Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Oct 1993

Vol. 137 No. 13

Matrimonial Home Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

The ways in which property can be owned may not have changed radically in the last century or so but the attitude of society to the ownership of property within marriage, and specifically to the ownership of such property by the female partner, has undergone a revolution. We have moved from a time when any property owned by a woman at the date of her marriage or subsequently acquired became automatically that of her husband to a time when husband and wife are essentially treated as two separate persons for all acquisition of property purposes.

With that revolution has come a further questioning about the nature of marriage in our society and the property arrangements which are most appropriate to that institution. In particular, we are now focusing with ever increasing awareness on the idea of marriage as a partnership to which both spouses may make differing but equally valuable contributions. With that shift in emphasis comes a reassessment of certain ownership patterns which we have hitherto taken for granted. In the past it was commonplace for the family home to be in the sole name of the husband. His wife, in return for looking after the home and rearing the children, was given a roof over her head and the housekeeping money. If she was lucky some limited provision was made for her if she became widowed.

In society today such commonplaces are no longer acceptable. Women who choose to take on the nurturing role which, hitherto, was expected of them are now perceived as opting for a career which is every bit as worthwhile as those careers which attract monetary remuneration. However, for those women who have no independent income there is a basic problem when it comes to asserting an ownership interest in the matrimonial home.

At present even where the matrimonial home is in the sole name of the husband his wife may acquire an equitable share in its ownership through direct monetary contributions made towards its purchase, for example, by way of mortgage repayments. Indirect contributions such as payments into a general family fund may also give rise to a share in the ownership of the home. However, it is well settled law that no such ownership share will be gained by the unpaid work involved in looking after a home and bringing up children. That is the situation which this Bill now seeks to remedy.

Under existing legislation the nonowning spouse has a right of veto in relation to the sale of the matrimonial home and, in the context of a judicial separation, the courts have wide powers to make property adjustment orders. In making such orders they must have regard, among other matters, to the contribution made by spouses who look after the home or care for the family and to any impairment of the future earning capacity of such spouses by reason of their decision to remain at home. However, the essential fact remains that the marriage of itself and the partnership thereby created does not give rise to any specific ownership interest in the property in which the couple concerned are likely to spend a considerable part of their married lives.

While the majority of spouses affected by the situation I have outlined are women, in our developing society the male partner is increasingly choosing to take on the caring role traditionally assigned to women. This Bill will lead to an improvement in their situation also. Sadly, our society is sometimes guilty of paying mere lip service to those who do not take up paid employment but undertake instead the role of homemaker and carer. Their work is praised but the materialism which characterises society today means it may not always be given equal recognition. The granting of automatic and equal ownership rights in the matrimonial home is one way of redressing the balance and ensuring the work of which I have spoken is recognised in deed as well as in word.

The Bill seeks to establish joint ownership of the matrimonial home as the normal form of ownership appropriate to that property. For many couples the home is the most tangible asset they will possess over the lifetime of their marriage. The essential feature of a joint tenancy is survivorship, whereby the surviving spouse is automatically entitled to the whole of the interest on the death of the other spouse, which makes this form of ownership particularly appropriate. Furthermore, the Bill provides for joint ownership of the household chattels. These may not be as substantial an item as the matrimonial home but the provision being made for their joint ownership also illustrates the partnership approach to marriage which informs this Bill.

Senators will be aware that the text of the Bill now before this House differs in some important ways from that published last June. There has been a process of dialogue which has resulted in many changes being introduced and many consequent improvements. Because the Bill is breaking new ground it is important that the views of as many interested parties as possible are heard. In this context, I stress I am receptive to ideas for further improvement and if Senators wish to come forward with amendments on Committee Stage I will consider them carefully. This is not an empty promise since, in all likelihood, I will be bringing forward additional amendments.

Since the Bill has undergone a transformation since its publication I will go through its provisions in some detail and, in particular, focus on the content of the new provisions introduced. Central to the Bill is the definition of "matrimonial home" in section 2. Originally it was defined as the dwelling in which a married couple were ordinarily resident either immediately before or at any time after the Act came into force. However, following some persuasive arguments, I came to the view that this particular definition could be open to abuse by an owning spouse anxious to evade the provisions of the Bill. Accordingly, the new definition of "matrimonial home" extends to a dwelling in which a married couple ordinarily reside on or at any time after 25 June 1993, the date of the Bill's publication. I am aware some advocate greater retrospectivity but I honestly believe this is the furthest extent to which we can safely go in terms of safeguarding the interests of vulnerable spouses.

I should also make it plain that where a couple have separated since 25 June, the provisions of any separation agreement or court order in relation to the home will override the provisions of the Bill. It is not my intention to disturb existing arrangements where the parties concerned have already reached their own decisions about the disposition of their property. Furthermore, in the case of a judicial separation, the courts will retain their existing powers to make property adjustments between couples under the provisions of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989. The Bill will not affect the courts' discretion in this regard.

At this point I should also like to draw Senators' attention to the fact that when this Bill is passed the definition of "matrimonial home" and "family home" will in substance be one and the same. This alignment of the definitions will be of help to those who have rights to assert under the relevant legislation as well as to prospective purchasers anxious to ensure that they satisfy any requirements necessary for them to obtain good title to the property in question. I also emphasise that the ownership interest acquired by the benefiting spouse by virtue of this Bill is a permanent one. In other words it remains with the spouse until the home is sold or otherwise disposed of and if the home is sold, the interest will, of course, transfer to any purchase money received.

Provision is also made in the Bill for joint ownership of mobile homes, which are dealt with separately in section 10. The reason for this is that the technical provisions relating to ownership interests in land are inappropriate to such structures. It is, nonetheless, important to state that the joint ownership concept has as much validity for these dwellings as for more conventional homes.

Section 4 is at the heart of the Bill. When it comes into operation, three months after the Bill has been enacted, an equitable joint interest in the matrimonial home will vest in both spouses. This applies regardless of whether the interest in the matrimonial home now vested in one spouse is legal or equitable or whether it is freehold or held under a lease or tenancy agreement. Provision has been made, however, to exclude certain interests such as those held by individuals in their capacity as trustees and lettings made for the duration of a person's employment. Section 4 will apply to existing matrimonial homes in which both spouses have been living at any time on or after 25 June last. It will also apply to future matrimonial homes which come into being only after this measure has been enacted.

I stress that the automatic joint tenancy applies not just to the standard kind of dwelling which is to be found in urban areas, it also applies to farmhouses and to dwellings which form part of a larger commercial entity, such as a public house or shop. While there may be certain practical difficulties in reaching an agreement as to what constitutes the boundaries of the matrimonial home in these cases, they are not insurmountable and can be determined by the court under section 17 in default of agreement. Certainly if the alternative was to exclude such dwellings from the benefits of the Bill I imagine few Senators would argue in favour of such a course of action.

To deal with some of the problems which may arise with such larger entities, the position with regard to easements is clarified in section 4(5). Under section 2 any existing easements attached to the matrimonial home and exercisable over other land will continue to apply to the joint ownership. A right of way would be an obvious example of such an easement. However, other situations which are somewhat more complex could also arise and these are provided for in subsection (5).

For example, where the whole farm is owned by one of the spouses, the right of access to the matrimonial home portion of the farm would not be carried over to the joint ownership because that right of access — and any other such rights over the farm proper — are not technically easements, they are rights that the spouse concerned has by virtue of his or her ownership of the farm. They are personal to the spouse and are not attached to the land. It is, therefore, necessary to ensure that the benefiting spouse acquires these rights, particularly in a situation where the ownership of the home and the larger entity would diverge in the future, and this is what subsection (5) does. In the interest of balance, of course, provision is also made for a case where there are existing easements attached to any other land and exercisable over the home and for any necessary additional easements where that other land is owned by either or both of the spouses or by either or both of them and another person.

Before leaving section 4, there is a further point to which I should like to draw the attention of Senators. Concern was voiced lest unscrupulous individuals would seek to avoid the provisions of the Bill by conveying their interest in the matrimonial home to a company before the Bill could take effect. I have dealt with this potential problem by providing that, where such a transfer takes place and the purpose is to avoid the application of section 4 to the home, the High Court may impose a charge in favour of each spouse, or either of the spouses, on the interest of the company in the home. This provision applies to any transfers made on or after 25 June last. While I do not envisage that this provision will be used with any great frequency, it is of importance in terms of the message it gives about the significance which the Government attaches to the benefit conferred by this Bill.

While the Bill establishes joint ownership of the matrimonial home as the norm, it recognises that there may be circumstances in which it would be inappropriate to confer ownership, and certain exclusions from the operation of the Bill are provided for. Where spouses already are joint tenants or tenants in common with equal share of the home, it is clear that they have already made a specific decision as to their ownership arrangements and the Bill will not affect these arrangements. Similarly, it would be grossly unfair if the Bill were to vest joint ownership in both spouses only to put the owning spouse in the position of possibly losing his or her home because a judgment mortgage could be registered against the interest of the benefiting spouse in respect of debts incurred by that spouse before the section 4 interest vested. Provision has been made in section 5 to ensure that this will not happen.

Circumstances may also arise where the owning spouse may feel it manifestly unjust that the joint ownership provisions should apply. In such a case, application can be made to the court to have the section 4 vesting set aside. In coming to a decision on the issue, the court will have regard to a number of broadly based criteria but it cannot set aside the statutory vesting unless it is satisfied that it would be unjust not to do so. In the normal way, it is anticipated that the application would be made during the lifetime of the owning spouse. However, where that spouse has died, section 6 allows either the personal representative, or a child of the deceased, to apply. This is subject to a time constraint to minimise any problems which such an application could cause for surviving spouses.

Section 7 recognises that some spouses may not wish to take up the benefit being conferred by the Bill. They may have property in their own right, for example, or there may be agreement between the spouses that, for particular family reasons, a joint tenancy would be inappropriate. In such cases, the benefiting spouse, provided he or she receives independent advice from a lawyer in advance, is free to opt out of the joint ownership. The mechanism for this is a written declaration which, to take effect, must be registered in the Land Registry or the Registry of Deeds, as the case may be. Couples intending to marry may also exercise the right to opt out. Where the declaration is made between the passing of the Act and the coming into operation of section 4, the joint tenancy will not apply to the home or the intended home. I must stress that the decision to opt out is one for the benefiting spouse alone and that the decision should only be taken where that spouse understands the implications of his or her act and is happy to accept the consequences. Agreement between the spouses is not necessary for the declaration to be effective.

I have already referred to the fact that the interest conferred by the Bill is equitable rather than legal. The main reason for this is that an automatic vesting of the legal interest in the benefiting spouse could give rise to considerable difficulties for future purchasers of matrimonial homes and could adversely affect the marketability of domestic property. However, while the equitable interest conferred by the Bill is the real and beneficial interest, it is desirable that the legal formalities relating to ownership be tidied up by both spouses. Section 8 allows for the joint tenancy interest to be registered and provides that on registration any nominal legal interest of the owning spouse in the home will vest in both spouses. I strongly urge that this procedure be availed of. To encourage this, the usual stamp duty or registration fees will not apply.

While the Bill is essentially reforming social legislation, it affects property rights and therefore does have conveyancing implications. Section 9, therefore, sets out specific situations in which a purchaser can get a good title to the joint tenancy interest in the matrimonial home. In brief, such a title will be passed where both spouses convey an interest. It will also be passed where it is conveyed by one of the spouses but where the purchase is bona fide for full value and the purchaser is without notice that the home is a matrimonial home. If the first conveyance was not made in either of these situations, a subsequent purchaser will get a good title if full value is given and the purchaser is without actual notice that the home is a matrimonial home.

Even where purchasers have acquired good title, a spouse who may have been disadvantaged will still have rights against the other spouse in relation to the purchase money and these rights are being preserved. Furthermore, the requirement to obtain the consent of the non-owning spouse to the conveyance of the home, in accordance with the Family Home Protection Act, 1976, will still apply.

One final conveyancing point is provided for in section 11. Once six years have elapsed from the date of a conveyance of a matrimonial home and provided that the benefiting spouse is not then in occupation of the home, the title of the purchaser will acquire a degree of certainty. Section 23 contains an analogous limitation period in relation to the Family Home Protection Act.

The remaining provisions in the Bill are largely self-explanatory but there are a few issues with which I would like to deal briefly. Section 15 makes it plain that, if the benefiting spouse is bankrupt when he or she would acquire the section 4 interest, the interest will not vest in that spouse. Section 21, in line with the intention to have any court proceedings under the Bill determined as speedily and as cheaply as possible, extends the jurisdiction of the District Court so far as homes with a rateable valuation not exceeding £20 are concerned.

As I already mentioned, in section 23 the definition of family home, as contained in the Family Home Protection Act, 1976, is being made virtually synonymous with that of the matrimonial home in section 2 and this should avoid any difficulties or confusion that would otherwise arise. Provision has also been made for transitional arrangements to safeguard those spouse who currently enjoy protection under the 1976 Act.

This Bill testifies to the value of marriage in our society and confirms it as an institution where partnership and sharing should predominate. By automatically conferring joint ownership of the matrimonial home on the partners to a marriage, it recognises that the contributions of both spouses are capable of having equal validity, regardless of whether one contribution is valued in money terms and the other contribution comes through the daily task of caring and nurturing in the home itself. It seeks to get away from the reductive system whereby work is deemed to be of value only if it can be expressed in monetary terms. It pays tribute to different values and insists that these also be recognised and honoured.

I look forward to what I expect will be a stimulating and interesting debate on the provisions of this Bill and I reiterate that I will consider carefully any suggestions made by Senators for its improvement. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Neville

I welcome the Bill. As the Minister said, it recognises that marriage is a partnership with equal roles for both spouses in promoting and developing that partnership. It recognises the contribution of both partners to the maintenance of the family unit and is in accordance with the recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women.

Fine Gael has called for such a Bill since the Supreme Court decision in December 1991 denied women automatic right to the family home. At the time, we put down a motion on the Seanad Order Paper on this issue. In that context I welcome this Bill. I note the complexity of the Bill; perhaps this is one of the reasons for the delay of almost two years in its introduction.

The Bill takes into account the social realities of modern Irish society. Up to the date of its implementation, a person whose spouse is dead is on a safer financial footing than a person in a broken marriage. The Bill is particularly relevant in furthering women's rights. Women make up the majority of dependent spouses. Changes brought about by the implementation of the Bill will mark the recognition of changes demanded by society to recognise the equal role of both spouses. It will help remove some of the low self-esteem often felt by the wife and mother in the home who was regarded heretofore as her husband's dependant. The report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women, extensively discussed in this House, states that the wife working in the home is entitled to a share in the family home and the family income instead of being maintained as a dependant and as someone whose esteem depends on the goodwill of the other spouse.

The Minister commented on concerns expressed about the proposed legislation affecting proceedings under the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Bill which allows flexibility for the courts to make orders regarding property given the failure in securing maintenance payments, a constant feature of existing law. I note the Minister's comment in this regard and we may tease this out on Committee Stage.

This is a complex and detailed Bill and the central issue is the ownership of the home. However, the Bill does not go as far as recommended by the Second Commission on the Status of Women. The commission recommended not only joint ownership of the family home but also joint entitlement to income and a legal right to share one half of the estate where the other spouse dies testate. It also recommended no change in this regard where the other spouse dies intestate.

The commission recommended a legal prohibition against charging any lands, premises, business, enterprise, assets, savings or investments without the consent of the other spouse above a discretionary limit. It recommends a provision for the court to dispense with this consent and to make recommendations in regard to the right to information about income and assets and control and management of property based on title with no responsibility for premarital debt. Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, will comment on this. It may be outside the scope of this Bill but it was a central issue in the Report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. Perhaps the Minister would like to state whether he plans to initiate legislation on these proposals and if he does, when he plans to introduce it. It is important that we recognise that in many circumstances the man is in a position to go out to work because his wife stays at home and cares for the house and children. Surely then she has a legal right to a portion of that income.

I wish to refer to the role of this Bill in a future divorce referendum. One of the reasons for the defeat of the 1986 divorce referendum was the absence of this type of legislation. It is important that the Bill before us will be fully operational well in advance of the Minister's proposed referendum. There is a growing belief that the proposed referendum will get an easy passage. I do not share this view. It is important that all the difficulties which may arise during the debate are anticipated and that legislation is introduced well in advance of the referendum. We must head off the type of scare stories which were abroad during the last referendum, and the Bill is one measure which will be of assistance in doing this.

I will refer to other areas in the context of the introduction of a divorce referendum and, hopefully, a situation where there is controlled divorce thereafter. A family court system should be developed to cater for the increasing number of cases of marital breakdown, If a divorce referendum is successful, thousands of separated people whose marriages are in name only will seek decrees of divorce. At present the number of welfare officers is being reduced but it must be increased. The extra personnel is required in the resolution of family disputes to ensure that the welfare of the children and the vulnerable spouses is fully safeguarded. There must be increased funding for mediation services and couples should be encouraged to reach a sensible agreement without engaging in court conflict regarding the protection of the children in respect of family and property matters.

Provision must be made to ensure that a divorced wife is not excluded from benefit under her former husband's occupational pension scheme. The law must also be up-dated to protect the succession rights of divorced dependent wives. The provisions of the Bill will increase the cost of property conveyancing, even though the Minister has qualified that in his speech. Title investigation will be more detailed and new statutory declarations will be required. Legal advice for both spouses or intending spouses will be required. All this costs more money and, as I have said, it will be essential to have an improved or an expanded scheme of civil legal aid.

I wish to refer to the matrimonial home and the farm; the Minister touched on this. I can see some difficulties which must be overcome. On most farms it is difficult to separate the family home from the buildings and yard adjacent to it. The traditional family farmhouse was an integral part of the group of buildings which serviced the farm. The farmhouse was fronted by the farmyard and was flanked on each side by the farm outoffices. This was the traditional approach which still exists in many parts of rural Ireland. Where does the family farm begin and end in such circumstances? How does one sell off the farm and retain an interest in the family home?

The Minister has highlighted the difficulties and I wish to refer to them where a dwelling includes a business within its walls, whether it is a shop, an accountant's office, a bar or an auctioneering business which is often undertaken, as Senator Farrell will know, within the confines of the family home. How can this situation be catered for?

Section 7 allows a married couple or a couple contemplating marriage to opt out or exclude the application of section 4 to their matrimonial home or intended matrimonial home. A case can be made in favour of this approach in certain circumstances. The fact that the Minister is introducing a special format for this is helpful but the Bill should have procedures to guard against the potential for undue influence of one partner over another. The Minister goes some way to cater for this in saying that the partners must have obtained legal aid but I would like to ensure that the vulnerable partner is not overly influenced in any way.

I welcome the Bill; my party has been asking for this Bill for some time and I commend the Minister for introducing it.

Mr. Crowley

I welcome the Minister to the House. The Matrimonial Home Bill shows the Government's commitment to equality which is enunciated in the Programme for a Partnership Government and in the National Development Plan. The Bill before the House is a clear manifestation of this commitment. It is a direct response to the widespread concern and confusion felt around this country as a result of marital breakdown, and difficulties in property transfer within families.

At a legal level, one can trace this evolution back to the Women's Property Act, 1882. Prior to this Act, any property owned by a woman prior to her marriage automatically became the property of her husband. The 1882 Act provided that a married woman would be capable of acquiring and disposing of property. While the fact that such an act was even necessary for such an inalienable right may seem bizarre to us in this day and age, the Act did mark a fundamental step forward.

The Intestates Estate Act, 1890, the Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the Intestates Estate Act, 1954, covered the issue of entitlement after death. However in terms of legislation, there was obviously much to be done. In 1959, the Administration of Estates Acts completed the reform started by the Registration of Title Act, 1891. Modern statutes also had an important role to play.

The Succession Act, 1965, put an end to the absolute freedom of a testator to dispose of his property as he saw fit and allowed for certain provisions to be granted to his spouse and surviving children. It also allowed for a child to make an application under section 117 which allowed the court to make provision if it was of the opinion that the testator had failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child. The Act also allowed a spouse to claim a legal right share which cannot be disturbed by any other provision in the will.

The Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, was the first piece of legislation to tackle the question of the rights of spouses and children where a marriage was recognised to have terminated. While this Act does not allow for any alteration in the ownership of property while the marriage existed, after the granting of a decree of judicial separation it allows the courts a very wide range of powers to make ancillary orders not only on maintenance but on adjustment of property ownership and capital assets disposal, as well as an extinguishment of succession rights. The Married Women's Status Act, 1957, recognised a married woman's position as similar to that of an unmarried person in relation to torts, contracts and the ownership and disposition of property.

The Family Home Protection Act, 1976, which has many similarities with the Canadian Dower Acts, gave a spouse a right of veto over the sale of a family home. In particular it provides that a spouse may not sell or mortgage the family home without the prior consent in writing of the other spouse. The Act also provides that where one spouse is engaging in conduct which may lead to the loss of an interest in the home and that this is done with the intention of depriving the other spouse or a dependent child of residence in the home, a court may make an order in relation to the protection of that home. In the case of Somers v. Weir, which was initially heard in the High Court, the Supreme Court held that:

... if the necessary enquiries had been made the purchaser's solicitor would have been aware of the earlier non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, resulting in the purchaser by imputation having notice of the position at the time of the conveyance to him.

I will come back to this point later on another section in the Bill.

The Family Home Protection Act, 1976, also contains provisions restraining a spouse from disposing of household goods to the extent that it would be difficult for the other spouse or dependent children to reside in the family home without undue hardship. In one particular case —B.L. v. M.L., 1989, ILRM 528— a High Court judge decided that a woman who elected to adopt a full-time role of wife and mother in the home was thus precluded from contributing directly or indirectly in money or moneys worth to the purchase of the family home and was, under Article 41.2 of the Constitution, entitled to have her work as home-maker and mother taken into account in calculating her contribution towards the acquisition of the family home. However, this decision was appealed to the Supreme Court which, in a judgment given on 5 December 1991, reversed the High Court decision confirming the existing law that a spouse must make a contribution in money or money's worth to acquire a beneficial interest in the ownership of the family home.

What is illuminated by this slow process of the law is that it reflects, often in a painful manner, the struggle of women to gain full equality in our society; from a position where they were merely seen as adjuncts to men, to the present when the Government is engaging in a marked process of equalisation.

Many have chosen to interpret this Bill merely as a paving stone towards the coming constitutional referendum on divorce. While this may be true in part, I prefer to see this Bill in a broader context. The raison d'être of the Bill is to protect the rights of those in society who find themselves in a vulnerable position. In a situation of marital breakdown this position of weakness can apply to women and children in particular. It is a situation that demands to be rectified, and this is the true intention of the Matrimonial Home Bill.

Marital breakdown is an unavoidable fact in Ireland. There can be very few of us who, at this stage, do not know someone who is in an unhappy marital situation. Marriage breakdown can be a traumatic and scarring experience. There is an onus on the State to ensure that, in the event of an irretrievable breakdown, no partner or child is left in a financially vulnerable or impoverished situation. When a marriage does break down it is often women who find themselves in this impoverished situation, sometimes after many years as homemakers or working parents. In such a case the family home is a vital piece of security for the wife and offspring. It is vital to their future wellbeing and for the best interests of any children involved. Joint ownership of the family home is a natural right, pure and simple, that is why this Bill is so important and so welcome.

Fianna Fáil has always been a caring party, and this philosophy has continued with our partners in Government, the Labour Party. The Government has an underlying commitment to care. This philosophy will have a central role to play in how this Government approaches the problem of marital breakdown and other associated social problems. It is a problem that demands a multi-levelled, sensitive and considerate approach. I believe that this Bill is a manifestation of this attitude. It is a very clear indication of the pro-active and positive manner in which this Government, and in particular the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, proposes to tackle this problem.

On a further point, I would like to ask the Minister about the provision under section 22 (1) which states that "Proceedings under this Act shall be heard otherwise than in public." Due to the fact that the High Court, Circuit Court and District Court have jurisdiction in many matters dealt with under this Bill, I would ask that provision be made for the proper reporting of all Circuit Court and High Court hearings in camera so that the process of precedent as laid down by the High Court in its interpretation of this legislation — and also the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, which gives a wide range of powers to make ancillary orders — can be recorded and followed by the lower courts when dealing with these matters. At times it seems there is no precedent and orders seem to be made on an ad hoc basis from area to area and from sitting to sitting.

I welcome and fully commend this Bill. At a later stage, I would also like to see a wider definition of property. We could perhaps look at examples from the civil law system where instead of having joint ownership, certain types of property are vested in community property within the marriage system. This Bill is important in covering aspects in marital breakdown and helping spouses in that situation to get the maximum protection possible. It is also vitally important in underpinning the importance and value which our Constitution places, and which our legislation to date has placed, on the importance of the institution of marriage.

I commend this Bill to the House and congratulate the Minister once again for leading the way in reforming legislation in this area.

Dr. Henry

I, too, warmly welcome the Minister and this Bill to the House. The tone of the Bill is set in the last part of the Minister's speech where he said:

This Bill testifies to the value of marriage in our society and confirms it as an institution where partnership and sharing should predominate...

... it recognises that the contributions of both spouses are capable of having equal validity, regardless of whether one contribution is valued in money terms and the other contribution comes through the daily task of caring and nurturing within the home itself. It seeks to get away from the reductive system whereby work is deemed to be of value only if it can be expressed in monetary terms. It pays tribute to different values and insists that these also be recognised and honoured.

It is often suggested that there are two different sorts of women; women who work within the home and those who work outside it. Frankly, no one knows better the value of those who work solely within the home than those who also work outside it because they know what it costs not just in time but also in money, to replace time within the home. The Minister has done far more in this Bill in recognising the value of women's work and of the institution of marriage and the family in our society than anything in Article 41.3 of the Constitution. I warmly commend the Minister for this paragraph in his speech because it is important to look at the whole Bill. What we are doing in this Bill is trying to enhance the position and stability of marriage in society.

The fact that the Minister has taken such urgent action on this Bill is very good. It may give him some pleasure to hear the following. Today I was at the launch of a book by a former Member of this House, Gemma Hussey. On page 113 of the book, Ireland Today — Anatomy of a Changing State, she talks about the decision of the courts in 1991 which—

established that, despite some legal protection for a spouse's interest in the family home, it is not automatic that each partner is entitled to half of the home. This was deemed to be depriving people of their constitutional right to private property (Article 43.1). Shocked by this bald statement, which dismayed most women in the country, promises were made that legislation would be immediately forthcoming. By late 1992, no such legislation had appeared. When a general election was called in November 1992, and seven weeks elapsed before a new Government was formed, hopes for such legislation in the short term were dashed. A new promise was made in the programme of the new government for "legislation to give each spouse an equal share in the family home and household belongings".

How very nice that today we are able to say that this has moved one step forward, and that these words will very shortly be out of date.

I congratulate the Minister for introducing the Bill on such a good day. In 1964 Charles Haughey said that women Members of the Oireachtas should take a particular interest in and carefully examine all legislation affecting women. As previous speakers said, it is mainly women who will benefit from this leglislation. In 1964 there were only four women Members of the Oireachtas, there are now 28. When the Bill was debated in the Dáil the Minister received seven times as much advice from women as he would have received 30 years ago and I am glad he has taken some of that advice on board as is evident in the Bill.

One of the most interesting things about this Bill is that it is of most importance to older women and women living in rural areas. While most of us talk about owning our own houses we do not really own them because a bank or building society has a big share in them. Over the last 20 years or so such institutions have been very careful to try to include the names of both spouses in lending agreements in their own interests rather than in the interests of their women clients. It is good to see that women who were unprotected within their homes are now automatically protected. It is also very good — the Minister pointed this out — that judgments based on the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, and which generally gave women half, or in some cases a greater share, of the family home, will not be affected. It is extraordinary that in the past one had to fight with one's husband and separate from him to get some form of legal ownership of the family home. This situation has now been changed so that those of us who are happily living together for many years will have security.

Legal friends have told me that the Minister has been very wise in making this a case of joint tenancy where the whole house will go to the remaining spouse. I am also advised — the Minister also said this — that it would be unfair to change the situation of those who are already legally separated because they will probably already have made arrangements and legal chaos could result.

Senator Neville spoke about the recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. The First Commission on the Status of Women stated that this change was sadly needed. It has taken nearly 25 years for this change to take place which makes today a day for even more congratulations. Senator Neville raised another important point and said that the commission's recommendations on the right to a joint income and information regarding income, to which a woman has no right at the moment should be carefully considered.

In rural areas the farm as well as the matrimonial home will be of great value. While the women may not have any legal right to the farm, I wonder what is their position. After all, they may have made an enormous contribution to the income of the farm. This is an area where injustice could be meted out to women who make an income from their endeavours on the farm. Teagasc has pointed out that there is no recognition of the enormous amount of work done by women on farms. This will have to be dealt with in future legislation.

When I read the Bill initially I was worried about contracting out or opting out by the beneficial party. Catherine McGuinness, addressing a Fianna Fáil women's group last Saturday, said that if one's fiancé says "contract out" one should have another look at one's fiancé. I hope such cases will be rare exceptions and I am glad the Minister has decided that people who want to opt out should have independent legal advice. Occasionally there may be very good reasons for opting out but it is important that young people in particular should understand the implications of opting out.

When the Minister was speaking in the Dáil he had a nice idea of romantic love; he said that two adult people with their wits about them would not need much advice. Romantic love is not always described as having one's wits about one. The princess may kiss the toad and he may stay a toad or the prince may nourish a viper to his bosom. It is appropriate that the Minister has decided they should have independent legal advice in these situations. I gather excessive enrichment, such as an enormous country home, is being dealt with in the Bill.

Divorce legislation which may be introduced, as promised by the Programme for a Partnership Government, would be important. Divorce will not be easily introduced; there will be a great deal of resistance to introducing such legislation. Marriage breakdown is terrible and, unfortunately, many people decide to make their own legal arrangements which are not very satisfactory in many cases. We will have to rely on the Government to carefully explain the legislation they introduce.

This Bill greatly enhances the status of marriage and the status of women in marriage. The President, a former Member of this House, will have the greatest pleasure signing this Bill. She has done so much for women's rights. I warmly commend the Minister not just for the Bill but for the urgency with which he has introduced it. We should stress this Bill as a means of enhancing marriage rather than as a prelude to divorce.

Ms Gallagher

I welcome the Minister. I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the Matrimonial Home Bill and congratulate the Minister for being brave enough to tackle this issue in a practical way. This matter was raised many times in both Houses and proposed by many but was brushed aside because of its complicated nature. The Bill is simple in its main object but the ramifications, results and possible results are many. Its object is to give spouses equal rights in the ownership of the matrimonial home.

Because of the intricate and technical legal principles and rules related to the Bill it may be helpful to give Senators a brief outline of the law on this matter prior to the Bill. At common law up to the last century a married woman was not allowed to own property. The law went much further and stated that a woman was herself property, the property of her husband, and, therefore, had no independent rights, including that of property ownership. In those days upon marriage any property belonging to the newly wed woman prior to marriage automatically went to her husband. Even her personal items became his. Therefore, if Cupid's arrow did not hit the man's heart her bank balance certainly did. In more recent times, the married woman was allowed to own items of personal use, or paraphernalia as it was called. Then legislation was introduced to allow her own her own property. However, this right was limited and in practice women who owned property still tended to hand it over to their husbands. Only in 1957 with the introduction of the Married Women's Status Act did we see a provision that a married woman could deal with property as an independent person.

The fact remains that many married women are not joint registered legal owners of the family home. In many cases the husband attended the auction or the estate agent, went to the solicitor and placed only his name on the title documents. While this will not pose a problem to a happy couple, it can create fear and panic for the non-property owning spouse in times of trouble and dispute. This Bill hopes to give such spouses some comfort in the knowledge that they will have some rights in the property in which they live.

The first and second reports of the Commission on the Status of Women recommended that legislation should be introduced to provide for joint ownership of the family home by a married couple. The Department of Equality and Law Reform has accepted this proposal and this Bill is the obvious result. Both the Commission and the Minister consider this a first step in providing a suitable régime of marital property in order to eliminate inequality in the traditional marriage. In this regard, there is an argument for community property, that is, community ownership of property in the sense that all property and income of the married couple would be equally owned. I would be the first to admit that such a proposal would entail much consideration and discussion and would give rise to some controversy. It would obviously be a major task. However, I believe the Minister is right to get on with his job by dealing with what is a matter of priority — the matrimonial home.

Many people may not realise that a form of deferred community property already exists in Ireland in the form of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989. That legislation allows the court, in the case of judicial separation, to divide the family property in whatever way it deems fit in the individual circumstances. There is no predetermined share but the court is given power to take into consideration contributions of a spouse to the welfare of the family, the children's ages, conduct of each spouse, effects on earning capacity, etc., in deciding who gets what, to put it bluntly. However, the 1989 legislation deals only with cases of judicial separation. The situation of ordinary married couples needed examination.

We cannot speak of equality of the sexes until we are prepared to back it up in practical terms. Thousands of women in Ireland suffer from low self esteem and a lack of appreciation for all they do. Senator Henry referred to this and I feel it really affects women in isolated rural areas and older women. The Constitution praises the role of women in the home, but what good is that when a woman works herself to the bone looking after her husband and children only to find herself with nothing at the end of the day, perhaps not even a thank you? There can be no improvement in the status of women until they have full access to money and power. In all justice, the wife working in the home is at least entitled to a share in it. That is why this Bill is crucial.

We all know that in many cases the husband is the breadwinner while the wife remains at home. This means that but for a paltry children's allowance, the wife may not have any money of her own. This places her in a difficult situation if the couple fall out. The situation is much worse where the wife does not have any ownership in the home — the house in which she has lived and worked for many years. Her fear is that she can be left without a roof over her head.

In recent years, various court decisions stated that a spouse gained property rights by working in the home and thus contributing indirectly to the household finances. However, last year the Supreme Court in a case entitled L v. L decided that this was not correct and that the housewife did not have any right to the family home simply because she worked in it for so long. The Matrimonial Home Bill rectifies this appalling situation by automatically granting 50 per cent equitable ownership of the home to each spouse. Thus, it rewards those women who have worked at home for years and may have no money or property to show for it. They will now be deemed to have half the value of the home, even if they are not legally registered as joint owners on the title deeds.

All too often I see the unhappy effects of marriage disputes. I hope that this Bill will bring some relief to the non-owning spouse and will remove the fear of being abandoned. I welcome in particular the fact that the right to joint ownership is automatic. Spouses do not have to go to solicitors to get this right enforced. However, as the Minister stated, they are facilitated fully if they wish to place their joint names on the title documents. They do not have to pay stamp duty and, to my knowledge, the Registry of Deeds or Land Registry fee is at most £40. Neither will this right be adversely affected by taxation, in that capital acquisitions tax will not apply to this acquired right. Therefore, any concerned spouse can sort the matter out as simply as possible.

This Bill is undeniably complicated. It has to be because it touches on many constitutional and legal issues. It affects conveyancing law and practice and will have a significant impact on many people. It deals with the right of way or other easements which may be necessary to give proper and practical effect to the law by dividing the home from, for example, the business or farm. The Bill deals with possible effects on bankruptcy.

In particular, I welcome the fact that the benefiting spouse under this legislation will not be deprived of his or her right simply because the erring spouse has had a judgment registered against the property in question by virtue of debts. The Minister has stated that in such circumstances the joint tenancy in the home divides to become two separate shares, one to each spouse — in technical terms, a tenancy in common. Therefore, the judgment mortgage can only affect the erring spouse's half share of the matrimonial home.

I had to consider the right to opt out of this legislation long and hard and I have come to the conclusion that it is necessary. I welcome the fact that the Minister has provided the requirement of independent legal advice. Often a couple come together to their solicitor's office and get advice which will possibly suit only one partner. This may only trouble them if it comes to a separation but at that stage it is too late. I know that in small towns it may be difficult to get independent legal advice. However, this requirement will ensure that spouses get proper advice when they are considering such a serious matter as whether to opt out of their rights under this legislation.

I welcome the fact that the Bill covers chattels in the home, that is, the right to ownership of half the household items. That is not insignificant. I know a woman who minds babies in her home to contribute to the family income. She saved her children's allowance and bought a fridge-freezer and cooker recently with that money. That simple purchase requires much saving on the part of the housewife who has no real personal income. The joint ownership of all such items is a practical assistance to such women. Many women, including my mother, contribute in a big way to saving family income by her work in the home, 24 hours a day — cooking, washing, cleaning, saving on laundry, medical and many other household bills. This legislation gives some recognition to the valuable and essential work of the woman in the home which I am delighted to see.

The Minister will be pleased to hear that I have spoken to groups of women who are thrilled with this legislation. However, I warn him — and I know it was referred to earlier — that they now want joint ownership of the business, farm and everything else to which they contribute. I know that is for another day but it should not be forgotten. This Bill is important to older women, as I said earlier. They grew up in a situation where they may not have expected those rights. Perhaps they have lived in fear in unhappy marriages and this Bill gives them some consolation and security, which cannot be overlooked. Since marriage is a partnership which each spouse promotes and safeguards, this Bill will give proper recognition to the contribution which each makes towards the maintenance of the family unit. I welcome it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Enright

The general principle of this Bill which the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor introduced has been recognised and it will be fully supported by this side of the House. The rights of the wife and husband will be safeguarded in this Bill and this is as it should be. It is not a matter of one person seeking an advantage over another or of someone trying to prove a superior interest. The Minister is trying to achieve balance and fair play and people will know that their rights in the family home are protected.

I did not hear the entire debate in the Dáil on this issue, but I ask the Minister to consider one matter in relation to this Bill. Joint tenancy means the survivor obtains the interest in the property. In other words, if I am in business with a person and we have joint interest in a property, the survivor gets everything on death. For example, a husband and wife are living unhappily together because the husband is a gambler and a heavy drinker, in other words, a "rake". The wife is concerned about the young family because she knows that if her husband obtains the property he could lose it. Legal advice should be given to this lady that a tenancy in common might be better. From my understanding of this legislation, the husband gets everything when the wife dies. As a result, the wife is concerned that the husband would waste or sell the assets. Perhaps the Minister has considered this situation, but I would like his views on it.

Although many people have a stable relationship with their partners, they are anxious to protect their own rights and interests and those of their children. For example, if a partner dies and the property is given to the surviving partner, the property could be sold and their children might not be protected. Will the Minister outline his views on this issue because it is worthy of consideration?

There are many problems relating to marriage break-up. It is important for the Government to do whatever it can to resolve family problems. Every effort should be made to help marriages in difficulty because the State or Church can only do a limited amount. The problem needs to be resolved by the husband and wife. We should try to protect, foster and strengthen marriage in every possible way.

This Bill deals with a limited number of cases. Senator Gallagher is a solicitor and has dealt with many matters of this nature over the years. I am sure that 95 per cent of family matters with which she deals involve good family relations. It is the 5 per cent which must be dealt with as they are the difficult cases. The laws should cater for the small percentage of people.

Many men believe they can achieve anything if they have money and power. Some effort must be made to curtail these powers and the Bill goes in that direction. There must be understanding, kindness and love in a marriage to make it work.

I am pleased the Minister has reduced the costs involved in registering the property in joint names. This is important because £200 or £300 is a significant amount of money for some people, even when they are dealing with family homes worth thousands of pounds. Every effort should be made to minimise the costs involved.

I agree with the principle of the Bill in regard to the family home. Chattels cannot be divided between people. Family heirlooms have been handed down through families. I do not have a grand piano as my family are not interested in music, therefore it is of no interest to me. However, in some families heirlooms have been passed from one generation to another. We should make practical laws, especially in relation to the family home. However, it is wrong to make regulations which state that a sofa, dresser or wardrobe must go to a particular person. I have no objection if my wife wants to leave a dresser to someone she likes, and she would not object if I left an item to some person. That is what life is about and one cannot go too far in restricting people's rights.

This Bill goes overboard and extends powers too far. One cannot curtail freedom too much. It is wrong to introduce regulations and legislation which tell my wife to leave me specific chattels. Nobody has the right to tell either of us what we can or cannot leave each other. That is going a little too far so I have some reservations about the provision relating to chattels.

However, it is necessary to protect the family home. I live in an area where, over the years, I have seen many people who are fond of gambling and drinking. Some of them would blow not just one or two farms but five if they had them. Fortunately, they are the exceptions rather than the rule. Therefore, I agree with protecting the family home but it is an interference with the rights of individuals to extend it to the chattels in the home.

I also ask the Minister to think about the tenancies in common.

Mr. Farrell

I welcome this Bill which is good and necessary legislation. All legislation is — and always has been — a reaction to a situation. It is a pity that we have to enact this type of legislation and that so many marriages are breaking down. I would like to see some system or scheme which might reduce the present rate of marriage breakdown. The sad thing is that marriages are not breaking down once but, in many cases, two and three times, that is the harsh reality. It seems from the statistics in the media and surveys that people who cannot make marriage work the first time often cannot do so the second or third time either. It is a complicated problem which is difficult to confront.

I am pleased this Bill is before the House and I do not agree with the female Members who say it is all in favour of women. It is a balanced Bill in favour of both spouses. That is how it should be and what I like about it.

Women suffer more ailments and ill health than men. I have been saying for a long time that they are over-worked. When women get married and are rearing a family, they should get a five to seven year break or leave of absence from work. At the end of two years, they could do a course to keep abreast of change. If women retire to look after their family or home, they lose their jobs and cannot return to work.

Families need money when children are going to secondary school, it could cost between £8,000 to £12,000 to keep two or three children in university; it cost £4,000 five or six years ago. I ask that, at some stage, provision be made for a woman who wishes to take five years' leave of absence with a right to return to work. I would like to see this happen and many women also want it.

If a woman was elected as a Senator or TD, she could return to work if she lost her seat but, unfortunately, if a woman leaves work to look after a family and home, she cannot return to work. Which is more important? That is the greatest right women could have and it should be made available to them.

I am pleased there is recognition in this Bill for women who work in the home, they are the saints of this country but, sadly, they do not get recognition. There is some recognition in the new social welfare legislation and I am delighted with that. I am glad that, in assessing the value of a home, a woman's work and contribution by way of saving money and so on is considered.

I had ten years' experience as a rate collector and 20 years' experience selling to the farming community and I am qualified to speak about them. Some 95 per cent of the women hold the purse; if she decides something is unnecessary, it is not bought. I do not believe that women have as few rights as some of them make us believe, I say that from practical experience.

When one started to sell, if the woman did not like or want what was on offer, it was not bought. I could count on the few fingers I have left the number of men who paid me rates; it was always the woman who held the purse. Those are facts and I do not believe that women were as downtrodden as some feminists say they were. However, I am pleased that their work is being taken into consideration.

I have some problems which I am sure the Minister will clarify for me. When a wealthy woman or man gets married, does the new partner automatically gain half ownership of the property into which they come with one hand as long as the other? It would be very bad if this was the case. I tried to figure it out but I can never understand the legal jargon in Acts. It is a pity they could not be written in clear and simple language such as that in the Minister's speech. I always learn more from the Minister's speech than I do from the Act as I get confused when reading it. It is important that there is a system whereby a property would be valued in that situation. If property was worth £100,000 initially and at the end of the marriage was worth £150,000, the joint ownership should be assessed on £50,000 because it could have been handed down from generation to generation and be worth a large sum of money. Many people can play a nice game until they get access to a business or property and then they are seen in their true colours. "Love runs blind but marriage is an eye opener" is an old saying. People say all the nice things when they are being wined and dined, it applies to men and women.

There should be at least two valuations of the property. I know of a case where a man and a wife separated amicably and decided to get the property valued by a professional. The gentleman was a tricky little man but was himself fooled in the end. He told the valuer to get someone to buy the property for a certain sum although it was worth much more. When the professional gentleman bought it and the former owner went to collect his extra money, he said he had bought it, that it was his, so neither gained in the end.

There is no provision in the Bill to ensure that, even when the two people agree, there are two valuations to ensure the true value of the property is realised. I know of another case where the property was on the market for a long time because the two partners could not agree on its value. The problem was that one of the partners was trying to upset the sale and not give the woman a chance. In that case the woman was victimised. I had experience of another case where property was left to a religious order. One of the members wanted to give it to a certain valuer so the religious order got three valuations and selected the middle one to agree a price. That was a good way to sort it out because it resulted in a fair price.

Can a spouse leave his or her share of the home to a member of the family? Does the other spouse automatically inherit it? A spouse who becomes a full owner may get married again and the children of the first marriage may get nothing from the property. It is important to protect the children. The first spouse should be entitled to decide what to do with his or her share of the property, it should not automatically be inherited by the other spouse. I hope the legislation will not apply to cohabitating couples as that could be complicated.

Senator Neville referred to property in rural areas. Being an auctioneer I have encountered people who, having bought a farm, wish to sell the house. That has resulted in problems because they may decide that they wish to keep an outside shed. I advise that the shed must be taken down and re-erected, otherwise nobody will buy the house because of cattle roaring and causing disturbance. There must be at least half an acre with the house. It is difficult to divide a house from a farm. Likewise, in a town, a business may be attached to the house. It may be a pub, grocery or some other business with perhaps a yard and storehouses that go with the business. In such cases it might be better to have valuations so that there could be a monetary solution.

While the law works well on paper we may find that it is not easy to put it into practice. I am speaking as an auctioneer who has tried to sell houses on farms. There is a problem dividing the home from the land and in such cases the spouse who wishes to leave should receive their share in money. They could then buy a house which would be worth more to them. They may get more value as a result because, even if they got the original house, it would be difficult to sell it later if cattle are roaming around it, if cars are parked outside it or if they do not own the business premises attached to it. In the interest of the spouse who wishes to leave we should provide an option in the legislation whereby he or she can receive the monetary value of their share which would give them the opportunity to purchase another home or perhaps start their own business. While I welcome the Bill there are practical problems in those areas.

Senator Enright mentioned common sense. God knows, if common sense prevailed there would be no problems. It is the 4 per cent or 5 per cent of people who kick over the traces who keep many others in jobs. If people used their common sense there would be less need for solicitors and gardaí and many people would be out of work. Those who do not have common sense keep people in jobs.

It is difficult to divide chattels. When I sell farms it is difficult to sell the contents of the house although they may be of value in the house. If it is an old house and the contents are antiques there is no problem selling them, otherwise there may not be much interest. Some contents may be very valuable to the house owners. I do not see how the division of chattels can work. If there is only one double bed in the house do you split it in two and make two single beds? That may be simplifying the issue but in many cases there may be only one of each item. How can those items be divided? Perhaps it would be better to use a valuation system so that the spouse who leaves can get the value of the chattels rather than stripping the house.

If there is an heirloom the spouse who inherited it should automatically be permitted to take it. That is fair. It may not be worth much but it is a point to be borne in mind when dividing the chattels.

It is good to see a Minister come into the House with an open mind; I congratulate him for not saying take it or leave it. I am pleased that he is prepared to have another look at the Bill if he believes some of our points should be considered and I would like him to look at the points I have raised.

The Minister says he will not disturb existing arrangements where the parties concerned have made their own decisions about the distribution of property. I have referred to that point. In such cases one spouse might have agreed because they were fed up and wanted to get out, or they might have agreed in a weak moment. In that case there should be a double valuation. It is too easy for property to be sold under its value with an agreement of that kind and it ends up, with some smart alec taking advantage of one spouse I would like more emphasis on valuations to ensure that the market value of the property is obtained and that both parties get a fair share.

I am also glad that where spouses decide to transfer and share ownership there is no great legal expense involved. That is necessary because if one had to pay full legal fees, stamp duty, etc., for transferring property the cost would be prohibitive and that would stop many people from doing so. I am happy the Minister has taken that into consideration so that the title will be waterproof and, at the same time, one does not have to pay big legal fees or stamp duty.

I presume that when we were talking about chattels we were not referring only to the furniture in the house. On a farm, for example, there will be cattle and farm machinery and if both spouses have helped to build up the farm both should be entitled to half the profits. "Chattels" should cover more than the bare essentials in the home; it should take into account whatever the couple have built up together.

There should be a valuation system. If a man marries into a business, it should be valued at that time and if they split up later any money he has put into that business should be deducted. The same applies where a woman marries into a home and the spouses split up later, the profits made from the joint partnership should be divided in total. If a woman married a man who had only five or six cows and she had a few thousand pounds and bought 30 or 40 cows, and they split up, she should get half of everything. Similarly, if they go into a business which is run down and they put in a lot of work to build it up, then the value of the business and the stock should be taken into consideration. All these things should be included as "chattels". I would like that to be considered.

Where one of the partners wants to make a will they should be able to leave their share of the property which is in joint ownership — which now means that the other spouse takes all — to a daughter or son or divide it among the family. In that case they should be entitled to leave it to their family. I do not see that in the Bill but I would like it to be considered.

Ms Honan

On behalf of the Progressive Democrats I welcome this legislation. As a woman I also welcome it as it gives each spouse equal rights of ownership in the matrimonial home. It is part of the preparation for the divorce referendum which we hope to have in the autumn of next year. This will help to allay the fears of many women that they could be thrown out of their home had the last referendum on divorce been passed.

In regard to women's issues we have made slow progress. This is a milestone. After the Family Home Protection Act, 1976, many women believed they had an equal share in the family home and were shocked to realise that this was not the case. As a member of the Commission on the Status of Women this was one of the first recommendations we made —"legislation should be introduced immediately giving each spouse equal rights of automatic beneficial ownership in the family home and household chattels".

I congratulate and thank the Minister for bringing forward this legislation. I understand why the legislation took so long to introduce; it is a minefield. Reading the Bill as first published and, having been passed by the Dáil, the amended version, I felt that one would have to be a High Court judge to fully understand its provisions. Having said that, this legislation is long overdue and I welcome it.

When the Commission on the Status of Women made this recommendation it believed that as a matter of priority the Government should recognise what Article 41.2 of the Constitution states:

... by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

The women of this country should feel let down by the Constitution. We are mentioned in the Constitution in two areas; the one I have just mentioned and the pro-life amendment where the woman was given an equal right to life with the child. They are the only two areas where women are specifically mentioned in the Constitution which has been an insult to women. It is more relevant to the role of women in the 1930s than the 1990s. The role of women has progressed since then but the Constitution still reflects the role women played in the 1930s. I look forward to the day we can have a constitution of which the women of Ireland can feel proud and which gives them a role other than housewives and will recognise the full part women play in our society. We are making progress but it is slow and the introduction of this Bill is a small step on that road.

One other recommendation from the commission was to introduce the concept of community of property. That would extend joint ownership of the family home to all property within marriage. When we discussed the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women, many male Members were appalled by this suggestion. This shows that although we have progressed considerably since the 1930s, many people still believe there is a certain place for women and that their rights, including property rights, should be restricted. These people probably regret changes in regard to the rights of women.

I found the Bill difficult to read and understand, I would probably need to be a High Court judge to fully comprehend it. Even practitioners in the field are finding it difficult to understand fully the implications of the legislation. I hope it will not lead to an increased volume of litigation and that it will not be a minefield for lawyers. I hope also women will not have to go through an enormous number of procedures before getting the rights the Minister intends to confer on them by this Bill.

This legislation is part of the preparation for the divorce referendum but there are other provisions the Minister should put in place before then. He is committed to doing this. The great problem for women is that many of them are financially dependent on men. This governs their whole outlook on life and restricts their options. Women battered by their husbands and many others remain in unhappy marriages because they feel if they try to leave they will be impoverished. Therefore, it is important that women can choose and make decisions about their lives free from financial dependency. There is much to do in that area but the Bill is a small step.

People do not realise how afraid women are of being impoverished. When cases of women being abused, beaten and battered by their husbands come to court, some people say it was the women's fault and ask why they stayed with their husbands. Up to now, many women had no choice, no one on whom they could rely. They cannot walk out of the family home because they are afraid if they do they will have no redress and no means of supporting themselves and their children. There are many women in that situation and it is difficult for those not affected to understand why they remain, it is from fear. If we want women to participate at every level in society and the choice to do what they want to do, we have to give them financial independence.

There are many areas in the Bill about which I am concerned and which I will query on Committee Stage. However, I welcome the Bill most generously and I commend the Minister. Although we have been critical about the length of time it has taken him to produce it, when we see its complexity we can understand why it has taken so long.

Mr. Mooney

Like all Members who have contributed so far I welcome the Minister to the House and applaud his initiative in bringing forward this significant legislation. As a member of a species that appears to be endangered in that we are deluged by the growing tide of feminist opinion as exemplified most admirably by Senator Honan, Senator Henry and other female Members of this House——

Ms Honan

There is no fear of that.

Mr. Mooney

——I immediately nail my colours to the mast by applauding the comments they made in defence of women. The Minister, in his usual articulate manner, outlined the background to the status of women. It seems incredible that we in this male dominated society should have tolerated this for so long. Senator Honan and others might say the position has not improved much but there has been progress.

The Minister outlined the background to the legislation and one can only reflect on the conditions under which women lived. It seems incredible that the contribution by the wife, whether directly through financial means or by unpaid work looking after the home and bringing up children, has not been legally acknowledged until now. I agree with Senator Honan, we may never know the true story of many marriages in which women have had to bear the most awful physical, emotional and psychological humiliations, mainly because, as Senator Gallagher said, they do not have power or money. When that day dawns I as a mere male will applaud that equity.

The Minister is also addressing the existence of marriage as an institution in determining shared ownership. I welcome that interpretation. The thrust of this legislation enhances rather than diminishes the institution of marriage. With so many attacks on family values and some media commentators calling marriage outmoded or wishing it to be, the philosophy behind this Bill means the Minister and the Government firmly support it as an institution.

The provision in the Bill for joint ownership of household chattels reminds me of that section of our common law, admirably outlined by Senator Gallagher, which referred to women as chattels. Will women now be able to get their own back and include men as part of the household chattels in any apportionment of articles in a separation judgment? Congratulations will be in order if they do.

Ownership will be permanent. If a marriage breakdown is followed by a refusal by either party to leave the family home or dispose of it, will the courts enforce disposal? It may happen that one partner wishes to cohabit with a third party and remain in the family home after a judicial separation under our existing laws. My question is as much based on ignorance of the family courts and the enforcement orders that can be applied as on a wish to get clarity.

Section 4, as the Minister said, is the heart of the Bill and one anticipates that section will receive most comment on Committee Stage. He referred to unscrupulous individuals who may wish to avoid the provisions of the Bill by conveying their interests in family homes to companies prior to the Bill taking effect. I welcome the closure of this loophole by the Minister but it does involve another aspect of the connection between house ownership and business.

Last week in the United Kingdom a housewife brought a case against a bank which sought to repossess the family home following a debt default by her husband's company. The house was jointly owned but, two years ago, the lady's husband needed to raise capital to ease his company's financial worries. He briefly discussed the matter with his wife and then drove her to the bank where she duly signed the documents. The business failed and the bank foreclosed. The wife won her case because the bank failed to explain to the lady the legal implications of her signature.

The woman was understandably relieved when the case went in her favour. Significantly, however, she was quoted in the media as saying she had little knowledge of her husband's business, she trusted her husband and was unaware she could, and almost did, lose the family home, the roof over her head. While I do not suggest that banks in this country, faced with a similar situation, would wilfully pursue a person ignorant of the consequences of signing such a document, they would, however, be legally entitled to do so. I wonder if the Minister would consider it his duty or if he has a legislative role in protecting the spouse where they may, willingly but unknowingly, sign over their rights to the family home in such circumstances. I appreciate that a Minister or Government in framing legislation cannot legislate for human foibles.

It was unique but when one reads between the lines it seems a very recognisable situation not confined to marriages in the UK. How many women in loving relationships in this country know little or care less about their husband's business interests or are perhaps prevented from knowing about them? I know I am walking a thin line when I suggest that perhaps women have an emotional lightness of touch which males sometimes fail to have. That emotional attachment to a marriage may lead them to a situation where they are very trusting of their husbands even, as Senator Honan correctly pointed out, where they are being battered or in a difficult marriage.

Senator Honan asked why women stay in such marriages. That is a question for psychologists and I do not intend to address it here. I am sure the Minister, like myself or any Member of this House, would not be an expert on the whys and wherefores of relationships. However, it poses a problem in that, because of the trusting nature of women in so many marriages, even where love has disappeared, an unscrupulous husband, may for his own ends prevail on the spouse to sign over her rights. She would do so willingly and then find herself literally without a roof over her head. That is the main reason I raise the issue and because of the curious nature of the story in the context of this Bill. Perhaps the Minister has a point of view on it.

Senator Gallagher correctly said — I made this point earlier but it needs to be repeated — that until women gain the same rights to the reins of power and money they will always be at a disadvantage. Again this is not something for which a Government can legislate but at the same time a Government and a Minister can create the climate and environment in which women can be encouraged to have more self-esteem. The acquisition of legal rights, as enshrined in this legislation and others, within the family home and the matrimonial relationship, will enhance their self-esteem and give them a confidence that perhaps has been missing because they have not had the full protection of the law. Consequently, in a short time they may gain access to power and money. We are living in a male dominated society where women are not being given their full and just role in a wide range of activities. I know that the Minister in his brief, which is unique in that he is the first to be given the specific brief on equality, is already making great strides in addressing equality, at least in the State sector. I am sure that by the time his term of office ends he will have created a climate where women will not be excluded and where there will be a gender balance as of right rather than by inclination.

Running underneath this debate is the question of a divorce referendum. The Minister stated that he is attempting to put in place legislation which will answer as many questions as have been posed over the last number of years in relation to whether people should opt for legal divorce. I know that the 1986 referendum centred more on legislative issues, such as those being addressed by the Minister today, rather than moral issues. This may seem surprising to outside observers who look on us as being a church or religious ridden State. Coming from a rural environment, the reality as far as I am concerned was that the issues the electorate addressed in making up their minds on how they should vote were mainly issues of this nature rather than moral or religious issues.

Mr. Neville

That was the Fianna Fáil campaign as well.

Mr. Mooney

Underlining this debate is the question of the impending divorce referendum. Therefore, I ask the Minister when he will address the ridiculous anomaly where the Catholic Church grants marriage annulments yet the State will prefer charges of bigamy in relation to either person of the annulled marriage if they decide to remarry in a church.

I was reminded recently of a case where a member of the Garda Síochána found himself in such a predicament. It seems that the marriage was deemed in the eyes of the Catholic Church — I am narrowing my focus here to the canon law of the Catholic Church — not to have taken place. The priest to whom the couple went initially recognised that fact and recommended annulment. It went through the normal processes; the marriage was effectively dead and they both wished to remarry. That is how the case came before the priest who asked the garda if he was aware that, as an employee of the State and under current law, if he was to proceed with what the State perceived to be a bigamous marriage he could be dismissed from his job. Sadly, the garda in question, even though he was made aware of this possible consequence, did not address it. The marriage was annulled by the Church and, therefore, in its eyes it did not exist. The couple were free to remarry which they subsequently did. The Garda authorities were made aware of the situation and I believe the garda in question was dismissed from his position. The Minister perhaps is more aware than anybody of this anomaly. With the greatest respect, I suggest that this issue should be addressed separately, sooner rather than later.

Overall I welcome this Bill. Not only does its philosophy, as the Minister pointed out in the final paragraphs of his statement to the House, testify to the value of marriage in our society and confirm it as an institution where partnership and sharing should predominate, it also reflects the personal philosophy of the Minister. In that respect I know it is but one aspect of his continuing progressive role as a Minister in the area of equality and law reform to ensure that more equity is brought into not only matrimonial matters but in other areas. I wish him well in his endeavours.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I welcome this Bill. Over the past 20 years there have been major changes in property law, commencing with the Family Home Protection Act, 1976. At that time the then Minister for Justice, Paddy Cooney, introduced legislation which was revolutionary in regard to property law. Today's Bill is commendable and is a further positive step to bringing about equality and equity in the legal system.

As a former member of the committee on marital breakdown, which sat between 1983-85, I particularly welcome this Bill. In our deliberations on that committee, we examined many aspects that needed change and made definite recommendations in a variety of areas, some of which have been introduced and others which remain outstanding. I recall many heated debates there, with regard to property, concerning what may happen to traditional properties owned by families in the event of a marriage breakdown or of difficulties arising. I recall the comments of the European Commissioner, Mr. Flynn, who made strong and vehement contributions during the course of that debate concerning traditional family farms and businesses. I am interested to see the specific family farmhouse and the immediate garden and property around the farmhouse, as distinguished from the farm itself, singularly designated in this Bill. Did Commissioner Flynn have an input to that section?

Mr. Taylor

Absolutely not. I answer for it in its entirety.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

It does bring back memories, Minister, as to where it came from. I also wonder why, in that section, there was not further elaboration on the traditional family business and a provision in this Bill specifically dealing with that type of business, for example, what happens if the family live over the business and the business is on the street?

Mr. Taylor

That is covered.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Is it? I did not notice that in my perusal of the Bill. I must have skimmed the surface. The Commissioner has strong views on that matter and we had heated debates in the committee. Indeed some distinguished lawyers, one of whom has become even more distinguished since — the President, Mrs. Robinson — took a different side in the debate at the time.

This legislation is welcome because it is central to the position of women in society. Women, traditionally, have had a second class standard of living and rating in the legal system over the years, especially with regard to the ownership of property and, for that reason, I am pleased that the Minister has seen fit to bring this legislation before us. I am aware that in doing so, he is also clarifying the property issue because, with the possibility of a divorce referendum, this could become a huge matter for debate in the course of such a referendum, as it did in the last one. It would be wise to have any matters and issues of that nature which could cause huge concern — in the business property or the family home — to be legally clarified before the referendum.

The Bill is highly detailed and specifically outlines the manner in which the traditional matrimonial home will now be equally owned by both spouses. I am especially interested in the change from legal to equitable ownership introduced in this Bill and I welcome that aspect. I am curious about one section — maybe the Minister will clarify it. It states:

A spouse or a person intending to get married who would otherwise benefit from joint ownership may exclude the application of the Act (sections 7 and 10(4)(a)).

Could a person wishing to get married be cajoled or forced into excluding themselves from the terms of this Bill prior to marriage? I know that it would be subject to court and litigation but what would the final outcome be if this occurred? One may say that it is highly unlikely but it is important to address every eventuality. A girl engaged to be married could, for some reason, be manipulated or cajoled into specifically excluding herself from the terms of this Bill where it concerns the family home. What will occur in those circumstances?

Many matters were dealt with by the Marriage Breakdown Committee, one of which concerned family courts and while this Bill may reduce the instances of court cases over family property, its contents will, undoubtedly, be subject to litigation in the courts at some stage in the future. There are ten year old recommendations from this committee concerning family courts which need to be addressed. The close examination of the physical conditions of family courts and the manner in which matrimonial cases are heard is long overdue. The level of formality and antiquated legal nonsense that occurs in these courts is ridiculous and the accommodation, privacy and surroundings are unacceptable. I ask the Minister to examine that with a view towards urgently providing funding to change these physical conditions.

There is also the matter of judges in family cases. There must be a close examination of the way they make their decisions on family matters. We are all aware of the huge discrepancies in various judgments and cases and one can say that this happens only because of the variance of the contents of the case. That is true but there are also cases where there are extraordinary variations in judgment, despite huge similarities in the cases. We must realise that many judges were legally trained before any of this legislation or the major debates on social reform had taken place. There is a need to provide them with proper training and regular re-education to give them a sense of common direction as to how they should address cases and the types of decisions at which they should arrive. There should be a certain similarity in their approach.

Unfortunately, that is not the case at the moment. One can have harsh and lenient judges addressing these matters, so it is important that those involved in these cases have a certain human understanding and expertise and come from practices where family law is dealt with on a regular basis. Unfortunately, many of them do not come from such a background. I am not castigating them for that; they are doing the best they can within what is available to them and what they know, but the onus is on the Government to ensure that the expertise they lack is made up by providing some type of in-house training in that area. In recent years the number of family cases dealt with in the local Circuit Court has doubled and in some case trebled; they cannot be dealt with in one Circuit Court sitting and must be held over. Additional family judges must be appointed and provided with specific training. The condition of the courts in which these cases are heard must be addressed and I ask the Minister to ensure that this issue is dealt with. Although inappropriate at this stage, I would like to raise a number of other issues which will be dealt with on Committee Stage.

Although a number of centres were set up, mediation services were provided on an ad hoc basis. Unfortunately, the type of professional mediation service required is not extensive throughout the country. It is important that such centres are set up. Under the Judicial Separation Bill, it was agreed that a couple could not legally separate unless they engaged in mediation. Although it is a legal obligation, mediation services are unavailable. This issue needs to be addressed. Unless professional people are engaged to mediate in these traumatic cases, those involved may not reach the best conclusion regarding important decisions for themselves and their children. Perhaps the Minister will address this matter as soon as he has an opportunity to do so.

The Minister is not long in his position and I commend him for taking the initiative and having the Bill before this House. He is well intentioned and I urge him to continue this good work. However, there are still a number of outstanding recommendations in the marriage breakdown report which have not been implemented and work has not commenced in this regard. Perhaps the Minister will give priority to certain areas and decide on a course of action.

Ms Kelly

I welcome the Minister to the House. I welcome this Bill because it gives women rights which they do not have and any advance in this regard must be applauded. The Bill confers the right to co-ownership of the family home. Until now co-ownership could be proven if a woman made a financial contribution to the purchase of the house, but this is difficult to establish. Many marriages do not break down in the first three or four years, sometimes a marriage lasts for 20 years. Solicitors' records often disappear and few people keep record of transactions, bank cheques, etc., for 20 years. I am aware of cases where people have contributed to the purchase of the matrimonial home, through gifts from parents or by direct contribution, but it was impossible to prove this in court.

The Bill gives women a right to the matrimonial home on marriage, this is important because it recognises the work a woman puts into a home which cannot be measured in monetary terms. The effort of keeping a home goes beyond providing money for its upkeep. If a woman chooses to retire from the work-force to spend time looking after her children or relations and to care for her home, she should not be denied a right to that house because she did not go out to work. I hope this is the first of many improvements which will recognise the worth of a woman living and working in her home. As the Minister said, we often pay lip service to this. We tend to say how important it is for a woman to stay at home and look after her children, but we do not place any monetary value on this work.

In this materialistic age, one's status in society is measured by the amount of money one earns. The woman who remains at home has a low status. I discovered this when I became a full-time mother for a short period. I became invisible and I was often left out of conversations. People believed I had nothing to contribute because I was a mere housewife. Until recently this attitude was often reflected on radio programmes. It was normal for an interviewer to ask a woman what her husband did to establish what type of question to ask her, regardless of the work she did in the home. As a full-time mother, I read newspapers and listened to the radio and became more up-to-date on current affairs than many of my working sisters or friends who blithely snubbed me in conversations. I knew more about what was going on in the world than they did tucked away in their offices. I welcome the recognition of a woman's worth by giving her a right in the matrimonial home.

I welcome the provision in relation to household chattels, an old fashioned word which, I presume, means household goods. Often jibes are made in regard to how one divides the double bed, but many women save money from the children's allowance, gifts from relatives or money earned from part-time jobs to buy a deep freeze, a chest of drawers or something for the house. In many instances the house is equipped by the woman using her skills as a homemaker. It is proper she has a right to the goods in the house as well as the four walls. Many women devote time to the maintenance of the interior and exterior of the house by sewing curtains, painting walls and investing in goods for the house. They turn four walls into a home and this fact often goes unrecognised. Shortly after I was elected a county councillor, a woman came to me in great distress. She had lived in the family home for 30 years, she had scrimped and saved to maintain it, she and her husband bought it in a poor state and she personally improved it bit by bit. She often had to go without so that her husband could entertain clients in the house. She redecorated the house so that he could influence his clients and he built up a successful business. After 30 years of this careful management of her home, her husband no longer wanted to live with her and, he wanted to sell the house. I told her he had no right to sell that house without her permission, but somehow she had been persuaded that his business would go down the drain unless she gave her consent and she found herself with an eviction notice. The house they put up for sale was infinitely more valuable than the house they had originally bought, simply because she had put so much loving care into it. If this law had been there two or three years ago, she would be in a better and more protected state than she is at the moment.

I agree with Senator Taylor-Quinn that judges need to get coaching on family law. Because so many family law cases are heard in camera, little public notice is given to some of the strange decisions that can come out of family courts. Very diverse views can be seen and judgments made in different cases. Some people have been known to try and have their cases moved to a particular court because a specific judge is known to favour the man or woman. It is not right or just that there should be a bias towards one party in our courts.

The opt-out clause can be fraught with danger because, at the time of marriage or pre-marriage, romance is in the air and the idea of mistrusting one's future partner is not uppermost in one's mind. If a bride to be is asked to sign a prenuptial agreement which contains the opt-out clause, many women will fall into the trap of signing that opt-out clause.

I welcome the idea that women should be encouraged to have good legal advice. We should treat marriage more seriously. Instead of being immersed in a cloud of romantic sentimentality, all couples should be made take a business course to realise that what they are entering into is a business arrangement. No one would set up in business with a partner without first reading all the details and examining all the pitfalls of such a merger. The same should be true of marriages. It should almost be a prerequisite of marriage that people have studied the financial and legal implications of marriage and it should not be left simply to trust and goodwill. It might knock some of the gloss off the marriage if people were to sit down and talk pounds, shillings and pence; nevertheless it could cut out a great deal of heartache later if all the details were gone into first.

I welcome the mention in this Bill of mobile homes. Very often it is assumed that when one talks about property one is talking about people living in Dublin 4 or the leafy suburbs of our larger towns and villages, but a number of couples, who have no money of their own, and the local authority housing lists are long, live in mobile homes. We must also remember, although it is not very common in the travelling community for marriages to break up, that they will be as influenced by that trend in Irish society today as the settled community. Since a young travelling couple are often given a car and a caravan or mobile home as a dowry, it is important that the rights of travelling women, or of women who have not got a permanent home, are also protected.

I am also delighted that recognition is given here to the situation where a farming couple split up. There is recognition that gardens around the house are part of the house, because in a rural area it could lead to a great deal of friction if, the minute a woman steps outside her backdoor, she is trespassing. It is important that sufficient land is left around the family home to allow her children to play, for the woman to hang out her washing, to store fuel, etc. I presume that the word "easements" would apply, to the right to a water supply and the right to a septic tank. It is also very important that such rights are written into this Bill.

As other speakers have said, this is the prelude to more legislation which will eventually lead to the introduction of divorce legislation in this country. We need that legislation badly. I still have memories of the bitter debate that followed the last divorce referendum and I hope such bitterness will not become a factor in the next referendum and, that it will be recognised that couples in Ireland, like couples in any other country in western Europe, will have the same difficulties within marriage. I believe we should legislate for that. There is no point closing our eyes to the facts. I hope all the obstacles encountered during the last referendum about property and rights will be sorted out before the new legislation is introduced. While I do not favour "quickie" style divorce proceedings common in some parts of the United States, the present procedure — where people have to go to a number of court sittings before they get a judicial separation — could be simplified. If a marriage has broken down it is not necessary to add to the trauma and heartache by spreading the proceedings over three or four years, as often happens. Speedier and more humane legislation should be adopted.

When this Bill becomes law, the Minister's press office should run articles in our leading daily and weekly newspapers to signal to women the importance of this Bill and to emphasise the importance of taking independent legal advice when dealing with any kind of property transfer. It is vitally important to give a simple explanation. As others said, this is not an easy Bill to read or understand and I have the feeling I have got some bits of it wrong. I am not a lawyer, and I imagine that other lay people probably have the same difficulty. Therefore, a layman's guide to what this Bill entails should be made widely available so that everybody knows about the benefits it has to offer to women.

Mr. Roche

A statement in the Minister's speech goes to the essence of the question. He said that the Bill seeks to establish joint ownership of the matrimonial home as the normal form of ownership.

In a civilised society that is exactly as things should be. It is perhaps a sad reflection that very complex legislation has to be introduced to achieve what seems to be not just the norm but the civilised way of doing things. I compliment the Minister because this has been a difficult Bill to draw up due to its complex nature. I listened with great interest to the Minister's speech today and many of the sentiments he touched on reflect my own views. They are the views of anybody who has a compassionate view of the type of society in which we should live.

The Minister is correct when he says there has been a revolution in our society and in the way we look at marriage. It is not too many years since there was a court action involving a prominent citizen of this State whose wife was described as a "chattel". In a civilised society that is extraordinarily archaic, medieval and primitive language to describe any partner, let alone a partner in marriage. Regrettably, this Bill is now being discussed in the context of a divorce referendum. I say "regrettably" because this Bill stands on its own merits and is something we should implement irrespective of any other agenda item. The comprehensive nature of the Bill has been well dealt with.

There are a number of specific points that I would like to touch on. One point, mentioned by the Minister and Senator Kelly, is about the ignorance that exists about even the current state of law. For example, the Minister made the point it is not often recognised that, under existing legislation, the non-owning spouse has a right of veto in relation to the sale of the matrimonial home. This legislation is creating equality for both partners in marriage although I do not think we even recognise the extent of equality in existing law. Because this is complex legislation it will be important to communicate the nature of the change.

I remember during the last referendum debate on this area, there was much wringing of hands and discussion of the property rights issue as if property rights was the supreme issue in the debate. This Bill will get that element of the debate off the agenda though I am not sure that applies to other emotive issues. Irrespective of what we will do next year on the issue of divorce, it is of primary importance that the change introduced in this law should be well and comprehensively understood by everybody.

Senator Kelly mentioned the powerlessness of women. The reality is that in spite of all the changes in society, women's role in the home has not been recognised by the State although this Bill does go some way towards that. The State has been deficient in explaining to the woman who chooses to make her career in the home as the nurturer and homemaker, that she too has rights.

I remember an horrific case in my own constituency a few short years ago where a woman was literally tricked into signing papers to sell off her family home. Within 18 months that unfortunate woman was found dead in a flat, she had been dead for some time. She was not aware of her rights. She had equal rights with her partner and could have vetoed the sale of that home. Somehow or other we as a society failed her. I compliment the Minister for putting this aspect of marital relationships beyond question. I hope that the changes introduced here will be well explained throughout society. Every public representative has had experience of this type of tragedy. I felt like applauding the Minister when he said that women who choose to take on the nurturing role, which hitherto was expected of them, are now perceived as opting for a career which is every bit as worthwhile as those careers which attract monetary remuneration.

How right the Minister is. It is extraordinary that for generations the big enemy of women was male chauvinism. I am not sure that political correctness and some of the more extreme elements of the feminist movement would not now be regarded as the people downgrading the value of women in the home. It is good that the State recognises in this legislation that women who build the home are every bit as involved in building up the family's assets as the husband who happens to put in the hours of nine to five somewhere else. I am pleased that the Minister specifically took that point on board in his speech.

I have a query about one or two things. Senator Kelly welcomed, as I do, the fact that the Minister dealt with land contiguous to a family home where it is on a farm, as well as the rights of way issues that arise from it. I wonder how we take it that farm property is separate. Why is so much value put on land here? Maybe I should address this question to members of my own party as well as to the Minister. We should be thinking of co-ownership of all assets because a marriage is a partnership. I reckon that over the years I have been married to a long suffering and brave Mayo woman——

Mr. Neville

Hear, hear. I feel sorry for her.

Mr. Cregan

The Senator has nothing to be sorry for.

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

I am sorry to interrupt the Senator but it is now six o'clock.

Mr. Roche

The assets which accrued to the family accrued to us both. I compliment the Minister on dealing with that point.

Debate adjourned.