Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

It is very interesting to listen to the two arguments, both of which are persuasive, in one sense. If one is to have a default or presumptive mode in the joint purchase of property, there will be consequences, no matter how one looks at it. As Senator Tuffy says, there are major advantages in a joint tenancy from the viewpoint of neatness. If a joint owner dies, the other joint owner could be completely frozen, while some type of dispute goes on over whether he or she died intestate, or a dispute arises with a spouse over the legal rights, etc. All kinds of features can arise which have the effect of immobilising property.

On the other hand, as Senator Jim Walsh has said, not merely do most immigrants not know the law, most Irish people do not know it either. If one were to ask people in the street the difference between a tenancy in common and a joint tenancy, one could be locked up.

We have a problem here. I will examine Senator Cummins's amendment for the reasons outlined by Senator Terry. I will consider whether the issues raised by Senator Tuffy outweigh those in the amendment set down by Senator Cummins. We may be in danger of substituting one set of problems for another. The traditional presumption may be as good as the new presumption. I am agnostic on the matter but Senator Tuffy's argument is quite convincing.