CLAUSE 68.—(Bye-laws.) (Hansard, 2 July 1935)

§ Mr. SKELTON
I beg to move, in page 48, line 7, at the end, to insert:" (f) the sub-division of houses. The sub-division of houses was a matter in respect of which it was originally proposed to enable local authorities to make by-laws. In the recasting of the Clause in Committee, however, this matter was inadvertently omitted. Without altering in any way any pledges and undertakings given we now propose to insert this Amendment.

Duchess of ATHOLL
I have a note in my copy of the Bill in its original form against item (c), as it then was, to the effect that it was to be omitted. I have not gathered from my hon. Friend why it is being reinserted.

§ Mr. SKELTON
My information does not carry me so far as my Noble Friend's note. I do not think that there is any difficulty about reinsertion. It was not one of the powers that was objected to. It was only omitted by mistake. How-ever, I will have the matter looked into 1806 again, and if I am wrong we will put the matter right in another place.

§ The LORD ADVOCATE
I beg to move, in page 48, line 22, at the end, to insert: A bye-law made under paragraph (iii) of this Sub-section shall not, in so far as it requires the execution of works, be enforceable as regards an existing house, unless the local authority have served on the owner of the house a notice requiring the execution of the works and such notice has become operative in pursuance of Section twenty of the Act of 1930, as applied by the next succeeding Sub-section. This Amendment and the following Amendment deal with by-laws so far as those by-laws are applicable to existing houses. The Clause as originally framed led to a good deal of apprehension in Scotland. It was suggested that there was an intention to set up a new standard as regards housing. That was not the intention. When the matter was discussed in Committee the Government were urged to amend the Clause so as to give some right of appeal to the sheriff by way of a civil process. There appeared to be some difficulty in acceeding to that request, but on reconsideration we came to the conclusion that it was possible to do it. It was, however, only possible to do it if we did it in the way now, proposed. Instead of the by-laws being applicable to existing houses in the way that by-laws usually are, we thought that it would be reasonable before the owner of an existing house was required to execute any works in virtue of a by-law that notice of the requirement should be given to him. Following on that we propose to use the machinery already set up with regard to closing orders and demolition orders in earlier Acts, to enable the owner to have a right of appeal by civil process, and not simply through prosecution for breach of by-law. We use the existing machinery for that purpose, and the Amendments are to give effect to that intention.

Duchess of ATHOLL
I do not wish to be captious, but I cannot help regarding this Amendment with some anxiety. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, the Clause as originally introduced created a great deal of concern, because 1807 it made all its various provisions applicable to existing houses as well as to new houses. It was regarded as a very important concession when, in the Committee stage, we divided up the various matters that had to be dealt with by by-laws and in regard to the last six of those matters made then only applicable to new houses, and, so far as was reasonably practicable, to existing houses. That Amendment allayed a great deal of apprehension. Now, apparently, those six matters which come under paragraph (iii) of this Sub-section are to be enforceable as regards the existing houses if the local authority has served on the owner of the house a notice requiring the execution of works, and such notice has become operative in virtue of Section 20 of the Act of 1930 as applied by the next succeeding Subsection. That does not seem to me to be the same thing as "reasonably practicable." Surely, "reasonably practicable" means that the local authority have to consider all the circumstances of the case and not to act unless in their considered judgment it is reasonably practicable for the owner to carry out the works that are necessary.

§ The LORD ADVOCATE
The Amendment which I have moved does not affect the question of reasonable practicability. Reasonable practicability remains, but if the local authority require the owner to execute certain works then it is open to the owner in a civil process to appeal against that requirement and to show that it is not reasonably practicable that he should execute those works.

Duchess of ATHOLL
I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend.