Debate contribution: Illegal Immigration: Impact in Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on 20 May 2025.

MLA

Mr Brian Kingston

Party at the time

Democratic 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 4964506

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Illegal immigration is one of the hottest topics that people raise with me in political conversations, second only to housing. Our motion today combines those two issues in order to seek restrictions on the scale of the approval of houses of multiple occupancy, which, in some areas, are radically changing the nature of communities. Most HMOs are in areas of lower-value private housing, where landlords snap up such properties and seek to maximise their income by creating an HMO, including for asylum seekers through Mears, who pay a higher rate. That increases the density of population and demand on public services in the area. If it is left uncontrolled, we end up with high concentrations of HMOs in certain areas. To be clear for those with selective hearing, the Democratic Unionist Party absolutely recognises and appreciates the vital contribution that migrant workers make to society in Northern Ireland, particularly those who work in our health service, care homes, agriculture, manufacturing and other sectors of the economy. However, the DUP also wants to see stronger measures taken by government to stem illegal immigration into all parts of the United Kingdom. Of those who commented during the debate that there is no such thing as illegal immigration or illegal immigrants I ask this: why are people deported? Why are they not given leave to remain, if they are not illegal immigrants? They are coming from a safe country — France — on boats. That is clearly not legal, and they are deported, if possible.

Go ahead.

I agree. That is a matter of great concern. We know that there are some organised gangs coming across. That is not to say that that is the case in all instances, but it is a matter of grave concern that this is very much an organised business and that some people are making huge amounts of money through illegal immigration.

I will, briefly.

I do not quite understand the point there, so, if you do not mind, I will carry on. This is a matter of huge public concern. The expression of such concerns should not be stifled, as we have witnessed during the debate. The public raise the issues and expect us to raise their concerns. That is what it means to be an elected representative. As was reported recently in the news, the estimated cost of accommodation for asylum seekers in Northern Ireland in the current decade is now £400 million. That is four times the original estimate of £100 million.

I will, briefly.

That is an entirely separate issue. We would be glad to see any matter of public finance brought to the Chamber. I would be happy to see a motion from the Member. However, every matter has its own importance. Public bodies and political parties cannot simply bury their heads in the sand and do nothing. There ought to be meaningful dialogue with the communities that have been acutely impacted on, which are often in inner-city and working-class areas. Across Northern Ireland, landlords are buying or converting properties with a view to turning them into HMOs simply because they can get a better return under the Home Office asylum accommodation contract with Mears. All of that leads to a change in the resident population, often eroding the residential character of the areas affected and placing increased pressures on basic services and local amenities, including car parking, bin collection and access to GPs and dentists. There is also the real problem of additional noise disturbance and antisocial behaviour associated with HMOs, all of which negatively impacts on property valuations.

Very briefly.

The Member has answered his own point: the courts have determined that they are illegal immigrants, and they are returned. That is the point. People who are here should be treated fairly, but they should also be processed. There are people who are illegal immigrants and are abusing the system. I have no doubt that, for the vast majority of those coming across on boats from France, that is organised by crime gangs

You should open your eyes to that.

Will I carry on, Principal Deputy Speaker?

Right. At present, planning permission is required as a precursor to a property's being converted and licensed as an HMO. However, the approach to such planning controls varies between councils, leading to inconsistencies and, at times, a failure to guard against the over-provision of HMOs and the corresponding impacts on community cohesion. That is why, in our view, the Minister for Infrastructure must revisit the strategic planning policy statement. Direction must be given to councils to define what is deemed to be over-proliferation, ensuring that planning controls are robust. Belfast City Council has incorporated a specific policy on HMOs into its local development plan, but it is clear that other councils are yet to follow suit. The fact that there are no dispersal targets in Northern Ireland for asylum seeker accommodation means that, in council areas and district electoral areas, the effects are often disproportionately felt by a small number of households. There is a need to revisit the sense in which current planning and licensing powers leave councils powerless to respond to growing pressures in streets or areas in which there is already an over-provision of HMOs. That should not just be an exercise in preventing future upheaval. We in the DUP stand ready to work in the Executive to that end.

906 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Qualifying

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The speech makes a concrete planning proposal: revisit the strategic planning policy statement, define HMO over-proliferation, and address the lack of dispersal targets. That is legitimate scrutiny. But it frames asylum seekers housed in HMOs as a group that is "radically changing the nature of communities", "eroding the residential character" of areas, and linked with antisocial behaviour and falling property values. It also labels people arriving by boat as "illegal immigrants" who are "abusing the system", with the "vast majority" tied to crime gangs. Under the rubric's dog-whistle and communal-antagonism tests, this presents a migrant group as a burden and threat to settled communities, despite the explicit praise for migrant workers.

Public interest or divisiveness

There is real substance here: inconsistent council planning controls, asylum accommodation costs and pressure on local services are legitimate policy questions. However, the debate is deliberately framed around "illegal immigration", and much of the speech casts asylum seekers as an imposition on "working-class areas" whose character is being changed. It also defends this framing against those with "selective hearing". Both strands are substantial, but the identity-based burden framing runs through the case being made, so the overall function leans towards deepening division over migration.

Jev’s structured answers

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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification