HC Deb 01 April 1953 vol 513 cc1298-316

Order for Second Reading read.

8.4 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I must apologise for what is technically known as "The Short Title" of the Bill. It is neither so short nor so graceful as I should have liked, but everyone will agree that it describes the Bill clearly and explains that we are legislating in a single Bill for Scotland. England and Wales.

The object of the Bill is to prolong the temporary legislation on the subject of leaseholds which was passed in 1951 and which is due to expire in a few weeks' time. The background and the statutory provisions are different in the different countries, and I will deal with them separately. I will first deal with England and Wales.

The final Report of the Leasehold Committee was published in June, 1950. Our predecessors, the Government of the day, introduced in November, 1950, the Bill that became the temporary Act of 1951. Right hon. Gentlemen explained that the issues raised by the Report were difficult and that it would take some time to prepare their proposals for permanent legislation. Their Bill was intended to hold the position until the proposals were ready. I assume that they counted on being able, if they remained in office, to pass a permanent Act into law by Midsummer, 1953. Her Majesty's Government, in common with everyone who has had to consider the matter, agree that the issues involved are difficult.

Perhaps I may be tangential for a moment. It is rather grimly amusing to read on page 116 of the English Report the heading, "Quiet Enjoyment." I hasten to assure the non-legal Members of the House that this is a legal term of art and has nothing to do with the state of mind of the reader of the Report.

Everyone would agree that a major permanent Measure in this complicated and technical sphere must be a difficult understaking. Therefore I make no apology for not being ready, only some 15 months after coming into office, to present a Bill. Everyone would agree— I am not making a party point of this matter—that it would be doubtful, even if we had introduced a Bill at the beginning of this Session, whether we could have got it through by midsummer, which is the necessary time for the English Bill. Therefore, everyone will agree that it is essential to extend the life of the temporary Act.

To hon. Gentlemen who have not had an opportunity of giving great study to the matter, I would point out that we have made a great deal of progress towards the stage of introducing permanent legislation. We have considered the subject, and have put forward our conclusions in the form of a White Paper which is there as the background to this debate. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced last Thursday, arrangements have been made for us to have a full debate on the White Paper after Easter. Therefore I am not going into that matter at all today. That is the tacit understanding with which we approach the Bill now before us. We wanted to make clear our intentions and to show that the temporary legislation will not be continued indefinitely.

Perhaps I might come to the actual content of the Bill, and first of all deal with Clause 1 (1). The Act of 1951 which we are extending came into force on 24th June, 1951. Its provisions are due to expire after "two years beginning with the commencement of the Act," that is, on 23rd June, 1953. Clause 1 (1) of the Bill is designed to extend that period until Christmas, 1954. If the Bill had simply substituted "three and a half years "for" two years" the period would have expired 24 hours before the beginning of the Christmas quarter day; so Clause I must substitute for references to the period of two years beginning with the commencement of the Act of 1951, references to the period beginning with the commencement of that Act and ending with 24th December, 1954.

We have chosen this period of grace rather than midsummer for two main reasons. The permanent Bill will inevitably be long and complex, and it might not be possible for this House and the other place to pass it through all its stages by midsummer, 1954, if it is to receive proper consideration. I would remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Bill for the 1951 Act, which was a simpler standstill affair, was introduced on 21st November, 1950, and did not receive the Royal Assent until 22nd June, 1951. The second reason will, I hope, commend itself to the House, namely, that it will be fairer to everyone concerned if the temporary Act remains in being for a short period after the details of the permanent legislation have been finally settled. That lets everyone who is interested in it have time to digest these permanent provisions.

I do not think I need weary the House with a detailed discussion of the subsections. If I may take the general point in Clause 1, I would remind the House that Section 1 of the 1951 Act provided that long leases—that is, over 21 years —of residential property occupied by the lessee or a member of his family, which would expire at any time between 24th June, 1951, and 23rd June, 1953, would be automatically continued until the end of that period.

The effect of the present Bill would be, first, that any leases expiring during that period would be continued until Christmas, 1954, instead of midsummer, 1953; secondly, that any long leases that satisfy the conditions of the 1951 Act, and are due to expire between 24th June, 1953, and Christmas, 1954, would be automatically continued until the latter date. In very much the same way the Bill would continue for the extended period of protection all the other provisions of the 1951 Act.

The remaining subsections of Clause 1 deal with necessary technical provisions of a consequential nature. Subsection (2) deals with actions for breach of covenant, subsection (3) with the time limit for applications under Part II relating to shops, and subsection (4) with holding over. I have elaborate notes ready for dealing with any of these points upon which anyone may want information, but it is not fair to the House to go into them unless there is a specific request for information.

Now may I ask the House to turn to the Scottish provisions? The Long Leases (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1951, is due to expire on 9th May, 1953, and we propose, by Clause 2 of this Bill, to extend it until the term of Martinmas of 1954. For the information of any benighted Sassenachs who happen to be listening, Martinmas is 11th November.

When the Bill of 1951 was introduced, we were told that it was intended only to maintain the status quo for building leases until the Secretary of State had been able to consider the report of a committee which he intended to appoint to inquire into certain aspects of the law relating to building and other leases in Scotland. That committee reported on 29th July, 1952, and in a recent White Paper the Government announced their decision to accept the recommendations of the committee and to introduce legislation to give effect to those recommendations which needed legislative sanction.

We considered that the permanent legislation should be passed as soon as practicable, but it was clearly impossible to do this between the end of July last and 9th May next, and so an extension of the 1951 Act is inevitable. We are sorry that there should be this necessity, but at least it has the advantage of enabling us to learn the views of Parliament, and of opinion in Scotland generally, before we proceed to draft the detailed provisions of the permanent Bill. The Government hope to be able to introduce a Scottish Bill, and pass it into law, during next Session. The period for which the 1951 Act is to be extended has been fixed accordingly.

We have chosen Martinmas, 1954, as the terminal date rather than 9th May, 1954, for the same reasons; because of the danger of the legislation being delayed and because we want to give some time for practitioners and others to appreciate the effect of the new Act. The difference in the date between the Scottish provision and that for England and Wales is because it will be best for those leases which will not be statutorily convertible to end on a Scottish legal term.

The House will see that there are also provisions for what those of us who are not fortunate enough to be trained in Scottish law would call questions of breach of covenant and which in Scottish law have the delightful nomenclature of "irritancies." There is also a word— which, I hope the House will forgive me for saying, gave me immense pleasure —in the last line of page 2 of the Bill which reads as follows: terminating at an ish falling on or after the tenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-three … I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will bear me out that I am right, in thinking that an "ish" is a "tacit relocation."

Mr. John Wheatley (Edinburgh. East)

No.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

That is the definition of it given in Section 5 (a) of the Act of 1951. I happened to look up that point. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the Scottish Act of 1951, he will find that it says: Any reference to the ish shall, in relation to a lease continued by tacit relocation, be construed as a reference to the date to which the lease has, at the commencement of this Act, been so continued;

Mr. Wheatley

"Ish" is the date of the termination of the lease.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

In this case it is not tacit relocation; it refers to the termination on tacit relocation?

Mr. Wheatley

Yes.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am sorry if I did not put it clearly enough. It reminded me of the unfortunate broadcast after the removal of the Stone of Destiny in which an English broadcaster referred to the fact that the Stone of Destiny had been taken by Edward "ist." It took us quite a long time in Scotland to find out to which monarch the reference was made.

Having cleared that point, I was saying to the House that there is a similar provision for dealing with irritancies and with holding over, and then there is the provision to which I have already referred, the Short Title of the Bill.

This debate is concerned with maintaining the position until we come to the discussion of both White Papers. Then everyone in all parts of the House will be able to express their views and I am sure we shall have a most interesting debate. I hope the House will feel that I have indicated the problem with which we have to deal and the methods by which we are dealing with it, and that hon. Members will give this Bill a Second Reading.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. John Wheatley (Edinburgh, East)

In so far as the Government have not been able or seen fit to introduce legislation of a permanent nature, we on this side will support the Bill which is now before the House. We are, however, very sorry indeed, having regard to the importance of the subject, that the Government have not found it possible to introduce legislation of a permanent character on this very vexed question. It is a very important matter and we on this side, who are strongly in favour of leasehold enfranchisement, are sorry that permanent legislation has not been introduced and that the Government are resorting to the expedient of continuing the temporary legislation for a further period.

We are also sorry that the Government have decided to introduce the Bill and to have its Second Reading before we have had the opportunity of debating the White Papers. That seems rather to be putting the cart before the horse. The justification for continuing the temporary legislation depends on whether there was not a case for immediate permanent legislation.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am quite ready to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's views. It was, however, the intention, had business not been interrupted, to have the debate in one and to have a discussion on the White Papers when we were discussing the Bill. I do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think that the Government desired to prevent that, but unfortunate matters have meant a rearrangement.

Mr. Wheatley

While I fully accept that, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that in the event we are putting the cart before the horse. That is unfortunate because we really have to circumscribe the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. In so far as we are not able to have permanent legislation, in the interests of all concerned it is desirable that the existing temporary legislation should be continued until such time as we can have permanent legislation.

I should like an assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a point which was implicit in his speech: namely, that we will have a Bill of a permanent nature introduced at the first possible opportunity and that we will not require to wait until the "fag end," if I might so describe it, of this temporary Measure before we get legislation of a permanent character.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe indicated assent.

Mr. Wheatley

I gather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with that proposition.

In the circumstances. I do not propose to say very much. I do not think that we on this side can accept that in the time at their disposal the Government could not have introduced legislation of a permanent nature, particularly having regard to the views expressed by senior members of the Government when in Opposition and when the Government of which I was a member were trying to put through the temporary legislation which is now being extended.

I remember the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now Minister of State at the Foreign Office decrying the provisions of the temporary legislation. He said that the then Bill did nothing to clear the jungle and merely constituted a "house freeze," and that it is likely to add further complications to an already complicated situation and to make confusion worse confounded. The opportunity has been lost for giving immediate effect to some of the non-controversial matters suggested in the Report of the Leasehold Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 398.] In the case of the English provisions the Government had the Report of the Leasehold Committee, and it was not a matter, as in the Scottish case, where the Committee reported only in July of last year. Therefore, the Government had not only the views but, no doubt, the expert opinion of the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, as well as the other legal advice that is available to them. And yet the Minister of State obviously thought that it was disastrous to have this legislation. Therefore I should have thought it was even more disastrous to carry it on in the form in which it at present appears on the Statute Book.

The Solicitor-General, who was with us until recently but has understandably gone away, because he was fully engaged in the last Measure and has gone, no doubt, to get some well deserved sustenance, said of the temporary Bill which we introduced: …if the Bill is extended beyond two years, its extension will, in my opinion, have deplorable consequences. and he asked for an undertaking that it would not be extended by the Government for more than the two years which is provided in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 468.] I should have thought that with that mass of legal opinion in the Government, rather than extend the provisions of the temporary Bill the Government would have been at great pains to produce a Bill of their own making, dealing with their solution, which may, of course, not be our solution, of this problem of leasehold. Instead, however, the worst fears of those two learned Gentlemen, apparently, have come to pass and the Act is being extended.

Perhaps the Home Secretary will explain why, having regard to the views of his party when in Opposition about the undesirability of extending the Act beyond the two years for which it was provided, he has resorted to this expedient of continuing it virtually for another period of that nature. The two learned Gentlemen to whom I have referred were speaking officially for the Conservative Party on that occasion, and speaking with all the authority of their party behind them.

Instead of occupying the time of the House with other Measures, to which I need not refer but which took up a great deal of time in the deliberations of the House, it would have been much more desirable, having regard to the social problems which a leasehold Bill is necessary to solve, that the Government should have framed a Bill and found Parliamentary time for a Bill of that nature.

When we turn to the Scottish angle we find that the same opinion existed. While it be true that the English Committee reported long before the Scottish Committee, which only reported in July, 1952, I think it will be agreed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland that the problem in Scotland is not so complicated. Therefore, the difficulty of preparing legislation as far as Scotland is concerned —which would of course require to be separate legislation—would not be very great. We wonder what the delay is there because representatives of the Conservative Party, speaking on the Scottish Measure, were equally trenchant in their criticism.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) asked, "Why have the Bill at all? "But now we are having it extended. The noble Lord who is now the Minister of State for the Scottish Office stated that all we were getting was a moratorium, and wanted permanent legislation if the situation warranted it rather than legislation of a temporary nature. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Scottish Office then asked why we should have this temporary Measure and why the Government could not make up their mind.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Tradeston)

They are all in the dock.

Mr. Wheatley

May I ask the same question: why cannot the Government make up their mind now?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Gal-braith)

We have made up our mind; we told you.

Mr. Wheatley

The hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "We have made up our mind; we have told you," but this Committee reported in July, 1952. The Scottish Grand Committee, which is specially designed to discuss legislation of a peculiarly Scottish nature, until this morning had not met since 10th July, 1952, to deal with any Government Bill, or any Government business. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that we did not have ample time in the Scottish Grand Committee to deal both with the Second Reading and Committee stages of a Scottish Bill dealing with leaseholds?

In these circumstances I think we ought to have some explanation why it is that, although a Scottish Bill would have been less complicated, dealing with a less difficult subject in a more limited sphere, having regard to the fact that Her Majesty's Government have not seen fit to utilise the services of the Scottish Grand Committee from July to the beginning of April, we could not have permanent legislation on this subject in so far as it affects Scotland, particularly having regard to the criticisms that were levelled against the temporary legislation by the leaders of the Conservative Party when they were in Opposition.

May I add to my list of criticisms what was said by the present Lord Advocate? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he? "] When he was in Opposition, he said: The Bill offers no real solution to the problem with which it is proposed to cope. He went on to say that it will do nothing constructive …it will introduce anomalies and new distinctions."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 7th February, 1951; c. 1909.] I am not, of course, accepting that these criticisms were justified, but they were made by people who now are responsible Ministers in Her Majesty's Government. If they thought they were well founded, despite the fact that we did not think they were, one would have thought they would be at great pains to introduce legislation to remove from the Statute Book this temporary Measure and have it replaced by a permanent Measure which would cope permanently with the problems and remove what they conceived to be the difficulties, anomalies and dangers.

I think we are entitled to hear why it is that this expedient has been resorted to and why it is that the Government, knowing full well the importance of this problem in both countries, have taken refuge in continuing legislation rather than facing the difficulties which have to be faced in permanent legislation and creating a new code of leasehold enfranchise- ment which would get rid of some of the social anomalies and injustices that characterise our legal code at present.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke (Hampstead)

I will not venture on the question of leasehold enfranchisement, because I think that by common consent it was agreed we should debate that on a future occasion rather than tonight. Similarly, I will not risk myself in the quicksands of Scottish affairs, still less of Scottish legislation which uses a strange language that looks to some of us as if the printer had left the initial letter off one of the words.

As regards the English law, we all join with the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley) in regretting that it should not have been possible to supersede the temporary Act of 1950 by permanent legislation before it runs out in June of this year. I am sure that the Government regret it, because no Government enjoys introducing temporary legislation which takes up valuable days, when the work has to be done over again at the time when permanent legislation is introduced. But it certainly does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to taunt or twit the Home Secretary with delay in making up his mind. After all, it was in June, 1949, that we had a unanimous interim Report from the Leasehold Committee, and 17 months later, in November, 1950, the Government of which he was a Member brought forward temporary legislation which indicated that they were still unable to make up their minds.

Not only that, but I think we were informed that so long ago as November, 1948, the then Chairman of the Leasehold Committee communicated to the then Lord Chancellor the unanimous view of the Committee that legislation was required to give the protection of the Rent Acts to the occupying lessee who found himself not protected when the lease ran out. Two whole years passed before the Labour Government took any action to remedy that situation, and when the action did come it was only in temporary form.

The difference in this case is that for the first time a Bill of a temporary nature has been accompanied by a statement of the Government's permanent intentions. The only thing, therefore, that we can argue about, so far as this Bill is concerned, is whether it would conceivably have proved possible to put on the Statute Book before the end of the present Session permanent legislation based on the outline given in the White Paper published in January.

I, too, regret that is not possible, because I think we all want permanent legislation as soon as we can get it. But it must be clear to everyone that we have reached a stage where the enactment of permanent legislation in this Sesssion would be impracticable; or, if we attempted it, it would be very bad legislation, because this is an exceedingly complicated subject. I fancy that all of us who may find ourselves serving on the Standing Committee which eventually will examine the permanent legislation would wish the draftsmen to have full time to prepare it, because there will be sufficient to argue about at that stage without having to spend time discussing faults in the drafting.

I do not propose, in these circumstances, to debate the White Paper now, or to suggest any other action which should have been taken. I rejoice that at last, in considering this subject, we have proposals before us for permanent legislation. Some people may feel themselves aggrieved in that the White Paper holds out to certain classes of tenants a prospect of improved security which will not be available to them until the second Bill reaches the Statute Book. That happens because in this case the Government—I think wisely—have announced their intentions as early as possible. The desires of those people could not have been met, unless we had been able somehow to find means of passing permanent legislation in this Session.

I welcome the fact that this White Paper was published at what I believe was the earliest possible moment, thereby giving us ample time to study the form the permanent legislation is to take. All of us present this evening may wish to speak more extensively in the subsequent debate, but I suggest that now we cannot do better than give the Bill a Second Reading, send it to a Committee, and hope that we may get it on the Statute Book speedily in order to clear the decks for something much more important.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I had not intended to take part in this debate until I heard what the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) had to say. I think that the position should be made perfectly clear. What he said was rather illogical. We are very keen about this question of leasehold reform and have been seeking methods to give an opportunity to a leaseholder to continue his lease on reasonable terms, or to obtain enfranchisement of the leasehold. We were exploring such possibilities even when we knew that, with the small majority we had in the House, we should be open to attacks from hon. Gentlemen opposite who were not prepared to grant these concessions. We did introduce temporary measures which the hon. Member for Hampstead now regards as something not to our credit.

On the other hand, reading the election addresses of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, one would have imagined that they had everything so cut and dried that all that was needed was to put them in office. They would have the cost of living reduced and everything so planned for the future to such an extent that they had only to walk immediately into office and put everything right. They had ample time in which to consider this proposition, and the hon. Member for Hampstead should read their speeches, quite apart from those referred to by my right hon. Friend, when he would see for himself that it was not a question of knowing what was to be done.

Hon. Members opposite knew exactly what ought to be done and how to do it, but, when they came into office, they immediately forgot all that they had known before and had to start de novo. Not only is that the case in this particular matter, but it has been the case in practically all the legislation which has come before the House since they came into office. They ridiculed everything that was done by us, although we put this country in a solid position. They ridiculed all that in the same way as they ridiculed the temporary Measure which we brought in in order to get something prepared for the future.

Today, of course, it is a different matter. They say to us, "You did this, and we can do the same, although you were wrong at that time. We have had two years in which to think it over, and we are ready to do it, because we now discover that you were right when you introduced it." That kind of argument on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite will not do at all. It will not do for them to say that we were wrong, then introduce something precisely similar two years later, after they have had time to think about it, and still say that we were wrong. They cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.

While we accept this Bill, I hope that consideration will be given to the questions which have been raised in the White Paper, and also that amendments will be made to that White Paper. I hope we shall be able to have the matter debated very soon after we return after the Easter Recess and that we shall hear of further consideration on the point of enfranchisement, because the main point here is that leaseholders do not know where they are; they are doubtful about what is to happen to their leases. In my view, there is only one real way of dealing with this matter, and that is to give them the opportunity of picking up the freeholds in consequence of the fact that they themselves and their predecessors gave these freeholds the value at which they now stand.

It is true that we are to discuss this matter later, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hampstead and others who think similarly will not come to the House and speak as the hon. Gentleman has done tonight in attempting to cast aspersions upon us when we introduced a Measure of a kind which they now support. The hon. Gentleman says that, after two years, or the period during which the Government have been in office, they have still not had an opportunity of considering the problem properly, but that will not do, and the hon. Gentleman ought to know it. The truth is that he knows that his party do not know where they stand in these matters, and, consequently, they are adopting what we have prepared, because it is the very best thing they can adopt for the time being.

I hope that, when the White Paper is discussed, we shall have the opportunity of settling once and for all, for the benefit of leaseholders, the very important problem of security of tenure for those who built up that security themselves and who are most entitled to retain it.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland (Lanark)

It is not my purpose to enter into the polemics projected into the debate by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), except to say that as a Scotsman representing a Scottish constituency which is interested in this subject I think it necessary to put on record one or two obervations which have already been communicated to the Scottish Office.

In my constituency there are the Stone-house Leaseholders' Association who made representations to the Scottish Leases Committee. It was with slight surprise that we found that the Government endorsed in its entirety the report of that Committee. Accordingly, we welcomed the delay afforded by the Government's intention to prolong the existing legislation so that the new legislation to be brought in, we hope next Session, may take due account of certain reservations which it is my duty as Member for Lanark to express in regard to certain passages in the Guthrie Report on Scottish Leases.

The Stonehouse Leaseholders' Association have from the beginning drawn attention to two particular points. They consider that the valuation on conversion to feu should be on the basis, not of vacant possession, but of a sitting tenancy, and, secondly, that the conversion right should apply not only to the leaseholder's own dwelling, but to all the dwelling houses covered by the lease. At present, it is only my purpose to mention that, as it were, in passing in order to put it on record and to give notice that when we come to debate the White Papers—for there are two—I shall have certain reservations and arguments to adduce with regard to paragraphs 67 and 68 of the Guthrie Report.

In the knowledge that these representations will receive the consideration which I hope it will be felt they deserve, and with the confidence that this legislation with which we are confronted tonight will enable a more thorough study of the problems to be made, I, on behalf of the Stonehouse Leaseholders' Association, who are particularly interested in this matter in Scotland, welcome this Bill and wish it a rapid and cordial passage.

8.48 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I can only speak with the leave of the House, but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley) asked me certain questions, perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words. I will first answer the non-controversial interrogatory of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who asked me to give an assurance that we would at the earliest possible moment introduce legislation, and that it would not be left to the fag end of the period.

It is certainly our intention to introduce it at the earliest possible moment, and, as I said in my speech, taking the English date as Christmas, 1954, and the Scottish date as Martinmas, 1954, that is designed to leave a period after the permanent legislation has become effective when the legal profession and other professions concerned with the subject matter of the Bill will have time to turn over the permanent provisions before they apply. I think that answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point.

The second question—not so non-controversial—which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me was, why not introduce a Bill? There are various counter accusations and arguments, the fringe of which has been touched upon most moderately by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke). I do not intend to pursue that course; I simply want to state quite frankly my own position when I took over this problem after the present Government came into office.

The Report had been published on the date that I have already stated. The previous Government had introduced the standstill Bill, but they had not developed their policy, apart from an Election adherence, not worked out, to leasehold enfranchisement. Their policy had never been incorporated in a White Paper, and we had no reasonable statement of that policy. Therefore, I had to work out the policy for Her Majesty's present advisers.

I took slightly over a year to do that and published a White Paper, giving a detailed account of our permanent policy, in January of this year. I leave it to those who have considered the matter to say whether 14 months is an excessively long period in which to work out the policy. It is the view of Her Majesty's present advisers that a White Paper should receive time for consideration, and, indeed, hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in this debate indicated their intention to deal with that argument.

I point out the problem. I do not want to go beyond doing that. The problem of translating the White Paper into legislation involves, first of all, the residential problem, secondly, the problem of all business premises and not merely shops as are dealt with in the standstill Act, and thirdly, the problem of making consequential improvements in the law in its cognate fields.

Mr. Janner

I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about having to take a year in formulating policy, but the Report was published in 1950. My contention is that he and his party had ample time, up to the time of the Election when they were returned, in which to decide on the policy which they wanted.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The policy of protection by Rent Act tenancy for the leaseholder was one which had been put forward by my party before, and it has been worked out in pre-legislative form by myself. That is the policy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East need only read the reports of party conferences and he will find it developed there by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in one speech after another. I am putting the matter to serious judgment. I am trying to avoid the party battle and the party shuttlecock.

The White Paper deals with the intensely important and interesting question of leasehold enfranchisement at great length and it argues seriously the point of view put forward by the minority. It does not matter whether hon. Members agree or not, the argument is seriously met and a serious attempt is made to controvert it. We are only arguing for postponement after formulating our views. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite asked for postponement before they formulated their views. That is the point which my right hon. Friends took up at the time. I say no more because, judging from the foretaste which we have had tonight, we are to have an interesting debate on the White Paper, to which I look forward very much.

I should like to say a word about the Scottish Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East felt that the position was not so serious, even from his point of view.

Mr. Wheatley

I did not think that it was not serious. I said it was more limited.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

It is more limited because at the time that the 1951 Bill was put forward the Committee had not even been appointed. The Committee has been appointed, it reported last July, and the attitude of the Government has been made clear in the White Paper. I will not discuss the White Paper. I initiated this debate by promising that I would not do so and I eschew it.

The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) shows that there are sections of opinion who want to discuss the White Paper and seek to make Amendments in the policy incorporated in it. In fact, I had thought in my innocence that the Scottish Grand Committee was the reserve for non-controversial matters—

Mr. Wheatley

May I explain that "non-controversial matters" in relation to the Scottish Grand Committee is merely a euphemistic expression?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I gathered that. Once, with more courage than wisdom, I was included in the Scottish Grand Committee, and I can only think that the euphemism mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was almost as great as when the Greeks called the Black Sea the hospitable sea because of the treatment of strangers who happened to go there. That being so, I gather that I cannot impute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the fair assumption that this is a non-controversial matter in any ordinary sense, even in the Scottish Grand Committee. There is the position. Everyone knows what our policy is with respect to the Scottish leasehold provisions, that we accept the Guthrie Report and we intend to legislate on that matter.

I feel that the stricture of not including the matter in this Session's programme cannot be very seriously pressed. I want to make that clear, that that is the distinction on which we stand, that we have put forward our policy and, as I say, we look forward to defending that policy when the debate comes. Apart from that, I should like to thank the House for treating with such reticence the actual provisions in the Bill, and I hope that it may now be given a Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.