Debate contribution: Housing Emergency
Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Housing Emergency
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4592689
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion because it is clear, as others have said, that we are in a housing crisis. Whilst I agree with so much that was said across the Chamber today, I do not think that I can add much, particularly after my colleague and self-professed housing nerd, Kellie Armstrong, made some key points about how this is a multifaceted problem. The solution is not just a matter of throwing money at the problem and building houses. I want to use a bit of time to shine a light on a group that is so often overlooked when we talk about housing and homelessness. I do not believe that I have heard anyone else speak about young people who have experience of care, who are acutely vulnerable to the housing crisis. Those young people are some of the most vulnerable in our society. They face unique challenges when they transition out of care at the age of 18. Far too many find themselves without the housing that they need to make that successful transition into adulthood. They have very specific issues that are not thought about, perhaps, when we look at the crises of homelessness and our housing system. In 2023, there were 365 care leavers aged 16 to 18 in Northern Ireland. About 75% of them were in education, training or employment. However, because of the challenges that face them when transitioning out of care and holding down a successful tenancy, those young people are particularly vulnerable. That is so frustrating, because we all know when a young person in care will turn 18. It is not a surprise: we have their date of birth, and they are in the system. Why is it that so many of them find themselves struggling with unsuitable housing or even homelessness once they reach adulthood? At Committee, we heard of an 18-year-old who spent his birthday alone in a hotel room because he had to be removed from his care the day before. Those are the issues. For me, when we look at a housing crisis, it is so multifaceted. It is not just about putting money into building new houses. There are ways in which we need to help people to sustain tenancies, and there are ways in which we need to give support to the communities that need it most. What is missing, for me, is joined-up thinking right across Departments. Those with responsibility for health, housing, education and social services should all be working together to ensure seamless transitions into tenancies and placements. It is about planning and coordination. It is not acceptable that we are failing so many families, so many communities, and, from my point of view, so many young people who are particularly vulnerable. One of the questions that is related to my point is this: where is our youth homelessness strategy and plan? We were promised it by April 2024, and still we are seeing rising numbers of young people presenting as homeless. In 2022-23, 2,186 young people aged 16 to 25 presented as homeless. The Housing Executive has recognised that —.
Yes, of course.
What I see is partly linked to our planning issues and the reticence of developers and our council planning committees to approve single lets and single-bed accommodation. That is a really big issue, and we need to look at the need versus what is being put out there. It is a question of need versus what is going to make money, in some respects. The Housing Executive has been asked for a youth homelessness draft plan. We were supposed to get it in April 2024, and we will ask for it again. That will be an important step, but we need to ensure that it is implemented quickly and resourced. For me, this is also about rural areas, where young people often feel even more isolated and unsupported. Day and daily, we are seeing young people being moved into hostel accommodation or HMOs that are outside their rural area, where they would have some semblance of support. That is another important issue. As my colleague said, the problem, particularly in rural areas, is about not just the number of homes but the infrastructure, or more accurately, the lack of it. The roads, the waste water systems and even the basic services that we need in order to build more homes are simply not there or are too outdated to support new developments. Again, that problem exists in some villages in my constituency, where developers are waiting on the sidelines, land has been acquired and they are not getting planning approval because of the waste water systems. That is happening across Northern Ireland, so the solution is not just to build more houses. Another barrier to addressing the crisis is the division that still exists in so many parts of Northern Ireland. Just this morning, I received a text message from my constituency office to say that a family turned up to paint their new house in an area of Ballymena only to be told, "You are not welcome here". They are having to give up the tenancy. We believe in shared housing and mixed-tenure developments, but, as we talked about in the previous debate, too many people are asserting control in communities, which is impacting right the way through. For me, that reflects straight back to paramilitarism and other issues.
901 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: 0.09 (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 (0.91).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.78).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.19 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.78 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.45 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.30 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.19 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:26 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.