Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

I tried to explain earlier how this came about. Originally, the section provided that on the death of all the tenants of a Part 4 tenancy, the Part 4 tenancy would no longer exist. When this was discussed on Committee Stage in the Dáil, considerable concern was expressed by Deputies about the position of dependent family members when a tenant dies. The advice I would offer to all people in tenancies, which will be strongly recommended by the private residential tenancies board, is that all prospective tenants should enter joint tenancies at the outset or when a person moves in with another. The situation should be regularised and placed on a legal footing.

I was asked in the other House, after a long and heated discussion, to amend the provision to protect other family occupants where the sole family member who is a tenant might die. It was stressed by Deputies on all sides that the amendment was only being sought in the case of a genuine family relationship, married or unmarried. At the end of the debate I gave an undertaking that I would try to do that and we took the matter up with the Attorney General. On Report Stage we came back with an amendment that was drafted by the Attorney General and made the precise change I was asked to make. His office considered that the change would not pose constitutional difficulties for landlords' property rights as the Constitution also protects the position of the family. Here we had a case of competing constitutional rights but the Attorney General recommended this as being in order and that it complied with the request.

The amendment that was introduced enabled spouses, unmarried partners, adult children and parents who were residing with the tenant to elect to become tenants and to continue the Part 4 tenancy where the death of a tenant occurs. It was specifically targeted at the groups I was asked to target, married and unmarried couples. It does not cover everyone but it is wrong for any Member to feel that any group is specifically excluded. It does not cover several other categories of multiple occupant dwellings — friends, cousins, siblings, people in same sex relationships, work colleagues or anyone else — it was specifically targeted at dependent spouses in family relationships.

That is where the debate arose and where I tried to strengthen the provision on the request of Members on Committee Stage in the Dáil. It is wrong, however, to think that any specific group was excluded. Even when I came back with the amendment, one of the Members who was very vocal on Committee Stage wanted to know why siblings were not included but I had not been asked to do that.

I am not an expert in constitutional law but the Attorney General considered that, because the Constitution recognises the family, in this case it would be in order. Everyone can overcome this concern on the first day of the tenancy and the residential tenancies board will strongly recommend in future that in cases of joint tenancies, people register themselves as joint tenants so they will have complete protection if one of them dies.

The broader extension of the provision, to include partners other than those living together as husband and wife, is not possible. The expression is too vague and capable of a number of interpretations. It would not be appropriate to formulate a statutory provision using such a vague expression. It would be likely to include any person who had been living in the accommodation. Any extension of the provision to include same sex partners in sexual relationships would require specific reference to that category of occupant.

I brought forward a measure, having consulted the Attorney General at the request of Members across all parties, and no group is specifically excluded. More than one group is included but there are other groups that are not included. The amended section was composed entirely by the Attorney General and was framed so it did not impact on the position of leases under the Succession Acts. There was a constitutional concern but I brought forward a measure, as requested, and no one has been specifically excluded and I refute the suggestion they have. It was brought forward to cover certain groups as requested and some groups are included and some are not.