Vol. 466 No. 6
3 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform if he will introduce amending legislation to remove the doubt concerning the validity in law of marriages celebrated in the months of August, September and October 1996. [11922/96]
I ask the permission of the House to answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, who is in Belfast on business.
He has no proposals to amend the provisions of the Family Law Act, 1995 relating to notice of marriage. The effect of section 32 of that Act is that, unless special exemption has been obtained in accordance with the Act, a marriage shall not be valid unless the parties give three months notice of their intention to marry. The section comes into operation on 1 August, 1996 and, so far as marriages to be celebrated in the months of August, September and October, 1996 are concerned, it means that notice must have been given in the corresponding months of May, June or July, 1996 as the case may be, that is to say in a period before the date that has been specified for operation of the section. It was obviously not the intention of section 32 of the 1995 Act that no marriages can take place in August, September and October 1996 and if it had been intended that persons could not marry in those months the legislation would have specifically provided for that. The presumption under rules of statutory interpretation is that the Oireachtas intended that couples be entitled to notify the registrar of their intention to marry and that the registrar should have power to receive such notices prior to commencement of section 32.
The advice from the Attorney General is that the provisions of section 10(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act, 1937 cover exactly the situation that arises in relation to those notices of marriage given prior to 1 August 1996. The 1937 Act provision deals with the situation where an Act of the Oireachtas is expressed to come into operation on a day subsequent to the date of passing of such Act. It makes clear that if an Act confers a power, the exercise of which is necessary or expedient to enable the Act to have full force and effect immediately upon its coming into operation, such power may be exercised at any time after the passing of such Act. By virtue of that provision and on the basis of ordinary rules of statutory interpretation, the Attorney's view is that, prior to 1 August, couples are indeed authorised to notify registrars of marriages of their intention to marry and registrars have power to receive the notices so given.
The view of the Attorney General, with which I agree, is that there is no necessity for amending legislation in relation to section 32 of the 1995 Act. Couples who have notified or will notify registrars of their intention to marry, as required by the 1995 Act, can be assured that there are no legal difficulties with the operation of this provision of the Act.
I welcome the Minister for Finance who is standing in for the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. Had I known he would be replying for the Minister today, I would have tabled some special questions to him. Is the Minister aware that doubts have been expressed, not just by me and a number of lawyers but also by a Government backbencher, Deputy Shatter, about the retrospective effect of the legislation on cases which are not clearly specified? The Minister has said that the Attorney General is relying on the Interpretation of Statutes Act, 1937 and on the presumptions normally taken in those circumstances but there should not be any doubt about this area. Approximately 12,000 people will be involved in marriages in the period in question. In exempting people from the notice in that period up to 1 August, there would be no question of somebody challenging the presumptions made at a later stage. This area should be put beyond any doubt, even beyond any reasonable doubt. I understand the Attorney General is suggesting that, on the Interpretation of Statutes Act, it might be beyond reasonable doubt but there should not be any doubt about this area.
I share Deputy Woods's concerns and the concerns of engaged couples intending marriage. I assure the Deputy and all the people who may have been in contact with him that the best legal advice we have from the Attorney General is that there is nothing in section 33 of the Family Law Act, 1995 which could prevent a couple from serving the formal application to the court seeking exemptions from provisions of section 32(1)(a) prior to 1 August if they felt that was necessary. We have examined in some detail the legal provisions surrounding the operation of the 1995 Act and the 1937 Interpretation of Statutes Act and, taken together, there is not any reason a registrar cannot accept a notification by somebody intending to marry after 1 August provided it is filed in due time and in the normal way. There is not any reason an application by a person, served prior to the commencement of the 1995 Act which comes in on 1 August, cannot be properly registered by the registrar. Consequently, when that marriage takes place, there will be no legal doubt as to its validity.
Is the Minister aware that the registrar found it necessary to consult the Attorney General to confirm he was entitled to register these cases in the circumstances and that he was assured by the Attorney General that it was appropriate for him to proceed? There is a danger, however, of a legal challenge at any time in the future. That problem can be resolved by a simple amendment. I ask the Minister to consider that aspect of the case and not just the arguments made by the lawyers about the presumption that will be taken. I thank the Minister for the reference to section 10(1)(b) of the 1937 Act but there is contention in regard to its validity. In exempting people in the period up to 1 August, all doubt in this area would be eliminated. We would co-operate with the Minister in doing that so that there would not be any possibility of problems arising in the future.
I understand the motivation behind the Deputy's question and his genuine concern. The advice available to the Department of Equality and Law Reform is that there is no need to amend the legislation in the way the Deputy has suggested. In the light of his questions, however, I will bring this matter again to the attention of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform.
