Debate contribution: Dilapidation Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 1 July 2025.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

1 July 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Dilapidation Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5061391

Read the official Assembly record

Text

My party supports the broad aims of the Bill. I thank the Minister for bringing it to the House. It is important that councils have more powers to tackle dilapidated and neglected buildings and to ensure that those buildings are utilised for the public good. I welcome the provisions that give powers to councils to give notice to owners and occupiers to fix problems within a time frame. The mind really boggles as to why that is not the law already. Do the Minister and his officials have any indication of how many buildings would be affected each year? Obviously, it could fluctuate on the basis of buildings deteriorating and so on, but I presume that there is a working figure. I would appreciate a number on that. Clause 19 mentions the issuing of a fixed penalty of £500 on owner-occupiers if they breach a maintenance notice issued by the council. I am concerned that that is a paltry sum that developers and building owners could effectively brush off. It is only £500, which is very small. The Minister mentioned other figures in the thousands: will he clarify what they are? The only figure mentioned in the Bill is £500, which, I repeat, is too small for building owners — in some cases developers, in others individuals. Compare that with the way in which somebody who allegedly claims welfare that they should not be claiming or for which they are ineligible is treated. Their faces are plastered all over websites and media outlets, but the owners of buildings are treated with kid gloves. This is an improvement, but the legislation is not strong enough. I urge the Minister to make it more robust, and I ask him to clarify, in his closing remarks, why the fine is only £500. Members have talked about the look of cities and towns. That is not unimportant, but the main focus should be on the fact that there are empty buildings while, as the Member for North Belfast said, tens of thousands of households across the North are homeless — staying in hostels, Airbnbs and hotels or sleeping on sofas or in cars and so on. We have empty buildings while organisations including but not limited to art organisations could avail themselves of them. I have met Vault, an important arts organisation in Belfast city centre. Every nine or so months, it moves round Belfast to locate empty buildings so that it can put up hundreds of artists to allow them to do their work and create art in cultural spaces in Belfast city centre and beyond. There are departmental buildings and private buildings lying empty. I am concerned that the £500 fine for owners of properties is just a slap on the wrist. The Minister should consider a multiple-strike policy, if he has not done so already. If a property owner repeatedly ignores or breaches a maintenance notice, there should be repercussions — something along the lines of a three-strike policy or a two-strike policy. The Minister should consider a transfer of buildings. If someone repeatedly breaches the maintenance notice, there should be a question about whether they should be able to own that property or whether it should go into public ownership with the Housing Executive, the Department of Finance, DAERA or whomever. Have the Minister or his officials considered that? The Bill also talks about low-level dilapidation but does not clarify what that is. There is a concern about that. As a quick segue, there is a concern about public buildings lying empty, as mentioned by the Member for Foyle. I am also concerned that government-owned buildings are being sold off for private gain. We had a Finance Committee discussion a few months ago about a Civil Service-owned building being sold to a private healthcare company. The Minister is making good strides. They are, maybe, not strong enough, but we cannot have this Minister doing one thing when the Finance Minister is taking a different approach and allowing public buildings to be sold off for private gain. I am not convinced of the effectiveness of the £500 fine, as I mentioned, when there are more than 5,000 properties across the North whose owners are availing themselves of 100% rates relief. Empty commercial properties qualify for, I think, a 50% rates reduction. People could soak up multiple yearly £500 fines for breaching maintenance notices issued by councils, whilst thousands of pounds, if not tens of thousands of pounds, are unpaid in rates. The £500 fine is a good start — I welcome the principle — but it is not strong enough. I ask the Minister why he came up with that amount. Finally, housing is a key issue that is faced by Members across the North.

Could a percentage, or all, of the buildings that are not being used and that may be in need of repair be transferred and used for housing? At least 22,000 homes are lying empty, and the figure could be greater. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister were to clarify those points.

847 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