Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation that deals with recording the defining moments of our lives, our births, marriages and deaths - the records that establish our position and status within the State, and our relationship to one and another and to the State as citizens.

I am particularly interested in the provision requiring the registration of father's names on children's birth certificates. In introducing the 2012 Bill in this area, the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, mentioned she intended to introduce this amending legislation. I am delighted to see that promise being fulfilled now. In truth it should probably have happened years ago and we should not have had to wait for EU direction to do it. I believe every child has the right to know his or her parentage. It is unacceptable that even as recently as last year, 2,675 children were born and registered without a father's name on their birth certificate.

I presume the number is roughly the same every year. Apart from the rights of the child, if the father remains living in the same area over a number of years and has more children, whether marital or non-marital, it is not at all beyond the bounds of possibility - in fact, it is probably quite likely - that two of those children might meet without being aware of their shared parentage, which raises the possibility of relationships outside the permitted degree and certainly outside what would be wise. As a small island country we should be expanding our gene pool, not reducing it.

I fully appreciate the reasons mothers have had in the past and still have today for leaving the father's name off the register. These are complex issues and it is sometimes difficult to know what a person's motivation might be. In some cases, it may genuinely be that the father is unknown. In other cases, there may be a desire to have nothing further to do with the father or a belief that including his name on the certificate could in some way imperil the mother's entitlement to housing benefits or lone-parent payments. Some mothers may fear that including the father's name could result in their being forced to live together. In other instances, it might simply be that the mother does not want the child to know who his or her father is; there are all sorts of reasons that such might be the case.

The reality, of course, is that unmarried fathers in this country have very limited rights and responsibilities. Moreover, those they do have do not come by way of a gift from the mother of the child but rather by virtue of their own parenthood. However, whether a man is a good or bad father, an absent father or a present father, his child carries his DNA and therefore has a lifelong - in fact, a multi-generational - connection to him. Not knowing one's parents has many implications. For example, a person who does not know the identity of his or her parents is denied all types of health information that could be absolutely essential in terms both of preventative measures and treatment of illness. Even setting that aside, it is every child's entitlement to have information regarding his or her identity. This is a stand-alone entitlement of all children, even where such might be inconvenient for their parents.

I recognise that there may be good reason, in exceptional circumstances, that the father's name should not appear on the birth certificate. The legislation makes provision for such cases, with a requirement that the mother give reason in writing for the omission. Ultimately, the decision is made not by the mother but by the registrar. Such circumstances are rare enough. It might arise, for instance, where there is a criminal offence, such as where both mother and father are underage. In cases of incest, to give another example, the mother might be in fear of her life if she were to put the father's name on the register. Apart from these exceptional circumstances, the principle of inclusion of the father's name will apply. It is important for mothers to know, in giving the name of the father, that there are no new rights for unmarried fathers under this legislation.

On the father's side, too, there can be an even greater incentive not to give his name. Indeed, the one gap I see in the legislation is the lack of follow-up where a man does not accept the mother's word that he is the father. I see how it might be problematic to follow up in such cases, but there seems to be no procedure at all to establish parenthood where a father denies it. That is apparently the end of the process, with no penalty for non-co-operation. This is a major weakness in the Bill. If it is important to establish compulsory registration, we should be prepared to enforce it. It may be difficult and costly and require DNA analysis and so on, but for the child's sake - that being the prime motivator and concern behind this legislation - it is important that every effort be made to establish parenthood.

I very much welcome the provision for the inclusion on the birth certificate of the PPS numbers of both father and mother. This information could, in future, facilitate a system for ensuring all fathers meet their financial parental responsibilities. Heretofore, the taxpayer has taken on the financial responsibilities of fathers who walk away. Has the Minister considered the establishment of a separate register of non-marital fathers? I understand that was a recommendation of the Law Reform Commission. In Britain, for example, it is possible to identify the number of non-marital fathers who have multiple children with multiple mothers. It may be that this type of information will be needed in the future if we go down the road of financial responsibility. I do not know whether a separate register would actually be necessary; it may be that the inclusion of the unique identifier that is the PPS number would be enough to facilitate the extraction of that type of information. I do not wish to suggest that all fathers are trying to avoid responsibility. Of course that is not the case. In fact, the reverse is true and most fathers do meet their responsibilities. For those who do not, however, there is no reason for the taxpayer to continue picking up the bill on their behalf.

The Bill deals with other important issues which, however, do not have as wide-ranging an application as the provisions relating to joint birth registration. There are provisions dealing with the regularisation of foreign embassy marriages, recording in Ireland of deaths of Irish citizens abroad, and the recording of neonatal deaths. The latter, in particular, is a very welcome development. In addition, the Bill clarifies the position regarding open-air civil marriage ceremonies. Every Member has received representations on some or all of these matters. It is encouraging to see that even a small number of citizens who are affected by some gap in the law can make representations and find their needs are met in a timely manner. We can be proud of that achievement.

The provision regarding the sharing of information between Departments and State agencies is important and will help to streamline access to information and ensure citizens can access the most up-to-date services to which they are entitled. If we want efficient and cost-effective services, we must ensure those who deliver the services have access to the necessary relevant information. I cannot understand people who happily and thoughtlessly share the most intimate of information on Facebook and other social media but do not wish to provide State agencies with the most basic information necessary to ensure they can access good services. It does not make any sense that they would deny the State that type of information.

I particularly welcome the provision for information sharing on births, marriages and deaths between our historical registers and the genealogical website of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. I have an interest in genealogy and have spoken about this issue in the past. This type of website is a great resource for any country which wants its citizens to have access to information about their past. It is particularly so in a country like Ireland which has such a large diaspora. It is a great boon to the tourism and hospitality industry. I reiterate the point made by colleagues regarding the need to invest in the storage of our records and make them accessible to the public. They are an irreplaceable part of our heritage which, unfortunately, were left in appalling conditions during the Celtic tiger years. As resources become available, these records should be afforded the respect they deserve.

The Bill also attempts to prevent the practice of marriages of convenience. I listened with interest to what Deputies Michael McNamara and Clare Daly had to say on this issue. I say "attempts" because I see the provision as somewhat problematic to implement. In fact, I suspect it might be open to constitutional challenge.

As a member of the Council of Europe's migration committee, I know of the desperation which drives migrants, the lengths to which they will go, the money they will pay and the risks they will take to have a better life in Europe. I assure Deputies that getting married is the least of the risks they will take. The Minister is absolutely right, however, to try to prevent this abuse of marriage, primarily because it is so associated with trafficking. Where one has desperate migrants, one has greedy and ruthless smugglers and traffickers who will prey on them. The Latvian Government made representations to us in the past about this because it was suspected that the EU citizenship of many Latvian girls was being used to establish the right to marriage in Ireland to non-nationals. The large increase in numbers following the EU directive of marriages between non-Irish EU citizens and non-EU citizens would indicate there is a genuine problem. Some 2,000 to 2,500 marriages per year amount to a lot of marriages.

It may not stand up to a constitutional challenge because the right to marry is protected under the Constitution and any attempt to change, reduce or limit that would need to be on very firm ground, and I wonder if this is on firm ground. The impediments to marriage are matters of fact, such as one's age or marital status, but what we propose is to have another impediment to marriage, namely, a marriage of convenience solely for the purpose of creating immigration advantage. Instead of it being an objective fact, the new impediment wanders into the area of intent, motivation or why one is getting married. That is difficult to establish at the best of times. God knows, as Deputy Daly said, why some people get married. I am sure many people have gone up and down the aisle with all sorts of mental reservations about why they are getting married. The landscape in Ireland is littered with examples of marriages of convenience, whether to do with land, money, pregnancies or otherwise. They are, as we know, part of our history, but they have always been accepted by the State as valid marriages and they have never been questioned.

We are saying in this legislation that there is one kind of marriage of convenience which is not valid. We are singling out one group of people and denying them the right to marry based on why they are getting married. It is possible that could run into difficulties with the Constitution. Having said that, it is right that we should try to do this, not least to try to tackle the trafficking associated with it.

I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill to the House. Its measures reflect the significant changes we see in society. Legislation has not always kept up with changes in society, but for once we can be proud that we are responding to some changes in a timely manner. The Minister can be proud of her contribution in making the recording of those life defining moments, which are important but often traumatic for us, a little bit easier for citizens.

See this speech in context