Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

I have outlined the history of this legislation and the debate in the other House. It is wrong for anyone to interpret it in the manner outlined. It was not designed to exclude any particular group. This is a good Bill which is moving forward the situation of tenants' rights. I am not suggesting it will last forever. I am sure different sections of the Bill will be improved as time passes. There may well be further development of this section. I am aware of a recent Law Reform Commission report which could well affect and influence the direction and wording of the Bill in the future.

The provision in this section is confined to persons who have been residing in the dwelling with the deceased tenant. These are the only people whose accommodation is directly affected by the death of the tenant. The primary concern in this section is the accommodation of those people. There could well be situations in which other people who are not residing in the dwelling might have rights under the succession Acts. It is a very fine point of argument. The premise of the Bill is to afford rights to both sides and, for the first time, afford rights to tenants. If rights are given to one side, they are taken from the other side. This provision does not remove a right from same-sex couples to inherit a tenancy. The section, as amended, gives the specified people the right to become a tenant of a Part 4 tenancy in circumstances where there is no living tenant.

This is the only instance in the Bill where a landlord of a house or apartment has no say in granting a tenancy to a particular person in circumstances in which there is no surviving tenant.

Discussing an earlier amendment on a similar matter, we noted the importance of achieving balance from a landlord's point of view and discussed whether a landlord should have a say with regard to new sub-tenants in the event that a tenant goes away for a period, for example, to London. The landlord has this right in all cases, with the exception of this specific exclusion. It was possible to insert this denial, as it were, of a landlord's right to choose or give consent regarding a person who would become a tenant because of the constitutional protection afforded to the family. For good or bad, this specific provision denies the landlord the usual right to decide who can assume a Part 4 tenancy. We are doing this because of the constitutional protection of the family.

I have listened to Senators' arguments and it is possible that it will be necessary to change the provision as a result of future developments, other legislation or the report of the Law Reform Commission. It is not true that it has been included to allow for what the Senators may regard as my personal baggage. While we all have personal views, this measure was not influenced by mine but resulted from strong demands by Members of the other House for protection in a specific case. We have tried to offer such protection and its inclusion was only possible because of other constitutional protections. The Attorney General concluded that it could be included because of the constitutional protection of the family and, while we did not specifically seek to add other groups, his message was that difficulties would arise if we were to do so because it might create an imbalance.