Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)

I have concerns about section 22. I am particularly concerned about the registration of children of unmarried parents. This section, as drafted, will cause significant problems in the future.

Section 22(1) allows an unmarried father to refuse to co-operate, as Deputy Crowe says, or to say he need only supply his name. That information, and only that, is required of him under subsection (2). It is the only requirement mentioned in that subsection. Other people are required to supply particulars but an unmarried father need only give his name. There appears to be no link between subsection (1) and section (2). There is no mention of a "person" in subsection (1) while subsection (2) makes provision for a "person" to become the father of a child.

The purpose of amendment No. 19 is to improve the drafting of the Bill. It is inappropriate that the mother of a child is referred to in the Bill as the "mother" while the father is referred to as the "person". This is offensive to natural fathers.

A further problem is caused by the provision that if the father's name alone has been added the birth cannot be re-registered to include any further details. When the legislation was initially drafted the implications of the extra information required to register a birth were not considered in the detail which now occurs. One can understand that.

One of the solutions suggested to me is that "father" should be made equivalent to "person" in section 22(1) so that only a person who did not know he was the father would have no obligation to register his name. Another suggested solution is to redefine "name" in subsection (2) to include all the details required for registration, such as date of birth, address and other identifying information. A name would have to be given, along with an address, a date of birth and other details about the child. Such a solution might cover all that.

Section 22(2)(d) should allow for any court order, including those allowed under section 45 of the Status of Children Act. This would at least allow the parents or child to ensure full registration at some stage and perhaps remedy other problems that might arise from the Act.

The other solution would be to delete the section and rely on the Status of Children Act, which at least does not give the father an obvious opt-out clause. That Act is clear in this area, and "name" could be re-defined to mean details required for registration, if that is possible.

Deputy Boyle referred to adding "unless a finding of parentage relating to the child has been made". This might have a small disadvantage in giving an opt-out for those who might acknowledge paternity but who would co-operate only nominally in the registration process. The subsequent amendments might try to deal with some of that — I do not say that merely because I have tabled them. The amendment proposed by Deputies Boyle and Crowe has the advantage of at least removing the very convenient facility of opting out. Deputy Ferris referred specifically to the father opting out on the first whim.

We must give some thought to section 22 in this context. It is a critical part of the Bill which we discussed in detail previously. Amendments such as Nos. 20 and 21 would hopefully improve the section in some way, but if we do not properly tackle section 22(1), the matter may well come back to haunt us at a later stage.

See this speech in context