Section I covers the Garda Síochána Act, 1989, and the difference between Garda and Army registration of births. Why is it necessary to have two different forms?
Registration of Births Bill, 1996: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
This matter arose where the birth of a child of a member of the Garda Síochána or army personnel took place outside the jurisdiction and statutes were specifically provided for those situations. A separate register was provided for births of children of the Garda Síochána or of the army who would be outside the country, in the Lebanon for example, so the registration could take place in Ireland.
Will this registration continue in this new format?
Yes. Different forms were provided, but we will now provide the same form.
Is the procedure still the same?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator McGennis has been ruled out of order as it is not relevant to the Bill as read a Second Time. I am sure Senator McGennis may make the points she wishes on the section.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
If what I am trying to achieve is achievable, I cannot understand why the amendment is out of order. If it can be done in law, why can it not be included in legislation?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The amendment was ruled out of order because it is outside the scope of the Bill as read a second time. Perhaps the Minister may be able to give some clarification to the Senator.
The amendment comes under the branch of adoption law, which is in the ambit of the Minister of Health.
If there is a need to amend adoption law, there is something in adoption law which prohibits what I am trying to achieve. I cannot fully accept what the Minister is saying — that anyone can walk in and get the information required. It will have to be tackled in the Adoption (No.2) Bill. I appreciate any support the Minister can give me as he has been helpful on this matter in the past.
The thrust of the amendment would have to be looked at again. The amendment does not address the specific point Senator McGennis wishes to address. If I know someone's name and date of birth I can get his birth certificate. I can get anybody's birth certificate provided I can identify it. I can open the register of births and say I want copies of certain certificates, as long as I am prepared to pay the fee. There is no restriction. The problem is getting the relevant information to enable a person to identify which certificate he needs, which is a different issue.
I have been told, and my experience is, that if a person presents himself and admits to being adopted, he is not permitted to see the register. If I walk in and ask for a copy of my birth certificate, which I have done, I can get it but only if I trick the unfortunate official behind the counter. If I walk into the registry of births, marriages and deaths, tell the official I am adopted and ask for a copy of my birth certificate, the official will send me to a different section where I will receive my certificate of adoption. Correspondence I have received from different groups suggests that if a person tells officials at the registry of births, marriages and deaths he or she is adopted that person will be told he or she is not eligible to receive a copy of his or her birth certificate. However, I accept that what I want to achieve is not achievable here.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
When the birth of any child is being re-registered after the commencement of this Act under the enactments mentioned, will it be possible to re-register my daughter's birth certificate, for example, under this legislation? Is it possible to change the form if I want to do so?
No.
I sought to make a change in my marriage certificate and was informed by a very sympathetic member of the staff in the registry of births, marriages and deaths that it could be done but that the only change which could be made on the certificate would be to draw attention at the side of the certificate to the fact that an entry which appeared on the certificate should have read differently. Could the Minister clarify for me whether this re-registration is simply to do with the legislation the Minister mentioned about legitimacy and status of children or is it now possible for any aggrieved mother to re-register her children's birth in the new format? Will changes to existing birth certificates be in the form of an amendment at the side of the certificate?
Re-registration only arises if there is a specific statutory authorisation and provision for it. In regard to birth certificates — I do not want to discuss marriage or death certificates as we are not involved with those here — re-registration arises in two circumstances. It arises under legitimation legislation or to name the father under the status of children legislation. Those are the only two cases where re-registration comes into play. To re-register one must qualify under the terms of that legislation.
Would re-registration in that case mean an amendment to the certificate itself?
Yes.
It is not an amendment at the side of the certificate as would have been the case before.
It will be a re-registration.
The section mentions death certificates. Will this Bill bring changes in the law relating to death certificates as well?
No. We are dealing only with birth certificates in this Bill. This Bill is only concerned with changing the form of the birth certificate. We are not changing anything to do with deaths in this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."
Will the changes being made here now mean there will no longer be a necessity for a baptismal certificate?
This Bill does not affect baptismal certificates. A baptismal certificate is a church document, not a State document. Baptismal certificates are issued by church authorities and whatever arrangements they have will presumably continue. That is a different regime. This Bill deals with the State registration system and that is the only certificate we are concerned with. The church authorities make their own arrangements and they have their own systems and procedures. They may vary them from time to time but that is a separate issue and we are not concerned with that. They have their own regulations.
Under the provisions as they stand now when a child is born it is often registered by the parents without its forenames and those forenames are added to the birth certificate at a later stage. They might not have decided what forenames to give the child when its birth was registered. They amend that by producing the baptismal certificate to the registrar and then the forenames are added to the birth certificate.
They do not use the baptismal certificate any more?
The baptismal certificate has no relevance to what we are debating here.
In practice it does.
Is it possible for parents to register their child on birth without forenames and add them at a later stage?
Yes. The second last item reads: "Forename of child if added after the registration of the birth." That quite clearly allows for that.
On a general query, I know the Minister is not dealing with marriage certificates but the baptismal certificate is certainly used during the marriage ceremony. The priest uses the details from the baptismal certificate when filling in the register of marriages. Will the Minister suggest during his general review that the birth certificate rather than the baptismal certificate should be referred to, as they can differ?
The marriage ceremony which the priest conducts is also a church ceremony. The names recorded on the marriage certificate will be those names which are given. Whether those names tally exactly with what happens to be on the birth certificate is a separate issue. The person's name is the name that person is known by. Church forms have no relevance to the State system.
They do. I speak from personal experience. I am not talking about a person's forename but about the details which appear on the baptismal certificate. These can be quite different to the details which appear on the birth certificate.
I appreciate that they may be different.
Senator Doyle will be able to clarify that the priest, as an officer of the State, uses the baptismal record for the registration purposes of a marriage which is conducted in a church.
I do not want to begin a debate about marriage certificates as we are dealing with birth certificates here. The priest is given the names of the couple he is marrying. He may take that from the birth or the baptismal certificate. Whatever names are given will find their way in due course onto the State marriage certificate. The names on that person's official birth certificate may or may not be different. The end result of that can be that a person's birth certificate shows a different name from that on their marriage certificate. It is a not a desirable situation but it may happen.
When the Minister conducts his overall review I will speak to him when he comes to the section on marriage.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I wanted to raise again the question of the registrar. Is it the Minister's intention to take responsibility from the Department of Health to his own Department? What plans are there to reorganise this area? A number of Ministers have responsibility here, including the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Health and the Minister.
The registrar should be a person other than the secretary of a Department. In addition, there should be an office of the registrar under the Minister's jurisdiction. In modernising this area the Minister indicated that there will be a need for further legislation. Given that disputes will probably arise in the future there is a necessity for an identifiable office with identifiable procedures for appeals and decision making.
Ministerial responsibility is a matter for decision by the Government. If this or any other function is deputed to me by the Government I will address any responsibilities that arise to the best of my ability. This is the extent of my responsibility at present. The administration of the system rests with the Department of Health. However, I cannot say what decision may be taken following the extensive review, but the Senator's remarks will be noted and considered at the appropriate time.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank you, Sir, all the Senators, and the officals from my Department who worked on this Bill. I am pleased it has received a welcome from all sides of the House.
I thank the Minister for introducing this legislation. I also thank his officials for the advice they gave him, even if it did not suit me. I look forward to the general review which should lead to the introduction of interesting legislation. I also look forward to the introduction of more legislation by the Minister.
I congratulate the Minister and his officials on this legislation and I look forward to the Minister introducing further legislation. Given that the House passed this Bill so quickly we could get much done before Christmas.
I thank and congratulate the Minister and his officials. A number of issues will be raised when the Minister introduces the general review. The co-ordination between Church and State registers will have to be reviewed. It is desirable to have the same information on all certificates. I am sure the Minister will look at this issue again.
Question put and agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to sit again?
Next Wednesday at 10.30 a.m.