Debate contribution: Dilapidation Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on 16 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Daniel McCrossan

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

16 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Dilapidation Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5623843

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I jest. The Bill is important, as we all know and as was widely discussed at Committee Stage. As the Chair of the Committee and the Minister reiterated in their contributions, dilapidation has a real impact on communities. It undermines regeneration, damages local pride and creates considerable public safety concerns, about which we, as constituency MLAs, hear all too often. For far too long, communities have been forced to live with derelict buildings and neglected sites, while local authorities have lacked the necessary powers to intervene effectively. I get that that is why the Bill is so essential, in that it provides the tools required to remedy that particular issue. Although we support its broad intent, the Bill alone will not solve the problem of dilapidation. There is a desperate need for the necessary funding and resources to back it up. One of the strongest themes to emerge during the Committee's scrutiny was the concern about cost recovery and the financial burden that might be placed on local councils. Members have been clear about the genuine concern that the burden will ultimately fall to the ratepayer. We all know that, over recent years, councils have stated firmly on the record that they continue to be under serious financial pressure and that they face increasing expectations and demands on their services with less real-terms funding to meet their responsibilities. We hear daily from ratepayers who are fed up with seeing rising rates but not the investment that they expect to see in our towns, villages and cities. The Bill gives councils significant new responsibilities. That is to be welcomed, but giving them responsibilities is not sufficient. They also need the necessary funding and resources to ensure effective delivery in order to remedy what is an outstanding and ongoing issue. As I said, questions remain as to whether councils will have the resources to use the powers effectively on the ground and whether all 11 councils will take the same approach consistently. When considering the Bill, we should be careful that we do not create a situation in which the public's expectations are raised but councils are left to carry the financial burden. As is often the case when we speak in the House, it may be that some ratepayers or members of the public will take it as a given that the Bill will be the silver bullet that will resolve the dilapidation issues in towns. Depending on which area you are in, the scale is very different. For example, I represent Omagh, which shares a council area with Fermanagh, and Strabane, which shares a council area with Derry. Whilst both councils have significant issues across the board with dilapidation, dereliction and dangerous buildings etc, the situation in some areas is worse than in others. I would argue, selfishly, for instance, that Strabane town has particular issues where there are buildings of a significant age, and there is just not the means to restore them, particularly in line with the heritage requirements that are in place. Addressing dilapidation is not simply a matter for local government in isolation. The responsibility lies with the Executive as a whole. The Executive have had their eyes closed to this matter for too long, and many of our buildings have deteriorated significantly across council areas over a long period. It could be argued that, until now, the Executive have failed to get a handle on the matter, and significant deterioration has been the result. In fairness, however, within the cogs of the Bill, the Minister is pointing to a very clear and obvious problem. In my view, he has good intentions to resolve the issues for councils, but we cannot just fire out the legislation and, as I said, expect ratepayers to pick up the slack, particularly with all the other competing financial demands that exist. If we are serious about tackling dereliction, vacant properties and neglected sites, then DAERA, the Department for Communities and the Department of Finance all have a role to play. We need to remove silo working, look at our local towns, villages and cities collectively as an Executive and work to find solutions that will breathe new life into those places. There is widespread criticism that our town centres are dying. Members have spoken about that on numerous occasions in the House. A number of constituency colleagues who sit on the AERA Committee and know Omagh and Strabane and their surrounding villages — I am speaking parochially because that is where I know best — often say that not enough has been done to deal with the issues at hand. Whilst the Executive and Departments have been quite good at pumping money into regeneration schemes for footpaths, roads and street landscaping, the buildings that sit amongst those wonderful new settings are often eyesores that take away from the significant investment that has been made in those areas. Enforcement powers are absolutely important, and will serve as a reminder to those concerned that they have a responsibility to carry out works. That applies in particular to those who have been land-banking over a period of time — that happens everywhere, unfortunately — with the hope that the big cash cow will be coming and, ultimately, they will be relieved of their responsibility to maintain, look after and enhance the landscape in a town or village by spending the necessary funds to keep the building up to a good standard. I could list significant numbers of properties in many towns and villages that are owned by a few individuals. Those individuals constantly ask my office whether any grants are available for those buildings whilst, at the same time, buying another building down the street. I get that there is a fundamental issue that needs to be resolved. We have to remember that there are a wide variety of circumstances that are unique to individuals. For instance, some people might have the great misfortune to inherit a complete wreck of a building, with no means to resolve the problem, and end up in a very difficult situation. That is a concern that I have. There may be those who have an aunt or uncle with no children — I do not — who might leave them an old mill in Strabane, for instance, which could very quickly become a problem under the legislation. Enforcement powers in themselves cannot become a substitute for the necessary investment that is required. More is needed from the Departments that I have listed to complement the legislation and to interpret what the legislation intends to do. Hopefully, after further conversation with the Minister, that will be something that he and his Executive colleagues will be keen to consider. A strong case remains for targeted regeneration schemes and funding programmes to bring problematic properties back into productive use. Indeed, that has happened: we have seen it in Belfast, Derry and elsewhere over the years. Realistically, however, the Executive cannot come on a white horse and restore all derelict buildings and properties across Northern Ireland; that is just not practical, nor should it be the case, as people need to live up to their own responsibilities. As I said, some areas are worse than others. A neglected building is often a symptom of wider issues, such as economic decline, underinvestment and failed regeneration. Some towns and cities in Northern Ireland are thriving: those with much better populated urban centres where there is a hive of activity. That encourages private investment, and there is natural enhancement from those investors. However, in areas that lag behind because of economic decline, underinvestment and general deprivation, many towns and cities can quickly become the poor cousin. The Bill is not perfect; that fact has been well rehearsed and certainly was throughout the AERA Committee's many meetings. However, it is a significant improvement on the current fragmented and outdated framework, which has really not served our communities well. We have to be honest about the Bill's being a starting point. As the Chair of the Committee rightly said, the Committee undertook extensive scrutiny of the Bill and raised a number of legitimate concerns on councils' behalf. We heard those concerns through various evidence sessions. Heritage bodies were also clear, as were other stakeholders such as Building Control, about the Bill's unintended consequences without its having the necessary the teeth to deliver. It is welcome that the Minister has listened to many of the Committee's concerns. That does not always happen. A number of amendments have been tabled that would strengthen the Bill, but we could go much further. I am sure that, as we continue the process, the Minister will be all ears to hear what else can be done to improve it. As the official Opposition, we will support the Minister's amendments today. We recognise the constructive engagement that has taken place throughout the scrutiny process, not just from the Minister and departmental officials but from all the witnesses who looked at the issue honestly and said, "Yes, there is a problem here". We just need to ensure that we find the right way to fix it. Concerns have been raised about our amendments and their consequences. Some Members have said that they place an extra burden on councils. We ask Members to consider the amendments; they are designed to strengthen transparency, accountability and public confidence in the operation of the legislation, so that we are clear at all times about the scale of the problem and how we resolve the issues.

1,588 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:48 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification