Deputy Nealon was in possession. Is Deputy Boylan sharing time with Deputy Nealon?
Registration of Births Bill, 1996 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Not that I am aware of.
As nobody else is offering from the other side of the House I will call Deputy Boylan.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Lynch.
That is satisfactory and agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Bill. I compliment Minister Taylor for the courageous way he has tackled a number of important social issues and the reasonable approach he has taken in bringing about reform. I also compliment the Minister on legislating for a stillbirth register which has given great comfort to parents in that very difficult situation.
Ninety per cent of birth registrations are straightforward. About 10 per cent give rise to problems, and an infant is powerless to have an input to what details are provided about its birth. It is important, therefore, to ensure that the fullest information is available, so that 20 years or generations later, when people come to trace family relationships, they can be clearly established. There should be no way for parents of a child to side-step the obligation to give their full names — John Smith of a particular address may not be sufficient in future generations to identify him because there could be a number of John Smiths. The full name, including the second Christian name should appear on the register. The mother's full Christian maiden name should also appear on the register so there can be no doubt in later years.
We come then to the use of double-barrelled surnames which, as far as I am concerned, is nonsense, although people are entitled to adopt such names if they wish. It may be properly established that a child's name is John Smith-Reilly. Who Smith and Reilly are is another question, although it would probably be easy enough to determine which was the mother and which the father. It may be different in the case of what are now termed single parent families — that, of course, is a misnomer; there is no such thing as a single parent because it takes two parents to have a child. A helpless infant has no say about what goes on the birth register in that case. Therefore, the full names of the mother and father should be clearly identified. That may be difficult, but if it is not done it is unfair to the infant who, in years to come, may want to know who his parents were. It is not acceptable that the name of only one of the parents should be placed on the register. The State should have a duty to establish who the parents are to protect that infant's rights. When people decide to marry they need to be sure that they are not marrying their half brother or half sister through the neglect of the State in identifying exactly who they are.
Those problems were brought to my notice by people who feel strongly about them. The Minister, who is a caring Minister and has given much thought to social issues, might consider the points I have raised so that we can be as open and transparent as possible. There is an acceptance in society of unmarried, single parents who are entitled to bring up their children. However, they are also obliged to give their child its full birthright, full statistics as to who its parents are. It will be important later in the child's life and in generations to come. It should be possible for people to know exactly who their forefathers were and to what families they are related. That can only be done if the correct information is put on the register and everybody takes precautions to ensure that the rights of the infant are protected.
The Minister identifies this Bill as being a very small one, insignificant in many ways, and wonders why so many people want to speak on it. When I heard this Bill was going through Second Stage today, I wanted to speak on it because legislation like this makes the difference as we go through life and history is written. Women who have not had occasion to register a child up to now will not be aware, when they come to do so, that the procedure was ever different. When I tell young women in their leaving certificate year about the demands of the feminist movement in Ireland in the late 1960s and early 1970s they are usually shocked; they cannot imagine a time when there was no support payment for women deserted by their husbands or men deserted by their wives. They cannot imagine a time when women did not have the choice between keeping their child or surrendering it for adoption. They had no choice.
The unmarried parenthood of today is not a new phenomenon; women simply did not have the choice of keeping their babies before. The young women I speak to find that incredible. They find it equally incredible that one of the demands was for a home for each family. When we look back in ten years' time people will be astonished that until 1996 we allowed women to be written out of history. One wonders why there are few heroines in history, and why up to this point women have not played a more significant part in social history. The present registration system is one of the reasons, although not a major one.
The birth certificate gives the father's occupation. If the truth were told most women would consider the father's occupation at the time of the birth as "onlooker". It is an important social statistic but it is equally important that the mother's occupation be noted for future social statistics. I hope that I will be able to alter the birth certificates of my four children to include my occupation which, at the time, was mother and housekeeper — an honourable profession which is undervalued.
Statistics on the professions of fathers are available. They range from dockers and coopers to lawyers and doctors and include politicians. However, the only statistics for women relate to their maiden name, which effectively means the woman's name before she became a non-person. When women got married they became non-people — they took someone else's name — and all that distinguished them from their husbands was their maiden name. It was akin to the churching that took place in living memory whereby women were considered to be unclean in some way. Our civil law, social activity and religious behaviour were intermingled. The farther away from that we can get the better, although much work remains to be done in this regard. The issue of reform of marriage certificates is a matter that merits examination.
It should be the choice of the two parents whether their child should have a single or double-barrelled surname. It must not be imposed by law but must remain a matter of choice. Recognition of the role of the mother is equally important. There will not be a problem in the future with tracing family trees or, indeed, family bushes. Children are as interested in their mother's family history as in their father's family history.
Women must be written back into history. We do not disappear as soon as we marry. Women were not absent from all the major events of history. Given that we make up half the population we could not have been absent.
The Minister introduced the legislation for the stillbirths register, for which women will be eternally grateful. There is great pain involved in going through a pregnancy and the baby being lost and this is exacerbated if there is no recognition of it. It is perhaps a small event in history but it is a major event in the life of a person.
I would like the Minister to consider establishing a birth defects register. Although there have been great improvements in the health of children at birth and in early childhood, there is concern about clusters of birth defects. People to whom I have spoken on this matter are not looking for compensation or someone to blame. They would like a register to be established so that if a child is born with a defect the parents can be referred to someone else who has had a similar experience and who may be able to help them. Peer counselling is very important in the early stages of trauma.
A form is filled out on the event of a birth which gives details of birth defects and copies of it are sent to the Department of Health and the CSO. However, a birth defects register should not be the same as a births register because those born with a defect might thereby be subject to unwelcome scrutiny. A birth defects register should be separate and it should be available to the Department of Health and the CSO so as to make the necessary data available without identifying the individuals involved. It should also be available to maternity hospitals so that help would be at hand for parents of children born with defects and they might be reassured that they were not to blame.
This is a short Bill but it is legislation such as this which alters the course of history. I was infuriated when I found that I could not record on my children's birth certificates the same type of details as their father. One does not realise that this is the case until one goes to register a child. I am always equally infuriated by the hurried search for a man to whom to give one's daughter in marriage, although I am sure that will change with attitudes and does not require legislation.
I thank Deputies for their constructive contributions. Although short, the Bill is important. About 50,000 births are registered each year and each of them has had to be registered according to a format devised over 130 years ago. In most areas of public administration forms have been updated and revamped to suit modern needs and conditions but in the case of birth certificates there has been no change since 1864. It is agreed by all Deputies that change is long overdue.
The Bill will put in place a format which reflects today's environment, not that of the mid 19th century. Instead of relegating the mother of the child to a secondary role it gives her an equal status with the father. It will end the discrimination which has been the source of such annoyance for so many people and will also thereby give effect to one of the recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. Deputy Woods seemed to suggest there was a stigma attached to putting down a person's occupation as unemployed. I do not know whether he intended that but there is no stigma to being unemployed. That is a situation that society devolves on people and I see no stigma in it.
Deputy Woods referred to the choice of surname and giving equal treatment to both parents. If we did otherwise one parent would be favoured over the other. It is important and essential that there is gender neutrality and we have provided for it in the Bill. Surnames are required by use and reputation so there can already be problems with tracing a family tree. People may change their names during their lifetime thus making it difficult on occasion for their descendants to trace them.
Deputy Woods referred to a newspaper article, following the Seanad adjudication on the Bill, which gave a completely misleading impression of the thrust of this Bill which is to modernise the certificate by including details of the mother's address and occupation, surname of the child and so on. The article contained the comment "birth cert Christians to go". That is totally inaccurate. There is no reference whatsoever in the existing birth certificate to a Christian name. The existing birth certificate records the child's name whereas the new format will show the child's forename and surname. Under the new format it will still be possible to add a baptismal name to the certificate, as applied under the old format. The new format will record any forename added after registration which will cater for baptismal names and the small number of cases where no forename is recorded at the initial registration. The word "Christian" was not mentioned in the course of the debate.
Deputy Woods referred to the lack of a family impact statement in the explanatory memorandum. He rightly points out that in its interim report the commission on the family calls for a family impact statement to accompany policy proposals. This is obviously a matter to be considered by Government. This Bill will affect families positively inasmuch as it promotes equality within the family. The particulars to be registered are formulated in such a way as to recognise the diversity in family life in Ireland.
Deputy Woods, Deputy Lynch and others referred to stillbirths and the stillbirths legislation. Deputy Woods asked if the legislation could be consolidated. I see no particular advantage in consolidating the Bills at this stage but in the context of the general review of registration that might be considered.
Deputy Keogh referred to adoption certificates. The new format proposed will not apply to entries in the adopted children's register. The format of entries in the adopted children's register is laid down in the Adoption Act, 1952. This Act is not cited as part of the births and deaths registration Acts and this Bill is not concerned with adoption law, which is the responsibility of the Minister for Health.
Deputy Keogh and others referred to the short form of birth certificate. That is prescribed by the Minister for Health in regulations. It was agreed that the Minister for Health would change the short birth certificate to bring it into line with the format set down in this Bill. That will be done by the Minister for Health, as he is entitled to do by law, in regulations.
Deputy Keogh referred to access to birth certificates by adopted persons. Adopted persons can get their birth certificate if they know the particulars of their birth to enable that person to identify it in the register entries. Any person can get anybody else's birth certificate if they have sufficient detail. However, the right of adopted persons to the details of their birth is a matter of adoption law which is the responsibility of the Minister for Health. Section 22 of the Adoption Act, 1952, would need to be changed to give adopted persons the right to birth details. Adoption policy will not be part of the general review of registration legislation. By the same token, the introduction of a contact register would be a matter for the Minister for Health.
Deputy Costello referred to the circumstances in which a person might be given the surname of a person other than either or both their parents. I do not envisage that arising in many cases. An example of where it might arise would be in the event of a need to register a child of Icelandic parents. In Iceland there is no surname as we understand it. The name refers to the father's forename, for example, Sven Magnusson, being Sven the son of Magnus. There is no surname in the sense that we understand it. If an Icelandic couple had a child in Ireland, the question of providing a surname would arise and the new provision could be availed of for that purpose. It might arise also if there was some oddity in the surname which the parents did not want to transmit to their child. This would not deny the child's access to details of the parents because their names would be shown and will continue to be shown on the certificate. Another example of where this provision could be used is if parents whose name was in English wanted to give their child an Irish surname.
Deputy Theresa Ahearn referred to a child's right to know its parents. She may have been talking about adoptions or non-married parents. I refer her, and any other Deputies who may be interested, to the rules on this question which are laid down in Part IX of the Status of Children Act, 1987, which deals with names and the registration of parents who are not married.
A number of Deputies referred to the high cost of birth certificates. This is a matter for the Department of Health who set those charges. I do not underestimate the financial pressures on families on the occasions on which they need birth certificates. The long certificate costs £5.50, the short certificate costs £3.50 and social welfare recipients can get either certificate for 70p. Also one certificate can be used on more than one occasion as usually the relevant authorities do not retain them.
Finally, Deputy Kathleen Lynch referred to the question of a births defect register. That would be a matter for the Minister for Health but I certainly have some sympathy with what the Deputy says and I understand the point she is trying to make. I will refer the matter to my colleague, the Minister for Health, for consideration by him.
Once again, I thank all Deputies for their constructive contributions to this Bill. I am glad it has received their general appreciation as a necessary and welcome measure.
Question put and agreed to.