Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

While I have sympathy for the thinking behind the amendment, it would raise many problems. However, the issue is worth debating. The current position on birth registration is that no man who is not married to the mother can be named as the father of a child in an entry unless there is consent or he is found to be the father of the child by the courts. Under the provisions of the Civil Registration Act 2004, where the parents are not married to each other at the time of the birth, the father's particulars can be registered if the parents make a joint application to do so, or if either makes an application accompanied by a statutory declaration from the other parent naming the father, or if either parent makes an application accompanied by a court order naming the father. Where a father's details are not registered initially, the parents may re-register the birth to add his details. The procedures for such re-registration are similar to those for registration. All such parents married to each other following the birth are legally obliged to re-register the birth under the provision of section 24 of the Act.

In its first report of October 2009 the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs recommended that it be made compulsory for the father's name to be registered on a child's birth certificate and the amendment would support this recommendation. However, the Law Reform Commission issued a discussion document in September 2009 on the legal aspects of family relationships which included the issue of registration of the father's particulars. The commission has invited submissions from interested parties and will issue recommendations in a further report which is not expected to issue before the autumn of this year. The provisions contained in the amendment are premature, as any recommendation by the Law Reform Commission with regard to compulsory registration of the father's details on a birth record would be of considerable significance. In the circumstances it is considered best to await the outcome of the deliberations of the Law Reform Commission before considering legislation on this matter. It seems to be very simple but when one examines all the possible and conceivable cases it gets very complicated. I suggest we wait for the Law Reform Commission. I know the spirit of the amendment. The big principle is easy but the devil is in the detail. I will look forward to studying the Law Reform Commission's deliberations in detail which no doubt the select committee will also do.