Debate contribution: Homelessness: North Antrim
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Homelessness: North Antrim
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4625641
Read the official Assembly record
Text
My Department and the Housing Executive offer a range of services to support the prevention of homelessness. We also have voluntary sector hostel accommodation for single households and families, as well as refuges for victims of domestic abuse, single lets and dispersed temporary accommodation. The Housing Executive is the commissioning body for Supporting People schemes and makes decisions on the location of schemes in consultation with relevant partners. I can confirm to the Member that, across Mid and East Antrim, there are 84 units across seven Supporting People homelessness schemes, as well 133 single lets and 37 units of Housing Executive hostel or dispersed temporary accommodation. In Causeway Coast and Glens, there are 25 units in two Supporting People homelessness schemes, including a voluntary sector hostel for single households and a refuge for victims of domestic abuse, and 40 single lets and 28 units of Housing Executive hostel or dispersed temporary accommodation.
152 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: 0.02 (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).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.48 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.64 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.28 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:28 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.