Debate contribution: Defective Premises Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 3 June 2024.

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: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4493693

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the broadly supportive comments from Members right across the House. However, I want to address some of the issues that a number of Members raised. First, Andy Allen commented on what it means to be finally determined. I hope that I outlined that in my speech. For clarity, it is the spirit and intent of the Bill that any case that is currently in process or has been granted the right to appeal will benefit from it at Royal Assent. I hope that that is useful to him. Mr Allister asked about the convention rights that are impacted. Article 6.1, the right to a fair trial, is what has been identified in that regard. Mr McCrossan raised the issue of materials. It is intended that the legislation will offer owners the opportunity for legal recourse if defective materials have rendered a premises defective. The Bill is about giving people an opportunity through the courts as well. Mr Allister also raised the issue of dwellings. It would apply if a commercial business became a dwelling, as it is to protect residents. However, it is my understanding — I will confirm this with the Member — that it would not apply in the other direction. I assume that the point in time when that would happen would be when the change of use is granted. I hope that the Member will understand that I want to confirm the issue that he has raised in writing. Strict liability is a matter for the courts to determine based on the facts of the individual case, but, if the courts determine that strict liability is merited, it would be applied. As the Member said, it is very rare, but my understanding is that that would be for the courts to decide.

I will, yes.

In the process of taking this through, my understanding has been that that would actually be the case; it would be dependent, and each would be done on a case-by-case basis. However, if I am wrong on that, I am happy to correct it for the Member. I think that I have gone through most of the points that were raised. I realise that the Bill has gone through in quick fashion. I know that Members may have further questions. Obviously, we still have a number of stages to go through. My door is always open. I am happy to take any additional questions that Members might have. I hope to be in a position to address them. I am trying to deal with this disparity. Although there has been scrutiny of those clauses in England and Wales, and this is simply an extension of that, I understand that people may want to raise further points. I am happy to answer those. However, I still believe that the extension of the legislation to Northern Ireland is beneficial. I hope that the Members who are here support it.

488 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