Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): As members are aware, the Chairperson, Colm Gildernew, is the sponsor of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. I am therefore taking over in the Chair for this item of business, in line with the procedural advice on the handling of a Bill where the sponsor is also the Chairperson.

I welcome Mr Colm Gildernew MLA, the Bill sponsor, and Mr Dermot Browne, who is Colm's policy adviser. Colm, I invite you to make a brief opening statement before we move to questions from members.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat

, Deputy Chair, and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present my Bill to the Committee. As you can see, the Bill is very short. It has only one substantive clause, of literally three lines, which, importantly, aims to amend the definition of "threatened with homelessness" in the Housing Order 1988. It would change that definition from someone who is likely to become homeless within 28 days to someone who is likely to become homeless within 60 days. It would mean that the Housing Executive would be required to support, at an earlier stage, people who are threatened by homelessness. That would assist in preventing more people falling into homelessness.

The Speaker's ruling that Members' Bills should be tightly focused meant that a more expansive Bill would not have been allowed. We took the view that this proposal would be within the rules and has the potential to deliver significant change. My preference would have been for the Department to bring such measures forward as part of a wider reform of the homelessness legislation landscape, but, when I started the process in 2024, the Minister made clear, following our writing to him, that he would not be introducing any legislative reforms in the area of homelessness in this mandate.

In the past number of months, most likely as a result of the Bill being introduced, the Minister has confirmed that he will review the current legislation, with the aim of introducing legislation in the next mandate. Whilst I welcome that development, I believe that, if we can introduce legislation in this mandate, we should, particularly given the level of crises that we see in respect of housing and homelessness. I am fully aware that this would be a relatively small change in the legislation, and that it would not fix everything, but it would be a step in the right direction. Clearly, there is a great need for change, given the severity of the housing crisis. We are seeing more and more people being pushed into homelessness due to the unaffordable cost of rent and the lack of social and affordable housing. That includes people who are sleeping rough on the streets; families who are living in hotels; children who have no access to a desk for their studies; and people who are sofa-surfing. It is the full spectrum of homelessness that, we know, exists, and the numbers who are impacted by that are shocking.

We have not seen any significant changes to our housing and homelessness legislation for decades. As a result, we have fallen drastically behind other regions. The North is the only region that still has a 28-day window. England's window of support is 56 days, and Scotland and Wales both now have a six-month window of support. Since 2022, the notice to quit period for most tenancies has been eight weeks, and, earlier this year, the Department consulted on much longer notice to quit periods. It makes sense to have the window of support for those threatened with homelessness aligned more appropriately with the notice to quit periods.

The last point that I want to make is this: we are all aware of the need to shift towards a model of homelessness prevention. Preventing homelessness will always be the most effective way of tackling the problem for the individuals, families and children involved, and for the organisations that are tasked with supporting those people. There will also be an economic benefit through a reduction of the huge costs that we see attached to temporary accommodation. I have made the point, consistently, that we do not spend enough of our homelessness budget on prevention. This Bill would move us in that direction. I conducted an online consultation last year. The response was overwhelming support for this change, particularly from the homelessness sector, which has been campaigning for it for years.

I am happy to take members' questions.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): Thanks very much for that, Colm. That was a good, succinct outline. I have a couple of questions before I open it up to members. You mentioned that Scotland and Wales have recently extended their window of support to six months. Why did you not consider putting a six-month window in the Bill?

Mr Gildernew: I am supportive, in general, of having a six-month window. Moving further in that direction will be appropriate in the future. We will have a chance to see what difference the six-month window makes in Scotland and Wales; we will be able to make very direct comparisons between Scotland and Wales and England. The Department should look at that for future legislation, including in the review that it is currently carrying out. There is huge scope for that. However, given the requirement for Members' Bills to be narrow in scope and not to have significant financial implications, we felt that the 60-day window was more achievable. That would represent a good start: it would allow the Housing Executive to start to scale up additional levels of support; and it would make an impact on the range of roles that the Housing Executive has to carry out in that regard.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): OK. What would the longer window for support mean in practice? How many people do you envisage being eligible for the support?

Mr Gildernew: It is important to say that anyone who is vulnerable to homelessness would be eligible for support at an earlier stage. Under the current law, someone who has been given notice to quit of eight weeks is not entitled to any support from the Housing Executive until 28 days before they are due to become homeless. That is four short weeks — four high-pressure weeks. The expectation is that they should find their own means of support prior to that. In such situations, those who receive the notice to quit often simply wait until the 28-day window opens and then seek a solution. That runs down the clock for the Housing Executive, potentially for the landlord, and certainly for the person who is at risk of homelessness. The other thing to remember is that there is a range of things that the Housing Executive can do during that period, including signposting, providing financial advice and maybe supporting mediation between the tenant and landlord, all of which would benefit from additional time.

It is hard to put an exact figure on the number of people who would be eligible for support. The Bill would not necessarily mean that many more people will be entitled to housing support; it would just mean that people who are threatened with homelessness will get the support at a slightly earlier stage. It is important to be clear about that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): OK. Thanks for that. There is a real focus on early intervention where potential homelessness becomes an issue.

Mr McHugh: Tá fáilte romhaibh uilig.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat.

Mr McHugh: Tá tú ar an taobh eile inniu, Colm.

Mr Gildernew: Sin an scéal.

Mr McHugh: Sin mar atá.

Colm, this is an issue that all MLAs deal with, and — would you believe it? — over the past two weeks, my office has been dealing with one such situation that is very serious. You outlined the support that is there for people who are threatened with homelessness, and that is so important. Given the financial consequences of providing those types of facilities and so on, what resource implications would there be for the Housing Executive if the Bill were to become law?

Mr Gildernew: There is uncertainty about the cost implications because the Housing Executive has not been able to provide exact figures. I have no doubt that there would be resource implications for the Housing Executive and that more staff would be required to process the additional workload. In fact, the purpose of the Bill is to put more resource into prevention at an earlier stage. The Research and Information Service (RaISe) carried out research on the Scottish example and projected an additional spend in the region of £750,000 to £1 million a year, although that is a very rough estimate. I would welcome more clarity on the additional spend. The Housing Executive should clarify it at the earliest opportunity; it will be able to engage in any consultation process.

However, equally relevant is the fact that there could be savings in the long run from preventing people falling into homelessness. It is also important to set the £1 million in the context of the almost £40 million a year that we spend on temporary accommodation, with very poor outcomes for families. It is important to stress that there could be savings if we can get upstream of the problem. We have long been aware of the financial benefits of preventing homelessness, and we are also aware that prevention requires upfront investment. The Housing Executive currently spends only about 10% of its homelessness budget on prevention. There is an urgent need to move the dial by investing more in prevention activities instead of reacting to the crisis after it occurs, which is significantly more expensive and is significantly more harmful for families and individuals.

Mr McHugh: I hope that, with a fair wind, the Bill will come to the fore as legislation as soon as possible. From dealing with people on the ground who are homeless or who are experiencing the threat of homelessness, which is maybe even more pertinent, I know that the issue causes so much distress. I look forward to the Bill coming to the fore as legislation as quickly as possible. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Gildernew: Thank you.

Ms K Armstrong: I welcome the Bill and support it completely. Clause 2, "Commencement", states:

Why not make commencement the day after Royal Assent?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): In drafting the first iteration of the Bill, we were advised to go with 12 months, and we negotiated back and forward on that with the Bill Office and the drafters. In fairness, the Housing Executive would need to be allowed to scale up in order to meet the demand. We felt that a year was too long but we could see why having commencement immediately would be a challenge, so we thought that six months would be a reasonable compromise: it would be well within the Housing Executive's horizons but give it time, so that the change would be meaningful.

Ms K Armstrong: Have you thought about potential consequential amendments? I am thinking about the extension of the Bill's application. As well as the Housing Executive, there are relevant programmes, such as Through the Gate and the programme for care leavers, and when the Home Office notifies the Housing Executive that somebody has leave to remain. I am not sure whether legislation or just policy changes would be needed there. Have you had an opportunity to look at whether any consequential amendments would be needed in those situations?

Mr Gildernew: We certainly took that into account when considering the Bill. I am firmly an advocate of the Department's bringing forward a potential prevention duty that should apply more widely to housing associations and health organisations, like "ask and act", for example. However, in developing the Bill, taking into account the Speaker's criteria and the resource implications, we felt that the best thing to do was to expand the time, rather than the breadth, of the existing duty. I would welcome the Department's doing that in the future.

Ms K Armstrong: In clause 1, we go from 28 days to 60 days. I am thinking about the ongoing consideration of exemptions to the notice to quit for, for instance, antisocial behaviour or not paying. It means that those people are still under the two weeks. I take it that we are not saying that the person has to have 60 days' notice; it is up to 60 days.

Mr Gildernew: Yes.

Ms K Armstrong: Because the other parts will just be saying a week, a fortnight or out immediately.

Mr Gildernew: It is to allow people who are going to be coming to that stage to get support earlier. I think that it would also empower the Housing Executive to give them the support earlier, particularly bearing in mind the range of things —. I know that the Housing Executive expressed its concern about temporary accommodation, but there is a whole other suite of things that the Housing Executive can engage in that space: mediation with landlords or family members; signposting to other agencies, such as health trusts; and facilitating benefit checks. It can also refer individuals to housing support organisations through the Supporting People programme or to debt advice. All of that could potentially provide a solution before the crisis unfolds.

Ms K Armstrong: I remember that, during the previous mandate, the Chair was out one morning and I got to be Chair. I talked about the 56 days, and you have gone further to 60 days. I absolutely welcome your Bill's coming forward. You have thought a lot through it. I have been there and done that; good luck.

Mr Gildernew: Thank you, Kellie.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Colm, for your presentation. Although I broadly welcome the intent of the Bill, I am concerned about the lack of housing stock available to implement what you propose. Like every other MLA, I have people coming into my office, and 28 days is just not enough time in which to try to sort things out, especially in a family situation. I welcome the intention of the Bill. However, I wonder about the lack of infrastructure that is holding up housing development throughout the Province and how your Bill will impact on housing stock, especially in areas such as mine, where a lot of former Housing Executive stock has been bought up by the private sector for buy-to-rent, which takes houses out of the area. There is also a real problem throughout Northern Ireland because of Airbnb and rented accommodation, particularly in the coastal areas where I come from. How would your Bill help people like me?

Mr Gildernew: That is a really valid concern, Maurice, and I share it. The Minister has announced that he is looking at working with the Housing Executive to purchase 600 additional homes for temporary accommodation. If that were taken forward at pace, that would certainly be welcome. There is an obvious need to work on the housing space in terms of additional housing. That is ongoing. The Committee has heard that the Infrastructure and Communities Departments are working closely on unlocking infrastructure where housing projects are taking place. It is key that that continues to happen. Again, I emphasise the fact that, along with housing provision, there is a whole suite of other things that the Housing Executive can engage in to prevent people from needing one of those additional 600 temporary homes. So that is a valid concern. I will continue to work with the Department on the urgent need to get more social housing built to meet all needs, including the homelessness issues that we are facing.

Mr Bradley: Thanks for that. As I said, I welcome the intention of the Bill, and I wish you well with it.

Mr Gildernew: Thanks, Maurice.

Mrs Cameron: Welcome, Colm and Dermot, from the other side, I should say. That is not as ominous as it sounds.

Mr Gildernew: You know what that is like, Pam.

Mrs Cameron: I do. I will probably give you as easy a time as you have given me in the past, so thank you for that.

I have a couple of questions about the Bill. Clearly, given the presentations that we have had already today, data sharing and having all our ducks in a row is really important. I share Maurice's concerns in and around our housing stock and our ability to provide across all housing tenures, which is a very real challenge. Given your remarks, do you see the move from 28 days to 60 days as a stepping stone towards a six-month period? I also want to ask you about the additional resources that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will need in order to manage that longer intervention period.

Mr Gildernew: I see it more as a step in the right direction, rather than a stepping stone. It will be very useful to be able to track what is happening in Scotland and Wales and to see what additional benefits there are. I believe that it will bring additional benefits, but we will be able to assess that more clearly. Again, I would have gone for the six months, only for the fact that I was conscious of doing something that would make a real difference in this mandate rather than making the perfect the enemy of the good. I wanted to do something that could genuinely move us in a better direction.

The Housing Executive's concerns should be fed into the consultation process and weighed up. Again, I go back to the fact that an awful lot of the work that this will open up for the Housing Executive will be around support and alternatives and diverting or preventing people from falling into homelessness. I would hope that that would be of benefit to the Housing Executive, as well as to anybody who may be impacted. It is simply about providing more time. All of the evidence indicates that the more time you have, the better the potential outcome. The final part of your question, Pam, relates to what we have at this stage that we can look at. The RaISe paper indicated something in the region of £750,000 to £1 million. To be honest, given the scale of the homelessness crisis, we should consider making that investment. I would be very keen to work with the Housing Executive on that.

Mrs Cameron: I am sure that you have already given a touch to your party colleague, the Finance Minister, to see whether he is prepared to put in a bit extra to deal with this. There are serious issues around homelessness, and we all have constituents who face it on a daily and weekly basis. It is a real issue, and we know that there is not enough money in the system to deal with it, yet we are spending more than we have ever spent before. The trend is worrying, in that it keeps going up. We need to find better ways to manage that. Clearly, there is a cost, but do you see cost savings in future?

Mr Gildernew: I genuinely do. For every family or individual that we can prevent from becoming homeless, there is a huge saving. The costs of temporary accommodation and of dealing with all the other education and health impacts of homelessness ripple out throughout the whole system. I think that this is a genuine invest-to-save opportunity, simply from an economic perspective. The social impact of preventing families from falling into homelessness by giving them more time will result in another huge benefit, but there are savings in a strict economic sense to be made as well.

Mr Durkan: Pam touched on a question that I wanted to ask, and Colm might have answered it. In your introductory remarks and in your answer to Pam, Colm, you indicated a cost on the admin side for the Housing Executive of between £750,000 and £1 million a year. However, the cost that it is most concerned about will be the potential cost of increasing the number of people who are eligible for temporary accommodation. I fully support what you are trying to do, but, thus far, we have no analysis of what that might cost. Long term, it could and should realise savings financially, never mind all the other good reasons to prevent homelessness. However, is there a concern not only about the cost of temporary accommodation going up yet again, because more people will be entitled to it or eligible for it, but about the physical availability of temporary accommodation units?

Mr Gildernew: That will have to be considered. Certainly, there will be a resource implication. I make no apology for that, because my Bill is designed to move more of the resource into the prevention space. That will need to be taken into account. It could be the case that there is a spike in people presenting earlier, but it is not necessarily the case that there will be more people, because within another 28 days they were going to become homeless anyway. We are trying to divert them away from that crisis, and there is huge benefit from doing that. I do not think that we can assume that this will be prohibitive in that sense. Certainly, the Housing Executive has not presented us with any evidence to that effect. Importantly, I go back to the valid and important point that the Housing Executive could, should and now will be able to do all the other things within that wider window.

Mr Durkan: Absolutely. I concur entirely. Thank you.

Ms Mulholland: My question follows on a wee bit from the evidence point. Was any consideration given to the inclusion of a review after a set time so that we can see the number of presentations in the 29- to 60-day window and what the temporary accommodation use was? Did you consider making provision for a review in the Bill?

Mr Gildernew: We had not considered that in that sense, but I am absolutely happy to work with all parties and members on any issues like that which may add value or scrutiny. I have no issue at all with that. I am quite open to the idea. I am happy to talk to you about that and to work with any party, any member or, indeed, the Department on it.

Ms Mulholland: It follows on from what we heard this morning. When we have a proposal that will change the metrics, it is useful to put something in place so that we can review it. As Kellie said, we are fully supportive of your proposal.

Mr Gildernew: The review thing is something that we as a Committee have consistently welcomed. That is a valid point, Sian. Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): I do not see any other members indicating.

The Clerk's memo sets out a proposed Committee Stage timeline and proposes a pre-Second Stage call for views over the summer, with an eight-week consultation period, given the brevity of the Bill. The call for views will launch on 9 July and close on 3 September 2026. Are members content to agree the proposed Committee Stage plan and time frame?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): Andy, do you want to come in on that point?

Mr Allen: I want to highlight the fact that — we always express this view about consultations that take place over the summer — if we are going to consult over the summer, we need to make sure that we try to get it out as far and as wide as possible, because organisations have staff on leave during the summer etc. We therefore need to take a cautious approach in order to maximise the reach.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): Absolutely. Thanks for that, Andy. It is a fair point.

The draft Citizen Space consultation questions are set out at appendix 1 to the Clerk's memo. Are members content to agree the draft Citizen Space consultation questions, subject to any amendments that members wish to make?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): Are members content that the Committee team proceed with the next steps set out in the memo: placing the advertisement for the call for views, uploading the consultation questions to Citizen Space, seeking the advice of the Examiner of Statutory Rules and human rights advice from the Assembly's Legal Services, commissioning a RaISe paper and contacting the relevant stakeholders?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs Mason): That is the end of that agenda item. Colm and Dermot, thank you both very much for your presentation and for being with us.