Mary Henry (Independent)

I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to the House and I welcome the Bill. I am glad she accepted many changes to it during its progress through the Lower House. I hope she will accept a few more in this House.

It is wise to keep one's wits about one in life, so that when it comes to looking at legislation, one can at least apply some practical notions to it. Members of the Church of Ireland have drawn to my attention that there will be a problem with section 51. This is not the Minister's fault. We have a 500 year old liturgy for the solemnisation of marriage which has featured in all the best films at that dramatic moment when the priest invites whoever knows any just impediment to the marriage to "speak now or forever hold his peace". In the Church of Ireland everyone looks at their feet and says nothing, but that will not do. This Bill suggests that we must say something. The Church of Ireland prayerbook is being reprinted so this would not just be a change of liturgy; it would be a grave financial loss. I hope that the Minister and her officials have found a way around this impediment. It never occurred to me previously although I have been to many Roman Catholic weddings that people say there is no impediment to the marriage. I hope the Minister will address that when she replies to the debate.

One of the most important parts of this Bill is the section covering registration of births. Senator Cox made some very good points about this and how much more automatic it will be but there will be problems too because a distinction has been made between marital and non-marital births and 30% of births are non-marital. Until 1997 it was possible for all mothers, married or unmarried, to complete a registration form but leave the child's surname to be decided later. Now it appears that the surname must be put in at the time of registration within the hospital. Sometimes there can be awkwardness in non-marital births where paternity is not initially claimed but when the trouble calms down, the father of the child is quite enthusiastic about putting his name on the birth certificate. Under the terms of this Bill the unmarried mother must go with the father of the child to register in both their names or in a double-barrelled name. No change can be made on the registration form after that happens. Even if the parents marry, the short form of the birth certificate which is the one most people use in later life will show whatever was on the birth certificate at that time. Could this be rectified?

In all legislation regarding registration of the child we are concerned with the rights of the child. The child's need to know his or her own father has become more obvious and important in recent years. For medical reasons this has come out in court. Mr. Justice Budd has written that a child is entitled to know his or her father when knowledge of genetics and hereditary diseases is rapidly developing. The child does not seek this knowledge in the hope that the father has become a rich American and he or she might inherit from him. It is extremely important knowledge from a practical point of view. We want to do everything to get as much information as possible for the child.

Adding the PPS may cause difficulty so early in the procedure because some people might think it is being brought forward so that maintenance grants can be obtained. People think that way sometimes. We want to make it as easy as possible for the child to find his or her father. Double indexation should still be allowed. This helped widows in particular who might have used their own names, and those of first and second husbands. While we do not want children receiving two birth certificates, or in the case of a double-barrelled name three, double indexation could be very important so that not only the child, but also the family of the father, who may not have had such a close relationship with the child shortly after his or her birth, would be able to trace the child for reasons that could be beneficial to the child. The Minister would not want the children of an unmarried woman treated differently from those of a married woman. She would want them to be in the same position to access information about their parents.

I am sorry that a guardianship register is not being set up particularly because of the position of surrogate children. I will table amendments on this issue. From the genealogical point of view, I wish we could have definite access to the hard copy indices, not just the computer indices. It should not be the position that a person "may" have access but that he or she "shall" have access. The Minister seems to be under a misapprehension when she states that the National Archives has access to the General Register Office information. This is not so; it has absolutely no access to the GRO. We can address those issues on Committee Stage. The rights of the child are paramount and what is the situation regarding surrogate children? Frequently they are born in the UK or the US and when they come here guardianship seems to be all they have.