This debate is interesting. Apparently there is a philosophy running through the Government parties that it is acceptable to murder one's wife or at least attempt to murder one's wife, or perhaps it is even acceptable for wives to attempt to murder their husbands. That is the nub of these arguments. Let us be very blunt about this. If Deputies Davern and O'Hanlon have difficulty with this amendment, I find it astonishing that during their ministerial days they did not try to do anything about section 120 of the Succession Act, 1965. That section states:
A sane person who has been guilty of the murder, attempted murder or manslaughter of another shall be precluded from taking any share in the estate of that other, except the share arising under a will made after the act constituting the offence.
The legal position has been that if I am convicted of the manslaughter of my wife, and if my wife has not made a will when I kill her, I cannot claim my inheritance rights under the Succession Act. If a wife is convicted of the manslaughter of her husband and it is discovered that he has not made a will, she cannot make a claim. If he has made a will and left her nothing, she cannot make a claim. What Deputy Davern and Deputy O'Hanlon are now arguing for is that we should change the inheritance legislation and allow murderous spouses to inherit property from the people they have killed, or perhaps people they have attempted to kill.
Deputy Davern had a lot to say in the media some weeks ago about family values in relation to legislation that he appeared to oppose and which was dealt with in the Dáil when he went on holidays. It is a very odd family value to argue that people who attempt to murder their spouses should be allowed to have statutory rights to the property owned by the spouse they attempt to murder. That is a very radical change in our approach to family life as has been set down for many years in legislation. If that is what they are arguing for they are entitled to that view but I disagree with it profoundly.
It is my view that, in the context of the example Deputy Davern gave, if a wife is the victim of assault and is so provoked by her husband that an incident takes place which results in his death, and if it is established in proper evidence in court that the provocation was such that her response was compatible with what she was suffering, she will not be convicted of manslaughter. I am not one of the people who go along with the argument that if a marriage is difficult and if there is violence in the marriage that justifies either the husband or the wife taking the life of the other. There is a panoply of protections in existence that can be used in those circumstances. If we in this House are to give an imprimatur to husbands and wives murdering each other when there are family difficulties we are heading down a very odd and slippery slope.
I did not see this as a particularly controversial amendment. I can only suggest to Deputy O'Hanlon, who was a Minister for many years and who has a great experience of legislation, that to set out three particular circumstances which exclude the application of the Act and would prevent a court exercising a discretionary power to exclude its application in other situations is complete nonsense. The Minister has used that argument and Deputy O'Hanlon is now using it. If that was the case there would be large chunks of legislation that have been passed by Deputy O'Hanlon himself and his colleagues in Government which would not be applicable. It is a nonsensical argument.
All I am seeking to do is to ensure that this legislation was in line with existing legislation. I assumed that this would be a helpful amendment and that Members of this House would be of the view that if somebody murders their spouse they should not benefit from the Act. I presumed this was a commonsense, straight forward view. It is my view that if someone attempts to murder their spouse, the spouse they attempt to murder should not be forced to go to court to disentitle the murderous spouse from an interest in the home. If the criminal courts have convicted them of attempted murder that should be the end of it.
When we are dealing with legislation of this nature we are trying to deal not just with the situation as it would pertain to 99 per cent of people but also to the peculiar and tragic situations that might affect another 1 per cent of people which could give rise to a huge injustice or add to their difficulties in life. It is to deal with those situations that often we have to rush emergency legislation through this House because they have not been adequately addressed in the past.
Here we have a precedent, namely legisation introduced by Deputies Charles Haughey and Brian Lenihan when in Government. The Succession Act, 1965 lays out a clear rule in relation to inheritance of property and we are saying that should be different in relation to the family home. It is a rule I happen to agree with. It is upholding a certain standpoint in life. I suppose, without putting a tooth in it and exaggerating it, it is a pro-life provision.
In fairness to the Minister, Deputy Taylor, his argument was not as extreme as that coming from Deputy Davern or Deputy O'Hanlon whose arguments I find quite extraordinary. This amendment should be included in the Bill. If the Minister wants more time to consider, I will not press it today. We agree with the principles of this legislation. It is technical and difficult legislation and I am anxious not to waste the time of the House unnecessarily, while ensuring that technical difficulties and exceptional problems that could arise for a minority of people are addressed. So far we have played a role in doing that. If the Minister wants to give further consideration to this, I am happy to withdraw it and come back to it on Report Stage, but if he is not prepared to do that I will put it to a vote.