Debate contribution: Housing: Disrepair, Damp and Mould
Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .
- MLA
- Mr Daniel McCrossan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 24 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Housing: Disrepair, Damp and Mould
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5404822
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend amendment No 1 to the House. As my colleague Mark said, it is an important issue. Clearly, across the House, there is unanimous support on and understanding of the issue. Every person in Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they live in social housing, private rented accommodation or temporary accommodation, has the right to a safe, warm and healthy home. Damp, mould and serious disrepair are significant and serious issues for so many of our people. Those are public health issues. They aggravate asthma and worsen respiratory conditions, they can affect a person's mental well-being, and they damage childhood development from a young age and can prevent opportunities and lead to further problems. In the most tragic of circumstances, they can lead to death, as we saw in England, with the death of Awaab, which Members have referenced quite a bit. That showed the worst possible consequences of the situation: a child lost his life, and there is potential for other children or vulnerable adults to lose theirs. Awaab's law was introduced because the system failed: it failed to act quickly; it failed to treat complaints with urgency; and it failed to put the health of a child above bureaucracy. We cannot wait for a similar tragedy to happen here before we act. The substantive motion, rightly, highlights the fear that many private tenants feel. Too many are afraid to raise concerns about mould or structural problems because they fear eviction. That imbalance of power must be addressed; a home should never come with a silence clause. Our amendment seeks to strengthen the motion by addressing a gap that is too often overlooked: single let, temporary accommodation that is used by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is not subject to routine, ongoing inspection beyond the point of acquisition. Once the property enters use, responsibility for maintenance rests with the private providers, and the Housing Executive acts only when issues are reported. That is reactive and has led to issues; the Minister recognised that in his comments. Families who are placed in temporary accommodation are among the most vulnerable. Many are homeless through no fault of their own. Some are fleeing domestic abuse and violence, and others are living with complex health needs. Placing them in accommodation that may not be inspected regularly, relying on complaints being made rather than carrying out proactive checks, is a serious systemic weakness. We need a statutory framework that does three things. First, it must compel landlords across the social and private sectors to investigate and remedy damp, mould and disrepair within strict and enforceable time frames.
Secondly, it must protect tenants from retaliation when they raise legitimate concerns. Thirdly, it must place a clear statutory duty on the Housing Executive to regularly inspect and enforce minimum fitness standards across all temporary accommodation. Inspections should not depend on whether there is a crisis; enforcement should not depend on media attention; and standards should not depend on your postcode.
We also need to recognise the wider context that much of our housing stock is ageing and energy-inefficient and that poor insulation and inadequate ventilation has led to significant issues with damp and mould. Members referenced how the Housing Executive — I have experienced this in meetings — has said to residents that the issues are occurring because they are not opening windows and there is not good ventilation and that is what is leading to the dampness, with the suggestion that they simply give it a wipe. That is unacceptable. It is affecting people's health and well-being. If we are serious about tackling the major health inequalities related to housing, reducing hospital admissions and protecting our young people and the vulnerable, we must be serious about housing standards. This is not about giving landlords a hard time — the vast majority do the right thing — but, where standards slip, properties fall into serious disrepair and tenants feel powerless, the law has to be on the tenants' side. We have a duty to fix that. The SDLP amendment ensures that we do not overlook those in temporary accommodation. It also ensures accountability and clarity of responsibility and that no one is left in unsafe housing simply because they are in transition. A safe home is not a privilege; it is a basic right. I commend the amendment to the House.
730 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: 0.02 (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 (0.98).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.98 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.42 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.30 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.17 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.09 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:03 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.