Máirín Quill
Ceist:8 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the progress, if any, he has made with proposals to ensure the transfer of ownership of family homes to both spouses. [9689/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Joint Ownership of Family Homes.
I am considering in consultation with the Incorporated Law Society, proposals to facilitate the transfer of family homes to joint ownership. Any such proposals must, of course, respect the constitutional parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision on the Matrimonial Home Bill.
It is most unfortunate that the enormous amount of work on the Matrimonial Home Bill came to nothing. It is essential that the question of ownership of family homes be addressed as soon as possible. When might the Minister be in a position to report progress on his discussions with the Incorporated Law Society?
I cannot give any timescale on this matter other than to say that legislation will not be introduced this year. I agree with the Deputy that it is regrettable that the Matrimonial Home Bill was found to be unconstitutional. The intention of that Bill was specific, it had the unanimous support of this House and would have automatically vested matrimonial homes in the joint names of both spouses. The present position is that that cannot be done. However, if a matrimonial home is in the name of one spouse and that spouse is minded to transfer it into the joint names of both spouses that can be done by deed. My intention in examining new legislation was to try to devise a conveyancing method which would facilitate that. It is for that reason that I opened discussions with the Incorporated Law Society. The interests of building societies, local authorities, banks, etc. which have mortgages on such property would have to be taken into account in any arrangements. The situation is being examined but I cannot say that legislation will be forthcoming in the short term.
Will the Minister indicate whether his Department is in any way attracted to the proposition that non-financial contributions to the family home can be reckoned with a view to declaring an equitable interest on the part of the spouse working within the home?
That idea has some superficial attraction, but when one examines it in detail it quickly becomes apparent that it presents considerable difficulties. We debated those during our discussion on the Private Members' Bill submitted by the Progressive Democrats, and the arguments I made at that time still apply.