Debate contribution: Dilapidation Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on 16 June 2026.

MLA: Mr Andrew Muir
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 16 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Dilapidation Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5624132

Text

I thank Members for the debate and for raising the issues that they did. It is important that I put on record my thanks to the Committee for its deliberations. It was an extended Committee Stage, and good work was done in taking evidence from witnesses. I will pick up on a couple of the issues that were raised during Consideration Stage. The Chair of the Committee raised a number of issues, one of which was how a council will recover its costs if an owner cannot be traced. Clause 12(2) provides that, in court proceedings to recover costs:
"the court may consider whether a person other than the defendant ought to be liable for the whole or part of the costs; and the court may accordingly make such order".
As is the case for serving a notice under the Bill, the Department was keen to ensure that the range of persons from whom costs may be recovered is broad. Before deciding to recover costs from a particular person, it will be in order for a council to satisfy itself that it is appropriate to pursue that person for the costs. The provision of robust and effective measures to ensure that the appropriate person or organisation pays for the necessary remedial actions is key to minimising costs to the public pursue and to preventing unscrupulous property owners from deriving financial benefit from letting buildings fall into disrepair. Under the Bill as drafted, councils will have to use their judgement on a case-by-case basis to determine whether to begin enforcement proceedings if the likelihood of recovering costs is minimal. It is considered reasonable to assume that they will adopt an approach that does not put their finances at risk and that ensures that they maximise success in the interests of the ratepayer. The inability to trace an owner should not inhibit a council from carrying out the works itself. Owners or other persons of interest should and will be actively pursued. I am conscious of councils' desire for the legislation to work in an effort to improve and regenerate their areas, using a variety of methods. Those can include Land and Property Services searches, Companies House searches and section 16 information notices. Therefore, there are means to explore that. In relation to the issues raised by Patsy McGlone during the debate on the engagement with the Department for Communities, I can confirm that, as was previously set out, the Department for Communities is working in partnership with the Department for Infrastructure and my Department on the Shaping Sustainable Places programme. The recently published responses to the consultation on that are useful to consider. The Shaping Sustainable Places programme is a long-term, £150 million physical regeneration programme that aims to support the transformation of villages, towns and city centres across Northern Ireland, helping to deliver long-term benefits for places and the people who use them. The programme articulates a vision for maximising the limited budgets available for regeneration through focused, strategically aligned projects. The proposed programme would seek to deliver place-based regeneration and infrastructure interventions, which would be delivered by councils. It is intended that a final set of proposals will be brought forward for ministerial and Executive consideration in the coming months. I understand that Patsy's contribution was part of an intervention, but Daniel McCrossan referenced the Ulster University report of 2018. It was commissioned for my Department to establish the scale of the problem across all property types. While it attempted to place cost estimates under different scenarios for remediation costs, the fact is that the costs should, first and foremost, fall to those with a financial interest in a property. The Bill seeks to do that by including robust cost recovery provisions, including a charge on land, the power of sale and financial penalties. Hopefully, that sets that out. In relation to the contributions from Áine Murphy and Sinn Féin's perspective, I recognise the broad support for the principles —. Sorry, it was Aoife. I am grateful for the support for the broad principles of the Bill. Hopefully, it will pass Consideration Stage, and we can move the Bill forward. I did state that I was disappointed and rather taken aback by the approach that has been outlined today. I first heard how Sinn Féin was likely to vote on the issue in the canteen yesterday. I hope that the Government of Northern Ireland can be better than that and that we can try to work through it. I was disappointed because I am very conscious of the report that came from the Committee, which, we understood, had been agreed unanimously in Committee. Therefore, I took that as an expressed position from all members on the Committee. I have tried, and I set it out yesterday in Question Time and again today, to be very conscious of the concerns of local government. We have done significant engagement on that, and we are very clear —
Yes.
I appreciate that, but I heard what your position was likely to be, and I reached out to the Chief Whip of your party to understand the position, and it has now been articulated today in the Chamber. I try to work with people to address their concerns. It is an Executive Bill. I am trying to understand the issue. It is Executive legislation, and we need to have trust to progress legislation in this place. We have diligently sought to try to address the concerns of local government, and statutory guidance will be published that will hopefully give the clarity that is required. I am also conscious that the AERA Committee wrote back to SOLACE in response to recommendations made on 22 May. The Committee then gave detailed consideration and due diligence to all proposals submitted by NILGA, alongside the Department's responses, as set out in the Committee's report on the Bill. Whilst Committee members noted that not all of NILGA's proposed amendments had been taken forward by the Minister, the Committee was content with the rationale that the Department provided for not proceeding with those amendments. The report concludes by stating that the Committee made extensive efforts — I value those efforts — to facilitate and respond to stakeholder input, including accommodating late-stage evidence from NILGA and Building Control Northern Ireland. That included the organisation of dedicated round-table sessions involving departmental officials and Assembly Bill Office officials, which represented a significant and, in the Committee's view, proportionate response to the issues raised. I understand the concerns, but if the Committee has done the work — I am grateful for that — and the Department carried out significant engagement as part of that, and we have reached Consideration Stage. I do not know what more I can do about concerns that have now been articulated at a late stage in this place, but, hopefully, we can move forward. We will have Further Consideration Stage and Final Stage. I do not agree with the Member —.
Yes.
I will be happy to engage, but I need to understand the particular request. I set out the role of the statutory guidance, which will be important. Hardwiring definitions into the primary legislation could make the Bill inoperable; we have to be conscious of that impact. In the Bill, we are trying to reflect practice in the rest of the UK and Ireland. We must be attuned to the fact that it is a discretionary power and that it is for councils to make the decision on whether to intervene. There will be a benefit to councils' rates base in bringing dilapidated buildings back into use. We have done the engagement. I am very keen to work with councils, because they will be at the coalface of delivering the legislation. Tom Buchanan asked whether we would continue to engage with local government, and we will, particularly on the statutory guidance. We want to work in partnership with local government so that its needs are reflected in the guidance. That is the best way forward, rather than putting definitions and terminology in the Bill. Gareth Wilson mentioned my engagement with the Department of Infrastructure on roads legislation. I am happy to write to the Member about that. The legislation seeks to provide a flexible opportunity for councils to implement the legislation as they choose. It is a discretionary power for councils to use. I value Michelle McIlveen’s contribution, and I understand that the legislation has been in gestation for a long time. It is clear that, after the Bill is passed, it will be for councils to use the powers. There is a difference of opinion on the amendments that Daniel McCrossan proposed, and the House will make a decision on those. It has been a useful debate. I thank the Committee for its work on the Bill. Hopefully, we can move through the Consideration Stage and continue the Bill's passage.

1,484 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification