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 5624051
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank my colleague for that very helpful intervention. Other Members and I have raised that issue of living above the shop, if you like, in the past. Here is an example of dereliction. In the street on which my office is situated in Strabane, all the buildings, with the exception of mine and the solicitor's office across the road, are derelict. They could be repurposed very quickly for housing. It would actually force footfall into our town centres. We are all guilty of jumping in the car and, for convenience, nearly parking on the shoes of the person at the till to get into a shop. I say that as a rural person because we are forced to do it that way. The Bill could play a key part in the repurposing of town centres. However, it has to be done in conjunction with the other Departments. We need to be creative in how we can put the Bill to task. Certainly, as I have said, it is good policy. I have no question that the Bill is well intended. We all want to see those issues tackled, but I fear, particularly given the Minister's clarification that those will be discretionary powers, just how this will be rolled out. Will it be rolled out more strongly in some council areas than in others? Will ratepayers be hit harder in some places than in others? Are some councils further behind than other councils because they have been starved of investment for generations and there is a lot of catching up to do? Will there be a huge amount of work to be done by the council to enforce the powers that they will now be given? There is a wide net here that needs to be looked at and looked at proportionately. As I have said, I have no doubt that the Bill can play a role in addressing dilapidation, but its success will depend on councils having support. That has been well said, and I will continue to advocate on behalf of the councils, as I am sure that others will. Councils will need resources and partnership with the wider Executive, particularly the various Departments that I have mentioned. We are keen to support the amendments tabled by the Minister, because it is clear that he has been listening to the concerns raised by the Committee and the robust process that we followed. I appreciate that. I believe that the Minister ears are open on the issue. I encourage him and his officials to explore further how he can strengthen his Department's role in order to ensure that councils are not left at a cliff edge, where they have a mass of enforcement to do, depending on the state of the buildings — we do not know, because there is no register — and how he can play a stronger role along with his Executive colleagues. It is a priority issue. Dereliction covers more than our town centres; I see it in housing estates etc as well, but we have a more concentrated element of it in our town centres. That must be dealt with. As for previous research, Ulster University carried out a survey some years ago, Minister, that was in line with what we ask for in the amendment. I had it here earlier, but I have misplaced it. It is important that we have some record of and can closely monitor the level of dereliction and dilapidation that exists so that we know the scale of the problem that we face. I am happy to engage and to continue engaging on the issue. The Bill could be positive, but, at the minute, it falls short and more needs to be done. I am happy to support the Minister's amendments, and I ask other Members of the House to consider the SDLP's amendments.
646 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.03 (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 (0.96).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.92 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.