Motion or amendment: Tackling Disrepair, Damp and Mould - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 18 February 2026
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Tackling Disrepair, Damp and Mould”
- Heading
- Tackling Disrepair, Damp and Mould - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 472002
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Tackling Disrepair, Damp and Mould - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘retaliatory eviction;’ and insert:
‘further expresses serious concern that single let temporary accommodation utilised by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is not subject to routine, ongoing inspection beyond initial acquisition; notes that maintenance responsibility rests with private providers, with the Housing Executive acting as an intermediary where issues are reported; and calls on the Minister for Communities to urgently introduce legislation, similar to Awaab’s Law, to compel landlords to address damp, mould and disrepair within strict timeframes across both social and private rented sectors, and to place a clear statutory duty on the Housing Executive to regularly inspect and enforce minimum fitness standards across all temporary accommodation.’
119 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.97).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.98 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.