Debate contribution: Housing and the Programme for Government
Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on .
- MLA
- Ms Claire Sugden
- Party at the time
- Independent
- Date
- 17 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Housing and the Programme for Government
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5013637
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Housing continues to be the most common issue brought to my office by constituents, closely followed by domestic abuse. Sadly, in our siloed government, those two problems are often treated separately. It really is not acceptable for someone who is fleeing domestic violence to find themselves stuck in a hostel or an unsuitable flat for three years, but our office has dealt with such cases. If we want people, especially women and children, to leave abusive situations, we need to provide them with safe, secure and permanent housing. Otherwise, the system is setting them up to go back. We hear not just from victims of abuse but from older people, some of whom are in their 70s and 80s, who have been evicted from homes that they have rented for decades. Why? It is not because they have done anything wrong but because the landlord can make more money renting it as a holiday home. On the north —.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the point. We are coming to the point where we will have to consider legislation, given that people are finding themselves without a home. It is particularly critical for older people. Last week, I was dealing with a lady in her 80s who will be evicted at the end of the month but has nowhere to go. It is a failure of this Government and society that we are not addressing such issues. I will come back to the point about holiday lets and holiday homes and talk to the bigger impact that they have. This is not just about having a conversation about having a second home on the north coast, and it is not about telling people that they should not come to what is probably the most beautiful part of Northern Ireland. I understand why they want to do that. However, it is about recognising the impact that that has. When people are there only in the evenings and at weekends, they do not send their kids to the school or use the public services. Public services are driven by demand, and we can already see that in our schools. Kids are not going to the local schools, because there are no homes in the local area to house them. Families who need their children as carers cannot live close to where their older relatives are, and that has an impact on our health and social care system. We cannot look at this just in terms of there not being enough roofs to go over people's heads; we have to look at the wider system. I am deeply frustrated that this is not a cross-departmental priority. I appreciate that there are issues and that money is tight, but we are doing what we always do in this Government, which is to firefight. If we do not look at this situation and do not have a genuine 10-year plan, we will see those issues impacting on all other areas of society. It is not just about bricks and mortar but about infrastructure. Others spoke to that when talking about the challenges with NI Water and planning. We are setting ourselves up for a fall, and we can already see the cracks starting to appear. I encourage Members to look at this not just as a case of there not being enough roofs over people's heads. It is about the wider system, and housing is a critical part of that. I would like to hear from the Minister about the tangible actions that he has taken. I have raised many times, including at the beginning of this debate, the issue of second homes and tourists. I understand from responses to Assembly questions that discussion is happening, but what are we really doing? How are we addressing the issue? Ultimately, we have to build more homes, but we can do other things in the meantime. I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say.
661 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: 0.05 (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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.77 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.22 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:47 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.