asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware of the serious hardship caused by the imposition of stamp duty on property transfers between spouses where marriages have broken down, even where no money changes hands; and if he will consider introducing legislation to exempt property transfers in this category from stamp duty.

Under the Family Home Protection Act, 1976, no stamp duty is liable where a spouse transfers the family home into the joint names of both spouses. In all other cases lifetime transfers of property between spouses are liable at half the usual rates of stamp duty. Given that the rates of duty may vary depending on the circumstances surrounding a particular transfer, I would not accept that serious hardship is likely to be incurred in this instance and no change in the charging provisions referred to above is contemplated at the moment.

I would not agree with the Minister that no hardship can be caused. Would he not agree that where a house, because of a separation agreement, divorce or annulment, is being transferred from the name of the husband to the wife or vice versa, it is unreasonable that stamp duty should be paid, even at half the rate? This is a question of a family home and the Minister should give serious consideration to the situation where the family home is being transferred from one spouse to the other. In one case of which I am aware almost £600 is being demanded from a woman in receipt of social welfare benefits.

As I said, in all cases except those where under the Family Home Protection Act, 1976, a spouse is transferring the family home into the joint names of both spouses, duty falls to be paid on lifetime transfers. That means that where there is not the kind of separation referred to by the Deputy, where people stay married and living together, there is a duty chargeable on lifetime transfers of property. I do not think the circumstances of the case mentioned by the Deputy would justify changing the practice.

If I might——

I appeal to Deputies not to continue arguments on each question.

I am simply trying to clarify information——

The Deputy does not agree with the Minister's answer and then he stands to make a speech to convince the Minister he should give another answer or to take some other procedure.

I simply wish to clarify the situation. As far as I can see the Minister is wrong.

That is an argument and not in order at Question Time.

It is not. The purpose of Question Time is to get information.

Precisely, but you do not have to keep asking supplementaries until you get the information you want.

Of course, I do.

That is not so.

The system will have to be changed if that is not the case.

The Deputy will never convince him he is wrong, even when he is.

I will pass over that last remark.