Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): I welcome Justin Cartwright, who is the national director of the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) in the North. I invite you to make a brief opening statement, and then we will move to members' questions.

Mr Justin Cartwright (Chartered Institute of Housing): Good morning, Chair and members. Thanks for the opportunity to give evidence today on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Housing. As a professional body, our 600 members in Northern Ireland work across housing associations, the Housing Executive, the voluntary sector and private renting. Our evidence is informed by direct member engagement, CIH homelessness policy specialists and our Northern Ireland board, the members of which bring front-facing leadership expertise from across the housing sector.

We strongly support the overall intent of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. Shifting our statutory framework from reactive crisis management towards proactive prevention is long overdue. Clause 1, which extends the definition of "threatened with homelessness" under article 3(6) of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 from 28 to 60 days, is a vital first step. Currently, a private tenant giving a standard notice to quit cannot present formally to the Housing Executive during what might be the first half of their notice period. That creates an artificial notice gap that forces households to wait until closer to crisis point. A 60-day window helps to bridge that gap, allowing intervention to begin from the point of a household being threatened with homelessness.

Amending the 1988 Order alone, however, will not maximise prevention. Without dedicated ring-fenced resourcing, the legislation risks becoming an unfunded mandate. To maximise prevention, we need a statutory framework that is designed explicitly around prevention. CIH operates across the UK, where various jurisdictions have embedded prevention into law. In England, the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 established statutory prevention duties and a duty to refer. Post-implementation evidence showed that, while resourcing continued to be a significant issue, the statutory shift successfully drove more person-centred outcomes. The Housing (Wales) Act 2014 placed a legal duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness for anyone at risk, which drove more meaningful prevention work in Wales as well.

While clause 1 is a welcome step, we see it as an incremental change within a statutory framework that remains fundamentally reactive. It expands the time frame but does not create the multi-agency duties or structural prevention powers. If we expand that legal window without ring-fenced funding and staff, we risk simply extending the queue without changing the outcome.

That brings me to the relationship between "threatened with homelessness" and temporary accommodation usage. We acknowledge the view that extending the window to 60 days should not, in strict legal terms, drive up temporary accommodation. Under article 8 of the 1988 Order, the interim duty to secure temporary accommodation applies only when an applicant is actually homeless, as defined by article 3(1). A household threatened with homelessness still has accommodation that it is legally entitled to occupy. The aim of the Housing Executive is to keep them there per its duty under article 11. If prevention succeeds, they stay in the home or move directly to another tenancy, avoiding temporary accommodation altogether.

It is important to acknowledge, however, that homelessness is not one-size-fits-all. In practice, extending the window can lead to increased temporary accommodation pressure, including if it is un-resourced. For a straightforward notice to quit, 60 days provides crucial time for landlord negotiation, debt management and other things to be done, even amidst acute housing shortages. However, for things such as relationship breakdown, a situation could arise whereby early formal engagement could heighten domestic friction and accelerate a "threatened with homelessness" situation into immediate physical exclusion before the 60 days have elapsed. For people with complex needs, prevention depends on intensive multi-agency cooperation across health, justice and social care. That brings me to the point about resourcing: without sufficient front-facing resourcing, a 60-day window may not prevent homelessness but prolong the waiting period before displacement and potential temporary accommodation is found.

For those reasons, we recommend amending clause 2 regarding commencement. We suggest that a period of 12 months could better suit the Housing Executive and enable it to prepare. That would offer a chance for better alignment with multiyear Executive Budget settlements and the aim of longer-term funding for Housing Executive staffing, the Supporting People programme, voluntary advice partners etc.

We urge the Committee to view the Bill as a starting point. We welcome the Minister's recent announcement of a homelessness commission to inform a modern, prevention-focused framework. We at CIH previously sought a separate amendment to the 1998 Order to update its definition of domestic abuse to match modern practice and modern law and policy. We would like to see that modernised definition embedded in Northern Ireland's future homelessness framework. We need a legal framework that requires public bodies across health, justice and social services to refer at-risk people to the Housing Executive. We also need a statutory duty to cooperate and an operational ask-and-act duty to ensure that public sector staff are legally empowered and required to ask about housing risk and to make an early contribution to preventing homelessness.

I look forward to taking questions.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Thank you, Justin; we appreciate that overview. I have one or two questions before I hand over to members. It is important to note, as you rightly said in your opening remarks, that Colm's Bill is not the answer to homelessness. He has said that repeatedly, as has the Committee. It is a starting point, essentially, but a very important one. More work needs to be done, and we all want to see that happening.

I want to ask specifically about the provision to extend the notice period for those threatened with homelessness from 28 days to 60 days. What tangible effect will that have on people who find themselves in that position? How will that benefit them?

Mr Cartwright: I gave the example of a private tenant in my opening remarks. Existing legislation enables longer notice periods, subject to exceptions. We led the research that informed what those exceptions might be. In a system where we encourage and support longer notice periods to give tenants more time to prepare and find new accommodation, prevention work is important.

Some residents do not have complex needs. I appreciate that there is a severe lack of private rented accommodation and that some residents will secure and move into another private tenancy and will not have any touchpoint with statutory frameworks. Other residents, such as older people or those with specific property needs, complex social needs or mental health support requirements, are much more likely to come into contact with statutory services. For that client group, the notice period is important for prevention. What happens at the moment is that the person presents at the Housing Executive with an eviction notice and says that they are really concerned about their ability to secure suitable alternative accommodation, only to be told to come back within the 28-day window, when a case can be opened. The Bill provides, as you say, a vital first step towards extending the window to give Housing Executive advisers more opportunities to prevent homelessness.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): That is the key point. It gives people who are more vulnerable or who have complex needs, as opposed to others in the private rented sector, more time. The statutory authorities will have more time as well. The key point is the prevention of homelessness — this is about the threat of it — and that is what we are aiming at. I will hand over to members, but I will come back to you.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Justin. I will pick up on your suggested change to clause 2, which is to extend the commencement of the Act from six months to 12 months after the date of Royal Assent. I am thinking of the timing. After the Bill has progressed through all its stages by the end of March, it will become law on receiving Royal Assent, which would be notified in May or June 2027. Two Budget periods will have elapsed in the 12 months from that date. We need to work out the framework for that. If the Bill receives Royal Assent in June 2027, six months will take it through to December 2027, which is when Budget planning for the next year comes in. How do you see the 12-month period working out? It would potentially be June 2028 before the Bill would come to bear, and the Budget period would then be out of line with it.

Mr Cartwright: There are a couple of considerations there, one of which, perhaps, I did not put too much emphasis on. It is about budget alignment, and that is a bit tough. As you will appreciate, there is a lot of uncertainty around the finalisation of the Budget. I have also taken a lead from our members in the Housing Executive and considered their feedback. Our members have differing views on this. There are members in more senior and strategic roles who see the value in the Bill. Understandably, however, members who are working in front-facing roles would face the potential risk of a vast increase in caseload and have many more concerns. They have said, "We need more time to prepare for this; we need resourcing and a focus on staff support, empowerment and training" and so on.

There are budget considerations, but it is also about considering our members and the people who work in the Housing Executive who have asked for a longer period of time to prepare for those outworkings. I did not present a firm view in our formal submission to the Committee, but I have since had a conversation with the Housing Executive, which feels that 12 months is better aligned with its operational requirements to prepare for the Bill. That has informed the 12-month position, but it is not a strongly held view of ours. We are open to being flexible on that.

Ms K Armstrong: It is clear that you support the move from 28 days to 60 days that Colm has proposed in clause 1. Do you see any opportunities for the Housing Executive to add to the work that it currently does with people in the 28-day window? Information has to be sought from a person by asking "Have you looked for other accommodation?" and "Where have you tried?", for example. One question that I previously asked was whether the Housing Executive had a list of all available properties across all tenures, which it does not appear to have. That, again, means more work for people in trying to find somewhere. Would 60 days give the Housing Executive enough time to add to that process, and, if so, what could it add?

Mr Cartwright: Potentially, yes, but there is a wider issue. Article 10 of the 1988 Order gives rise to the primary duty to find accommodation for people who are homeless. Article 11 is about trying to enable people who are threatened with homelessness to stay put. I say that because there is already an element of prevention in the Order. That is important, because it is connected with the Housing Executive's operation and drives its strategic plans around homelessness prevention. It is therefore not entirely accurate to say that the current statutory framework does not support homelessness prevention, because, in some ways, it drives it. Our analysis is that the primary duty, which is to find accommodation for people who are homeless, drives a reactive approach and that prevention happens in conjunction with that, whereas, in a revised statutory framework that focuses on and drives homelessness prevention, it would be key. The reason for saying that is that the law drives resources and statutory approaches. In that context, budgets will be directed towards finding temporary accommodation for people who need it because they are homeless.

The answer is yes, there could be some changes in practice, but it is also important to emphasise that there is a housing options prevention approach. As you said, there is potential for the Housing Executive to tweak the process and provide itself with more information and better approaches to addressing the emerging need that will arise from that amendment to the 28-day window.

Mr Bradley: Thanks very much. I am very supportive of the Bill, but I am concerned about finance and about monetary and staff resources. We may be developing a situation in which we just kick the can down the road a bit. What are your thoughts on that? Can you also give me an indication of how the Bill affects large city areas compared with rural areas such as the constituency where I live?

Mr Cartwright: Are we kicking the can down the road? My approach is to take legal changes as we find them. The benefit of the Bill — any revised homelessness prevention framework that carries any weight will include a longer prevention period — will be in providing the Housing Executive with the chance to upskill and try new approaches. When, eventually, you get a revised framework that looks at prevention in the round, that practice will form an important part of it.

Are we kicking the can down the road? Ideally, we would like to have seen a review of homelessness legislation before now, but, as I said, we feel that the amendment is an important first step. It carries challenges, of course, but it also presents benefits by allowing our members and professionals a runway, if you like, to upskill in the context of a wider prevention period.

The question of the impact on different constituencies, including rural areas, is challenging. I cannot give you the firm data off the top of my head.

What I can say is that, as, I know, you will appreciate, the housing waiting lists in rural areas are often suppressed. People do not see social housing; it is not part of the social and cultural framework. Therefore, people do not put themselves on the waiting list, and that makes it tough to get the evidence that is required to demonstrate the need for social housing and to make sure that it represents value for money. On the flip side, when houses are built, the waiting list will sometimes explode, because people come along who have specific needs or are in receipt of universal credit or have been living in unsuitable accommodation. When high-quality housing comes up, they will seek it out. Your question is difficult to answer because there are different urban and rural dynamics.

Mr Bradley: I have one final point. My constituency is a vast coastal area with a proliferation of rented accommodation, and the problem is that many of the people who require housing are in the private rented sector. When they become homeless, they hit the 28-day block, which, we hope, the Bill will address. They are not on the waiting list and are not counted in the figures needed to show the need for social housing: that is a particular problem. The problem that people in my area have is probably not one that people have in the greater Belfast area. A balancing act is needed, but I fully support the Bill, with its aim to increase the time from 28 days to 60 days and the benefits that will accrue from that.

Mr Gildernew: Thank you, Justin. I appreciate the support for the Bill. As Nicola said, we have always operated on the basis of considering what a Member's Bill could achieve. I would prefer the Department to have introduced the Bill and the accompanying legislation.

My first point is on the effect of the additional time on the Housing Executive and the system. The Housing Executive relies heavily on community and voluntary sector organisations, and they should be included in the preparation for implementing the Bill. What would it be most useful for them to provide in increased measure in the extended time that there will be to prevent homelessness? What measures should they prepare to deliver more of?

Mr Cartwright: More than anything, it is about good practice and early and proportionate interventions in the challenges that people face. How that will look will depend on the client group that you engage with. For people with a lower needs profile, it might mean a conversation with the landlord — that relationship is important — to explore any issues, but that can go only so far. Our research from a couple of years ago found that, when a private tenancy concludes, the resident will have given notice in 93% of cases, usually for genuine reasons such as a change in household circumstances, with a larger family needing a different type of property or people needing to move for school or business requirements. In the 7% of cases in which the termination is landlord-led, it is typically for a property sale or because the landlord wants to move back into the home.

The cases in which tenancies have broken down represent a very small proportion of the overall private rented sector, albeit still considerable, given that, ultimately, those form the caseload that Housing Rights deals with. It is important to understand that it is not always possible to negotiate the landlord out of selling a property, because it is often the case that they have made the decision and just want to sell the house. Where those conversations can and should take place, it is about relationships and early and proportionate intervention, such as negotiating a debt management plan. In those scenarios, landlords just want the rent to be paid and the account to be up to date: what role could the Housing Executive play in that?

In the more complex cases, there should be an emphasis on better inter-agency work to understand the needs profile of residents who present as threatened with homelessness and on engaging with the right agencies to ensure that things are in place across multiple agencies and Departments to support people in retaining their tenancies. The key is probably the relationships, because other issues, such as the acute shortage of private rented accommodation and social housing, are difficult to deal with.

Mr Gildernew: That leads me to my second question, which relates to the additional things that need to be done. I welcome the fact that the commission — in effect, two commissions — has been put in place and that there will be a focus on it. I fully support measures such as "Ask and act" and the duty to prevent, and I would love to have included such measures in the Bill, but a Member's Bill has only so much capacity. I had to be selective, and this is the measure that I thought it best to propose.

The Department has said that a more comprehensive series of measures is required. I am struck by the fact that we are constantly referring to a 1988 Order: it is no wonder that we have a homelessness crisis, given the length of time since the legislation was made and that this will be the first update to it. Is there an onus on the Department to ensure that the commission acts at pace and robustly so that it can have those measures ready to be implemented alongside my Bill?

Mr Cartwright: Yes. In addition to acting at pace and robustly, it should be independent. The incoming chair of the commission is well known in housing and is professionally very well informed about good practices around homelessness. It is important that the commission has the space to recommend, independently and without intervention, the approaches that it deems to be best practice. It will then be up to the Department to act on those recommendations. My plea to the Department, in addition to asking it, too, to act at pace and robustly, is for its response to be as close as is practicable to the ultimate recommendations of the commission.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Brogan): Justin, thank you so much. We have no other questions from members. We really appreciate your briefing and all your evidence. You have the experience and expertise, and we really appreciate that. You talked about the work that can go on, whether it is within 28 days or 60 days, and Simon Community representatives made the same point. That is what we need to focus on: it is about preventing homelessness. We appreciate that. Thank you very much.