Debate contribution: Housing (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Pam Cameron on 21 September 2026.

MLA: Mrs Pam Cameron
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 21 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Housing (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5743158

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. At the outset, I say that I do not question Mr Gildernew's intention behind the Bill. We all want the same good things. We all want people who are at risk of losing their home to receive help as early as possible. Preventing homelessness is clearly better than responding after someone has reached crisis point. Extending a statutory period is not the same as extending meaningful support, however, and the Bill would change the definition of "threatened with homelessness" from:
"will become homeless within 28 days"
to:
"will become homeless within 60 days".
The difficulty is that that does not create a new duty to prevent homelessness, provide additional homes or give the Housing Executive the resources required to resolve a person's housing situation. That brings me on to the central question: what will be different for the person who asks for help on day 60? The Housing Executive can already engage with someone who has received a longer notice to quit. It can assess their housing circumstances, provide advice and connect them with other support services. That assistance is not confined to the final 28 days. More difficult issues arise when advice is not enough. If no suitable accommodation is available, changing the date on which someone enters the statutory system does not solve the problem. It may simply mean that they enter the system earlier and remain in temporary accommodation longer. Unfortunately, that is not prevention but earlier management of the same crisis. There are also real financial consequences. Non-standard temporary accommodation, including hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation, costs around £600 per household each week. Around 1,454 households were accepted as being homeless last year because they had lost private rented accommodation. If only half those households were to require non-standard accommodation for one additional month, the estimated additional cost would be around £1·75 million each year. When the wider pressures are included —.
I will indeed.
I have not agreed to take your intervention.
If you do not mind, I would like to make some progress. When the wider pressures are included, it is estimated that the Bill would cost in the region of £2·5 million annually. The Department has a constrained budget, as we all know. That money could otherwise be used to support genuine prevention work, which is really important, and help people to remain in their homes. There is also a danger that the Bill would create an expectation that the Housing Executive could provide additional help from day 60, even though no additional prevention duty, staffing or accommodation would have been provided. If legislation raises expectations without giving the responsible body the means to meet them, the result will be greater frustration for applicants and further pressure on front-line staff. Other parts of the United Kingdom have extended their "threatened with homelessness" periods, but those changes sit within wider prevention frameworks. We cannot take one part of another system, put it in Northern Ireland's legislation and assume that it will produce the same result. The Housing Executive supports the principle of earlier intervention, but it has made it clear that that should be introduced alongside a proper prevention duty and a wider package of reform. That is the right approach. We should examine what assistance a person is entitled to receive, who is responsible for providing it, how it will be delivered and what resources will be available. Those questions must be answered together. The proposed commencement period is inadequate. The Bill would bring the change into effect six months after Royal Assent, but the Housing Executive has stated that it would need at least 12 months to prepare properly. That time would be needed to secure the necessary resources, increase staffing, train those staff and put the required operational arrangements in place. Introducing the change before the Housing Executive is ready would only add further pressure to an already stretched service. I support earlier intervention and stronger homelessness prevention, but the Bill would change the point at which the system responds without strengthening what the system could do. We need reform that prevents people from losing their home, not legislation that would move them into an overstretched homelessness system sooner. For those reasons, I cannot support the Bill in its present form.

724 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification