Debate contribution: Housing (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Colm Gildernew on .
- MLA
- Mr Colm Gildernew
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 21 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Housing (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5743284
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
First, I thank Members for taking part in what has been a fairly extensive, interesting and good-natured debate. I accept everyone's bona fides in raising their concerns and engaging with the Bill, and I look forward to continuing to do that. I will touch briefly on some of the issues that Members raised. There was a fair amount of overlap, so if I address an issue in one Member's remarks, hopefully, the other Member who raised it will pick that up. I thank the Deputy Chair of the Committee for Communities. She identified a number of issues that the Committee will want to look at. She said that the Committee would look forward to scrutinising the Bill and identified a number of issues that the Committee would want to look at in more detail. I look forward to working with the Committee in that respect.
Pam Cameron raised concerns about the need for other measures, and I fully agree. I have never said that my Bill would solve homelessness; to do that would absolutely need other measures. However, I know that the Bill will help and will play a part in that regard. I note the Minister's position, and I will come to his remarks in due course. Kellie Armstrong raised a number of issues about the legislative gap. For me, that is around the fact that you can now have a notice to quit at 56 days. A family could be sitting there for four weeks, unable to engage. I have heard anecdotally through our office that the Housing Executive has said, "Come back in 28 days". No legislation will cater for the breaking of the law. My Bill cannot account for a body not doing what it is statutorily required to do. However, the Minister touched on what the Housing Executive must do. I will read from the explanatory and financial memorandum:
"Under the 1988 Order, the NIHE must support anyone threatened with homelessness within the statutory period through a range of methods, including providing advice, signposting to other advice agencies, assisting with sourcing alternative accommodation, whether it be temporary or private rental or help to resolve any disputes with landlords or family members."
There is almost a sense that the only response to being threatened with homelessness is temporary accommodation. My Bill is fundamentally designed to challenge that. I genuinely wonder whether that has become the only response because 28 days is an almost impossibly short time in which to do something more meaningful. Would Members rather that someone threatened with homelessness came to their office at 28 days or 60 days? That is a very simple concept. This would not double homelessness or create the need for temporary accommodation. I believe that, over a period of time, it would reduce that need. That is where I hope that my Bill will help.
Briefly, Brian. Go ahead.
I thank the Member. It is also about all the other things that I have just read into the record. The reality is, Brian, that I have examples in my office of the Housing Executive saying, "We can't do anything until 28 days". That may be a resource thing. I am going to come on to resource, because I want to be very upfront. I am not hiding away; I am making a positive of this. I do want to see more resource going into prevention.
It would provide more time for effective action, which is what I am seeking to achieve. Kellie talked about some very important cohorts, including young people leaving care and rural dwellers. I believe that the same principle applies to all those people: extra time would provide an extra chance for that to happen. In fact, the Housing Executive's own homelessness advice emphasises that point right from the start. It says, "Please contact us as early as possible" and, "The earlier you contact us, the better chance we have". I think that that is widely recognised. Andy indicated that the UUP was supportive of the Bill. He raised the fact that cost needs to be scrutinised, which I accept. The Committee Stage is where that can be done. Andy also mentioned the need for greater reform and housing supply, which is, of course, a fundamental factor.
Mark Durkan said that it is not an overall solution and mentioned the family aspects. He said, rightly, that we should not have to rely on a Member's Bill. Having written to the Minister and getting the indication that I did, however, I felt that I needed to do something. On wider prevention, which I fully support, and the many other things that we need to see, including "ask and act" duties and a duty to prevent, I have committed to and look forward to working with the Minister, the Housing Executive and anyone else who will do that. However, this is a Member's Bill, and the first principles of a Member's Bill are:
"In order to access Assembly Commission support, legislative proposals must address a single, focused, policy objective and must not seek to utilise an unreasonable proportion of the drafting budget."
I had a choice of doing nothing or doing something, and I decided to do what I considered to be the most effective thing. Having been a social worker in my previous career, I am acutely conscious of the benefits of being able to get in that bit earlier. Maurice talked about the value of having an extra 32 days, and he raised some concerns. Deirdre Hargey spoke about people struggling and the fact that the period of 28 days simply flies past, which is absolutely indisputable. Brian Kingston raised the issue of how prevention duties work in other jurisdictions. There is a need for us to see further legislation on that, but my Bill does not create extra duties for the Housing Executive; it gives it more time and ensures that there is more time. It has to be said that the cost of temporary accommodation has been skyrocketing for years. The Minister mentioned a figure of £2·5 million, Pam mentioned a figure of £1·75 million, and the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) paper, extrapolating from Scotland, refers to a potential £1 million. Those figures all need to be explored. In the context of the current £40 million spend on temporary accommodation, however, we need to look at whether £2 million to prevent homelessness would be money well spent. Ciara mentioned the value of earlier intervention and spoke about a real case in her constituency. She queried the Minister's figures but gave a clear example of how it can work in real life. The Minister indicated that he is working on this with urgency. I accept that that is the case, Minister, but I have to say that it is a bit rich to say that my Bill is narrow in focus when you have been the Minister for two and a half years and only last week announced that you would bring forward the commission. I welcome the fact that the commission is now in place, and I think that my work can play a part in preparing some of the groundwork for that. However, you said that a single ask is not of the scale required. You are 100% right that it is not, Minister, but it was your job to do the other things. I am doing the bit that I can as a Member. It is limited enough, but it is a start, and that is where I want to go. The Minister asked whether I was prepared to work. I have already indicated to him that I am. I remain committed to the principle of my Bill, which is to get earlier intervention, and I am absolutely ready to work with all Members, the Committee, the Minister, the Department, the Housing Executive and the housing and homelessness sector to ensure that we get some improvement on the issue in this mandate.
1,339 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.