Debate contribution: Defective Premises Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on 11 June 2024.

MLA

Ms Sian Mulholland

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

11 June 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Defective Premises Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4495738

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the Bill's Consideration Stage. As has been mentioned, accelerated passage is not the ideal mechanism, but it is necessary, given the concerns that have necessitated expediency on the issue. I concur with the Member who spoke previously and the Deputy Chair of the Communities Committee. We want to see a more fulsome Bill come forward, but we are aware of the limitations of the mandate. It is something that my colleagues and I will push for as we proceed, because we want to see the fulsome address of our building regulations. We will not support the amendment. We understand that the intention behind it is to enhance the safety and quality of buildings, but significant issues could be unintended. The proposed clause grants the Department the authority to specify particular building materials, products and design features through regulations. That broad, sweeping power raises several concerns. We are at risk of creating a more rigid and overly prescriptive regulatory environment. Protection is already present in the Building Regulations (NI) Order. Additionally, there are some concerns around the amendment adding any substantial value to the Bill. It prescribes for actions already covered in existing duty provisions in article 3. The proposed clause mandates the Department to consider existing building regulations but does not adequately mitigate the potential for conflict and confusion. It just adds another layer of specifications that could lead to inconsistencies. My party and I believe that the Bill has to be enacted swiftly to address the urgent issues at hand to achieve parity with England and Wales.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I have said that accelerated passage is not the preferred method or mechanism for doing this business. However, I am aware that the expediency with which we have to put the Bill in place necessitates this approach. I understand where the Member is coming from. I want to emphasise that my opposition to the amendment does not come from a disregard for people's safety and the well-being of our residents. On the contrary: I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that every home in Northern Ireland is safe and secure, and I cannot even begin to imagine the experiences of those who live in defective premises. They cannot be overlooked or minimised. Those individuals or families have only one place that they call home, and it is our duty to protect them immediately, which is why I support the expediency that is afforded by the Bill. While the proposed amendment to the Bill is well-intentioned, it presents significant challenges and risks. We have to strive for a solution that protects residents from defective buildings, and, by opposing the amendment, we can ensure that the Bill progresses quickly and effectively, addressing the urgent needs of our residents without unnecessary complication.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:38 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