Debate contribution: Housing Emergency
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 15 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Housing Emergency
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4592877
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Declaring a housing emergency is an important step in recognising the scale and seriousness of our housing crisis. I am happy to support the motion to that effect and because of the issue's impact on human health and well-being. It is also important, however, that we move from recognising the problem and understanding the systemic root causes to there being meaningful action and investment. The solutions proposed in the motion would help lessen some of the worst impacts of the housing crisis. I hope to introduce a private Member's Bill on housing, and I hope that Members opposite and across the House will support it in the period ahead. There are almost 21,000 vacant homes across the North. At the same time, over 47,000 households are waiting for social housing.
That equates to over 88,000 people, which is greater than the population of Derry, and 75% of the people on that waiting list are in housing stress. Bringing vacant properties back into use as social homes as quickly as possible will lift tens of thousands of people out of homelessness and housing stress. In the Chamber, in May, the Communities Minister said:
"we should make use of the properties that we have, as well as building more. There is no point in those properties being left vacant." — [Official Report (Hansard), 20 May 2024, p44, col 1].
I am glad that the Minister is on the same page as me and, maybe, others in the Chamber, and I look forward to further engagement with him and his officials on how to bring vacant properties into public ownership.
Given our current waste water capacity constraints, bringing vacant properties into use as social homes would be a relatively quick and efficient way to expand our supply of affordable homes. I note, however, that the waste water capacity issues do not apply to student accommodation and hotels, which, it seems, go up every day or every month. We urgently need to make up ground for the time lost and targets missed. Failure to deliver on previous social housing targets is beyond regrettable; it is absolutely shameful. Failure to meet social housing targets and the gradual reduction of targets have directly contributed to rising homelessness. The inadequate supply of social housing has also forced people into the under-regulated and unaffordable private rented sector. Many people who would have been entitled to a secure, affordable Housing Executive home a generation ago find themselves paying an average of £1,000 a month for a private rented property in Belfast. That is completely unaffordable and out of control. It also points to the fact that we need rent controls. The issue partially accounts for the difficulties experienced by first-time buyers: how can you scrape together a deposit to buy your own home when the cost of renting means that you cannot save at the same time? One way through the crisis is to build more social homes. The draft housing supply strategy aims to deliver 100,000 new homes by 2037, but I note that the motion suggests a target of:
"at least 50,000 additional homes by 2032".
In order to make proper headway in tackling the housing crisis, we need to set more ambitious targets that reflect how many people are in desperate need of a secure and affordable home. There are over 47,000 people on our social housing waiting list as we speak, and 4,000 of them are in my West Belfast constituency. The most recent Budget allocation of funding for new social homes was for 600 this year initially, but that number is now 400, compared with a target of 2,000 homes. It is time for the Executive to stop cutting DFC's capital budget, put their money where their mouth is and start investing properly in social housing.
Sure, yes.
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I agree, generally, but we would have to make sure that the planning process was not overhauled in order to have unsuitable homes built in a quicker timescale. We would have to make sure that the homes were built properly. The other points that the Member raised are well made, and I generally support what he has suggested. The obvious point is that, for the building of some homes, there are no waste water infrastructure problems. I note that there are no problems for new student accommodation and hotels. I add that point to the debate again. The call for any additional Barnett consequential funding emanating from new housebuilding in England and Wales to be ring-fenced for here is welcome. Some Members made reference to expanding the Housing Executive's borrowing powers: we have to be cautious. Any attempt to allow the Housing Executive to access borrowing that does not score on public expenditure must not involve the reclassification of the Housing Executive. That would be privatisation by a fancy name and is not the solution for increasing supply. Private finance and subsidies for private developers have no place in tackling our housing crisis. They caused and exacerbated the situation in the first place. Another solution to the housing crisis is incredibly simple and effective: a ban on no-fault evictions. Every day, across the North, private tenants are issued with eviction notices. Often, they are told that their landlords are selling up, only to see their property let re-advertised online with a dramatic hike in rent. That is completely unacceptable. Sometimes, tenants are given no reason —.
OK, fair enough.
909 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: 0.03 (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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.