Clause 2 (Appeal against maintenance notice)

Debate resumed on amendment No 1, which amendment was:

In page 2, line 2, leave out "adversely affecting" and insert "being detrimental to". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

The remaining amendments in the group stood on the Marshalled List.

I call Daniel McCrossan to resume his speech.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not have much more to say. A lot of the issues have been addressed so far.

The SDLP is asking for the House's support for our amendments. They are designed to strengthen transparency, accountability and public confidence in the operation of the legislation, and we believe that they would make the Bill more effective. Transparency is particularly important, because there will rightly be an expectation, as I said earlier, that action will follow once the powers become available. We need to manage the public's expectation of what the legislation will do. Communities should be able to see what action is being taken to address dilapidation in their areas, and that is the reason for some of our amendments. They seek to establish a clear baseline for measuring success, to improve public access to information about how and where the powers are being used and to ensure that those powers are used proportionately across council areas.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair)

If notices are being issued, interventions are taking place and public money is being spent, there should be a clear and accessible public record of that activity in order to ensure openness and transparency and good use of resources.

Will the Member give way?

I will, yes.

The Member has touched on the issue of public moneys. Dies he accept that a number of concerns have been raised about from where public moneys will come and, indeed, about the legal costs that may be incurred as a consequence?

Yes. That was well rehearsed at the Committee. All members had similar concerns about how we can ensure that the Bill, which is well intentioned, has some teeth and can therefore deliver for people on the ground without burdening the ratepayer any further, because there is already a very heavy rate burden across council areas. As I said earlier, that issue is raised with me continually. Councils do not have an endless pot of money at their disposal. In fact, they argue very strongly that they are less funded today than they were in previous years but that their money is expected to go much, much further. I have picked up a concern from councillors, including those from my party, that this is an attempt by the Executive simply to pass the buck to local councils, as opposed to the Executive's taking a more joined-up approach, which, as I indicated earlier, would be much more satisfactory and involve the Department of Finance, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department for Communities.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, I will give way to the Minister.

I recognise that the Member is relaying what he has been told, but the reality is much different. The issue was previously consulted on, and councils, for example, welcomed the move to allow maintenance notices to be served. I set that out in my opening remarks. It is a discretionary power for councils to use. Does the Member recognise that bringing dilapidated buildings back into use would also benefit councils' rates base?

Absolutely. I thank the Minister for that Intervention and clarification. It is healthy and important to thrash out some of those issues, certainly, when it comes to the local authority. As someone who represents Strabane, Omagh and the surrounding towns and villages, I see how dereliction is a blight on the entire area. It absolutely needs to be resolved, and quickly.

We probably need to be a wee bit more imaginative about the Government's role in that and how we repurpose some of those structures in town centres, for instance. Could they be brought back into better use than their previous function? If they were formerly retail premises, for instance, they may not ever satisfy housing requirements in town centres, but that is where the Department for Communities could play a role because those buildings could help alleviate the housing pressures that it faces. If the Executive were a bit more creative and imaginative about how the Bill could play out, working alongside councils and the various Departments that are listed — your own Department, Minister, the Department of Finance, the Department for the Economy and, of course, the Department for Communities — the Bill has the potential to do good things. However, leaving it simply at the door of councils, in itself, raises questions and concerns, which I know that we will thrash out as we go forward in the process.

I thank the Member for taking an Intervention. He highlights very important points. The Bill is important. We all support dealing with dilapidation and agree that we must do it. The Minister highlighted in his intervention that a consultation had taken place. However, that consultation was 10 years ago. Does the Member agree that it was too long ago and that it was important to have had more communication with the sector before introducing the Bill?

Yes. That is a legitimate concern. Certainly, things change quite quickly. The dereliction of our towns and villages is much worse today than it was 10 years ago. A number of factors that are well beyond the control of any Minister have led to that. It would be helpful if a more up-to-date consultation were carried out to provide us with the most open view as to where things currently sit.

Good policy —

Will the Member give way?

I will, Minister, yes.

Does the Member accept that, whilst that consultation was undertaken in 2016, the Committee, during its deliberations, had a call for evidence and was able to engage with people on that? We need to strike a balance because, often, I hear from Members about the number of consultations that we undertake, rather than about our actual delivery. It is about trying to strike a balance, engage with people, get evidence and also deliver action on the ground, and we must do that in cooperation with local government, which is what we sought to do.

I thank the Minister for that. He is right to challenge me on that because I am often the person who is criticising him for all those consultations. When it comes to how we can be more imaginative and do something that will actually be beneficial and show a direct outcome and result, the Bill could be a strong starting point, particularly, as I have said, when you tie in all those other Departments and the Executive working collectively.

I thank the Member for giving way again. He makes a very valid point. In many of those town centres, some aspects, small buildings here and there and some not-so-small buildings have fallen into dereliction. I get where the Minister is coming from about bringing those back into use for ratepayers. However, many of our town centres, particularly the retail areas, have changed quite a bit, especially since lockdown. Will the Minister tell us what consultation there was with the likes of the Department for Communities around schemes such as the ones that existed in the past — for example, Living over the Shop (LOTS) — whereby, with a bit of seed funding, the centre of those towns could be changed very significantly and could, in fact, help to address many of the waiting lists that those of us who are in our constituencies see growing steadily?

I thank my colleague for that very helpful Intervention. Other Members and I have raised that issue of living above the shop, if you like, in the past. Here is an example of dereliction. In the street on which my office is situated in Strabane, all the buildings, with the exception of mine and the solicitor's office across the road, are derelict. They could be repurposed very quickly for housing. It would actually force footfall into our town centres. We are all guilty of jumping in the car and, for convenience, nearly parking on the shoes of the person at the till to get into a shop. I say that as a rural person because we are forced to do it that way. The Bill could play a key part in the repurposing of town centres. However, it has to be done in conjunction with the other Departments. We need to be creative in how we can put the Bill to task.

Certainly, as I have said, it is good policy. I have no question that the Bill is well intended. We all want to see those issues tackled, but I fear, particularly given the Minister's clarification that those will be discretionary powers, just how this will be rolled out. Will it be rolled out more strongly in some council areas than in others? Will ratepayers be hit harder in some places than in others? Are some councils further behind than other councils because they have been starved of investment for generations and there is a lot of catching up to do? Will there be a huge amount of work to be done by the council to enforce the powers that they will now be given? There is a wide net here that needs to be looked at and looked at proportionately.

As I have said, I have no doubt that the Bill can play a role in addressing dilapidation, but its success will depend on councils having support. That has been well said, and I will continue to advocate on behalf of the councils, as I am sure that others will. Councils will need resources and partnership with the wider Executive, particularly the various Departments that I have mentioned.

We are keen to support the amendments tabled by the Minister, because it is clear that he has been listening to the concerns raised by the Committee and the robust process that we followed. I appreciate that. I believe that the Minister ears are open on the issue. I encourage him and his officials to explore further how he can strengthen his Department's role in order to ensure that councils are not left at a cliff edge, where they have a mass of enforcement to do, depending on the state of the buildings — we do not know, because there is no register — and how he can play a stronger role along with his Executive colleagues.

It is a priority issue. Dereliction covers more than our town centres; I see it in housing estates etc as well, but we have a more concentrated element of it in our town centres. That must be dealt with. As for previous research, Ulster University carried out a survey some years ago, Minister, that was in line with what we ask for in the Amendment. I had it here earlier, but I have misplaced it. It is important that we have some record of and can closely monitor the level of dereliction and dilapidation that exists so that we know the scale of the problem that we face.

I am happy to engage and to continue engaging on the issue. The Bill could be positive, but, at the minute, it falls short and more needs to be done. I am happy to support the Minister's amendments, and I ask other Members of the House to consider the SDLP's amendments.

At the outset, I want to be clear: no one in the Chamber disputes the impact that dangerous, neglected and dilapidated buildings have on our community. Every Member in the Chamber has dealt with residents who are frustrated by buildings that have been allowed to deteriorate and that attract antisocial behaviour; damage the appearance of our towns and villages; and, in some cases, present genuine risk to the public's safety. We have heard stories about that from Members around the House. Our communities have waited for far too long for meaningful action in this area. The objective behind the Bill is, therefore, one that Sinn Féin absolutely supports.

One of the greatest frustrations in the debate is that there was a genuine opportunity to introduce legislation that would finally provide councils with the tools that they have sought for many years in order to tackle dangerous and neglected buildings. The Minister had the benefit of a consultation process — it began in 2016, a decade ago, as has already been mentioned — of extensive, albeit late, engagement with the local government sector and the expertise of those who will, ultimately, have the responsibility to implement the powers. At Committee Stage, Sinn Féin supported the progression of the Bill, because we recognise that the current legislative framework is outdated and councils need stronger powers to address dangerous, neglected and dilapidated properties. However, our support at that stage was not the end of the conversation.

As the Bill progressed and detailed engagement took place with the local government sector, significant concerns emerged around legal uncertainty, financial liability, operational capacity and practical implementation. It is important to recognise that the local government sector did not enter the process seeking to oppose the Bill. It engaged constructively with the Department and sought to improve the legislation through amendments. Its objective was to take a Bill with significant shortcomings and make it workable enough to deliver the policy intention. However, despite that engagement, many of the fundamental concerns remain unresolved. I acknowledge that the Minister has tabled a number of amendments in response to concerns that were raised during our scrutiny. We will support those amendments where they improve the workable provisions of the Bill. However, where amendments relate to areas in which significant concerns remain around legal certainty, financial exposure, operational capacity and the absence of dedicated funding, we are not satisfied that the underlying issues have been addressed, and we will abstain on those.

Having considered the Bill in its entirety, Sinn Féin has sought to take a balanced and evidence-based approach. We will support the provisions that provide councils with stronger, workable powers to tackle dangerous and neglected properties. There are particular amendments that relate to the most significant Intervention powers that are available to councils, including requiring substantial remedial works and, in certain circumstances, demolition. While we support the objective of providing councils with stronger powers to address severely neglected and derelict buildings, those are complex decisions that involve private property rights, significant enforcement action and the potential for lengthy legal challenges.

The local government sector raised concerns about councils' not having the level of legal certainty, protection and operational support that is required to exercise these powers with confidence. For that reason, while we support the objective behind the powers, we are not convinced that the amendments before us today provide the necessary safeguards, legal certainty and practical framework that are required for councils to exercise them with confidence.

Will the Member give way?

I will, yes.

Does the Member understand my disappointment at hearing her contribution on this? It is an Executive Bill, to which I got Executive agreement to progress. The first time that those concerns have been outlined to me, as a partner in government with her party, has been in the Chamber today. I would have liked to have been able to engage with her and try to resolve some of those issues. I note the fact that the Committee agreed a report that expressed its satisfaction around that. For this to have occurred today concerns me when it comes to the future of these institutions.

I appreciate your input.

I thank the Member for taking an Intervention. Does the Member agree that that is the very point of the process? Whilst I accept that it is an Executive Bill, the Member has been very clear that she wants to work with the Minister and try to address the issues that have been raised. The very point of bringing legislation to the House is to debate it, look at it, raise issues and fix things that may be wrong with it. No Executive Bill can come to the House and expect to have no scrutiny because it has gone through the Executive. That cannot be allowed to happen. That is what would put the institutions at risk.

Thank you for your Intervention as well. I could not agree with you more. I welcome the fact that the Minister is trying to tackle the issue, but there are other issues, and that is what the scrutiny process is about, as he knows. Although his amendments are technical in nature and cover some of the gaps, there are fundamental flaws in the Bill that we have to scrutinise, and doing so is my job.

The most significant concerns about the amendments that remain relate to cost recovery, liability, enforcement, responsibilities and the practical operation of the new framework. The Department's position has been that councils will be able to recover costs from property owners. However, the practical reality is more complicated. There will be cases that involve unknown ownership, complex ownership arrangements, disputes around responsibility or circumstances where owners simply do not have the financial means to repay the costs incurred. Having the legal power to recover costs does not mean that those costs will always be recovered in practice. Where councils are unable to recover those costs, the financial burden does not simply disappear. Ultimately, it falls on the council and, therefore, the ratepayer. As elected representatives, it is our responsibility not only to improve our communities but to protect the public purse and stand up for and put money in the pockets of working people and families.

I thank the Member for giving way, which I really appreciate. I want to ask this question in a constructive way so that we can look at the issues as a whole. Noting all the issues around cost recovery and the practical difficulties that the Member listed, does she accept that there is already a cost to those who live or trade beside dilapidated premises, in that their property loses value? If more buildings become dilapidated, the effect will be a knock-on loss in rates revenue for councils. We also have to look at those issues when it comes to the rates cost to councils and the prevention of further dilapidation. That can affect immediate neighbours as well as entire neighbourhoods and high streets.

I absolutely appreciate that, and that is why we agree with this in principle. I see that in Newry and Armagh every day of the week, and people come to my Constituency office to express their frustration. However, we need to make this workable. It is not a huge ask for the Minister to listen to those who will have to implement the Bill's provisions and make those changes, and we have the opportunity to do that.

We recognise that the Minister's amendments in this area are an attempt to address some of the concerns raised during the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. However, acknowledging a problem is not the same as resolving it. The Minister's amendments do not fully address the wider concerns about cost recovery. For that reason, while we recognise the intent behind the amendments and the objective of creating a stronger enforcement framework, we remain concerned that the necessary protections and resources are not in place. Therefore, we will abstain on some of the amendments.

The report by the Assembly's independent Research and Information Service (RaISe), which was prepared by Dr Ryan Kee, is particularly relevant to the debate. It is important to state that the report does not recommend supporting or opposing the Bill, but it provides independent evidence that reinforces many of the concerns raised by the local government sector. It challenges the assumption that the legislation will be cost-neutral. It highlights evidence from Building Control professionals who have questioned whether councils will, in practice, always be able to recover their costs and warned that councils could ultimately face significant financial liabilities.

The report also identifies the potential scale of the challenge, with approximately 34,500 vacant properties across the North. Of course, the fact that a property is vacant does not automatically mean that it is dilapidated or dangerous. However, if even a small proportion require Intervention, councils could be dealing with thousands of additional enforcement cases. That raises serious questions around staffing, expertise and capacity. The report also raises concerns about whether the proposed fixed penalties would provide a sufficient deterrent. Evidence from Building Control professionals suggests that remediation works can cost between approximately £80,000 and £90,000 in standard cases and rise to approaching £2 million in more complex cases. Against that backdrop, some owners may be prepared to absorb a £500 fixed penalty rather than treat it as an incentive to carry out necessary works.

I thank the Member for giving way. She has raised some points of interest. Aside from the Bill at hand, the Department of Finance currently collects rates from property owners across Northern Ireland. I have found that there can be difficulties with that when properties have been lying vacant for a significant period. Two such properties in my Constituency were left to two family members. The houses, which had been very valuable properties, were left in a terrible state. Rates have not been collected on either property for the past 10 years. Surely there could be a mechanism to incentivise action to be taken by the Department of Finance to get people to look after those properties; otherwise, they would be repossessed. Would your party consider a specific increase in the rates burden of people who deliberately let properties lie vacant?

I thank you for your Intervention. That conversation certainly needs to be had. I appreciate your point.

As I said, the concerns extend to the wider operational framework, which includes information-gathering powers, entry powers, fixed penalties and departmental guidance. Those provisions will require significant officer time, specialist expertise and increased administrative capacity. They will also, inevitably, create greater public expectation that councils will intervene. Despite placing those additional responsibilities on councils, DAERA has shown no commitment to provide dedicated core funding to allow councils to deliver the functions effectively. Unfortunately, that is where the Bill falls short. In other jurisdictions where comparative powers are in place, local authorities are provided with dedicated resources and funding to ensure that the powers can be exercised effectively and consistently. If we are serious about tackling dereliction, we cannot simply transfer responsibility from central government to local government and assume that uncertain cost recovery mechanisms will make the system pay for itself. A successful model requires investment, proper resourcing and a realistic understanding of the challenges that councils face on the ground. Without that support, the financial and operational pressure will fall on councils and, ultimately, on the ratepayer.

I really appreciate the Member's giving way again. I ask this — again, not to be mischievous but in order for us all to be clear — does the Member accept that central government per se does not have responsibility for dilapidation, that the responsibility lies with the owner and therefore that it is not representative to infer that the Bill will transfer responsibility from central government to local government? Central government is not responsible, and local government will not become responsible, for a property. The responsibility for dilapidation will sit with the owner, as it does currently.

Fair enough. I have made my point clear.

I will address the amendments that other Members have tabled. Sinn Féin has considered each Amendment carefully. Our position throughout the process has been guided by one simple question: does the amendment make the legislation more workable, more effective and more capable of being delivered by councils in practice? While we recognise the intention behind the SDLP's amendments, we do not believe that they address the fundamental concerns identified by the local government sector around funding, legal certainty, operational capacity and deliverability. In some cases, the amendments risk creating further administrative responsibilities for councils without addressing the underlying issue of resources. For that reason, Sinn Féin will not support the SDLP's amendments, although we get the rationale behind them.

I return to the Minister's overall approach. After almost a decade since the original consultation, councils should have been presented with legislation that was not only ambitious in its intentions but properly funded, legally robust and capable of being delivered in practice.

Will the Member give way?

I have given way many times, Minister, so, at this stage, unfortunately, I will not.

The Minister had the opportunity to bring forward a framework that would genuinely empower councils to transform neglected areas and tackle long-standing dereliction. We share the ambition behind the Bill — we absolutely do — but the practical foundations required to make that ambition a reality have not been fully put in place. The Minister has recognised some of the concerns raised by the local government sector and has tabled amendments in response. However, recognising concerns is not the same as resolving them. The central question remains: when councils are required to intervene, thereby incurring significant costs, and when those costs cannot be recovered, who will carry the burden? The answer is clear: councils and, ultimately, the ratepayer. As elected representatives, our responsibility does not end with passing legislation that looks good on paper. Our responsibility is to ensure that legislation works in practice and that working people and families are not left picking up the bill for responsibilities that should be properly funded by central government. The Assembly's responsibility is not simply to pass amendments but to ensure that those amendments deliver legislation that works, is properly funded and gives councils not just the powers to act but the resources, legal certainty and practical support to use those powers effectively.

That approach will be reflected in our voting position today. We will support the amendments and clauses that will provide councils with effective and workable powers. Where, however, the amendments do not adequately address our concerns about legal certainty, financial exposure, operational capacity and the absence of dedicated funding, we will abstain.

At the outset, I welcome the importance of the legislation before the House today. While it is a step in the right direction for our towns and villages, it is perhaps not the silver bullet that covers all the areas that will be brought into focus.

I acknowledge the scrutiny that the Bill was subject to in Committee. We heard from quite a few witnesses. The Bill went back and forth between departmental officials and the Committee on numerous occasions, as we sought to iron out concerns that had been raised. There is no doubt that there are still some concerns, as we have heard in the House today already. While 36 amendments were tabled, 32 are from the Minister, most of which are technical in nature in order to tidy up the drafting, improve clarity and help correct the terminology in the Bill. The amendments were fully scrutinised, and there were no dissenting voices to any of them when it came to agreeing to them at Committee.

Some amendments, however, go beyond tidying up the wording of the Bill and instead go to the very heart of how the legislation will operate on the ground, including the extra burdens that it will place on already overstretched councils. I will speak to some of those amendments briefly.

Amendment No 19 focuses on cost recovery for fencing off and watching dangerous buildings, but it fails to provide a financial framework for councils for that. It clarifies that councils may recover the cost of fencing off or watching buildings that pose a danger to the public, but clarity is not the same as practicality. The fact is that councils can recover the cost only if the owner is willing to pay. Councils will likely find that, in a number of cases, the owner is absent, insolvent or simply unwilling to pay. While the amendment improves the wording of Clause 12, it does not really address the underlying problem of new duties being created by the Bill without the resources to deliver them, which will again place the onus on councils to recoup the costs or, ultimately, to allow the ratepayer to carry the financial burden. Considering that, surely the Minister should look again at finding some way to assist councils in that regard.

Amendment No 22 will expand the ability of councils to require information from individuals while giving the Department power to restrict what information can be asked for. In reality, however, every notice, every new form and every new administrative step will be another cost to councils. We simply cannot keep relying on councils to pick up the cost. We cannot pretend that council budgets are elastic, with plenty of stretch left in them. As is the case in many other sectors, councils are under pressure. There is concern from councils across Northern Ireland about those issues.

Amendment No 26 will tighten the conditions under which a lay inspector may obtain a warrant to enter premises. While that is a safeguard for property rights, it will increase the administrative load on councils. Inspectors will now need to demonstrate refusal or anticipated refusal and demonstrate that no alternative route exists. While that is legally sound, it will be operationally heavy for councils to enforce.

Amendment No 28 clarifies that paying a fixed penalty will discharge liability only up to the date of payment. If the person continues to ignore the maintenance notice, they will remain liable. While no one will argue against that, it nevertheless increases the enforcement work for councils in monitoring and revisiting a notice and, potentially, prosecuting. Again, that creates another issue that councils have concerns about.

One of my colleagues will deal with the SDLP amendments, so I will leave that to the side.

The Bill has good intentions, and I hope that it works and delivers for our rural areas, towns and villages. However, I have some concerns about its delivery, and I ask the Minister to continue to work and liaise with councils on the Bill to ensure that, when it is passed by the House and the responsibilities for delivery are passed to the councils, they are in a position to deliver on it and the people in the towns and villages and we, as elected representatives, will be able to see the benefit of delivery from the legislation.

I rise as Alliance spokesperson on DAERA and as a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. At the outset, I again express the Alliance Party's support for the Bill. It is long-awaited and crucial legislation that would empower our district councils with the necessary tools to address the pressing issue of dilapidated and dangerous buildings in our town centres, villages and wider communities. Those properties are not only eyesores for the local community but decrease property values, pose health and safety risks and have a harmful impact on the wider environment.

I wish to take a moment to acknowledge the work of the Minister and his officials in bringing forward the Bill. The legislation has been improved through the Committee scrutiny process, and we have heard some mention of that already. That included input from key stakeholders. I hope they feel that their views have been heard up to this point and, where possible, that those views have been addressed.

To reflect the improvement and refinement of the Bill as it works its way through the Assembly's legislative process, a number of amendments have been tabled by my Alliance colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and Alliance supports those amendments. They are technical in nature and, therefore, sensible, constructive and consistent with the purpose of the Bill, which I outlined when I started.

There are also amendments tabled by Mr McCrossan, and I want to be clear about the stance that Alliance will take on those. The first of Mr McCrossan's amendments would place a statutory duty on the Department to appoint a person or body to carry out periodic reviews of dilapidated buildings and related matters. While I can fully appreciate the logic behind that Amendment, Alliance believes that the most appropriate body to assess the level of dilapidation in any area is the district council. Given the way that the amendment is framed, it would also come at a significant cost to the public purse and would not therefore represent good value for money. Furthermore, amendment No 34 would require district councils to:

"establish, maintain and publish in a manner that is accessible to the public, a register of action taken under this Act."

Departmental officials have been clear from the outset that the Bill should not impose additional statutory duties on district councils. That amendment and, indeed, the previous one would do just that. The Minister spoke only yesterday at Question Time and again in the debate today about the discretionary nature of the Bill to assist local councils in dealing with dilapidation and dereliction. The amendment would add a burden and a commitment. Ultimately, the legislation is intended to give councils more effective powers, not to burden them with additional layers of reporting that may have limited practical value. If councils wish to keep records, that should be a matter for local judgement rather than a statutory requirement.

The remaining two amendments tabled by Mr McCrossan are consequential to the two amendments that have already been addressed. They are dependent on the earlier proposals. The same concerns apply, and therefore Alliance does not intend to support them at this stage.

I will conclude with a few points. The underlying aim of the Bill is to give councils practical powers to deal with dilapidation proportionately and flexibly. We should be careful not to undermine that objective by layering new statutory duties upon our district councils that would add complexity and cost and, potentially, create duplication without adding any significant benefits to tackling the issues caused by derelict buildings.

Despite the last-minute reservations that Sinn Féin have expressed today, our focus is on the right issues. We must continue to focus on the fact that this is an Executive Bill coming through with cross-party support at that stage; that there was no dissention at the AERA Committee, which examined it in detail for a considerable period; and that there is an overwhelming need to address dilapidation and dereliction in our high streets and hamlets. For those reasons, I look forward to the Bill's continued progress through the House, and I look forward to working with others on delivering it.

I will follow on from the key points made by my colleague Aoife Finnegan MLA. First, I record our appreciation of the Committee staff, including Janice and Glenda, for the work that they did. I also thank the Bill Office for its assistance during our scrutiny of the Bill. We have had more than 22 Committee sessions on the Bill, so we have given it due consideration.

I am frustrated, as many Members are, by the long-standing dereliction in our constituencies — in towns and villages across the district. That was reflected on by Daniel McCrossan, who is a West Tyrone Constituency colleague of mine. People want to see action, and they have a right to expect us, as legislators, to provide councils with effective tools to address the issues. We support the ambition of the Bill — we made that clear at First Stage and at Committee Stage, and we have made it clear today — to give councils stronger powers to intervene. However, the stronger powers must be accompanied by a framework that is properly resourced, legally robust and workable. We have taken a considered view on all of the amendments. Aoife has outlined our position on the amendments. Basically, we will support the amendments that, we feel, strengthen the workable provisions of the Bill and improve its practical implementation.

From a resource point of view, which is another key debate, and looking at the practicalities of the Bill, we must not create a situation in which councils will be expected to take on significant new responsibilities, incur substantial costs and manage increased workloads without the necessary resources. When I looked through the Committee report, I saw that those issues kept being raised by councils and many other stakeholders who spoke about support, resourcing, the review — I appreciate that a review Clause has been added — and the fact that the powers are discretionary.

During the Committee Stage, it was also said that there 11 councils in the North, each of which has its local development plan (LDP). It will be a challenge to achieve consistency across the North. There are three council areas in our West Tyrone constituency, for instance.

We heard a lot from NILGA and received correspondence from SOLACE about the costs and the fear that costs could not be recovered. If legal challenges were brought to councils about notices that were made, it would be costly to the ratepayer. In other jurisdictions where comparable powers are in place, local authorities are provided with the resources to ensure that the powers can be exercised effectively. That is the standard that we should aim for.

Our position is a balanced one. We support the parts of the Bill that will give councils meaningful powers to tackle dangerous and defective properties. However, where significant concerns remain about legal uncertainty, financial exposure, operational capacity and the absence of dedicated council funding, we will not support those provisions.

I am pleased to contribute to the Consideration Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. As you noted, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you chastised me earlier, I have been here a long time. I first raised the issue of the need for powers to be given to councils to address dilapidation in February 2012 with the then Minister Attwood in a motion that I brought to the Assembly on behalf of the DUP. During that debate, I referred to the enforcement difficulties being faced by councils, highlighting many of those issues along with problems that had been brought to me by environmental health officials in the then Ards Borough Council. I went through some of the prevailing legislation and suggested that that was something that the Minister needed to address. I was delighted to find a willing Minister, which is not always the case, so credit to Alex Attwood. However, it is, perhaps, disappointing that it has taken a further 14 years for us to get to this stage. After all this time, I remain an advocate for the creation of these powers, and therefore I welcome the Bill.

At its heart, it is a practical piece of legislation that seeks to address a problem that communities across Northern Ireland know only too well. That has certainly been mentioned in the Chamber today. We have all seen buildings and sites that have been neglected for years, creating eyesores, damaging local confidence, undermining regeneration efforts and, in some cases, posing genuine risks to public safety. We have all had complaints from constituents asking what is being done about the problem. The evidence presented to the AERA Committee demonstrated a broad consensus that the current legislative framework is no longer fit for purpose. Much of the law in the area is outdated. It is fragmented across a range of statutes, and it is often difficult for councils to use it effectively. As the Minister said, the Bill represents an opportunity to modernise those powers, consolidate enforcement mechanisms and provide councils with a clearer and more effective framework for tackling dilapidated buildings and neglected land — a problem that has worsened, not improved, in the intervening 14 years.

I appreciate that there is discomfort among councils about the application of some of the powers, and we heard that throughout the Committee Stage. The fundamental objective of the Bill, however, is a good one. It is important, however, that the Department is supportive of councils in delivering clear statutory guidance on the subjective terms in the legislation as well as the discretionary nature of the powers being conferred, and also on enforcement. The Committee heard that the Bill would bring Northern Ireland more closely in line with powers elsewhere in the United Kingdom and that it would provide councils with a coherent set of tools to intervene where buildings and sites have fallen into disrepair and strengthen the ability of councils to recover costs when they are required to take action. Those are important reforms if we are to be serious about tackling blight in our streets.

Dereliction does not affect just the appearance of an area. It discourages investment, adversely impacts on neighbouring property owners, contributes to antisocial behaviour and creates a sense among communities that they have been forgotten. In giving councils a more effective means of addressing those problems, the Bill has the potential to support regeneration, improve local environments and increase civic pride in towns, villages and urban neighbourhoods across Northern Ireland. However, the Bill alone, as others have mentioned, cannot achieve that. In my Constituency of Strangford, Ards and North Down Borough Council's Empty to Energised is a vehicle by which the council wants to bring vacant commercial properties back into use in Newtownards town centre. It is finding, however, that closed catchment in NI Water assets means that new connections cannot be made in properties vacant over five years, so steps need to be taken by other Departments to ensure that the causes of dereliction and dilapidation are addressed.

Our support for the Bill and the amendments tabled by the Minister does not mean that we are ignoring the concerns that were raised during the Committee's scrutiny. The Committee carefully examined the balance between public interest and private property rights. The powers in the Bill are significant and, as with any enforcement legislation, need to be exercised fairly, proportionately and transparently. Property owners should have clear rights of appeal and access to due process. Enforcement should always be targeted at genuine cases of dilapidation and neglect rather than becoming an unnecessary burden on responsible owners who face temporary difficulties.

There is a real onus on the Department to ensure that the passing of the Bill does not mark the end of its role in this. I have said clearly that statutory guidance must go hand in hand with the powers and that there must be clarity on that. The Committee heard the concerns of local government stakeholders about resources and implementation, which we have heard about from other Members. Granting councils additional powers is one thing; ensuring that councils have the capacity, expertise and funding to use those powers effectively is another. If the legislation is to succeed, it must be accompanied by appropriate guidance, training and support. Otherwise, there is a risk that communities' expectations will be raised without councils having the practical ability to deliver the expected outcomes. In the short term, at least, it will be very much about managing those expectations.

Another important issue raised during Committee Stage scrutiny relates to historical and heritage buildings. Northern Ireland's built heritage is an asset that must be protected. In some cases, buildings may appear neglected but possess significant historical or architectural value. It is therefore essential that the new powers operate in such a way as to complement existing heritage protections and, where possible, to encourage restoration, rather than simply focusing on enforcement for its own sake.

Prevention should remain an important principle. While councils need effective powers to address the most serious cases, we should encourage engagement with owners at an early stage and seek voluntary compliance where possible. The best outcome is often the one that is achieved through cooperation rather than enforcement.

The case for reform is compelling. The Bill provides a long-overdue opportunity to replace outdated legislation with a modern framework that better serves communities, supports regeneration and helps councils to address persistent problems that have too often gone unresolved. No legislation is perfect, and the Committee's scrutiny has highlighted areas where safeguards, guidance and implementation arrangements will require careful attention. Those concerns should continue to inform the Assembly's consideration of the Bill. However, the principle underpinning the legislation is sound. Communities deserve protection from the blight caused by long-term dereliction and neglect, and councils deserve effective powers that are clear, workable and proportionate.

I do not wish to repeat too much more of what other Members have said. We are content to support Amendment Nos 1 to 32 and amendment Nos 34 and 36. Amendment No 33 is bureaucratic, unwieldy and, potentially, costly. The Bill proposes that councils be given discretionary powers to take the most appropriate action in the circumstances. Amendment No 33 is at odds with that. How a Department-appointed body or person would gather the necessary evidence to meet the obligation is not made clear. The number of buildings, structures and sites will be huge, but access issues are not made clear. How a structure will be established as being dangerous without a comprehensive survey is not made clear, and the reasons for having such an audit or review are not made clear. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support that amendment or, as a result, amendment No 35.

We are content with the requirement for individual registers to be kept that is set out in amendment No 34, as that is in keeping with other environmental legislation, and for the registers to be open for inspection if needs be. That ties in with the review that forms part of amendment No 32.

In conclusion, I thank the departmental officials, the witnesses, the Committee Clerk and the AERA Committee team, and, of course, the Bill Office for their work and support during the Bill's Committee Stage.

This has been an interesting process. It must be made clear at the outset that the legislation will be passed from the House to our 11 councils to operate. That is not an action without significant impact, as we have heard from other Members in the House today. That being the case, I have concerns that no extra resourcing will come from DAERA to our councils to assist them with the exercise of these functions.

I thank the Member for giving way. I do not, for a single moment, dispute the point that you made; it is a good and well-made point. However, in reality, subsection (2) of some of the first few clauses states that "the council may" exercise its powers. The Bill does not mean that a council must act. A council "may" act, and, if a council does not have the fiscal provision to do that, it is unlikely to do so. That is not to take away from our ambition to work with the Minister and the Executive to find the additional money that may be required. In reality, I think that some of this is being misrepresented. The legislation states that a council "may" act.

I thank the Member for his Intervention. He will appreciate that I came from a council quite recently — within the past six months. I have an affinity with my colleagues on Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough (ABC) Council — I know that one of them was on the Committee — and they said that they would very much like resources. The pressures on council resources are quite fresh in my mind. That is why I cannot not say that in the House. At times, a chasm exists between the House and councils that we should be working harder to bridge. The Bill is part of that process.

The process is now at this point, and the legislation will, hopefully, soon become another tool in the shed of our councils across Northern Ireland. It is clear that, around Northern Ireland, there are a high number of dilapidated buildings and structures — that almost goes without saying — and this is an attempt to enable councils to have more powers to deal with those types of structures.

The process involving the AERA Committee was considerable. It was a new experience for me as a new Member. It was interesting to scrutinise the legislation, taking it line by line and working through all the clauses and proposed amendments. That was an enlightening and enjoyable process for me.

I have raised concerns about the potential for duplication of legislation, and I point to the existing powers of the Department for Infrastructure. I raised that with the Minister recently in a question for written answer. His response made particular reference to article 51 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. He stated:

"As part of ongoing engagement with other departmental officials during the development of the Dilapidation Bill, no specific discussion took place between my officials and those from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) in relation to DfI’s powers under Article 51 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. Article 51 will continue to be available to DfI when the Dilapidation Bill is enacted. References to similar powers available to other departments and bodies will be highlighted in the forthcoming statutory guidance."

I recognise that, Minister, but, on that point, it is important to cite the article in the Order that relates to "Dangerous land adjoining roads". Article 51 states:

"If the Department"

— in this case, DFI —

"is of the opinion— (a) that a building, wall or other structure is in such a condition as to be dangerous to persons using a road; ... the Department may serve a notice on the owner of the structure or the owner or occupier of the land requiring him to carry out such works of repair, protection, removal, alteration or enclosure as will obviate the danger."

That is slightly concerning, given that, in my public representational role over the past 20 years, I have seen, on many occasions, a ping-pong approach between DFI and councils about who should deal with the dangers that are present on the edge of a public footpath or road. That is the main and clear domain of the Bill in attempting to refresh and update Laws that have not been changed in many years. I feel that, even with this legislation, there will still be that ping-pong approach between councils and DFI in the circumstances.

From looking at the Roads Order, I feel that there remains very much a responsibility on DFI to take action. Like the AERA Minister, I am not in favour of a system that provides escape routes for one section of government. He should have a conversation with his counterpart in DFI about that, as that responsibility should be reasonably shared. I would like the Minister to respond on that matter, either in the House or to me in writing.

Given that there are 11 councils, it is possible, if not most likely, that there will be 11 different responses to the legislation and 11 methods of applying the law. NILGA has taken a keen interest in the legislation, and rightly so. Its involvement with the Committee was very useful. The fact that extra sessions were organised with the Bill Office and departmental officials was important and, in my view, necessary. At Committee, I made the point that, when legislation such as this, which is to be administered by our councils, is being developed, councils must be heard fully. Our councils are at a tier of government that cannot be detached from this legislature. Legislation with the greatest buy-in that has been worked up with the widest possible slate of opinions has the greatest chance of success. That having been said, in coming to the Assembly with my experience in local government, I know that councils still have concerns with the legislation. It is because I recognise that that I am not in favour of Amendment Nos 33 or 35. I feel that they would place an even greater burden on our councils' already stretched resource requirements. As I said, I have an affinity with ABC Council and am acutely aware of the dilapidation issues that exist in the town and village centres in my Constituency.

The other amendments seek to streamline the legislation, and I understand their inclusion. It is important that amendment No 32 be progressed, as not to have a review mechanism for this significant legislation would be highly regrettable and lead to important points that councils would raise being missed, because, by the time of the review, the councils would have built up a considerable weight of experience. I therefore urge the Minister to resource the review properly to ensure that it is wide-ranging and encompasses fully the experience of all 11 councils. Indeed, should councils speak with one voice that a particular provision in the legislation has proven in practice to be ineffective, inefficient, too costly or not to have had the impact promised, I hope that the Minister will present with an attitude to adjust the legislation and ensure that the best possible legal outcomes are obtained for our councils.

I take the opportunity to thank everyone who played their part in creating and contributing to the Bill.

I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to make a winding-up speech.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Happy birthday to you. Others have said it, and I wanted to make sure that I did not omit doing so.

I forgot.

Did you forget, John?

I forgot, yes.

John shares in those wishes.

Thank you.

I thank Members for the debate and for raising the issues that they did. It is important that I put on record my thanks to the Committee for its deliberations. It was an extended Committee Stage, and good work was done in taking evidence from witnesses.

I will pick up on a couple of the issues that were raised during Consideration Stage. The Chair of the Committee raised a number of issues, one of which was how a council will recover its costs if an owner cannot be traced. Clause 12(2) 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 accordingly make such order".

As is the case for serving a notice under the Bill, the Department was keen to ensure that the range of persons from whom costs may be recovered is broad. Before deciding to recover costs from a particular person, it will be in order for a council to satisfy itself that it is appropriate to pursue that person for the costs. 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 costs to the public pursue and to preventing unscrupulous property owners from deriving financial benefit from letting buildings fall into disrepair.

Under the Bill as drafted, councils will have to use their judgement on a case-by-case basis to determine whether to begin enforcement proceedings if the likelihood of recovering costs is minimal. It is considered reasonable to assume that they will adopt an approach that does not put their finances at risk and that ensures that they maximise success in the interests of the ratepayer. The inability to trace an owner should not inhibit a council from carrying out the works itself. Owners or other persons of interest should and will be actively pursued. I am conscious of councils' desire for the legislation to work in an effort to improve and regenerate their areas, using a variety of methods. Those can include Land and Property Services searches, Companies House searches and section 16 information notices. Therefore, there are means to explore that.

In relation to the issues raised by Patsy McGlone during the debate on the engagement with the Department for Communities, I can confirm that, as was previously set out, the Department for Communities is working in partnership with the Department for Infrastructure and my Department on the Shaping Sustainable Places programme. The recently published responses to the consultation on that are useful to consider.

The Shaping Sustainable Places programme is a long-term, £150 million physical regeneration programme that aims to support the transformation of villages, towns and city centres across Northern Ireland, helping to deliver long-term benefits for places and the people who use them. The programme articulates a vision for maximising the limited budgets available for regeneration through focused, strategically aligned projects. The proposed programme would seek to deliver place-based regeneration and infrastructure interventions, which would be delivered by councils. It is intended that a final set of proposals will be brought forward for ministerial and Executive consideration in the coming months.

I understand that Patsy's contribution was part of an Intervention, but Daniel McCrossan referenced the Ulster University report of 2018. It was commissioned for my Department to establish the scale of the problem across all property types. While it attempted to place cost estimates under different scenarios for remediation costs, the fact is that the costs should, first and foremost, fall to those with a financial interest in a property. The Bill seeks to do that by including robust cost recovery provisions, including a charge on land, the power of sale and financial penalties. Hopefully, that sets that out.

In relation to the contributions from Áine Murphy and Sinn Féin's perspective, I recognise the broad support for the principles —. Sorry, it was Aoife. I am grateful for the support for the broad principles of the Bill. Hopefully, it will pass Consideration Stage, and we can move the Bill forward. I did state that I was disappointed and rather taken aback by the approach that has been outlined today. I first heard how Sinn Féin was likely to vote on the issue in the canteen yesterday. I hope that the Government of Northern Ireland can be better than that and that we can try to work through it. I was disappointed because I am very conscious of the report that came from the Committee, which, we understood, had been agreed unanimously in Committee. Therefore, I took that as an expressed position from all members on the Committee.

I have tried, and I set it out yesterday in Question Time and again today, to be very conscious of the concerns of local government. We have done significant engagement on that, and we are very clear —

Will the Minister give way?

Yes.

It is fair to say that we support the principle of the Bill, but if you would like to get feedback from Sinn Féin in the future, the canteen is probably not the place to get that feedback. Come to me directly, and we can outline that. Agreements were made in the Committee, but we had further discussion, and you had further discussion, and we had hoped that those changes could have been made to make the Bill workable. I hope that you will appreciate that.

I appreciate that, but I heard what your position was likely to be, and I reached out to the Chief Whip of your party to understand the position, and it has now been articulated today in the Chamber. I try to work with people to address their concerns. It is an Executive Bill. I am trying to understand the issue. It is Executive legislation, and we need to have trust to progress legislation in this place. We have diligently sought to try to address the concerns of local government, and statutory guidance will be published that will hopefully give the clarity that is required.

I am also conscious that the AERA Committee wrote back to SOLACE in response to recommendations made on 22 May. The Committee then gave detailed consideration and due diligence to all proposals submitted by NILGA, alongside the Department's responses, as set out in the Committee's report on the Bill. Whilst Committee members noted that not all of NILGA's proposed amendments had been taken forward by the Minister, the Committee was content with the rationale that the Department provided for not proceeding with those amendments. The report concludes by stating that the Committee made extensive efforts — I value those efforts — to facilitate and respond to stakeholder input, including accommodating late-stage evidence from NILGA and Building Control Northern Ireland. That included the organisation of dedicated round-table sessions involving departmental officials and Assembly Bill Office officials, which represented a significant and, in the Committee's view, proportionate response to the issues raised.

I understand the concerns, but if the Committee has done the work — I am grateful for that — and the Department carried out significant engagement as part of that, and we have reached Consideration Stage. I do not know what more I can do about concerns that have now been articulated at a late stage in this place, but, hopefully, we can move forward. We will have Further Consideration Stage and Final Stage. I do not agree with the Member —.

Will the Minister give way?

Yes.

As we move to Further Consideration Stage, will you commit to further engagement with NILGA?

I will be happy to engage, but I need to understand the particular request. I set out the role of the statutory guidance, which will be important. Hardwiring definitions into the primary legislation could make the Bill inoperable; we have to be conscious of that impact. In the Bill, we are trying to reflect practice in the rest of the UK and Ireland. We must be attuned to the fact that it is a discretionary power and that it is for councils to make the decision on whether to intervene. There will be a benefit to councils' rates base in bringing dilapidated buildings back into use. We have done the engagement. I am very keen to work with councils, because they will be at the coalface of delivering the legislation. Tom Buchanan asked whether we would continue to engage with local government, and we will, particularly on the statutory guidance. We want to work in partnership with local government so that its needs are reflected in the guidance. That is the best way forward, rather than putting definitions and terminology in the Bill. Gareth Wilson mentioned my engagement with the Department of Infrastructure on roads legislation. I am happy to write to the Member about that.

The legislation seeks to provide a flexible opportunity for councils to implement the legislation as they choose. It is a discretionary power for councils to use. I value Michelle McIlveen’s contribution, and I understand that the legislation has been in gestation for a long time. It is clear that, after the Bill is passed, it will be for councils to use the powers. There is a difference of opinion on the amendments that Daniel McCrossan proposed, and the House will make a decision on those. It has been a useful debate. I thank the Committee for its work on the Bill. Hopefully, we can move through the Consideration Stage and continue the Bill's passage.

Thank you, Minister.

Before we commence, I remind Members that Amendment No 27 is a paving amendment for amendment No 28, and amendment No 31 is a paving amendment for amendment No 34. Therefore, if Members are minded to support amendment Nos 28 and/or 34, they should consider supporting amendment Nos 27 and 31, as those are intended to be two packages.

Amendment No 1 agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 (Dilapidation notice)

Amendment No 2 made:

In page 2, line 41, at end insert "or relating to it being a heritage site". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 (Dangerous structure notice)

Amendment No 3 made:

In page 4, line 28, at end insert "or relating to it being a heritage site". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 (Defective premises notice)

Amendment No 4 made:

In page 7, line 4, leave out "in a defective state," and insert "in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance,". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 5 made:

In page 7, line 5, leave out "the defective state" and insert "the state". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 6 made:

In page 7, line 10, leave out from "and" to end of line 11. — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 7 made:

In page 7, line 12, leave out "(a 'defective premises notice')" and insert "an ('urgent abatement notice')". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 8 made:

In page 7, line 13, leave out "defective state" and insert "state". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 9 made:

In page 7, line 15, leave out "A defective premises notice" and insert "An urgent abatement notice". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 10 made:

In page 7, line 16, leave out "defective state" and insert "state". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 11 made:

In page 7, line 18, leave out "a defective state" and insert "such a state". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 12 made:

In page 7, line 21, leave out "a defective premises notice" and insert "an urgent abatement notice". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 13 made:

In page 7, line 22, leave out "defective state" and insert "state". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 14 made:

In page 7, line 24, leave out "a defective premises notice" and insert "an urgent abatement notice". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 15 made:

In page 7, line 26, leave out "defective premises notice" and insert "urgent abatement notice". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 16 made:

In page 7, line 34, leave out "defective premises notice" and insert "urgent abatement notice". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 17 made:

In page 7, line 38, leave out "in a defective state" and insert "in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 18 made:

In page 7, line 40, leave out "defective state" and insert "state". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 (Costs of district council)

Amendment No 19 made:

In page 8, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘"(4) Where the steps taken by a council under section 10(2) consist of or include—

(a) fencing off the building, or

(b) arranging for it to be watched,

the costs that may be recovered under subsection (1) include the costs that the council incurs in the fencing or in the making of the arrangements.

(4A) But subsection (4) does not permit the recovery of costs relating to any period—

(a) after the danger has been removed by the steps taken by the council (unless it is the fencing or the arrangements that remove the danger), or

(b) if an order has been made under section 7 for the purpose of removing the danger, after the order has been complied with or has been executed under section 9(2).". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 20 made:

In page 8, line 30, leave out "(defective premises notice)" and insert "(urgent abatement notice)". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 21 made:

In page 8, line 35, leave out "defective premises notice" and insert "urgent abatement notice". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 (Information)

Amendment No 22 made:

In page 10, line 19, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

"(1) Subject to subsection (2), a district council may serve on any person a notice requiring the person to give to the council, within a period or at times specified in the notice and in a form so specified, any information so specified which the council reasonably considers that it needs for the purposes of any function conferred on the council by this Act.

(2) The Department may by regulations make provision for restricting the information that may be required under subsection (1) and for determining the form in which the information is to be so required.". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 (Consultation with planning department)

Amendment No 23 made:

In page 11, line 12, at beginning insert "For the purposes of this Act,". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 24 made:

In page 11, line 23, at beginning insert "For the purposes of this Act,". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 (Power of entry)

Amendment No 25 made:

In page 12, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

"(2) The power under this section (except in an emergency) is exercisable only—

(a) with the consent of the occupier, or

(b) in accordance with subsection (3A).". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 26 made:

In page 12, line 11, at end insert—

"(3A) If it is shown to the satisfaction of a lay magistrate on complaint on oath—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for entering any land for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1)(a) to (e), and

(b) that admission to the land has been refused, or a refusal is reasonably apprehended,

the lay magistrate may issue a warrant authorising an authorised officer of a district council to enter the land (if need be by force).

(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A)(b), admission to land shall be regarded as having been refused if no reply is received to a request for admission within a reasonable period.

(3C) A warrant authorises entry on one occasion only and that entry must be—

(a) within one month from the date of the issue of the warrant, and

(b) at a reasonable time.". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 (Fixed penalty)

Amendment No 27 made:

In page 12, line 34, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (2A),". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 28 made:

In page 12, line 36, at end insert—

"(2A) Payment of a fixed penalty in relation to an offence under section 3(2) discharges liability for conviction in respect of failure to comply with a maintenance notice up to the date of payment of the fixed penalty (but if the person continues to fail to comply with the maintenance notice after having paid the fixed penalty, does not affect any criminal liability for continuing failure to comply with the maintenance notice after that date).". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 (Notices)

Amendment No 29 made:

In page 13, line 29, after "under" insert "the same provision of this Act or under" — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 (Other definitions)

Amendment No 30 made:

In page 15, line 25, leave out "(defective premises notice)" and insert "(urgent abatement notice)" — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Amendment No 31 proposed:

In page 15, line 31, at end insert—

"(6) 'District electoral are' has the meaning given in the District Electoral Areas (Northern Ireland) Order 2014." — [Mr McCrossan.]

Question put.

Some Members:

Aye.

Some Members:

No.

I want to make sure that Members understand what they are voting on.

Question, That the Amendment be made, put a second time and agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Amendment No 32 made:

After clause 28 insert—

"Review of Act

28A—(1) The Department must—

(a) not later than 3 years after the commencement of this section, and

(b) at least once in every 5 year period thereafter,

review, and publish a report on, the implementation of this Act,

(2) Regulations made by the Department under this section must set out the terms of the review.". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Amendment No 33 proposed:

After clause 28 insert—

"Periodic review of dilapidated buildings, dangerous structures and neglected sites

28A.—(1) The Department must appoint such person or body as it considers appropriate to conduct a review of the prevalence of—

(a) dilapidated buildings;

(b) dangerous structures; and

(c) neglected sites,

in Northern Ireland, broken down by district council.

(2) Regulations made by the Department under this section must set out the terms of the review.

(3) The Department must ensure that—

(a) the first review under this section is completed within 3 years and before the commencement of the first review of the Act under Section 28A, [inserted by Amendment 32]

(b) following the completion of the first review under this section, the Department must carry out subsequent reviews at intervals of no more than 10 years.

(4) As soon as reasonably practicable after completing a review under this section, the Department must—

(a) prepare a report setting out the findings of the review; and

(b) lay a copy of that report before the Assembly.". — [Mr McCrossan.]

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 8; Noes 68

AYES

Mr Beattie, Mr Gaston, Ms Hunter, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McNulty, Ms Sugden

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McGlone, Mr McNulty

NOES

Mr Allen, Dr Archibald, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dodds, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Dunne, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Mrs Erskine, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gildernew, Mr Givan, Mrs Guy, Mr Harvey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mrs Long, Mr Lyons, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Miss McIlveen, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mr Martin, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mrs Middleton, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Reilly, Mr Robinson, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Wilson

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Honeyford, Mr McMurray

Ms Ennis acted as a proxy for Miss Brogan.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause

Amendment No 34 made:

After clause 28 insert—

"Accessible register of action taken under this Act

28A.—(1) A district council must establish, maintain and publish in a manner that is accessible to the public, a register of action taken under this Act.

(2) The register must include—

(a) details on any notices, orders, or enforcement action taken under this Act;

(b) the district electoral area of each entry on the register;

(c) a description of the condition giving rise to inclusion on the register;

(d) the date of inclusion on the register; and

(e) updates relating to remediation, compliance or removal from the register.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) precludes a district council from including such other matters as it may deem necessary on the register.

(4) The Department may by regulations—

(a) prescribe additional information to be included on the register;

(b) specify reporting requirements for district councils; and

(c) make further provision for the publication, maintenance and review of the register.". — [Mr McCrossan.]

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I will not call Amendment No 35 as it is consequential to amendment No 33, which was not made.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 (Fixed Penalties)

Amendment No 36 made:

In page 19, line 4, at beginning insert "Subject to section 19(2A),". — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.