Debate contribution: New Deal for Private Renters in Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster 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 4813978
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, because, frankly, housing is absolutely in crisis. I do not know about other Members in the Chamber, but, if you were to ask me for the number-one issue that comes through my door each day, I would say, unequivocally, that it is housing. People face other pressures in health, education and farming and agriculture — I have to get a punch in for my Committee — but housing and issues across the housing sector take up the most time for my staff. Some of the issues have already been discussed. It is evident that, across Northern Ireland, too many people struggle to find a secure, affordable and decent place to live. Rents are soaring, tenant protection is not robust enough and many tenants face constant battles just to get basic repairs done. I know that it is not part of the motion, but we need to keep an eye on the issue: on Friday, I did a little drive-by in my constituency and saw a lovely house with the eye-watering rental price tag of £2,000 a month. It is a nice, detached property in a nice area — well, obviously, it is, because I live in Lisburn — but, setting that aside, who can afford rent of £2,000 a month? As Mr Carroll said, in Belfast, rents for properties that are not very big are well in excess of £1,000 a month. We are pricing people out of the market. Let me be clear: this is not about painting all landlords as bad, as Mr Durkan rightly said. Many do the right thing: they provide safe and well-maintained homes and treat their tenants with fairness and respect. However, as in many areas of life that we come across, there are those who do not play by the rules and, unfortunately, give others a bad reputation. I am sure that we have all dealt with cases in which tenants were afraid to ask for repairs, possibly because they were afraid that their landlord would evict them.
We cannot pretend that that does not happen, because it does. No-fault evictions leave families in limbo, forcing them to uproot their lives at short notice. That is not fair, and it is not right.
Any intervention that we achieve must be balanced, proportionate and underpinned by evidence so that we do not cause an adverse effect. In an ideal world, we would simply deliver at pace more housing options, but we have to be honest and say that that is not going to happen overnight. That is why it is right that tenants have protections against unfair rent increases, evictions and the denial of basic repairs. They should also have a clear route to challenge and hold landlords to account when those responsibilities are not being met. The motion calls for a "new deal for private renters". It is about striking a balance, however, that supports reasonable landlords whilst ensuring that tenants have proper rights and protections. That means having fair rent controls, stronger security of tenure and a statutory housing ombudsman to hold bad landlords to account. It also means enforcing proper housing standards so that no one is forced to live in damp, cold or unsafe conditions. I am sure that you guys get to see the pictures from your constituents of instances where there is black mould and damp that cause health inequalities that in turn lead to pressures on our health system. This is not just about renters; it is about fixing the wider housing system. For too long, we have relied too heavily on the private rented sector because there simply have not been enough social and affordable homes built. If we do not address that, we will keep pushing people into an unstable market with little security. People deserve better. They need fair rents, safe homes and real security. Good landlords should have nothing to fear from such reforms because they are already doing what is right. This is about tackling bad practices that undermine the entire sector and, most importantly, making sure that having a home is not a constant source of stress and uncertainty. I urge the Minister to act because decent, affordable and secure homes should be not a luxury in Northern Ireland but a fundamental right.
721 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: 0.03 (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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.99 |
| 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 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.