Debate contribution: Defective Premises Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 3 June 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

3 June 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Defective Premises Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4493689

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was quick on my feet there, and apologies to my colleague Mr McCrossan for having to stand up before the end of his remarks. I will speak very briefly, because I have a particular constituency interest in this legislation. What brought this issue to the public fore was events at Victoria Square, which is a very prominent building right in the middle of Belfast. It is in my South Belfast constituency, just at the northern edge of the now Belfast South and Mid Down Westminster constituency. It is also an extremely important commercial site for the city of Belfast and our whole region. I had pressed and asked that Executive Ministers pay urgent attention to this issue and to the fact that, unlike homeowners of defective premises in England and Wales and, indeed, other parts of these islands, homeowners at Victoria Square were facing a legal situation — others were in a similar position — whereby time had lapsed and they had no legal recourse. That was clearly an unacceptable position, so I welcome the fact that the Minister acted swiftly with his colleagues in other Departments. One is the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, led by Minister Muir, whose Department previously, technically, had responsibility for this. The other is the Minister of Finance, who has responsibility for building regulations and who also took action to waive rates bills and ensure that those homeowners were not going to face rates bills like the rates bills that they had faced over the years when the properties had been totally uninhabitable and, indeed, when people were not legally able to inhabit those properties or rent them out. I welcome that action by those Ministers and the action by the Minister for Communities in bringing forward the legislation. We have always said that, in our role of opposition, we will seek to be constructive and acknowledge where Ministers act swiftly, and I think that the Minister has done that in this situation. I also acknowledge that, as others said in the previous debate, it is never a desirable situation for any legislation to happen via accelerated passage. That is very much the case. There is, however, a particular set of circumstances in this instance, and, obviously, there are people who, for very clear legal reasons, have an interest in the Bill. That is not putting words in anyone else's mouth. For people who hope to be able to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill, it is clearly important that it passes speedily. It is a relatively short Bill that brings us into line with, as has been said, England and Wales. Obviously, if any amendments are tabled in the next couple of days, it will be important that they are scrutinised and looked at. I do not know whether amendments will be tabled, but, obviously, it will be important that the Communities Committee and, indeed, other Committees, including the Committee that I chair — the Finance Committee — are able to look at any further measures that need to be taken in the area of building regulations and, indeed, remedial action, where there are problems. As my colleague Daniel McCrossan said very forcefully, in two different contexts, on these islands, over the past number of years, we have seen clearly what happens when building regulations go terribly wrong. Obviously, there were the shocking events at Grenfell. I was still living in London when Grenfell happened, and I remember all too well the shock in that city when that happened. There has also been a different kind of scandal: the mica scandal. Thankfully, that has not involved loss of life, but it has been traumatic and devastating for a large number of people, particularly in the county of Donegal. However, as my colleague Daniel McCrossan said, it probably goes beyond the county of Donegal. The Bill is clearly a start in bringing us into line with the limitation legislation that was changed in England and Wales. It was something that was asked for, so I welcome the fact that Ministers have acted on it. However, clearly, as I said, it would have been preferable had we had longer to debate it. There were particular circumstances in which politicians, including me, were calling for speedy action, so I welcome the fact that the Minister has introduced the Bill in the House. When he makes a winding-up speech and in any further debates on the Bill in the weeks to come, I look forward to hearing any more detail that he has. Of course, it is important that there be continued scrutiny of that area, including of the broader consequences of the Bill. The Communities Committee will be well placed to do that, but my Committee will also look at building regulations and its responsibilities in that area. Otherwise, thank you very much. I look forward to the Bill's passing and to further scrutiny.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification