Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)

I understand and accept that there is sometimes a need for emergency legislation to be brought before the House at short notice. In this instance, I received much less notice than Deputy Morgan. The debate on this Bill has replaced the discussion on suicide that was to take place this afternoon. I wonder whether the decision to cancel the debate on suicide betrays the attitude to the problem of suicide that is found at a high level. Ten young people lose their lives to suicide each week. There are more than 220 instances of self-harm each week. While I accept that there is an urgent need for the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Bill 2005, I suggest that the House should have considered extending its sitting hours today or meeting tomorrow to accommodate this emergency legislation. I have mentioned the existing attitude to suicide. I regret that the debate on the issue of suicide has been put on the back burner.

With regard to the Bill, the availability of industrial land is the most important factor in attracting new business ventures to rural or regional areas. In recent years, the private sector has taken up the slack and has been willing to buy property where a profit is likely. It is that prospect of economic gain that drives the private sector. However, areas must also attract public sector agencies.

Three major public sector agencies are involved in the provision of industrial property for the purpose of achieving economic growth, either nationally or in regional and peripheral areas. IDA Ireland provides industrial land and property in the pursuit of national and industrial development objectives, Shannon Development uses industrial land to achieve its primary target of economic growth in the Shannon region and Údarás na Gaeltachta provides industrial property to increase employment in Gaeltacht areas as a means of preserving and extending the use of the Irish language.

These three agencies not only need to maintain their current land supply but also to acquire and develop additional land to be able to meet future demand for industrial sites. This is a vital activity, particularly for IDA Ireland, which concentrates on selling serviced land for development by private sector contractors. However, it can happen that these agencies may have more land on hand than may be required to meet demand in certain areas. In the past IDA Ireland and Shannon Development held lands that were in the wrong places or unlikely to be used in the foreseeable future.

Prices paid for lands by the agencies are generally, although not always, felt to be reasonable, but the indicative costs of development land are generally higher for the agencies than the private sector would normally be willing to pay. In the past 50 years, IDA Ireland, in particular, has a history of assisting the private sector to invest in the provision of industrial buildings. The peripheral nature of the areas served by the other agencies makes it more difficult for them to encourage private sector involvement.

Due to the growth of the greater Dublin area, attention should be given to providing the physical infrastructure to accommodate development corridors in a sustainable manner and in appropriate locations, including along national primary routes. In that regard, I would like to see development take place along the routes to counties Cavan and Monaghan, which now have much improved access to Dublin. Developing individual centres should not be considered in isolation, but should be linked to coordinated policies by the three agencies throughout the country.

In my constituency, a case has arisen involving a landlord, JES Holdings, on behalf of the Shirley estate, which has taken High Court action against the State and a leading businessman who is a leaseholder in Carrickmacross. Leaseholders number almost half of the town's businesspeople and this appears to be a test case against them. The Shirley estate has had a long-running gripe against the State, which it claims denies it the constitutional right to own and keep its own property.

This follows a successful test case taken against the landlord by the business people in an attempt to purchase the respective freeholds on their Main Street properties at market value. The Shirley estate leases affect a total of 50 businesses in the town, and the issue is a major bone of contention in Carrickmacross. If the High Court decision in favour of the business people is again upheld, the floodgates may then be open for all qualifying 99 year leaseholders to purchase their respective leaseholds.

This is a situation where the landlord abused leaseholds in 1991, when leases came up for renewal. In one case, that of the former post office, the rent soared from £35 a year to £10,500 a year, despite the tenants having carried out renovations to the property. These enormous and exorbitant hikes have been instrumental in stagnating business development on much of the west side of Carrickmacross. Many Shirley leaseholders in Carrickmacross are now afraid to spend money on their premises because they are unsure whether any improvements would be for their own benefit or for that of the Shirley estate.

Stagnation has been caused in Carrickmacross, which is a good market town. The tenants live and work in the town but are unsure whether to develop their businesses. If they do so, they must keep pace with rent increases. They are caught in a catch-22 situation.

See this speech in context