asked the Minister for Justice if he will make provision for the abolition of the rule of law under which the domicile of a married woman is dependent on that of her husband.

20.

asked the Minister for Justice if he will abolish the archiac and anomalous law which presumes a husband's proprietary interest in his wife and affords him right of action such as criminal conversation and loss of a wife's society and services.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 19 and 20 together.

A change in the law of the domicile of a married woman cannot be effected simply by the enactment of legislation to abolish the present rule and leaving it at that. There are several consequential matters that would have to be catered for in any such legislation and this in turn raises the question of what those consequential provisions should be, bearing in mind that there are several options. There is also, of course, the possibility that the legal concept of domicile need not be retained at all either for men or women.

Likewise, any examination of certain types of legal action such as an action for criminal conversation must logically extend to other forms of action, including actions for enticement which may be taken by a wife as well as by a husband.

These matters are being investigated by the Law Reform Commission. The commission's programme for law re-form, which was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas in January last, stated in paragraph 2 that the commission are currently examining the law relating to criminal conversation and some other types of legal action is in paragraph 12, under the heading "Family Law". The programme states in the introduction, paragraph 3 that, as a matter of priority, it will give its first attention to the subject of family law.

Will the Minister bring whatever personal influence he has to bear on the commission to ensure this priority?

I certainly will.

Would the Minister agree these actions are an outrage on the dignity of women and these particular matters are matters that should have precedence and will he ensure they get that precedence?

I certainly will.

I would ask the Minister for further information as to what are the consequences bearing on a change in the law relating to domicile so that we might have some idea of how serious the problem is. The Minister said simple change would not be sufficient.

The problem is extremely delicate and complicated and I would ask the Deputy not to press me on it. It is at the moment with the Law Reform Commission and I would prefer not to make any public pronouncements on the matter until I have heard from that body. I told Deputy Mrs. Desmond that the Law Reform Commission are keeping this particular area as a priority area and are giving it their first attention and, when I hear from that body, I shall be in a position to take decisions.

21.

asked the Minister for Justice whether the proposals on nullity submitted by the Attorney General to the Law Reform Commission exclude the possibility of this country's laws being amended to permit the remarriage within the State of Irish citizens who have been divorced by the courts of Northern Ireland.

The proposals which were submitted by the Attorney General to the Law Reform Commission refer only to the annulment of marriage by our own courts. They do not deal with recognition either of annulments or of divorces granted in other jurisdictions. These other matters will, however, be examined as a separate issue by the commission. In this connection may I refer the Deputy to the First Programme of the Commission which is available in the Library and in particular to paragraphs 8 and 12.

May we take it from the Minister's reply that this whole question of the annulment of marriage is not simply effective dissolution of marriage giving legal sanction to Catholic Church annulments? This is being taken with the same problem where it exists with people of the minority religion, the Protestant religion. This is all being considered by the Law Reform Committee.

As I say, the proposals submitted by the former Attorney General were relating only to annulment of marriage by our own courts but the Law Reform Commission are quite prepared to examine the question of annulments or divorces granted in other jurisdictions and I gather this examination is going on at the present time.

If they come down with the decision effectively allowing for the dissolution of marriage in respect of any religions would this not entail an amendment of the Constitution?

I would prefer to wait until such time as I hear from the Law Reform Commission in this particular area.

Any idea of the time?

I would hope the commission would come back to me on this matter as quickly as possible.

Any idea of the time?

I have not, honestly. If I can get an estimate of the time involved I will write to the Deputy.

Could the Minister give an indication of what his party's attitude is to this as distinct from what the findings of the Law Reform Commission might be?

My party's attitude will be that of the Government when the Government make up their minds, having heard from the Law Reform Commission and being in a position to do so.

Am I to understand that the Government have no decision on this and are awaiting legal advice from the Law Reform Commission?

No. The Deputy is not correct in that at all. He is not right in assuming that.

Perhaps I did not follow the replies all that well. Do I understand that the Government at the moment have no opinion of their own on this?

No. For a new Deputy, Deputy Quinn is doing extremely well.

For a Minister the Minister is not doing too badly.

I thank the Deputy very much but I am not as new as the Deputy. Having thanked the Deputy for his kind remarks, may I say that the Government will make a pronouncement on this matter when they are ready to do so. They are not ready to do so now. They are awaiting a report from the Law Reform Commission. That report will have to be considered by them. It would certainly have to be seen by a Government that must give a decision on the matter. Out of courtesy if nothing else, we would have to await the law reform report before making a public pronouncement on this matter.

Do I understand that the Government have an opinion but are withholding it until such time as the Law Reform Commission's report is out?

When the Government are in a position to make a decision they will do so but not until then.

I am merely asking if the Fianna Fáil Government have an opinion on this, not when they will make a decision. As a member of the Opposition, I simply want to know if the largest party in the House, the Government, actually have an opinion of their own?

The opinion of the Government will be made known when the Government are ready to make it known.

What about the think-tank? They do not think until they get into the tank.

The Deputy was in a bit of a tank at one time.

I have no faith in people who have to get into a tank to think.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable apprehension at the possibility of considerable delay in introducing legislation to cope with this problem? Is he aware that there are serious anomalies in our laws at present which require urgent attention? Is he aware that considerable work was already done by the former administration in regard to nullity and will he tell the House why the Attorney General found it necessary to refer this matter to the Law Reform Commission, an already over-worked body and is this only for the purpose of delaying the matter further?

This is argument. The purpose of a supplementary question should be to elicit further information.

I am aware of all the problems raised by the Deputy and I gave them all the attention I should give them.

Everything but the Minister's opinion.

I will give decisions that I will stand over when I am ready to give them, not opinions. That is the difference between this side of the House and the Deputy's side. That is why we are here and the Deputies opposite are there.