Debate contribution: Dilapidation Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr John Stewart on .

MLA
Mr John Stewart
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
1 July 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Dilapidation Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5061396

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for coming in late. It had not been my intention to speak at this stage, but I take the opportunity to praise the Minister and his officials for introducing the Bill. I agree with much of what has been said today. The Bill is long overdue. A lot of work has gone into getting it to this stage, and I look forward to its progressing through the various legislative stages and to seeing the final Bill. The legislation will have a very positive impact on our communities. I was previously a councillor in Carrickfergus and am now an MLA. In all that time, nothing has frustrated me more than seeing constant dereliction, especially in Carrickfergus, where I am proud to have lived for many years and which I am proud to represent. It is a historic town, but it is blighted by dereliction, often because of landlords who are repeat offenders. They own multiple properties in the area but are never held to account for not repairing them. In fact, we see the opposite, with grant schemes being targeted at them to help them do up those buildings. It has been very frustrating over many years to contact the council and feel that nothing can be done. One has only to arrive in our fantastic town and visit our world-famous medieval castle to see that that impressive structure sits beside an abandoned bar and restaurant complex that is being allowed to fall into the sea. Nothing is being done about that. I therefore hope that the Bill will allow us to take action in that regard. I know that some amendments will be tabled to it. I agree with what the Member who spoke previously said about the fixed penalty notice in clause 19. Financial developers who are buying up properties for their housing portfolios should experience the wrath of God, money-wise, but a £500 fine is nothing to them. Given the red tape involved, it will probably cost more to administer that fine. Where there are repeat offenders, I agree with the Member for West Belfast that something more than a tap on the wrist must be administered. Multiple landlords are involved, and they are often repeat offenders. Something a bit stronger should therefore be considered. I am interested to hear whether the Minister and his officials have looked at examples of where such legislation is operating already in the rest of these islands, particularly on the Isle of Man, where it has worked really successfully. How has other legislation evolved, and what is the experience of local councils of enforcement, the appeals process and everything else? We know that no plans survive contact and that things evolve. One of the benefits of being late to the party in introducing such legislation is that we can learn from elsewhere about what has worked well and what has not and then amend our legislation accordingly. I know that the Committee, including my party colleague the Member for Lagan Valley, will be doing that. I also agree with the analysis of Mr Brett and that of the other Member for North Belfast. Mention was made of there being a postcode lottery where a constituency straddles two council areas. I find that particularly frustrating as well. Depending on which side of the road they live on, people do not really know how the relevant council will interpret the provisions. The key to the legislation's success is that it must compel councils to take action. It is all well and good for us to create law, but councils must be willing and able to use it and to put down markers. There are already powers available to them, but there has been a reluctance from some councils, depending on where one is in the country, to use them. The Bill presents an opportunity for us to do something about that. I look forward to following the Bill's Committee Stage. Hopefully, some amendments to the Bill will be tabled.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.03 (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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.92Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.93
Another identity-related subject0.07
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

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