Debate contribution: Illegal Immigration: Impact in Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 20 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Illegal Immigration: Impact in Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4964255
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. Hopefully, I will not go left or right but speak to the truth and, as the Member for South Belfast said, talk about the topic in a "mature, measured" way. The reality is that people are talking about this topic, whether you take a side or not. It is a debate that should be had. Immigration pressures on public services are a real issue, as is the rise in the number of houses in multiple occupation across Northern Ireland. They present specific difficulties in Northern Ireland, because we do not have the regulation and legislative clout that other parts of the UK have. Let me state clearly that the Ulster Unionist Party supports a firm but fair immigration system. We believe in compassion for those who are fleeing persecution, but that must be balanced by proper controls and a system that works effectively across all parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland. We have seen the cost of accommodating asylum seekers rise to around £400 million, as is mentioned in the motion. That is four times the original estimate. That level of spending is simply not sustainable and must be questioned. While immigration policy is a reserved matter for Westminster, its impact on local services, schools, GP practices and housing pressures is real. No Member from any party has refuted that part of the motion so far. There are those who will quickly dismiss any discussion on immigration as intolerant or extreme, but this party will not be accused of that, even though, at one stage, the leader of the Opposition talked about "unionist politics". That is not good enough. Censoring debate helps no one and ignores the real and genuine concerns that people have. Is immigration the number-one issue that comes into my inbox? No, it is not. Is it an issue? Yes, it is. Ignoring the value of controlled, managed migration is equally wrong. Across the world, responsible migration supports economies and fills skills gaps. In Northern Ireland, many of our doctors, nurses and key workers came from overseas and have made a positive and lasting contribution to our society. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber appreciates that. We must never allow honest discussion to slide into hostility. Those who come here to contribute, to work hard and to integrate should feel welcome, not vilified. Anything less is morally and socially unacceptable. That having been said, we cannot ignore the pressures. When public services are already stretched, adding further demand makes things harder. Let us be honest, however: the systems were failing long before now. Long waiting lists, overcrowded schools and a shortage of affordable housing did not appear overnight. I agree with the Alliance Member about the Assembly's failure to sit for five years out of eight, which will have compounded public service problems.
Thank you. On the breakdown of those figures, we have had a geopolitical crisis in that time, during which we have accommodated many people from Ukraine and other war-torn areas. However, the Member should not be dismissed in speaking to uncontrolled immigration, which is a legitimate point to speak to. I said that immigration can and does add pressure, but so, too, have repeated failures of the Executive. The motion's main call is for the review and amendment of:
"the strategic planning policy statement to place additional restrictions on the approval of HMOs by local councils."
One of the most visible symptoms of the housing crisis is the rise in HMOs. Increasing numbers of properties are being converted into shared accommodation. That is not because it is ideal — from my perspective, as a former firefighter, I can tell you that it is worse than far from ideal; it can be downright dangerous — but because people have no other choice, that is where they end up. The unchecked growth in HMOs in certain area has a damaging impact on communities. Local residents often feel unheard and powerless to object, and the fault for that lies with the Home Office and its failure to adequately communicate and bring communities along with it. It speaks to a broken housing system that is failing individuals and families right across our Province. When the only option for some is to share a converted terrace house with five strangers, something is badly wrong. Other parts of the UK have acted. In England, councils use article 4 directions to control the spread of HMOs. In Scotland, restrictions are in place in high-pressure areas. Those approaches are backed by robust planning policies. People in our communities feel powerless to oppose HMOs, because, in contrast, while councils in Northern Ireland do their best with licensing, they lack the planning powers and clear guidance to manage the issues effectively. That is why the Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion. We need the strategic planning policy statement to be reviewed and strengthened so that councils can make decisions based on local needs, not abstract regulations. We urge the Infrastructure Minister to urgently begin the review and do all that she can in this mandate to make the necessary changes. When we have debates on immigration, we really need to detoxify the space and allow each other to talk about the issues that impact on people. We need to deal with strangers to this land in a humanitarian way. Let us become a bit more mature about a very important topic.
909 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: 0.13 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.53).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.13 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.13 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.53 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.43 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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 12:33 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.