Member's statement: Social Housing
Member's statement by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 10 June 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Social Housing
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494784
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The need for social housing here is profound. For years, it has been warned that failure to get a grip of the crisis would lead to spiralling homelessness and poverty that would prove difficult, if not impossible, to curtail. The cuts imposed on the capital budget for the Department for Communities will allow for just 400 new social housing builds this year. That is one fifth of the 2,000-home target that was outlined to me by Minister Lyons not four months ago. At that rate of construction, it would take 118 years to clear the existing social housing waiting list. Figures that I received recently from the Minister show a fall in capital budget funding between 2021-22 and 2024-25 of £111 million. That is a whopping 45·4% reduction. We have reverted to the 2018-19 levels of funding without accounting for the impact of inflation. In that time, housing waiting lists have risen to a record high of 47,000 households. The failure to invest in social housing will have devastating consequences, particularly in areas of high deprivation. That trajectory will worsen without immediate intervention from the Executive. Despite promises, housing has not yet been included as a stand-alone outcome in a Programme for Government, and it remains to be seen whether it will be. There have been harrowing cuts to homelessness prevention programmes and a backtrack on the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) commitment to enhance investment in new-build housing. There has also been a deafening silence on the much-heralded housing supply strategy, which was announced by a previous Minister with great fanfare and promised 100,000 new homes within 15 years. Despite the urgent need for action, there has been a lack of follow-through, leaving countless families in housing limbo. Instead, DFC could be in the ludicrous position of building fewer social homes this year than it sold last year. The consequences of the DFC budget will be utterly devastating for people across the North, including the families with young children who are being moved from hotel rooms to bed and breakfasts; the woman living with disabilities that make it impossible for her to climb the stairs in her home or to sleep or wash; or the young man who has overstayed his welcome on the sofas of various relatives. The Executive's track record on social housing is an insult to every individual who is desperately awaiting a place to call home.
401 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: 0.04 (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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.87 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:37 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.