Debate contribution: Defective Premises Bill: Final Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 2 July 2024.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

2 July 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Defective Premises Bill: Final Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4529060

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank everyone who has contributed to the important debates at each stage of the Bill's passage through the Assembly. I have listened carefully and will take the opportunity to respond to a number of the points that have been made. First, I have to take issue with the first thing that Mr McCrossan said. He said:

"accelerated passage is not the proper way to do business".

It is certainly not improper for us to do this in this way. Standing Orders provide for legislation to be taken through in certain circumstances. As I have said in the Chamber before, I agree that it is not always the ideal way or the preferred way to do business, but I strongly argue against the Member's remark that it is not a proper way to do business. I thank Mr McCrossan, however, for bringing to the attention of the House some of the comments that have been made by the RSUA, and it is important that we address those today. The first issue that the Member raised was the potential disadvantage to citizens in Northern Ireland when it comes to the cladding safety scheme. It is important to note that the cladding safety scheme is the same scheme as is offered in England. There is no evidence to suggest that applicants to the cladding safety scheme in England have been disadvantaged by the introduction of the corresponding legislation in England. There is no evidence locally to suggest that residents of affected buildings will be disadvantaged in Northern Ireland, because the cladding safety scheme rightly requires applicants to demonstrate that they have exhausted potential avenues for redress, including through insurance companies, developers or builders, prior to being granted access to funding. The legislation helps to ensure that those avenues are appropriately explored and exhausted before grant funding is made available to applicants. That will make sure that public money is not used to remediate buildings in cases where a private organisation should be liable and accountable. Secondly, the Member made the point that we will not be afforded the same protections as those in England under the Building Safety Act 2022. The Bill introduces the same liability period, prospectively and retrospectively, as currently exists in England and Wales. That will ensure that our citizens are afforded the same protections as their counterparts. It is important, however, that we note that the legislation is only a small part of a much wider suite of legislation on which my officials are currently working that will further match the protections provided to citizens in England and Wales under the Building Safety Act 2022. That will further reduce the disparity that exists. Comments were made about how the Department has responded to those who are interested and the engagement process overall. We talked about that at previous stages, but I am happy to outline to Members the fact that the Department has engaged, albeit not always at ministerial level, with the following stakeholders: the Office for Product Safety and Standards; UK Finance; the RSUA; the Committee for Communities; the Attorney General for Northern Ireland; the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DHLUC) and Departments in other jurisdictions; the Building Safety Regulator; residents and residents' groups; practitioners and industry professionals; the Office of the Legislative Counsel; the Departmental Solicitor's Office; and Ulster Garden Villages. I am also aware that RSUA representatives appeared in front of the Committee, and, as I said, my officials met them about the concerns they raised. In February, prior to introducing the legislation, officials invited all interested stakeholders in the industry to an event where they stated that the future legislation would closely mirror the Building Safety Act 2022; indeed, industry officials expressed a desire to see parity, because they work across different jurisdictions. That engagement has taken place, but, importantly, when further aspects of the Building Safety Act are brought in here through the further work my Department intends to do, there will be close engagement with the industry at official and ministerial level. I hope that that goes some way to addressing the concerns that Mr Allen also raised. The other issue that the Member for West Tyrone raised was the idea that there is a fundamental misunderstanding among MLAs or those in my Department about what the legislation does. I hope that, through a number of debates, I have made it clear that we all have an understanding of exactly what it is for and what we are trying to do. The Member raised another issue about defective materials. I stand by what I said at Consideration Stage. I do not intend to go over that all again, but I confirm to the Member that the legislation provides opportunities for homeowners to seek redress from any workperson who has taken on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling or the carrying-out of major work on a dwelling that is subsequently deemed to be uninhabitable due to poor workmanship or poor building materials. That does not change what is in the existing Order that I quoted in the previous debates.

I am happy for the leader of the Opposition to make an intervention if he needs to declare an interest at this point. I can confirm that the Bill does not amend the scope of the original duties set out in the 1975 Order. Nothing in the Bill would prevent a builder or designer from taking a separate action under contract law against a supplier or manufacturer that has provided defective products. I am not able to make a judgement on individual cases that the Member brings up, even if they are hypothetical. I simply set out what the legislation will do, and I hope that that will bring the Member some comfort and that there is an understanding of why the amendment that he proposed was not made. We did not believe that it added anything to the Bill. The protection that he is looking for is already in there, because it is not just about poor workmanship, as poor building materials also fall under the legislation. I think that I have addressed most of the other issues that were raised. I welcome the support of the Deputy Chair of the Committee and Mr Kingston for the Bill, and I agree with Ms Mulholland that there is a wider piece of work to be done. There will be continued engagement, and I fully agree with what she said about its importance. On Mr O'Toole's remarks, he was not in the Chamber when I said it, but I am happy to repeat that the legislation is intended to capture ongoing cases brought using the Defective Premises Order, including cases that are under appeal.

Yes, I will give way to the Member.

As we have already outlined, the Defective Premises Order sets a high bar for plaintiffs wishing to pursue an action. They must show not only that there is a defect but that the defect has rendered the dwelling uninhabitable. They must also demonstrate to the court that the architect in question has contributed to the property's being uninhabitable. A defendant may, of course, produce evidence to rebut any such claims. My officials have been able to find only three cases in the past 48 years in Northern Ireland in which the plaintiff cited the 1975 Order, none of which involved an architect. Further afield, four cases in England and Wales were identified that cited the Defective Premises Act 1972. In one of those cases, an architect was found to be liable, owing to a failure to satisfy the conditions of the contract on ensuring the quality of the builder's work. I hope that that addresses the Member's point. As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill acts as an important first stage in a wider, substantive piece of work to create a new residential building safety environment in Northern Ireland. I look forward to bringing that important work to the House in due course. The Bill will address the unfair disparity in legal protections regarding defective premises in Northern Ireland. Finally, I thank everyone involved for their time and effort in progressing the Bill. Mr O'Toole said that we in this place are sometimes accused of having a silo mentality: over the past months, through this work, that silo mentality has not been on display. The existing disparity was brought to our attention, and that could have been argued back and forth. At the start of the process, my Department had zero responsibility for the issue, but we worked with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. We came to an agreement about how we could take it forward, we got agreement at the Executive, and we worked together well in the House. That does not always happen. I sincerely thank the parties across the Chamber that have worked constructively on the issue. I hope that that will continue, because these are important issues for the people of Northern Ireland. We have not fought too much, Mr McCrossan. We have not squabbled too much. We have had —.

It was all going so well.

Absolutely not. We considered all those issues. We engaged and listened to the concerns that were expressed. Ultimately, it is not for me but for the courts to decide whether somebody is liable. We are allowing that process to take place in line with what happens in England and Wales. As I was saying, we are approaching the legislation in the right way. I sincerely thank Assembly colleagues for the constructive way in which they have approached it. It is good for the people of Northern Ireland, but it is only the start of the work that we need to do on building safety. I look forward to continuing that work, and I hope that we can continue in the vein in which we have been working over the past few months. I commend the Bill to the House.

1,674 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:56 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