Select Committee on Legislation and Security díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 May 1994

SECTION 32.

Mr. Currie

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 29, subsection (2), lines 2 to 5, to delete all words from and including "and" in line 2, down to and including "receipt" in line 5.

This amendment is to delete that part of section 32 (2) which reads as follows:

. . . and, upon receipt by him [that is the registrar] or her of such a notification, he or she shall make it available at his or her office or place of business for inspection by members of the public during ordinary office hours in the month following its receipt.

May I make it clear that I am in favour of the three months' notice of marriage. I am referring to the proposal that notification and details of the marriage be displayed at the registrar's office for a month. That is undue intrusion into private lives. I would have to be sure that such a provision is necessary before I could support it. My daughter got married last year and I know the commercial pressures which are exerted by hoteliers, florists, establishments offering wedding lists, car hire firms and other businesses. This notice being displayed in public will add considerably to the pressure from commercial interests. The time before a wedding is tense enough for a young couple. It is also an expensive time without offering potential to commerical interests to exert undue pressure on the couple.

The Minister will be aware that people in certain areas of Dublin are now reluctant to put obituary notices in the newspapers informing the public of the time and place of a burial because on a number of occasions houses have been burgled when the owners were attending a funeral. People suspect that burglars get their information from the obituary notices in newspapers. Something similar could happen during weddings and the pickings would be much richer as wedding presents are likely to be stored in the house. A day which ought to be one of great joy for the couple and their relatives could become a day of sorrow if the house is burgled in their absence. That additional factor ought to be taken into consideration.

There is also the general question of intrusion into the private lives of people. Some people do not wish to have their weddings publicised. Most people like to see their photographs in the newspapers but others, for a number of reasons, shy from such publicity. I am quite sure that a relationship will grow between either the registrar or a member of his or her staff and the newspapers regarding weddings of a possibly controversial nature. There is great difficulty in preventing that occurring anyway. However, I wonder if we ought to assist the tabloid press in particular in these cases.

I have not substituted anything to replace the section because I want the Minister to explain why he thinks notification is necessary. I will consider what to do about the amendment on the basis of his reply. I will raise other pertinent matters if he insists on keeping this section in the Bill.

Mr. Power

We are familiar — perhaps we have seen it in the cinema or read about it in romantic novels — with whirlwind romances where couples fall in love and get married in one romantic weekend. The provision which will necessitate a couple giving three months notice of their intention to marry will do away with that. However, the provision is welcome. Why did the Minister decide on a three month period of notice? Could that period be extended?

I support Deputy Currie's comments on the publicising of marriage notices. How necessary is that provision? There is a degree of invasion of privacy. Some people like to keep such a matter quiet and they should be allowed that choice.

Ms Keogh

I sympathise to a degree with Deputy Currie. I have no objection to the so called "cooling off" period of three months. It is a good idea. However, I have difficulty with the requirement of public notice of intention to marry. It is an invasion of privacy. Unscrupulous business people or, perhaps, hard pressed business people would ply their trade at a time when it is least appreciated. That would be the least effect of the provision. Is the public notice provision necessary?

Notwithstanding the fact that I agree with the three months cooling off period, I am somewhat concerned about possible difficulty in getting the court to discharge that element. Is it necessary to go through all the provisions laid down in the Bill? I considered suggesting the deletion of paragraph (d) but I was not satisfied that it was the right approach. How would the Minister deal with that provision?

I support Deputy Currie's sentiments.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I am favourably disposed to this amendment. I agree with previous speakers that this requirement appears to be an invasion of privacy. The registrar's office is open to the public during office hours and if one makes public the intention of a couple to get married it will lead to the situations Deputy Currie and others have mentioned. What concern of the Minister prompted the inclusion of this provision? I empathise with the inclusion of other provisions in section 32. The three month's notice period is sensible for the reasons that have already been mentioned. However, I am at a loss to determine what justified the inclusion of subsection (2) and I await the Minister's reply.

Mr. Taylor

The purpose of section 32 is twofold. First, it affords couples intending to marry a period of reflection concerning their proposed marriage. Deputy Power asked how we arrived at the period of three months. That was the period recommended by the former Oireachtas Joint Committee on Marital Breakdown.

Essentially, there should be a period of reflection. Consumer legislation provides that when one signs to buy a vacuum cleaner there is a period of reflection in which one can withdraw. If one recognises the seriousness of marriage one realises how much more necessary such a period is there. That is the basis of the provision.

Second, the requirement under the section that notification be available for public inspection at the office of the registrar of marriages concerned is intended to enable the establishment of the existence to any impediment that might exist to the marriage. This is not new; there are publicity requirements prescribed in law and by various churches. The publicity feature of section 32 is in keeping with those existing provisions. For those reasons I regret I am unable to accept Deputy Currie's amendment.

Mr. Currie

With all due respect, I did not detect any great regret in the Minister. If he regretted it that much he would take the action I suggested. He does not have to be polite to me, I can take other forms of address.

Mr. Taylor

I am always polite.

Mr. Currie

The three month waiting period may be called a period of reflection, a cooling off period or, to use a phrase of some years ago, a period of mature reflection. The three month suggestion is sensible. Entering into the marriage contract is the most important step people are likely to take in their lives and such a step should only be taken after mature reflection. One remembers circumstances where one might have wished to dispense with such a cooling off period, but in view of the importance of the matter and the decision it is wise to have it.

I do not entirely accept the Minister's reason for the publication of this notice in a public place for a period of one month. He said this was to ensure any impediment to the marriage would be notified, but this may not be the right way to do so. The disadvantages I enumerated at the start, such as the violation of one's privacy, are outweighed by the advantages the Minister suggests would flow by having this requirement.

The proposed notification is to be made available at the office or place of business of the registrar for inspection by members of the public and it is restricted to that office. As I said, I would be in favour of deleting this provision but if a case can be made for placing this notice at the office of the registrar general, why are other places ruled out? If the Minister is concerned that notice be available to members of the public and displayed in a registrar's office to ensure an impediment will be brought to light, why is the notice not to be displayed where it is more likely to be seen? Why should it not be displayed in the church where the couple intend to get married? If this is the purpose of the exercise, surely that would be the best place.

It has been suggested to me there may be an other agenda here — to cut down the role of the Churches in marriage. We are preparing for civil divorce and remarriage by ensuring the notice is only displayed in the office of the registrar general. The Churches have had a traditional role in this area in the public calling of the banns, although this has diminished in recent times. Under this legislation this is to be confined to the registrar's office. Is there another agenda involved?

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Like Deputy Currie, I find it difficult to see the benefit of having this in a registrar’s office if the purpose is to ensure any impediment to marriage will be highlighted. Only inquisitive or nosy people will go into a registrar’s office to check notices of marriages. Unless they have a special interest and watch every week, they might not know someone was getting married. As the Deputy said, the Churches have always explored impediments to marriage. If an advertisement was placed in a newspaper listing intended marriages, someone might notice the list and find a reason why a proposed marriage should not take place.

If the reason for placing notices in the registrar's office is that given, the provision will not be successful. Public display would be better, but I am against that. People are entitled to get married and giving three months' notice should be sufficient, whatever intentions there may be as regards reflection. Instead they also have to give public notice, but confining that to the registrar's office defeats the purpose of the measure.

Mr. Taylor

There is no other agenda; I do not know what other agenda there could be in a matter of this nature. The Churches have their own arrangements in this area, but I do not know exactly what they are. I understand the banns are read or published in some way. That has always been and continues to be the position in the Catholic Church, but I do not know the exact publication system for pending marriages.

For marriages in a registry office there has been until now a requirement under the Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) (Amendment) Act, 1870, that notice of such marriages must be published in the newspapers. That is a wide dissemination of the information and I propose to delete that requirement in amendment No. 82 before the committee. In a modern context that is an excessive intrusion into privacy.

It is necessary for an interested person who may know of some impediment such as a previous marriage or whatever, and who might suspect that the person in question was about to enter into marriage which could create difficulties, to have access to a place where they could find out if that person intended to marry. This minimalist approach has always been required and will continue to be required under the rules of the Churches. A lesser requirement is provided here in respect of the registration of marriages in a registry office.

Deputy Currie asked why other places were ruled out and why it could not be more broadly based. The reason is that publication should be kept to a minimum because a minimalist approach is the correct one. I am not in favour of widespread publication or publication in the newspapers, but accessibility should be preserved. There should be public accessibility, particularly if there is a possible impediment, and that has been the position for hundreds of years. One cannot say this never happens because it does from time to time. Such a publication gives a person who suspects that something is wrong access to check it out and to signal a warning before it happens.

Mr. Currie

On the one hand, there is an invasion of privacy and the annoyance caused by commercial interests which put pressure on the engaged couple. On the other hand, there is what the Minister described as the minmalist approach, where a notice is displayed in the registrar's office in order to avoid the non-disclosure of an impediment and in the hope that someone wil highlight the problem. Is that a proper balance? Does the invasion of privacy and the annoyance caused balance out the slight possibility that someone who knows the couple and their backgrounds will see this notice on display in an office which he or she rarely visits? As Deputy Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) said, “nosy parkers” are more likely to be attracted to the office to see who is getting married. Members of the press will also be attracted to see if they can get a story. The staff in the registrar’s office might see some value in tipping off the press. Is that a proper balance? If this is so important — and I accept the importance of disclosing an impediment if one exists — we should not adopt a minimalist position. It is important to display this notice in as many places as possible. The infringement of privacy and the annoyance caused outweighs any good which could result from displaying such a notice.

The Minister referred to the 1870 Act, but it only refers to marriages which take place in the registrar's office. We are suggesting that every marriage, whether it is in a church or a registry office, should have a three month display period. Although I have not read too many notices in the newspapers in this part of the island, it is common in Northern Ireland to find an advertisement to the effect that Joe Soap, a bachelor, is contemplating marriage to Mary Ducks, a spinster or divorcee. This regularly appears to local papers throughout the North. This happens in specific circumstances where the marriage will take place in a registry office. However, we are saying that all marriages should be displayed. The Minister has not satisfied me on this point.

Mr. Taylor

I am sorry I have not satisfied the Deputy. The Churches read the banns in whatever form that takes. This is publicity as far as all church marriages are concerned. The remainder concerns those who marry in a registry office.

Mr. Currie

The practice of reading the banns in church is falling into disuse.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

That does not happen.

Mr. Currie

I only hear this when I go to church outside the country. I hear the banns being read in Great Britain, in particular. It is considered extremely unusual to practising Christians. If the banns were read out in church, either in the North or South, people would jump to the conclusion that there was something wrong with the intended marriage. We cannot make such a comparison.

Mr. Taylor

I do not have personal knowledge of this, but there seems to be conflicting evidence on this point. I was told this was a factor in some Catholic churches, but I thought it was universally applied.

Mr. Currie

How many people here have heard the banns being read in church?

Mr. Taylor

Be that as it may, but this has been the position for a long time because the public is involved in a marriage from the point of view of impediments. I am not introducing something new but continuing what has always been there for a good reason. Perhaps things have changed in the 1990s and that need is no longer necessary, but I believe it is necessary in a minimalist form. Having regard to the Deputies' comments and if Deputy Currie withdraws the amendment, I will consider the matter in further detail between now and Report Stage.

Mr. Currie

The Minister gave the same commitment on Second Stage when he said that in view of the remarks made, he would consider it again.

Mr. Taylor

On this point?

Mr. Currie

Yes. It is in the Official Report of the Dáil.

Mr. Taylor

I have heard nothing so far which would cause me to change my mind on this issue. However, if the Deputy withdraws the amendment, I will consider it further.

Mr. Currie

I want the Minister to consider one further point. I also have experience of letters of freedom whereby one is required, certainly in the Roman Catholic Church, to get a letter from the parish priest in every parish one has ever lived to say that as far as they are concerned one was free to marry. I do not know whether that still applies. That was a private procedure and not a public disclosure. I am prepared to accept what the Minister has said on the basis that he will look again at this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Taylor

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 29, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) (a) The Minister for Health may make regulations for the purposes of this section and, in particular, in relation to the notifications provided for by subsections (1) and (2).

(b) A regulation under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder.".

A new subsection (4) (a) in this amendment provides for regulations to be made by the Minister for Health to give effect to the notification provisions in section 32. New subsection (4) (b) is a standard provision in relation to the making of regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 32. as amended, agreed to.