Member's statement: Housing: Private Rents
Member's statement by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 24 March 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Housing: Private Rents
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5462739
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Before I come on to my statement, I want to briefly wish William Mooney well. He has been an usher in the Building for, I think, 28 years. He certainly helped me to navigate the Building when I was lost in the first few years. I wish him well in his retirement. I am sure that others do, too.
Today, it has been reported in the news that private rents have increased by 50% in the past five years. That is obviously shocking and appalling and should be condemned, but it is not entirely surprising. The cost of private rents is something that my party and I have been banging on about for many years. Indeed, in 2022, we tried to limit the increase in rents through amendments to the Private Tenancies Bill, but all Executive parties, effectively, voted them down. The Executive parties have failed on private rents: in my view, they do not want to challenge private landlords. We have gone way beyond the point of not wanting to annoy or aggravate people. This is a question of power and what parties here will do to challenge power and wealth: the power and wealth of private landlords. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am developing a Member's Bill on housing that, hopefully, after going through the hurdles, will deal with some of the problems. It will aim to freeze rents for a period of years, introduce a no-fault eviction ban to ensure that people cannot be evicted by their landlords and, over a period, introduce rent reductions. It is the view of many people, not just me, that the Minister for Communities has absolutely failed to tackle the housing crisis, particularly in the private rented sector, hence my Member's Bill and other people's action on housing. The Minister, alongside his party colleagues and others, has tried to pour cold water over rent controls and caps. To paraphrase him, he says that they do not work and that he fears that they would be counterproductive. I say this: rent controls do not work for landlords, but they clearly work for private renters by reducing the money that comes out of their account every month and, obviously, putting more money in their pocket. To the Minister and his officials, if they are listening, I say this: rent controls exist in various countries, including Denmark, Malta, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany and France. There are rent pressure zones in the South. They are not perfect, but they exist. Many North American and Canadian cities also have them. The North cannot continue to be a laggard in that regard. It is time for rent controls and rent reductions to ease the pressure on private renters and put more money back in their pockets.
461 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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:15 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.