Debate contribution: Defective Premises Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Andy Allen MBE on .
- MLA
- Mr Andy Allen MBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Defective Premises Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4495744
Read the official Assembly record
Text
At this point, I do not intend to restate the comments that I made in the accelerated passage debate and at Second Stage. They are on the public record and available for people to read. I turn to the amendment. We believe that, in seeking to specify defective materials, products and design features, the proposed amendment to the Defective Premises Bill is not necessary. The current law already mandates that the construction work be performed in a workmanlike or professional manner, using proper materials, ensuring that the dwelling is fit for habitation upon completion. It is our view that that requirement inherently includes the use of safe and appropriate materials and design features. We are of the view that the existing legislation covers the aspects that the amendment intends to cover. During the Second Stage debate, the Member opposite highlighted concerns about specific building materials, and many across the House share those concerns and echoed them today. I assume that that, as he stated, is what he is attempting to capture in the amendment. The Minister stated during the Second Stage debate that the Bill:
"provides more time to hold to account those responsible for building the house or carrying out work on it, in order to ensure that the work is of the highest quality and is done using the best materials for the job." — [Official Report (Hansard), 3 June 2024, p58, col 2].
I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wishes to clarify whether there is a necessity to specify defective materials, products and design features by regulation in order to enhance the level of protection that is provided.
I thank the Minister for that clarity. That was our interpretation. I would have liked the opportunity to engage with the Member more broadly in order to scope that out. Indeed, as other Members said, it would have been preferential to have had the opportunity, notwithstanding what I said during the accelerated passage debate, to explore some of those aspects during Committee Stage, but that was not the case, as per the will of the House. On that, I will end my comments.
359 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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
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.