage, those being, religious institutions, as defined, and the State in the form of the HSE. The Bill extends the category of people who can solemnise marriage to what are called secular bodies.

On the whole, the Bill allows differences to be accommodated and makes the law more inclusive and pluralist. As the Minister stated, the proportion of people choosing non-religious civil wedding ceremonies has grown rapidly in the past 20 or 25 years and continues to grow. As legislators, we must recognise and adapt to this change.

The term "secular body" has been widely defined in section 3. It must be an organised group of not fewer than 50 people, its objects must be "secular, ethical and humanist", its members must meet regularly, it must be in existence for at least five years and it must have a charitable tax status exemption of at least five years standing. To clarify further, the section goes on to indicate which bodies are definitely not regarded as secular bodies for the purposes of solemnising marriage, for example and unsurprisingly, chambers of commerce, political organisations, trade unions, sporting organisations and organisations that promote terrorism or carry out activities that are unlawful or contrary to public policy or morality. Despite this fairly extensive definition, there remains room for argument as to what is meant exactly. In the years to come, the courts will be exercised trying to establish facts under this section, particularly in terms of the objects that bodies must have, for example, what is secular, ethical or humanist.

As I understand it, the original intention was to allow the Humanist Association of Ireland to perform wedding ceremonies. This could have been done by providing an amendment that mentioned the association specifically. There is precedent for doing so. The Minister has decided to go further, which is fine as far as we are concerned, but did mentioning the association specifically pose a difficulty? Given the objects outlined in the Bill, there is a broad hint to the effect that the Humanist Association of Ireland should be included within the ambit of secular associations. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Humanist Association of Ireland will, as a result of this legislation, be entitled to solemnise marriage ceremonies among its members.

I have never attended a humanist wedding, but I recently attended a humanist funeral in Limerick. I was impressed by the dignity and solemnity of the occasion. People of the humanist persuasion espouse an ethical philosophy of life and are required to act with reason and compassion. I do not doubt that many of them live their lives far better than people who claim to be members of particular religious organisations.

Will the Minister clarify why she decided to go further in the provision? There may be a good reason for doing so.

Under section 45A(2), a number of organisations can be refused access to the register on the basis that their objects are contrary to public morality, public policy or so on. However, this provision only relates to a secular group. In so far as religious groups are concerned, a religious group is defined in the original legislation - the definition has not been changed in this Bill - as "an organised group of people members of which meet regularly for common religious worship." This is a broad definition. During the Seanad debates, questions were raised about organisations such as the Church of Scientology, pagan associations and the Universal Church of Satan.

Most people would find it undesirable that such organisations might be authorised to solemnise marriages among their members in this country simply because they happen to be part of a religious group as per the broad definition set out in the principal Act. Will the Minister clarify the position of such organisations in respect of the Act, as amended by this Bill?

I welcome the legislation generally and wish it a speedy passage through the House. Despite the other problems that currently bedevil the country, it is good that Parliament can take time out to assist the members of a very worthwhile organisation who, as I said, live their lives in accordance with the highest ethical principles.

I do not intend to oppose this legislation, some aspects of which I welcome. I am concerned, however, that, in other aspects, it is leading us along a dangerous path. I will explain the reasoning behind that observation as I proceed. The list of religions already authorised to solemnise marriage reflects the increasingly diverse nature of our society. I have attended a good number of marriage services in my time, both religious and humanist, and found that each one was conducted in an appropriate fashion. Some of what we are discussing in regard to this legislation might be more appropriate as part of a broader discussion on the Constitution. The constitutional convention that is due to be established would be an appropriate forum in that regard, but I understand this is not one of the issued tabled for discussion.

I welcome the Bill in so far as it accommodates humanists in this country, but it is nevertheless a somewhat bizarre item of legislation. We are told that the purpose of the Bill is to extend the facility to perform the function of marriage solemniser to secular bodies. As it stands, Health Service Executive employees and members of religious bodies are the only persons permitted to perform that function. In that context, it is bizarre that the HSE does not allow staff engaged in this role to work at weekends, which is when most people prefer to have their marriage service. If there is a requirement for a higher fee to be charged for weekend services, so be it. That type of accommodation might have addressed many of the concerns that have given rise to this legislation without allowing the devil and all, as it were, the facility to perform the function of solemniser.

The definition of a "secular body" around which the entire Bill is based is problematic. Specifically, it is somewhat ridiculous that a definition should contain within itself the word it aims to define. The definition in section 3 provides, inter alia, that a body will be deemed to be secular if it is an "organised group of people" and its principal objectives are "secular, ethical and humanist". Nowhere in the Bill, however, is there a definition of what is meant by "secular". Likewise, "ethical" or "humanist" are not defined. Just as there are dangers in going down the route of being overly descriptive, there are also dangers when legislation is not properly descriptive.

It is also a matter of concern when a definition relies heavily on references to what it is not rather than what it is. Unfortunately, that is a characteristic of a great deal of legislation. In this instance, the definition of "secular body" in section 3 goes on to articulate a long list of types of bodies that are not secular. The problem is that many of these would, in fact, be deemed secular according to most people's understanding of the word, including, for example, trade unions and bodies which promote political causes. Here again is a certain vagueness in that the concept of "political causes" is not defined. The Humanist Association of Ireland will be one of the main beneficiaries of the provisions in this Bill, which is welcome, but a quick perusal of its website suggests that even this organisation might not satisfy the definition of "secular body" as contained in section 3, with specific reference to the exclusion of any body promoting a political cause. Its home page, for example, has a campaigns section, one of which is aimed at lobbying politicians to amend the principal Act. Ironically, that very activity could be seen to exclude the organisation under the definition set out in section 3 of the Bill. The content of the website is inherently political, including, for instance, a cheap shot at politicians in respect of holiday entitlements. There is also an inference that Fianna Fáil is bad and the Labour Party good. In fact, Senator Ivana Bacik is described as the perfect combination of lawyer, Senator and atheist. It is fine to express such views but they are undoubtedly political. Perhaps Senator Bacik will become the deity of the Humanist Association of Ireland in the future. To avoid any confusion here, let me clarify that I am joking on that last point.

None of us is that perfect.

Perhaps. We will have to wait and see.

My point is that once these types of restrictions are included in legislation, there is the possibility that some of the bodies intended to benefit from its provisions will be excluded. Atheist Ireland has made the pertinent observation that not all atheists or secularists are humanists. By limiting the definition of a secular body to humanists, many equivalently legitimate and credible secular organisations are potentially excluded from the entitlements provided by the Bill. Indeed, Atheist Ireland has indicated its intention to challenge the constitutionality of the Bill on that basis. Not many groups made submissions or lobbied in regard to these proposals, which was rather strange, but Atheist Ireland was one of those that did. In its submission it stated:

We welcome the intention of this Bill to make our law more inclusive. However, in practice the Bill accepts and further institutionalises discrimination on the ground of religion or belief. It continues the discrimination in the Act that it is amending, which is discrimination in favour of religious people and against nonreligious people, and it adds new discrimination, this time between nonreligious people who have different philosophical and non-confessional beliefs.

The organisation submitted a list of proposals for improving the Bill, some of which I intend to table as amendments. Others of its proposals require a closer consideration as to whether they should be dealt with in the format suggested.

I am reminded in all of this of an episode of "South Park" in which Cartman, who simply cannot wait for the new Nintendo games console to be available in the shops, transports himself into the future where a war is being waged between the United Atheist Alliance, the Unified Atheist League and the Allied Atheist Alliance. This gag may have been borrowed from a classic film. I recall gleefully watching "The Life of Brian" when it was banned in this country in 1979. It shows how far we have come as a society that we can now at least understand satire. In the film, the conflict was between the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front. There will be occasions when such disagreements arise between different religious groups and different non-religious groups, respectively. In fact, there is recognition of that in the Bill in the provision to allow for marriages to continue even after the dissolution of the religion under which they were solemnised, which is rather a bizarre concept. The draughtsmen were very diligent in their work in this regard.

Atheist Ireland is correct in its assertion that the Bill, because of the criteria contained in section 3, discriminates against non-religious organisations and continues an existing discrimination between the religious and the non-religious. A religious body which has a deity is fine and will get in one door.

However, other organisations must jump through a number of other hoops, such as to have 50 members, be five years in existence and be carrying out the practice for five years before being recognised. The group has a point but if it so believes, it will have to go to the Four Goldmines, as Phoenix magazine calls it. There might be problems in the future and people might be inclined to take that route if they feel discriminated against.

Giving the power to solemnise the legal contract of marriage to bodies outside the State's infrastructure, be they religious or not, opens the State to endless and unsolvable problems which could end up in court. I do not think any legal definition can fairly answer the question, so it would have been better not to have opened up this can of worms. My preference is to move to a position where State officials are the only people who can solemnise the marriage contract. Religious services and organisations can carry out their own solemnisation of their religious contract, which is a separate contract.

It is dangerous to take the route of setting out a list of guidelines on what can qualify as a religion. I do not know if Members of the House are familiar with the religion of Pastafarianism, whose deity is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Members might laugh but this is factual. The religion was created in the United States by way of a parody in 2005 to challenge the teaching of intelligent design or creationism in public schools in the US. It has members who say they believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster invented the world and subsequently falsified the carbon dating tests by using his powerful "noodly appendage". They believe the pirates were the earliest worshippers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and correlate the global reduction in the pirate population with the rise in global temperatures and associated natural disasters. It would be funny, if it was not so serious. Pastafarianism has become a global phenomenon with its members throughout the world using it to call into sharp focus the church and state divide. In July 2011, an Austrian Pastafarian won the legal right to wear a spaghetti strainer on his head in his driver's licence photograph. He fought his case on the grounds that Austrian regulations allow for the wearing of religious headgear in identity documents.

I am cautioning against taking the route of defining religion and non-religion in the way it is done in this Bill. In America Pastafarians also sought to have, and on occasion succeeded in having, a tree with a spaghetti on the top of it accorded equal status with the Jewish menorah and the Christian nativity scene in public buildings. Sometimes the media focus on that as political correctness gone mad, but this was a parody seeking to expose how ridiculous some of the rules were. It is not my intention to offend any religious or philosophical group, but the bottom line is that all this nonsense and the dodgy legal definitions in the Bill should be avoided. It is important to note that if marriage solemnisers were restricted to being accountable registrars employed by the State under the Ard-Chláraitheoir, it would be a better system. We would have a more secular society which would be more akin to a republic where everybody has equal status.

Marriage is probably the most important and most prevalent legal contract entered into by citizens of the State. As in many other countries, people should have their marriage solemnised by an official of the State and after that they are free to have whatever ritual ceremony or party they like, religious or otherwise. For the purposes of the State, it should be a State employee who carries out that role.

There are other concerns we could debate if a longer Committee Stage had been scheduled. I mentioned the Monday to Friday rules of the HSE. The legislation also states that none of these groups should be principally for-profit. Some of the religions or organisations can be for-profit and that raises concerns. It is open to a group such The Screamers, which I remember from my youth. That was a group of 50 people who worshipped on an island off the coast of Donegal and who went around screaming their heads off as a release. It was an organised religion and if they had screamed for five years, they would be qualified under these rules to solemnise marriage. It is another example, although home grown, of what can happen, as in the case of Pastafarianism.

Another point made by Atheist Ireland is that the provision relating to the excluded bodies is taken virtually en bloc from the Charities Act 2009. However, it ends in this Bill with the phrase "a body that promotes a political cause". In the Charities Act, and this Bill is similar in some ways because the same type of rules apply, it is defined as a body that promotes a political cause but continues "unless the promotion of that cause relates directly to the advancement of the charitable purpose of that body". If that part had been left in it would have allowed the humanists to do exactly what I pointed out earlier, because it is directly related to the advancement of the charitable purposes of the body. The charitable purpose of a secular group is to promote its ideals while the charitable purpose of a religious organisation is to promote its religion, and that might involve a political cause. In fact, if the Catholic Church was not on the list and had to apply, it might fall foul of that provision because it is promoting political causes in some ways or is promoting causes which are contrary to public policy. We heard the bishops during the week, for example, saying they are opposed to the Government's announcement. That would be contrary to public policy.

It is an area fraught with danger and it is a pity we are dealing with it on the eve of the pagan festival of the winter solstice and as nearly the last item of business before we break for the Christmas holidays. It is interesting that the humanists will benefit from our Christmas break. There should have been more thought about this. The Seanad had a long discussion about it but it would have been useful to have had a longer discussion on Committee Stage on all the questions that have been raised. However, we might have to return to this with another amendment Bill at a later date to deal with some of the points that have been raised. Atheist Ireland has said it intends to lobby the President to prevent this legislation becoming law because in its view it contravenes a number of UN Conventions, the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Constitution. It is in that organisation's gift to take that challenge, because this legislation is likely to be passed.

However, I would have preferred if we had the opportunity to tease out those issues prior to its passage in order that this organisation would not have felt the need to go to court.

I welcome the fact that we are addressing the anomaly whereby the humanists were not included in the first place but we are doing so in a way that will cause problems in the future.

I wish to share time with Deputies Mattie McGrath and Catherine Murphy.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I welcome this important Bill and the debate on the new Ireland of 2012. It is important that we deal with change, enjoy diversity and difference and, above all, respect all citizens on this island. We also must respect people of all religions and those of no religion while, at all times, maintaining a strong separation between church and State. The debate gives us all an opportunity to build a democratic and inclusive republic on this island. Sadly, events in Belfast over the past few days and weeks are not part of that process. Those involved in violence, threats, intimidation and sectarianism have no place on this island and in our shared future. I was saddened and disillusioned by the deafening silence from the political establishment in the Twenty-six Counties when silence should not be an option when sectarianism or attacks on public representatives take place. The attacks on Alliance Party members initially and then on public representatives of other political parties were a disgrace and those stirring it up should be ashamed of themselves. Regardless of our political differences, it is important that we stand up to sectarianism and racism.

I raise this issue in this debate because I want to chart a new way forward for this country. That is why I support the legislation despite a number of the flaws mentioned by colleagues. The Bill amends the Civil Registration Act 2004 to permit secular bodies as defined in the legislation to apply to An tArd-Chláraitheoir for registration on the Register of Solemnisers. These registered secular bodies along with the HSE registrars and registered religious bodies will be permitted to carry out legal marriage ceremonies. Trends in marriage over the past number of years have shown a significant interest in civil marriage ceremonies. The legislation will provide for a wider range of civil ceremonies than currently provided. The State is the only current provider of civil marriages and I warmly welcome this change.

It is important to consider the context for this legislation. Ireland is changing rapidly and for the better when it comes to respect for different religions and people with no religion. The proportion of couples choosing a non-religious wedding ceremony increased from 6% in 1996 to more than 23% in 2006. The CSO has stated that in 2012 for the first time the number of non-religious wedding ceremonies may exceed the number of religious ceremonies. The office's statistics show that the number of persons of no religion continues to increase. In last year's response the second largest response to the question on religion was from those who identify themselves as having no religion. Approximately 270,000 people ticked the no religion box. This must be recognised in a broader, inclusive republic and the legislation is a step in that direction.

With regard to the issue concerning the Humanist Association of Ireland, humanism is an ethical philosophy of life based on a concern for humanity which combines reason with compassion. The two keywords are humanity and compassion. They are not the public property of any religion. Different religions can have these qualities as well as the humanist tradition. Humanist wedding ceremonies have legal status in Scotland, Australia and the Scandinavian countries. In Ireland, an increasing number of couples are seeking to have humanist wedding ceremonies even though they have no legal status. A total of 153 humanist ceremonies were celebrated in 2011 and almost 200 ceremonies will be celebrated by the end of this year. A total of 12 accredited celebrants perform non-legally binding humanist wedding ceremonies in Ireland. That is the background to the legislation and it is important to address this anomaly.

The Bill aims to permit humanists and similar groups to conduct legal civil wedding ceremonies. It will amend various sections in the Civil Registration Act 2004, which regulates the registration of civil marriages. We also should never take religious, civil and human rights and liberty for granted in our State or any other state. These are principles we should all be prepared to defend and protect for everybody. I will support the legislation as it is part of the reform and change process on this island and reflects the view of a new Ireland that respects all of our citizens in the tradition of Tone, Connolly and the late Tony Gregory.

I am also pleased to contribute to the debate. While the Bill might have critics, I thank the Minister for getting it to the House because we have had a hectic session. It is peculiar that we are discussing this today after such a fraught ten days with the budget, property tax and so on. I note the list of groups the Minister will allow under the legislation but she did not include the Revenue Commissioners. After the property tax, I thought she might have allowed them to carry out marriage ceremonies as well.

The Bill will permit secular bodies to solemnise marriages. Currently, the power to do so is limited to registered religious bodies and the HSE. That is awkward for people Most weddings traditionally are held on the weekend to facilitate people travelling from aboard and so on and it is difficult if civil ceremonies can only take place during working hours between Monday and Friday. The Bill also reflects the change of views, religious practice and so on. The most recent census highlighted the number of people who ticked the non-religion box. It is important that this is reflected, as we are in the House to legislate on behalf of all our citizens to the best of our ability. In 1994, civil marriages accounted for 5.11% of all marriages but in 2009, they accounted for 28.7%. That is a telling statistic. This shows there has been a marked shift in the proportion of civil marriages versus religious marriages. This must be acknowledged and reflected in the legislation. An honest effort has been made in the Bill to deal with that.

However, there is a problem with the current legislation, which I ask the Minister to note carefully. The 2004 Act provides for the registration of a registrar. This needs to be clarified as it does not provide for the registration of a solemniser. When the Registrar General is acting as both registrar and solemniser, there is a serious conflict of interest. Following correspondence with a constituent of mine, Mr. Niall Dennehy, Commissioner for Oaths in Clonmel, the Registrar General is refusing to register him as a solemniser in spite of the fact he was appointed by the Supreme Court as a commissioner for oaths and is empowered to officiate at the making of any solemn declaration within the State. He is not the only commissioner for oaths and this discrepancy needs to be clarified. He can officiate at the making of any solemn declaration within the State. Why is he debarred in this regard? I would appreciate it if the Minister could follow up on this and come back to me on it.

In these difficult and challenging times, people are struggling. I do not wish to stray from the Bill, but I must agree with Deputy Finian McGrath that bullying and intimidation of politicians is unwelcome. We thought we had moved away from it. This evening, I will travel to my own county to a very sad funeral of an eminent businessman whose family had been in business for generations and who committed suicide having been bullied by the State, the banks and the courts system. In Wexford recently, awful violence was perpetrated on a family. We have time to reflect on moral society in the Bill but we must also leave behind that baggage. We cannot allow a third force to destroy people's lives, their will to live and the air they breathe. They are entitled to that.

The Bill is an attempt to legislate for citizens with different viewpoints. We have to do that and be understanding and accepting. The Bill lists a number of groups that are deemed, for the purpose of the Bill, not to be secular. The list includes political parties or bodies that promote political candidates and bodies that promote a political cause. Some people have suggested that the Catholic Church should not be a designated body because of statements and pronouncements it has made. The Catholic Church is leading its flock and is entitled to do so and to make pronouncements. I only speak for myself in saying this.

I will not forget for a long time the hostility I was shown outside the gates of the House a few weeks ago when we were debating Deputy Clare Daly's Bill. The people concerned claim to be pro-choice. I accept that they were hijacked by an organisation. Anyone who engages in a legitimate protest these days seems to be hijacked by the same organisation. I was shocked and frightened by the hostility and vitriol shown to me by people who claim to be pro-choice. I suppose public representatives are used to this, but I could not believe their animosity towards people who choose to differ from them.

We must all deal with issues sensitively and as well as we can. That is what the Bill tries to do. We cannot be bullied or intimidated. We must have open and free discourse and debate and be able to act according to our consciences and beliefs.

I wish the Bill well. I compliment the Minister on getting it here and wish her a happy Christmas.

I welcome and support the legislation which provides for much greater choice for people who want different types of civil marriage ceremonies.

The Bills digest tells us there has been a significant increase in interest in civil marriage ceremonies, although we did not need the Bills digest to tell us that. The Bill will permit a wider range of ceremonies than are currently provided. Civil wedding ceremonies are only provided by the HSE, which only works between Monday and Friday. This is amazing, given that people who attend weddings may have to take a day off work and incur expense in doing so. This needs to be tackled.

Seeing marriage as a legal contract recaptures our Celtic traditions because that is how it was seen in ancient times. Types of marriage have evolved over centuries. Irish marriage customs changed radically over time. Up to the 12th century, marriage was provided for by the Brehon laws and was purely a legal matter. A comprehensive legal contract was drawn up, usually between equals, and all long-term relationships were recognised. It was customary for children to be fostered and the term "illegitimate" was unknown. Divorce was permitted. Dowries were, initially, paid to the bride and to her father and thereafter to the bride on an annual basis for the duration of the contract, which was normally 21 years. Contract failures were enforced by the kin of the aggrieved party. I do not know how it was done but, clearly, it was. The customs surrounding these laws generally died out and were fully extinct by the 17th century. This occurred as British control tightened and extended into the most remote parts of the country. I took this information from Sex and Marriage in Ancient Ireland, by Patrick C. Power, published by Mercier Press. It is interesting that we have a notion that marriage has been a religious contract for centuries. It is a changing environment.

The practice of the bride's family providing a dowry initiated in the upper echelons of society, with royalty and gentry devising the system to ensure the marriage had the approval of both families. Many families had enough money to provide a dowry for only one person. People lived very sad lives without choices because of the way society was organised.

In post-Famine Ireland, non-inheriting offspring had little or no means of independent income, with no prospect of marriage. Many of them took the emigrant boat. Some came back, having gone away and earned a dowry, and subsequently married. Emigration was often seen as a means of escape for those who were matched with people of an inappropriate age and elopement frequently occurred when love was not matched with a dowry or when the selected party was unacceptable to the prospective bride, who had other ideas about who she wanted to marry. This information is taken from Irish Marriage Customs by Maria Buckley, also published by Mercier Press.

In the National Library, Roman Catholic records are held on microfilm. They are regarded as private records because they are a contract between parties rather than a public contract. Church services reflect that. Since the introduction of civil registration in 1864 there is also a civil side to church weddings. One has to write to the bishop and ask permission to see the microfilm records of some dioceses, including records in counties Tipperary and Kerry. They are generally available to view but are seen as church property rather than public property. When I went to Belfast to view the marriage records of my great grandparents I was not allowed to see the entries on either side of their entry. It is important we have public records and not see them as something that is just for now. Marriage is a very important legal contract but the records are also very important historically.

People marry principally because of the legal rights it brings, particularly with regard to children, inheritance, pensions and so on. We should encourage people to enter into those legal contracts because to do so leaves less uncertainty, particularly for children. The married parents of a child are joint guardians and have equal rights.

Things also need to be done regarding unmarried arrangements. Unmarried fathers often have few legal rights. Rights come with responsibilities. If we are doing something on that we must build in the responsibilities that must be accepted. In Australia, for example, a parent may not leave the country if they owe maintenance payments. A number of issues regarding marriage need to be dealt with differently.

Earlier this year, The Irish Times reported census figures that showed a decline in the number of cohabiting couples in Ireland and that Ireland still has one of the highest birth rates in Europe. Figures released today show that we have the highest birth rate in the European Union. The census figures indicated that the traditional family unit remains remarkably stable, with the numbers getting married on the rise and a slow-down in the rate of cohabiting couples. The availability of civil marriage plays an important part in this, I believe. People wanted the choice. The humanist and other options are important. Deputy Ó Snodaigh made the point that there can be difficulties regarding who qualifies to perform wedding ceremonies.

Cohabiting couples with children tend to be younger, indicating that many go on to marry in later life. Recently, I read a report that people tend to marry within five years of having children, which shows that the legal connection is important.

Any group that is recognised as fulfilling these regulations must be robust because this is a legal obligation. When civil registration was introduced in 1864, even though it was a legal obligation, there was a 15% attrition rate and those events went unregistered. It is essential we do not see gaps in the future and whatever we do is done to provide legal certainty and proper historical records.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill 2012. I thank Members of Seanad Éireann, particularly Senator Ivana Bacik, for passing the Bill with the support of all parties and Independents. The Seanad supported the Bill twice, in its first, slightly simpler form as introduced by Senator Bacik on Private Members' business, and a second version that had been fireproofed by the Attorney General and the Parliamentary Counsel. Due to other pressures in the Office of the Attorney General, this took longer than expected. I am aware there was disappointment at the delay with what seemed to be a simple and limited project but it was quite complex as it was breaking new ground and had no precedent.

I also thank the Minister for Social Protection who supported the Bill and has introduced it in the Dáil on behalf of the Government. Without taking anything from the Minister's support, however, when it is enacted, the Bill should be known as the "Bacik Bill". It is a simple measure, although lawyers will say there is no such thing. It will allow the Humanist Association of Ireland to legally perform civil wedding ceremonies in Ireland, which was the simple objective. I welcome to the House the members of the Humanist Association of Ireland and offer my apologies for the delays that occurred in finalising this reforming measure. The association can now look forward to legal humanist marriage ceremonies in spring 2013. I place on record my welcome for this reforming measure that reflects the change in wider society, as opposed to the slower rate of change in these Houses.

Those who declared themselves to be of no religion in the last census numbered 270,000, second only to the number of Catholics. I suggest to those who compile the questions for the census forms that if the questions on the religious or non-religious status of the respondent were couched in a less leading manner, the number would be much greater.

Previously, apart from the HSE registrars, only religious groups were authorised to perform legal marriage ceremonies. This measure will be the first time a secular body, or a non-confessional, ethical, philosophical group will be added to that list. It is absolutely right in a modern republic that all strands of society are recognised and accommodated. The Bill will accommodate difference in our laws and will show that we can be inclusive and respectful of difference.

I wish to acknowledge that I have received correspondence from Mr. Michael Nugent, chairman of Atheist Ireland, pointing out how the Bill could be improved to be more constitutionally sound. I appreciate the points made but would suggest the simple objective in this case, to add the Humanist Association of Ireland to the list of those who can perform legal marriage ceremonies in Ireland, is met by the Bill as it stands. I warn against looking for perfect, which is often the enemy of good. The other equality and constitutional issues raised by Mr. Nugent can and will be dealt with on a future occasion and, in particular, at the constitutional forum convention.

Again, I thank Senator Bacik and the Minister for Social Protection for bringing the Bill to this concluding stage and congratulate the Humanist Association of Ireland on a successful campaign. The decision today will be a suitable season's present for the association.

I thank all the Deputies who so warmly supported the Bill. Earlier I acknowledged the contribution of the Seanad on this Bill, specifically the work done by my colleague in the Seanad, Senator Ivana Bacik. I was glad to ask the Government to introduce the Bill in the Oireachtas to permit solemnisation of weddings by the Humanist Association of Ireland.

I agree with Deputy Stagg that sometimes the best can be the enemy of the good. In the Seanad, Senator Cullinane supported the Bill very strongly but in telling us about the organisations that are religious, I point out that on the list of religions catered for already in Ireland when it comes to solemnising weddings is the Pagan Society of Ireland. A joke went around the Dáil yesterday about objections from Atheist Ireland, which wanted a definition of philosophical and non-confessional. It was said that would appeal to Sinn Féin because the leader, Deputy Adams, was seriously opposed to confession and has never been in the business of confessing anything and will not change now.

This legislation reflects developments in wider Irish society. The only regret I have about this Bill is it does not allow the celebration, either by religious or humanists, of the marriage of two people of the same sex. We had a successful development of civil partnerships and in the years since that legislation passed, that has proven valuable, bringing much joy to many same-sex couples. We should note, however, the legislation, at this point, unfortunately does not include the solemnisation by humanists of same-sex marriages. Obviously, that is one of many issues that is being referred to the constitutional convention. In time, we may return to the Dáil on that point.

Overall, this is a reflection of how Ireland has changed. It is also a reflection of what happens in other countries, as a number of Deputies pointed out, particularly in a country like Scotland. Like other Deputies, I have attended many ceremonies conducted by humanists, both funerals and weddings, and they have been conducted with great dignity, solemnity and respect. Bearing in mind that marriage is about celebrating two people stepping out into life together, it is appropriate that it should be conducted with due ceremony, respect and solemnity. Another concern I had about some of the material in the submission from Atheist Ireland is that we must be specific about the criteria because there are places in the United States where the criteria for solemnising are very broad and, as a result, an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas can perform wedding ceremonies. None of us wants anything like that here. There is all-party agreement on that point.

The question was asked why secular bodies are required to fulfil more criteria than religious bodies. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the provisions of the Civil Registration Act 2004 and the Bill sets out criteria that secular bodies must meet so they can apply to have their members included on the Register of Solemnisers. The inclusion of secular bodies on the register has not been addressed previously and the legislation is designed to ensure the institution of marriage is protected by applying a rigorous set of rules regarding the type of body that can be deemed eligible. In this regard, it is important that the criteria should be robust so that the authority to solemnise marriage would be granted only to stable, long-standing and reputable organisations. I am pleased to bring this Bill before the Dáil today.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

A message will be sent to the Seanad acquainting it accordingly.

Top
Share