I wonder would the Minister give us a clear explanation of section 20 dealing with " property in household allowance ". The layman reading the report of this Committee might like a clear exposition of what exactly that means and what entitlements there are.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed : " That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
If I might read the section :
" Any allowance made by one spouse to the other spouse after the commencement of this Act for the purpose of meeting household expenses, and any property or interest in property acquired out of such allowance, shall, in the absence of any agreement, whether express or implied, between them to the contrary, belong to the spouses as joint owners."
Take the case where the husband pays the wife, say, £30 per week. That money, subject to their agreeing otherwise, will be their joint property. If out of that money, she buys a wireless for the house, that wireless becomes their joint property, unless they have an agreement to the contrary. That, in essence, is what it means.
Up to now the position would have been that the husband could claim that it was his property.
Exactly. This was so even where the article was bought by the wife out of savings from whatever she got for the household.
This section makes the position quite clear.
Yes. We are making the common ownership a joint ownership rather than a tenancy in common. This has the advantage that the household goods so purchased, if one spouse should die, would go to the other automatically.
It brings back the status quo.
It is important to point out to Deputy Andrews that it is only an allowance made for household expenses. That is an important safeguard. Otherwise, you would have a situation where a husband and wife might buy something for " them ".
You would be getting into a lot of complicated points.
I would, but there is a very strong connection.
Is any part relevant of the maintenance payment? Is there any element that goes to housekeeping expenses?
I do not quite follow the Deputy.
In a maintenance payment to a spouse or to a dependent child, what are the elements that are taken into account? Is it purely food or what?
Oh, no. The entire obligation to maintain takes in food, clothing and shelter. The court would take all those elements into account.
What about electricity and gas and rent?
Yes, all these; food, clothing, shelter, light, heat would be all part of the obligation.
Under section 4 an order can be made where the parties are still living together. That provides only for payment to the spouse and to the children where the husband, for example, is living with them and there is no provision that a payment should be made for his maintenance, even though he is being maintained.
If he is in the house he will pay enough to make sure he is maintained.
He may just eat the food that he is bound to provide for his wife and children.
In that case the court would be asked again to adjust the level of the order.
The court cannot do that under the section here.
If the court finds that the level of payment is inadequate the court can be asked to vary it.
If the Deputy looks at section 16, it deals with variation.
I quite understand that the order for payment can be varied, altered or discharged and so on. In that case all the court can do is to increase or decrease the amount of the payment to the spouse or to the children. Is that not correct?
The Deputy says there is an undue amount going to the spouse who is at fault, that he is taking too much out of the amount being awarded, so adjustment should be made? Is that your point?
The point I am making is that, where a husband is living with his wife and where he is obliged to make a maintenance payment towards her and towards the children, there is no obligation to make a maintenance payment towards himself, who is living with them and eating with them and using the gas and electricity and the housekeeping money.
Can they not vary the amount up to meet that expense?
It is specifically set out here in the section. The only obligation is to make payment towards them.
If he makes it more expensive for the unfortunate spouse and children to live by virtue of his conduct, in the circumstances then there would be the power of the court to make the necessary adjustment to deal with that.
In other words, would the payment towards the spouse and each of the children be higher in the case of a person who is not separated than in the case of the person who is not living with them?
It might. The court will have to assess the needs of the wife and children and obviously, if the husband intends to demand that his meals be provided out of any payments he may be ordered to make, this will be of relevance to the quantum of the order. The court has wide discretion under section 4 and under section 5.
I would be happier if it were specifically put into that section.
I cannot get the point. If Mr. X is ordered to pay, say, £20 per week to his wife and child—this is what the court feels should be paid—and it turns out that he consumes £10 out of that so that only £10 is left to the wife and child, she can go back to the court and say : " What I am getting is not enough. I want it increased to £30 so that Mr. X can be provided for ".
The wording in section 4 is very positive : " payments for the support of the applicant spouse and of each of the dependent children".
And the court will order such amount as is relevant to the circumstances of that particular application.
Why not put it into the section?
That is the whole basis of maintenance. The court will order what is needed—" such amount and at such times as the Court may consider proper ". It is in the section.
Question put and agreed to.