David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I commend Senator Quinn on tabling the Bill. It gives us the opportunity to discuss this issue. We had some conversation with the Minister of State with responsibility for small business, who was in the House today. He was dealing with the legislation to put in place the local employment offices. The issue of upward-only rents was one of the many issues raised with him that impact on the small and medium enterprise sector in particular.

I welcome the Bill and the principles behind it. Last year, my party drafted a Bill to address what we saw as the ongoing injustice of upward-only rent review clauses. Despite the fact that Bill was published, the Government has still not provided time to debate it. Upward-only rent clauses undermine our businesses and cost jobs. Only a few hours ago, we learned that a chain of shoe shops throughout the State has gone into examinership because of upward-only rents. We saw the same with B&Q not long ago. We could all give other examples, especially from the retail sector, of businesses which have gone into either examinership, receivership or which have gone out of business altogether because of these clauses.

The bottom line is that the inclusion of these causes is anti-competitive. It corrupts the market for the benefit of the least-productive sections of the economy. It lines the pockets of landlords. It paid for the greed of property developers and it inflated the bottom line of failing banks. In many respects, it was one of the worst excesses of the Celtic tiger. Yet, it is still with us today. The political will is simply not here to deal with this issue. We are hiding behind the Constitution and advice from the Attorney General, which was never made public. We do not know what that advice was. The countering legal advice that my party has received is to the effect that this Bill, if accepted, would deal with the issue in a very similar way to the Sinn Féin Bill which has been published and is to be debated in the Dáil.

Customers and taxpayers are paying for this because businesses have to stay afloat and they pass the cost on to their customers because they have no choice.

Consequently, the consumers end up paying for it. I would have hoped this Bill would receive the support of all parties because before the last election, all parties quite rightly articulated this as a real concern that is affecting businesses and jobs. I appeal to Senator Quinn to press this issue to a vote later today. Let Members support this legislation and move it on to the next Stage. Thereafter, let the Government revert with its arguments as to the reason the Bill is unconstitutional or otherwise.

In the past, both Fine Gael and the Labour Party vowed to support traders such as Korky's Shoes on Grafton Street. In the programme for Government, they committed to tackling these clauses and to aid struggling businesses. Soon after coming to power, the property lobby comprising landlords, estate agents, developers and special interest groups began to lobby all political parties. Claims were made that changes to the clauses would bring the world down around our ears. How many times have Members heard this claim from the same people? This view of course ignored the loss of 40,000 jobs in the retail sector or how local businesses are struggling to survive both because of the general state of the domestic economy and because of the cost of doing business of which upward only rents forms part. Yet again, the Government chose to take the side of landlords. It stated the advice of the Attorney General was that to proceed may be unconstitutional and may leave the State open to compensation claims and some Government Senators have made that point in this debate. As usual, Members never get to see this legal advice. It is unusual for a legal opinion to be so definite. Members are being told this advice is definite but as they can never have sight of it, they must always take the word of the Government and the Attorney General regarding it. As Members cannot actually see it, they are unable to decide for themselves and it cannot be tested. This is one flaw in the manner in which we legislate in this State as far too often, the advice of the Attorney General is used to prevent Members from progressing with legislation. Other legal opinion has demonstrated likewise.

I will conclude by noting the choice in this regard is simple. One is either with landlords and developers or one stands with those entrepreneurs and workers who work in the retail sector. These entrepreneurs are struggling to stay open and I know many of them are working for the minimum wage and less to keep the shops open in the high streets of our cities and towns across the State. The daily reality for them is they are being crippled and whatever support Members can give to them should be given to them. This Bill constitutes an earnest and honest attempt by Senator Quinn to address an important and pressing issue for many small to medium-sized businesses in general, including those in the retail sector, and I fully support the Bill. If this is pushed to a vote, my party will vote in favour of the Bill.