Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): I welcome the following officials to the meeting: Nicola McCrudden, CEO of Homeless Connect, and Mark Baillie, head of policy and programmes. Nicola, I believe that you will provide us with an opening statement.

Ms Nicola McCrudden (Homeless Connect): Yes, and I will try to be brief.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): I appreciate that. Please go ahead.

Ms McCrudden: Thank you, Chair, Deputy Chair and Committee members, for inviting us to address you. Homeless Connect represents over 40 organisations in the independent homeless sector. We support in principle the Bill's proposal to extend from 28 to 60 days the period during which a person can present as homeless and be considered as threatened with homelessness. That change would create an earlier opportunity for prevention work, although its practical effect would depend on implementation and available housing options. There is a shared commitment across the Assembly and in this room to preventing and reducing homelessness. We have worked constructively with the Minister and the Department, and we welcome the focus on prevention and wider reform.

We welcome the Department's intention to review homelessness legislation through the proposed homelessness commission, and we will engage constructively with it in that work. The Bill is more limited. It would change one specific threshold and can be considered on its merits. The principle is straightforward, which is that it is far better to prevent homelessness than to respond to someone after they have lost their home. We value the work undertaken by the Housing Executive and its partners, including many of our members, to prevent homelessness.

Advice and enquiries can already begin before a decision is made, so the Bill would not create an early engagement. What it would do is bring forward the point at which a qualifying applicant can be formally found to be threatened with homelessness and receive statutory support applicable to their circumstances. It would also bring that period more closely into line with the notice to quit period with regard to private tenancies. The additional 32 days create an opportunity, not a guarantee. They could give services more time to sustain a tenancy, address rent arrears, work with landlords or plan an alternative housing solution where appropriate. The Bill does not create an automatic entitlement to temporary accommodation at day 60; its practical effect will depend on a person's circumstances and on whether the Housing Executive and its partners and staff have the resources, housing options and referral arrangements to act.

We recognise the concerns around costs, caseloads and pressure on temporary accommodation. Early assessment may require additional capacity and may have accommodation-related costs. Successful prevention could avoid a later crisis or placement in some cases, but neither the number of such cases nor any resulting saving has been established. The financial assessment should therefore test additional cost recoveries and possible avoided costs without assuming a net saving. We would welcome the publication of the assumptions behind the indicative implementation costs alongside baseline information and regular reporting. That would help the Committee to assess the costs of the change and whether early intervention was making a difference without attributing every outcome solely to the additional 32 days.

Before commencement there should be a published, deliverable and funded implementation plan. The plan should cover procedures, staff training, referrals, communication, IT guidance etc. We also need to make sure that all of those are resourced. A wider review, which was talked about earlier, would be welcome in broadening the wider legislative framework. The Bill is not a complete answer to homelessness, as we know, but we support the limited amendment in principle as an earlier statutory opportunity for prevention. Its success will depend on adequate capacity, honest evaluation and, before commencement, a deliverable and funded implementation plan.

We welcome members' questions.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Thank you very much for that, Nicola. You will have heard in an earlier briefing the figure of £2·5 million being mentioned: has that taken into account cost-saving measures that could be in place as a result of the Bill if we are to reduce temporary accommodation? Is that the cost of implementing the Bill rather than taking into account the cost-saving measures?

Ms McCrudden: That is difficult to say because we do not know the assumptions on which that is based. It is critical that the Committee ask the Department and Housing Executive for that information. From my experience, it will mean that people will be able to present as homeless earlier and provide an opportunity for interventions at that stage, so there could be a cost saving. Not everyone who presents as homeless requires temporary accommodation, and about 16% of people with full duty applicant (FDA) status are currently in temporary accommodation. Even those with an FDA may not require temporary accommodation.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): We want the legislation to complement the homelessness commission that the Minister announced and any ongoing work. Colm's Bill will not answer all the questions or eradicate homelessness, but we want it to complement any ongoing work. How involved have you been with the homelessness commission? How is that going?

Ms McCrudden: The draft terms of reference (TOR) have been shared with us recently, and we met the Department last week. It asked us to comment on the TOR. We welcome the specific emphasis on the homelessness review, the legislation and the focus on homelessness prevention, and we very much support that. On the implementation side, we have asked for more information to clarify what it will mean in practice. However, draft TOR have been shared confidentially with us and with some of our members so that we can provide comments and feedback to the Department, which we have done.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Are you content that Colm's Bill will complement the homelessness commission, the terms of reference and the ongoing work in the commission?

Ms McCrudden: Yes. Anything that will help to address homelessness is most welcome. We would be concerned if the Bill were not to go ahead for whatever reason, because it would delay the extension of the period during which people can present as homeless. We thoroughly support anything that can help to prevent homelessness.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Thank you, Nicola.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, folks. Welcome to the Committee, and thank you for the presentation.

What about the homelessness prevention that currently happens? Earlier, you heard me ask whether the Housing Executive followed a written process within the 28 days: I get the impression that there is no process.

The Housing Executive has indicated that the homelessness prevention fund recorded 1,144 successful prevention outcomes: is that a good figure? How does that figure compare with the work that you do?

Ms McCrudden: Mark will probably come in on that. It is encouraging, considering the short time that our members and others had to implement the fund, and Homeless Connect also ran a project. To get that off the ground, we helped 50 individuals, and 33 cases of homelessness were prevented. It shows early signs of being a successful programme.

Mr Mark Baillie (Homeless Connect): From our perspective, it has been illustrated that you can prevent homelessness. The definition from the P1E form has been used, which is that you prevent homelessness and sustain tenancy within six months. We can get the exact definition. It does not measure activity; it measures outcomes. The project has been quite positive, even in the short time. It is worth saying that it was carried out over a tight timeline and operated on a single-year budget. If the fund were running over a multiyear period, it would probably get better outcomes. Again, ring-fencing the funding for the homelessness prevention fund is a credit to the Department and the Minister, and our members will support that view. It is the direction we need to go in, and we need to have more funding in that space.

Ms K Armstrong: That was not done within 28 days; it took a longer time.

Mr Baillie: Yes. It took longer.

Ms K Armstrong: I got an answer from the Department to a question about its bid for homelessness funding, which included the line:

Do you think that that will happen? I am thinking about the pressure on budgets, and we also have the severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) coming up.

Ms McCrudden: We are in a funding crisis. It is concerning, and our members are struggling to sustain services. The vast majority of our members are charities with charitable boards. They have had to make decisions and operate at considerable risk. As a result of that, we have had conversations with Ministers and others about what that will mean going forward. The voluntary sector should not bear the stresses of the funding situation. We cannot continue. If we are unable to meet the need for temporary accommodation, we will undoubtedly see more people on the streets in our cities and towns. If that happens, it will be a failure of society generally.

Mr Baillie: For a statutory body that is responsible for responding to homelessness to say that is a sign of how serious the situation is.

Ms K Armstrong: The programme that you talked about under the homelessness prevention fund has shown good outcomes over a longer period and has been able to prevent homelessness.

Ms McCrudden: Yes.

Ms K Armstrong: Right. OK.

Finally, the Bill, which changes the "threatened with homelessness" period from 28 days to 60 days, is the start of a longer process of reviewing homelessness legislation, which is needed because we have not had many changes to it. The homelessness commission is part of that move forward. The start of this mandate and the previous mandate were all about co-production and co-design. You have access to information that you cannot talk about — I do not want you to break confidence — but has the commission been co-designed? I worry about players from elsewhere coming in and not including the voices of people and organisations with lived experience of how to work this.

Ms McCrudden: We had a conversation with the Department in the summer about the need for a legislative review. It was a conversation, and we were encouraged by and support it in undertaking that. We were not involved in any of the other work that the Department is suggesting, nor was anyone with lived experience of homelessness. The Department has asked us how it can engage and involve people with lived experience, but we are very much about co-design, so we need to talk to people with lived experience and ask them how, they feel, they could best engage. The TOR are in draft and confidential, however, so we cannot do that at the minute, and that puts us in a difficult position. We are having conversations with staff members who have lived experience.

That is a long way of saying that there has not been a co-design approach, but we are encouraged that the Department is now coming to talk to us. We have fed in substantial comments on the terms of reference that, we hope, will be taken as constructive. I hope that the Department will take them on board, because, ultimately, any focus on homelessness and homelessness prevention is positive. Overall, we welcome the focus on homelessness. A co-design approach has not been taken, but, hopefully, we can get there.

Ms K Armstrong: At paragraph 18 of the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), the Bill sponsor states:

but we have not ended homelessness together as an outcome of the strategy, and it finishes next year. I am worried about the homelessness commission: if we do not take this step with the legislation, what comes out of the commission could be just another strategy that does not achieve what we hope for and need.

Ms McCrudden: It is important to think about the governance arrangements and structures for responding to homelessness. The Department and the Committee need to think about where the homelessness commission will fit in the current governance arrangements, because there are lots of groups looking at different aspects of homelessness, including the new homelessness strategy that, hopefully, will soon come into force.

Ms K Armstrong: Unfortunately, it looks as though there will be a gap between the 2027 one and the new one.

Mr Baillie: Governance is one of the points that we stress. The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report 'Homelessness in Northern Ireland' called for a review of the homelessness strategy steering group. We understand that a consultant has been appointed to do that, but we are not sure how the commission will fit with that. There may be a good answer to that. You will have officials before you next week, and you can ask them what the connections are, but, before the commission begins, it will need to spell out how it interconnects with the governance structure.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): I will pick up on Kellie's point. We do not want another strategy that has only ambitions; we want to see tangible results. You gave us a stark warning — if we do not do the work now, that is where we will be going — and we cannot take that lightly.

Mrs Cameron: It is good to see you both. Thank you for the presentation and for all your good work and the support that you regularly give our constituency offices. I have said that before, but it is worth mentioning again.

I welcome the fact that the Department is sharing the draft terms of reference for the homelessness commission with you and that it is clearly attempting to inject some co-design, if that has not already been happening. That is important.

We all welcome the intentions of the Bill sponsor, which are to make things better and create solutions. We recognise, however, that the Bill is just part of a much bigger process. It is important that we recognise that wider work needs to be done to deal with the issue.

What do you identify as the biggest cause of homelessness in Northern Ireland?

Ms McCrudden: Mark has the statistics in front of him, so I will defer to him. Relationship breakdown is probably one of the biggest causes, as is accommodation not being reasonable.

Mr Baillie: Yes. The three main ones are the loss of private rental and the two to which Nicola referred. That information is published regularly in the Department's housing bulletin.

Mrs Cameron: In seeking to providing a solution, what would be the biggest answer to the problem?

Ms McCrudden: It is housing supply, without a doubt. It is difficult to prevent homelessness when we do not have an adequate supply of affordable and social housing. Prevention is another one. Neither the Housing Executive nor any other single organisation can prevent homelessness. As a colleague said, it is about working across Departments and government agencies and having a partnership with our sector to prevent homelessness. As we mentioned, some of the early work that is happening in that space is having a really positive outcome.

Mr Baillie: I will add to that by talking about the sector's funding issue, which was referred to. Due to the failure to increase the Supporting People funding in line with inflation, the funding figure for the homelessness sector over the past decade shows a gap in real terms of about 18% down from what it would be had it met inflation. That is using the CPI method of calculating inflation. That has real consequences for services. Without a properly funded and well-resourced homelessness sector, we will see problems continue to spiral downwards.

Mrs Cameron: Without a doubt. We hear that from across the third sector and know how difficult an issue it is.

What concentration will there be by the homelessness commission on looking at the impact across all Departments and the role that those Departments will need to play in future? We are always harping on about building more houses, and we need to do that. We need physical structures to house people and make sure that they have a roof over their head. We also see homelessness on the ground, however. We see a wide range in the age of individuals who are literally on the streets, and they seem to be in progressively worse physical and mental condition. Even if they were to have a house, the issues that led to their being on the street in that state are a real worry for me. As a woman approaching 55, I have seen that real change. The difference from 30 years ago is that it is no longer the old man with a beard lying on the ground; it seems to have changed in an even more horrific way to encompass all ages, including a lot of young people.

Ms McCrudden: Part of the commission's work will, I know, be to look at systems failures. That important work will help to prevent homelessness. Where people become homeless and literally end up on the streets, an intervention further upstream could have prevented that. It is about statutory organisations and partners working together to say, "Let's not work with a silo mentality; let's work together for the benefit of this individual". That individual may have a mental health crisis, addiction issues and lots more going on. It is a question of how we can work together so that that person does not end up on the streets. It is encouraging to see that the commission will look at that, because, going forward, with this Bill and with subsequent legislation, we need to work more closely together and see how we can target funding specifically to prevent homelessness. Any future legislation should look at a homelessness prevention duty and not just for the Housing Executive; others need to work together to prevent homelessness.

Mr Baillie: I will add that homelessness is not just a housing issue. We need the Executive to respond collectively to it. Part of the argument that we made to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which played its part by recommending a review of the homelessness strategy steering group, was connected to the fact that we are not seeing enough interdepartmental working. The system is too siloed. I appreciate that I am preaching to the converted. You are well aware of the challenges around siloed working. It really has quite sharp effects on homelessness. We believe that a better outcome is possible and really hope that the commission helps us to get there.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Going forward, I remind members to keep their focus on the Bill. Obviously, this conversation is really important, but we have time constraints .

Mr Boggs: Deputy Chair, I am content that my question on co-design has been covered by Kellie. However, it is disappointing that it has taken until now for there to be a realisation that we need to start with a bit of co-design and that that was not realised from the start. That is not good enough, particularly given that the representative body for the sector can make that statement with confidence. That is really poor.

My question has been covered, and I thank Nicola and Mark for coming in.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Thank you, Paul.

Mr Gildernew: Chair, given how many times the PAC has been mentioned, I should have declared an interest: I sit on the PAC and have worked on those reports.

I will keep my question brief. Does the current 28-day window provide adequate support to people threatened with homelessness?

Ms McCrudden: No, it does not. I worked in housing advice for a long time before taking up this role. That window has been around for a long time. I tried to find out why or how we came up with it, and it was just following legislation from across the water at the time. Twenty-eight days is not enough. If anybody in the room were asked to leave their house in 28 days, just think about what you would have to do. Think about that. It is absolutely not long enough. The extension to 60 days would be welcome.

Mr Gildernew: Finally from me, how vital is it that the report of being threatened with homelessness be aligned with the notice to quit periods?

Mr Baillie: It is a logical thing to do. It was pointed out when the notice to quit legislation — the Private Tenancies Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 — went through that it would create that anomaly, and this Bill addresses that, which is an important element of it.

Mr Gildernew: Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): That brings us to the end of questions. Thank you very much, Nicola and Mark, for all the information. We will see you again soon.