Debate contribution: Housing (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Andy Allen MBE on 21 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Andy Allen MBE
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 21 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Housing (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5743188

Text

From the outset, I confirm that the Ulster Unionist Party will support the Bill at Second Stage. It is narrow in scope and seeks to make what we see as a modest change, extending the period in which someone is considered "threatened with homelessness" from 28 days to 60 days, as we have heard from other Members. In most cases, people know well in advance that they are at risk of homelessness. Advice can be provided and information gathered earlier, but, under the current statutory framework, being "threatened with homelessness" does not engage until a person is within 28 days of becoming homeless. The question, therefore, is whether that statutory definition should recognise the risk earlier: we believe that it should. However, changing the time frame can only ever be one part of a much wider approach to homelessness prevention. In my experience of constituency casework, the difficulty is often in getting decisions and practical arrangements resolved before someone has to vacate. Recognising that someone is threatened with homelessness earlier should allow more time to provide them with advice, gather information and explore their options. It may also give them more time to challenge a negative homelessness decision before becoming homeless. However, we must be clear that earlier recognition alone will not prevent homelessness or guarantee that people secure suitable accommodation, given the pressures on both permanent and temporary housing.
I want to address two core issues: cost and the wider need for homelessness reform. The Housing Executive's concerns about resources deserve to be taken seriously, and I have no doubt that they will be. If that means more casework and a need for additional staff, that must be properly assessed and considered. However, we should be careful about assuming that extending the period by 32 days automatically means another 32 days in temporary accommodation. In the cases that I have dealt with, as I have already alluded to, temporary accommodation has generally been provided when the person actually has to leave their home, which, more often than not, has been on the final day before they would otherwise become homeless. That is my experience, and I accept that it may not cover every situation or the experience of others. It is a fair reason to ask the Housing Executive to explain what additional accommodation costs it expects — I know that Members have already outlined that — and why. That is what Committee Stage is about. It is about interrogating the information that is provided. We debate the general principles here, and then we look at the more detailed information through the Committee Stage. If the extra time allows issues to be addressed or another home to be found, there may be savings. The potential savings need to be properly evidenced, just as any additional costs identified by the Department or the Housing Executive need to be evidenced. The Committee should test both. We should also ask what help people will receive during the extra time. Bringing someone into the statutory framework earlier will achieve little if they are then left waiting without practical support. On wider reform, I agree that we need to do more than change a number in the legislation. That wider work should continue alongside the Bill. We need to look at what meaningful prevention should involve; how early intervention can work in practice; and how housing services work with Health, Justice and social services, particularly where someone is leaving care, leaving prison or being discharged from hospital. The Bill does not attempt to answer all of those questions, nor should we pretend that it does. It makes a limited change to the existing framework. The wider issue around prevention, resource and how different public services work together will require further work. Supporting the Bill at Second Stage allows the detail and the practical implications of the change to be properly examined by the Committee, but, equally, I am mindful that limited time is left in the mandate to do so. There is also the question of housing supply. I recognise the Minister's efforts to deliver more homes, but earlier intervention is much harder when there is nowhere suitable for someone to move to. We cannot prevent our way out of a shortage of housing. We need more social and affordable homes, alongside better support for people who are at risk of losing their home. This is a limited change but one that could support applicants and the Housing Executive in dealing with the wider problems earlier. There are questions about staffing costs and implementation that need answers as the Bill progresses through Committee Stage, but we support the principle. Where the risk of someone losing their home is clear, it makes sense for the statutory framework to recognise it earlier. For that reason, the Ulster Unionist Party will support the Bill's progression to Committee Stage.

811 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