Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We now move to Housing and Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 for Committee and Remaining Stages. I welcome the Minster, Deputy Browne, and his officials this evening.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator McCarthy has been ruled out of order.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I speak to the amendment?

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator McCarthy can speak on the section.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(5) Within twelve months of the commencement of this Bill the Minister for Housing shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of Part 2 of the Bill for returning Irish migrants, and in particular those Irish citizens returning to live in Ireland following extended periods of residence in other jurisdictions to ensure that the operation of the habitual residence conditions do not act as a barrier to Irish citizens being abled to reside within the state as access social housing support subject to the eligibility conditions set out in the Housing Acts.”.

This amendment seeks to ask the Minister to bring back a report on this issue. The intentions behind this Bill may well have been good but the delivery of it has left a lot to be desired. One of the issues that came up during dialogue has nothing to do with migrants but concerns people from Ireland who have been working away abroad all of their lives and with to come home to retire. It concerns this issue of habitual residence and I can tell the Minister I have personal experience across a range of issues from living North of the Border where habitual residence frequently frustrates people who are Irish citizens living on this island from having access to certain Government services. In relation to this Bill, the amendment seeks that the habitual residence conditions do not act as a barrier to those who have perhaps not worked here or have been resident here but have worked away for all of their lives and do not have a history of paying into the State or have a history of employment here but are Irish residents but perhaps do not have an address to come back to, that they do not find themselves falling foul of this.

I know from my own experience over the years of dealing with people like the Irish in Britain, the challenges that face people who have gone over there as teenagers and have worked all of their lives and in their twilight years want to come home to set up back here and live out their remaining days in their home country. This amendment seeks a report be done on this issue to ensure the habitual residence conditions do not act as a barrier to Irish citizens being able to reside here. It has nothing to do with other migrants who come here. That is a different process altogether and one that has to be operated in a fair and transparent way by the Government. This specifically relates to these people who are Irish citizens and who have been abroad for many years.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it possible to have it read into the record why my amendment has been ruled out of order? Do I speak now or do I let the Leas-Chathaoirleach read it first?

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would you like me to read it now? Amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator McCarthy would provide that the Minister shall not commence the Act until a human rights and equality impact assessment has been conducted and a strategy has been devised. The amendment further provides that this assessment shall include the views of various specified organisations. It is an established principle that amendments which would make the commencement of an Act contingent on actions external to the control of the Houses themselves are not in order. As this is in conflict with the general principles of the Bill as agreed on Second Stage, that general principle being that the Act may be commenced by the Minister and become law following enactment, the amendment must be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Order 165 as it is in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My purpose with the amendment was to safeguard human rights, preventing homelessness and ensuring the legislation reflects a modern republic. The amendment was literally for a human rights and equality assessment to be carried out and a strategy devised to protect people in Ireland under the EU temporary protection directive, ensuring none are pushed into homelessness as an unintended consequence of this Bill. The amendment further requires that the strategy should uphold EU anti-human trafficking laws and include the voices of human rights, immigration rights and homelessness organisations.

The purpose of me pushing the amendment was that the likes of Focus Ireland, Tiglin and other front-line organisations have raised serious concerns about this Bill, as the legislation is the first major change in homelessness law since 1988. I hope that while modernising the system, the Bill does not drag us backwards to a Victorian model of night shelters and conditional access to basic humanitarian protection.

I know the Bill introduces new barriers to emergency shelter. As the Minister is aware, my organisation has a homeless café on Pearse Street and we see people every evening who are looking for accommodation and help in any way. It is a barrier I hope will not fall hardest on people who are fleeing domestic violence, people who have mental health issues or families who have been recently evicted. I hope the Bill will not affect them and that is the purpose of my amendment here so it is well intentioned. Many of those people urgently need a safe place to sleep and if we proceed without the safeguards we risk increasing rough sleeping, even though that is certainly not the Minister's intention.

I acknowledge the Government has pointed to a so-called safety net but that provision only allows night-by-night access from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. That in itself does not provide stability, security or dignity. It makes no allowances for winter darkness nor for parents with children. It is not consistent with the modern, housing-led approaches to homelessness. I feel in that it is a step backwards.

The Minister knows we have more than 17,500 people in emergency accommodation and the number has come down by 100 in the last census but in the coming months I know it will possibly increase with the temporary protection being removed from our Ukrainian friends in Ireland. I have put it on record that I want the Minister to be the most successful housing Minister and I want to be such a cheerleader for the housing plan and for the Government but we need a whole-of-government approach to this issue. Otherwise we will have a generation of children growing up in emergency accommodation and that is a problem.

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

In relation to Senator McCarthy’s amendment, while it was a very well intentioned and constructed amendment, it has been disallowed. It was not my decision on those matters. I am satisfied the safeguards and safety net are there for those who are not entitled by way of legal or habitual residence. That can be ongoing for as long as is necessary but it will be night to night. I am satisfied the vulnerable groups the Senator mentioned will not be impacted. As for those who are the beneficiaries of temporary protection, they of course are accommodated by the Department of justice and it is that Department's duty to ensure they are properly cared for.

In regard to amendment No. 2, Irish citizens are automatically legally resident. That is made clear in the proposed section 20A(3)(a) set out in the Bill. In practical terms, if an Irish citizen has severed ties abroad and has decided to return home, the process of establishing habitual residency could be determined from day one. It is neither intended nor anticipated that the residency eligibility criteria for accessing homeless support under section 10 of the Housing Act 1988 would have a disproportionate impact on Irish citizens returning to live in Ireland following extended periods of residence abroad. While a local authority is determining whether a member of a household is habitually resident in the State, it will take into consideration all the circumstances of the case as set down in section 20A(7) in the Bill. The five factors are not exhaustive and other evidence may be drawn upon to support a positive decision by the housing officer.Additionally, no one factor is decisive, and an applicant need not score strongly on all five factors to achieve a positive decision. I am aware that there have been concerns raised by some parties, including Crosscare and Safe Home Ireland, and other organisations representing the interests of the diaspora returning from abroad. I assure Senators and those bodies that it is not my intention, nor the intention of my Government colleagues, to place additional burdens on those individuals. Government policy explicitly recognises returning emigrants as a valuable asset in bringing international experience, skills, and networks that contribute to Ireland’s social, cultural, and economic development.

Current diaspora strategies commit the Government to addressing obstacles faced by returning emigrants, including issues relating to documentation and other administrative processes, to ensure that returning to Ireland is as straightforward as possible. These habitual residency requirements will not undermine those objectives. I have already confirmed very little additional information will be required as part of the application process for social housing. Much, if not all of the existing documentation required - for example, proof of address, income and history of residency permission - will suffice. However, where additional evidence or supporting material for an application is required, local authorities will be empowered to request that to support their decision-making. The Department, in collaboration with the Housing Agency, will provide comprehensive guidance, training and workshops to all local authorities on an ongoing and regular basis. This guidance will be a live working framework that will benefit from ongoing updates and the input of officials in the Department of foreign affairs and bodies like Crosscare and others.

There is a strong consensus that a standardised approach to the implementation of the EU provisions is critical. The introduction of a new social housing appeals mechanism is a further important development. Applicants will be able to make a statutory appeal of the decision not to grant them eligibility for social housing support. My Department is also working in close collaboration with the Local Government Management Agency to progress enhancements to IT databases and housing management systems across the local authority sector. The purpose of this work is to ensure that systems are appropriately configured to capture, monitor and report on the decisions in a consistent and structured manner. These system updates will also facilitate more efficient administrative processes within the local authorities and support the standardisation of practices across the sector. In the longer term, the enhanced data capability will allow the Department to better assess trends in decision-making, identify areas for improvement and ensure that the appeals process is operating effectively and fairly.

In terms of the specific impacts of the legislation on particular groups and the overall approach to monitoring EU statutory requirements, I am happy to engage with the Senators this time next year in the context of the data that I have referred to.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We oppose section 6 as it contains some consequential amendments for section 7, which introduces residency requirements for the provision of accommodation to homeless persons. It amends section 10 of the Housing Act 1988, which provides for accommodation supports for people experiencing homelessness to provide reference to the newly created section 10A, which is inserted by section 7. We are opposing that section and the consequential amendments in this section. The section also contains some concerning provisions ,which extend the provisions of section 10(8) of the 1988 Act, which allow for housing authorities to remove people from homeless accommodation.

The amendment in section 6 allows for a person to be removed from emergency accommodation if he or she refuses an offer of social housing support. There are many reasonable reasons why someone might refuse an offer of support. If we consider the needs of a mother and her children in emergency accommodation, there are plenty of scenarios where accommodation offered might not be suitable and, therefore, may be refused. We are concerned at how the provisions of this section may lead to vulnerable people being denied emergency support in times of critical need.

I worked in homeless accommodation for many years and there is no one reason people refuse social housing; there can be very different reasons. I remember one man we worked with for a long time to try to support him into the social housing he was offered and he was terrified. He had been homeless for so long and he was worried that he would be isolated. He worried that he would be away from the support networks around him. It was a wet hostel so residents had residency for many months at a time.

There are women in emergency accommodation who have refused high apartment blocks because their kids have certain presentations within their autistic diagnosis where their ability to measure risk with a balcony is not there. They are actually terrified that their child will go over the balcony of a high-rise building. There are also people who refuse accommodation because it is 30 km past the city where their kids are in school, and maybe there are parents who live in the community they want to be close enough to because they cannot afford childcare and they rely on other parents to pick their children up from the school. There are people who have huge vulnerabilities and do not have access to the financial means to be able to accept an offer of support that would only put them in a more vulnerable position. On the idea that we would remove someone from emergency accommodation because they refused a social housing offer, are we saying we will remove someone from emergency support and they will just be on the street? It is quite confusing to me that any Department or policymaker would come up with a scenario where that seems like a good thing.

The cost in the long run to the State in impacting someone's health or family or whatever in that way means it does not make economic sense either in terms of how we support people to move safely into communities or social housing which meets their needs, rather than compounding the vulnerabilities a person already has.

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

The Government supports section 6 standing part of the Bill, and cannot accept any amendment to it. Section 6 of the Bill comprises amendments to section 10 of the Housing Act 1988, and the purpose of these amendments is to extend local authority powers to withdraw the provision of homeless accommodation. Those powers will extend to circumstances where a household refuses a reasonable offer of social housing accommodation. That word is very important as it is not any offer; it must be a reasonable offer. Any offer must meet the needs of the person to whom it is being offered and he or she may appeal that decision as well. I do not envisage any situation where somebody will be, as the Senator put it, put out onto the streets. This measure is being introduced to ensure that no individual or family remains in homeless accommodation any longer than is absolutely necessary. Those powers will also extend to circumstances where a person engages in reckless or intentional conduct which causes death or serious harm to another person in homeless accommodation. That is another important part of this section and reason why it should be passed. This measure is being introduced to protect the health and safety of users and staff of homeless accommodation. The amendments to section 10 will also place an obligation on local authorities to have regard to the best interests of children when making a decision on the allocation of homeless accommodation to a homeless family with children.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Often, what we deem reasonable can look very different from where a person is looking at it. When one has privilege, access to healthcare, and his or her needs met fully, he or she can judge what is reasonable in a very different way than somebody who is in a very vulnerable situation. Reasonable for him or her can look very different. When a local authority offers somebody accommodation, like the example I used of an autistic young person and the fear around a high-rise building, that was seen as a refusal. That was registered by the local authority as “you have now refused one offer of accommodation, you have only two more and then you are going to have a period where you are not going to be offered anything.” People are already punished for giving very reasonable reasons as to why they might not take accommodation. I ask the Minister to consider having greater guidelines or insight as to, like I said, different people's ideas of what is reasonable and what is not. It can really look different depending on the life a person has had, his or her position, or what he or she is currently experiencing in his or her housing situation.

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

I fully agree with the Senator that there should be guidelines to follow to ensure that there will be consistency and they will follow because part of what we are doing here is ensuring consistency across the country.Part of what we are doing here is ensuring consistency across the country. We are implementing a statutory appeal for the first time. That should help a family in that type of situation. We are also introducing an obligation on local authorities to have regard to the best interests of children when making decisions.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I am reading the provision right, somebody can be removed from emergency accommodation or have their emergency supports removed because they have refused social housing. The Minister said nobody would be put out on the street. Where do they go then? The provision says there is a removal of emergency supports if you refuse accommodation. What happens if emergency supports are removed? What if someone applies this legislation and has a right to remove those supports? I do not understand what happens in that instance.

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

A number of new safety nets are being introduced in terms of decision-making. It has to be a reasonable offer and it always has to meet the needs. There is an appeals mechanism and the best interests of the children are considered. There will be clear guidelines and training for local authorities to ensure consistency. If somebody refuses a reasonable offer that meets their needs, then the safety net is the night-to-night accommodation that will be provided to them. Nobody should have to rough sleep.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The impact of night-to-night accommodation on people's health is unbelievable. We have built a structure in some of the country's most vulnerable hostels with doctors, nurses, addiction specialists and key workers on site. To have a model that is night to night or 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. completely undermines and undoes the creation of a structure for a person in their everyday life. Are we going to do night to night with a family? If a family refuses what the State deems a reasonable offer, will that family be on the street ringing whatever version of the freephone currently exists for accommodation that night? I do not understand how that adds safety or security, or how it keeps people in emergency accommodation for less time. It will actually worsen it because they will still have to come back into some sort of emergency accommodation.

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

The Senator is talking about a situation where a family has refused a reasonable offer of a home. There is no reason for a family to refuse a reasonable offer of a home. Training and guidelines will be given to make sure the offers are reasonable and people are dealt with compassionately. I do not envisage those circumstances arising. They should not arise.

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

The Minister has provided for it in the Bill. This is a scenario he is setting out. He is making the change. People may have reasons that are reasonable or they may have reasons that are not reasonable, but they are still humans. They may be acting from paranoia, fear or concern, or they may be acting because they have had experience of abuse in the past. There are many reasons for people making decisions. The point is the decision the Minister is making is that those people can be removed from the emergency accommodation where they may have supports that will assist them to get them to a point of better decision-making. Let us bear in mind it is any reasonable offer. This is not the three-shot people have on the social housing list. This is a single offer that is deemed to be reasonable. They are then, instead of being in emergency accommodation, moved into night by night.

What is that serving? Is it only to serve as punishment and removing people from the emergency accommodation numbers? What is the purpose of moving people from an insecure situation into a more insecure situation, particularly when they may be families? We do not need speculation that it probably would not happen. We need the Minister's logic for setting out that pathway for people. Why is he making a provision that would penalise those who do not accept a reasonable offer of accommodation and would send them out of emergency accommodation and into the night-to-night scenario? The Minister may say he does not envisage it happening but he has provided for it to happen and set up a whole new system for it to happen. Clearly, it might happen. That is what the Minister has planned for. Why?

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

I have answered all the questions already. Nobody is sending anybody out. The only circumstance in which this may happen is where somebody has been given a reasonable offer of a home and turns it down. The local authority may then act. It is not that it will; it may. It can take all circumstances into account at that time. There are many safeguards but we want people to spend the minimum amount of time in emergency accommodation and that is a good thing. We do not want people spending time in emergency accommodation. Where there is a reasonable offer of a home, that is the best solution for that family, not staying in emergency accommodation.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill is set out as a threat and coercion.

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

No.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what I am hearing now. I am hearing that, legislatively, the Minister can remove emergency supports and a single person or a person with children may be put in night to night because that person has been offered reasonable accommodation and, for whatever reason, does not want to take it. Nobody likes staying in emergency accommodation. People have their own reasons that not everybody can understand. This will not force people onto the street, rather, the Minister sees it as forcing people out of emergency accommodation and into a home out of fear the only alternative is night by night. People will be afraid to refuse a home.

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

I completely reject that mis-characterisation and the Senator's attribution of mala fides. It is outrageous commentary. Nobody is forcing anybody.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The legislation is.

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

The Senator has obviously made her mind up on it.

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

It clearly is. The intention is to increase the pressure on vulnerable persons in emergency accommodation to accept what is deemed to be a reasonable offer, with an additional threat that if they do not do so, they could be moved to night-to-night accommodation. It cannot be read as anything other than an increasing of the pressure on people to make a decision on that. Maybe they will accept an offer of social housing they would not otherwise have accepted in some cases, but they will not in other cases and the consequence will be vulnerable persons being moved to a situation of greater vulnerability. The Minister has provided for it to happen in a way that was not there previously. There is a new lower floor to which vulnerable families in emergency accommodation can be brought. Maybe it will motivate them to accept something despite deep concerns or maybe it will put them in a more vulnerable position. The risk attached to the potential benefit of pushing them to accept something they would not otherwise versus the risk of greater vulnerability and of a move to night to night is quite significant. We cannot pretend this might not happen when the Minister has, in legislation, provided for it to happen. The consequences if it does happen need to be looked at and addressed, not simply saying we do not envisage it happening.

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

It is a dangerous generalisation the Senator is putting forward and she is forgetting that in the front line of dealing with housing and difficult cases are staff and housing departments across the country. From my experience, housing staff generally think through each case. If there is a vulnerable case, they will seek supporting medical documentation, often a HMD form, and will get an OT to link in with the applicant. I have never seen anybody in a housing department purposely give an allocation they knew was inappropriate for a person.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is welcome to come to Tallaght.

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

That is a slight on the staff who are working there.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not care.

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

The Senator comes from a trade union background. That is a terrible slight on people. I have absolute respect for people working in the housing departments and I know how hard they work in the face of a crisis. A generalisation such as that is deeply unfair.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They did not write the legislation.

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

I know.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is bringing the housing departments' allocations people into this.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, please.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They did not write the legislation, but they will have to apply it.

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

They did not write the legislation, but we need legislation to frame what we are doing. We are, on a daily basis, tackling a crisis. On the front line in that effort are our housing staff. We should commend them at every opportunity rather than throwing out gross generalisations that are deeply hurtful.

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

The Government is trying to hide behind people who are doing their jobs when it is bringing in legislation. Let us be real. We were explicit that we are debating the legislation and what is provided for. For Senator Flaherty to try to say that other Senators are saying this person or that person is not nice or good is ridiculous. If they are all such wise and wonderful people, they would not need guidance from the Minister to tell them that they can throw somebody out. They would not need that.

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

The local authority already has that.

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

The legislation is what it is. It is frankly ridiculous to drag this up. The Senator, not us, brought up staff in the area and told us not to worry about the law because we know the staff are going to be doing their best. If they were doing their best, these coercive laws would not be needed and would not apply. The Government is bringing the laws and we are debating the point of law. That is our job. We are legislators. We are certainly not going to be intimidated while questioning dangerous law when it is brought forward because it is implied or suggested that we are hurting the feelings of the people who would be implementing the dangerous law. We have many other aspects of the dangerous law to go through in section 7, but it is important to have marked this issue.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Ruane wish to come back in?

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second what Senator Higgins said. It is incredibly cowardly to put out staff, whom no one has mentioned, to hide behind. "Oh, the poor staff." The front people are those who have no houses. They are the priority. We have to create legislation that keeps people safe and does not see people back out on the streets. We cannot say, "Oh, the poor staff. What are you saying about them?" We are legislators. We are discussing legislation. We are not discussing individual people in their jobs. If you put something in black and white in the law, it can be used. The Government is putting staff in a more difficult position.

I worked in homeless accommodation for many years. You make decisions as a team. You have discretion. You know how to put someone out if they are a danger to anybody else, if there has been a fight or the use of weapon. We have been doing it for years. Now the legislation states that if people refuse an offer, they have to be put out. Are the staff who are providing emergency supports breaking the law if they do not put them out? I know it states "may". It is fair enough that it states "may". However, it exists and people will want to use that measure. Hopefully they will not be a majority, but people will want to use it.

This does not need to exist. We are going from emergency accommodation to night-by-night accommodation. I do not understand how any Department would want to risk having people on the streets. I cannot turn any which way without some news outlet or media outlet talking about the inner city, O'Connell Street and people congregating here and there. We are now creating a scenario. We are saying we can remove people's emergency support if they do not take this and we may, therefore, increase the number of people on the streets because it is most likely going to be night-by-night accommodation. It will most likely not be in the daytime. When you are in the night-to-night accommodation, it is 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. This legislation will increase the number of people who are on the streets and without a home, waiting for a bed to know where they will sleep, if this coercive measure does not work. It does not make any sense. It is neither compassionate nor humane. It is really risky.

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

I have answered all the policy questions.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 3 has been ruled out of order because of a potential charge to the Exchequer. Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will wait for the Minister.

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

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, line 17, after “10(1)” to insert “at a minimum”.

Section 7 creates residency requirements for people who are seeking emergency homeless accommodation. These provisions we have previously spoken about are very worrying with regard to the offer made. Our amendment No. 9 for this section deals with that question of the reasonable offer and the fact persons may have refused support in the past. That is one piece.

In general, section 7 creates a new extreme vulnerability for persons who are already in the vulnerable position of seeking emergency homeless support, which is where they might find themselves if they do not have residency. We know this affects a huge number of persons, including students with visas who do not have residency, people who may be tourists who do not have residency or people who may have escaped domestic violence situations and other situations who find themselves vulnerable and do not have residency. There is a wide range of people who may not have residency but who may be in need of emergency accommodation.

Those persons will now be moving into a situation where they will find themselves, alongside those other persons in the previous section who have refused the reasonable offer of accommodation, in a night-by-night situation. We might think of some of the people who may not have residency who might be seeking this accommodation and some of the reasons they may be vulnerable. The idea of people moving to a night-by-night basis, where they are moving away from any of the ancillary supports that may come with an emergency accommodation where at least you can plan and access supports, follow through processes and try to regularise your situation, is an appalling act against safety.

The Minister talked on Second Stage about this idea of the night-by-night safety net being there. However, it is interesting that our amendments have been ruled out, when they simply sought to move from "may" to "shall". The legislation as it is set out, only states those vulnerable persons who do not have the residency requirements and who are refused emergency accommodation may be offered night-by-night accommodation. It is only a "may", not a "shall". The amendments were ruled out of order due to their coming with a cost to the State. I am very curious as to why, if it was not envisaged they would always be offered such accommodation, moving it to a "shall" is a cost versus the "may" that is there?

I am hopeful the Minister might accept our amendments. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 provide that the support offered is not limited to between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. That is in amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8. In those amendments, we are inserting the Minister's own exact language from Second Stage. He said that the 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. was a minimum and that it would be clear this would be the case. My concern is that the legislation, as it has been written, simply says this may be offered between these hours. This could be construed as this may not be offered outside of those hours. That is one way it could be read, if you wanted to take a hostile reading of those measures, which cannot be ruled out.

Again, we are trying to ensure that amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 provide the support offered in this section and that very basic night-by-night accommodation is not limited to the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. It takes the Minister's language, when he said this would be a minimum, and asks that we put the word "minimum" into the legislation. This is the clearest guidance we can offer and it should be set out in this legislation. We believe there should be no ambiguity in this legislation. There should be no risk of an interpretation of this legislation that states we are not mandated to say we may provide night-by-night accommodation outside of the hours 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. If the Minister is in good faith with this principle of the minimum, this is a way to ensure that can be read and made clear in the legislation.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 go a little bit further by removing time constraints, as we do not believe there should be time constraints in affording dignified, compassionate provisions to exceptionally vulnerable people seeking emergency homeless accommodation. This goes to the point my colleague made with the idea of people literally being put to the street. Increasingly, if you are not in accommodation and are not granted emergency homeless accommodation, and you are in the position of night-by-night provision, then day by day, you are on the street. That is just a fact and that is how it is currently set out in the legislation. We are affording the Minister the opportunity in respect of amendments Nos. 5 and 7 to widen that, as well as in amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8, to specify that nightly accommodation is a minimum with regard to the night-by-night provision.

Amendment No. 9 seeks to remove the provision that allows local and housing authorities to refuse to provide accommodation to a person who has refused support in the past 24 months. Again, we have significant concerns about the application of this subsection. The Minister has not provided adequate reassurance as to what may happen to individuals who are refused accommodation under this provision. We believe this provision is exclusionary and dangerous, particularly for persons in vulnerable situations, for example, those who are battling mental health or addiction issues.

Those are our amendments collectively, but I indicate - and maybe I will have the opportunity to come back in - that we will be opposing this section as a whole. The idea of introducing residency requirements for emergency housing supports is nothing more than a performative cruelty, signalling that certain persons have lesser safety and protection requirements from the State. I see echoes of when we saw the international protection office stop housing asylum applicants and leave them to sleep on the street, thereby creating a visible vulnerability. This sends a deeply negative signal, which seems to be designed to appease and accommodate in the same way, in a victory for far right campaigning against the accommodation of asylum seekers. Yes, there is the night-by-night provision with its limitations but there is still a sense that it shows we are not going to give these vulnerable persons, who do not have residency requirements, emergency housing accommodation.

What signal is that sending, and who is that signal being sent to? What is the purpose of that message?

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak to the section, but could the Acting Chairperson read into the record the reasoning behind the ruling out of order of amendment No. 9 specifically first?

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Senator want to speak to the section when we get to the section?

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It applies to the amendment as a whole, but could I have an understanding of that first?

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will give that when it comes to the section itself.

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

I cannot accept the proposed amendments. The safety net provision for persons or households who are ineligible for homeless accommodation is not a continuous provision.The inclusion in the legislation of the hours of 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. makes this clear. This provision allows local authorities to reassess the circumstances each day to determine that the safety net is still necessary. 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 absolutely clear that sleeping hours provision should be available all year round and should not be curtailed in summer months where "night" could be interpreted as a shorter period. In implementing this provision, clear guidance will be provided to local authorities to ensure that the eight-to-eight period is applied as a minimum statutory provision.

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

Could the Minister please repeat the last line of what he said? I did not actually hear what he was saying. He is rejecting, as I understand, the text with regard to the "minimum" but is he suggesting that the text "minimum" will be included somewhere else? I did not hear what the Minister's last sentence was.

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

Clear guidance will be provided to local authorities that the eight-to-eight period is a statutory minimum.

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

Can I clarify? Will that guidance be provided by the Minister or how will it be provided? I am genuinely inquiring because-----

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

Generally, where guidance comes from is from the Department and the Minister in the Department of housing.

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

We like to have stuff in legislation when we can as it is more transparent, but I am noting the commitment by the Minister in respect of guidance specifying that eight to eight should be a minimum. I would appreciate it if we could be informed as to when that guidance is published.

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

There is no difficulty. We can do that.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How stands the amendment? Is the Senator pushing it?

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

We are still speaking to the section.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was going to call people for the section when I get to the section.

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

Okay, sure. Are we on amendment No. 4?

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on amendment No. 4 at the moment.

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

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 8, lines 17 and 18, to delete all words from and including “between” in line 17 down to and including line 18.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 6 has been ruled out of order as a potential charge on Revenue.

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

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 8, lines 21 to 24, to delete all words from and including “for,” in line 21 down to and including “formed” in line 24.

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

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 8, line 22, after “period” to insert “at a minimum”.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 9 has been ruled out of order as a potential charge on Revenue. I will read out the reasons for refusal.

Amendment No. 9 would delete subsection (5) and insert section 10A completely. This subsection entitles local authorities to refuse to make homeless services available to a person where that person has refused a provision offer in the previous 24 months. By deleting this subsection, the amendment would oblige local authorities to make additional offers of homeless services to these persons and thereby to provide additional service compared to that currently provided in the Bill. The amendment must be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Order 42, as it has potential to impose a charge on Revenue.

Senator Laura Harmon indicated first that she wanted to speak on the section and then I will call Senator Ruane.

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

I want to state from outset that we are opposed to section 7. The Labour Party was opposed to this in the Dáil and we are opposed to it here today.

We are opposed to the new restrictions on emergency accommodation that this section will put in place. We are also opposed to the way the Government has managed this legislation, effectively tacking on a whole new Bill on Report Stage in the Dáil. The TDs there got less than 24 hours' notice of the wide-ranging amendments and the debate was guillotined after two hours. It does not allow for proper scrutiny and it is not the right way to do legislation. Removing the safety net is a huge concern, that is, the safety net of emergency accommodation for people most at risk of homelessness. Creating these additional administrative barriers might help to massage monthly homeless figures but it is only going to create a whole host of other problems. It will lead, in our view, to an increase in rough sleeping as well.

I have been contacted by many organisations who have expertise in this area and who have grave concerns about this legislation, particularly Focus Ireland. It specifically has concerns regarding the proposed safety net. It states that access to shelter is a basic humanitarian protection and should not be conditional on proving eligibility before support is provided. It says the Bill provides local authorities with discretion to allow people to access shelter on a night-by-night basis, with accommodation available only during the specified hours of 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. The legislation makes no provision for winter darkness or people who have children with them. Focus Ireland is also concerned that this will provide little security or stability for vulnerable adults or families and is inconsistent with modern housing-led approaches to tackling homelessness. These are some really serious concerns from a leading organisation working at the coalface on this.

The strict, arbitrary two-night limit is also a mistake. It removes the discretion that acted as a safety net and allowed local authorities to use their own common sense on humanitarian grounds to provide shelter to people. The strict rigidity of the Minister's approach will, in our view, remove a vital safety net. This approach fundamentally changes Ireland's homelessness policy, making access to emergency accommodation contingent on factors other than whether that person is homeless is a fundamental change of approach that we are steadfastly opposed to. It will leave vulnerable people without emergency accommodation and increase rough sleeping, in our view. We are completely opposed to section 7.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is obviously not the Minister's decision in relation to whether the Bills Office rules an amendment out of order but I would like to establish a few things as they apply to the section as a whole.

What is currently ruled out of order is the deletion of a section. The section read:

A housing authority may refuse to make arrangements under subsection (3) where alternative arrangements, assistance or accommodation have been refused by the person within a period of 24 months prior to seeking accommodation under section 10(1).

Can the Minister communicate to me whether, if someone refuses emergency accommodation, they have access to emergency accommodation elsewhere under the current system? I wonder if someone who is in emergency accommodation who refuses social housing, emergency accommodation or support within 24 months currently has access to other emergency accommodation sites? The answer to that is really important and it is really problematic then as to why the Bills Office would rule it out of order. The cost is already assumed by the State because under the existing framework, people already refuse emergency accommodation in certain sites and can seek emergency accommodation in other sites. It is not a new cost.

There is a man I currently work with who refused an emergency accommodation site due to access to transport because he had lost a limb. He needed to be close to public transport and he worked as a translator. He had got some part-time work translating and he wanted to be able to get there because he is on crutches and has one leg. He refused certain emergency accommodation and he was able to access emergency accommodation somewhere else that was more beneficial to him and enabled him to have that stability in his life.

Now we have a decision by the Bills Office that says our amendment creates a cost to the State but it does not. It only supports maintaining the status quo and the current cost to the State of providing supports. It does not increase the supports or create any new supports. Can the Minister explain what is under the current framework? I assume the reason we have to write this is because it does not exist but currently, you can seek emergency accommodation regardless of whether you have refused support for the past 24 months. It is an important answer not so much because the Minister decided to rule it out but because it is very important for the Bills Office.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For clarification, it was neither the Minister nor the Bills Office ruled it out of order. The Cathaoirleach ruled it out of order.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But they do get advice sometimes from the Bills Office, etc.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the end of the day, it was the Cathaoirleach.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know it is not the Minister, but the Minister can tell me under the current framework that he-----

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister will come in once everybody has spoken on the section, if he wants to come in. I call Senator Higgins.

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

It is also an important question. If there is a deterioration from that situation, then that is also relevant. If it is the situation that persons can currently seek other emergency accommodation but, in the future, would not be allowed to, that is pretty significant. I have two questions, one I have already asked but will ask again. Why is this being done? Who is it for? Another related question is where are the people meant to go?

There are two pieces here. The Government is deciding to bring forward legislation that says we are going to make it explicitly difficult or, in fact, impossible for a number of groups who do not have residency, such as migrant groups, returning migrants, who have been mentioned, and the wide range of people I and others have given, to get emergency accommodation, which we know is going to target a particular set of vulnerable people, and instead move them to not only a night-by-night arrangement, but a night-by-night with a kind of cruel thing where it is only two nights in a row. Why? What is the policy purpose of bringing that? Is it to reduce pressure on emergency housing accommodation? The Minister could choose to improve emergency housing accommodation. Is it to try to feed into a fight over the crumbs? Is the Minister saying that, as a State with the surplus we have, we only have so much emergency housing accommodation and we want to make people see that others are not getting it, as if that is going to make the people in emergency housing accommodation who are resident feel better? What is the purpose of that? What is the purpose of moving vulnerable people to a night-by-night system? Is it to punish them? Is it because the Minister wants to create that kind of competitive, performative cruelty we see happening in the United States, UK and parts of Europe, where they show they are going to give people a hard time so maybe they will not be there? Is that the goal? Is it to go with all of those many ridiculous measures brought in by Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and others, so we can act tough? Is it a look-hard measure? Is it chasing a vote to the right? I genuinely do not know what good policy purpose is served by this. All I can see is bad political narratives that are served by it. Incidentally, they will not come back and reward the party that brings them through. It will, in fact, contribute, as it has everywhere this has been done, to furthering this.

Going back to the practical risks, the risks associated with these measures are more people, day by day, being visibly on the streets, without even the basic thing of emergency accommodation so they may have a place that is their anchor, where they can make decisions, build from, plan from and try to improve their situation from, more people wandering the streets in the daytime not knowing where or whether they will have accommodation that night. What does that do for public safety and well-being, particularly of those persons? There is greater risk that those people will fall out of the net altogether and end up homeless. Then we have more people homeless in the street and, again, many of them more likely to be from visible minorities and other vulnerable groups.

These are really clear risks of what the Minister is proposing and I do not see what the benefit is. I would like the Minister to say what the justification and policy purpose is in doing this because I do not see good logic and I do see an amount of bad logic at play here. The consequences will be profoundly negative, not just for the individuals affected but for all of us as a society. I will be absolutely opposing this section and I would like an answer to that question.

Another related question is, where are the people to go? What is the plan? The Minister creates a situation where people are not accessing emergency accommodation - in fact, the numbers for these are probably very small, comparatively, anyway - where they may be in the night-by-night accommodation and are out all day, or they are out totally, sleeping on the streets and homeless where they have fallen further out of the net provided for them. Where are people to go? Is the idea that we will refuse them emergency accommodation and these vulnerable people will evaporate? Will they all immediately leave? Is that the idea, that people will leave, because they are staying in Ireland because it is so great to be living in emergency accommodation? Because it is not. That is the question. The actual vulnerable people who are applying for and needing emergency accommodation do not disappear. They are still there. There are issues in that many people struggle to access emergency accommodation anyway, but, besides sending a big, performatively unwelcoming message, I do not see what this does for any purpose, whereas I do see what it does in terms of risk and compromising safety.

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

The Government supports section 7 standing part of the Bill and cannot accept any amendment to it. Section 7 introduces two sections into the Housing Act 1988, section 10A and section 10B. Section 10A implements the Government's policy aim of introducing eligibility criteria around legal and habitual residency in respect of section 10 local authority-provided homeless services and supports while at the same time offering a safety service in line with Ireland's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. In line with the 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 the State is operating a harmonised and consistent approach to the provisions of social entitlements in general. These eligibility criteria specifically relate to an individual's connection to the State and not to an individual's established connection to a specific local authority. Until such time as a definitive determination on eligibility has been made and any appeal on that determination has been concluded, a local authority may provide homeless supports and accommodation under section 10(1) in the normal course of 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. The safety net provision is to be provided by the local authority on a night-to-night basis, and this is to allow local authorities to reassess the circumstances each day to determine whether the safety net should still be provided. That safety net under this section will be provided in circumstances where a household is ineligible and where the household is seeking alternative assistance or accommodation but does not have such available, and the local authority can continue to provide a safety net service for as long as those circumstances exist. It is important to emphasise that there is no two-night limit on this.

In relation to the Cathaoirleach's decision on amendment No. 9, that is a matter for the Cathaoirleach. The merits or otherwise of such a decision or justification is not a matter for me to comment on.

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

I will be brief. Is the two-night limit designed to make sure that people will not access-----

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

There is no two-night limit. I have emphasised that on Second Stage and again here on Committee Stage. It is very clear-----

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

That is fair enough. The Minister mentioned it himself, and that is why I asked. The other thing is that the Minister has not answered my question, which is "Why?".

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

I probably lost the question in all of the invective. The why is in the interest of fairness. We are providing housing supports for people and the requirement is that they are legally here and intend to make this their home. That is not an unreasonable requirement of people to whom we are providing social housing or emergency accommodation. For those who do not meet those requirements, there is a safety net there.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 10, to delete line 20.

We are again coming to the issue of being habitually resident. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 delete the definitions of habitually resident and lawfully resident that would be inserted into the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act as a consequence of section 12 of the Bill. Section 12 inserts residency requirements for social housing support. We do not believe this section is necessary.It would be useful if the Minister would provide the reasoning for the inclusion of this section.

When we discussed emergency accommodation, the Minister referred to the requirement that people are resident in the State and are planning to make their lives in the State. We do not know what anybody is planning. We do not know the hopes and dreams that people may have and what they are planning to do. It should not be the case that to get emergency accommodation you have to be planning to live in the State in the long term. Emergency accommodation is a safety measure. It is a proper public good and a safety measure. It is not solely emergency accommodation as a stepping stone into social housing. Emergency accommodation is about having proper, good quality emergency homeless supports for persons who find themselves, for a variety of reasons and in a variety of situations, homeless. It is about ensuring that they are accessing proper supports and facilities in proper situations. This is nothing other than the downgrading of the already precarious situation of emergency housing support to the incredibly precarious situation of day-by-day accommodation.

Habitual residency should not be relevant. It is about having proper standards and measures, unless the Government wishes to send a deeply intense message that Ireland is not a place of welcomes. Many people, including those here on student visas, fall into this space and may find themselves vulnerable and having to access emergency housing supports. The idea is that someone should be planning to live his or her life here. The habitual residency condition does not focus on whether people are planning to build their lives here. That is not a core or main part. There is a line about a "centre of interest" and reference to future intentions. We cannot know someone's intentions. This is a very strange bar to be putting to persons making decisions about emergency housing provision. We are talking about people who might be accessing support for a few days, a week, two weeks or a month. We will have to make habitual residency determinations before we decide if we are going to support somebody who is presenting with emergency housing needs. That, in itself, is bureaucratic. Those measures should not be the bar for something. There are questions and issues about how they come in.

Where the measures do come in, however, is in relation to social housing. They already applied. I would like the Minister to provide the reasoning. The residency requirement for homelessness supports will have a clear impact on vulnerable people, such as asylum seekers and people on short-term visas and working student visas. The impact of the residency requirement for the provision of social housing is quite unclear. It was already largely the case in application. It is not a matter where we believe there is a need for the provision.

I will flag my concerns about that provision as it applies to every member of a household. I worry that there may be unforeseen consequences. If one member of a household is not habitually resident, even if all other members of the household are habitually resident, a vulnerability could be created. We may then have situations whereby households may be entitled to look for social housing but an individual member of that household who is not habitually resident is not able to access social housing with that family or able to access emergency housing support but is instead in a kind of day-by-day limbo. Perhaps the Minister would clarify what would happen in those circumstances.

As I said, the provision in respect of emergency housing supports is cruel and dangerous. The provision here around social housing is unclear and unnecessary.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will ask a brief question. My understanding is that you have to be legally resident to apply for social housing currently. I may be wrong on that, but I do not think I am. You already have to be legally resident. You have to be lawfully resident to receive social housing. I do not understand why a provision is going into legislation where it asserts something that is already the case. It feels performative. It feels like the Department can then say that it has introduced legislation so that people who are not legally resident here cannot get social housing. It feels like a bit of a trick on the public, the people who have concerns or who have spouted stuff like, "Homes should only be for the Irish." There is now a legal provision for something that already exists rather than communicating that you have to be lawfully resident in this country to access social housing. If it is the case that such a requirement is already in place, I want the Minister to explain why he is putting it into legislation when it already exists.

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

I cannot accept amendments Nos. 10 and 11. The interpretation of "lawfully resident" and "habitually resident" is construed in accordance with section 20A, which sets out the new residency requirements for social housing applicants. Section 20A provides that "A household shall not be eligible for social housing support unless at the time of carrying out the social housing assessment" each member of the household is lawfully resident, habitually resident, meets any condition applicable to a member and no member is subject to a condition that prohibits availing of social housing support.

The habitual residence requirement is a question of fact which seeks to ascertain where the applicant has established his or her centre of interest in the State by examining, for example, family connections, length of stay and employment history. No one factor is intended to be decisive and it is not necessary for a person to score strongly on all five factors outlined in section 20A(7) in order to get a positive decision. However, the local authority decision-maker must be confident that there is strong evidence that it is the applicant's main centre of interest. These mirror the provisions in social welfare Acts. However, the decision that a local authority would take is a distinct decision under the Act.

These legislative reforms are building on existing policy and procedures, which, in the first instance, define social housing as a long-term housing support. Therefore, successful applicants must be in a position to demonstrate that they have a long-term right to reside in the State and, similarly, have a long-term intention to remain in the State. 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. The intention is to protect the State's efforts and resources in the area of social housing to focus on the provision of supports for those who meet those eligibility requirements, eliminating the ambiguity and supporting those who need support.

I again highlight that children are exempt from the residency requirements. It is about consistency. It applies equally, whether somebody is Irish or not, if he or she is legally and habitually resident here.

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

We have the key of it there. The Minister referred to "public and political scrutiny". This is performative. It is already the case that those who are not meeting long-term residency requirements are not getting social housing. Despite memes you might see online or messages that tell you they are, they are not. That has already been the policy. We are now saying it again. It seems that it is a response to messaging. "Public and political scrutiny" was the Minister's rationale. Is the concern that the Government will not look tough enough? That is what it means. The Minister referred to "public and political scrutiny". People will say that the Government is not being hard enough in making sure that people are not getting social housing when they are not habitually resident. That is already the case. The Government wants to be seen to do this.That is what it looks like. It seems the message it is trying to send is that we are very hard on this issue. The Minister is almost conceding the idea that there was a proclaimed problem, which there was not, by saying we are tackling the issue even though it was not an issue. We are tackling that problem that does not exist, thereby giving an imprimatur of credibility to a false accusation being made. By saying we are solving a problem when it was not, the Minister is agreeing it is a problem. That is what I was saying. It was already the case, and social housing is a different thing from emergency housing accommodation.

By the way, I should have mentioned that the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, Free Legal Advice Centres and others have highlighted very specific gaps in respect of that emergency housing piece for those who are victims of trafficking, where there are particular obligations under law that they should be able to access supports in a continuous way and with minimum disruption. Those victims of trafficking will now be on the night-by-night phone call, as well as victims of sexual abuse and violence who may find themselves seeking emergency accommodation. That is just a reminder. That is the extra terrible thing that is being added in, and this is something the Minister is pretending to do, while already doing it. It is not without consequence if you try to send a signal that we are addressing an issue, and the Government implies an issue existed when it did not. It was already the practice that residency was a requirement. This is disingenuous and possibly dangerous.

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

As the Senator is fully aware, when a person is trafficked into this country, the supports are provided by the Department of justice, which initially decides the status. People being trafficked are not in any way affected by this legislation and it is the same with domestic violence. I have clarified this on a number of occasions, but I will clarify it again.

This is about habitual residents in the State; local entitlement within a local authority is a different question. However, once you have established legal entitlement to be here, and you have habitual residence, you are entitled to social or emergency accommodation. There is also a safety net there. I remind the Senator that only two weeks ago, I deliberately changed the rules so that somebody who is a victim or survivor of domestic violence can bring their time on a social housing list from one local authority to a different one. We have to be very careful not to put out misinformation here that might dissuade people from seeking help. I know that is not the Senator's intention, but putting out that kind of statement and claiming it as fact when it is an opinion, and in my view a very wrong opinion and interpretation, can be counterproductive in these circumstances.

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

Can the Minister confirm that victims of trafficking and domestic violence who seek emergency housing supports will not be excluded from such supports on the basis of their residency status? I am genuinely asking.

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

I have just clearly set that out with regard to human trafficking and domestic violence.

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

The Minister did not actually address the specifics of emergency housing. He addressed the other supports that are there, and absolutely people should be looking for those supports, but I want to be clear on what they can access.

Regarding the other issue, the point still stands that this is addressing a situation that already existed. The Minister has confirmed public and political scrutiny is part of the motivation for inserting these measures, even though it was already the case that legal residency was a requirement.

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

I am happy to address that because I have addressed it in multiple debates already in relation to this miscellaneous provisions Bill. There is a problem with the lack of consistency in the application of the circular across the country. We are deliberately bringing this in to ensure there is regulatory certainty and consistency, and we will also be providing guidance and training to our local authorities to ensure it is applied consistently. I have said, not just in this debate but also in previous debates on this Bill, that there is a problem with a lack of consistency across the country.

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

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 10, to delete line 27.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 have been ruled out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.

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

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 15, after line 38, to insert the following: “(13) Nothing in this section shall be construed as—

(a) restricting or qualifying any right conferred on a person by the Treaties of the European Union or by the Regulations of 2015, or

(b) requiring a housing authority to act in a manner incompatible with the State's obligations under the Convention within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.”.

This amendment is designed to safeguard European Union and human rights obligations. It ensures no provision within this section can override existing EU law or the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR. The Bill as drafted, imposes residency requirements without any express acknowledgement of EU free movement rights or ECHR obligations. This amendment makes explicit what the Constitution and EU law already require, which is that housing authorities cannot apply these conditions in a manner that is incompatible with EU treaty rights or with the State's obligations under the Convention.

This is a straightforward amendment. We are bringing it forward in a spirit of co-operation to ensure this Bill does not inadvertently contradict our outstanding obligations. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has pointed out the three-month rule may violate EU freedom of movement law. Under Directive 2004/38/EC, an active worker or self-employed individual has immediate rights to equal treatment and cannot be subject to an arbitrary minimum waiting period to access housing assistance.

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

I cannot accept amendment No. 14. As outlined on Committee Stage in the Dáil, my Department has engaged in extensive and continuous consultation with legal advisers throughout the development of the residency requirements, from initial drafting to finalisation. This has involved detailed consideration of all relevant constitutional, European Union and international legal principles. Legal advice received during drafting outlined that the State is entitled to lawfully restrict access to social housing supports during the first few months of residence on the part of EU and EEA nationals and their families.

Permitted and qualifying family members of an EU national exercising free movement under SI 548/2015 are provided for under section 8. For example, this means that under the Bill an EU national who is a worker is permitted, and qualified family members can meet the residency requirements under section 8. On this basis, the Department is satisfied that section 20E in its entirety is robust and fully compatible with the Constitution, as well as being compliant with applicable European and international law.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 15 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 16, after line 39, to insert the following: “(i) the household or members of the household were refused access to emergency homeless accommodation provided under Section 10 of the Housing Act 1988”.

I will speak to amendment Nos. 16 and 17. The overall aim of this Bill, as has been asserted by the Minister, is to take the current eligibility criteria for social housing and put them on a statutory footing, creating a new appeals mechanism for those refused access to social housing. We are not against this Bill in principle. However, a mess has been made of it with regard to the legislation and on that basis, we cannot support it.

The Bill does not adequately address challenges facing returning migrants. The appeals mechanism is not independent. Given the complex legal issues the appeals would involve, such as the interaction of legal residency, habitual residency and social housing support, it would have been better to have one single, independent appeals office located within the Housing Agency, similar to how social welfare operates.The Minister also introduced significant changes to the Housing Act 1988 relating to homelessness on Report Stage with virtually no scrutiny. As others have said, homelessness NGOs and human rights organisations have expressed serious concerns with regard to these last-minute changes, saying they could lead to an increase in rough sleeping. We are also concerned that while people may have an entitlement to emergency accommodation, they could be wrongly denied access to it and will not be afforded the right to an appeal.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 16 and 17 is to extend the right to appeal to people denied emergency accommodation. As I said, there are some parts of this Bill that we are able to support but, overall, we cannot support the Bill in front of us.

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

Amendment No. 18 seeks to insert a reasonableness ground into the social housing appeals process outlined in the new section 20B, to be inserted into the housing Act 2009 by this Bill. In our view, the internal appeals mechanism does not go far enough but if the Minister is insistent on going ahead with that internal appeals mechanism, a reasonableness ground needs to be included. As it stands, under section 20B(4), a household can only apply on one of the limited and specific grounds listed, and there is no residual ground covering a decision that is unreasonable on its facts. In our view, this needs to be corrected to ensure that the appeals process is fit for purpose.

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

Unfortunately, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18. Under subsections 20(4) and 20(6) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, the Minister has the power to make regulations setting out the criteria for determining the eligibility and need for social housing support. The legislation in relation to eligibility makes specific reference to eligibility criteria based on income, the availability of alternative accommodation and previous rent arrears in local authority housing and, in relation to the determination of the most appropriate form of support, any social housing support previously provided to the household. The eligibility criteria will now include lawful and habitual residence. The proposed amendment is not necessary as they are not eligibility criteria for social housing support and, therefore, could not be included as grounds for an appeal under section 20B.

As already indicated, these provisions have been the subject of detailed legal advice and review and I am confident that they are robust and will introduce further transparency into local authority decision-making in this regard. Furthermore, section 10B(7) explicitly provides for an appeal against a decision by a local authority under section 10(8) to withdraw the provision of homeless accommodation. There is no statutory appeal in circumstances where a person is found to be ineligible for access to homeless supports and accommodation due to their legal and-or habitual residency status. This is a status determined other than by the local authority in most instances, based on the nature and status of their permission from the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration.

In order to ensure consistency of application across local authorities, guidance will be issued to local authorities to instruct that a refusal of accommodation following an assessment of eligibility must be communicated in writing, and that the person in question will have the right to have that decision reviewed by a more senior member of the local authority. Accommodation can be provided through the safety net provision while that process is under way, if no other accommodation is available to the person in question.

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

I will speak to the section as my amendment was ruled out of order.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not dealing with the section yet. The Senator can address that shortly.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 16, after line 39, to insert the following:

“(i) the household or members of the household were removed from emergency homeless accommodation provided under Section 10 of the Housing Act 1988”.

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

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 16, after line 39, to insert the following:

“(i) the determination was otherwise unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the household's application.”.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 17, to delete lines 12 to 16 and substitute the following:

“(6) A social housing appeal shall be made to an independent appeals office located within the Housing Agency within 28 days of the notification by the housing authority to the household concerned of the making of a determination in respect of the application or reassessment for social housing support concerned under section 20.”.

This amendment reflects the same issue in relation to appeals and the independence of the appeals mechanism. There is a strong concern about a lack of independence within the appeals mechanism proposed, and the amendment has been proposed to try to deal with the issue. Many of these issues were raised and aired substantially during the Dáil debate. It is regrettable that none of them were accepted and that no mechanism has been found to deal with this. Nonetheless, it is important that we register our concerns on these issues.

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

Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment. The amendment proposes a provision that a social housing appeal shall be made to an independent appeals officer located within the Housing Agency. This would be inefficient and administratively unworkable because 31 separate local authorities would be submitting appeals to a single office, which would be operationally impractical at scale, given the volume of social housing appeals dealt with across all local authorities. This is in addition to the financial cost of its establishment, which has not been costed.

The appeal provisions contained in section 20B have been developed following legal advice, consultation and engagement with local authorities. This consideration included a wide range of issues, including a detailed examination of existing legislation in the areas of qualification, decision and appeals, as well as the current local authority operational system. Legal advice in this context pointed to the necessity for an independent and impartial appeal as a more legally robust arrangement than providing, for example, for a procedural review only. The appeals function within each statutory housing authority will provide an independent, accessible and fair appeals service in a prompt manner without the necessity to establish a new entity or body, with the associated governance and related complexities.

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

I would like to have clarity on this issue, which was the subject of an amendment that was ruled out of order, unfortunately. I genuinely do not understand why this is the case. In the legislation as set out, the Minister mentioned on a number of occasions that children are excluded from the requirements. In the residency requirements section, it states that each member of the household needs to be “lawfully resident” in the State. Children are excluded from the requirement for each member of the household to be lawfully resident in the State at subsection 1(a) of the new residency requirement, but they are not excluded from subsection 1(b), which states that each member of the household needs to be “habitually resident” in the State.

Our amendment was simply trying to ensure that children would be completely included in the residency requirement. As currently set out, they are excluded from the requirement to be lawfully resident, but they are not excluded from the requirement to be habitually resident. Those are different things with different criteria attached. What is the logic to requiring that children in a household have to prove they are habitually resident in the State? I am thinking of situations where there may have been, for example, family reunification or a reconciliation with the family. It does not make sense to me. I wonder if it is perhaps a drafting error. Is there a reason for it? The Minister said on a number of occasions that children are exempted from the residency requirements, but they are only exempted from one of the residency requirements, not from the second one.

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

Children are excluded from the lawful residency requirement. It is difficult to see how, if their parents or one of their parents is living here, a child would not also be habitually resident. Family reunification is planned and intentional. It is a very different scenario. The examples given by the Senator seem to be more focused on joint family reunification, which is a different matter altogether.

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

With respect, family reunification may be a formal process, but it can also be an informal process. There is a formal process for seeking family reunification, but another version of it is that someone is reunited with a family member. Is this reference intentional or inadvertent? Can it be monitored to ensure that no unforeseen issues arise? There is a reason that the Bill sets out a different set of criteria for “lawfully resident” and “habitually resident”. It is looking for both of those standards to be met.It is not clear to me why the standard of habitually resident is still being applied to a child. Has there been some kind of a risk analysis done to ensure that there is not an inadvertent consequence from that? I am a little concerned. At a minimum, will the Minister commit to monitoring that issue as it arises because it is a potential omission within the legislation? I accept the bona fides of the intention of child exemption, but there is a gap in the Bill before us.

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

As I set out earlier in the debate, there will be careful and detailed monitoring of the application of this legislation and any data created from it as well. That is very much the intention with this legislation.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 20 has been ruled out of order as it is in conflict with the principle of the Bill. Senator Harmon wants me to read out the reason.

Amendment No. 20 would require the Minister to cause an equality impact assessment to be carried out before the commencement of a specified section of the Act by a commencement order. It is an established principle that amendments that would make the commencement of the Act contingent on actions external to the control of the House are not in order as this is in conflict with the general principle of the Bill as agreed on Second Stage, the general principle being that the Act may be commenced by the Minister and become law following its enactment. The amendment must be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Order 165 as it is in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a second time.

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

I want to make a general point. I know our amendment was ruled out of order and the reason was placed on record. What we sought to do with that amendment was to make sure there would be an assessment how the section would affect different groups in society that have a protected characteristic under the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2018, in particular with regard to race, nationality, ethnic or national origins, family status and membership of the Traveller community. There is a lot of concern about how this legislation could double down in terms of vulnerable groups, minority groups and children. The Office of the Ombudsman for Children has expressed concern that the Bill will make it significantly harder for vulnerable groups of children to access social housing and emergency homeless accommodation. Those who are deemed ineligible may be offered night-to-night accommodation at the discretion of a local authority, increasing the risk of rough sleeping.

Focus Ireland has welcomed the inclusion of the best interests of the child provision. However, it feels the measure is too limited as it applies only after a decision has been made to provide accommodation, rather than informing the decision on whether accommodation should be offered in the first place. It has called for stronger protections for children to be made part of this. In its view, the provision in the Bill does not reflect what was agreed by the Irish people when they endorsed the rights of the child clause in the Constitution. I wanted to put on record my concerns about this legislation in respect of vulnerable groups and children.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister wish to reply?

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

I am happy to provide a brief reply. We are satisfied that the residency requirement in section 20 of the completed final draft is compatible with the Constitution and European and international law. Of course, local authorities are public authorities. They are independent in their decision-making. They have to abide by the law and are subject to the Equal Status Acts but, as Minister, I have no role in their compliance with this legislation. Where local authorities are in breach of the Equal Status Acts, there are other avenues of redress.

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

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 19, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:

“Social housing assessment: transfer and recognition

15. The Act of 2009 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 20B (inserted by section 12)—

“Social housing passport

20C (1) Where a housing authority (in this section referred to as the ‘assessing authority’) has determined under section 20 that a household is qualified for social housing support, and a member of that household subsequently establishes a connection with the functional area of another housing authority (in this section referred to as the ‘receiving authority’), the household may apply to the receiving authority to have the assessment of the assessing authority recognised for the purposes of social housing support in the functional area of the receiving authority.

(2) On receipt of an application under subsection (1), the receiving authority shall—

(a) recognise the assessment of the assessing authority as establishing that the household is qualified for social housing support in its functional area, without requiring the household to submit to a fresh assessment, unless,

(i) the assessment of the assessing authority was made more than 3 years before the date of the application under subsection (1), or

(ii) the receiving authority has reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances of the household have materially changed since the date of the assessment,

and

(b) where paragraph (a)(i) or (ii) applies, carry out a fresh assessment of the household's eligibility for social housing support in accordance with section 20, taking into account such information as was provided to the assessing authority as the receiving authority considers relevant.

(3) Where the receiving authority recognises an assessment under subsection (2)(a), the household shall be placed on the housing list of the receiving authority with effect from the date on which the household was placed on the housing list of the assessing authority, subject to the application of any scheme of letting priorities made under section 22 by the receiving authority.

(4) A household may appeal a decision of a receiving authority under subsection (2) in accordance with section 20B.

(5) The Minister may by regulations make further provision for the purposes of this section, including provision for—

(a) the form and manner of an application under subsection (1),

(b) the information to be provided by a household in support of such an application,

(c) the circumstances in which a material change in circumstances under subsection (2)(a)(ii) may be found to exist, and

(d) the procedures to be followed by housing authorities in giving effect to this section.”.

This amendment inserts a new section 20 into the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 to provide for a social housing passport. Where a household has been assessed as qualified by one local authority and subsequently attaches a connection with another authority's area, it can apply to have that assessment recognised without a fresh assessment, unless the original assessment is more than three years old or circumstances have materially changed. The housing waiting list position is carried over from the date of original listing, subject to the receiving authority's letting priority scheme.

At present, households that have been assessed as qualifying for social housing and placed on a waiting list in one local authority area lose that position if they have to move to another local authority area. We have all seen examples of this. For many families, it means that if they move over a fairly arbitrary county council border, they are right back to the start on the social housing list. This penalises households that have legitimate reasons to move, whether it be for employment or family reasons or in cases of domestic violence, for example. A social housing passport is a practical and deliverable solution to this problem that would make a real difference to those families.

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

I cannot accept amendment No. 21. This amendment proposes the introduction of a social housing passport allowing households to transfer between local authority areas while retaining their original waiting list or transfer list position. The amendment as it stands is well-intentioned. However, such an approach as drafted gives rise to significant legislative, operational and fairness concerns and is, therefore, not suitable for inclusion in this Bill.

The current social housing system is based on local assessment of housing need and local allocation of available homes. Housing need is assessed under nationally prescribed regulations, while each local authority operates its own allocation scheme that reflects local demand, housing supply and priorities. Income eligibility thresholds vary between local authorities. Allocation systems also vary between local authorities. Some local authorities place particular emphasis on waiting time, while others use more complex prioritisation approaches. Transfer arrangements also vary. In that context, waiting list positions are not directly comparable.

In addition, there are substantial operational complexities, including the absence of shared ICT infrastructure to support real-time, inter-authority social housing application transfers at scale. While offering greater choice and flexibility, a housing passport may not generate sufficient allocations to justify the additional resource and operational costs that would be involved.

Importantly, flexibility already exists within the current system. The four Dublin local authorities, for example, have arrangements within their county which allow social housing applicants to apply for housing in up to two of the other Dublin authorities simultaneously, while similar arrangements apply in the two Cork and two Galway local authorities. Under existing legislation, guidance to local authorities has long provided significant mobility supports, particularly to victims of domestic violence. Crucially, the Government recognises the need for targeted mobility in exceptional circumstances.

As Members will be aware, the Government recently agreed a dedicated local authority protocol to facilitate the transfer of social housing waiting list time for victims and survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. This protocol was developed following detailed engagement between the Department, local authorities and relevant stakeholders.

Given the complexity, fairness implications and administrative burden identified, it would not be appropriate to accept the amendment at this time.

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

If the Minister sees merit in the idea of a social housing passport, albeit not in this legislation, is it something that he would be willing to explore separately as an idea?

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

One of the biggest problems is that while some local authorities are now making significant headway in the delivery of social housing and their waiting times for people to access social housing have fallen significantly, other local authorities are not stepping up to the mark. They are not making the same effort or using the available resources from the Department. We are now getting a significant variation in waiting times as well.We need to get all local authorities to deliver social housing so that we get the waiting times somewhat equalised. There is a very real risk whereby local authorities with long waiting lists, with people waiting for long times, are neighbouring other local authorities with shorter waiting lists as a result of the effort of those local authorities. Somebody from one local authority area may move to another area and immediately move to the top of the list, to the detriment of people in that local authority's area.

There are practical problems there. In an ideal world, everybody's waiting times in various local authorities would be very similar, this would not be an issue and passporting could be implemented. I have no difficulty with the theory of it but there are some very real practical problems with it at the moment.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 24, to delete lines 17 to 39.

This amendment deletes the provisions in section 22 that amend section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. Section 19 is concerned with the prohibition of rents above market rent. Our amendment removes the deletion of subsections (6A), (6B) and (6C) of section 19 of the 2004 Act and deletes the newly inserted subsections (6D), (6E), (6F) and (6G). Currently, subsections (6A) and (6C) of section 19 of the 2004 Act provide that where a landlord raises the rent in contravention of the provisions of section 19, he or she will have committed an offence. This Bill removes those subsections and substitutes the process with an initial notice served to the landlord by the RTB. The notice period allows for a period of 28 days for the landlord to comply with the provisions of section 19 before he or she has committed an offence.

We believe these provisions dilute protections for renters against landlords who seek to raise rents beyond legally permitted limits. They allow landlords who are raising rents in contravention of the 2004 Act to avoid offences for those acts by delaying the prosecution of those offences for a month. As such, we are opposing this section.

I spent some time thinking about this amendment because I generally try to view the creation of offences in a very particular way, but obviously it is already an offence. If we know that somebody is breaking the law in any other situation, he or she is not afforded 28 days to adhere to the law he or she just broke. If I burgle a house, I am not given 28 days to correct that and give back the television I have taken to avoid being prosecuted. What we are doing here is basically allowing a landlord to rob a renter of rent he or she cannot afford to pay and be allowed a month to correct that. How does that make sense? We are creating a scenario whereby there is an offence but somebody as privileged as a landlord gets 28 days to undo the offence he or she has just committed . I do not understand that. We are creating carve-outs for certain types of people when we would not do so for other crimes that end up in the courts. If somebody has broken the law, why are we removing the offence? Why would that 28-day period be carved out for landlords to be effectively allowed to break the law?

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As it is now 8.15 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with the Order of the Seanad of this day: "That amendment No. 22 is hereby negatived in Committee; that section 22 is hereby agreed to in Committee; in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee; the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee; the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment; Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby received for final consideration; and the Bill is hereby passed."

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.