I move amendment 23:
Section 44, sub-section (2). To delete in lines 61-63 the words "fifteen times the yearly amount of the rent or the greatest rent reserved by such lease" and to substitute therefor the words "five times the poor law valuation of the premises comprised in such lease."
This is an amendment which stood over for the considerationn of the Minister. It is a very complicated and difficult amendment. If the Minister has considered it and will not accept it I do not suppose the House will. It relates to special provisions in relation to building leases. Section 44 reads:
(1) In this Part of this Act the expression "building lease" means a lease in respect of which all the following conditions are complied with, that is to say:—
(a) the land demised by such lease is situate wholly in an urban area;
(b) there are permanent buildings on such land and the portion of such land not covered by such buildings is subsidiary and ancillary to such buildings;
(c) such permanent buildings are not an improvement within the meaning of this Act;
(d) such permanent buildings were erected by the person who, at the time of such erection, was entitled to the lessee's interest under such lease;...
If you look at sub-section (2) you will see that the expression "proprietary lease" means a lease complying with all the following conditions—there are a great number of conditions. If you come down to (e) you will see—
the said sum of money so paid or expended or the total of the said sums of money so respectively paid and expended (as the case may be) was not less than fifteen times the yearly amount of the rent or the greatest rent reserved by such lease.
That is if a tenant spent in improvements more than fifteen times the yearly rent that tenant shall be entitled to the benefits of this section in regard to a proprietary lease. I have been informed and, having gone into the matter, I have satisfied myself that that amount, "fifteen times the yearly amount of the rent or the greatest rent reserved by such lease," is too much and that a tenant who spends something less, but still a substantial sum, should be entitled to the benefit of the Act. What I want to substitute is "five times the poor law valuation of the premises comprised in such lease." Take a house in the suburbs of Dublin with a £40 valuation. If the tenant has expended £200 on that house my submission is that that tenant should be entitled to the benefits of this Act, and that "fifteen times the yearly amount of the rent or the greatest rent reserved by such lease" has two fatal defects. In the first place, in the generality of cases it is too much; in the second place, it happens to be most variable in its character. Cases have been pointed out to me where the manifest intention of the legislature would not be carried out if there was a strict adherence to the actual words of this section. As I say, it is a difficult matter to explain clearly in a brief space of time, because it would be necessary to go very fully into the law in relation to these leases. The Minister, in the interval between the Second Reading of this Bill and the Report Stage which we have at present, I am sure has had an opportunity of considering the matter. If he still adheres to the fifteen times the yearly rent I do not see that I am called upon to press this amendment very strenuously, but I certainly do make the suggestion that my amendment would be a considerable improvement in the Bill.