Debate contribution: Housing and the Programme for Government
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew McMurray on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew McMurray
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 17 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Housing and the Programme for Government
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5013685
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I share the Opposition's concerns about the slow progress on the housing supply strategy. The Programme for Government sets an important target of commencing at least 5,850 new social homes by the end of the mandate. If we want to meet that target, we need to make speedy and sustained progress right from the start. It is very concerning to hear that the Department will only be able to start work on 900 to 1,000 new social homes this year when the target demands more than twice that number. Even if we meet the target, we will barely touch the sides of the problem. As many have pointed out, in the first quarter of 2025, over 49,000 households were on the social housing waiting list across Northern Ireland. In the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area alone, nearly 4,000 households are on that list. There are also over 4,000 households that have presented as homeless across Northern Ireland. They are not just statistics, as has been pointed out quite well by Mr Durkan. Families and, in particular, single individuals wait far too long for the dignity of a secure and affordable home. Let me be clear: achieving 1,000 new starts is not good enough. I share the frustration and the sense of urgency, but I disagree —.
Certainly.
I have another minute. That is great. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Certainly, I support the UUP amendment. I am happy to say that. I disagree, however, with the motion's expressing a lack of confidence in the Executive. That will not build a single new home or lead to any extra funding. It does not lead to one bit of help for the thousands of people in housing stress. We need constructive action now. That is why our amendment calls for the Minister:
"to bring forward a costed ... action plan".
However, we are happy to support the UUP amendment as it is. Theirs is a much more solution-focused approach, which can help to improve outcomes and take meaningful steps towards delivering homes in communities. To sum up, we have all heard about the practical and tangible issues that are facing housing, so I want to point out, in disagreement with Mr Gaston, that it is very poor form to place the blame for them almost solely on newcomers. Apart from that, it was a good and cordial debate. The other common thread — the main thread — is waste water infrastructure.
I am about to sit down.
420 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: 0.08 (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 (0.93).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.79).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.17 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.79 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.78 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.20 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.