The answer to this question differs markedly from the advice given before the election. The government were happy enough to state that UORR's for existing tenants or "victims' as deputy O'Dea calls them, would be addressed if they were to assume power after an election. That election took place on the 25th of February 2011 a year and four months ago. It now appears, the government are hiding behind another legal contrary opinion. Since, many barristers, members of the legal profession and indeed politicians in Ireland are also commercial property owners, it is not surprising that such contradictory legal advice is on offer. What is surprising, is, that the government favor this advice over other advice given their stark election promises on this issue.
What precisely is the legal advice? Who exactly is giving this advice and can it be read into the record of the Dail? If other rents cannot be increased automatically any longer then why was this automaticity allowed previously and still allowed? It is my understanding that one of the leading High court judges in the Commercial Courts has questioned the legality of such UORR. The failure to address this issue appears to me to have more to do with taking the line of least resistance...., perhaps even, the government line on this issue has been influenced by a desire to preserve the value of pension portfolio's and of propping up the value of NAMA's commercial property portfolio. As the minister will be acutely aware, NAMA now effectively controls 9/10ths of the Irish commercial property market.
All in all, I think you did not answer deputy O'Dea's question on UORR satisfactorily. This is an issue which has caused many people to become unemployed and will cause more unemployment. It is an issue on which many peoples future employment prospects now hinge. I think a full and frank disclosure of not only where the government stand on this issue, the legal advice given by whom? Also, the "why" is important. Why the government has changed its approach after the election. There is a degree of cynicism among people regarding the governments diametrically different approach after gaining office.
If there was a bona fide legislative impediment to the removal of these clauses, which I very much doubt there is. There certainly is no legislative impediment that could not be removed if the government had a mind to do so.
Robert Browne
Posted on 11 Jun 2012 8:19 pm
The answer to this question differs markedly from the advice given before the election. The government were happy enough to state that UORR's for existing tenants or "victims' as deputy O'Dea calls them, would be addressed if they were to assume power after an election. That election took place on the 25th of February 2011 a year and four months ago. It now appears, the government are hiding behind another legal contrary opinion. Since, many barristers, members of the legal profession and indeed politicians in Ireland are also commercial property owners, it is not surprising that such contradictory legal advice is on offer. What is surprising, is, that the government favor this advice over other advice given their stark election promises on this issue.
What precisely is the legal advice? Who exactly is giving this advice and can it be read into the record of the Dail? If other rents cannot be increased automatically any longer then why was this automaticity allowed previously and still allowed? It is my understanding that one of the leading High court judges in the Commercial Courts has questioned the legality of such UORR. The failure to address this issue appears to me to have more to do with taking the line of least resistance...., perhaps even, the government line on this issue has been influenced by a desire to preserve the value of pension portfolio's and of propping up the value of NAMA's commercial property portfolio. As the minister will be acutely aware, NAMA now effectively controls 9/10ths of the Irish commercial property market.
All in all, I think you did not answer deputy O'Dea's question on UORR satisfactorily. This is an issue which has caused many people to become unemployed and will cause more unemployment. It is an issue on which many peoples future employment prospects now hinge. I think a full and frank disclosure of not only where the government stand on this issue, the legal advice given by whom? Also, the "why" is important. Why the government has changed its approach after the election. There is a degree of cynicism among people regarding the governments diametrically different approach after gaining office.
If there was a bona fide legislative impediment to the removal of these clauses, which I very much doubt there is. There certainly is no legislative impediment that could not be removed if the government had a mind to do so.