Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): I welcome, from the Simon Community, Jim Dennison, chief executive; Cathy Brolly, public affairs and policy manager; and Laoise McDonnell, lived experience advocate. I invite Jim to make an opening statement, after which we will have questions from members.

Mr Jim Dennison (Simon Community NI): Thank you, Chair and members, for the invitation to speak. With your indulgence, I will share my opening statement with Laoise, who is a former client of the Simon Community with incredible lived experience, which will be good for you to hear. Plus, she has let it be known on many occasions that she wants my job, so I thought that this would be a good opportunity for her to do a dry run. [Laughter.]

Cathy is our public affairs and policy manager and has been instrumental in providing a lot of the operational detail that is contained in our formal submission. She will be able to help me out and cover some of the detail.

In my short input, I will cover four things: why homelessness prevention is key; what we see and experience as the largest homeless charity in Northern Ireland; why the 28-day definition is a real problem for us; and why the Simon Community supports the Bill. From your constituency work, you will know that homelessness rarely happens overnight. It tends to comprise a series of escalating things that can happen weeks, months and even years in advance which bring about housing insecurity. It can happen for all manner of reasons, including rent arrears, relationship breakdown, domestic abuse or eviction. All manner of individuals come to us with myriad different problems whom we have to support. The warning signs are there, but our system is stacked so that we do not see them or act on them early enough. Prevention is key to our work. It may seem trite, but prevention is the best way to end homelessness — to stop it before it starts. We fundamentally support the Bill because it allows more opportunities and time for prevention.

We take over 26,000 calls a year from people and families from all different walks of life and backgrounds, looking for help and support. On average, that is one call every 20 minutes; the demand is relentless. However, the issue is that it tends to be individuals who are at crisis point. It is not uncommon for us to hear stories of individuals going to the Housing Executive upon receipt of a notice to quit — I know that the Housing Executive is under severe pressure — only to be told, "Call us when you actually lose their tenancy". When they call back, they are at that crisis point. The Housing Executive acts, in effect, like a 999 emergency service, but a fundamental housing system that is working well should never act like that.

The 28-day definition is a problem for us, for the reasons that I have outlined. It limits opportunities for early intervention. By the time someone formally qualifies for housing action, the solutions have narrowed. That is why we support the Bill. Extending the definition to 60 days creates a larger window and aligns it with the private-sector notice period. We need earlier action. It will not necessarily increase demand; rather, it will allow us to deal with demand in a more streamlined way. The Bill, we believe, is not a complete solution but is a practical and achievable reform. Given the scale of homelessness in Northern Ireland — you will be aware of this — with over 64,000 people currently deemed to be legally homeless, we need to do something and to do it really quickly. With that, I will hand over to Laoise.

Ms Laoise McDonnell (Simon Community NI): Hello, everybody. I have worked with the Simon Community for nearly four years. I also work with Homeless Connect and, across the water, I dealt with Groundswell and Homewards. I also stand by the Bill's proposal to change the definition to 60 days. From personal experience, I know that it takes 28 days for an application to be accepted or rejected. If we up it to 60, people will still have a roof over their head, and we will not be in danger of the Simon Community or other services being inundated with calls from people who are on the streets. We will have the opportunity for an appeal to go in or a full answer to move someone on and protect them from being left on the streets.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Thanks very much, Jim and Laoise. I will pick up on a point that Jim made about the Housing Executive. When someone receives notice to quit, if they ring the Housing Executive — you described it as a 999 call — the Housing Executive says, "Come back to us on day 28", but we should also mention the importance of preventing homelessness. Colm's Bill is very much about people who are threatened with homelessness rather than people who have become homeless, and its key objective is to prevent people from getting to that stage. Will you comment a wee bit more on the process as it happens at the minute, with that call at day 28, and the difference that the extension to 60 days would make in helping somebody who is at crisis point?

Mr Dennison: There is real urgency in the calls that we get. The demand is immediate, and it demands an immediate response, but such is the demand that we, as the largest homelessness charity, and the Housing Executive are very often not stacked up to give that immediate response. Our feeling is that much earlier formal recognition of the threat or risk of homelessness would give us more time and individuals and families more protection, so there would not be that immediacy to it. I hate to think about where I would be if I were given a 28-day notice. The 60-day cushion just allows a little more time. Other jurisdictions have longer lead-in times, which we advise you to consider in future, but 60 days provides that window of opportunity to start the process and the provision of advice and to look at alternatives. We provide alternative options — tenancy deposits, help with rent and help with fuel relief — to keep people in their homes. That is the most important thing for us.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): At the minute, do you see the way it is working with the Housing Executive —. Sorry, I do not mean to focus on that, because we will go back to what you said about Colm's Bill. If they are getting to day 28, is it really about temporary accommodation? Is that what they are being offered, instead of those preventative measures being sought in the 28 days and, hopefully, the 60 days — ultimately, that it ends up that the person is just going straight to temporary accommodation on day 28? Is that how it normally works out?

Mr Dennison: Ultimately, yes. We have a reactive system that probably worked when we had less demand. We have seen demand double in the past five to 10 years. When I joined the Simon Community, the demand was not of the nature that it is now. We were not taking so many calls and we were not seeing so many people being deemed legally homeless. Then, a reactive solution — I will not say that it worked, but it probably worked more efficiently. It simply does not work now, because of the demand. We are in reactive mode rather than proactively keeping, or trying to keep, ahead.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Ultimately, if we can extend it to 60 days, there will be more time in between, and, hopefully, we can get those preventative measures that we want to see, as opposed to reactive ones.

Mr Dennison: Yes.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Finally, you have said, and Colm has said before and we have mentioned before, that this Bill is just one piece of the puzzle. It is not a panacea, and it is not a silver bullet to end homelessness, but it is one important piece. Do you want to comment on that, Cathy?

Ms Cathy Brolly (Simon Community NI): Absolutely. As Jim said, we think that this is not the whole solution but that it is a really important first practical and achievable step that we can take now in the scale of homelessness that we are in. We would like to see wider legislative change and that statutory prevention duty for the Housing Executive so that homelessness prevention can be embedded in the system and funded and prioritised as it needs to be.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you very much for your attendance at the Committee. I will try to be fairly brief. I have about three questions for you. You support the 60-day window, but you also say that a statutory prevention duty is needed. What practical benefit would the Bill deliver on its own that could not be achieved without that wider duty?

Ms Brolly: As Jim said in his opening statement, homelessness rarely happens overnight. We see that a lot with the people who we work with: that it is an escalating period of housing insecurity up until they reach that crisis point. Often, by the time that they get to the 28-day window or the point where they lose their home, so many opportunities to intervene earlier have been missed. We think that allowing a little more time and space will allow more time for alternative housing options to be sourced in the challenging housing situation that we are in. It is also about keeping people in their home. It will allow more time for mediation with landlords and for referrals to be made to services such as ours that can help people with the cost of rent. It will mean intervening earlier before we reach the crisis point where all we can really do is react.

Mrs Cameron: Secondly, the Housing Executive says that advice and referrals are already available before day 28. You have touched on that already, but can you give an example, even an anonymised one, of an intervention that is currently blocked by the statutory window rather than by a lack of funding or of actual housing?

Mr Dennison: I do not have an example off the top of my head. We will look into that and provide that to the Committee.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you. Finally, you are not proposing any amendments to the Bill, but you are unsure about the six-month commencement. I want to ask you about the readiness test. What would you want to see being met before those changes take place? Why are you unsure about the six-month commencement?

Ms Brolly: It is not for us to say how long it will take the Housing Executive to get ready for the change. Obviously, it will need staffing, training and new systems put in place. The key thing for us is wider communication on when the change comes into place, should the Bill pass. People will be aware of their increased rights and the earlier time at which they can present to the Housing Executive, but we cannot say how long that will take.

Mr Dennison: We are a partner of the Housing Executive, as many other charitable organisations are. We help it in many respects, particularly with emergency accommodation, to discharge its statutory duty. We are not saying that it is completely the Housing Executive's responsibility. We are ready and very capable of working with it to try to extend those supports.

Mrs Cameron: Just to put it on the record, thank you for the good work that you do. It is much appreciated.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): That is a valid point, Jim. It is not all focused on the Housing Executive; there are other people involved. That is worth noting.

Ms Mulholland: Pam asked a couple of the questions that I had. I was wondering about the six-month commencement as well. How much benefit has been seen in England and Wales with that longer period? Is that, in your view, due to the longer period, or is it because of the resources and other things that were put in place alongside it?

Ms Brolly: It is hard to point out the exact impact of the extended window in the other nations on preventing homelessness because, as you said, that definition was extended as part of wider prevention reforms, so it is really hard to separate. I read one evaluation of the changes in Wales that showed that a lot of local housing authorities reported that the longer window enabled a lot more meaningful preventative work and a much more flexible, person-centred approach than reacting at crisis point would allow. We expect to see similar benefits here in Northern Ireland.

Ms Mulholland: One of my fears is that we could put this in place and just end up pushing the number of days after which a person can go back to the Housing Executive from 28 to 59. Does that more meaningful support have to go hand in hand with a longer window?

Mr Dennison: It does. That is why we talk, in our submission, about going beyond this to a statutory prevention duty. It is OK to extend the deadline, but unless you have the practical action that follows it —. That is why we are saying that this is one step out of further steps.

Ms Mulholland: But you definitely see that just having that window would at least allow the potential for that to actually be put in place.

Mr Dennison: Absolutely.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Thank you, Laoise, for coming in and trying to take Mr Dennison's job.

Mr Dennison: She is well able for it. [Laughter.]

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, folks — Jim, Cathy and Laoise — for your work. Having visited your organisation, I know the types of places that you offer. Taking 26,000 calls is amazing.

Thank you for acknowledging the fact that this is not all down to the Housing Executive. I am very aware, for instance, that, if somebody gets leave to remain and their refugee status is confirmed, sadly, on some occasions, instead of having the 42 days, the Housing Executive gets seven days' notice, which leaves it in such a precarious situation. How do you sort that out? I noted that, in your response, you said that temporary accommodation costs could increase with the Bill. I sort of look at it and say, "If we have a bit of a longer time, the ability of the Housing Executive or others to step in to help comes into play". There has been talk about money, but we do not know where that money comes from — the cost to the Housing Executive. Can you help me? I am trying to understand what the timeline is at present with 28 days. Are you aware of a policy or process that currently happens with someone? If it is day 28, they go to the Housing Executive. We know that the Housing Executive is under pressure. It could be the Northern Ireland Office, it could be somebody getting out of prison or a hospital or care home at short notice, and we have other pressures added. If, on day 1 of the 28 days, the Housing Executive is able to start work on that person's case, is there a timeline or process that is followed until they leave their existing accommodation?

Mr Dennison: I do not know whether, within those 28 days, there are any key metrics where certain hurdles have to be crossed or certain thresholds have to be achieved. The 28 days is a window — a gap. We have Housing Executive colleagues sitting behind us who may be able to answer that more specifically. Certainly, I am not aware of that. I do not know whether you have any experience of that, Laoise.

Ms McDonnell: The only thing that I found was that certain things had to be met. For example, documents all had to be provided. If you were going to present to the Housing Executive, you had to ensure that you had your birth certificate and current proof of address, whether that be a letter from your landlord or whomever you were staying with to say that your tenancy was no longer viable. You needed to ensure that you had them all ready because, if you did not, you would delay your own process of being able to move forward.

Ms K Armstrong: I am thinking that, in the 28 days, in a perfect world, people would not be losing their homes. In that 28 days, I would expect to know why the landlord was moving you on and whether it complied with the reasons for that. Can we negotiate with your landlord? All those processes should have time. I am worried that, at the minute, the 28 days does not give that time. Moving it to 60 days gives a bit more time, but, unless there is actually a process in place, as Sian said, we are just giving more time for a process that we do not know what it is. We will ask the Housing Executive about that. I just thought of that when you answered yes about an increase in the demand on temporary accommodation. That makes me think that, unless the 60 days comes with that preventative process, we are going to have an increase initially. You said that a Crisis report estimated that it costs £9,200 to accommodate someone, and that the saving for 100 people, if you did not have that cost, would be £1 million. It was the same when we talked to others before. Wales achieved over £6 million or £6,000 million — whatever those massive numbers are — in savings. In order to make this a focus, if the cost of temporary accommodation was down, and if that money was allowed to be held by the Housing Executive for the process during the 60 days, that would help. I know that others have asked you about the six months. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am hearing that six months would be brilliant, but that there need to be processes in place to enable that to happen, and that it will take a bit of time for the Housing Executive to be able to do that. Is that right?

Mr Dennison: Yes.

Ms K Armstrong: In the interim, the 60 days matches into the private tenancies and eviction notice time. Is there anything else that we should be considering about the additional 60 days? If somebody presents on day 60, it is a while, if not a long time, until they are going to have to leave the current accommodation. I am not including in that people with domestic violence who have to leave earlier. I am interested in what Pam said about you not putting forward any amendments. Is there anything there that we might consider legally? Or is it a case of giving everybody the time and their working to fill that time?

Mr Dennison: You have touched on it already, Kellie. We need clarity on the process; clarity on the expectations; clarity on what individuals need from the outset; and support to help those individuals get that. One thing that I had not thought about until now is that, perhaps, through no fault of the people, there is a stop-clock on this if they cannot produce some documentation — perhaps the 60-day stop. It would be good to have a quick assessment of need and of housing options, but they should be signposted within the process.

Ms K Armstrong: When you say that, the penny is dropping with me, because if you are asked for a letter from your landlord, who might not be very communicative, it could take a while to get that. So I understand that about putting a stop on that.

Mr Dennison: To circle back, if I may, you mentioned the Crisis report and the savings. We cannot comment on those calculations, because they are from a different place, but we have a wholly-owned charitable housing subsidiary called Creating Homes. We decided to do that ourselves because we had individuals staying for lengthy periods — they were tenancy-ready, but they did not have a housing option. Through our own endeavours and some government-backed loans, we decided to buy properties, retrofit them and then move in those individuals. We have calculated that the saving to the public purse from someone not being put in emergency accommodation, with all of the supports that they require, and instead moving into a house that is run by a charitable organisation is approximately £60,000 per year. That is the saving in only one case. We have just acquired our fortieth property, so we are saving a lot of money, but that is providing prevention, an ending and a solution. If we think differently about this stuff, we can save a lot of money, which can be redirected to the Housing Executive or to other areas.

Ms K Armstrong: Just so that we are clear, you are happy with the interim arrangement in this legislation, which would be to extend the period to 60 days, but agree that we need more on top of that. Unfortunately, a further extension is not going to happen at this stage of the mandate, so it is important that the extension to 60 days goes through in this piece of legislation.

Mr Dennison: Yes.

Mr Boggs: Thank you for coming in. A lot of what I was going to ask has been touched on, but I am going to look for your views on evidence that we have received. Housing Rights and Homeless Connect have been in already. Nicola has touched on the fact that this is not a silver bullet or a panacea towards ensuring that people do not end up homeless and that it will not sort out the whole homelessness crisis. Other witnesses have said that they want the Bill to mesh with any recommendations that come from a legislative review. Is it your opinion that there are many more areas of work and much more to be done than simply what Colm is proposing?

Mr Dennison: I imagine that there would be. From what we gather, that is the intention. Our view is that the Bill should progress as is, and any legislative refinements or improvements should be incorporated as well as a number of other things. We imagine that this would be the first step to other developments around it.

Mr Boggs: That clarifies for me that everybody expects that what we would find on the other side of a legislative review would be a lot more wide-ranging. With the witnesses from Housing Rights, I touched on the fact that not everyone who is threatened with, or deemed as being, homeless is going to look to access temporary accommodation. Colm's intention is that fewer people will look to access temporary accommodation because they will have their private rented accommodation for longer, as they will not yet have been evicted, or they will have more time to stay with family and friends, if that is an option. In relation to the Department's assessment that this automatically shoots up the reliance on, and the need for, temporary accommodation — it cites increased use of non-standard accommodation — is that necessarily accurate? Maybe you do not fully understand how it has arrived at that position, but, between us, is it right to say that you cannot make an automatic assumption that everybody who is threatened with homelessness within 60 days would look to access temporary accommodation, specifically temporary non-standard accommodation?

Mr Dennison: Not everyone who comes to us is looking for emergency accommodation. They are looking to avoid emergency accommodation. Quite a few of the people who are aware of our tenancy deposit scheme look to access it as an exit route. If you call and present as being threatened with homelessness or at risk of homelessness, or if you are homeless, that does not automatically mean that you want to go into emergency accommodation. It does not. You are looking for options.

Mr Boggs: This is not so much a question but a comment about the clarity of the process. All of us will know that our offices deal with housing cases and the threat of homelessness all the time. It is like anything: if you do not need to engage with the Housing Executive up to the point that you are threatened with homelessness, why would you have any interest in or care about the process, the internal ramifications and the outworkings with the Housing Executive? Instead of having to learn all that within 28 days, you would get 60 days. That would help a lot of people, particularly those with whom I engage in my constituency office. Thank you very much for coming in. That has provided extra clarity for me.

Mr Gildernew: Thank you to the panel. I acknowledge the invaluable work that you do daily. Thank you for supporting the Bill and for the work that you do daily.

It would be useful for me to get a sense of the types of things that can be done within the 28 days. I emphasise this, and I have made it really clear from the start: we fully recognise and support the duty to prevent and the duty to cooperate, ask and act. All of that is vital, and we would love to see it. We did not, however, deem it possible within the scope of a private Member's Bill to do those things. We therefore looked at it selectively to see what we could do. We are seeking to provide more time for the existing statutory duty, which is to prevent homelessness and not simply provide temporary accommodation. I find the Department's focus on temporary accommodation strange and worrying. It strikes me at times that the prevention strategy is to try to line up temporary accommodation. Typically, for you, the Housing Executive or others, what type of work can you engage in if someone says, "I think I might lose my home in 28 days' time, but I would like help to prevent that"? What sort of work can you undertake?

Ms Brolly: Jim has touched on a lot of the stuff that our housing solutions team works on. It provides that support to people who are at risk of homelessness. Our tenancy deposit scheme is something that we very much use to help people exit our services and as a prevention tool. We have just paid our 900th deposit. The deposits that we paid last year prevented homelessness for around 100 households. Providing that financial assistance for people to enter into another private rented sector agreement is definitely something that can be done.

Jim talked about our financial emergency grants. If people have to choose between paying for their heating and groceries or keeping a roof over their head, we can provide assistance so that they do not have to make that choice. We can do that kind of stuff. If we had more time to do that, we could help more people.

Mr Dennison: We provide a signposting service, because our name is synonymous with homelessness or being at risk of homelessness. A lot of individuals do not realise that they have rights, so we will refer them to Housing Rights. If emergency accommodation is not available, we can signpost back to the Housing Executive. Some people phone us directly because they do not realise that the Housing Executive has a statutory responsibility to accommodate.

We can link into supports from other providers because we know them well, particularly in specific areas. For example, through no fault of our own but rather a result of the design of past funding, we do not have any services in Fermanagh and Tyrone. Therefore, we will signpost to organisations that can help in those areas. That is invaluable for people who call in to say, "I do not know where to go. I do not know what to do. Can you help?". If you have a greater window, it allows that connection to happen a lot more quickly.

Mr Gildernew: The day before my Bill came to the Assembly for its Second Stage, the Minister announced plans to establish a commission and to explore other elements. I welcome that. Is there anything in my Bill that would prevent that commission moving forward and doing those further things?

Mr Dennison: I do not believe so.

Ms Brolly: Nothing comes to mind.

Mr Gildernew: The Minister described it as a generational change. He indicated that the Bill's proposals fit within that work but that he would like to bring in further measures. When it comes to the steps that need to be taken, is it strange for the Department to challenge the proposal on the time period, given that it recognises that that is one of the issues and feels that more needs to be done? Is there concern about the ability to get a more fulsome response via a commission and to get action on all the other things if the Department is opposing the time period change?

Mr Dennison: There are representatives from the Department sitting behind me, so they might want to pick that up. We have been campaigning for legislative change for some time. We have been saying that we have been doing the same thing over and over and expecting, but not getting, a different result. The plans were a surprise to us as well when they were launched, but we welcome anything that will look at how we do things in a different way.

Early last week, the terms of reference were shared with us and we provided feedback on them. To be fair, the Department has been very receptive to those comments, and we have had subsequent meetings on the terms of reference. I do not get the sense that the commission would in any way derail the Bill. It would need to be very mindful of the ramifications of the Bill as it goes through and of the wider legislative change. I imagine that there will have to be a wider approach.

The Department has also said that it will take advice from two independently chaired panels that have on them a variety of individuals who are seen as being experts. I do not think that it is necessarily the Department making decisions. I think that it will be informed by experience and take an informed approach. It would be foolish to put those panels in place, receive their recommendations and then ignore them. The process is positive, but we need to see how it plays out.

Mr Gildernew: Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Thanks again, Jim, Laoise and Cathy. We appreciate you taking time out to come to the Committee this morning.