Michael McCarthy (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Malley, to the House and agree with the broad sentiments expressed on both sides. Some of the legislation in this area dates back to 1844. It creates problems for parliamentary draftspersons to attempt to deal effectively with legislation that has been hanging around since 1844. It would be worth considering appointing more personnel to deal specifically with amending legislation to bring it up to modern day standards. The Second Schedule contains a long list of Acts to be repealed. We should consider modernising other legislation also.

The Labour Party believes the Bill is an attempt to modernise the recording of events as one goes through life from birth to death, recognising the events that were not previously pertinent such as annulments and divorces. Statistics are important in the recording of events and information that can be used by Departments to project what may happen in the future. Part of the Bill is to suit bureaucracy and administration as opposed to recognising the rights of people involved. It is important to also recognise the right of guardianship. Senators on all sides were lobbied by the AMEN organisation. Senator Cummins read most of its submission into the record of the House, with which I concur. While there is a genuine attempt to address the issues in this regard, it could go a step further.

It is important to recognise the registration of guardianship. Rights for everyone including young children deserve to be recognised. The Bill brings us from 1844 to the present day which is a huge improvement. The primitive nature of some legislation creates unnecessary difficulties when attempts are made to introduce good legislation in a wide range of areas. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, has pioneered the simplification of language terms within her Department, a policy which should be examined across a spectrum of Departments not only for documents available to the public, but also in the wording of legislation. It should become more reader friendly and more understandable and much of the old archaic expressions should be removed. This should be done to make the services of Departments and legislation in the Oireachtas more reader friendly. Much of the language is antiquated and if it were abolished, it would contribute to more effective legislation.

The longer period to effect registration of various events is significant and welcome. The five day period is like the three month notice under the 1995 Act, whereby one may apply to a judge and the hearing takes place in camera. I am sure there will be some system whereby one can apply to the appropriate registrar because of particular extenuating circumstances. For example, the fact that it might not be possible to postpone a wedding may represent an extenuating circumstance. It would be undesirable if the legislation did not vest in the registrar power to have discretion in such situations.

The system of registration of births, marriages and deaths in Ireland dates back to the early 1800s, as is outlined in the Second Schedule to the Bill. The system has evolved naturally over the years. The Labour Party in Government played its part in reforming this area with the Still Births Registration Act 1994, which provided for the first time a statutory system for the registration of births of stillborn children. This is a sensitive issue and one which is upsetting for people who go through the process of losing loved ones, but the system needs to be examined in a fresh context. People do not think clearly on days on which they have to cope with tragic and unfortunate circumstances and the Act has been comforting for parents of stillborn children. Former Minister Mervyn Taylor piloted that legislation and it is fitting that he is now a member of the commission on human rights.

Another innovative measure introduced by former Minister Taylor was the Registration of Births Act 1996, which for the first time provided a new form of birth certificate which treated mothers and fathers equally. Prior to this, the registration of birth system requested information regarding the father's occupation but not the mother's, which was a huge inequity. This is one of the great achievements of recent years. Everyone can talk about economic progress but that may cloud the progress made on equality legislation, no matter by whom it was introduced. This legislation has examined and confronted societal problems and created opportunities through which people could move forward.

It is almost ten years since the divorce referendum was successfully passed. At that stage there were many opposing views and if new Ireland demonstrates one thing, it is the broad-thinking, reasonable-minded attitude of the vast majority of citizens to deal with problems as they arise. The archaic laws and their application to marital breakdown were a huge problem at the time. The State did not recognise the right of many people to remarry. The introduction of legislation created an opportunity for people to remarry within a legal framework and was one of the more progressive pieces of legislation of the early to mid-1990s. It characterised the distance Ireland has come in terms of the social agenda and social change and speaks volumes about the politicians of the day who successfully tackled the issue.

The Bill has the broad support of the Labour Party but it is not perfect legislation and I look forward to Committee Stage, during which we can table amendments. I hope the Minister will look favourably on them because they will be tabled to improve not just the text, but the effect of the Bill. It is a huge improvement and a step in the right direction. However, we could have taken it an extra length — it has not gone the full nine yards. Nonetheless, I commend the Minister on introducing the Bill and I appeal to her to look favourably upon Opposition amendments to improve it on Committee Stage.