Debate contribution: Dilapidation Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .

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 5624017

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not have much more to say. A lot of the issues have been addressed so far. The SDLP is asking for the House's support for our amendments. They are designed to strengthen transparency, accountability and public confidence in the operation of the legislation, and we believe that they would make the Bill more effective. Transparency is particularly important, because there will rightly be an expectation, as I said earlier, that action will follow once the powers become available. We need to manage the public's expectation of what the legislation will do. Communities should be able to see what action is being taken to address dilapidation in their areas, and that is the reason for some of our amendments. They seek to establish a clear baseline for measuring success, to improve public access to information about how and where the powers are being used and to ensure that those powers are used proportionately across council areas.

If notices are being issued, interventions are taking place and public money is being spent, there should be a clear and accessible public record of that activity in order to ensure openness and transparency and good use of resources.

I will, yes.

Yes. That was well rehearsed at the Committee. All members had similar concerns about how we can ensure that the Bill, which is well intentioned, has some teeth and can therefore deliver for people on the ground without burdening the ratepayer any further, because there is already a very heavy rate burden across council areas. As I said earlier, that issue is raised with me continually. Councils do not have an endless pot of money at their disposal. In fact, they argue very strongly that they are less funded today than they were in previous years but that their money is expected to go much, much further. I have picked up a concern from councillors, including those from my party, that this is an attempt by the Executive simply to pass the buck to local councils, as opposed to the Executive's taking a more joined-up approach, which, as I indicated earlier, would be much more satisfactory and involve the Department of Finance, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department for Communities.

Yes, I will give way to the Minister.

Absolutely. I thank the Minister for that intervention and clarification. It is healthy and important to thrash out some of those issues, certainly, when it comes to the local authority. As someone who represents Strabane, Omagh and the surrounding towns and villages, I see how dereliction is a blight on the entire area. It absolutely needs to be resolved, and quickly. We probably need to be a wee bit more imaginative about the Government's role in that and how we repurpose some of those structures in town centres, for instance. Could they be brought back into better use than their previous function? If they were formerly retail premises, for instance, they may not ever satisfy housing requirements in town centres, but that is where the Department for Communities could play a role because those buildings could help alleviate the housing pressures that it faces. If the Executive were a bit more creative and imaginative about how the Bill could play out, working alongside councils and the various Departments that are listed — your own Department, Minister, the Department of Finance, the Department for the Economy and, of course, the Department for Communities — the Bill has the potential to do good things. However, leaving it simply at the door of councils, in itself, raises questions and concerns, which I know that we will thrash out as we go forward in the process.

Yes. That is a legitimate concern. Certainly, things change quite quickly. The dereliction of our towns and villages is much worse today than it was 10 years ago. A number of factors that are well beyond the control of any Minister have led to that. It would be helpful if a more up-to-date consultation were carried out to provide us with the most open view as to where things currently sit. Good policy —

I will, Minister, yes.

I thank the Minister for that. He is right to challenge me on that because I am often the person who is criticising him for all those consultations. When it comes to how we can be more imaginative and do something that will actually be beneficial and show a direct outcome and result, the Bill could be a strong starting point, particularly, as I have said, when you tie in all those other Departments and the Executive working collectively.

775 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.98
Another identity-related subject0.02
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:51 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