Debate contribution: New Deal for Private Renters in Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- New Deal for Private Renters in Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4813970
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I speak as a DUP member of the Committee for Communities. The availability and quality of all types of housing are major causes of concern and debate among the Committee members. We wish to see the regulated provision of quality housing in the private rented sector, including good protections for tenancies and a model that is sustainable and affordable for landlords and tenants and enables landlords to invest in their stock and sustain their business. I turn to the motion. The DUP tabled an amendment that retained parts of the original motion's wording as well as amended and additional wording. Unfortunately, it was not selected. We have concerns about the original wording of the motion and the selected amendments. They contain proposals that, we believe, would be counterproductive to the supply of housing and have the unintended consequence of reducing supply. On the issue of affordable rent, during the first half of 2024, we saw average rent prices across Northern Ireland continue to rise by 8·5% compared with the same period in 2023. That equated to £886 a month, and rent accounted for an average of 39% of median income. The DUP has helped working families by launching the intermediate rent product, through which a long-term, low-interest loan is offered to an operator to develop a supply of affordable homes for rent at a 20% discount on the market value. Instability of tenure is also a major cause for concern for many in the private rented sector. However, NISRA data shows that, for 2023-24, the proportion of private renters who had resided at their current address for five years or more was higher in Northern Ireland than in the UK as a whole, at 41% and 31% respectively. Housing affordability is a growing problem and is recognised in objective 1 of the housing supply strategy, which is to:
"Increase housing supply and affordable options across all tenures to meet housing need and demand".
In Northern Ireland, we have rent control on properties that the local council has deemed to be in an unfit condition and for protected and statutory tenancies. We can all agree that we want all private rents to be affordable. However, we cannot ignore the potential negative consequences of universal rent controls and reductions. Research has highlighted that a large proportion of landlords may exit the private rental market, which would result in a greater shortage of available private rented properties in an already stretched market that needs stability. Estate agents have pointed out that, with high borrowing costs and unfavourable conditions, landlords are seeking high monthly rents in order to stay in the sector. Demand for private rental properties remains exceptionally high, with PropertyPal reporting an average of 73 enquiries being sent to estate agents for each rental property advertised. Any Member who talks to their local estate agent will be aware of that level of demand. Losing a lot of supply and discouraging the building of new homes for the rental market would make that situation worse. According to the Chartered Institute of Housing, rent controls generally have a negative impact on the housing market, often leading to a reduction in the number of available rental properties, lower-quality housing and difficulties for new tenants in finding accommodation, as landlords may be less incentivised to invest in new properties or maintain existing ones when faced with capped rent increases. To relieve the pressure on affordability, we must increase the housing supply and ensure that the benefits system properly takes account of the cost of housing. There was a substantial increase in the local housing allowance rate in April 2024, but, regrettably, as the SDLP will know, its sister party in government at Westminster has frozen housing allowance for the forthcoming financial years. Perhaps, the SDLP could have a word with its Labour Party colleagues, who set the national rates of housing allowance, instead of diverting responsibility to the Stormont Executive. Any mitigation — this my last sentence, Mr Deputy Speaker — locally would need to be funded by the Finance Minister —
— and the Executive as a whole.
683 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- 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-qualifying 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.86 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:01 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.