Debate contribution: Defective Premises Bill: Accelerated Passage
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Defective Premises Bill: Accelerated Passage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4493548
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
I will begin by putting on record my sincere condolences and sympathies to the Chairperson of the Committee and his family following the tragic passing of his nephew. On behalf of my party and the Department, I assure him and his family of our prayers at this time of unimaginable loss. I seek the Assembly's approval to take forward the Defective Premises Bill using the accelerated passage procedure. I confirm that Executive approval was sought and granted for the use of the procedure. The Bill amends the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 and the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to extend the limitation period for which actions may be taken when defects occur in dwellings or in buildings that contain dwellings. I thank Executive colleagues for the collegial approach that they have taken to allow the Bill to progress to the Assembly and for their agreement to the motion. When I met Ministers Archibald and Muir just over 10 weeks ago, we all recognised the urgent need to address the disparity that exists between Northern Ireland and England and Wales on the issue. For that reason, I undertook to introduce at the earliest possible opportunity legislation that would place Northern Ireland's homeowners on an equal footing with their counterparts in those other jurisdictions. While that meeting in March was precipitated by the High Court's decision to dismiss the case brought by the residents of Victoria Square against its developers, that case is not the reason why I seek accelerated passage. Rather, the case shone a light on the burden, both emotional and financial, that is faced by residents who, through no fault of their own, may be left with a home that has been rendered valueless while they still have to pay mortgages and other costs associated with it. Those could be starter homes owned by people taking their first steps on the property ladder or homes that people have bought when entering retirement. All that arises from Northern Ireland not keeping pace with the changes introduced in England and Wales in 2022 by the new Building Safety Act. Since taking on responsibility for residential building safety in January this year, my officials have been working on developing new policy and legislation that will ensure that all citizens are afforded similar protections to those in place in other jurisdictions. However, that is a substantial piece of work, and it is unlikely that any legislation that arises out of it will be introduced to the Assembly during the current mandate. Given the impact that that disparity is having, as evidenced by the recent High Court case, and the possibility of further cases over the next few years, I feel that there is an urgent need to rectify the matter that justifies the use of the accelerated passage procedure. Should Members not agree to accelerated passage, the stark reality is that homeowners in Northern Ireland will remain disadvantaged should their homes be rendered uninhabitable due to defects arising from construction or from building work that has been carried out to their property. As we have already seen, that can come with a considerable financial and emotional cost to our citizens. I did not come to the decision to request accelerated passage lightly. I recognise and fully respect the important role that Committees play in the legislative process by ensuring that every Bill gets the proper degree of scrutiny. I would not have suggested the use of the accelerated passage process had I not considered that it was important to address, as a matter of urgency, the disadvantage that homeowners in Northern Ireland face under the existing legislation, should defects in their dwellings render them uninhabitable. Therefore, I commend the motion to the Assembly and ask that it agrees to process the Defective Premises Bill under the accelerated passage procedure.
642 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: 0.02 (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 (0.87).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.91 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.07 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:35 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.