Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is welcome to the House.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to bring the Housing and Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 before the House. This Bill is structured in five Parts. Part 2 deals with amendments to the Housing Act 1988, while Part 3 deals with amendments to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 around the eligibility for social housing. Part 4 deals with amendments to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, while Part 5 deals with a number of amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.

Amendments to the homelessness-related provisions in the 1988 Act have been brought forward in the context of the considerable changes in the nature of homelessness that have occurred since the Housing Act 1988 was enacted and will provide greater clarity on the issue of eligibility for homeless services and expand the powers of local authorities to withdraw the provision of homeless accommodation in limited circumstances. The amendments also update the 1988 Act with regard to the recognition of children.

Part 3 inserts two new sections into the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. The first inserts a new section 20A that puts on a statutory footing residency requirements for social housing eligibility. The second inserts a new section 20B that provides for a new statutory appeals process for decisions relating to eligibility for social housing, including those relating to residency. There is currently no provision in the Housing Acts requiring residency as an eligibility criteria for social housing support. The policy and guidance on this matter are provided in Department Circular 41/12. This Bill will put these eligibility requirements for accessing social housing supports on a statutory footing by amending the relevant provisions of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 consistent with the existing policy included in the relevant circular. The Bill introduces clear legal requirements that all applicants must be lawfully resident and be habitually resident in the State. These legislative reforms are building on existing policy and procedures which, in the first instance, define social housing as a long-term housing support and, therefore, successful applicants must be in a position to demonstrate that they have a long-term entitlement to reside in the State, that is, that their permission to reside here is not temporary or short term.

I will now outline the broad thrust of the Bill. The Bill contains five Parts comprising 61 sections. Part 1 contains the standard preliminary and general provisions, Part 2 relates to amendments to the Housing Act 1988, Part 3 relates to amendments to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, Part 4 relates to amendments to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, and Part 5 relates to amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.

Part 2, which amends the Housing Act 1988, comprises sections 4 to 7, inclusive, which deal with homelessness-related amendments to the Housing Act 1988. Sections 4 and 5 are technical amendments to the 1988 Act to accommodate these policy changes, while sections 6 and 7, respectively, amend section 10 of the 1988 Act and add two new sections to that Act in order to implement the policy changes mentioned earlier. In line with amendments to eligibility for social housing support, lawful residency and habitual residency as eligibility criteria for accessing homeless supports are being put on a statutory footing. This will ensure that the State is operating a harmonised and consistent approach to the provision of social entitlements in general. These eligibility criteria specifically relate to an individual’s connection to the State and not to the individual’s established connection to a specific local authority. Until such time as a definitive determination on eligibility has been made and any appeal of that determination has been concluded, a local authority may provide homeless supports and accommodation under section 10(1) in the normal course to the person.

To guard against an increase in rough sleeping, a safety net service has been introduced to allow local authorities to provide emergency accommodation to a person deemed ineligible for homeless supports and services. Provision of this service is confined to circumstances in which a person has received a determination from a local authority that he or she is ineligible for homeless supports by virtue of his or her residency status.This safety net provision is to be provided by the local authority on a night-to-night basis. This is to allow local authorities to reassess the circumstances each day to determine that the safety net should still be provided. The safety net will be provided in circumstances where a household is ineligible and that household is seeking alternative assistance or accommodation but does not have such available. The local authority can continue to provide the safety net service for as long as those circumstances exist.

The inclusion of the specific hours of 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. rather than referring to singular nights of accommodation is to make it clear that the sleeping hours provision should be available all year round and should not be curtailed in the summer months where night could be interpreted as a shorter period. Clear guidance will be provided to local authorities to ensure that this provision is applied as the minimum statutory requirement. This change to the set time period is on the advice of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, OPC.

The circumstances in which local authorities can withdraw the provision of homeless accommodation will be expanded to include the refusal of a reasonable offer of social housing made by a local authority and circumstances where a person engages in behaviour causing, or intended to cause, serious harm or death to another user or staff member of the emergency accommodation. With regard to the first of these circumstances, a reasonable offer of social housing is the pathway out of homeless accommodation and this measure is being introduced to ensure that no individual or family will remain in homeless accommodation any longer than is absolutely necessary. With regard to the second of these circumstances, the measure is being introduced to ensure the protection of the health and safety of users and staff of homeless accommodation. A definition of the term “serious harm” has been introduced for the purpose of implementing this measure. Given the gravity of a decision to withdraw the provision of homeless accommodation, it is considered essential that a mechanism to appeal such a decision be provided for. Consequently, a further amendment will introduce a mechanism of appeal against decisions made by local authorities in relation to the withdrawal of the provision of homeless accommodation.

The insertion of a new subsection (12) to section 10 of the 1988 Act introduces an obligation on local authorities to have regard to the best interests of children when making decisions on the available accommodation to be provided to a family with children who have been assessed as homeless. As a complement to this measure, an amendment to section 38(8) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 will include the Child and Family Agency as a mandatory member of each joint homelessness consultative forum across the country. A definition of a “child” as a person under the age of 18 years has been added to the 1988 Act.

Section 20B provides for the appeal of social housing assessment decisions by housing authority decision makers. A household may make an appeal against a determination made by a housing authority that the household is not qualified, no longer qualified, or a particular form of social housing support is the appropriate form of support. Section 4 deals with the grounds for appeal on the decision relating to eligibility. Section 5 deals with the form of support, while sections 6, 7 and 8 provide for how an appeal is made. Sections 9, 10 and 11 provide for provisions related to the appeals officer and the duties and obligations placed on them.

Part 5 of the Bill technically amends the Residential Tenancies Act, RTA, 2004 to 2026 to enhance its implementation and the outcomes thereunder, with greater efficiencies for stakeholders including the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, and the courts. The key provisions of Part 5 are to increase the penalties for an offence under the RTA and extend the timeframe to institute a prosecution from one year to three years after the date of the offence; streamline the court enforcement of RTB determination orders; provide for the modification of the use of the “slip rule” and remedial notice of termination provisions; and empower the RTB to enter into and inspect a premises, including a private dwelling, for the purposes of ascertaining details of a rented dwelling, the registration requirements, the particulars to be specified in any registration application or the correctness of any particular specified in an application.

Part 5 will also allow members of An Garda Síochána and officers of a housing authority, if required, to provide evidence in certain RTB dispute resolution cases, for example, where antisocial behaviour arises or there is danger posed to a dwelling, and it will empower the RTB to issue a warning notice and 28-day fixed payment notices for certain offences to provide the opportunity for the offender to avoid prosecution and to speed up compliance with the RTA. Part 5 will clearly provide for public RTB hearings in the context of adjudication, tribunal and sanctioning cases and disapply the RTA with respect to detached auxiliary dwellings that are developed as exempted development under forthcoming amendments to the planning and development regulations 2001. I commend this Bill to the House.

Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome guests of the Leas-Cathaoirleach, Senator Maria Byrne. We have Joy Neville, George Clancy and Eoghan Cross, who are all elite Irish international rugby referees. I do a bit of GAA refereeing, so I know the pain. They are all very welcome.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I extend a warm welcome to our visitors. The Minister is welcome back to the Chamber. He is almost as frequent a visitor as the Minister for justice. It is indicative of the level of work that he is getting through and the many challenges he faces. This particular piece of legislation is long overdue and it brings much-needed clarity to an often times contentious area. It clearly sets out people’s entitlements to social housing support and introduces clear legal requirements that applicants must be lawfully resident and habitually resident in the State

Residency requirements already exist in practice but it has been a grey area for many local authorities. We now finally see them being placed on a firm statutory basis. However, underpinning the policy on statutory footing brings clarity to the eligibility for social housing supports for all applicants and will ensure consistency with immigration policy. The new habitual residency requirement will ensure that all social housing applicants have a close link to the State and have made Ireland their home. These legislative reforms build on existing policy and procedures which define social housing as a long-term housing support and therefore successful applicants must demonstrate a long-term right to reside in the State and similarly have a long-term intention to remain. Putting these requirements on a statutory footing ensures there is a robust statutory and regulatory framework in an area of increasing demand and likewise public and political scrutiny. Ultimately, the intention is to protect the State’s efforts and resources in the area of social housing and to focus on the provision of supports for those who meet these eligibility requirements, thus eliminating ambiguity.

The general scheme of the Bill was approved by the Government in January 2024. This was followed by pre-legislative scrutiny in April 2024 with the publication of the Oireachtas committee report in May 2024. Following on from that report and a detailed submission from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, further advices were sought from the Attorney General. Following these advices, the Government approved further amendments to the general scheme in July 2025.

It is important to point out that significant consultation and engagement has taken place between the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in relation to the complex interaction of the immigration system and local authority decision-making. This interaction is long overdue and it is good to see to it. It gives clarity to the workers in our local authorities, who are the people on the front line and have been dealing with this contentious issue for several years.

In parallel, a number of meaningful policy and legislative changes have been initiated in this area since the general scheme was drafted. These include the enactment of the International Protection Act and related implementation of the EU asylum and immigration pact; changes to family reunification arrangements both for beneficiaries of international protection and economic migrants; planned legislative changes to the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956; and plans for the ending of temporary protection.

The Department of housing, in consultation with the Department of justice, has worked to ensure the Bill aligns with existing social housing policy. The drafting and the provisions relating to the eligibility of non-EEA citizens in particular are robust but flexible in order to allow the Minister to respond to the practical realities of the immigration challenge and permissions system, where the Minister for justice has powers to grant permissions, stamps, and set conditions which can and do change over time. What is also positive about this latest legislation from the Department of housing is that it provides a clear outline of social housing assessment and how people can appeal decisions they are unhappy with. The Bill puts in place a new statutory appeals mechanism for local authority decisions relating to social housing eligibility and assessment.

In October 2025, the Government approved amendments to the general scheme to provide for an appeals process for decisions relating to assessment for social housing. The detailed provisions are incorporated into section 20B of the Bill. An appeal shall be in writing and should be made with 14 days of notification to the household of the original decision. Thereupon, there is an onus on the chief executive of the local authority to appoint an appeals officer who was not involved in the making of the original decision concerned and who is in a more senior role. The appeals officer should be independent in the performance of his or her functions. They must decide the appeal within 28 days of receipt of the appeal.They can confirm the original determination, vary the original determination or set aside the determination and, where the appeals officer considers it appropriate, make an alternative determination.

There are a number of technical amendments to the Residential Tenancies Acts, which are provided to enhance their implementation and the outcomes thereunder, with greater efficiencies for stakeholders, including the RTB and the courts. Some of the key provisions included are to: streamline the enforcement of RTB determination orders through the courts; allow members of An Garda Síochána and officers of a housing authority, if required, to provide evidence in certain RTB dispute resolution cases, for example, where antisocial behaviour arises or there is danger posed to a dwelling; empower the RTB to issue 28-day fixed payment notices for certain offences to provide the opportunity for the offender to avoid prosecution and to speed up compliance with the Residential Tenancies Acts; and provide for RTB hearings in the context of adjudication, tribunal and sanctioning cases to be held in public.

Some obvious questions arise. For example, what does "lawfully resident" mean for the purposes of social housing support? These legislative reforms build on existing policy and procedures that define social housing as a long-term housing support and, therefore, successful applicants must demonstrate a long-term right to reside in the State and, similarly, have a long-term intention to remain in Ireland as their home.

What we have here are clear and obvious fixes that we needed over time. I appreciate that it is a very complex area involving a large amount of work and co-operation with the Department of justice. Housing departments the length and breadth of the country will welcome this legislation, as it brings much-needed clarity to what has been a grey area for far too long.

Eileen Lynch (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for being here with us today. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is a very practical Bill that seeks to improve the operation of both our social housing system and our residential tenancies framework. While it will not solve the wider housing crisis, it contains a number of measures that will improve consistency, provide greater legal clarity and strengthen confidence in the way the system operates.

As has been outlined, one of the most significant aspects of the Bill is the introduction of a statutory habitual residence and legal residence requirement for access to social housing supports. Habitual residence is already a well-established principle across a range of social protection schemes but this Bill provides greater legal certainty by placing that requirement on a statutory footing for housing supports. It also clarifies the application of habitual residence in relation to emergency accommodation and access to homelessness services.

I come from a rural constituency and I regularly hear concerns from constituents who feel that people arriving in Ireland receive preferential treatment when it comes to housing supports ahead of those who have lived and worked in their communities for many years. It is important that we have legislation that clearly sets out the eligibility criteria so that everyone understands the basis on which housing support is provided. Whether these concerns are based on individual experiences or broader perceptions, they should not simply be dismissed, as they affect public confidence in the housing system. Public confidence in the housing system depends on people understanding that there are clear rules that are applied fairly and consistently.

The legislation makes it clear that eligibility for social housing and certain homelessness supports is subject to the habitual residence condition as well as lawful residence, while also ensuring that Ireland continues to meet its legal obligations to those who are entitled to protection under Irish and European law. The Bill rightly brings consistency to how these rules are applied nationally by local authorities. At present, there can be differences in interpretation between local authorities. That is not in anyone's interest. A person should not receive a different assessment merely because of the fact that they live in a different county to somebody else. Having a consistent national framework gives certainty to applicants, assists housing officials in their decision-making and helps strengthen public confidence in the overall system. I would, however, encourage the Minister to review the operation of these provisions after 12 months. I believe that a review should examine whether the habitual and legal residence provisions are being applied consistently across all local authorities, whether decisions are being made in a timely manner, and whether the legislation is achieving the intended policy objectives. If adjustments are needed, we should be prepared to make them.

I would also like to comment on the welcome reforms to the Residential Tenancies Acts. In particular, I welcome the changes that will make it easier for evidence to be presented in cases involving antisocial behaviour. Allowing An Garda Síochána and housing authorities to provide evidence in proceedings before the RTB should assist in addressing some of the difficulties that have previously existed where landlords or neighbours may have been reluctant to come forward.

As we all know, antisocial behaviour can have a devastating impact, particularly in smaller towns and rural communities where neighbours know one another and persistent problems can affect an entire estate or village. Those who engage in serious antisocial behaviour should not be allowed to hide behind procedural barriers that make it difficult to resolve cases. While these changes are a positive step, I am not sure if they go far enough. In recent years, I have dealt with a number of landlords who have found themselves in extremely difficult situations after their properties were seriously damaged by tenants or where antisocial behaviour continued over prolonged periods. Many of those landlords have told me that the process through the RTB is slow, complex and can often be disconnected from the realities they face. Having dealt with the RTB when I was practising as a solicitor, that is an experience I echo.

There also appears to be a lack of effective communication between the RTB and local authorities in circumstances where information could assist in resolving cases more quickly. Greater co-operation is needed. I am aware of one case in particular where the RTB refused to progress an eviction action because it could not serve the tenant despite the landlord providing the address of the tenant to the RTB from the council, as the tenant was in receipt of HAP from the local authority. The local authority had the information but the RTB was not willing to pursue it.

Equally, landlords who have invested in providing rental accommodation need confidence that when serious problems arise, the system will respond in a timely and proportionate manner. We need stronger mechanisms for information sharing while fully respecting due process and data protection requirements. I am not saying that there are not rogue landlords but there are also rogue tenants, and we cannot have an RTB that is one sided. If we want more people to provide homes in the private rental sector, they need confidence that the regulatory framework works for responsible landlords as well as protecting responsible tenants.

There is potential scope to examine the overall accountability of the RTB. While it performs an important statutory role, it must also be responsive to those who rely on its services. A more transparent relationship between the RTB, local authorities and other relevant agencies would benefit everyone involved.

While I fully support the measures contained in this Bill, we should recognise that legislation is only one part of the solution. The biggest challenge we face remains increasing our housing supply. We need more affordable homes, more social homes and more private homes. We need planning and infrastructure that support sustainable growth, particularly in rural Ireland where many people simply want the opportunity to remain in their own communities. I hope that the rural planning guidelines, which were published last week, will have a big impact in that regard.

This Bill improves the administration of the housing system. It provides greater consistency, strengthens the legal basis for eligibility decisions and introduces sensible reforms to the residential tenancies system. For those reasons, I am very happy to support the Bill on Second Stage. I hope that the Minister will commit to reviewing its operation after 12 months and that he will remain open to further reforms, should they be necessary.

Maria McCormack (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming in. I note that the aim of this Bill is to take the current eligibility criteria for social housing and put them on a statutory footing, and to create a new appeals mechanism for those refused access to social housing. Sinn Féin is not against this Bill in principle, but it must be said that the Minister has made a bit of a mess of this legislation and, on that basis, we cannot support it.

The Bill does not adequately address the challenges facing returning Irish migrants. We are concerned that they may be refused access to social housing. The Minister should find a way to ensure that young people and their families returning to Ireland, who once lived here, are not punished by this legislation. This is really concerning.

Another issue is that the appeals mechanism is not independent. Given the complex legal issues involved in appeals such as legal residency, habitual residency and social housing support, it would have been better to have a single, independent appeals office located in the Housing Agency similar to how social welfare appeals operate. On Report Stage in the Dáil, the Minister also introduced significant changes to the Housing Act 1988 related to homelessness with virtually no scrutiny. It is not the right way to do things. Homelessness NGOs and human rights organisations have expressed serious concerns regarding these last-minute changes, saying they could lead to an increase in rough sleeping. Sinn Féin is also concerned that people who may have had an entitlement to emergency accommodation could be wrongly denied it and will not be afforded the right to appeal.

I want to discuss the impact this will have for people living in County Laois, in particular, the issues relating to homeless accommodation. County Laois has very little homeless accommodation, particularly for families. Every week, I talk to women and couples who have been sent with their children to counties Carlow or Tipperary to access emergency accommodation. They have to travel back to Laois every morning for school, to attend doctor appointments or to carry out their normal daily activities. If transport is not available, they are sent miles away from any supports they have in their community. It is causing a huge amount of additional stress on top of the fact that they are already homeless and completely stressed. It causes isolation and can have a detrimental impact on the mental health of parents and older children who are homeless. It is particularly difficult for young children, who cannot integrate into after-school activities, such as GAA activities and so on. I ask the Minister if Laois can be considered for funding for homeless hubs in the near future or, at the very least, if Laois County Council can be provided with funding to acquire additional properties for homeless accommodation in the county. It is scandalous that families have to go through this.

The late Stage amendments in the Dáil also included changes to the Residential Tenancies Board to remove tenancy rights from people renting freestanding residential extensions in back gardens. While Sinn Féin wants flexibility in the planning rules to allow families to provide freestanding extensions in back gardens for family members, we do not support allowing these structures to be rented out, nor do we support denying people tenancy rights and protections when they are renting them out. I know, from talking to families in Laois, that they are just waiting for the green light to put a cabin in their back garden for their adult children to have space and independent living. This will be very welcome in rural Ireland. However, we need to be sure that what was intended to be a helpful solution for families does not turn into a crisis of exploitation of vulnerable tenants by landlords, who will do whatever they can to make a extra few bob at the expense of people in desperate need of accommodation. I ask the Minister to consider the issue of tenancy rights. If that were included, it would make it a very different situation because landlords could not exploit this rule.

I wish the Minister would take the time to listen to the NGOs, housing charities and groups and their concerns before rushing through legislation on such an important issue. I refer especially to those organisations that have the legal expertise to tease out some of the complexities of the interaction of immigration and housing law, which have been ignored. It is not right.

For the reasons I have mentioned, we cannot support the Bill. However, if the Minister can come back and review those issues regarding better safeguards for tenancies, we might be in a different position.

Laura Harmon (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fáilte roimh an Aire. It is long overdue for the Government to enact changes to ensure that the implementation and enforcement of relevant Department circulars are put on a statutory footing, so some elements of this Bill are tentatively welcome. However, we have significant concerns that the legislation may make it more difficult for those who are entitled to access social housing to access it, by increasing and complicating the criteria they have to meet. Most concerningly, the amendments rushed through the Dáil last night codify the strict, arbitrary rules on eligibility and access to emergency accommodation. Vulnerable people will no longer have access to the safety net used by local authorities before these changes to protect them from rough sleeping. Instead, the previous rules will be replaced with a highly restrictive statutory safety net that caps night-time shelter at only two nights. This is a blatant and shameful attempt to massage down the homeless figures by driving up rough sleeping.

The Bill, as a whole, is a disaster on homelessness. It is critical that we enable those in urgent need to acquire the social housing or emergency accommodation they desperately require. The Bill makes it more difficult on both counts. We have seen a 50% increase in tenancy termination notices, and homelessness figures have risen to over 17,000. That number will continue to rise. We know it is not the full figure, as it does not include people who are rough sleeping, couch surfing or in refuges. To pull away the very last resort for so many vulnerable people - access to emergency accommodation - is sickening. I believe it is wrong.

This is the latest misstep in a long line of disastrous policies from this Minister. Whether it is the botched rental rules, the abandonment of annual targets or last night’s amendments, it is clear that the Government is flailing around, with no idea of how to tackle this housing crisis. I share the concerns of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, which wrote to the Minister this week. I also share the concerns of many NGOs and organisations that have contacted me directly, including the Free Legal Advice Centre and Focus Ireland, to name but two. What assessments have been conducted in this regard? Will the Department implement the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission's recommendation to consider the human rights and equality implications of this change to legislation? I encourage the Minister to engage with these groups.

It is a significant expansion of the proposed requirements applying to those seeking emergency accommodation. Vulnerable groups and those who are already at risk of homelessness will be more at risk. We are talking, for example, of the Traveller community and the Roma community, those who are victims of trafficking, survivors of domestic violence and those who might be leaving institutional settings. We believe they will be more at risk because of this. The appeal process is very short, at 14 days, and there is the absence of an entitlement to an oral hearing. These are issues that have been highlighted as concerns by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. There is also the entitlement to the legal advice provisions as part of this.

This is something that comes up with me all of the time when I am speaking with people in Cork, in particular, in Cork South-Central. We have already talked about the increased number of evictions and termination notices that we have seen because of the changes to the rental tenancy rules earlier this year. It is very concerning. It is of concern not just to those renting, but also to many landlords in the market, in particular, small landlords, who are pulling out of the market as a result. That legislation has doubled down on homelessness, and this Bill is also incredibly worrying. It is also worrying that all members of particular households are taken into consideration together, so if there is an issue with one member not being eligible, it can affect an entire household. That is extremely problematic, and I would like a response from the Minister on that.

I echo what other Senators have said regarding more support for local authorities to tackle housing, emergency accommodation, homelessness and dereliction, and to have the ability to build and acquire more housing. The Government needs to work more closely with the local authorities in this regard.

Ultimately, we have more concerns about this legislation than points to welcome. We will seek to make amendments on Committee Stage. While the Minister is in the Chamber, I will take the opportunity to put on record that I am deeply concerned with the decision on the granting of planning for the building of apartments on the Bessborough mother and baby home site. It is national breaking news today that planning has been granted for 106 apartments.This was Cork City Council's planning decision. It was not voted on by the elected councillors. I believe it is the wrong decision. A lot of social housing has been approved in that area and there is more to come. The Labour Party has supported the rezoning of land for appropriate social housing and infrastructure. This particular planning decision is incredibly worrying. I wanted to state that on the record. I ask the Minister to indicate whether he will intervene and provide the local authority with the funding to purchase this site. A compulsory purchase order needs to be initiated by the State in relation to this. This is a site of conscience, history, education and, most importantly, memory for the survivors, their families and those concerned who were affected by this. Imagine if we had built apartments on the land in Tuam, considering what we are uncovering on that site. It is a disgrace that this is being applied to Bessborough. I am grateful for being given the liberty to highlight this. I would greatly appreciate a response from the Minister.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I echo the point the Senator made about Bessborough. We introduced legislation to try to ensure that the definition of "unsuitable burial place" was widened to include Bessborough. On the same day, the initial planning decision came through. It is a disgrace. Other mechanisms need to be looked at to ensure that a great damage is not done to those who suffered so much in a place with over 70% mortality rates for children, within the grounds of that space.

The Minister spoke about social housing but one of the key concerns here is about emergency accommodation. There are very significant changes in terms of emergency accommodation for the very large numbers of homeless people in the State, of whom there are almost 18,000 currently. This figure has grown year on year. Rather than having a massive acceleration of supports, and notwithstanding all the "go fast" talk we are hearing from other parts of the Government on different measures - critical infrastructure, data centres and all the rest - it seems that the measures are designed to push down the numbers in the system, not by providing people with safe and secure housing but by messing with the eligibility standards. That is a concerning provision.

I will get to my core concern in a moment. There are a few changes to emergency accommodation. For example, one measure will allow housing authorities to require persons to vacate emergency accommodation when they have refused offers of rental social housing accommodation. This is a very concerning provision when we consider, for example, families, mothers and their children and others who may be offered unsuitable rental accommodation as a social housing support and may, for good reason, refuse such an offer. They could now find themselves in a situation where they are no longer even being given emergency accommodation. Again, the provisions of the Bill allow for a family to be removed from emergency accommodation where they have refused offers of rental social housing accommodation.

I will go to the core issue, which is the amendments that were added in, thereby avoiding proper scrutiny and the testimony and analysis of experts that should have taken place as part of pre-legislative scrutiny. That is why we have legal experts, housing charities and homelessness services writing to us expressing very significant and clear concerns about section 7. This section inserts a new section 10A into the Housing Act in relation to the residency requirements for access to emergency homelessness support. This is not the social housing piece and the residency. There are questions marks around how that is applied as well, which I am sure we will come to. This is around emergency homelessness supports and the safety net provided by emergency housing. This new section would mean that housing authorities do not have to provide access to their emergency housing or homelessness supports to applicants under the International Protection Act 2026 who are homeless, to people who are here for short-term work or on student or tourist visas, who may have experienced an issue of any kind, and many other classes of refugees that the Minister deems not to be entitled to that basic level of emergency homelessness support. Instead of providing access to proper homelessness supports, there will now be a potential new mechanism of night-to-night accommodation, for one night at a time, where individuals seek accommodation arrangements. Then, the following night, under subsections (3) and (4) of section 10A, accommodation will only be provided between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. This is the language in the Bill. The Minister suggested it was because some people were interpreting "night" as very long. There is almost a suggestion we are trying to make sure people get to come in at 8 a.m. or 8 p.m. As well as it being only that a housing authority "may" make arrangements for that person on the one night, that they only "may" do so between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. on the date immediately following that date. It is saying that a local authority will be in a position to say that it was told not to give homelessness supports to someone and the legislation only provides that it is allowed to give that person support or housing between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. That is as the section is drafted.

There are really concerning provisions here that allow - I will come to more of them in a moment - local authorities to refuse to make accommodation arrangements if the person seeking them has refused accommodation even once in the two years previously. If, on one occasion, a person declines emergency accommodation, for two years nobody has to offer that person anything at all. There are many reasonable explanations for why people might refuse accommodation support, particularly where they have experienced trauma, are distressed or are concerned about the implications if they are on a student visa or a short-term work visa. There may be people who may wish to try to find an alternative way of dealing with a situation and may find themselves afraid of the emergency accommodation being provided. There are many other reasons persons may decline in one instance. Doing so will now result in them being denied any of that minimal, night-by-night accommodation for two years.

Much of the emergency accommodation being offered to people who are homeless is not suitable for them. That is the kind of thing that a state with resources and revenue could be addressing. To preclude someone who is homeless from any emergency support because they previously declined unsuitable accommodation or accommodation, which they felt to be unsafe, is exclusionary and unfair. What does the Minister envisage happening when people are refused emergency accommodation support and are taken out of the housing support? The numbers involved may not necessarily be large but people become very visible when they have nowhere to go. Will they be turned out into the street? I say this because in the recent past there was low-key dog-whistling about the housing crisis.I have heard all of the excuses over the past decade when the Government has completely failed to address the situation. It was all about planning, planning objections, and terrible communities and environmentalists taking judicial reviews, and that is why there was not planning and enough housing for everybody. Then it was all about the councillors - those councillors with their parochial approach, who were refusing to properly engage. They were the problem. It was all of these problems, even though we know there is a lot of land hoarding and planning permissions that are not activated. Those issues are not being addressed but that is a slightly wider issue.

The key thing is the language we now see is about demographics, as if the housing and homelessness crises we have do not relate to clearly signalled concerns and problems with Government policies, housing supply and other measures where there has been a call for action. It has landed on us somehow with words like "demographics". This contributes to that because it is kind of saying that we are addressing that big problem whereby people who do not have residency are taking accommodation. That is not true. When the Government responded to the far-right push against housing refugees and asylum seekers and forced them to sleep rough on the street just a couple of summers ago, that fuelled more far-right rhetoric because then people were visible, and the visible homelessness problem becomes a problem that particularly affects very vulnerable people such as migrants and others.

Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

By creating new visible links - this is the last thing I will say - there are questions about how this is going to intersect with the new powers being given to the Garda to force people to enter reception centres.

Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will we end up with a criminalised vagrancy, as we saw with the vagrancy Acts, where you basically force people to have nowhere to go and then you criminalise them for having nowhere to go? I am deeply concerned and will be opposing all these sections of the Bill.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No one is disputing that states - any state or this State - can establish criteria for social housing but I think it is important that when we are legislating in an area that directly affects the right to adequate housing, we have a duty to ensure that those criteria are fair, proportionate and fully consistent with human rights and equality obligations. Housing is more than bricks and mortar. It is about safety and dignity. It is about whether a child has somewhere to sleep, whether a woman escaping abuse can rebuild her life or whether a person with a disability has the stability everyone deserves. This is why the legislation before us really needs careful scrutiny.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, has warned that this Bill risks excluding some of the most vulnerable people in our society from accessing social housing support, including victims and survivors of domestic and gender-based violence, people who have experienced trafficking and members of the migrant community. These concerns have been echoed by the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, the Irish Refugee Council and many others working day to day with people who already face significant barriers in finding a safe and secure home. They are not asking for special treatment; they are asking to ensure that the law does not create new barriers for people who are already incredibly vulnerable.

Every good legislation should recognise the human story behind it that it is trying to fix. That might include violence and hardships. When we have a legal test on paper, it might look straightforward but it can have really profound consequences in a person's life if it is applied without sufficient safeguards. Is the Minister confident that this legislation meets our duty and obligations under our IHREC legislation?

Dublin Simon Community has said that access to emergency accommodation should always be led by need and not by entitlement. We should not place ourselves in a position where people who are lawfully living in communities, contributing to our society and trying to rebuild lives are left without the possibility of securing a home because our legislation fails to reflect the realities they face. The habitual residence requirement might appear straightforward but the lived reality is often anything but that. Laws that appear neutral on the face of it can have very different effects for different groups of people on the ground. Was an equality and human rights impact assessment carried out before the provisions were drafted? The Minister might answer that specifically. How was the impact on people experiencing multiple and overlapping forms of disadvantage assessed within that as well? Inequality is rarely experienced through one single characteristic. It tends to be very intersectional. The public sector equality and human rights duty, which I am sure the Minister is very familiar with, demands that public bodies do not simply treat everyone the same but that they consider whether apparently neutral policies might have unequal impacts on different groups of people. That is what we are trying to get to the nub of here today.

If this Bill is to place social housing and emergency accommodation eligibility on a statutory footing, then we should be satisfied that it is designed with equality and human rights at its core. I am currently not satisfied that has happened but the Minister can tell us what assessments have taken place. We should know that the impacts have been assessed and that unintended consequences have been properly considered because we risk having legislation that is going to create additional barriers when our housing system is surely there to protect people.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their contributions. I will address some of the issues that have been raised.

In relation to Senator McCormack, it is very disappointing that the Sinn Féin spokesperson, or any Sinn Féin Senator, did not remain for the answers, but anyway. Irish migrants returning are not affected by this legislation. It reflects current rules. For Irish migrants returning, it would be very straightforward for them to establish habitual residence. They would, of course, already have a legal entitlement to be here.

On the appeals mechanism within the local authority, it is independent within that local authority and the local authority is the best body to hear those appeals.

There has been significant scrutiny of this legislation, as is happening at the moment. I do not expect any increase in the numbers sleeping rough as a result of decisions in this legislation. There is no reason for any increase in rough sleeping as a result of the decisions here. There is a codification of existing rules.

In regard to County Laois, I fully encourage Laois to apply for further funding. We have provided over €500 million for homeless accommodation and supports this year and there is a significant amount of funding there for that.

The Senator also raised the issue of back gardens in the legislation, which is addressed in other legislation but is also touched on here. These are people's private homes and while I understand the call for tenants' rights, these are non-connecting extensions put onto people's principal private residences - their own private homes - and it would not be appropriate to treat somebody renting out a room or a modular home on the principal private residence, where they are sharing entrances and services, with the same level of position.

In relation to Senator Harmon's points, the night shelters are not capped at two nights. It is night by night. It is two nights for the first time and then night by night after that, as long as necessary. There is no cap on it. This requires legal and habitual residency to be entitled to social housing. Anybody at risk of rough sleeping will be provided with accommodation.

The tenancy rules were increased. Tenants' rights were increased to be the strongest in the history of the State, which, of course, the Labour Party voted against. We have momentum now in the delivery of homes across this country, and in the delivery of social homes. We have seen drawdowns by first-time mortgage applicants increase. We have seen commencements and planning increase as well.

In regard to landlords pulling out, we saw an increase last year in the number of landlords and tenancies as well, so I think that is a reflection of that. It does not affect anybody who is an international protection applicant because they were provided with accommodation through the International Protection Accommodation Services, IPAS, process. Anybody else who is here in the short term and who does not meet the other requirements will be provided with night-to-night accommodation as necessary if they are at risk of rough sleeping.

On the eight to eight, it is not only eight to eight. The guidance to local authorities is that it is very much a minimum. If it was simply to use the word "night", in the summer months, that would only be a matter of a few hours. We decided to put in a minimum time limit there to ensure that people would, particularly in the summer hours, get a minimum provision in relation to it. That was very important.On addressing homelessness, the Government last year delivered 9,089 new-build social homes, the highest number in the history of the State. The reality is the last time the Labour Party was in government it built 75. They ignored the warnings of Sister Stanislaus, God rest her soul. They belittled Father Peter McVerry when he warned there was a homelessness crisis coming. They just pretended and did not want to address the issue. Driving down delivery to that level has meant the curve going back up has taken a significant amount of time. Remember that number - 75 social homes. That is what the Labour Party delivered the last time it was in government.

Laura Harmon (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We were presiding over what the previous Government had done throughout the country.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They were left with a housing crisis of too many homes, which they turned into a housing crisis of too few. In four and a half years they built 75 homes.

Laura Harmon (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Browne is the Minister for housing.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If they had actually put policies in to address the homelessness crisis at that time-----

Laura Harmon (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is the Minister for housing.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know, and I am taking responsibility-----

Laura Harmon (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have the highest levels of homelessness on record.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----for what I am doing. Those in the Labour Party should take responsibility for what it did in government the last time.

Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister without interruption.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On Senator Higgins's point, children are exempted from lawful residency requirements. We are not just worried about social housing numbers. We will increase the social housing limits, which will increase the number of people under social housing limits. Any suggestion that we are doing this to somehow reduce the number of people on the social housing lists will be proven incorrect when we increase the social housing limits, which in turn will increase the number of people on the social housing lists. I am always concerned about anybody having to wait for a home, but what that number is in the context of some reputational issue is not something that bothers me at all. I want people to get access to the housing they need. It is also not any offer. It refers to refusal of a reasonable offer. The words "any", "not any" or "allowed" are not in the legislation in that matter.

I turn to Senator Stephenson. There is no change for survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, people who are victims of human trafficking or the Traveller community in this legislation. I am also satisfied that there are no additional barriers for any of those vulnerable groups who will continue to be supported. Last week I brought in new rules allowing survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence to bring time served on a local authority list into another local authority as they leave. That is something that should have been brought in before, but I was glad to get this in. Domestic, sexual and gender-based violence is an important part of the housing plan I brought in. I am subject to correction, but I thank it is the first time it has ever been part of a housing plan. These rules are mainly the codification of existing rules. There are requirements for legal and habitual residence, which again are relatively straightforward. It is just to demonstrate that it is somebody's intention to make this their home. There are also safety nets in place to ensure that nobody has to sleep rough.

Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Eileen Lynch (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday.

Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Eileen Lynch (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday at 12.30 p.m.

Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.