Northern Ireland homelessness charities warn services could be cut after National Insurance increase
This could result in additional costs running into the millions of pounds for the sector, according to its representative body.
As a result, it is calling on Stormont to provide financial support.
Mark Baillie from Homeless Connect, said: "This is just yet another challenge that the sector faces. And again, we are calling on and urging the Department for Communities, the Minister for Communities and the Executive to do everything in their power to ensure that these increased National Insurance contribution costs are mitigated.
"Because if they're not, there could be very serious consequences for people who are experiencing homelessness right now and for people who are on the margins."
These fears are echoed by a First Housing, a charity that employs more than 125 people across Northern Ireland.
One of the services it runs is a youth accommodation service in Londonderry known as Jefferson Court which houses 25 young people who are at risk of homelessness.
But over the year, the charity estimates that the National Insurance changes will add nearly £200,000 to its tax bill, which means it might have to reassess how it allocates its money to services such as Jefferson Court.
Eileen Best said: "If we weren't here, I believe that it would cost the public purse much, much more because our services impact on emergency services, the juvenile justice system, the police, and on A&E.
"All those services at the moment are stretched with their own budgets and it would become an even greater crisis."
The Department for Communities said: "Minister Lyons has repeatedly stressed the need to make the strategic shift to homelessness prevention.
"The Northern Ireland Housing Executive will now have a dedicated homeless prevention budget beginning with an additional £2.5million this year ring-fenced for the strategic prevention of homelessness.
"The minister also recently launched the £10m loan to acquire move on accommodation fund for homeless organisations to buy homes."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
a day ago
- Spectator
Kill the single state pension age
When William Beveridge designed the welfare state in the 1940s, the state pension age was 65 for men and 60 for women. Life expectancy for a man was around 66, and around 71 for a woman. The pension was not designed to fund decades of leisure: it was a modest provision for the last couple of years of life, one that not everyone would receive. Today, life expectancy for a man aged 66 (the current state pension age) is around 85, and a woman aged 66 can expect to live until she is 88. The average person now spends close to a fifth of their life in retirement. What was once a short post-script has become a major chapter – and an increasingly expensive one. This is the backdrop for the latest statutory review of the state pension age (SPA), led this year by Dr Suzy Morrissey. Her terms of reference are technical: consider sustainability, intergenerational fairness, life expectancy, international practice. Behind the dry language sits a political question no one rushes to answer: when should people stop working, and who pays for the years they do not? You know the script here. Britain is ageing. The ratio of workers to pensioners is shrinking. Every review concludes that the SPA must rise. Every opposition grumbles about the cruelty of doing so. Every government, when in office, quietly nudges the age upwards. Nothing fundamental changes. What almost never gets challenged is the model itself: a single age at which everyone, regardless of class, health or occupation, is deemed equally ready for retirement. This is tidy for Whitehall. It is also daft. The Office for National Statistics reports that male life expectancy for a retirement age man in Surrey is 86 years; in Blackpool, it is 81. Healthy life expectancy – the years lived without major illness – shows still sharper divides. Yet we persist in pretending that the 66-year-old accountant in Guildford and the 66-year-old ex-dockworker in Hull should both cross the same finish line. That is unjust, and unsustainable. It loads the cost of longer-lived, healthier retirees onto taxpayers who may not live long enough to see much retirement at all. Here I can almost hear some readers reaching for outrage about contributions. Shouldn't a person's pension entitlement reflect their national insurance contributions? So a Surrey stockbroker who pays more NI than a Sunderland scaffolder has earned the right to draw the state pension for longer? This takes me to the biggest and most persistent misunderstanding in British politics: the state pension isn't really a pension. It's a benefit. And it's funded not from some pot of money patiently built up from each recipient's contributions, but from the taxes of today's workers. National Insurance is just a tax, and one that long ago lost any hypothecated link to the pension system. That means pension policy cannot be treated as a personal contract between citizen and state. It is a collective transfer between generations. Pretending otherwise, with talk of 'I've paid in, I deserve it back', hides the real choices – about fairness between regions, between classes, and between young and old. Other countries are at least edging away from the one-size-fits-all fiction. Denmark and the Netherlands now link their pension ages directly to life expectancy. Countries including Norway and Portugal offer some scope to offer earlier pensions to those who have done physically demanding work. None has yet built a fully 'variable' pension age, but the recognition is spreading: a uniform pension age does not match demographic reality. Britain should be bolder. One approach is to tie entitlement not to age but to years of contributions, recognising that someone who started work at 18 has done their share by 65, while the graduate entering at 25 has not. Another is to give more flexibility to those in arduous jobs: that Sunderland scaffolder is likely to be physically knackered in a way that his stockbroking compatriot is not. More radical still is to abandon the cliff-edge retirement model altogether. Instead of full-time one day and nothing the next, policy should support tapering – part-time, flexible work in the sixties and seventies, subsidised and encouraged so people can scale down, not drop out. This would help individuals, who gain income and purpose. It helps employers, who retain skills and experience. It helps the state, which saves on pensions and collects more tax. Above all, it acknowledges reality: ageing is a spectrum, not a binary switch from 'young' to 'old'. This is politically difficult, to put it mildly. I am recommending electoral hemlock, because it entails higher pension ages for some (who will be angry) and different treatment for some (ditto). No sane politician attempts major change to the state pension. The fury of the Waspi women still haunts ministers. Even tinkering with winter fuel allowances causes uproar. You'd be mad to do it, minister. But it must still be done. The fiscal maths is brutal. By 2075, pensioners will make up more than a quarter of the adult population. The cost of the state pension is projected to rise from around 5 per cent of GDP today to nearly 8 per cent. Absent reform, the money has to come from somewhere: higher taxes on a shrinking workforce, or cuts to other services. Intergenerational politics are already sour. Younger voters see themselves funding entitlements for older cohorts who enjoyed cheaper houses and more generous occupational pensions. A rigid single SPA deepens that resentment. That is the real political danger: not the fury of today's pensioners, but the alienation of tomorrow's workers who simply refuse to pay for the pensions of others. Dr Morrissey's review is framed as technical, but it is inescapably political. She has licence to say what ministers will not: that one pension age for all is outdated, unfair and unaffordable. A braver politics would seize that truth, and act on it. None of this is easy. None of it is popular. But it is necessary. The single state pension age should end.
BreakingNews.ie
2 days ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Northern Ireland to ‘play its part' treating children injured in Gaza
Stormont will 'play its part' in a UK effort to provide medical treatment for children injured in Gaza. The first group of critically ill and injured Gazan children, said to be between 30 and 50 patients, will reportedly be arriving 'in the coming weeks'. Advertisement A very small number, two or three children, are expected to be treated in Northern Ireland. The Executive Office (TEO) has confirmed that First Minister Michelle O'Neill and deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly have agreed to a request from Northern Ireland's Health Minister Mike Nesbitt to bring children from Gaza for medical treatment. Sinn Féin, the SDLP, and the Alliance Party have welcomed the move. But TUV leader Jim Allister has expressed concern that those who come could stay. Alliance MLA Paula Bradshaw, who chairs the Executive Office committee, said: 'My priority would be to focus on the children who have got very life-limiting, devastating injuries, and I think that what we have to do is focus on getting them better and improving their prognosis.' Advertisement She told the BBC: 'What happens to them whenever their medical condition is stabilised is for others to decide, but right now we have to play our part in providing that healthcare for those children in most need.' A spokesperson for TEO said: 'The First Minister and the deputy First Minister agreed to the request from the Minister for Health, for Northern Ireland to participate in the UKG (UK Government) scheme to bring children from Gaza to the UK for medical treatment.'
BBC News
2 days ago
- BBC News
Palestine: Injured children could come to NI for treatment
Stormont's first and deputy first ministers are "close" to an agreement on allowing urgent medical treatment for children from Gaza as part of a UK-wide is understood that Michelle O'Neill and Emma Little-Pengelly are finalising plans by way of "urgent procedure" to enable Northern Ireland's participation in the scheme.A Stormont source told BBC News NI that a "very modest number" of children - possibly two or three - would be brought to NI under the medical could be among a group of between 30 and 50 critically ill and injured Palestinian children who are expected to be evacuated from Gaza to the UK for medical treatment in the coming weeks. The story was first reported in the Irish Minister Mike Nesbitt had previously expressed his support for the urgent procedure mechanism would mean the plan is not required to go to the whole executive for Executive Office and the Department of Health have both been contacted for comment.
