Debate contribution: Dilapidation Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on 1 July 2025.

MLA

Mr Andrew Muir

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

1 July 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Dilapidation Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5061398

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am grateful to everyone in the Chamber who contributed to the debate. It is what the Assembly is about: scrutinising and passing legislation. I will seek to respond to the points that were made. A variety of issues were raised, and I will try my best to deal with them. At the outset, I declare that I am a member of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society. It is important that I put that on the record. The Chair of the Committee mentioned having sight of the guidance. That is currently being pulled together. It is important that the Committee has sight of the guidance during its scrutiny of the Bill. The desire is that it will be with the Committee at the end of September. We have to engage with the councils on the matter, because they play a key role. Hopefully, the Committee will have the guidance at the end of September to allow for scrutiny of the Bill, because that is a key part of the legislation. I get the concern about financial support for councils. That issue was raised a number of times during the debate, and it is important that I address it. The inclusion of robust and effective cost recovery provisions will reduce the likelihood of councils being disadvantaged financially. The effective implementation of the new regime will require council buy-in to undertake enforcement activity, and it is recognised that councils will need to allocate adequate resources because, in the current budgetary climate, no discrete funding provisions are included in the Bill. New powers are discretionary, giving councils the flexibility to avail themselves of them as their resources permit. I acknowledge the thread of debate about the discretionary power and whether it should be mandatory, and the Committee can scrutinise that in the time ahead. I have a strong desire to work in partnership with district councils on the matter. There is a role for us all, because we have representatives on the district councils, and we can influence them to take forward the powers in the Bill. Obviously, the balance between discretionary and mandatory powers can be considered. Funding support has been given to councils for the wider area of regeneration. I could go through that, but most Members are aware of it. Members are also aware of their current powers, such as those relating to developer contributions, but the Bill deals specifically with dilapidation and gives councils up-to-date powers. There needs to be a wider understanding of the impact of dilapidation on areas, because not taking action has wider consequences for the people living in an area, those considering investing in an area or, as has been discussed, businesses leaving an area because of it. The Chair of the Committee asked what success would look like. For me, success is when dilapidation is not seen as the norm. There are different attitudes in central and local government towards dilapidation. When it starts to develop, we need to go in quickly and take action. The leader of the Opposition, who is not here at present, mentioned the Tribeca site and the wider issues in north Belfast. The Bill is designed to deal with the dilapidation issues that affect constituencies across Northern Ireland, and, as has been articulated in the Chamber, there are particular issues in north Belfast. To be fair, Members who represent the North Belfast constituency have raised a number of those issues with me, and I will offer to meet the five MLAs from that area to go through the sites and see what more can be coordinated across government. The issue has been raised consistently, and the MLAs have engaged constructively with the Bill. We need to find a way forward, and that is the best way to address the issues. The Chair of the Committee asked why the powers are discretionary and not mandatory. Hopefully, I have addressed that issue. The leader of the Opposition talked about cost recovery, and that is an important issue.

Yes.

Tracing the owner of a building and taking action is a fundamental issue that the Bill seeks to address. The Committee can drill into the specifics through its scrutiny of the Bill and as part of the call for evidence over the summer. Hopefully, the councils will be helpful and highlight where they see the challenges. Fundamentally, we want to minimise the cost to the taxpayer in Northern Ireland and make sure that it is borne by the people who are causing the dereliction and dilapidation. Clause 12 provides that, in court proceedings to recover costs:

"the court may consider whether a person other than the defendant ought to be liable for the whole or part of the costs; and the court may"

make an order accordingly. As is the case with serving a notice under the Bill, the Department is keen to ensure that the range of persons from whom costs may be recovered is broad. Before deciding to recover costs for a particular person, it would be in order for a council to satisfy itself that it is appropriate to pursue that person for the costs. I understand that councils need to have discretion on that. The provision of robust and effective measures to ensure that the appropriate person or organisation pays for the necessary remedial actions is key to minimising the cost to the public purse and to preventing unscrupulous property owners from deriving financial benefit from allowing buildings to fall into disrepair. All of us in the Chamber know of examples of that: such behaviour is not right, and we need to find a way to deal with it. Hopefully, the legislation will help with that. Under the current draft of the Bill, a council would have to judge, on a case-by-case basis, whether to begin enforcement proceedings if the likelihood of recovering costs is minimal. It is reasonable to assume that a council would adopt an approach that did not put its finances at risk and ensured maximisation of success in the interests of ratepayers. Another point is whether the ability to trace an owner would inhibit councils from carrying out their work. That should not prevent councils from carrying out works. Owners or other persons of interest should be actively pursued in an effort to improve and regenerate their areas using a variety of methods, such as the services of Land and Property Services or Companies House, internet searches, private investigators — if doing so is deemed to be ethically appropriate — and the information notices provided for in clause 16. There are, therefore, a number of ways to move on that. Fundamentally, that is about us working in cooperation with district councils. In an intervention, Mark H Durkan raised the role of public bodies. We all have a responsibility to keep our public estate at the proper standards. There is engagement on that, as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis. If you need to use legislation such as this against a public body, government has failed in that instance. That is, however, something to be considered. The leader of the Opposition asked how the Bill fits with the broader issue of dereliction. The Bill interfaces with a variety of areas in other Departments, and my officials have primarily been in close contact on it with the officials from the Department for Communities. I have already touched on the issue of Tribeca. That is a good example of a case in which councils want more effective powers. Hopefully, the Bill will give them that and allow Belfast City Council to use the appropriate powers to take things forward in that case. The other issue that the leader of the Opposition raised was on the role of the rating system. That is a matter for the Minister of Finance, but it has been a thread throughout the debate. I will write to the Finance Minister to reflect those points back to him, because, ultimately, we need to coordinate everything that we are doing across government. An issue that was raised by Declan McAleer and Tom Buchanan was that of councils' financial powers and the cost that they will bear. I understand that point totally, and it is important that the guidance is issued for the Committee to scrutinise it at the end of September. That would allow councils to fully consider how they will go forward with this. The Bill is deliberately set out in such a way that the owners of the buildings are the ones who take the liabilities that are associated with it. Ultimately, if councils want to protect and grow their rates base, it is in their interests for those areas to be regenerated and for dilapidation to not be allowed to occur in the first place. A wider perspective has to be drawn. Tom also raised a point about the defective premises notice and whether the nine-day period set out in clause 11 is too tight. I want to make sure that I give you the correct answer. Clause 11 is on the defective premises notice. That notice would be used on occasions when there would not be time to go down the route of statutory nuisance, provided for in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, to remedy defects. That power would be used in circumstances that require relatively rapid remediation, such as in the case of a building in which a staircase had been incorrectly installed. In such a case, there would be insufficient time for a preliminary view and a subsequent, more considered, view to be taken.

The council may serve a notice stating that it intends to remedy the defective state of the premises and specifying the defects that it intends to remedy. The notice is served on the owner if the defective state of the premises arises from a structural defect and, in other cases, on the person responsible for the premises being in a defective state or, if that person cannot be found, the owner or occupier. Nine days after the notice takes effect, a council may carry out whatever remedial works are necessary. The building does not have to be dilapidated or dangerous but present a problem that, the council considers, needs to be tackled quickly, hence the nine-day turnaround time in the absence of appeal procedures. Clause 11 also allows the person on whom the notice was served to serve, within seven days of the defective premises notice having taken effect, a counter-notice that states that they intend to remedy the defect themselves. If they did that, that would be good news. In such a case, the council is prohibited from taking any action unless the person fails to remedy the defects within a specified time or to a specified standard. That is not a new power — it is available to councils under article 65 of the Pollution Control and Local Government Order 1978 — but it is being re-enacted and enhanced to cover listed buildings. It should be noted that clause 11 does not conflict with Department for Communities defective premises legislation, which relates to liability and limitation periods. I hope that I have provided clarification on that. Mr Buchanan also asked whether there were any plans to introduce grant schemes. There are no immediate plans for grant schemes as part of the Bill, but Members can consider that during the scrutiny period. The Bill is deliberately designed to minimise costs to the public purse and to ensure that costs rest with the people who are responsible for dilapidated buildings. That is the right balance to strike. Maolíosa McHugh also raised council liabilities, which, I hope, I have addressed. Another point that Maolíosa raised was whether compliance could be phased in over time. The council can specify the periods in which work needs to be done. That allows councils to look at work on a case-by-case basis and to take a pragmatic approach. Phillip Brett has been a passionate, strong and diligent supporter of the Bill. On the basis of his initial comments, he could probably be hired as director of campaigns for my party, but we will let him decide on that role.

He asked why the powers were discretionary rather than mandatory: I hope that I have addressed that. I know that that will be brought out by the Committee. It is about striking a balance between the power that we give to councils and our influence, as political parties, on those councils. The Member also raised dealing with unregistered land, which, I know, is a cause of dilapidation. The council can carry out remedial work, or it can register a charge. It will be for the council to make a judgement on that, but I get the point that, in the areas of dilapidation that we have seen in Northern Ireland, unregistered land is a cause of concern for local people. The Member raised a point on the meaning of "interested person" in clause 24. Clause 24 specifies that a person:

"has an interest in a building or other land if that person— (a) is the owner of the land, (b) is an occupier of the land, (c) has a charge over the land or another financial interest in it, or (d) has a responsibility for the management or maintenance of the land."

It also defines "owner" in relation to land. Hopefully, the Member is satisfied about that point. On the period within which work should take place, I have tried to strike a balance by saying that councils can phase that in, but it is ultimately for councils to decide. The Member also raised a relevant issue on Crumlin Road Courthouse — I have declared an interest as a member of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society — and I am glad that he did so. The courthouse is a key piece of Northern Ireland and North Belfast's history. As someone whose family is from North Belfast, I value it, and its restoration would undoubtedly regenerate the surrounding area. We have sought to ensure that the Bill affords protections to respect the heritage of buildings. Clause 17 binds councils to consult relevant planning colleagues in the Department for Communities about historic monuments before taking action. That will properly address heritage issues and is more proactive, allowing action to be taken at a much earlier stage, thereby preventing avoidable decay in important buildings. Councils have powers under section 161 of the Planning Act 2011 to carry out urgent remedial works for the preservation of listed buildings, but I get the point that the powers that are in place are not seen to be sufficient, which is why we are moving that forward. I will continue through the issues, because it is important that I respond to them. My colleague Nuala McAllister spoke about a range of concerns in North Belfast. Hopefully, I have addressed that by expressing my desire to meet the MLAs for North Belfast to consider what more can be done to address those issues by my Department and by working collaboratively with others, including the Department for Communities. We need to address those issues, and it is important that all constituencies in Northern Ireland are assured that the Bill seeks to provide powers to do that. Nuala has been a good person in showing me around North Belfast and the need for the Bill. I am happy that we are able to bring it through its Second Stage today. Gerry Carroll wanted to know whether there is an indication of how many buildings are likely to be affected by the Bill. Unfortunately, there is no indication at the moment. I will double-check with officials, and, if there is information, I will write to the Member, but I do not believe that there is an inventory of buildings currently. The Member raised issues about the £500 fixed penalty and expressed the view that the penalty was too low. That came out in other Members' contributions. I will give you a proper response to that point, because I want to ensure that it is properly dealt with. Clause 19 provides for a:

"a discretionary £500 fixed penalty to be issued by councils to discharge liability for conviction for breach of a maintenance notice and for failure to provide information without reasonable excuse"

under section 16. Once the fixed penalty has been paid, no prosecution may be brought for that offence. Fixed penalties will not be available for more serious offences. The Department may amend the fixed penalty amount by regulations. Schedule 1 makes further provision regarding the form and content of fixed penalty notices and receipts. I look forward to hearing the contributions during the Committee's scrutiny on that. There is, obviously, the opportunity for amendments on that issue to be tabled at Consideration Stage, but I get your concerns. The other issue was the definition of low-level dilapidation that we provided. We will consider the statutory guidance that is associated with the definition. If that is not forthcoming or you do not feel that it satisfies you, we can give further consideration to that.

No problem, Gerry. That issue, which relates to housing and CPOs, is not considered to be the primary effect of the Bill. I get the fact that dilapidated buildings cause issues for the wider neighbourhood, because people then move out or do not want to buy the properties. That will be where the benefits can arise. As part of the Committee's scrutiny function, it may also want to consider how that would interact with the wider desire to ensure that we have quality housing for citizens in Northern Ireland and how those things interrelate. Gerry raised the issue of selling public buildings to the private sector. That is not really my gig, to be honest, but fair play to you. The other issue was about rates relief. I will write to the Finance Minister about that. John Stewart raised a number of issues, particularly about Carrickfergus. His council colleague Lauren Gray has also raised those issues with me. I am assured that there are strong and powerful advocates for Carrickfergus. I get the feeling that there is a sense that, sometimes, nothing can be done. There is a sense of fatalism around the issue. Stewart Dickson showed me some of the buildings in Carrick, and I get that. Hopefully, the Bill will give us the power to address those issues. John Stewart raised the £500 fine. I hope that I have addressed that point in my response to Mr Carroll. He asked about how similar provisions operate elsewhere, particularly in the Isle of Man. I will ask officials to get me advice on that, and I will write to you about it.

3,128 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