First of all, I would like to clear the administrative consequences of the amendment. It would involve the Minister for Justice in decisions relating to matters falling within the scope of the Minister for Local Government and, conversely, would involve the Minister for Local Government in decisions relating to matters which would be outside his sphere of responsibility.
Secondly, the amendment would make it compulsory for the Minister for Justice to make a direction in regard to joint ownership. This would be unnecessarily complex. If we were going to do that it could be done in a simpler legal manner.
Thirdly, the amendment discriminates between homes that are subject to a mortgage and homes where there is no mortgage. That would be socially and legally rather drastic.
Perhaps the most serious objection to it is that it would, in effect, impose compulsory joint ownership irrespective of the wishes of the spouses. I indicated on Second Stage that at this juncture I could not propose a system of compulsory joint ownership. It is a very complex social and legal matter and is something that will require much debate and analysis. I would like to see a fair amount of public discussion on the merits of it and not just on the emotions of it.
The policy of the Bill is to encourage voluntary joint ownership. The Bill protects wives against vindictive sales by husbands, so in that provision it achieves one of the consequences of joint ownership. I believe there should be joint ownership between husband and wife, and this practice is growing. The majority of new dwellings being registered in the Land Registry are being registered in the joint names of the husband and wife, and this is a good thing. That trend will be accelerated by virtue of the provisions in the Bill exempting such transfers in the future from stamp duty, registration and other fees.
The prohibition against vindictive sales, which is the evil we set out to cure, is fully achieved in the Bill. There is also strong and practical encouragement towards voluntary joint ownership. What the amendment proposes is compulsory joint ownership. This is too extreme and goes beyond the scope of the Bill. Such a step should not be contemplated until the matter has been thoroughly debated here and in public and parties that have a view on the matter have made their views known. It is a matter which, in the context of Women's Year, has been advanced quite frequently but not advanced on the basis of detailed analytical argument. Instead it has been advanced, I think it is not unfair to say, with a certain amount of subjectivity. The entire question needs objective analysis.
I am not necessarily opposed to the idea but have not, as yet, heard convincing arguments for it. Interference with the legal rights of the parties and with the social relationships of the parties, which would be implicit in imposing compulsory joint ownership, would not be justified now. The evil that has resulted from not having joint ownership, namely, vindictive sales by one party without the consent or against the wishes of the other, is covered by the Bill.
The amendment proposes the abolition of stamp duty and fees where a home has been purchased in the joint names of the spouses. It would be a matter for the Exchequer to decide such things. I am proposing in the Bill that, where the home has already been bought by one spouse and he proposes to transfer it into the joint names, in the case of voluntary transfer, where there is no consideration passing, this should be exempt from stamp duty. There would not be any financial implications for the Exchequer in that provision because one must presume that those transfers would not have taken place at all so one encourages something to take place which would not have taken place and there is no loss to the Exchequer.
In the case of local authority tenancies to create a compulsory joint tenancy in the tenancy would give the wife no greater protection against her husband than she has at present because section 3 of the Bill provides that her husband will not be entitled to surrender his tenancy without her consent. I would not be agreeable, for those reasons, to accepting this amendment. It is a very far-reaching provision and it goes against the policy of the Bill which is (a) providing against vindictive sales and (b) at this stage to encourage voluntary joint ownership.