Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)

I make no bones about the fact the Labour Party proposes to introduce an element of retrospection to deal with existing leases of companies which are trading, contributing to the Exchequer and employing people, not 24 years down the line when one of these leases might come up for review again. This is the elephant in the room. These companies are in real danger of closing and that is why the Labour Party proposes this amendment. The Minister has started it and we are asking him to finish the job.

The Minister spoke about constitutional positions and so on. I remind him of something done by another Department. On 1 June of this year, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs introduced a measure whereby 80,000 rent supplement payments have been reduced. The money given to the tenant has been reduced and he or she has been told to negotiate a lower rent with the landlord.

The State is already intervening directly in the rental sector which in this case is in the private residential sector. The State also needs to take cognisance of what is happening in the private retail sector and intervene. We face a crisis and to say this can be deferred for 24 years or more does not recognise where we are.

I refer to the National Asset Management Agency and the concerns stated by some Members. These products, which will be held by NAMA, were part of a pyramid scheme. The property bubble was facilitated by policies and decision initiated in this House in recent years. There was a pyramid scheme and rents were based on the peak of that scheme. People who took out leases in the past two or three years were at the apex of that pyramid. They had no choice. Make no mistake about that.

The only provision for rent in the private retail sector is for upward rent reviews. The only lease one can get is with a provision for an upward rent review because if there was a provision in law for a downward rent review, the Minister would not be bringing forward this provision.

In regard to the Labour Party's proposal, I am reminded of Mandy Rice-Davies, the Profumo affair and the phrase "He would, wouldn't he?". The Minister would say that, would he not?

Let us be clear about this. Price control has already been interfered with by the State in the case of the private residential sector. That was necessary because when rent allowance was first introduced, it drove rents up. I have some sympathy for the position the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has taken with her Department. I ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to take a similar approach with his Department and ensure trading companies do not go to the wall because they have been informed by the Minister that they must wait for 24 years. I implore the Minister to accept the Labour Party's amendment.

See this speech in context