Debate contribution: Homelessness Awareness Week 2024

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on .

MLA
Ms Claire Sugden
Party at the time
Independent
Date
2 December 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Homelessness Awareness Week 2024
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4686934

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am pleased to join political parties in supporting the motion. Homelessness remains one of the most urgent and growing issues of our generation. As we mark Homelessness Awareness Week, we must recognise that we are in the midst of a housing crisis. Over 58,000 individuals are officially homeless: that is one in every 33 people. Of that number, one third are children, and families account for more than half at 57%. Those figures demand our immediate attention, because, behind those numbers, families have been torn apart, children's education has been disrupted and individuals' dignity has been eroded. Homelessness is not merely a lack of shelter; it is a profound social failure.

Homelessness and the threat of homelessness remains the most prevalent casework issue in my constituency office, followed by domestic abuse. Indeed, the two issues often go hand in hand, as many victims find themselves alone and homeless, usually with their children — one of the reasons why she does not "just leave". We do not do enough to support victims of domestic abuse. Organisations in the community and voluntary sector, like Women's Aid, do what they can and do an incredible job, but it is really shocking that there is a waiting list for temporary accommodation in a women's shelter. Those who can do so can live in temporary accommodation for months, with too many children being raised there. While intended as a stopgap, temporary accommodation has seen a nearly 500% increase in costs over five years, with over 5,000 children living in precarious arrangements. We have all heard the stories of temporary accommodation's being offered an hour and a half down the road, away from the children's school and away from Health and Social Care services, when to get those services in place was a struggle to begin with. It is not sustainable. It is not good enough. The Government are failing when figures and stories like that exist. We know that homelessness affects people of all backgrounds. I am particularly concerned about the number of older people who are presenting to my office having been told that, after many years, their private landlord is selling the property. Imagine being in your eighties and being told that your home is being sold and that you will have to find somewhere else to live. That is not easy for an elderly person, particularly one who is alone and does not have family support. Finding somewhere else to live is difficult, particularly on the north coast. For several years now, I have talked at length about the impact of second-home ownership on the north coast. Staggering house prices and high rents are forcing long-term tenants away from the area, which is just not an option for people who need to be near their services and families.

That has an obvious knock-on effect on demand for the provision of social housing and on homelessness. I do not know how we fix that. I remain unconvinced that increasing rates will have much of an impact. Ultimately, we need more social and affordable homes. I appreciate the challenge of building more homes. Even if the Minister for Communities had the money, the next hurdle would be planning and waste water infrastructure, and there would probably be another hurdle after that. That is why we really need to take a cross-departmental approach and have a commitment that Ministers and Governments will work together to address what is a growing crisis. We need to see such action now. We are 10 months into a shortened mandate. Although we all stand here united in support of addressing homelessness, it is really frustrating that no tangible change will realistically happen any time soon, because we are not building more social and affordable homes, and certainly not enough to maintain the current proposed figures for new builds. On a positive note in Homelessness Awareness Week, we have to acknowledge the fact that the homelessness sector does great work. I have already spoken about the tireless work of Women's Aid, but we should also recognise other organisations, such as the Simon Community, that provide stability where, sadly, our Government do not. The work that those organisations do is often done under a lot pressure, and it is highly emotional and draining. Everyone in the Chamber will have heard that from their staff who have tried to help people. It is the same old story. We go from month to month saying these things upon hearing the same stories, and, although we need to raise awareness in Homelessness Awareness Week, it is important that we also take action. Otherwise, our words will just be in vain.

777 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.90).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.90Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.63
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.32
No identity-related subject0.05
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:37 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.

Challenge this classification