Debate contribution: Housing (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 21 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Housing (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5743182
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Bill sponsor for bringing the Bill forward. I know what it is like to go through the process of a private Member's Bill, so, Colm, I wish you well. Your Bill is short, but it could make a significant difference to people's lives. Second Stage is important, as it helps the Assembly to fully understand what the Bill intends to achieve and its practical impact on those who are most vulnerable, particularly individuals and families experiencing homelessness. I welcome any effort to strengthen housing policy and improve outcomes for those in housing need. However, legislation must be judged not only on its intentions but on the real difference that it would make to people's lives. In the previous mandate, I asked why we did not align the threatened-with-homelessness period with the notice to quit period. It made no sense to me that we retained a 28-day period when notices to quit were longer. I ask for some clarification from the Bill sponsor. He addressed in his introduction some of the things that I wanted to ask him about, and I thank him for that. What specific gaps in the current legislation has the Bill sponsor identified, and what evidence demonstrates that those changes are necessary? You sort of answered that. How would the proposed measures differ from existing statutory duties? Would they create new protections or simply amend current processes? I know that you talked about the additional supports that people can receive. I am keen to understand what the Bill would mean in practice for people who face homelessness. Would increasing the number of days from 28 to 60 result in earlier intervention for those at risk of losing their home? Would it improve access to temporary accommodation and, more important, permanent housing solutions? Most important, would it reduce the time that individuals and families spend in housing uncertainty? I would welcome clarification on resources. The Bill would extend the definition of "threatened with homelessness" to 60 days. I have heard claims that more funding and staffing may be needed to deliver those responsibilities effectively, but, in my experience, while the Housing Executive may well be told that a person is facing homelessness in 28 days, it will often ask the person to come back when there are, maybe, 10 or fewer days of that period left. Does the Member believe that that change will have any impact on how public bodies —
No, I will not, thanks. Does the Member believe that that change will have any impact on how public bodies provide support for people who have been given notice to quit? Temporary accommodation is not provided during the period when someone is told that they are threatened with homelessness. Usually, they have to complete their tenancy, and they get accommodation on day 29 — if the Bill were to pass, it would be day 61. I do not know how the temporary accommodation costs are being increased. Maybe we will hear about that later. I look forward to the Committee Stage, when we can investigate that better, because I think that somebody does not quite understand what the "threatened with homelessness" period means: people do not get temporary accommodation while they have a home. Good legislation must, of course, be supported by adequate resources if it is to make a meaningful difference on the ground. Would the Bill sponsor like to see more action taken during the proposed 60-day period to prevent people from becoming homeless? At the Housing Rights conference that was held recently in the Long Gallery in Parliament Buildings, there was a clear message that preventing homelessness requires transformation through legislative change. That reiterates the Public Accounts Committee's (PAC) recommendation that the Minister and the Department for Communities should bring forward a duty to prevent homelessness. I ask the Bill sponsor whether he was not allowed to include something such as a duty to prevent homelessness in the Bill. I would also like the sponsor to confirm what consideration he gave to particular groups that can be disproportionately affected by homelessness, including young people leaving care, victims of domestic abuse, people with disabilities, those experiencing poor mental health and families with children. Does he believe that the proposed changes improve the outcomes for those groups? How does he think that success could be monitored? I ask the Bill sponsor — Miss Brogan brought this up — whether he came across any unintended consequences when planning the Bill. For example, could the changes create additional administrative barriers, lengthen decision-making processes or place further pressure on the housing system? I do not know how that would happen, because being threatened with homelessness does not get someone another place of accommodation until that period is over. Those are important questions that deserve careful consideration. Finally, I would be grateful for clarification of how the effectiveness of the legislation will be measured. What benchmarks or performance indicators could be used to determine whether the Bill is achieving its objectives and improving outcomes for those most risk of homelessness? What will happen if the relevant bodies do not achieve those objectives? We know the answer to that, as we are already living through a housing crisis, but I would like to find out what the Bill sponsor thinks. I believe that everyone in the Chamber agrees that people should have access to safe, secure and suitable housing. As we consider the Bill, it is vital that we understand clearly how the proposed amendments will help those who are being made homeless and whether they will deliver meaningful and lasting improvements. I look forward to hearing further detail during the debate and to receiving reassurance that the legislation will provide tangible benefits to those who most need support. I confirm that Alliance supports the Bill's move to Committee Stage.
973 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.