Debate contribution: Housebuilding on Public Land
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 31 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Housebuilding on Public Land
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4871602
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the proposers of the motion. Back in November 2020, Sinn Féin outlined the direction of travel that needed to be taken for our housing, recognising that a good home is one that is affordable, secure and comfortable and the very foundation of the social, physical and mental well-being of our children, young people and families. Additionally, housing is fundamental to addressing some of our more pressing societal challenges, including tackling the root causes of poverty and inequality. We in Sinn Féin set the wheels of that process in motion. We delivered the first draft housing supply strategy. We lobbied hard for strong housing commitments in the draft Programme for Government, and we delivered the Private Tenancies Act 2022 under Minister Hargey as the first in a phase of reforms to improve the safety and sustainability of housing for our private renters. We are pleased that the motion echoes much of what we have already said, which includes the fact that we need to see the urgent delivery of social and affordable housing at scale and that we must work collectively across all Departments, arm's-length bodies and housing associations to utilise any available public land for the public good for sustainable public housing. We also need to ensure that the housing arrangements that we move forward with knit into the wider regeneration plans to ensure that we undo the defensive and segregated planning of the past, thereby building thriving and connected communities. On Tuesday 25 March, the Audit Office published its report on homelessness. That report noted that the number of households with homeless status here has increased by 80% in the past decade. Spending on temporary accommodation provision increased between 2018-19 and 2023-24 by 408%, which is equivalent to a spending increase of over 80% each year, to now stand at £38·6 million. Like others, I welcome the recent announcement by the current Minister for Communities of financial support to enable the Housing Executive to purchase up to 200 properties per year over the next three years to reduce reliance on non-standard accommodation, which includes hotels and B&Bs. Such forms of accommodation are totally unacceptable as long-term living solutions and come at an exorbitant cost. However, we need to see many more innovative proposals around the investment plans in order to deliver never-before-seen levels of social and affordable housing and improve existing stock that is of a low energy efficiency standard for hard-pressed homeowners and renters alike.
We need to create affordable housing options through co-ownership, intermediate rents and cooperative housing solutions.
What are the proposed plans to protect against the continued loss of our public housing stock? We are being left in a cycle in which one policy directly contradicts the other. What are the timescales for the proposed plans for delivering the Housing Executive revitalisation project? We need multi-annual Budgets in order to protect our largest social housing landlord and to support housing and homeless service organisations in charting the way forward for us collectively, instead of constant firefighting. What are the plans for tackling unjustifiable rents, particularly in the private rental sector? That is fundamental to ensuring, for example, that any increase in the local housing allowance is to the benefit of our struggling renters. The truth of the matter was best outlined by Jon Franklin, the chief economist at Pro Bono Economics (PBE):
"we need to move beyond sticking plaster solutions"
if we are ever to fix our broken housing system. He added that failing to do so will keep us all on an:
"unsustainable merry-go-round of rising costs to manage an ever-growing homelessness crisis."
We know all too well whom that disproportionately affects: working-class communities, young people and those with additional complex needs, including those with mental health challenges, care leavers and all who find themselves pushed to the margins of society. I thank those who have fought for better, from housing rights activists, campaigners and organisations to our vital homeless support services and front-line workers, including Homeless Connect, as the organiser of the front-line network, and the wide range of housing rights and rights-based organisations that work to combat homelessness, poverty and inequality and support the many people who are struggling right now to find a suitable home.
706 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: 0.04 (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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.41 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.25 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.18 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:15 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.