Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is welcome to the House. The Action Plan for Jobs is a welcome development and makes great reading. I wish to focus on a particular aspect of it which is the number of measures aimed at supporting entrepreneurship and creating jobs. One of the major barriers to creating jobs is upward-only rent reviews. I do not wish to sound like a bore on this matter, but the Seanad passed my Bill last week and it must now go to the Dáil. I hope it receives Government support. I quote from the Action Plan for Jobs action 345:

Highlight, through the retail representative bodies, the NAMA rent review guidelines and seek to ensure they are widely understood and utilised, where appropriate, including in cases where public sector bodies are the owners of premises.

It is not enough to highlight rent review guidelines to retail representative bodies. As Fine Gael and the Labour Party promised in their election campaigns, we must get rid of upward-only rent reviews completely. I have worked for over a year to find a concrete, realistic, workable solution and that solution has the approval of the House. The Government's only argument has been that any solution is against the Constitution. However, I quote the editorial from the last edition of The Sunday Times:

Quite simply, the advice of one lawyer has changed everything. Máire Whelan, the Attorney General, has told the Government that banning upward only rent reviews would be unconstitutional. This is unsatisfactory as a High Court judge and known constitutional expert, Gerard Hogan, has already declared that upward-only rent clauses in contracts can be struck down in legislation.

The editorial goes on to say that rather than stand idly by and let otherwise viable businesses go to the wall, the best legal minds in Fine Gael and the Labour Party should be attempting to find a way around whatever constitutional difficulties there are. It says the only energy the Government shows on this issue is from its party Whips who were reportedly running around Leinster House last week trying to defeat my Bill. It is very sad to consider that.

How can the Government say it supports businesses and create strategies such as the Action Plan for Jobs when it will not address perhaps the principal factor affecting the survival of so many retailers? This is a sector which employs approximately 250,000 people, or 15% of those who are at work. We cannot simply say we cannot get over this constitutional technicality. It is a slap in the face for people who voted for the Government in the hope that it would address the issue and help their businesses. We must come together and support the Bill. We can do it quickly and implement something concrete that will help businesses greatly. It will mean we are protecting existing jobs and setting the conditions to create more jobs. I have got that off my chest and will put it behind me.

The Taoiseach has talked about Ireland being the best small country in the world to open a business, but we can set more concrete targets in the Action Plan for Jobs. We must learn from the best when it comes to making it as easy as possible to start a business. We should reduce red tape as much as possible. According to the World Bank's 2014 report on the cost of doing business, it takes four procedures and as long as ten days to start a business in Ireland. In Singapore, it takes just three procedures and two and a half days at a cost of approximately €400. New Zealand does even better. There, it takes just one procedure and half a day to start a business. All one has to do is register with the companies office online at a cost of less than €100. Has the Minister heard of the New Zealand example? Perhaps, we should include such a target in the next Action Plan for Jobs. We should set the bar higher. Is the Minister open to the proposal, which I would love to discuss with the Department? I am certain we will get to this stage in the future, but I would love to see some movement right now. What is Revenue doing in this respect?

My third point involves fewer regulations for SMEs compared to large businesses. I have discussed this before at the Joint Committee for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. An action which is not included in the Action Plan for Jobs but which I would like the Government to consider involves the issue of whether smaller businesses should be subject to the same legislation as large ones. I would like the Government to consider not imposing the same regulation on companies employing fewer than 50 people and perhaps putting fewer burdens on businesses of fewer than ten people. In France, the same rules do not apply to small and large businesses. We could do something here. Many regulations in France come into force only where a firm employs 50 workers or more. Should Google be subject to the same regulation as a small food company employing just five people? We can tailor those regulations.

Another issue is to get rid of redundant regulations to assist SMEs. One part of the Action Plan for Jobs makes reference to reduced costs through smart regulations. Could we move beyond smart regulation to get rid of some regulations completely to make it easier for business?

The UK introduced a system of "one in, one out" and then changed it to taking two older regulations out for every new regulation introduced. I think we can move on that. There are some very interesting figures in the UK in respect of that. I think it would be possible to do that. An issue that is related to this is the Red Tape Challenge in the UK which aims to listen to the public and business with the aim of scrapping or reducing as many as 6,500 regulations that affect people's everyday lives. It worked and 3,000 regulations will be done away with or at least reduced. There are steps we can take that will encourage businesses to set up and encourage small businesses to develop. I know the Minister's heart is in the right place and that he has said that it is not the Government's job to create jobs but to create the environment in which businesses can set up business.