§ 21. Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to extend the protection of the courts to tenants who have already entered into what they regard as oppressive agreements under threat of eviction; and whether he is prepared to nullify such agreements so as to bring such tenants within such protection as the new Bill provides.
§ Mr. MaclayIt is not proposed under the Bill to interfere with agreements negotiated between landlords and tenants.
§ Mr. WoodburnIs this quite fair to those people who took for granted what the Government said—that they would not introduce amending legislation—and, therefore, gave up any hope of having any amelioration of their conditions? Would it not be fair to make the Bill retrospective so that all those affected by it would be protected, and not to make a distinction between one tenant and another?
§ Mr. MaclayThere is no justification for re-opening agreements made between landlords and tenants, and I must point out that by the agreements the tenants got security of tenure for at least three years, which is not the same as under the Bill.
§ Mr. WoodburnWhere the agreements are unduly oppressive, and where any court would say that they were unfair and arrived at under duress, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider giving the tenants some right of appeal?
§ Mr. MaclayIt would open up the widest possible issues if we started reopening agreements already made.