Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this particularly important Bill. I note the points raised by other Members, all of which have been valid. It behoves us, however, to recognise we live in very difficult times and it will not be easier for the foreseeable future.

We have to do our best to ensure the interests of both employee and employer are recognised and dealt with in a fair and equitable fashion to make sure obstacles that create problems for either side are addressed fairly and, in turn, obstacles to the creation and retention of jobs are ameliorated. That is hugely important at all times but, at this time, it is more important than ever. I do not want to rehash history but the 1980s recession was not as bad as the current one and it did not affect as many people because that generation had been through previous recessions. They had survived because they had mental capacity and stoicism to deal with it. That is not necessarily the case now and one has to recognise the awful scenarios affecting individual households throughout the country. As Deputy O'Sullivan said, the middle classes find themselves in an appalling position having bought houses on the basis of advice that if they did not buy, they might never own a house.

We have a choice now. We can try to accommodate in so far as we can the interests of employers and employees with the objective of retaining the maximum number of people in employment while ensuring we expand and take from the live register as many people as possible in the shortest period. The prophets of doom visit us on a regular basis and they say there will be no growth or revival. Some of us predicted the downturn would happen four years ago and it is nothing new to us. We watched it unfold and pointed out that this would happen because we recognised the difficulties facing us. The issue is whether we retain old standards, precepts and conditions or whether we adapt. Unfortunately, we have to adapt to current circumstances.

During the Celtic tiger era, reference was regularly made to the smart economy. The daft economy is also important because it is balanced like a balanced diet. That means we have various employment strata - low, middle and higher. Each has an equally important role to play and every worker has a critical role to play in the rejuvenation of our economy. I always had the view that, no matter what the job was, if the person felt that he or she fulfilled a purpose and it was better than being unemployed, we were on the right track. One only has to turn on the radio or television or read scribes in various journals to become as negative as one can be because there is an ongoing diatribe of negativity, which is depressing to many people. Many people are unemployed, in mortgage arrears or in other economic difficulties and they have faced this diatribe of negativity on a daily basis, morning, noon and night, to such an extent that they have become depressed. People are being affected by this constant negative debate and that should be recognised. There comes a time when we have to shoulder the burden and do what has to be done. I do not point fingers at other Members but this is crucially important for us as a people and as an economy.

I hope this legislation focuses attention on important issues that matter to people. I began by referring to difficulties and hardship. In the 1930s, Franklin D Roosevelt, the US President, adopted a policy of having fireside chats. My late mother lived there at the time like many other Irish people. The Irish continued to go there legally and illegally. The president recognised the trauma people were experiencing at the time, what they thought when they got out of the morning and the forlorn situation that unfolded before them and he recognised that hopelessness was the last thing they wanted. He began these fireside chats to reassure and calm people and to give them hope. He offered a helping hand, a shoulder to lean on or a sympathetic ear and it was hugely important.

Ironically, during that recession, the US tried everything using various initiatives, including the New Deal and the Hoover plan, which all failed. Eventually the tide turned. It will turn for Ireland and when it does so, it will be dramatic. The only difference between now and the 1980s is that property prices then were low and it was possible for everybody to access the housing market and that had a bearing on those at work. Everybody who was employed at the time had the opportunity to house himself out of his own resources through the local authority loan system and so on and that was positive. However, we have not reached the bottom of the property price plunge yet. A few years ago, we were reassured every morning that there would be a soft landing. That did not transpire and that is why it is important to reassure employees who may have genuine reasons to feel under threat or under pressure while, at the same time, recognising the difficulties of employers who cannot keep the doors open.

This is being addressed but I will not go through the history of court cases, etc., in this area. The legislation is necessary and we must adapt to the emerging circumstances. Hopefully, it will do the job intended and meet the requirements of employers and employees. We cannot go back to where we were. During the Celtic tiger era, everything was off the wall. There were no rules and we began to live as if there was no need to provide for tomorrow at all. This was particularly appalling for our older generation who knew the generation coming behind us was experiencing this for the first time. Their confidence has been eroded and their outlook on life has been changed. There is a tendency towards despair but there should be none. We have to do we have to do and address each issue as it emerges. It is up to ourselves. Either we have the resources and the will to do this or we do not.

If we fold our tents and walk away, we simply do not address the situation. I hope this legislation will at least ensure there is a possibility of retaining the jobs we have, albeit with less remuneration - no doubt that is a fact of life. Is it better to have no job than to try to hold on to one? All of us in this House have had a fairly substantial reduction in income in the past couple of years but there are those who would say that our income was higher, and, of course, it was. We all know persons who were on a considerably higher income than the income of any Member of this House three, four or five years ago and who are now in a desparate position. We deal with them on a daily basis, applying for social welfare assistance, jobseeker's allowance etc. We know the trauma that they must go through when they apply. They must wait interminably in anticipation and sometimes their hopes are dashed. I recently received a reply to a parliamentary question where an application for jobseeker's allowance was refused on the basis that the person had a history of self-employment. Of course, he had a history of self-employment. He was self-employed for 25 years. He was never unemployed in his life. Unfortunately, circumstances dictated that he was on his uppers. That is what we must respond to. We must try to create some measure of hope for those in such a position.

I started off by mentioning the United States and the Depression in the 1930s. There will be those in this House who would say we should not speak of depression. We have a depression. We have a serious economic situation. There is no good in saying that we should abolish all of that, refuse to pay any of the money that we borrowed and identify a new means of living like there was no tomorrow. We were doing that during the course of the Celtic tiger. That is what happened to us. There was to be no tomorrow and we would never have to pay it back. That was an appallingly sad situation.

I pay tribute to the trade union movement. They recognise the situation and know that they must do what must be done to try as best they can to get to a position where we can climb out of the economic morass we are in. I will not name any particular person, but suffice it to say we all know who they are and we have watched their progress and leadership, and that is to be recognised and applauded.

By the same token, I pay tribute to employers who have taken the same route. We all know a considerable number of people who have been small employers for a long number of years but who go out of their way to try to cater for their employees. They are rising to the challenge as well, and have always done so. We must recognise their input, particularly at this time.

I will finish off on one issue which may not seem to have an affinity with industrial relations. One of the issues we have debated in this House over the past couple of years is the question of upward-only rent reviews. This refers mostly to the commercial sector. There was a choice. I do not know who came up with the idea in the first place. I believe it is unconstitutional. I believe upward-only rent reviews are a means of undermining the independence and sovereignty of the State and I cannot understand why they were ever allowed. Many who were employed in premises that were the subject of upward-only rent reviews are now unemployed because their employer could not afford to meet the cost of upward-only rent reviews.

See this speech in context