Debate contribution: Housing Costs
Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 19 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Housing Costs
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5322613
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion because affordable housing is a poverty issue, a mental health issue, a child well-being issue and, increasingly, an equality of opportunity issue. It is another clear example of why we need a Government in which all Departments work together to address what has become a serious societal crisis that is like a loop on repeat. We do not need the Office for National Statistics analysis to tell us that private rented accommodation in Northern Ireland has become less affordable since 2020 as rents have increased more rapidly than pay. We hear that from our constituents every day. Like for Mr Butler, week after week and month after month, it is, by a country mile, the issue that is brought into my constituency office most commonly. In North Antrim, I regularly hear from people who are paying so much more in rent than they would pay if they had a mortgage, yet they are unable to access a secure, high-quality home in the private rented sector. In the north of my constituency, that pressure is compounded by the loss of long-term private rentals to short-term holiday accommodation. Homes that once housed local families are increasingly being priced and repurposed away from the local need. To be clear: this is not about opposing tourism. Tourism is vital to our economy. I live in a very tourist-centric town. However, without regulation, unrestrained short-term lets reduce supply, drive up rents and force local people to compete for fewer homes. That is destroying communities across my North Antrim constituency amongst others. Maybe the Minister could confirm whether he has had any conversations with local councils about the issue recently. A quick update would be really helpful. Fuel poverty is also a key issue in the picture, particularly in the private rented sector. Many renters live in poorly insulated, energy-inefficient homes, with little power or capacity to be able to improve them. Too often, landlords will not invest in energy efficiency, leaving tenants to be hit twice, once by their high rents and, again, by their high energy bills, both of which directly feed into poverty. I hear all the time from constituents, particularly younger renters and their families, that they would never challenge poor conditions or unsafe repairs for fear of eviction or sudden rent increases. Housing instability is one of the most significant stressors that a person can face. When it becomes widespread, it not only harms the individual but places additional strain on our health services. I imagine that all MLAs have had people who have come in with health issues relating to mould in rental properties. It places additional strain on our homelessness systems and emergency accommodation, all of which are costly reactive responses to a problem that should be prevented rather than constantly reacted to. All that we have talked about is overlaid by the fact that housing policy is unable to keep pace with reality. The continued loss of social housing stock, which many of us have mentioned, intensifies pressure right across the system. As Mrs Cameron mentioned, I understand the importance of the opportunity to buy your own home, but how can that be justified when the housing crisis is being driven by the fact that not enough homes are being built at a time when social housing stock has been sold off and not replaced? Every social home that is lost does not just disappear; it reappears as pressure elsewhere. That is why the call in the motion for "robust third generation rent controls", alongside stronger tenant protection, matters. As my colleague Ms Armstrong outlined, we support practical, achievable reforms, an affordable rent triple lock to stop damaging rent hikes and an end to no-fault evictions, so renters can put down roots. There should be limits on short-term holiday lets to protect homes for members of the community, and we should at least look at the viability of a statutory housing ombudsman with the powers that would be needed to uphold standards and protect tenants when things go wrong. Regardless of what happens, the direction of travel needs to change immediately, because housing is not just a commodity; it is the foundation of people's lives, and it is a human rights issue. Anything that we can do within our scope at the moment has to be prioritised.
723 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: 0.03 (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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.65 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.19 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.10 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:17 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.