I move amendment No. 133:
In page 200, subsection (1), line 4, after "them" to insert "or transferred between adults who are living together as brother or sister or who are living together as husband and wife and who have been in continuous occupation of the property in question for a minimum of two years".
This is a point of view similar to that argued at the earlier Stage in respect of the whole question of common law marriages. The arguments that were made on day one are as valid now as they were then. Is the Minister indicating, that, in respect of the main income tax provision and this provision which has a certain, separate but related, logic, he is in a position to come back at Report Stage with a proposal on this issue? Waiting for the White Paper, which was the argument produced before, was a valid explanation once, but the advice from the parliamentary draftsman and the Attorney General's office would be to the effect that, until the White Paper becomes law, the taxation code still cannot lead the social law in this respect.
The problem is going to become more acute. It is a philosophical question of getting citizens' support for the legal system that reflects reality rather than one which reflects an ideal state. There are various ways of implementing this. It is a political decision that has to be taken. I do not see any opposition to it and I believe it could be done without doing overall damage to the legal code.
Section 201, to which I have a similar philosophically related amendment on the same issue, refers back to the amendment put down by Deputy Rabbitte in relation to income tax. It is the same issue and it will not go away. All the evidence is that it is going to become more acute and will continue to surface in areas such as this. The point has been made and I am not going to repeat it.