Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I did not get a chance to welcome the Minister of State earlier and do so now, but I cannot welcome the words he used. I quote one particular sentence from his script:

The proposals advanced by this Bill have the potential to reverse the gains which have been made and to create negative ripple effects in the wider economy which will not do anything to promote confidence and recovery in the retail sector.

That is totally wrong and nothing could be further from the truth. I disagree with those words used.

I am disappointed but not surprised by the reference to constitutional obstacles to the Bill. I met the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, last night, and he was very helpful and very aware of it and did his best to explain the situation. The ranks of Fine Gael and the Labour Party are filled with great lawyers. If the constitutional obstacles are so obvious and so grave, why did Fine Gael and the Labour Party pledge to enact legislation to deal with legacy of upward-only rent clauses? Why did the Government go so far as to produce its own Bill on this issue? Legislation on this issue could not even have begun to have been drafted without supporting legal advice.

It is clear from the sequence of events that what transpired was that once details of the legislation were shared with the media - I refer to the Government's legislation - the banks and the institutional investors descended on Government Buildings to inform the Taoiseach that the Bill would mean they would not be able to balance the books. Sadly, we now know that the price society must pay to meet the demands of big business is the closure of businesses each week and the loss of jobs at a time when securing another job is extremely difficult.

I acknowledge that the Bill before the House would interfere in a very significant way with well-established constitutional and contractual rights. Even under the Constitution, those rights are not absolute, and we have heard enough said today in that regard.

There is an embarrassing degree of consensus around the issue, which is unique. This is the fifth Bill to address the issue. We also know that the programme for Government and the coalition parties are eager to resolve the issue. Lawyers differ on this topic, as they are liable to do on most legal issues. If we delayed any initiative on the basis of having to wait on consensus from lawyers, nothing would get done.

I acknowledge the advice on this issue I have received from Dr. Rachel Walsh from the law school at Trinity College Dublin, and from Dr. Brian Hunt, who has been very helpful to me on this. I urge the Minister of State to allow the Bill through today and allow its constitutionality be tested in the Supreme Court, if that is the problem. I really believe the Bill is worthwhile and I urge the House to accept it.