We will deal with amendments No. 1. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and are alternatives to each other, so amendments Nos. 3 and 4 will be taken with amendment No. 1.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, lines 15 and 16, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) This Act shall come into operation on a day that is prescribed by the Minister but not later than 3 months after the date of its passing.".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the legislation will come into operation more quickly than the Minister originally suggested. The Minister suggested six months in the original Bill. This legislation is long overdue and time should be spent in debating it and getting it right, rather than in delaying the implementation of the Bill. I note that the Minister has conceded four months but I would still argue that three months is a reasonable length of time. There are sections of the Act which will come into force immediately which allow for, for example, the "opt out" clause to be negotiated between the parties and that is sensible. If we spend a long time getting this legislation right, consulting with all of the practitioners and trying to imagine all the various scenarios that might occur in human life, more time will be better spent in debating the various sections, and it is not necessary to have six months elapse before the legislation comes into force.
I thought I might short circuit this issue at this point by taking on board the substance of the amendments by Deputy O'Donnell and by Deputy Shatter. I had come to the conclusion that I would reduce the commencement time to four months, but I have no problem in reducing that slightly further to three months. I prefer the wording of Deputy Shatter's amendments to that of Deputy O'Donnell. If Deputy Shatter wishes to move his amendment No. 4 I will be happy to accept it.
I thank the Minister for his reaction to the amendments and for his constructive approach. The only difference in the amendments is that under Deputy O'Donnell's amendment the entire Act would not come into force until three months after it has been enacted. In relation to the amendment I have tabled, it designates particular sections of the Act that can come into force immediately upon its enactment and then the remaining sections would have the three months wait to allow for the necessary rules and regulations to be made. I thank the Minister for his acceptance of my amendment.
Is amendment No. 1 being withdrawn?
No.
I wish to put on record the purpose of the amendment. It is to ensure that the Act comes into force no later than three months after its passage, but also to leave in place certain sections that can come into force immediately upon the passage of the Act. In the context of welcoming the principle of the legislation, there is no particular reason that timescale should not be stated in the legislation and there is no particular reason other sections could not immediately come into force.
I am pleased with the Minister's response. It is a good sign that on the first amendment he is so reasonable. It is not desirable that section 7 comes into effect immediately if the regulations the Minister is to make under section 7 have not been made. Section 7 as drafted in the existing Bill, says that the Minister may make regulations specifying the form the agreement is to take. On Second Stage, the Minister said that the form would be very clear, explaining to people what exactly they were contracting out of. My desire is to see this legislation put into place immediately if possible, but that would not be practical. It has major implications for practitioners but equally for the thousands of people who are now going to be affected by the legislation. People need some lead-in time. I welcome the "contract out" provisions but if they come into effect immediately and the Minister has not made the regulations, I would be concerned about that. Perhaps the Minister will clarify if it is the case that on the passing of the Act the "contract out" provisions come into effect immediately or on when his regulations will be made? Will they be made in advance, at the same time or some months subsequent to that?
I hope the regulations will be ready when that section comes into force.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
We now come to amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2 and amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64 are related. I suggest therefore that amendment No. 2, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2 and amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64 may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (2), line 15, to delete "section 7" and substitute "sections 2 and 7, subsections (1) and (4) of section 11 and sections 24 and 26".
As I indicated, I will be accepting amendment No. 4 which is related to amendment No. 2; in other words, to delete "6 months" and substitute "3 months".
This amendment has the effect of bringing into operation a number of sections immediately the Bill is passed. These are sections 2 and 7, subsections (1) and (4) of section 11 and sections 24 and 26. It is necessary to have section 2, which includes a definition of "matrimonial home", and section 26, which provides for regulations to be laid before both Houses, in operation on the passing of the Bill so that section 7 can be availed of immediately by a spouse or intending spouse to opt out of joint ownership. It is also desirable that the relevant subsections of section 11, which refers to mobile homes, can be availed of on the passing of the Bill. I propose to bring section 24 into operation at an early date as it provides for overdue amendments to the 1976 Family Home Protection Act.
Deputy Shatter, in amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2, proposes that Part III of the Bill in its entirety should be brought into operation immediately rather than just sections 24 and 26 as I have suggested. Having examined the matter, I can see no good ground for not bringing the entirety of Part III into operation immediately. Accordingly, if the Deputy wishes to move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2. I will be happy to accept it also.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2:
In the last line to delete "sections 24 and 26" and substitute "Part III".
I thank the Minister for his constructive response. Part III of the Bill, which we will deal with in greater detail later, extends various legal rights of action in certain circumstances. Currently if a marriage breaks down and there is a dispute about ownership of property, that dispute can be resolved under the summary procedure prescribed in section 12 of the Married Women's Status Act, 1957, but if the courts find a marriage to be void or voidable and a property dispute remains to be resolved between the former husband and wife, or, indeed, where a foreign decree of divorce is granted and recognised, the procedures prescribed in section 12 of the 1957 Act cannot be used. Those procedures were designed to some extent to simplify the legal paper work involved and to facilitate a speedy resolution of property disputes between spouses and other individuals. They were also designed to reduce the legal costs incurred by husbands and wives. It was always illogical where a property dispute remained to be resolved between couples whose marriages had been annulled by the courts, or where a foreign decree of divorce had been made that that mechanism was not available to them. Many years ago it was proposed that such a mechanism should be available. Part III of the Bill extends that mechanism. Clearly, there is no need to delay the process of putting that mechanism into force to allow such property disputes to be resolved. I welcome the fact that the Minister is willing to accept this amendment.
The Bill also seeks to resolve what is a legal dispute as to whether in law a spouse who contributes substantial moneys to develop a property owned by the other spouse has an ownership right in that property. There is a provision in Part III which seeks to address that issue in the way it was addressed in English law in 1958. It seeks to modernise our law and, again, there is no reason we cannot deal with these matters and allow this part of the Bill to be brought into force immediately. There are some aspects which we must tease out in detail, but on the basis that the principle has been accepted I welcome the fact that the Minister is accepting the amendments I have tabled and agrees that Part III of the Bill should be brought into force immediately following the enactment of the legislation by the Oireachtas and that it should not be delayed by the three-month rule.
I seek clarification. I am concerned about the proposal that section 7 should be brought into force immediately. I have tabled amendments to amendment No. 41 which are relevant to this section. They state that the Minister "shall" produce regulations and that they "shall come into force concurrent with the passing of this Act". There is a danger that, if regulations are not put in place, there will be lack of clarity when it comes to making arrangements to opt out. I would have thought that the two go together.
I seek clarification also. The Minister is seeking to have subsections (1) and (4) of section 11, in addition to section 7, brought into force immediately. However, there is no subsection (4) in the Bill. The Minister proposes to amend section 11 later to provide for arrangements to contract out of ownership of mobile homes. We are dealing with a subsection which is not yet in the Bill and until the Minister moves the amendment there is no subsection (4).
While I take the point I do not think it is a valid one. Section 7 is contained in the Bill as it stands and it may be substituted for if the committee so decides at a later stage. That is the section that will be covered by this amendment. So far as the regulations are concerned, I can assure the committee that the necessary arrangements will be made at the appropriate time to enable that part of the Bill to be brought into operation in a proper manner.
If we agree to this amendment sections 2 and 7 and subsection (1) and (4) of section 11 will be brought into operation immediately. The Minister is, therefore, presuming that his amendment to section 11 is going to be accepted because if we do not accept it we will have a Bill that states that subsections (1) and (4) of section 11 will be brought into operation, even though there is no subsection (4). We may not accept that amendment for many reasons. We should therefore deal with that matter now because if we do not it will not make sense.
The committee is taking amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64 with amendment No. 2. Consequently, the points are being dealt with by the Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, subsection (2), line 16, to delete "6 months" and substitute "3 months".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.