Debate contribution: Social Housing: New Builds
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Social Housing: New Builds
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5548507
Read the official Assembly record
Text
At the beginning of 2025-26, the outlook for the social housing development programme was poor, with a budget that would have achieved only 1,100 new social homes. The leader of the Opposition said during a debate at that time that, if we were lucky, barely 1,000 new homes would be started. Since then, however, I have secured a further £42 million, which has resulted in the largest investment ever in the social housing development programme and achieved 1,765 new social home starts, representing a 17% increase in delivery, year on year.
As a result, over 6,000 new social homes are under construction across Northern Ireland. Looking forward, we need to do more. We need to secure more budget much earlier. In December, £29 million in extra funding was available, which was more than the programme could absorb once in-year funding became available. I have, therefore, repeatedly pressed the Executive to earmark more funding for the social housing development programme, and, while there is some impact from this in the current Budget proposals, that is still not enough. That is why I have prepared a proposal so that we can secure public-sector land instead of grant. I have also brought forward the reviews of the grant and the design guide, and a range of other things is being explored or introduced that will complement the social housing development programme's moving towards the housing supply targets. Those include the New Foundations programme, Housing Executive acquisitions and the housing supply action plan that will shortly come to the Executive.
256 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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:33 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.