We on this side of the House have no difficulty in welcoming the Bill which is, in fact, in belated response to the Bill introduced by us two years ago. This Bill of course, takes a different form to the one we introduced because the method we suggested of tackling the problem was to deal with an order which had been made by the Minister for Local Government under the 1963 Act. That would have dealt with part of this problem and was considered by us as a possible solution at that time. The Minister has given prolonged thought to the problem and has produced this Bill as his answer. It appears to us to be a good approach though there are aspects which we will look at in more detail on Committee Stage.
The Bill provides power to control the demolition of a habitable house and this should make it possible to do two things: to ensure that a house which is usable is not demolished, thereby reducing our stock of housing, without having any control or measure to see that where a house is demolished a replacement is provided, and secondly it will ensure— although we may need to look into this aspect more closely—against demolition of houses which have architectural merit.
One point about which I am a little unsure and on which I should like to ask the view of the Parliamentary Secretary, is the significance of the words "human habitation" in section 2 (1) (b). The definition section of the Bill, section 1, defines various things, including "habitable houses", but does not define "human habitation", and I am a little doubtful as to the significance of these words. It may be they are defined in some earlier legislation and this will carry some weight in interpreting this Bill. It appears desirable to bring in a definition and I would like confirmation that "human habitation" has a broad connotation and that it does not necessarily imply that people have to live or sleep in the house but will also include houses used for office purposes. It is important that we are clear on this.
It is at this point that the Bill becomes a little unsatisfactory. I am not sure that it is adequately defined to fulfil the two purposes we would wish to achieve. If "human habitation" is broadly defined there is a danger that dwelling houses could be converted on a large scale to office use, thereby reducing housing accommodation. That would be a loophole or a means of escape from the type of control we want to secure, which is to ensure the maintenance of our stock of houses, that houses which can be used for living purposes are not destroyed or diverted to other use. It may be that such diversion would be covered by the 1963 Act and I should be glad of the Minister's guidance on this point.
On the other hand, if the definition is narrower, implying that people have to live in the house, there would be a danger that houses of architectural merit being used for office purposes might not be covered, in which event one of the purposes of this Bill and of the Bill we introduced in 1967 would not be adequately fulfilled. The present Bill does not provide protection for houses of architectural merit, or forming a part of a unit of architectural merit, with amenity value which, if not covered by this Bill, could then be demolished. There may be a double danger of diversion from dwelling to business purposes and after that diversion, demolition of the house.
I am speaking at this stage from ignorance because I do not know what definition of human habitation is intended or what definition of human habitation is involved here so far as the words have been defined elsewhere in a manner that would be binding in the interpretation of this Bill. I am raising it at this stage because it is important that the Parliamentary Secretary should give us guidance on this point in his reply to the Second Stage debate because one's attitude to the Bill would depend on this point. One might have to amend it in either of two directions, but the treatment to be adopted would be quite different depending on the interpretation put on these words. I should be quite grateful therefore if the Parliamentary Secretary would indicate what meaning is attached to them—either the narrow meaning of a house or dwelling place or the broader one of a house for human use as distinct from animal use, for example—and if he would indicate the authority for the definition and whether it is contained in legislation legally binding on the interpretation of this Bill. A lot would hang on this question and I would be glad if he would give us some guidance on it. In the absence of guidance on that point it is difficult to say more on the Bill in general terms because it is difficult to know its precise effect.
It seems on the face of it, subject to this point which I have raised, a well thought out measure and one which is clearly designed to cover many aspects of this complex problem. The Bill which we introduced in 1967 was one which would have been useful if it had been accepted then. It might perhaps have prevented other houses being demolished since, but I think we would accept and did accept that the Bill at that time as we designed it was drafted to meet a particular aspect of the problem. It could be that legislation was required to make the Minister withdraw that extraordinary Order he made in 1963 under which authority for demolition was included with minor changes such as painting and plastering. One doubts if any civil servant drafting an Order would inadvertently include demolition in an Order for painting and plastering, and it must therefore have been included deliberately and as such was designed to leave a loophole for people wishing to demolish buildings, houses in particular, and in fact had that effect. We all know of the gaping hole for the past two or three years in St. Stephen's Green beside Hume Street where a developer in the expectation—on whatever foundation we do not know—of purchasing two houses nearby from the Government which owns them demolished buildings in the expectation of buying these other buildings from the Government and being able to make a considerable profit in developing the site. Through the alertness of public opinion he was frustrated in that, but his frustration is also our frustration, because where there was a building of considerable architectural merit forming a part of a unit there along the side of St. Stephen's Green there is now a gaping hole and no indication of what is ever going to fill it. The fact that that happened, that it was possible for someone without having it clear from the planning authority what was going to replace what was being demolished, was an outright encouragement to developers to demolish buildings, because once a developer had demolished them it was arguable that the amenity value of the area would be improved by any kind of building which was substituted rather than by leaving a large hole. There was this kind of blackmailing effect, to get hold of the building and demolish it quickly, and whatever plan you put up the local authority would have to accept it and would be under great pressure to do so rather than to leave a scar there in the form of a vacant site.
It was that particular loophole which our Bill was designed to deal with. The Minister said at that time, and we accepted it, that the problem was very complicated, though I do not believe that that justified him in rejecting our Bill, and we did not accept his approach as being entirely genuine, but even had the Bill been accepted by him and put through this and the other House the problem would still by no means have been completely solved and further legislation of the kind the Parliamentary Secretary is now introducing would be required for these purposes.
Therefore this legislation is welcome, though I am still not clear that it does cover all the aspects of this problem some of which we were trying to tackle.
I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary told us what was the present situation about this extraordinary plastering, painting and demolition Order and how it will be affected by this Bill. It is proposed that the introduction of this Bill will ensure the repeal, withdrawal or cancellation of that Order? Generally speaking, how does this Bill relate to that Order? We would like to be clear also on how it relates to both aspects of this problem of preserving housing from the point of view of ensuring adequate housing, particularly in a city where the housing shortage is extremely acute and not being adequately dealt with, and also the problem of securing the preservation of buildings of architectural merit rather than their destruction, leaving a large gap of the kind we are familiar with, or alternatively replacing them by one which, whether or not it has architectural merit, may be completely out of place in that particular area. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary gave us guidance on these points, because the shape of the Committee Stage debate must depend largely on the replies which he gives us.
