Debate contribution: Housing (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 21 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Gordon Lyons
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 21 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Housing (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5743248

Text

I will begin by mentioning the Bill sponsor, who is the Chair of the Committee for Communities. I recognise that it is no easy thing to bring forward a piece of legislation, even one that is very short, and I understand that a lot of work goes into that. I also want to acknowledge that I believe that the Bill sponsor is genuine when it comes to this issue. I do perhaps question his sincerity on some of the other things that he talks to me about in this place, but I believe that he is sincere on this issue. I hope that he and others in the House recognise that, although we will go through separate Lobbies this evening, we can all see that there is sincerity in the Chamber in our desire to make sure that we deal with the issue effectively. If I may say so, it was highlighted so well by Ciara Ferguson that these are people whom we all deal with daily. We see up front people who are affected. I have had the same experiences as Ciara Ferguson and others in the Chamber. We all have a desire to get this right. This is one of the issues that I am most concerned about in the Department, as I understand the real-term impacts that it has on people's lives. I see how it hampers and holds back opportunity and potential as well. I hope that we can all agree that, although we may have a different way in which we think we need to go in order to sort out the issue, we are all united in wanting to make sure that we deal with the scourge of homelessness. I also want to say to the House that I am fully committed to reforming our homelessness legislation. I want to strengthen prevention and improve outcomes for those who are at risk of homelessness. I believe that, during my time as Minister, I have demonstrated that I am prepared to look at new avenues to make sure that we can deal with the issue. We all know the funding constraints that we are under, and that is why we have had to do things differently. However, my concern is that the Bill that is in front of us tonight will not deliver the better outcomes that some in the Chamber think that it will. For that reason, and as the Minister with responsibility for homelessness policy and for funding appropriate and effective homelessness services, I will not be able to support the Bill. I have been working with urgency to do better. People who are experiencing homelessness urgently need a system change that needs to be comprehensive and meaningful and to have a far greater impact, and I intend to take that forward. Our legislative framework for addressing homelessness has remained largely untouched for the past 40 years, and it no longer reflects the reality of homelessness or the challenges that are faced by individuals and service providers today. Taking forward legislative reform in what I believe, as others in the Chamber have said, to be a piecemeal fashion will not work. I have listened to the homelessness sector, housing professionals and Members in the House, and that is why I have commenced a comprehensive and systematic review of our homelessness legislation and the work that it supports. My approach aligns directly with the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee for Communities, which called for a comprehensive review of homelessness legislation to strengthen provision and improve outcomes for people at risk of homelessness. That is what I am working to deliver. The legislative review will be conducted by an independent expert panel under a fully independent chair, and its job will be to provide expert challenge and to make recommendations to my Department on all parts of our homelessness legislative framework. It will be similar to the approach that was taken recently in England, Scotland and Wales. Its initial focus will be on the development of options for strengthening prevention, which will fulfil the commitment that I made when I accepted the recommendation from the PAC.
As I highlighted recently and have repeatedly done so, homelessness is not just a housing issue. Addressing the underlying causes of homelessness takes a joined-up, whole-of-government approach. For that reason, the panel will consider the introduction in Northern Ireland of a duty to prevent homelessness. It will also consider whether that duty should be supported by the extension to a range of authorities of a duty to cooperate in the prevention of homelessness. In other words, the panel will consider the wider context in which it may be useful to propose changes to the period during which the threat of homelessness triggers support and response. The provision in the Bill may be workable within a package of interventions, and the steps that I propose will bring forward that package, but, on its own, this one-line Bill would be unaffordable and counterproductive and not deliver on its laudable intent to prevent homelessness. Alongside the expert panel on legislative change, a separate implementation panel will be established to progress a wider review of the homelessness system. It will identify the practical, operational and institutional changes that are required to support legislative reform.
I will give way.
I will come on to that in just a second. I will first go through what we will do, after which I will talk about the timeline. The panel will identify the necessary changes and make recommendations that can bring about change and improvement quickly where we already have the appropriate powers. Collectively, the work of the two panels will comprise a homelessness commission for Northern Ireland. That is the first attempt in 40 years to reconsider comprehensively how we prevent, respond to and end homelessness. It is in the best interests of people who experience homelessness that cross-party support for change be achieved. In light of the fact that actions by the Department of Health and the Department of Justice are crucial in preventing homelessness, I will imminently circulate a paper to the Executive seeking their support for the work of the homelessness commission. My officials will brief the Committee on the proposals as soon as possible thereafter. Indeed, with my permission, my officials have already shared as much information as possible about the proposed homelessness commission with the Bill sponsor. It is unusual for a Minister to do that with a proposal still in development, but I offer more engagement of that kind if the Bill sponsor is interested. I hope that that expresses the sincerity of my desire for cross-party and Executive support for the right action on homelessness. I believe that cross-party consensus is possible. I know that the Bill sponsor may wish that I had progressed that commission sooner. My officials have been working on it since February, following the launch of the Public Accounts Committee report. I had anticipated having until February 2027, which is the timescale that the PAC set out, to bring forward options. We have therefore accelerated that timeline. The time that has already been spent on that work is evidenced by the highly developed nature of the proposals for the commission, particularly that they feature two expert and renewed independent chairs and dedicated roles for those with expertise in our homelessness sector to shape the recommendations. There will be input from those who are experienced in public-sector transformation, and there are plans to draw on the experience of those who have lived through homelessness. I have made a commitment to Executive colleagues to present proposals for a homelessness commission to them before the end of this month. To deliver better outcomes for anyone who, for whatever reason, finds themselves in a position in which they do not have a home, the commission will ensure that legislative proposals are practical, achievable and affordable. It is a major piece of work, and it will take time. I want to get on with it. I do not want to delay while we put into operation the change outlined in the Bill, which is a change that, without wider reform, would make preventing homelessness more difficult in the short term. Frankly, it is almost inevitable that the article that the Bill seeks to amend will be entirely replaced in a few years' time if we are to refocus on preventing homelessness. In the meantime, I am concerned that the Bill would not help prevent homelessness. In fact, it might do the opposite. The Bill seeks to amend the definition of "threatened with homelessness", specifically the length of that period, in isolation and without adequate consideration of either what the legislation states should happen in that period or the operational capacity and system-readiness to cope with the change. Unfortunately, that means that, rather than supporting homelessness prevention, the Bill would have the adverse and unintended consequence of making the current pressures in the system worse.
The Bill will increase our spend on homelessness, but that money will be spent on how the statutory duty is currently met. It will be spent on accommodation in hotels and B&Bs, not on preventing homelessness from occurring in the first place. Instead of increasing the support that is available to people, the Bill will directly undermine the efforts of the Housing Executive to reduce the use of high-cost, non-standard temporary accommodation. It will do that by bringing people into the homelessness system earlier and causing them to remain there for longer. Such a result will only ensure poorer outcomes for the people whom we seek to help. Our focus and resources must go towards prevention and support, not temporary accommodation. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states that the proposal:
"is similar to legislation in other jurisdictions"
where the "threatened with homelessness" period is already 56 days. That is a flawed and incomplete representation of the position in other jurisdictions. First, the legislation elsewhere includes a complementary prevention duty, which is not replicated in our legislation. Secondly, local authorities in England and Wales do not have a statutory duty to provide temporary accommodation during the "threatened with homelessness" period. Here, when someone is within 28 days of the "threatened with homelessness" period, the Housing Executive must take action to secure accommodation for the individual. Extending that period to 60 days will bring that household into the homelessness system earlier and is likely to increase the demand for temporary accommodation, bringing with it the additional costs that I mentioned and inevitably leading to worse outcomes for those who enter the system. The Bill is based on the mistaken assumption that the "threatened with homelessness" period is a prevention period; it is not. The Bill also does not recognise that the legislation places other homelessness duties on the Housing Executive. For example, article 6D requires the Housing Executive to ensure:
"that advice about homelessness, and the prevention of homelessness, is available free of charge to any person in Northern Ireland."
That duty is not restricted to offering support only within the 28-day "threatened with homelessness" period. Effectively, the Housing Executive already has the powers to carry out the type of prevention activity that is set out in the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum. For example, if an individual presents themselves to the Housing Executive after receiving a notice to quit of eight weeks or longer, they are offered support. A housing assessment is completed, and the housing adviser provides advice including, if required, referrals to floating support agencies or signposting to advocacy agencies such as Housing Rights. The provision of advice and support broadly aligns with the initial prevention duty that is in place elsewhere. The proposals for reform that I will bring forward through the homelessness commission represent a huge opportunity. We can work together to take forward the single biggest reform of our homelessness framework in decades, and we can place prevention at the centre. There is a real opportunity to transform and improve the system for those who find themselves in the desperate position of being homeless. The commission, born of a recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee, will have meaningful and lasting consequences for how we work together to prevent and respond to homelessness. I ask the Chamber to focus on that opportunity. As I have said, I appreciate the Member's intentions in bringing forward his proposal, but the Bill's single ask is not of the scale that is required to address the problems that we face. Progressing the Bill would cause us to incur costs, and that money would be better spent on genuine preventative activity. It could have a detrimental impact on those who enter the homelessness system; increase the burden on the Housing Executive; and risk undermining the broader and more ambitious work of the commission. To be clear, plans are already in place to deliver that programme, and we should get on with the comprehensive and detailed work rather than this single-issue Bill. I believe that the progression of the Bill will delay and damage the fast progress that the commission can make. We should not allow that to happen. We must see the current problems in their entirety and take the decision to deliver transformative change. The Bill is not a small step that will take us forward; it is a misstep that will distract us from tackling the larger systemic problems and from the need to work together for more effective and meaningful outcomes. There is a solution within our reach, but the Bill is not it. I hope that Members can see that genuine change is needed and that we need to work together to bring it about. I wish to mention a couple of things before I finish my remarks. I turn to Kellie Armstrong's comments. I am keen to hear more from Kellie about the accusations that she made about the Housing Executive. In essence, she said that it was breaking the law by not fulfilling its duty. She said that she has numerous examples of people being told to go away. That is completely wrong, so if she wants to furnish us with that information, I will be happy to look at it. If she wants to say more, I am happy for her to do so.
Sorry. The Member may not have heard what I said. I said that, if she could furnish me with that information, I would be happy to look into it for her. She said that she gave it to the Housing Executive: perhaps she could provide that information directly to me so that I can take it forward.
I am trying to be helpful.
OK. I will move on to a point that Mr Durkan made. I will be more than happy to share our information about the Housing Executive grant when it becomes available. I will have no hesitation in doing that, because there needs to be shared responsibility here. Housing associations are willing to work with us. I said that we are requesting that the housing association grant be stretched so that we can build more homes. In return, extensive work is being done on a design guide. Time and again, housing associations come to me to say, "This is unnecessary and expensive. It is not really needed for us to do what we need to do. Social homes are becoming more expensive to build than the similar, private homes that we are building, and it provides no additional benefit to the people who get those homes". We want to do both. We want to make the process easier and more straightforward, but, at the same time, we are asking them to stretch the grant a bit further. I am committed to dealing with the issue. We are looking at new and innovative ways in which to do that. I hope that Mr Nesbitt will not mind if I mention him, but I thank him and the officials in the Department of Health for the excellent work that we did together on the New Foundations programme when he was Minister. I am really proud of the work that we did as Departments in working together and identifying the problem of young people leaving care and going straight into the homelessness system. We were able to prevent that through the innovative way in which we worked together. I thank Mr Nesbitt for the way that he cooperated with us on that. I want to see more working together, because, having been out on the streets, I know that homelessness is not just a housing issue. It is a Justice issue and a Health issue. It has implications for other Departments as well. I stand ready to do the work. The Bill is not the right way to go, but I have understood the sense from the House this evening. One issue that we need to touch on is the capacity of the Housing Executive to deliver the Bill's provision. Although the Bill will not be helpful in the wider work of reform that we are doing, the implementation will not be possible within six months, so I wonder whether the Bill sponsor, in his summing up, could let me know whether he could work with the Housing Executive to make sure that the commencement date can be achieved, be practical and not distract from the other work. I would appreciate his response on that, and I hope that I have made clear to the House the reasons why I cannot support the Bill at this stage.

2,934 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