Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)

In the absence of the Attorney General's advice, one can only assume there is some reason for the Government's resistance to supporting this Bill. One conclusion that could be drawn is contained in a recent letter published by Professor David Gwynn Morgan of University College Cork in the national newspapers last week. It states: "No doubt, it is a happy coincidence that the establishment view of things coincides with the interests of banks who have advanced money to landlords to acquire premises on the basis of existing rent levels: the banks' interests would be damaged by a change which would reduce rents." Further to this point by Professor Gwynn Morgan, and in regard to the working group set up by the Minister, one must ask whether it is just a convenience or coincidence that the timing of the group's report will be after the valuation of the NAMA portfolios has commenced in the coming weeks.

There is a Government tradition in the House, which as a new Member I would probably call a practice, of opposing new ideas brought forward by the Opposition. In a recent housing Bill, for example, there was an obvious technical fault in that the Minister had cited the wrong year. I cited the correct year by amendment but the Minister voted against it and subsequently tabled the same amendment in his own name. Perhaps "Yes Minister" can make some sense of that. It is a case of "very brave, very brave". To me this sort of carry-on beggars belief and it is beyond common sense to the public.

I would like the Government to treat this Bill like any other. I hope it will not oppose it at 8.30 p.m. tomorrow. It should do what happens in regard to every important Bill, that is, let is proceed and, on the later Stages, make its amendments rather than adopting its default position. This would be in keeping with proper legislative practice. I would welcome a response from the Minister that takes on board the intent of this Bill, which is to assist the Government to deal with an emergency situation that is causing significant damage to the retail sector. Something must be done now rather than waiting for a report at the end of June.

As we debate the Bill this evening, jobs are being lost in the retail sector because of overpriced and inflexible commercial rents. The Government has an opportunity to show that it will put people and jobs first and will make a real effort in reducing the live register. There is also an opportunity for the Government to save money. A recent report indicated that the State is one of the largest renters of properties bound by the upward only rent review provision. In Dublin, for example, the State is paying €118 million per year on rental properties that are locked into such contracts. However, the State itself is also a landlord. One of the reasons behind the closure of Hughes and Hughes was its failure to secure a rent reduction of any significance from the Dublin Airport Authority. At the last minute the authority came in with a proposal to reduce by 1% the rent that was set five years ago at the height of the property bubble. This is the type of nonsense the Government is simultaneously overseeing and being subjected to on an annual basis. Some of the €118 million being paid by the State is going to some of the wealthiest people in the country, including Larry Goodman, Liam Carroll and even Anglo Irish Bank, which the State recently acquired. If we cannot work out a deal with Anglo Irish Bank to reduce rents, what are we at?

The wholesale and retail sector was the largest employment sector of the economy in 2009, when it employed just over 307,000. One year later, with nearly 30,000 jobs lost in this sector alone, the situation is getting worse by the day. We have recently seen significant job losses in Arnotts, Debenhams, Superquinn and Hughes and Hughes - all reputable companies - and many other major retail employers are in jeopardy due to unsustainable upward only rent reviews. In addition, employees are having their working week reduced in order to compensate for the costs of an overvalued rental bubble. The Government must wake up to the fact that high rents are costing jobs, reducing both businesses' and workers' incomes, and contributing to the stagnation of the economy. A commercial property market that has an upward only rent clause for existing business is unfair, unrealistic and ultimately uncompetitive.

See this speech in context