Debate contribution: Defective Premises Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 11 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Defective Premises Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4496000
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I appreciate the Minister's offer of his Department advising me, I suppose, the council and, most importantly, people who may be affected of the content of existing legislation. However, that will possibly have come too late for some, given that, only a short time ago, the Department was saying that the matter was nothing to do with it and that it was a reserved matter. I am disappointed that Executive parties oppose the amendment. Some Members, including the Minister, say that there is no need for the amendment and that existing legislation affords the requisite protections. If that is the case, why, as I said, has nobody who has been similarly affected been able to get any answers to date or even been told that they do not qualify on the grounds of falling outwith the prescribed time frame? Others oppose it because of the risk that it might do too much and have unintended consequences, as Ms Mulholland said. I would hate to think that it is a case of Executive parties circling the wagons and voting against our amendment on the basis that it has been tabled by the Opposition, because that really seems like opposition for opposition's sake.
Sorry, Andy, I will come to you in a minute. We cannot sleepwalk into a situation similar to that in the South. We will not be forgiven for it, and we will not forgive ourselves for it.
I thank the Member for his intervention. As I have stated again and again, there are people whom the current legislation has not helped. Until now, the Department seemed unaware of the legislation and the protections in it. Our lack of engagement has been due to time, because this has happened in a truncated fashion. I regret the fact that we have not been able to have that engagement and form a consensus on the issue, but it needs to be done because, believe me, in the future, there will be consensus on the issue and there will be regret that what needs done was not done now. We must not lose sight of our responsibility to our constituents. In our view, the amendment is not just a legal necessity; it is a moral imperative. Again, I ask — one last roll of the dice — for your support, and I hope that the Bill can help restore the public's faith in our building standards and regulatory systems. We must make sure that this is a strong Defective Premises Bill rather than weak, defective legislation that will leave more people exposed to huge expense, anxiety and unimaginable upheaval.
436 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: 0.06 (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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.07 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:44 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.