Gordon Lyons
East Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Implementing other recommendations will require further legislation that, I trust, will come in the next mandate, but I can confirm that 60 of the recommendations have already been separately addressed by either the Department or the commission. I hope that that answers his questions.”
“Yes, I do and am happy to share those. The issue has been raised in the Chamber and through Assembly questions. My position is that we want to make it simple and straightforward for people.”
“They also introduce greater flexibility in financial reporting, allowing requirements to be tailored more appropriately, reducing burdens on smaller organisations and ensuring that the system can adapt over time through secondary legislation.”
“If they want to constitute as a Northern Ireland-only charity, they are able to do that, if they believe that that will bring certain benefits.”
“That is similar to what we are trying to do with trustees. Even though you leave your position as a trustee or your position as someone who holds an office in a charity or who has employment in the office, the commissioner will still be able to make a determination that says, "Even though you have left, we are still making this order to t…”
“I do not believe that it was. That was maybe picked up wrong. We are happy to look at and explore that, but that is the information that I have on it. Again, we will have the Committee Stage of the legislation, so we can look into that then.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,903 lines we hold for Gordon Lyons, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 64 of 119.
“Absolutely not. We considered all those issues. We engaged and listened to the concerns that were expressed. Ultimately, it is not for me but for the courts to decide whether somebody is liable. We are allowing that process to take place in line with what happens in England and Wales. <BR /> <BR />As I was saying, we are approaching the legislation in the right way. I sincerely thank Assembly colleagues for the constructive way in which they have approached it. It is good for the people of Northern Ireland, but it is only the start of the work that we need to do on building safety. I look forward to continuing that work, and I hope that we can continue in the vein in which we have been working over the past few months. I commend the Bill to the House.”
“We have not fought too much, Mr McCrossan. We have not squabbled too much. We have had —.”
“Mr O'Toole said that we in this place are sometimes accused of having a silo mentality: over the past months, through this work, that silo mentality has not been on display. The existing disparity was brought to our attention, and that could have been argued back and forth. At the start of the process, my Department had zero responsibility for the issue, but we worked with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. We came to an agreement about how we could take it forward, we got agreement at the Executive, and we worked together well in the House. That does not always happen. I sincerely thank the parties across the Chamber that have worked constructively on the issue. I hope that that will continue, because these are important issues for the people of Northern Ireland.”
“In one of those cases, an architect was found to be liable, owing to a failure to satisfy the conditions of the contract on ensuring the quality of the builder's work. I hope that that addresses the Member's point. <BR /> <BR />As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill acts as an important first stage in a wider, substantive piece of work to create a new residential building safety environment in Northern Ireland. I look forward to bringing that important work to the House in due course. The Bill will address the unfair disparity in legal protections regarding defective premises in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I thank everyone involved for their time and effort in progressing the Bill.”
“As we have already outlined, the Defective Premises Order sets a high bar for plaintiffs wishing to pursue an action. They must show not only that there is a defect but that the defect has rendered the dwelling uninhabitable. They must also demonstrate to the court that the architect in question has contributed to the property's being uninhabitable. A defendant may, of course, produce evidence to rebut any such claims. <BR /> <BR />My officials have been able to find only three cases in the past 48 years in Northern Ireland in which the plaintiff cited the 1975 Order, none of which involved an architect. Further afield, four cases in England and Wales were identified that cited the Defective Premises Act 1972.”
“The protection that he is looking for is already in there, because it is not just about poor workmanship, as poor building materials also fall under the legislation. <BR /> <BR />I think that I have addressed most of the other issues that were raised. I welcome the support of the Deputy Chair of the Committee and Mr Kingston for the Bill, and I agree with Ms Mulholland that there is a wider piece of work to be done. There will be continued engagement, and I fully agree with what she said about its importance. <BR /> <BR />On Mr O'Toole's remarks, he was not in the Chamber when I said it, but I am happy to repeat that the legislation is intended to capture ongoing cases brought using the Defective Premises Order, including cases that are under appeal.”
“I am happy for the leader of the Opposition to make an intervention if he needs to declare an interest at this point. <BR /> <BR />I can confirm that the Bill does not amend the scope of the original duties set out in the 1975 Order. Nothing in the Bill would prevent a builder or designer from taking a separate action under contract law against a supplier or manufacturer that has provided defective products. I am not able to make a judgement on individual cases that the Member brings up, even if they are hypothetical. I simply set out what the legislation will do, and I hope that that will bring the Member some comfort and that there is an understanding of why the amendment that he proposed was not made. We did not believe that it added anything to the Bill.”
“I do not intend to go over that all again, but I confirm to the Member that the legislation provides opportunities for homeowners to seek redress from any workperson who has taken on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling or the carrying-out of major work on a dwelling that is subsequently deemed to be uninhabitable due to poor workmanship or poor building materials. That does not change what is in the existing Order that I quoted in the previous debates.”
“<BR /> <BR />The other issue that the Member for West Tyrone raised was the idea that there is a fundamental misunderstanding among MLAs or those in my Department about what the legislation does. I hope that, through a number of debates, I have made it clear that we all have an understanding of exactly what it is for and what we are trying to do. <BR /> <BR />The Member raised another issue about defective materials. I stand by what I said at Consideration Stage.”
“In February, prior to introducing the legislation, officials invited all interested stakeholders in the industry to an event where they stated that the future legislation would closely mirror the Building Safety Act 2022; indeed, industry officials expressed a desire to see parity, because they work across different jurisdictions. That engagement has taken place, but, importantly, when further aspects of the Building Safety Act are brought in here through the further work my Department intends to do, there will be close engagement with the industry at official and ministerial level. I hope that that goes some way to addressing the concerns that Mr Allen also raised.”
“We talked about that at previous stages, but I am happy to outline to Members the fact that the Department has engaged, albeit not always at ministerial level, with the following stakeholders: the Office for Product Safety and Standards; UK Finance; the RSUA; the Committee for Communities; the Attorney General for Northern Ireland; the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DHLUC) and Departments in other jurisdictions; the Building Safety Regulator; residents and residents' groups; practitioners and industry professionals; the Office of the Legislative Counsel; the Departmental Solicitor's Office; and Ulster Garden Villages. <BR /> <BR />I am also aware that RSUA representatives appeared in front of the Committee, and, as I said, my officials met them about the concerns they raised.”
“<BR /> <BR />Secondly, the Member made the point that we will not be afforded the same protections as those in England under the Building Safety Act 2022. The Bill introduces the same liability period, prospectively and retrospectively, as currently exists in England and Wales. That will ensure that our citizens are afforded the same protections as their counterparts. It is important, however, that we note that the legislation is only a small part of a much wider suite of legislation on which my officials are currently working that will further match the protections provided to citizens in England and Wales under the Building Safety Act 2022. That will further reduce the disparity that exists. <BR /> <BR />Comments were made about how the Department has responded to those who are interested and the engagement process overall.”
“There is no evidence to suggest that applicants to the cladding safety scheme in England have been disadvantaged by the introduction of the corresponding legislation in England. There is no evidence locally to suggest that residents of affected buildings will be disadvantaged in Northern Ireland, because the cladding safety scheme rightly requires applicants to demonstrate that they have exhausted potential avenues for redress, including through insurance companies, developers or builders, prior to being granted access to funding. The legislation helps to ensure that those avenues are appropriately explored and exhausted before grant funding is made available to applicants. That will make sure that public money is not used to remediate buildings in cases where a private organisation should be liable and accountable.”
“It is certainly not improper for us to do this in this way. Standing Orders provide for legislation to be taken through in certain circumstances. As I have said in the Chamber before, I agree that it is not always the ideal way or the preferred way to do business, but I strongly argue against the Member's remark that it is not a proper way to do business. <BR /> <BR />I thank Mr McCrossan, however, for bringing to the attention of the House some of the comments that have been made by the RSUA, and it is important that we address those today. The first issue that the Member raised was the potential disadvantage to citizens in Northern Ireland when it comes to the cladding safety scheme. It is important to note that the cladding safety scheme is the same scheme as is offered in England.”
“I thank everyone who has contributed to the important debates at each stage of the Bill's passage through the Assembly. I have listened carefully and will take the opportunity to respond to a number of the points that have been made. <BR /> <BR />First, I have to take issue with the first thing that Mr McCrossan said. He said:”
“I hope that all parties can give the Bill their full support today, and I commend it to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />I suggest that any increase in costs or the challenge to our construction industry must be considered and measured in the context of costs and suffering that have already been borne by some of our citizens and the cost and pain and potential loss of life that the legislation will help to prevent. The Bill represents an important first stage of a wider substantive piece of work to create a new building safety environment in Northern Ireland, and that will, of course, be subject to extensive and formal consultation. Subject to the Assembly passing the Bill today, it will come into effect on the day after Royal Assent. It will address the unfair disparity in legal protections that currently exists regarding defective premises in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given that claims are so infrequent, my officials have been liaising with their counterparts in the UK and have begun work to prevent insurance companies unfairly profiteering from construction professionals as a result of the legislation, in much the same way as they have done to protect residents of high-rise buildings from extortionate insurance costs while their buildings are being remediated from unsafe cladding. My officials will continue to maintain close liaison with colleagues in other jurisdictions to monitor that position.”
“In lieu of extensive engagement at this stage, in order to determine how the Bill might impact on our local construction industry, my officials have looked to England and Wales, as the same provisions have been in effect there for two years. Indeed, many of our local industry's construction professionals have been operating for the past two years across jurisdictions under those provisions. Whilst I am aware that this legislation is likely to impact on the cost of insurance products, such as professional indemnity for designers, I also understand that the industry in England and Wales has been adapting to those challenges for the past two years. However, I stress that there has been no evidence in England and Wales of a significant increase in claims arising under the new legislation during that time.”
“Simply put, claims arising as a result of homes becoming uninhabitable under defective premises legislation are rare indeed, not because the existing legislation is irrelevant or there is only a six-year liability period but rather, I would suggest, because of the quality of the local construction industry and that of our design professionals. That is evidenced by the fact that we simply do not frequently see homes being deemed uninhabitable in Northern Ireland.”
“Additionally, we are all too aware, as a result of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, of the potential risk to human life when it goes disastrously wrong. <BR /> <BR />To put the potential impact of the Bill on the construction industry into perspective, it should be said that, on the whole, the Northern Ireland construction industry is hallmarked by its resilience and the quality of the work that it delivers. As a consequence, situations as highlighted by the current High Court case are, thankfully, the exception. In fact, in Northern Ireland, there have been only three cases in the nearly 50 years of the legislation being in place that cite the 1975 Order.”
“In bringing the Bill forward, I have carefully considered the representations made by industry practitioners and weighed them against the potential human cost to owners of defective premises in terms of financial hardship, mental anguish and the potential to prevent loss of life. <BR /> <BR />The legislation is not being introduced with the intention of targeting an industry but with the ultimate aim of protecting homeowners in the rare instances where things go wrong. By way of example, the ongoing High Court case has highlighted the fact that the costs associated with defective premises can and, indeed, have run into the many millions of pounds. The overall cost, of course, does not take into account any detrimental impact on the owner's health and well-being.”
“It is important to note that this legislation is only a small part of a much wider suite of legislation that my officials are working on that will further match the protection provided to citizens in England and Wales under the Building Safety Act 2022. That will reduce even further the disparity between here and other jurisdictions with regard to residential building safety and will ultimately further strengthen and support the protections available to Northern Ireland's citizens. <BR /> <BR />While the urgency demanded by the legislation did not permit extensive engagement across industry, I assure Members that my officials will engage comprehensively with all relevant stakeholders on the much larger body of work associated with residential building safety.”
“The Bill ensures that citizens in Northern Ireland are afforded the same opportunity as those in England and Wales to address defects that have caused their homes to be uninhabitable. The Executive recognised the urgent need to address the disparity that currently exists and close the gap between the privileges enjoyed in England and Wales and those afforded to our citizens. It was for that reason that I undertook to introduce the legislation at the earliest possible opportunity and requested accelerated passage. <BR /> <BR />I am aware, as are other Members, of the concerns raised by the local construction industry about the potential impact of the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill will amend the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 and the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and will extend the duty to cover works done in relation to an existing building. The Bill will amend the Limitation Order in respect of the time periods in which action may be taken in Northern Ireland when defects occur in dwellings or in buildings that contain dwellings. It will extend the limitation period in which legal action may be brought from the current six years to 15 years prospectively and to 30 years retrospectively. <BR /> <BR />The proposed legislation is intended to capture cases brought using the Defective Premises Order that are ongoing, including those that are under appeal.”
“I begin by thanking the Executive, the Committee for Communities and Members for their cross-party support for this important Bill at all stages of its progress under the accelerated passage procedure. I welcome the final opportunity to explain why I am pleased to have progressed this vital legislation with urgency for the benefit of all Northern Ireland citizens. I should also like to address some of the concerns raised by local industry. The ultimate driver for the Bill is my firm belief in the principle that our citizens should have the same legal protections in respect of defective premises as their counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom.”
“We will see, but it is very positive that we all agree. I commend the motion to the House.”
“I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee for his contribution and, once again, for the consensus that we have experienced around the House today, not just on this but on other motions. I trust that all the proposals and legislation that I bring to the House in the future will have similar levels of support.”
“Provided that they have not already received a compensation payment from another source, people who suffer from that awful disease are therefore eligible for a payment regardless of whether they were employees, were self-employed or, indeed, have never worked, as may be the case for family members who contracted the disease through secondary exposure, such as from cleaning asbestos-covered clothes. <BR /> <BR />For 2024-25, by way of an example, the amount payable to a person aged 37 or under at diagnosis has increased from £107,038 to £114,210, which is the same maximum that can be paid out under the 1979 scheme. The regulations ensure that the compensation provided under the scheme maintains its value relative to inflation. I hope that I will have the support of the House in welcoming the provisions.”
“<BR /> <BR />Under the scheme, those who have been exposed to asbestos can claim a lump sum payment if they are not entitled to payment under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which is known as the 1979 scheme, and do not otherwise have a civil claim. The scheme provides financial help to persons diagnosed with that horrible disease or, if the person has died, to their dependants within a matter of weeks of diagnosis and without the need to establish an occupational link or any causative link.”
“The regulations are part of the annual uprating package and increase the lump sum compensation payable by the scheme under the Mesothelioma, etc., Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. There is no explicit requirement to review the level of payments under the scheme each year, unlike with the main benefit uprating order. The regulations increase, however, the amounts payable by the scheme in line with the rate of inflation. The amounts payable under the scheme have been increased for 2024-25 by 6·7%, which mirrors the percentage increase of industrial injuries benefits in the main uprating order.”
“I appreciate the consensus in the Chamber, as expressed by the Chair of the Committee, and the way in which the Committee dealt with this. There is clearly support for the motions today, but the Chair of the Committee rightly raises carer's allowance. We are all well aware of the issue, and I appreciate and share the concerns that were expressed. I am sure that we will come back to that in other discussions with the Committee and in the Chamber. I welcome the support for the rules applying the annual increases, and I commend the motions to the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />As a result of the 2024 uprating package, approximately £703 million more will be paid out by my Department to people in Northern Ireland on benefits and pensions. I understand that we might like to do more for the recipients of social security benefits and pensions, especially during the cost-of-living crisis in which we find ourselves. As I said, however, in relation to the annual uprating order, we have the power only to make a provision corresponding to the one made in Britain. I therefore welcome Members' support for the uprating order and the consequential uprating regulations, so that people in Northern Ireland can continue to receive the increased rates.”
“The uprating order is the main statutory rule to provide for the increase in benefit rates. However, some technical provisions in relation to the annual uprating are required to be made by regulations and therefore cannot be included in that order. <BR /> <BR />This debate also encompasses the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024, which make the technical provisions required for the accurate implementation of the increased rates. The regulations are made as a consequence of the uprating order. They also include an increase to the personal expenses allowance for residents in care homes and the earnings limit in relation to carer's allowance.”
“For 2024-25, the personal standard allowances of universal credit, income support, housing benefit, jobseeker's allowance and employment and support allowance will also be uprated by 6·7%, as will income-related benefits and the savings credit maximum amount in pension credit, along with statutory payments such as statutory sick pay. The standard minimum guarantee in pension credit will increase by 8·5% in line with the state pension. <BR /> <BR />As I stated, when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions makes an uprating order in Britain, my Department is empowered to make a corresponding order for Northern Ireland. My Department has no power to increase the amounts of benefit by a different or greater amount than that in the annual uprating order.”
“<BR /> <BR />In addition to increasing certain benefits in line with the increase in prices, the commitment to the triple lock continues to apply to the basic state pension and the new state pension. Those pension payments are increased in line with the highest of the growth in earnings, the growth in prices or 2·5%. The growth in earnings is measured by the increase in average weekly earnings for the quarter ending in the previous July. The UK Government's commitment to the triple lock for the basic state pension and the new state pension means that, for 2024-25, they will be uprated by 8·5%. <BR /> <BR />Where the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has discretion to increase other rates of benefits — for example, working-age benefits — those have traditionally been uprated by the growth in prices.”
“That allows benefit levels to maintain their value against inflation. <BR /> <BR />The percentage increase is determined by the CPI rate in the 12 months up to the previous September. CPI indicated a positive growth of 6·7% for the period to the end of September 2023. For the 2024 uprating package, that means that benefits linked to prices have been increased by 6·7%. Those are generally benefits that contribute towards extra costs that arise as a result of disability or health conditions, notably attendance allowance, disability living allowance and personal independence payment. They also include carer's allowance and the additional state pension.”
“The uprating package usually increases the rates of social security pensions, benefits and lump sum payments each year in line with inflation. Uprating occurs around the beginning of the tax year, and these two rules came into operation from April 2024. I seek the Assembly's approval for the two rules, which form the main part of the uprating package for 2024-25. <BR /> <BR />The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required to undertake an annual review of the rates of benefits in relation to the general level of prices. As most Members will be aware, my Department is empowered to make a corresponding order only when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions makes an uprating order in Britain. The growth in the consumer price index (CPI) is used to determine the amount by which the various rates of benefit should be increased.”
“The limited contributions that we had during the debate reflect the straightforward nature of the Bill and the consensus that exists across the Chamber, even to the point that Mr McCrossan and I are in agreement. Perhaps we can make a note of that for the history books. I am pleased with the consensus that we have, and I commend the Bill to the House.”
“It is anticipated that any changes in policy and legislation in Great Britain will at least be considered and potentially adopted in Northern Ireland, subject to the necessary ministerial, Executive and Assembly approvals. <BR /> <BR />Many child maintenance clients and respondents change residence between jurisdictions for work or family reasons. Therefore, it is highly desirable that the same provisions are in place in Northern Ireland to ensure parity across all jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I believe that the proposals in the Bill and its overarching policy aims are something that we can all support. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.”
“It is also expected that the first regulations relating to appeals against liability orders will be subject to the confirmatory procedure, thereby ensuring enhanced scrutiny through debate in the Assembly. I consider it appropriate for those regulations to be subject to the confirmatory resolution procedure to facilitate that level of scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />Although child support is a devolved matter in general, Northern Ireland's child support policy and legislation operates in line with Great Britain, and there is, in effect, a single child maintenance system in line with section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. At the moment, DWP is developing appropriate regulations with regard to the introduction and roll-out of administrative liability orders in Great Britain, including provisions concerning a respondent's right of appeal.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to provisions of the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023. The Act was passed by Parliament and attained Royal Assent on 20 July 2023. If the Bill attains Royal Assent, secondary legislation will be required to implement and commence the proposals of the Act. My Department has worked closely with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the Department of Justice, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) and the Enforcement of Judgements Office (EJO) on the Bill with a view to developing an appropriate secondary legislation package. <BR /> <BR />It is expected that regulations will set out the paying parent's right of appeal to a court against a liability order and the period within which the right of appeal may be exercised.”
“Clause 1 also identifies the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 and the Child Maintenance Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. Clause 2 provides for the commencement of provisions and the short title of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The schedule contains provisions that amend uncommenced articles 32M and 32N of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 to alter the basis on which an administrative liability order is made; allow regulations under article 32N to make provision about variation of liability orders; and require regulations under article 32N to make provisions about appeals, whilst repealing previous changes made by the Child Maintenance Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 with regard to dealing with appeals of liability orders.”
“I move to some of the more technical aspects associated with drafting the Bill. I can confirm that an equality impact assessment has been undertaken. The assessment examined the Bill's proposals in the context of promoting equality of opportunity and good relations, as required by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and no adverse impacts were identified. A regulatory impact assessment has not been carried out for the Bill. The Bill will not impose any costs on businesses or employees. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the Bill, which is relatively short and contains two short clauses and one schedule. Clause 1, which is about making and varying liability orders and appealing against liability orders, outlines the amendments contained in the schedule.”
“Those amended powers, once commenced, will allow the Child Maintenance Service to make a liability order administratively.”
“<BR /> <BR />On a technical level, the Bill repeals articles in the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which requires the Child Maintenance Service to apply to the courts to obtain a liability order. The Bill further paves the way for introducing administrative liability orders by making amendments to uncommenced powers in the Child Maintenance Act (Northern Ireland) 2008.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Child Support Enforcement Bill presented to the Assembly today provides for the introduction of administrative liability orders to replace the existing court-based liability order process used by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS). The provisions in the Bill will enable the Child Maintenance Service to make an administrative liability order without requiring an application to the Magistrates' Court. The policy change from court-based to administrative liability orders will reduce the time that it takes for the Child Maintenance Service to initiate its strongest enforcement powers from, on average, 22 weeks to, potentially, just six weeks. The Bill's overarching policy is aimed at improving the enforcement process by making it more straightforward and faster to recover arrears from non-paying parents.”
“I have done that, and I have given councils the power to decide for themselves how meetings take place, as it would not have been appropriate for me to use coronavirus as a reason to keep the 2020 regulations going. I therefore used the alternative legislation that was in place. <BR /> <BR />I am grateful for the consensus in the Chamber, and I commend the regulations to the House.”
“Sian also raised the issue of the period during which there was no provision in place for hybrid or remote meetings. It is my duty to follow the law in this place, and the law stated that I should continue with the 2020 regulations only for as long as they were necessary in order to combat coronavirus. I know that people got comfortable and liked having the regulations in place, but I did not believe that there was a justification under the law as it stood for me to extend them. That is why I decided to allow those regulations to lapse, but, as soon as it was practicably possible, to bring in the regulations that are in front of us today. I said that we would do it before the summer recess.”
“Councils have different standing orders for conducting their meetings and the timings of those meetings. They decide them for themselves, so it is only appropriate that councils can also put in place their own standing orders on this issue as well.”