Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): I welcome from the Department for Communities Paul Price, deputy secretary of the housing sustainability group, and Heloise Brown, director of social housing policy and oversight. I also welcome from the Housing Executive Brian O'Kane, assistant director of policy and business excellence, and Staci Bradley, homelessness policy manager.

Paul, I believe that you will make a brief opening statement before we move on to members' questions. Go ahead, please, when you are ready.

Mr Paul Price (Department for Communities): Thanks very much. My statement is six or seven pages long. I will try to keep it brief, but if you need to interrupt to ask a question, then do.

Thanks very much for the opportunity to brief the Committee. I will begin by recognising the work of the Bill sponsor Colm Gildernew in bringing the Bill forward. It has passed Second Stage, and the Department is now here to work with the Committee to ensure that the technical elements are drafted correctly and the policy intent is clear and understood by all. It is our role to support the Committee in order to ensure that the Bill is clearly defined and can be fully expressed in legislation. In doing so, it may be helpful to begin by clarifying what the Bill as drafted will change in practice. That may also answer some of the questions that you directed at Jim Dennison and his colleagues earlier.

I will give you a very brief account of the existing legislative framework as provided in the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which is the statutory instrument that sets out the various duties that are owed to people who are homeless and to those who are threatened with homelessness. Article 60 of the 1988 Order is relevant because it places a duty on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) to ensure that advice about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness is available free of charge to any person in Northern Ireland. There is no limit imposed on when, in advance of a possible period of homelessness, that advice may be provided.

Importantly, in article 3 of, and throughout, the 1988 Order, there is a clear and specific distinction between "homelessness" and "threatened homelessness". They are different and are not interchangeable. The duties that are owed in those two circumstances, as expressed in the 1998 Order, are distinct. Under article 10 of the 1988 Order, the duty that is owed by the Housing Executive to a person who is found to be homeless is to "secure that accommodation". The duty that is owed under article 11 to a person who is threatened with homelessness is to:

The powers and duties to provide accommodation are linked to homelessness. In article 12 of the 1988 Order, there is specific provision for accommodation to be made available. It is only available under either article 8, which sets out the interim duty to accommodate while enquiries are continuing, or article 10, which sets out the duties to people who are found to be homeless. We all understand that that is the full duty. By contrast, it is important to note that article 12, which is the provision for securing accommodation, does not include those who are "threatened with homelessness". That is because an applicant who is threatened with homelessness continues to have accommodation available to them.

Only where a household is imminently homeless does the need to secure accommodation arises. For example, during a notice-to-quit period, tenants remain entitled to occupy their accommodation. Providing temporary accommodation while a household has reasonable accommodation available to it would undermine the intention and purpose of the notice period, reduce the availability of temporary accommodation overall for households who are homeless and represent poor value for money.

In order for the Committee to be clear about how the legislation would change the status quo, it is necessary for us to provide clarity on the exact nature of that status quo, which I have sought very quickly to do, particularly on the issue of the provision of temporary accommodation within the current 28-day "threatened with homelessness" period. The status quo is that the existing legislation does not require the provision of temporary accommodation. It is also not the current practice of the Housing Executive to provide it. That is the baseline for the important question, which is this: what change to the status quo is intended by the Bill?

I will now turn to the proposed amendment. The Bill, as drafted, will increase the period of time during which a person may be threatened with homelessness from 28 to 60 days. There is no change to the duties contained in article 11 of the 1988 Order. In order to pass the Bill into law effectively, what is intended by the extension of the period in which the article 11 duties apply must be clearly understood and agreed. We must have a clearly articulated understanding of that, because there must be a clear and evident connection between the legislation and its practical effect. We have a duty here to make sure that the Bill works well; that is partly why we are here.

In the narrow context of a private Member's Bill (PMB), the Bill cannot make broader amendments to the 1988 Order. Its purpose, as set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), is focused on:

thereby enabling early intervention and —

The Department considers it important that the Committee is clear about the forms of support that it thinks should be available during the "threatened with homelessness" period. It may be useful for the Committee to think about two categories of support as it tries to clarify the intent. The first category is support to prevent the homelessness that is threatened through, for instance, advice and assistance, housing options, interventions, engagement with landlords or lenders, support to sustain existing accommodation, assistance in accessing alternative accommodation and other reasonable steps that are aimed at preventing homelessness from occurring.

To reiterate the point about the status quo, no change is required to existing legislation or current NIHE practice for someone who is threatened with homelessness to be entitled to all that preventative support within the 28-day period. Currently, if someone is concerned about homelessness but is not within 28 days of being likely to lose their home, they may access only the advice that the Housing Executive has a duty to provide under article 6D. If the private Member's Bill passes into law as drafted, it will extend by 32 days the period in which that person is entitled to preventative support that is more than the article 6D duty to provide advice, which is the duty to take:

Is that the intent, or is it this second category?

The second category is support that goes beyond the prevention of the homelessness that is threatened by providing temporary accommodation. The provision of temporary accommodation is not action to prevent homelessness insofar as it extends the duty that the Housing Executive owes to someone who is homeless to someone who is not yet homeless.

To reiterate, the current law and Housing Executive practice do not require the provision of temporary accommodation within the "threatened with homelessness" period, and changes to the existing law, to the Housing (Amendment) Bill and to Housing Executive practice would be required in order to achieve that effect. As currently drafted, the private Member's Bill will not achieve that change. If it passes into law, it will extend by 32 days the period in which someone is entitled to preventative support that is more than advice, but it will not entitle them to temporary accommodation.

We think that the key question for the Committee is whether it intends to strengthen the existing prevention duty —

Ms K Armstrong: I think that we are at cross purposes, Paul, because I do not think that the Committee has ever thought that we were looking for people to get temporary accommodation.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): I am feeling very confused now, but I will let you finish your presentation, and we will then go to questions. Please keep it brief, if you can, because we are running a little bit behind time. Finish your presentation, and then we can go on to questions.

Mr Price: OK. I will move on to the financial implications of the Bill, and we can come back to that issue.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): We will move on, and we can raise that point in members' questions. I want to allow you to finish your presentation.

Mr Price: If there is confusion about what we are confused about and whether we are confused, it would be helpful to clarify that as well.

This point is relevant, because the Committee asked about the costs of the Bill. The Housing Executive has provided a provisional, illustrative estimate of the potential costs associated with implementation, and we have provided an account of that to the Committee. We are happy to explain it, should that be required.

The explanatory and financial memorandum that accompanies the Bill noted that "some consultees" considered that:

implications.

It was acknowledged during the Second Stage debate that there is some uncertainty regarding the practical effect of the Bill. In the Department's opinion, the Bill, as currently drafted — I say this again — should not lead to a longer period of eligibility for temporary accommodation or its associated estimated costs, but the issue of intent and what the record says about the intent of the Bill is crucial.

The estimates remain useful as an illustration of the potential financial implications if the policy intention of the Bill is to extend access to temporary accommodation to applicants during the entirety of the 60-day "threatened with homelessness" period, but the corollary is also true. If it is not the policy intention to do that, those costs do not apply.

The policy rationale is key. What are the circumstances in which someone who has:

for a specified period would need to end that arrangement in advance of a specified date and access temporary accommodation? If there is a preference for a longer prevention period, as indicated during the discussions on the Bill, what are the benefits of bringing people earlier into the homelessness system and, if this is the intent, into temporary accommodation?

After all, at that point, the opportunity for prevention has been missed. We are really keen to clarify those issues with the Committee.

I am nearly finished, but before I conclude, there are issues around the policy rationale that are still to be clarified. Maybe that will be a simple matter. An early commencement date is also an issue, and was touched on in the testimony from the Simon Community. It would be more helpful for the Housing Executive if that were extended from the currently proposed six months to 12 months. Irrespective of the exact intent of the Bill, there would be practical implications for the Housing Executive.

To sum up, the Department wants to deliver the will of the Assembly and pass a functional and effective Bill. Since the Second Stage debate, we have continued to examine the legal, operational and financial implications of extending the "threatened with homelessness" period from 28 days to 60 days. The purpose of our work is to ensure that the Committee and the Assembly have a clear and accurate understanding of the practical effect of the Bill as drafted and what it would and, importantly, what it would not require the Housing Executive to do. The key question for the Committee is this: does the Bill intend to strengthen the existing prevention duty by extending the period during which full preventative support can be provided, or does it intend to also introduce, in that period, access to temporary accommodation? In that case, an amendment would be required.

We are happy to help. I have shortened my remarks as much as I can.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Thank you, Paul. I appreciate that presentation.

I think that you have left a lot of us quite confused. The intent of the Bill is to extend the time frame for people threatened with homelessness from 28 days to 60 days. It is not about increasing any other duties or adding duties to what you already do, or about adding any statutory guidance. It is just about increasing the 28-day period to 60 days. Although I think that reasonable steps should be taken during that time by the Department to prevent homelessness, that is not what the Bill is about; it is about increasing the 28-day period to 60 days. I am sure that Colm will speak later about the exact intent of his Bill, but, to me, that is exactly what it is about. It is not about bringing in any new laws; it is about extending the time frame.

It seems as though the Department's main issue with the Bill is that it would increase demand for temporary accommodation, but you are quite clearly saying that you have no duty to provide temporary accommodation to people who are threatened with homelessness, so how would the Bill, given that it would increase the 28-day period to 60 days, have an impact on the number of people getting temporary accommodation?

Mr Price: I read in the official record of the Second Stage debate a lack of clarity on the key question of whether the intent would extend to the introduction of temporary accommodation during the threatened period. The official record is not clear on that point of the Bill's intent. To be clear —

Ms K Armstrong: I think that this confusion might have arisen because we asked the Department for clarification on the budget, and the reply from the Department includes a cost for temporary accommodation. The Bill is about just the preventative period. During the Second Stage debate, I said to the Minister that people don't get temporary accommodation while they're threatened with homelessness. They get it only when they're finished with their current accommodation. The Minister went to officials in the Officials' Box and then said, "We'll get clarification on that". They seemed to think that we all thought that the Bill would lead to more people seeking temporary accommodation. The Bill would provide more time to stop people having to go into temporary accommodation, hopefully.

Mr Boggs: With respect to officials, they are asked to provide a position and context and clarity on what is printed on blue paper, not on the Hansard report of a debate. With respect to the Minister, he has, in other debates, accused other MLAs of not referring to what is printed on blue paper when speaking. It is not helpful for officials to give us their view on what the Hansard record says, rather than on what is printed on that blue paper. It is very important to state that before the debate goes any further today.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): I think that you are right, Paul. I must agree. The purpose of you coming here today is to give your interpretation of the Bill and your opinion on it so that we can scrutinise that. This seems a bit bizarre.

Mr Price: I genuinely intend to be helpful. I could have made the same reference to some of the provisions — I referred to them in my opening statement — in the blue paper, in the explanatory and financial memorandum. If it is absolutely clear that the policy intent behind the Bill is that it is not intended to introduce any additional requirement on the Housing Executive to provide temporary accommodation in the threatened period, then, yes, those cost estimates do not apply. The cost estimates that are relevant then are the other caseload staffing costs to do with an extended period.

Ms K Armstrong: That is what we asked for.

Mr Price: OK. I only mentioned the wider context of the intent behind the Bill, wherever it is expressed, where it is relevant to this becoming effective law, because, if the Bill passes as drafted, it should not — should not — lead to temporary accommodation being required by the —. However, if —

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): But that is by —

Mr Price: No, but —

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Yes, but by your own admission, that is what your duty is. The Bill is just to extend the time frame from 28 days to 60 days. It does not add any additional duties to those that you already have. It is just about extending the time frame from 28 days to 60 days so that the preventative measure in between can be used and be productive instead of waiting until the 28-day cliffhanger and then bringing people into temporary accommodation. It is not adding any additional duties on the Department. The point is null, as is that argument.

Mr Price: It may well be now, and that is very helpful, but we have to think about a context in the role that we now have where the Housing Executive is operating this legislation. If there is confusion about what the objective of the Bill as drafted should mean and the intent of the Assembly in passing it, that will be a difficult context in which the Housing Executive will have to operate that legislation. If that does not apply from now on, then that is really helpful.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): No. It does not. It was my understanding that we were quite clear about that at the beginning. I will let Colm, as the Bill sponsor, clarify that for you.

Mr Gildernew: I declare, for members' information, that, in keeping with the Member's Bill process, I met the Department officials on Monday, I think, to update them. I also met the Housing Executive and the Department together in September 2025. It is the Department that has concentrated on and, I would say, obsessed over temporary accommodation throughout the process. Considering that that has been your position since September 2025, it is very strange that we do not even have a definitive figure for that element of it today. Also, you have been saying for well over a year that that is the issue, and you have come to the Committee with a figure for it. What underpins that figure is a challenge — you have not given us any of those details — but you are now saying that it would not have any cost at all because that does not come into it. Have you been drastically wrong in your approach to this, or are you drastically wrong now?

Mr Price: I am certainly clear that, if the intent behind the Bill is not to provide temporary accommodation, those costs do not apply.

Mr Gildernew: I have a second question about your appearance here together today. Can I check this: are the Housing Executive and the Department's views on the Bill exactly the same?

Mr Price: Yes.

Mr Gildernew: I have one more question. No, actually, I will leave it there and let members ask questions. I will just say that I have always said that I am very happy to work with the Department on anything that strengthens the Bill, because my intent is to ensure that people —. We have heard repeatedly from other witnesses that, when people contact the Housing Executive, they are being told, "Come back to us in 28 days". We have heard that from credible people in the sector. The Housing Executive's website, in relation to help with homelessness or the threat of homelessness, says:

My Bill simply seeks to extend that period from the current 28 days. Only half an hour ago, we heard how that is a very limited period in which to do any productive work. My Bill is entirely designed to try to prevent people from needing to take up temporary accommodation. I am clear that more resources need to go into the prevention of homelessness. To do that, we need to provide extra time and extra resources, and that is the figure that, I think, the Department should come here with, including the benefits of the change, not just the costs. We are dealing with a figure of £2·5 million from the Department that the Department says is irrelevant. I find that strange.

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

I have one more question, which is based on the Department's submission for this session. It is about the recommendation in the Public Accounts Committee's (PAC) report into homelessness that the timeline should be extended from 28 days to 56 days. Your submission states:

You obviously think that it is a good idea to make that extension. I do not understand where the objection to it and the hesitancy to get behind it comes from, if, on the basis of your submission, you agree with it.

Mr Price: We think that it is a really good idea to have the comprehensive and fundamental exercise that that refers to and that the Minister trailed on 14 September. I do not want to pre-commit it, but that exercise will get into exactly that question, which is exactly the same territory as that covered by this private Member's Bill.

We were concerned about the Bill's potential cost implications if it were to have a related temporary accommodation dimension. If it is now clear that it does not, the costs that were the root of that concern do not apply.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Now that it is clear that the policy intent of the Bill is to increase the timeline from 28 days to 60 days, the Department is supportive of the Bill, because it is what you were thinking of doing —.

Mr Price: I did not say that, but the cost implications do not apply. The Minister will determine his position on the Bill at its later stages, which we have not reached. However, the cost implications do not apply.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): I will move on to members' questions now.

Mr Boggs: Thanks for coming in today. Now that we have had a conversation about it, I am not sure which is worse: the fact that the Department, with the expertise that you have, could not see what —. Intent is one thing, but, to go back to it, how you did not decipher that what is written in the Bill does not increase the time frame in which people can access temporary accommodation is astounding. What is worse is the fact that the Housing Executive backs you up. How have two organisations got what the Bill actually does so wrong? It does not increase the time during which someone can access temporary accommodation.

You cannot commit to supporting the Bill, but I will give you the opportunity to take the £2·5 million figure off the table, because the Committee is deliberating on that, and some are using that figure as a reason why the Committee should not support the Bill or should look to table amendments. Before we deliberate any further, is that £2·5 million figure off the table? Given the clarity that you have found yourself — you did not need us to bring you that clarity — will you come back with a revised figure for the cost? That £2·5 million figure is now erroneous. It does not stack up, because what you have just said is not how that figure was calculated.

Mr Price: If the intent is clear on that point, I have already removed it. We will come back to you with a revised figure that is based on the caseload and the preventative duty. However, the intent and the legal provision are not one thing and the other. The context in which this law would operate would, to some degree, be created by the intent of the Assembly in passing the Bill, as expressed in the Official Report. That is why it was important to clarify it. If it is clear that that is not the intent, that cost is not relevant.

Mr Boggs: So, can the Committee take that cost off the table in our deliberations until such time as the Department and the Housing Executive come back with a new figure?

Mr Price: If, in the later stages of the Bill, we return to the question of temporary accommodation because the Bill is subject to amendment, an amendment focused on that could reintroduce costs of that order.

Mr Boggs: OK. I am glad that we have got a commitment that we will get an updated figure on it —

Mr Price: Of course.

Mr Boggs: — because the £2·5 million does not stack up at all.

Mr Price: The £2·5 million was an estimate that included the cost of temporary accommodation of £1·75 million. The dimension beyond that is too crudely estimated at the moment. It is the balance between £1·75 million and £2·5 million that we need to give you a better figure on, and that is what we will do.

Mr Boggs: I will not make a like-for-like comparison, but it is similar to me estimating how much my groceries will cost for 10 people coming over for dinner and then finding out that only five are coming. The estimate is not right. You are not including the same amount of temporary accommodation that you once thought you were, and you have now agreed with us on that.

Mr Price: We do not dispute that.

Mr Boggs: Fantastic.

We can all agree that the Bill is not a panacea or a silver bullet to solve homelessness. The Department, through the Minister's announcement of a homelessness commission, is, in effect, giving a signal that there will be a wider legislative review of the 1988 Act. Do I have you up to there?

Mr Price: Yes.

Mr Boggs: OK. This is not my final question, but I want to make sure that we are on the same track. Do you agree that, if the review is a thorough deep dive into the 1988 Act and sees where things are going right and where they are going wrong, it will come back with much more than a single proposal, which is what Colm's Bill contains?

Mr Price: Yes.

Mr Boggs: That is likely. Therefore, what confidence can the sector, which has shared with the Committee its lack of confidence based on the fact that there was no co-design on the homelessness commission, have that, moving forward, the terms of reference will be shared? It said that there was a lack of co-design. The Simon Community, I think, said that the announcement came as a "surprise" to it. If we cannot get the Department and the Housing Executive on board with what is, in my view, one simple proposal in Colm's Bill, what confidence can I have if 15, 20 or 30 recommendations come out of a wider review? Is it more about the Minister, before he leaves office, saying that he set up the commission but not having the authority or the responsibility for implementing any of the actions? We cannot commit to one simple proposal in Colm's Bill, so what confidence can we have that we will be able to put in train the wide-ranging recommendations that will come from the legislative review?

Mr Price: There is quite a lot in that question.

Mr Boggs: There is, and there is not, I suppose. In a nutshell, if you cannot implement one simple change through Colm's PMB, what confidence can I have that you will be able to implement all of the recommendations that come from a wide-ranging review?

Mr Price: I really look forward to the point at which the Minister is able to fully announce the homelessness commission and the paperwork for it, which has been produced significantly with the sector, is published. We can then come to the Committee and give you a full briefing on it. At that point, it will, I think, be inarguable that it was not collaboratively produced and that it does not represent a serious, sincere and inclusive attempt to look at every aspect of the legislation and at the delivery of homelessness services. Also at that point, any impression that the Committee may have formed that we are not interested in such reform — an impression that may have come about as a result of confusion about the intent behind a private Member's Bill — will have been completely removed. We are still working with the sector on the paperwork for the commission. In the previous session, while I was sitting behind the witnesses and listening to them, Jim Dennison referred to the positivity of that engagement.

Mr Boggs: Subsequent to the announcement of the homelessness commission —

Mr Price: It is not —. I am sorry —.

Mr Boggs: — Housing Rights and Homeless Connect were not critical of the announcement insofar as what it may do, but they were critical of how it came about.

Mr Price: It is important to look at what the Minister said. He wants there to be a commission. He intends to seek Executive support for it. That is what is happening right now. Once that work is done, there will be formal communication of what the commission is, what its terms of reference are and who the chairs are. He was referring to a piece of work that, in flight, is being done with the sector. That work with the sector preceded his saying that on 14 September and has continued since.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Paul Boggs's question on the confidence that he can have that any greater legislative changes will be implemented is a fair one, but today's discussion is about Colm's Bill, not the homelessness commission.

Mr Price: Exactly. I fully accept that. I can only really answer it when we can give you a thorough briefing on the commission, and that day is coming soon. [Inaudible.]

Mr Boggs: That is fair enough. I look forward to your being back. Thank you very much.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): We will have a fulsome discussion on that in due course. Kellie, do you still want to ask some questions?

Ms K Armstrong: Yes, please. I asked this of other witnesses, because I am completely lost on it and cannot find it in writing anywhere. I need to understand what the extension of the current 28 days to 60 days actually means for the Housing Executive. What is the timeline of processes that currently happen when somebody presents on day 1 of the 28 days? Will 60 days allow more time? Are there things that cannot be done because of the limit of 28 days? I am keen to understand that process.

Mr Price: I will pass that to my colleague. I know that it is case-sensitive because there is such variety in the manner of presentations.

Ms K Armstrong: There must be. When we think about ISO or BS, or whatever they are called, you tick a box to say, "This has been done, and that has been done". Is there anything there?

Ms Staci Bradley (Northern Ireland Housing Executive): I am happy to take that. Thank you very much for having us here today. Basically, as we have said, each and every case is entirely subjective. I am sure that you know from your constituents that, when they present to us, we have a different approach for every individual, depending on their individual circumstances. We referred to article 60. That advice and assistance duty is available to every single person who presents to the Housing Executive. That can involve a variety of measures, including signposting to relevant services, providing phone numbers, talking through the process of the application, providing relevant information about the next steps, talking through everything, helping with benefits and referral to our financial inclusion manager. That is available to every single person who approaches us.

With the 28-day period, the intensive focus work that happens is slightly different. With the current legislation, we cannot open a homeless application until we receive the threat of homelessness within the 28 days and have that information available, in line with our statutory duties. When we have that, we will engage with the relevant individuals. We will need evidence, as you heard earlier from the Simon Community. Our standard checks are a passport, confirmation of your residence and your notice to quit. If we cannot get through to the landlord, we will follow up with a telephone call, and we can do visits. We look at helping and working with individuals in any way that we possibly can. When they approach us within the 28 days, we will be looking at what we can do. I would like to clarify that, given that there was a bit of confusion in some of the earlier notes and in today's discussion. We will work with landlords. We will make referrals to Housing Rights. We will engage. We will make referrals to mediation services. We will also make referrals for discretionary housing support. We can also look at benevolent funds and anything else that is available.

I caveat that with this: we must have consent. Some individuals will, unfortunately, not provide that consent, which is a result of the impact of the trauma that they are going through. So, it is about working alongside them to try to offer all the support that we can. That will even include working with mortgage lenders: if someone has defaulted on their mortgage, is there any way that we can look at, for example, a payment plan? Is there any additional help? We will make ad hoc referrals to Advice NI and relevant charities. It really depends on what the individual needs. If there is a social services element, we will make the necessary referrals to the health and social care trust. We will work alongside them, but there is that caveat of needing their consent and engagement to allow us to do so.

We work tirelessly. There are phone calls, meetings and multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs) that we go to in certain instances, so it can be quite labour-intensive. We work together to try to prevent that bout of homelessness. We do that in line with article 11(2) so that we can show that we have taken all reasonable steps to stop that accommodation ceasing to become available to that individual. Everyone in the room knows that that will not happen in every single circumstance, unfortunately, but we will look at doing absolutely everything that we can to achieve positive outcomes. If, at that point, we cannot sustain their tenancy or provide any additional help, assistance or financial services, we will move on to the provision of temporary accommodation. We will look at the furniture storage duties, if necessary. In line with our duties, we will look at ongoing case management, support and assistance and at permanent rehousing,

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you. If I could get that written down somewhere, that would be helpful. I have been trying to get to that. That is where I see a potential cost.

Mr Brian O’Kane (Northern Ireland Housing Executive): May I add to what Staci has said? We know that the loss of private rented accommodation, whether that is due to a notice to quit or a landlord selling, has been one of the top three reasons for homelessness over the past — well, forever. It varies. Over the past four or five years, and particularly in the second year of COVID, a lot of landlords sold their properties and exited the market. There have been significant affordability issues for some private tenants. Two or three years ago, we introduced a homelessness financial inclusion service. At the point of presentation, as Staci said, the financial inclusion service is mentioned. I will give you an idea of its scale: it is available at three locations, one for each of our three regions. Together, they take 1,000 referrals a year, so each has a caseload of about 300. Staci mentioned the work done for those referred with a range of other agencies. That is about maximising benefits, coming up with a repayment plan and trying to create a soft exit. That is done within the 28-day period. We understand that a 60-day period will give us more space and time to do that work. We do a lot of that work. Sometimes, it is successful, and, sometimes, unfortunately, if there are other complexities, particular issues within the family or an individual has a disability or something like that, it can work out differently. Sometimes, we are able to resolve such issues within the 28-day period, but more complex cases can take weeks, months or even multiple months to resolve. The challenge is that no case is the same.

As part of our homelessness prevention focus in our strategy and our in-house financial inclusion service, we have three staff doing that across Northern Ireland, so you can see, as we discussed earlier, that some of the resourcing pressure might be in those areas. The service has been really successful, but negotiating the process can be complex. We have good relationships with the likes of Jim Dennison's team and Housing Rights in that space.

Ms K Armstrong: That is why I was quite surprised by the information that we received today. It was all about the provision of temporary accommodation, but that happens only after you have exhausted everything else. I am glad that we cleared that up earlier.

Another witness has raised an issue with the 60-day period — I may have this wrong, so bear with me; you can keep me right — which is that there are 56 days to appeal. If a person goes through the 28 days and gets to the end of that, they may be offered temporary accommodation if they have full duty status. Those who do not have full duty status have 56 days from that date to appeal, meaning that they are homeless during that time.

Ms S Bradley: May I respond to that? Unfortunately, that is slightly incorrect. As you are all aware, the right to appeal is a statutory right, as outlined in article 11 of the 1988 Order. There is a statutory period of 28 days to appeal a decision. The Housing Executive goes further than that, however, in allowing 40 days to appeal, which allows seven days for the delivery of the letter for a service, for example. Usually, that is sent by email now; I have become more technologically advanced. Many individuals will collect the letter in person if they do not have access to a telephone or to email. Those individuals will have 40 days from the date on the decision letter to appeal a negative homeless decision. That includes the right to appeal their non-eligibility, the right to appeal a decision on whether they are homeless or threatened with homelessness, and the right to appeal a decision on whether they are in priority need or are intentionally homeless. The 56-day period may be getting a little confusing. That is how long we usually have to deliver the outcome of an appeal.

Ms K Armstrong: OK. May I double-check that? How quickly does a person receive a decision letter currently?

Ms S Bradley: They should receive a copy on the day that the decision is made.

Ms K Armstrong: How long does that take to process?

Ms S Bradley: That, again, is very subjective. Unfortunately, that will be different in every single case. We may be able to make decisions on some cases on the same day, but, in some instances, there may be extensive engagement, especially in more complex cases, which can take a couple of weeks. Certain complex cases may even take a little bit longer than that, but those are rare.

Ms K Armstrong: I am just thinking about the 60-day period in the Bill. That provides a bit more time, but the period for decision-making is key. If somebody wants to appeal and has those 60 days to do so, they will only really have had that decision for 20 days. Is that possible if, for example, you are back and forth with a landlord?

Ms S Bradley: Yes, it is. At the moment, we make decisions within the 28-day period. Most decisions will be made in that time unless there are exceptional circumstances. I will caveat that; sometimes, because people will not answer the phone, we do not get the information and can lose contact with individuals. It is case-dependent, but most decisions will be made within that time frame at the moment.

Ms K Armstrong: A decision may be made within the 28 days, but an appeal could be submitted at day 25 from the decision.

Ms S Bradley: Yes.

Ms K Armstrong: I am just thinking that, if there are 60 days, day 25 still allows time. The person has not been given full duty status but is still being evicted from whatever home for whatever reason, so the 60 days would allow a wee bit more time.

Ms S Bradley: As soon as the decision is made, yes.

Ms K Armstrong: OK. That helps me a lot.

My last question — thank you, Deputy Chair, for the time that I have had on this — is this: does the Housing Executive team that looks after people who present as being threatened with homelessness have easy access to information on not only Housing Executive homes and other properties that are available but all social homes and anything else that happens to be out there? Is there a central area where that is all collated?

Ms S Bradley: Do you mean the information relating to that?

Ms K Armstrong: Yes. Information on where accommodation — provided by all types of supplier — is available.

Ms S Bradley: We have records, obviously, and there is information on our website about providers, but, as far as I am aware, we do not have a central unit.

Ms K Armstrong: That is perhaps for the commission to look at, because it breaks my heart when people go away and try to find something but are lost in doing that.

Ms S Bradley: As you may be aware, our support services directory is on our website. It is very helpful for a lot of individuals, and we signpost individuals to it. It is not suitable for everyone, but it contains a lot of information.

Ms K Armstrong: Believe me when I say that they come to my office and ask me to go and look for it.

I am pleased about the money side of things, but, given that the 60 days provides a bit more time, I want to know what that will mean for the prevention part of the system and whether it is possible for that to be mapped out in writing to show, for example, almost like a map, how, if a person's issue is debt-related, they will be directed a certain way, or, if the issue is an eviction notice from a private landlord, the person will be directed to negotiation. Having some sort of map of how the system works would be helpful. Trying to find that information has been frustrating for me. I appreciate that each case is different, but there must be a type of measured process that is gone through. Thank you very much.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): We will move to Colm before we wrap up.

Mr Gildernew: I want to put this on record: elements of this session have been quite bizarre. Listening to what we have just heard, you would not think that we were in the midst of an inexorable homelessness crisis. Homelessness is rising week by week, month by month and year by year, so the system is clearly not working. That is why, before I started to draft a Bill, I asked the Minister whether he would introduce legislation in this mandate to address homelessness and try to help the people out there who are at risk: those who, today, will get a letter saying that they will be out of their house in 56 days. As we have just heard — it will be in the Hansard report — the Housing Executive says to those people that the intensive, focused work cannot start until it has notice of their having 28 days to quit. I want to make that period 60 days. That is the first element.

I would not have been allowed to propose a Member's Bill had the Minister indicated any intent to introduce legislation on this. Paul, you talked about the Minister's sincere intent, but, if he is so concerned about it, why, as Minister, did he not start the work earlier in the mandate?

Mr Price: Work on the exercise started in response to the reports produced by the Committee and the PAC, the latter of which was published in February. We have had calls for something like it, but the exercise goes beyond what the PAC report required, strictly speaking, and chooses to be a bigger exercise, so the Minister has, I think, pretty quickly responded to those serious, formidable challenges to what the law provides for and how services are provided under it.

Mr Gildernew: I am a member of the PAC —

Mr Price: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): — and the Chair of this Committee, which produced the other report. Those reports tried to bring more urgency to the matter. That deals with the issue, and the urgency has been flagged.

I had to decide which element I could address, because, much as I would have loved to, I could not introduce a private Member's Bill to create a duty to prevent homelessness. I would love to have introduced a Bill to create a duty on Departments to cooperate. We have talked about the health service and about finance and mortgages, and I would love to have done all that, but what I have done is what I assessed that I could do within the restrictions. The Minister acknowledges that that is an important part of it. Currently, the notice to quit is 56 days, yet there are only 28 days to provide support. The Minister acknowledges that this work is important in the context of his wider work, so why would you oppose it? I have agreed to work with the Minister to ensure that further legislation can be introduced. That remains my position — I am happy to work with you and the Minister — but let us do something in this mandate that helps people.

Mr Price: It comes back to the point about intent and temporary accommodation. The anticipated pressure on the homelessness budget, even while we do not have a budget, is such that, if we think that there is a risk of additional pressure of the order of the figures quoted, that is very serious.

Mr Gildernew: The pressure on the homelessness budget is because over £40 million has been spent on temporary accommodation, and that amount is growing every day. If we address that by doing the prevention piece better, we can invest to save, and there will be an individual benefit for families and for the children who, because they live in a hotel, do not have a place to study, a light or a desk.

Mr Price: We agree. Whilst the Department believed that there was a temporary accommodation impact from the Bill, the cost impact was serious.

Mr Gildernew: You have said that there is no cost impact.

Mr Price: There is not. That has been clarified for me today.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): May I ask —?

Mr Price: The Bill sponsor twice referred to an intent to include the provision of temporary accommodation during the Second Stage debate. It is very good to know —.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): My question involved —.

Mr Gildernew: That is totally disingenuous. I was responding to the Minister, and I said that there may be costs and that we should produce the figures and see the sums. That was all that I said.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): It is quite clear from —.

Mr Gildernew: This is the Bill, Paul.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): The policy intent is quite clear in the Bill. Where has the confusion come from? Why did the Department not notify us of confusion about the Bill's intent before now?

Mr Price: The advice that we have received on the legal impact of the Bill since Second Stage has been helpful. Also, I accept the point that it was important for us to clarify this with the Committee as soon as possible, and I regret that it was not possible sooner, but —.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): I am sure that Colm would have given you the answer over the phone.

Mr Price: After the Second Stage debate and given some of the provisions in the EFM, it would have still been important to clarify the intent of the Bill with the Committee for the purpose of calculating its costs.

Mr Gildernew: Paul, you had already arrived at the £2·5 million figure before the Second Stage debate, and now you tell us that you arrived at that figure because of something that was said during the Second Stage debate.

Mr Price: I am saying that, if it is very clear now that the intent of the Bill does not extend to temporary accommodation, £1·75 million of that figure does not apply.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Sorry, Paul. Paul Boggs has indicated.

Mr Boggs: Just because the Housing Executive did not come back with anything in particular when I suggested that it was bad enough that the Department was misleading us on the intent of the Bill —.

Mr Price: We were not misleading you.

Mr Boggs: Sorry, it was purely an inference from something that was said during the Second Stage debate. I agree with Colm: you cannot say that the £2·5 million figure came on the back of something that was said during the Second Stage debate when the figure was quoted during that debate.

Mr Price: I did not say that.

Mr Boggs: I have a specific question for the Housing Executive: where do you now sit? Has the Department led you by the nose down a path with that £2·5 million figure? How did you not arrive at your current position before now?

If I am out of order and this has happened anywhere else, I am happy to be corrected, but it is quite strange that the two of you are in front of the Committee at the same time, and I will put that on the record. It would have been preferable for that not to have happened, but we are in the situation that we are in. If the two appeared together before I joined the Committee, I am happy to take the Committee's steer on that.

My specific question is on where the Housing Executive stands in relation to what we have uncovered today? How did the Housing Executive not pick it up sooner? Could it have been picked up sooner? I am confused by how two people arrived at the same position.

Mr O’Kane: For the same reasons as Paul has given. We appreciated the conversation that we had with Colm a year or so ago. We looked at the Bill, and we looked at our data and the challenge that we would face, and, because the process is case-sensitive, we picked up a sense that we could see more people coming into the system earlier and increasing numbers coming to us. We looked at the reasons why people come. At the same time, when we look at the risk of homelessness, there is still a consistency argument about how you look at a woman with two disabled children. Do you wait until the end of the process? We honestly thought that there would be an increased pressure on temporary accommodation in this process. We support prevention and, as Staci said, have been doing some work on prevention and financial inclusion. Last year, we were able to secure some funding to introduce prevention services in the voluntary sector, which are similar to the financial inclusion service. We are not against prevention, but there was a legitimate view and understanding that there might be some pressure on the temporary accommodation budget, and, as everyone says, that pressure is significant. That is not where we want to be. The principle of prevention is enshrined in a lot of our strategies and processes. We were not trying to mislead anyone at all. We are in the same position as the Department, and we continue to engage with it on those issues to increase our understanding.

Mr Boggs: That is the crux of my question, though. How have two people ended up on the wrong page of the book, given that we now clearly agree that we can take the £2·5 million off the table? How did you not question the Department's arriving at that £2·5 million figure and see that it was wrong?

Mr Price: It is wrong if the intent behind the Bill is —.

Mr Boggs: That is the intent behind the Bill. It is what is printed in the Bill.

Ms Heloise Brown (Department for Communities): The financial implications section in the explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill sets out some of the information that the Housing Executive provided about what it estimated the cost would be. The conclusions at paragraphs 41 and 42 state:

Those couple of sentences gave the Department cause for concern. We felt that we had to resolve the apparent confusion around the purpose behind the Bill. We are here today with the purpose of doing that, but it was that logic in the financial implications section that gave us a concern.

Mr Boggs: There is a difference, though, between "any extra demand" and "the extra demand". You were assessing it on the basis of "the extra demand", not "any extra demand".

Ms Brown: Certainly, but the 600 figure was referenced, and it relates to the acquisitions that are planned by the Department. Is that an indication that most or all of those 600 will be extra demand created by the Bill? That is what we wanted to clarify.

Mr Boggs: It has taken a very long time to clarify it. I cannot take up any more time.

Mr Price: It was my suggestion that we do this together, and it was simply because I anticipated that we would be asked questions such as the one that Kellie asked, which was about operational details that are very relevant to the Bill, that I would not be able to answer.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): I think that it would have been beneficial to have two separate briefings in order to get the opinion of the Housing Executive and then the opinion of the Department. My personal view is that that would have been better. Going by today's session, it seems that I am right about that, but we are where we are.

Colm, do you want to come in, and then we will move on?

Mr Gildernew: I will clarify that final point. It is a Bill to:

the Housing (NI) Order 1988.

Temporary accommodation has become an issue because that was your focus, and there was an attempt by me and others to address your concerns, despite the fact that, for more than a year, you could not quantify them. Now that you have quantified them, you have acknowledged that they are not relevant. The wording is "threatened with homelessness", and we need to move beyond the 28 days.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Pam, you have only just indicated, so be very quick, please.

Mrs Cameron: I know that. Thank you very much. I put on record that I think that it was very useful to have you here together, given the range of queries, and I can see that some members have much more clarity than they had before you came here today, so thanks for that.

Heloise, I am grateful for the clarity. The confusion has come from the EFM. That makes a lot of sense to me too. I just want to record my thanks for that clarity today.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Thank you, Pam. Thanks to the four of you for taking the time to come to the Committee this afternoon. It has been useful for us to find out about the £2·5 million so that we can discount that figure. I appreciate your time. Thanks very much.