Debate contribution: Dilapidation Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on 1 July 2025.

MLA

Mr Phillip Brett

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

1 July 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Dilapidation Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5061382

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I warmly welcome the Second Stage of the Bill. I am not a member of the Agriculture Committee, and I do not represent a rural constituency, but, given the speeches that have been made today, it is clear that, for those of us who represent inner-city constituencies, the purpose of the Bill is very welcome indeed. As other Members articulated, the Bill and its genesis have been floating around in the ether since 2012, and communities that I represent have been warmly welcoming them. Mr Butler articulated the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party has been discussing the matter for 53 years, so I am sure that Alliance election material will say, "People talk about it for 53 years, and Alliance delivers it within 18 months."

I really welcome the Bill. I welcome it so much because it will ensure that the communities that I represent that live in BT15, BT14, BT36 and BT37 get the same treatment as those who live in BT9. The dilapidated conditions that some people whom I represent are expected to put up with and live beside would not be accepted in BT9. They would not be accepted on the Malone Road or in other parts of Northern Ireland, but working-class communities are expected to suck them up. I see one of the other Members for North Belfast in the Chamber today and I am sure that she could add many more examples. I have seen people living beside derelict properties for year after year and people who have spent their life savings purchasing their home only to be surrounded by derelict properties with no future option of selling their home. As the Member for South Belfast articulated, that obviously impacts on our town centres as well.

I welcomed the purpose of the Bill, in particular because it will bring a uniform approach across council areas. Like many representatives in the Chamber today, my constituency overlaps with two local government areas. The approach taken by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council is much more proactive than that taken by Belfast City Council. On occasions, residents who live on the border of those local government areas can look across the road or across the bridge and see their council taking action and wonder why other local authorities are not doing so. However, I was slightly concerned when the Minister went on to articulate that those are discretionary powers for councils and not mandatory, legislative steps that councils should take. I ask the Minister to articulate why he is not passing on a legal duty to councils to ensure that they live up to their responsibilities. I will also pick up on something in relation to clause 24. The Bill mentions derelict properties, but I want to know whether it touches, in particular, on unregistered land. There are swathes of land in my constituency that have no owner. It has Japanese knotweed growing on it that is impacting on residential homes. However, the Bill seems to articulate that the interpretation of the Act can apply only if someone has a registered person on that land. I have concerns that perhaps the Bill could be seen as something that could help to tackle unregistered land and unregistered sites. Perhaps the Minister could give some clarity in relation to clause 24's "interested persons". In addition, clause 10 does not mention land; it mentions only buildings. Can the Minister articulate whether that covers land and buildings? On cost recovery, the Bill articulates that councils "may" recover costs. I wonder why that is not "should" recover costs. We obviously appreciate that there may be some aspects that cannot be recovered due to not being able to trace ownership or due to people not having the means, but we could use the word "should" rather than "may". Maybe the Minister could sum up on that. Regarding time for compliance with notices that have been served on property or landowners, could the Minister articulate what time pressures will be available to people to put in action what they need to do? We do not want to have notices that will last for months and months with people simply using delaying tactics. Overall, the Bill is welcome. It will allow safety to be returned to many parts of our constituency where derelict sites or land are used for antisocial behaviour. Regeneration that has been led by government can continue to take place, and those who have land-banked their sites for many years will now have to face the repercussions of doing so. It will also protect our built heritage. Across North Belfast, we have some amazing built heritage. We have seen regeneration projects such as Crumlin Road Gaol, which has been truly wonderful, but you then look across the street and see Crumlin Road Courthouse, a listed and wonderful building in the heart of our city that, due to legislation, has been allowed to fall into absolute disrepair. The Bill touches on many of the things that all Members want to see: it protects our built heritage, ensures community safety and puts regeneration back at the heart of our working-class communities. The Minister has my full support, for whatever that is worth, in progressing the Bill, and I look forward to his answering some of the issues that I have raised today.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:58 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