Debate contribution: Household Energy Costs
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 7 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Household Energy Costs
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5164950
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I rise not just to propose the motion but to issue a call to action, because, behind every statistic on fuel poverty, there is a person; behind every cold, damp wall, there is a child doing homework in a coat; behind every outdated boiler, there is a pensioner rationing heat to make ends meet. The motion recognises this simple truth: we cannot afford to keep building homes that belong in the past. The homes that we construct today must be fit for the future, energy efficient, affordable to heat and resilient in the face of climate change. Let us be honest: we have known for years that our housing stock is among the least efficient in the islands. We know that retrofitting is expensive and disruptive and can be slow, and we know that every home that we build today is a retrofit waiting to happen at a cost that we cannot afford, so why are we still building homes that will need fixing? The motion calls on the Minister for Communities, the Minister who is in charge of housing, to bring forward proposals that will embed higher energy-efficiency standards and renewable energy integration into the fabric of our social housing. Those should be the foundations that inform the next building regulations, because that is where real and lasting change happens. Alliance believes that we will continue to fail to deliver the housing that Northern Ireland needs unless leadership is shown. I am calling on the Minister for Communities, as the Minister responsible for housing, to stop dithering and to take forward actions. Whilst I appreciate that the Departments of Finance and Infrastructure would take forward the building regulations, there is an opportunity for the Minister for Communities to be proactive and drive changes by producing a blueprint for what people require homes to include. We have the technology and the expertise. What we now need is the courage to lead. By raising standards, we can slash energy bills for families who most need it. We can cut carbon emissions to meet our legal obligations under the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. We can create thousands of skilled jobs in construction, green technology and energy services, and we can build homes that are warm, dry and dignified, not just for today but for generations to come. This is not about insulation and solar panels; it is about social justice, fairness and ensuring that social housing tenants, who are often the most vulnerable in society, are not left behind in the transition to a low-carbon future. I went to Four Winds to look at a private development that is up to Passive House standard. In that development, the average general running costs for a month is £80, and that is for a four-bedroom home that charges electric cars. Heat, light, everything — £80. How much would it help vulnerable families if they had to pay only £80 to run their household? We cannot continue to treat energy efficiency as a luxury. It is a necessity, and it is a right. Let me be clear: this is not about adding cost; it is about adding value. The upfront investment in better standards pays for itself many times over in lower bills, healthier homes and a cleaner environment. We have a moral obligation to act, because every delay means more families trapped in fuel poverty, more emissions locked in and more public money spent on retrofitting homes that should have been built right the first time. Imagine a Northern Ireland where every new social home was a model of sustainability, where our buildings delivered energy efficiency, ensuring that fuel poverty became a problem of the past, and we were known not for lagging behind but for leading the way. That vision is within reach but only if we choose it. Instead of building homes that are obsolete on the day that they are finished, let us build homes that are warm, affordable and future-proofed. Let us pass the motion and ensure that the next building regulations reflect the ambition, urgency and compassion that our citizens need. Those building regulations need to be driven by communities, as they know what people who live in those homes need. I do not want to have to look back in 10 years and regret the houses being built today. Let us not have to explain to future generations why we chose short-term savings over long-term energy security and sustainability. The question before us is not whether we can afford to raise our standards; it is whether we can afford not to. Indeed, today, at the launch of the Simon Community report 'Childhood Adversity and Homelessness in Northern Ireland', it was confirmed that we can no longer afford to have the housing system that we currently have. We are going to be the first Assembly that will see 100,000 people on a waiting list for a social home. That is shameful. That is a record-breaking shame. The question before us is not whether we can afford to raise our standards; it is whether we can afford not to. I do not think that we can. It would be shameful if the only things growing in this mandate were waiting lists. We need to ensure that what we build is sustainable, and, Minister, this is where you have to act. I do not want to hear, "Building regulations are not my responsibility". I want to hear how you are making sure that the significant investment being made in new homes is on residential properties fit for the future and not based on out-of-date standards. It may fall to another Department to take forward the regulations, but surely Communities should be driving the need for better housing standards and design. If the Assembly agrees the motion, it will send a clear message to the Executive to work to shape the next building regulations with ambition and ensure that every home that we build is a promise to keep to our people, to our planet and to the future. I will make a comment about the amendments that are before us today. I cannot accept the DUP amendment because it shows lack of courage and a lack of ability to accept the law that is already in place about climate change. I cannot accept the Ulster Unionists' amendment because, to be honest, it is so far away from the initial intention of the motion that I have no idea why it is there — perhaps another motion on another day. I can accept the SDLP amendment because it talks in the same frame as Alliance, and the SDLP may as well have lifted the wording from the presentation that we got at Committee last Thursday, so well done on that one. That is it, Principal Deputy Speaker. It is over to the House to debate.
1,155 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 (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.75 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.13 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:22 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.