I call the Minister for Communities, Mr Gordon Lyons, to move the Consideration Stage of the Defective Premises Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities).]

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the single amendment for debate. The amendment will be debated under the group headed:

"Defective materials, products and design features etc."

I remind Members that, once the debate on the group is completed, the Questions on the amendment and clauses stand part will be put. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

We now come to the single amendment for debate. I call Daniel McCrossan to move the amendment.

I beg to move the following amendment:

After clause 1 insert -

"Defective materials, products and design features etc.

1A. In the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 after Article 4 insert?—

'Defective materials, products and design features etc.

4B.—(1) The Department may, by regulations, specify?—

(a) particular building materials;

(b) particular building products;

(c) structural design features; and

(d) any other construction details as the Department may consider appropriate,

which are likely to give rise to a cause of action under Article 3 [or Article 4A].

(2) The Department shall have due regard to the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, and guidance published under those Regulations, when specifying any materials, products, features or other construction details under paragraph (1).

(3) An action shall not be deemed to fail solely on the grounds that the premises in question does not feature a material, product, feature or other detail specified in regulations made under paragraph (1).

(4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to other considerations the court may deem relevant in the determination of an action under this Order.

(5) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.

(6) Before any regulations are laid before the Assembly, the Department shall lay a report with the Assembly detailing the factors which will inform the content of the regulations.'."

As outlined in a contribution to the Second Stage debate, this is not the way in which we prefer to do business. Accelerated passage is not the most appropriate way for legislators to consider legislation that will have a direct impact on the lives of our citizens. It is right and proper that we go through the accountability and scrutiny mechanisms that are there. On this occasion, the Committee process was bypassed. That said, we recognise the importance of the Bill. Although we have some concerns, we recognise the importance of aligning with the legislation that is in place for the rest of the UK. We also recognise that that should have been done some time ago. That said, there are wider issues here in Northern Ireland, and there will potentially be further issues down the line with defective materials, products and design features. In the amendment, we allow some protection for those who may be affected. As the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum explains, there is significant disparity between Northern Ireland and England and Wales on the limitation periods for legal action where a building is shown to be defective. That is why the Minister introduced the Bill.

The purpose of the amendment is to address a particular gap in the Bill's provisions. At the outset, I emphasise that the amendment is Bill-friendly. By that, I mean that it does not interfere with the Bill's purposes: it imposes no direct burden on the Department, as the new clause is an enabling one that gives the Department permissive rather than prescriptive powers; it places no financial burden on the Department; and it is designed, in the spirit of the Bill, to extend its support a little wider. Members will notice that the amendment does not alter a single word of the Bill as laid but is constructed as an additional clause. That is my deliberate choice, to ensure that the Bill's overarching intentions are unaltered.

I am sure that all Members are aware of the horror stories that have emanated from places such as Donegal, Mayo and other counties across the island of Ireland concerning the shocking effects of defective building materials, including mica, pyrite and reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC), on domestic premises. This affects not just domestic premises. There is every sign that various aspects of all infrastructure have been affected as a result of those defective materials. Young families have been left devastated as their homes cracked from bottom to top and leaked water, making them very difficult to live in and, in some instances, dangerous because they were literally falling down around them. It has also affected more mature couples, whose life savings, which they had put into building their dream homes, have disappeared overnight.

In this instance, there is huge concern, particularly in border constituencies, that the issues that we have seen play out in Donegal and in other counties across Ireland will affect people here. I get the sense that people are reluctant to come forward because there is no mechanism to support them — no real advice is available — and there is huge fear as a result of what they have seen in Donegal. Here is a map of the border counties that are affected. There are 5,700 homes affected by those defective materials. If we look at the map, we can see the border, which shows clearly why there is huge concern that defective materials have undoubtedly appeared in homes across my constituency of West Tyrone, the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and across Derry and beyond.

At some stage in the not-too-distant future, people will start to come forward, as some already have. In my constituency, a young family was affected. Their dreams were shattered, and their house was left in a terrible state of disrepair. They do not know where to turn to, and they cannot get advice or support. They believe that the future looks quite bleak when it comes to getting any support. In my colleagues' constituency of Foyle, we have seen families speak out as well, and we believe that there are examples right across the entirety of Northern Ireland and Ireland, North and South. The use of defective building materials will have a huge impact on people's mental health, as will their concerns about how the issue can be dealt with. Although the situation has happened as a result of the use of defective building materials and, for a long time, there seemingly being no fit-for-purpose remedy to the unfolding disaster, as I have previously stated in the Assembly, it is inconceivable that such defective building materials are to be found on only one side of the border. It is surely not a matter of whether they will be found but rather when they will be found, and to what extent. The amendment would enable the Assembly and the Department to be ready.

I seek to extend the legal protections that the Bill provides to situations that previous experience tells us are likely to emerge in our jurisdiction. I appreciate that the Minister intends to bring a more substantive Bill to the House in the future and that its provisions may afford a remedy to the matters to which I draw Members' attention. Introducing such a Bill is some time off, however, particularly given the pace of movement in the Assembly and the uncertainty, which was very clear in the past, over whether this place will function. When an issue is foreseeable and a remedy is at hand, why would we not put plans for it in place today? The point of the amendment is to put protections in place today so that it readies the Department to act. I therefore urge the Assembly to support the amendment and its genuine intention.

I appreciate the Member's giving way. I hope that he understands my sincerity in asking this question: what does he believe that the legal effect of the amendment would be? The building materials that he is talking about are already covered under building regulations. He wants the Department to specify a list of materials, but he is not making that list exclusive, and there is already a legislative remedy. The point of a Bill is to change the law, and the amendment does not appear to me to achieve any substantial legal effect, so what is the point of it?

I will put it this way: if the House or the Department finds itself in a similar situation with the scale of the number of homes affected, the Minister will not be asking, "What is the point?". The reality is that, in response to such a situation, people will be asking, "What are you doing about it?". The amendment would put in place regulations to specify areas that the Department must consider in order to protect those who may be affected as a result of defective building materials.

Will the Member give way?

I will finish my point. The Minister said that the matter is already covered by regulations. Those regulations sit with the Department of Finance, as the Minister knows. In fact, it was only this week that the Minister did not even believe that it was a devolved matter, as far as I remember. Hopefully, he has sought clarification on that since.

The legal advice that I obtained believes that the amendment would in no way have any effect on the Bill's current clauses. That is my view. I do not believe that it would in any way interfere with what is laid out in the Minister's Bill. The reality at the centre of the matter is this: homes across Northern Ireland will undoubtedly be affected by defective building materials. At this juncture, we can ensure that we put in place mechanisms that will allow people to seek help where they can. It also will prepare the Department and, indeed, the Executive for dealing with the issue. Does the Minister want in?

I appreciate the Member's giving way, but, with respect, he has not answered the question of what legal effect the amendment would have. He is not creating an exclusive list of materials and saying, "It must be under this". He is saying, "Here is a list. I want you to go out and think of all the materials that can come into it". His amendment says that a material not being on the list does not preclude action being taken. He acknowledges in his amendment that the regulations exist. His proposed new paragraph 4B(2) states:

"The Department shall have due regard to the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979".

That is entirely covered. You are bringing nothing new to the table; the amendment has no legal effect.

I thank the Minister for that intervention. We are providing clarification, because, in reality, throughout the process, as is typical of how the DUP and, indeed, Sinn Féin have done government in the past, there has been no proper scrutiny of important legislation that will have unintended consequences. It is ironic that the Minister has concerns about the legal implications of an amendment — a positive amendment — to a Bill that has not received the scrutiny that it should and must receive. No lessons have been learnt from legislation previously brought through the House, even though there were clear warnings and signals at that point —.

Will the Member give way, for scrutiny of his amendment?

The Minister has said enough. He did not want to take advice in Committee. Some Executive Ministers want to take advice only when it suits them. They wanted to bypass the Committee Stage of this legislation and avoid due scrutiny of the Bill. I could go into the intricacies of the legal advice received and the concerns about the legislation, of which the Minister will be well aware, as he will be aware of the concerns expressed by various stakeholders and witnesses about the Minister's pace in getting it through the House.

The Minister should understand that, with great caution, we support the Bill, but we are raising considerable concern about it. If the Minister wants to ensure that there is as wide a net as possible to protect people who are affected by defective premises, and if mica, RAAC and pyrite are in the homes of people in Tyrone, Donegal and Derry, the Minister would do well to remember his words in the House today. If he supports the amendment, at least he can say that he was ahead of the ball, which is not something that can be said very often of the DUP, let alone the Executive.

I put to the House this important amendment. The reach, if I may describe it that way, of the amendment is contained in paragraph 4B(1), sub-paragraphs (a) to (d). Those provisions enable the Department to specify by regulation, as the Minister has pointed out, deficiencies that could give cause for action, and they will greatly strengthen the hand of anyone seeking redress through the courts.

I regret not being able to speak to colleagues in other parties before today about the amendment, particularly those on the Communities Committee, of which I am a member. The use of accelerated passage made that impossible, and the timing was challenging. However, I can provide a measure of assurance by noting that the Bill Office was very helpful. Indeed, the Bill Office has provided invaluable advice and support to enable me to draft this important amendment with appropriate wording and to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Members will note that the Department, in taking action by making regulations, is required to "have due regard" to our existing building regulations and that those new regulations:

"may not be made unless a draft of the regulation has been laid before and approved by ... the Assembly."

As I indicated earlier, I know that these building regulations are under the responsibility of the Department of Finance and some cross-departmental working between Executive Ministers will be required — something that, again, does not happen as much as it should. Furthermore, a report must be provided to the Assembly:

"detailing the factors which will inform the content of the regulations."

The measures ensure that the Committee for Communities and, indeed, the Assembly can scrutinise developments in future. I trust that those "safety features" — that is what I describe them as — will give the Assembly enough confidence in the amendment to support it. If we in Northern Ireland are affected to the same extent as homeowners across Ireland, we will face a major crisis. I do not say that my amendment saves the day, but it lays a clear pathway for people who are affected to seek support and action where appropriate.

In reality, for the past number of years, in the time that the House has been sitting, I have written to multiple Ministers of each relevant Department, asking what they are doing to help to identify traces of pyrite, RAAC and mica in homes across Northern Ireland.

I received a very blunt, one-line response to say, "I have no knowledge of it". It is a partitionist mentality that believes those materials did not cross the border, and, indeed, it is arrogant to assume that no other quarry has manufactured products that may be defective and affecting homes across Northern Ireland.

Have any lessons been learned on this side of the border from how the crisis in the South unfolded that left 5,700 families in dire circumstances? The Minister is far away from Tyrone, but when the chickens come home to roost, as I believe they will, the House had better be ready, because it will be a huge crisis. Closing your eyes and blocking your ears will not resolve what, potentially, could be on the track. The amendment is positive; it adds protections for people who are affected or potentially will be affected, right across the North of Ireland.

The reality is that I have already heard about and visited multiple affected homes. People's concern is that there is no support, Stormont is not listening — if it is even functioning at various points — and if they are in that situation, what are they going to do and where will they turn? The only authority that I have seen take any action is Derry City and Strabane District Council, which allowed people to come forward and register concern if they believed that their home was affected. That is the only positive action that I have seen during a crisis that is five minutes from my doorstep, where thousands of people’s homes and dreams have been destroyed.

If the House chooses to ignore what potentially could be a huge crisis, it will reap the consequences, but if we get ahead of the ball and start reaching out to identify the number of homes that are, or potentially will be, affected, we can mitigate what could be a disaster for public finances in Northern Ireland but also for homeowners right across Northern Ireland. This is here; people need to recognise it. The scale of it will only be determined in the future, but the Departments and the Executive need to be conscious that there is a very serious problem down the line.

Every individual or family has a right to a safe, secure home that is suitable for their needs and of a decent standard. We have a duty to ensure that no one is left behind. As discussed in our contributions, our support for the Bill is primarily due to the need to address the existing legislative disparities that face residents here and to ensure that we provide a workable avenue for those seeking legal redress. It is based on assurances from the Minister and the Department that the Bill is effective, proportionate and fit for purpose, and that he is cognisant of the concerns raised with him to date. That is of particular importance, given the use of accelerated passage and the absence of the Committee Stage. The Committee Stage is often an important forum to discuss potential amendments to a Bill, such as that debated today. Accelerated passage is not and should not be the norm to progress legislation. However, in this instance, an immediate remedy is required for affected residents and homeowners.

The proposed amendment gives the Department the power to make regulations specifying particular building materials, products, design features and any other construction details that it considers are likely to give rise to a cause of action. While, in principle, that seems positive, I also note the Minister's comments during the Second Stage debate when he stated:

"It is intended that the legislation will offer owners the opportunity for legal recourse if defective materials have rendered a premises defective." — [Official Report (Hansard), 3 June 2024, p64, col 2].

I want the Minister to clarify today whether "defective materials" is sufficiently included in the current Bill. Ultimately, we want to support affected residents and homeowners to ensure parity with limitation periods elsewhere and to provide an avenue to seek legal redress for defective premises.

We also recognise that it is imperative that we make continuous improvements in respect of building safety and standards. Further work is urgently needed regarding the development of a wider building safety Bill here. That will assist us in supporting the built environment industry and building control professionals to achieve only the highest standards of safety and accountability.

I welcome the Bill's Consideration Stage. As has been mentioned, accelerated passage is not the ideal mechanism, but it is necessary, given the concerns that have necessitated expediency on the issue.

I concur with the Member who spoke previously and the Deputy Chair of the Communities Committee. We want to see a more fulsome Bill come forward, but we are aware of the limitations of the mandate. It is something that my colleagues and I will push for as we proceed, because we want to see the fulsome address of our building regulations.

We will not support the amendment. We understand that the intention behind it is to enhance the safety and quality of buildings, but significant issues could be unintended. The proposed clause grants the Department the authority to specify particular building materials, products and design features through regulations. That broad, sweeping power raises several concerns. We are at risk of creating a more rigid and overly prescriptive regulatory environment. Protection is already present in the Building Regulations (NI) Order. Additionally, there are some concerns around the amendment adding any substantial value to the Bill. It prescribes for actions already covered in existing duty provisions in article 3.

The proposed clause mandates the Department to consider existing building regulations but does not adequately mitigate the potential for conflict and confusion. It just adds another layer of specifications that could lead to inconsistencies. My party and I believe that the Bill has to be enacted swiftly to address the urgent issues at hand to achieve parity with England and Wales.

I thank the Member for giving way. She outlines that the amendment could pose unintended consequences in its legal effect. Does she agree with me that the Bill, through accelerated passage, will have significant unintended consequences, of which we are well warned?

I thank the Member for his intervention. I have said that accelerated passage is not the preferred method or mechanism for doing this business. However, I am aware that the expediency with which we have to put the Bill in place necessitates this approach. I understand where the Member is coming from.

I want to emphasise that my opposition to the amendment does not come from a disregard for people's safety and the well-being of our residents. On the contrary: I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that every home in Northern Ireland is safe and secure, and I cannot even begin to imagine the experiences of those who live in defective premises. They cannot be overlooked or minimised. Those individuals or families have only one place that they call home, and it is our duty to protect them immediately, which is why I support the expediency that is afforded by the Bill.

While the proposed amendment to the Bill is well-intentioned, it presents significant challenges and risks. We have to strive for a solution that protects residents from defective buildings, and, by opposing the amendment, we can ensure that the Bill progresses quickly and effectively, addressing the urgent needs of our residents without unnecessary complication.

At this point, I do not intend to restate the comments that I made in the accelerated passage debate and at Second Stage. They are on the public record and available for people to read.

I turn to the amendment. We believe that, in seeking to specify defective materials, products and design features, the proposed amendment to the Defective Premises Bill is not necessary. The current law already mandates that the construction work be performed in a workmanlike or professional manner, using proper materials, ensuring that the dwelling is fit for habitation upon completion. It is our view that that requirement inherently includes the use of safe and appropriate materials and design features. We are of the view that the existing legislation covers the aspects that the amendment intends to cover. During the Second Stage debate, the Member opposite highlighted concerns about specific building materials, and many across the House share those concerns and echoed them today. I assume that that, as he stated, is what he is attempting to capture in the amendment. The Minister stated during the Second Stage debate that the Bill:

"provides more time to hold to account those responsible for building the house or carrying out work on it, in order to ensure that the work is of the highest quality and is done using the best materials for the job." — [Official Report (Hansard), 3 June 2024, p58, col 2].

I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wishes to clarify whether there is a necessity to specify defective materials, products and design features by regulation in order to enhance the level of protection that is provided.

I am happy to clarify to the Member and the Deputy Chair that that is not necessary, because the existing regulations cover those and they do not need to be specifically identified in order for that action to be taken. Where a material, product or structural design is known to lead to defective premises, there are already legislative solutions in place to restrict or even deny its use, namely, part B of the materials and workmanship section of the building regulations.

I thank the Minister for that clarity. That was our interpretation. I would have liked the opportunity to engage with the Member more broadly in order to scope that out. Indeed, as other Members said, it would have been preferential to have had the opportunity, notwithstanding what I said during the accelerated passage debate, to explore some of those aspects during Committee Stage, but that was not the case, as per the will of the House. On that, I will end my comments.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm, when we will have Question Time. The debate will resume immediately after Question Time.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.57 pm.

On resuming (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ní Chuilín] in the Chair) —