I move amendment No. 63:
In page 25, subsection (2), lines 17 and 18, to delete "(European Communities)".
This is also a purely drafting amendment.
SECTION 27.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 28 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 28, before section 32, to insert the following new section:
"32.—Notwithstanding the rights of religious denominations to perform marriage ceremonies according to their own rites. after the coming into effect of this section, a marriage shall not be valid in law unless it has also been solemnised in a distinct ceremony by the Registrar of Marriages for the district concerned.".
I proposed this amendment because I am surprised that a provision was not included in the Bill. The Minister must be aware that a case has been made for clearly separate civil and religious ceremonies. At present there is much confusion when people go to church and get married under the religious rite and then have the State ceremony immediately afterwards. Many people are not aware of the distinction.
This issue has been pursued by the National Youth Council and was included in the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. Despite the Government's commitment to the commission's report which included this recommendation, it is not in the Bill, I would like to know why. It seems a perfectly reasonable amendment that would be automatically accepted.
There is no doubt that the law on marriage registration which dates mainly from the nineteenth century, is in need of reform. However, I do not see such reform as being appropriate to this Bill.
My Department is undertaking a comprehensive review of the legislation on the registration of births, marriages and deaths. The review, which is entirely separate from this Bill, is considering how the existing system can be adapted to suit modern needs and conditions. The review will take some considerable time to complete because of the complexity of the issues involved and the age of much of the relevant legislation.
Deputy McManus's proposed amendment entails a fundamental change in the marriage registration system. It would have far reaching legal, social and administrative implications. It would be entirely inappropriate to make such a radical change by way of this amendment to the Bill and it would pre-empt the outcome of the review. Consequently, with regret, I have to oppose the amendment.
Anything remotely radical appears to upset the Minister. This is not a radical proposal. It has implications but it is desirable to separate the two. We have made great progress as regards separating secular life and religious life but this has not yet been done in relation to the marriage ceremony. It disturbs people and it is a confusing signal when people go about getting married. There are all sorts of commitments that have to be made here. The Minister has changed the age at which people can marry and made certain stipulations about how people go about getting married. If one does not comply with them, one is not married, even though one may have done everything else. The rules and regulations that must be followed are quite rigid.
I find it hard to accept that it is not within the capability of the Minister to take a step, which would conform to his party's views, to include this in the Bill. It is simply caution on his part that he will not take the natural step forward to separate the two. I have no doubt that there are implications but they can be taken on board. There are implications in every Bill. Sheer caution is preventing the Minister from making the reform, which is badly needed. It relates to people's understanding. It is a major step to get married and many people when they make that step are not fully aware of its implications. The Minister has a responsibility, if he wishes to protect marriage, to ensure that people when they make that enormous step in their lives to get married, understand the implications and commitments they are making. The Minister is remiss if he does not take this step in order to ensure that understanding exists when people get married.
I am a little baffled by the reasoning given by Deputy McManus, who has based this more on assertion than distinct or specific evidence to illustrate the difficulties that have been brought to her attention by people getting married in trying to distinguish between the religious and civil ceremonies or contracts. I am invited to many weddings, which are not necessarily of the one denomination, and I have never encountered the enormous insurmountable comprehension problems that Deputy McManus articulated. She made her case through assertion and I do not accept those assertions in this regard.
There are difficulties and inadequacies regarding the clarity of what is involved. The Minister is correct in making moves within his Department to review the entire civil marriage contract procedure. I am not sure that the clear, unambiguous distinction between the religious and civil aspects necessarily needs to be made. There is a distinction but I am not sure that we need to clearly and distinctly separate the two completely. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the Deputy but she is proposing to ask young couples, if they say they are Catholic and want to be married in a Catholic church, to come out of the church ceremony and go into another ceremony. I take it that is what the Deputy means, but perhaps I am misinterpreting her. If so, I will accept that I am misinterpreting her.
There is enough trauma for a young couple in going through the procedure once, rather than putting them through trauma a second time. If I am not misinterpreting the Deputy, while I agree in principle that we have to review the civil contract part of marriage, how it proceeds and how its meaning is explained to a young couple, I do not see that it necessarily requires completely separating one ceremony from the other.
Sitting suspended at 1.5 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.
A Chathaoirligh, before we resume on amendment No. 64, could I refer, with your consent and that of the committee, to amendment No. 61 by Deputy Helen Keogh regarding the question of financial disclosure? I have been considering that position further over the luncheon interval and it occurs to me that I may perhaps have inadvertently misled the committee by suggesting that there may be specific references in rules of court to the 1989 legislation. On reflection I do not think there are. Reflecting on it further I have come to the conclusion that that whole question of financial disclosure warrants more careful examination. There will be a necessity to have some provision for it, or even an authorising provision, included in the Bill itself as distinct from rules of court. I want to inform Deputy Keogh and the committee that I will reconsider that matter between now and Report Stage. If I find it necessary to have a provision along those lines put in the Bill I will move an amendment to that effect on Report Stage. I just wanted to confirm that point.
I wish to thank the Minister and am glad that he has had an opportunity to consider that.
Is amendment No. 64 being pressed?
Yes. I was looking forward to giving a dissertation on my reasons for this amendment.
Sorry?
I do not want to hold up the debate, but I am pressing it, yes.
Amendment put and declared lost