Debate contribution: First-time Buyers: Support
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- First-time Buyers: Support
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774609
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I may speak quite quickly, then. I think that everyone here understands that becoming a first-time buyer is expensive. It is now possibly the most expensive that it has been over the past 70 years. There are two distinct parts to measuring the affordability of becoming a first-time buyer. The first is the cost of buying the house, and the second is the cost of owning. The Building Societies Association's property tracker shows that the affordability of mortgage repayments has become the biggest barrier to purchase. Prospective first-time buyers now find themselves in a very difficult situation, but, unfortunately, many of the proposed solutions to help them, which were dependent on low mortgage rates, are no longer as effective or even viable. It is also important to understand the possible lifetime costs of buying and owning a property and how those compare with the costs for previous generations. That helps our understanding of how the housing market works and the implications that it has for potential policy solutions. For example, comparisons across generations raise questions about long-held assumptions, such as whether the housing ladder still exists.
Given the substantial deposit barrier, the ability to become a first-time buyer is increasingly dependent on the so-called Bank of Mum and Dad, while successful first-time buyers increasingly need to have two incomes that are higher than the average wage. Meanwhile, those without family help or in single or lower incomes have been excluded from homeownership.
It is a balancing act. The number of first-time buyers is closely linked to the state of the mortgage market, housing market and wider economy. As such, there is an inevitable balance between support given to first-time buyers and the effects of that support on the housing market and the economy, both immediate and in the future — a point that Ciara Ferguson raised. It also works in reverse, with policies that impact on the housing market or economy having direct and indirect effects on first-time buyers. An important balance is the compromise between financial stability and first-time buyer numbers. The past decade has seen the balance tilted in favour of financial stability, with the inevitable cost of many being excluded from homeownership. It is now time to debate the costs and benefits of the current approach. I believe that the Department for Communities should continue what it has started to do with the housing supply strategy and look to commit to having a package of housing policies and reforms that can achieve a successful housing market here in Northern Ireland. Working with lenders, the wider housing market industry and the public, the Department for Communities should aim to make homes more affordable, more available and more appropriate to the needs of those living in them and the world that we live in. I will move on quickly, because I am running out of time. Our priorities have to include improving the supply of existing and new homes, including the increased delivery of affordable homes, and revising the planning system, with a greater focus on strategic planning and less focus on development control. Westminster could reform property taxation to increase market liquidity and encourage more efficient use of existing homes. However, the lessons of using stamp duty land tax —
— to favour first-time buyers should not be lost. As such, Alliance supports both amendments to the motion because we believe that more has been done, can be done and will be done.
580 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| 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 | 0.85 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:55 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.