Member's statement: Emergency Accommodation
Member's statement by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 13 May 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Emergency Accommodation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4488548
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Members may have seen or heard in the news today the heartbreaking but depressingly familiar story of a family being passed from pillar to post, living out of suitcases, on an emergency housing merry-go-round that is anything but merry. Not a day passes that I am not contacted about emergency accommodation, be it by a family made homeless; an individual in crisis, staying far from family; a constituent living near a hostel, worried about an increase in antisocial behaviour; or a service provider, desperately seeking GP access for clients who cannot afford to wait through red tape and bureaucracy. The situation is not just desperate; it is dangerous. Accommodation that was once deemed a last resort has become the norm. The growing reliance on non-standard accommodation, such as hotels and bed and breakfasts, should be a concern for each and every one of us. The rapid escalation in emergency accommodation expenditure has seen costs soar to an eye-watering £7·6 million in 2022-23. That is a particularly bitter pill to swallow when we consider that the Department for Communities seems to be, or is, unable to fund homelessness prevention initiatives, currently operating at a deficit of £7·4 million. There is much more to tackling homelessness than putting a roof over someone's head. A huge concern to me and my constituents is that, while they are, at times, told that there is no accommodation in Derry and are sent further afield, they are passed on the motorway by people being sent from Belfast to Derry for emergency housing. Spend in Derry has increased sixfold in the same period. Homelessness is a health issue. It is a multifaceted and complex predicament that requires an urgent cross-departmental response. We are witnessing extremely vulnerable people with complex needs being discharged from healthcare facilities or released from prison and placed in emergency housing, away from their home town and support network. Individuals are left in a vacuum — untethered and grasping for support, which either is not there or is woefully under-resourced. Often those people are suffering from trauma, addiction, serious mental health issues and poverty, and are pushed even further to the margins of society by a system that clearly is not working. Their exclusion and marked isolation leaves them at risk of abuse, neglect and exploitation. It also leaves communities in fear and at risk of harm, given the volatile nature and, sometimes, violent past of some of the individuals availing themselves of emergency housing. Of course, the answer is to build more homes, but, in the short term, we need a focus on local connection —
— assessment of a person's long-term needs and on-hand support services to improve provision.
447 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.07 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging 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 | 0.61 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.29 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:23 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.