2026-07-08

Amendments Nos. 1 and 8 to 11, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 5, line 10, to delete “Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009” and substitute the following: “Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009; to provide for additional eligibility criteria for access to certain services provided to homeless persons under section 10 of the Housing Act 1988; to provide for withdrawal of such services in certain cases; to provide for an appeal in respect of such withdrawal; for those purposes to amend the Housing Act 1988”. On Second Stage of the Housing and Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026, I indicated that I would bring forward a number of homelessness-related amendments to the Housing Act 1988. I am now putting these amendments before the House. The amendments are proposed in the context of the considerable changes in the nature of homelessness that have occurred since the Housing Act 1988 was enacted. In line with amendments to eligibility for social housing support, lawful residency and habitual residency as the 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 provision of social entitlements in general. To guard against rough sleeping, a safety net service is being introduced to allow local authorities to provide emergency accommodation to a person deemed ineligible for homeless supports and services. This service will be provided in strictly limited circumstances on a night-to-night basis. The circumstances in which local authorities can withdraw the provision of emergency accommodation will be expanded to include refusal of a reasonable offer of social housing made by a local authority and circumstances where a person engages in behaviour causing or intending to cause serious harm or death to another user or staff member of the emergency accommodation. A further amendment will introduce a mechanism of appeal against decisions made by local authorities in relation to the withdrawal of the provision of emergency accommodation. I am also introducing an obligation on local authorities to have regard to the best interests of children when making decisions on the available accommodation to be provided to a family with children who have been assessed as homeless. As a complement to this measure, a definition of child is being introduced to the Housing Act 1988. As Deputies will already be aware, a Committee Stage amendment to the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 would make the Child and Family Agency a mandatory member of each joint homelessness consultative forum across the country.

Before we started, I should have mentioned that recommittal is necessary in respect of this amendment and the other related amendments as they do not arise from committee proceedings. I ask the Minister to move recommittal and then we will ask that House to agree to that.

I move: That the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 1 and 8 to 11, inclusive.

Did we not vote on that yesterday?

Yes.

We called a vote on that yesterday.

Yes, there was a motion to instruct yesterday.

Yes, but this is-----

The vote was taken yesterday.

The motion was yesterday. The recommittal must be passed today to get agreement. It is also only a technical-----

By way of information, what is the difference between a motion for the non-consequential amendments and then the recommittal so that I am clear?

The recommittal must be taken at this stage and it must be agreed. Then we can take the various amendments in committee.

I am only asking this so I know but how is that different from the motion the Dáil voted on yesterday to allow these amendments to be taken?

The motion allowed the amendments to be taken. The agreement for recommittal is necessary to allow the amendments to be debated in committee.

It is not agreed.

It is not agreed.

Unless I do not understand what is being proposed.

The question you are asking is about yesterday’s motion, which was passed. The Dáil voted on it.

Yes.

We are now dealing with Report Stage. The recommital of amendment No. 1 and the other amendments I just read out has to be agreed as they do not arise from Committee proceedings. Once we agree that, which is a technicality, we can discuss the amendments in committee.

That is not agreed.

The Minister has already made his remarks. I call Deputy Ó Broin.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1: In the fourth line, after “in respect of”, to insert “the denial of certain services and”. This will be discussed with this group. On a procedural point, these, of course, are not amendments to the Housing and Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. This is a new piece of legislation. It was not contained in the general scheme of the Bill our committee did pre-legislative scrutiny on previously. It was not contained in the Bill itself. While the Minister told us he was bringing these amendments forward, the hope was we would at least get them at Committee Stage when we could have had more detailed scrutiny. Even that would have been entirely inadequate because, as the Minister knows, there is very considerable concern both from our homeless services providers and legal organisations which advocate for and represent people at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and indeed, the statutory body that is the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. This should have been brought in as a Bill and undergone pre-legislative scrutiny. It should have gone through proper committee scrutiny. The fact that it has not is really problematic and means the issues we are going to discuss are going to come back in front of this House at some point in the future. As I said at the start of Second Stage, when the Minister of State was addressing it, from Sinn Féin’s point of view, we are not against the principle of what the Minister is trying to do. However, we have considerable concerns with the way in which this has been presented. I will go through them now and then speak in favour of my own amendment. Putting the legal and habitual residency requirements which currently operate for access to emergency accommodation on a statutory footing is not in and of itself problematic. I have said that consistently throughout. However, given the complexity of those issues and the complex interaction of Irish and European immigration law, as well as human rights law and housing law and policy, this is an area fraught with difficulty where one must get things right. I thank the Minister’s officials for the detailed briefing they gave us on Monday. This highlighted how these legislative passages in front of us are some of the most complex of the entire Bill. In fact, this set of ideas dates back to 2023. A policy briefing note was produced by the Department which was circulated to homeless service providers, statutory and voluntary. There was some engagement and then the proposition, as far as we understood it, was dropped from the Bill that eventually returned. When I asked the Minister’s officials on Monday why it has emerged at this very late stage, they said it is because of the complexity involved. I take them at their word: I do not doubt that at all. It is then all the more problematic that these incredibly complex amendments are going to get a very short period of scrutiny. We will probably end up discussing these amendments for about an hour as we vote on them. We will not get to hear from the homeless sector. Focus Ireland has written to us all expressing real concerns that these amendments could lead to an increase in rough sleeping, which is a view that has been echoed by the Dublin Simon Community also in correspondence to us this week. Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, is a legal expert in this area and has raised similar concerns, as have others. These concerns may be wrong and may not be borne out, but the best way to do legislation of this kind is through the proper, Oireachtas scrutiny process where these things can be teased out and clarified. We had some really good engagement with the Minister in the three committee sessions we did on the substance of the Bill. The Minister allayed some of my concerns and confirmed others but at least we had that detailed engagement. We are not going to get that to the same extent now. What are the problems? The first problem is that the decision to provide an appeals mechanism for somebody who is being removed from emergency accommodation, but not to provide the same mechanism for somebody who is denied access to emergency accommodation, is a fundamental oversight. My primary concern is that given the complexity of the decision making involved, a person who could have a legal entitlement to emergency accommodation, who could be legally or habitually resident, could be in a position where a decision is made to deny him or her access to emergency accommodation, and he or she would have no right to an appeal. Sure, there is talk of an informal review and depending on the decision making of the local authority in question, that person may have access to a safety net on a night-to-night basis. However, given that the Minister is creating an appeal in the main body of the Bill for people who are denied access to social housing support or removed from a council list, and these amendments create an appeal mechanism, rightly, in my view, for people who are to be removed from emergency accommodation on certain grounds, not extending that appeal to people who are refused access to emergency accommodation is fundamentally unjust. The consequence of this would be that some of these cases would end up in the courts. That is completely contrary to the intention of this legislation to provide clarity, certainty and good-quality decision making. I want to be very clear that my concern is not with the competence of individual officers in local authorities. We have long experience of the real challenges in taking decisions around entitlements to State services and habitual and legal residence in the social welfare sphere. We know from that that it takes a level of experience and deep knowledge of the legislative frameworks in question. It requires a consistency of decision making. Therefore, I cannot understand why that appeal is not being extended. While we were told the Attorney General did not recommend it, that is not an actual answer to the question. The real question is why the Minister has not decided it is necessary and provided it? That is concern number one. If we then look at the section of the legislation of these amendments that deals with removing somebody from emergency accommodation, and again, I am not against this in principle, we all live in the real world and understand that if, for example, somebody is behaving dangerously and putting others at risk, whether they be staff or other men, women and children in emergency accommodation, there has to be a provision for those people to be removed. That provision is there in practice but putting it on a statutory footing makes sense. I have a concern that one of the grounds for removal is that a person has refused a single offer within a period of 24 months prior to seeking emergency accommodation. The standard policy elsewhere in social housing supports, as the Minister knows, is that people get two offers before their file is suspended. There are times when there is a dispute between a local authority thinking an offer is reasonable, and it not being reasonable, for example, offering accommodation for a family outside the catchment area of the school the children are attending, when the family is unable to access public transport. These types of decision happen and they are enormously problematic. I also have concerns with the way in which the night-to-night safety net is set up. There is nothing wrong with this in principle but it is completely unclear as to why the Minister has times in it and why the emergency accommodation on a statutory basis is from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. What happens in winter? Are we saying people availing of this safety net will be left outside until 8 p.m.? What happens if we have severe weather events, as we often have, and homeless services have to adapt? We are putting this in legislation, as opposed to a circular or guidance. I do not understand why and I think it will create problems. Homeless service providers have expressed that as well. This is a disappointing case of a Bill that could have been relatively uncontroversial and could have commanded support across the House and across the statutory and voluntary homeless service providers. However, there are concerns and I raise them specifically in relation to the amendments. On that basis, I have tabled a number of amendments, along with my colleague, Deputy Gould, that seek, at a minimum, to ensure people who are denied access to emergency accommodation have the right to an appeal. That will create a more significant safety net. Where people have a legal entitlement to emergency accommodation or where a decision on the provision of the safety net is not favourable to them when it should have been, they should at least have the opportunity to appeal. If nothing else, that is something the Minister should change in the legislation. On that basis, I have moved the amendment to amendment No. 1.

Theoretically, I have no issue with this Bill or with the basic principle of codifying circulars around access to emergency accommodation and social housing eligibility. I do, however, have a big issue with the Minister using the motion to instruct. This is the second time this has happened in a year. I am only in this House a short time. The Minister has effectively tacked a whole new Bill onto a tenuously related Bill that we discussed already on Second Stage and Committee Stage. Far-reaching and significant amendments to the Housing Act 1988 came to us yesterday and they came with a two-hour guillotine and with very little time to discuss the far-reaching consequences they will have for people trying to access emergency accommodation. I have a number of questions. One relates to the strict, arbitrary two-night limit. What is the rationale for codifying that, as opposed to the safety net discretion that exists at the moment? I have no issue with the statutory framework for how local authorities assess who qualifies for emergency accommodation and long-term housing support, but this is effectively stripping away a humanitarian safety net. There will be a loss of discretion. Under the previous policy guidelines, which were more flexible, local authorities could use discretion on humanitarian grounds to provide shelter to people. I am concerned by the rigidity of the Minister's amendments. These strict statutory definitions will remove a vital safety net. They will legally force councils to turn away people who are in unique and complicated situations and who do not fit into neat legal boxes. Will the Minister elaborate on what exemptions will be built into the legislation to counteract this? The local connection test is controversial, in many cases, and can be quite arbitrary. When it is being codified like this, these strict local links will prevent people, in some cases, from accessing emergency placement outside of their home district. I say that because I represent a constituency that is on the edge of another constituency and which has people flying over and back on a bridge between Counties Limerick and Clare. What statutory guarantees or emergency exemptions will be built into the Bill to make sure people in crisis who will not successfully complete these rigid paperwork checks are not legally forced onto the street? For many marginalised and excluded people - I am thinking of Roma people, people from a migrant background and Travellers - it will be impossible for each resident in a family unit, for example, to fulfil the legal and habitual residency test. This Bill and these amendments could justify forcing an individual or family in crisis to navigate a complex, document-heavy bureaucratic housing application to secure a crisis bed for the night. Why did the Minister not bring forward the amendments as a stand-alone Bill or when the Bill was initiated, so we could hear from the people who work in this sphere - the housing charities, the likes of Focus Ireland and FLAC, and the people who will have to deal with the real-world consequences of this? These are foundational changes to statutory housing rights and we have had no proper, full, transparent parliamentary debate and committee scrutiny. We had that on the Bill as initiated but not on what is in the Bill now. I feel the way the Bill has been brought in and heavily amended is being done purposefully in order to bring the figures down in terms of emergency accommodation. The knock-on effect of that will be an increase in rough sleeping. This seems a deliberate policy decision when you look at the demographic of people in emergency accommodation, including those coming from State accommodation, particularly from IPAS, into emergency accommodation. The Bill is being done in this way in order to remove what the Government feels is currently a pull factor. I do not think this is the way to do it. We will see a huge increase in rough sleeping. Going back to the legal and habitual residency condition, this alters the situation and the discretion of the local authority to provide emergency accommodation to anyone meeting the statutory definition of a homeless person. When I look at the amendment to withdraw emergency accommodation, theoretically I have no issue with it, but in the way the Minister has put it forward, the amendment is far too rigid. There are some cases where you have to withdraw emergency accommodation - I am in no doubt about that - such as when an individual is behaving dangerously or is disruptive to other people in emergency accommodation, but we cannot withdraw emergency accommodation from somebody just for refusing one offer. I deal with my own local authority, as every Deputy in this House does. I have had situations where a house that is virtually in the middle of nowhere with no public transport links has been offered to somebody living in emergency accommodation with no car. Let us be blunt, somebody from a migrant community or background might not be able to go and live in a certain area because of genuine concerns for their personal safety. That is fact and I have had situations like that. There needs to be a bit of discretion there. Removing the safety net of emergency accommodation for people most at risk of homelessness and creating these additional administrative barriers might help the Minister's figures, so to speak, at the end of the month but it is going to create a whole host of other problems. It is going to lead to an increase in rough sleeping. I will be supporting Deputy Ó Broin's amendment as well because at the very least, we need to have an appeals process. It cannot be done as rigidly as the Minister is proposing.

It is deeply disappointing that the Minister has rushed through this legislation. I have been working in the area of homelessness for over a decade as an academic and researcher, but also campaigning with people directly in homelessness and working with homeless organisations. The homeless providers have never once asked for this legislation. It was never put forward as a solution to homelessness. The question is why the Minister is doing it. I have not yet been given a rationale that justifies rushing this through. The only conclusion I can draw is that it is part of a trend in this Government of what I would describe as performative cruelty. Let us show that we are being hard on migrants and immigrants and make some minor changes so we can say we are clamping down on access to things like social housing and now emergency accommodation. The circular existed. The Minister did not need to do this. It is also very surprising to me, as somebody who has worked in this area for a long time, to read statements from the Simon Communities, Focus Ireland and Depaul - the front-line homeless providers - outlining their concern and making very clear that the Minister is not listening to them and has not listened to them. He has not listened in the sense of acting upon what they have put forward. The other aspect of this, along with the dog whistle to anti-immigrant sentiment, is that it is about reducing homeless numbers. I believe that is what this is about. It is very disappointing. We know that rough sleepers are not captured or counted in monthly homeless figures. This feels to me, in my reading, like a cynical move to somehow reduce homeless numbers. I highlight in particular the lack of time given to debate this. It is being rushed through. We got the amendments this week and there has been a failure to genuinely engage with the homeless organisations. Maybe they will feel a response to their criticism in their funding - I hope not. The homeless organisations have been as critical of any Minister for housing introducing legislation as I have seen. The Simon Communities set out that there are very real risks associated with this legislation. The Dublin Simon Community stated: "This bill has the potential to see more people turned away with nowhere left to go other than the streets." It says access to emergency accommodation "should always be led by need not entitlement." Of particular concern for it are the amendments which require individuals who do not meet the residency criteria to re-present nightly for emergency accommodation, inserting the 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. window for emergency accommodation placement. Mike Allen of Focus Ireland was very critical of that move. He stated that the Bill "is the first change in homelessness legislation since 1988, but instead of using the opportunity to bring the homeless system up to date [for which I am sure Focus Ireland has had lots of suggestions], the Government is slipping through a range of measures which bring it back to the Victorian past." It is really shocking. With this 8 p.m to 8 a.m. provision, what happens to children? Are they going to be kicked out at eight in the morning? Are they only going to be let in at 8 p.m. in the winter? Has the Minister thought through what this actually means and is going to mean? This winter, on the streets of our towns, villages and cities, we will have families, including children, and probably migrant families who are here, turned away to sleep rough. There is an irony in including a reference to the best interests of the child when it is not the best interests of the child in terms of eligibility and access to emergency accommodation. The most vulnerable people in our society, to a certain extent, are being scapegoated. I do not understand why the Minister has rushed this through and why he did not give us and the organisations working on the front line time to go through it. Dublin Simon Community states that "inserting an 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. window for emergency accommodation placement into the legislation is particularly unworkable for person-led service providers like Dublin Simon." The Minister is introducing a measure that those who, right now, are providing emergency accommodation to thousands of people who are homeless say is making it unworkable. He is actually going to make the homelessness crisis worse with these measures. Dublin Simon Community states that "the lack of stability this would create would significantly impact these individuals' ability to meaningfully engage with support across housing, health and social care services." It further states: Additionally, the proposed requirement for all members of a household to meet residency requirements could result in families being refused emergency accommodation. This is especially worrying as we may see more children facing the prospect of sleeping rough. Focus Ireland has outlined that the habitual residence condition will require people to present detailed paperwork, which they are unlikely to have on them if they are fleeing domestic violence, have just been evicted or are going through a mental health crisis. We are saying this to the most vulnerable people. What is going to happen? Is someone of colour going to present to a local authority, with an accent from a different country, and the local authority is going to ask them to prove they are habitually resident? Are we going to see racism rise and are we going to see discrimination cases? How are local authorities going to judge and what is the time they are going to give? Are they going to ask people to bring back the paperwork? When are they to come back with the paperwork? There are serious issues here. This will put on local authorities a more complicated system and make their provision of emergency accommodation more complex, which is inevitably going to lead to more destitution and homelessness. Focus Ireland stated: What the Government is calling a 'safety net' is really a return to the sort of cruel approach favoured in the Workhouse and the County Home, where people are only provided shelter for a few hours and given no security for the following night. Any Government in the last 40 years would have been ashamed to introduce legislation which is so poorly drafted, unclear and punitive. Those are not my words; they are the words of Focus Ireland. I do believe that it is nasty, cruel legislation. It is unnecessary. No justification for it has been given. The CEO of Depaul has said that Depaul is alarmed and dismayed at the process, which has been rushed through. There is deep frustration over what he described as "a clear disregard by the Government to the concerns aired by those working at the front line of this homelessness crisis." Clarity and joined-up thinking are what we need, he said. He said, "This Bill creates a new range of uncertainties about access to emergency accommodation and how vulnerable people will be treated." It is "regressive" and "will have profound effects on the most vulnerable people in our society". Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, similarly outlined some very serious concerns with it. It states that removing "the safety-net of emergency accommodation for communities already most at risk of homelessness" is, in turn, likely to "lead to a rise in the number of people and families rough-sleeping". FLAC also described the meeting the Minister had with it. It said the one-hour briefing between Department officials and the NGOs on 17 June did not constitute meaningful consultation. The Government is in breach of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission's policies and ethics in relation to public sector bodies and their equality and human rights obligations. Community Law & Mediation set out that the unavoidable conclusion is that vulnerable people, including children and those with disabilities, will be at direct risk of on-street homelessness. The Minister never answered the question as to what will happen to victims of trafficking and domestic violence. That he has not made an exception for those groups is disappointing and disgraceful. He could have added in those exceptions to ensure that there were humanitarian grounds on which our most vulnerable people who are coming into this country or who are in this country already could be provided with emergency accommodation. It is deeply disappointing. I really hope what these organisations have outlined does not come to pass. If it does, it is the Minister's decision and his responsibility to take for that.

A lot of issues were raised. I will try to address as many as I can. In relation to the time and the use of the word "night", the definition of night time differs greatly between 21 June and 21 December. That would have created an extraordinary level of uncertainty as to when somebody can go in or not. That is why a time was chosen. The Deputy can argue about the time, but certainly using the word "night" would have given a great level of uncertainty. That is why a time was put in there for that matter. Nobody has ever suggested that this was a solution to homelessness. It will not affect the numbers. It will not increase the number of rough sleepers, either, in any shape or form. Regarding the appeal mechanism for those refused emergency accommodation, they can, of course, immediately reapply. That is the nature of emergency accommodation, unlike maybe other decisions the Government, State agencies or local authorities make. It is not the end of the road. They can go immediately back in and make another application. I intend to ensure that where somebody is refused emergency accommodation, a reason for their refusal will be communicated in writing. That person will have the right to have a decision reviewed by a more senior member in their local authority to ensure that there is consistency in the decision-making on it. On the comments about people sleeping out in the snow, every local authority has a severe weather protocol. I expect those to be put into place. Nobody should be out on the streets in extreme and severe weather. In my experience with local authorities and certainly in my own one, they are very responsive and take a very precautionary approach in those types of situations to ensure that people are not out. Children, of course, are exempt from these rules. That is very important to remember in the context of some of the comments that have been made. It is important to remind Members what we are discussing here. This is legal and habitual residence. Regarding what local authority a person is entitled to apply for, that is more to do with the local connection. It is not habitual residence. Habitual residence is about your intent to remain in the State and make the State your home. The local connection is a very different matter and is more concerned with the local authority under which you will make your application. Rough sleepers are very much considered here. That is why there is a safety net. Not only can people immediately reapply for emergency accommodation but if there is any risk of them rough sleeping, they will be given accommodation on a night-to-night basis, for two nights initially and then night to night after that. If somebody does need to establish legal and habitual residence in the State and they are looking for long-term supports from the State, it not an onerous requirement that they should be legally here and intending to stay here and that this is their home. That is the current policy. We are ensuring it is put in on a statutory basis. I do not have any particular issue in relation to it. Regarding human trafficking, if somebody is trafficked, the initial supports are provided by the Department of justice. There are strong protocols in place there. I know that because I was in the Department of justice. That Department will be able to make the decision as to the status of that person and whether to issue that person a visa or what status they should have to remain here. On domestic violence, again, this is about legal and habitual residence. If somebody who is subject to domestic violence needs emergency accommodation, they will be provided with emergency accommodation. Only last week, I brought in new rules to allow people who are the victims or survivors of domestic violence to bring their time served in one local authority to another local authority to ensure that the supports are put in place. One of the reasons we are bringing in the legislation is to ensure that there is consistency, because there is a level of inconsistency right across the country among local authorities. I have seen it myself. While local authorities are very much doing their best in often very difficult situations, putting it in legislation and on a statutory basis brings that level of consistency such that staff in local authorities will know exactly how to apply the law and know what the law is. They will be given support and guidance from my Department. That crucial safety net is there for people who are at risk of rough sleeping. I have addressed most of the key issues, although maybe not the invective.

I am even less convinced of the logic of prescribing a time in the legislation. "Night to night" has a very clear meaning. It means a person does not get a placement of a month, six months or 18 months. It means accommodation is provided on a night-to-night basis. That is a long-standing policy that currently exists, and some emergency accommodation providers are paid for that. If the Minister had wanted to be helpful to local authorities, he could have provided guidance. The difficulty is that by putting this in legislation, it suggests that where the night-to-night safety net is to be provided, somebody cannot be accommodated before 8 p.m. The Minister has put that in the legislation. Normally when we ask for specific details in legislation, we are told it is not the place for them. That raises very real questions. Does it mean the emergency accommodation provided under this amendment can only open at 8 p.m. and must close at 8 a.m.? That becomes the operational procedure irrespective of, as I said, whether it is in the best interests of the child or is not appropriate for the adults. Second, the idea that the solution to not providing for an appeal is that somebody can just keep reapplying makes no sense. That just adds administrative burden for the local authorities, if such a thing were the primary concern. It also ignores the fact people who present for emergency accommodation are in crisis. At the point of application, they do not necessarily have all of the documentation to hand. I wish to re-emphasise that my primary, first-instance concern is people who are legally and habitually resident in the State being wrongfully denied emergency accommodation and having no mechanism for appeal. The current situation is that they are assessed as being homeless. They are put in emergency accommodation and then a key worker or a local authority staff member works with them to provide the documentation to get the social housing support application in place or to provide the other forms of evidence that are there. The Minister has denied an appeal but what he has described with the review is not that dissimilar from the appeal except it is not founded in law. The applicant will get the decision to be reviewed by a superior decision maker. The difficulty is, because they are in crisis, whether they will have access to the necessary legal support, advocacy support or documentation in the time period. With respect, on the safety net, the Minister rightfully keeps saying he wants to ensure consistency yet when you read the section of the amendment it states that the local authority or housing authority "may" make a decision to provide that safety net. That means we will get inconsistencies in decision-making right across the local authorities, particularly at the early stages of this legislation as people grapple with what is in front of them. In regard to the "two nights" provision, what about the weekend, a bank holiday or if somebody gets the initial two nights from a Friday and the decision-maker in the local authority is not back to work until the Tuesday after a bank holiday? The Minister is prescribing this in legislation rather than in guidance, with the necessary flexibility. Since the Minister raised the social housing transfer protocol that was published last week - something for which many of us have campaigned for a long time - it does not apply to about half of the households who will need it, namely, people who are currently in receipt of HAP or RAS but are not on the principal social housing waiting list or on a HAP transfer list will not avail of this. It is something I urged the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy John Cummins, to raise with him directly when we discussed it with him last week, to amend the circular to ensure every woman, or every woman and child or children, who desperately needs the social housing transfer protocol can get it, whether they are council list applicants or on the HAP or RAS transfer lists. Nothing the Minister said has convinced me of the merits of what is in front of us and on that basis, I am pushing the amendment.

I thank the Minister for his response. I am none the wiser from his response either as to why the arbitrary eight to eight time was chosen. It seems sort of strange to have a situation where in winter, you could have empty emergency accommodation beds and people outside in the cold because of this arbitrary eight to eight rule. I do not understand why this is being codified in legislation in the way it has been done. The Minister will store up problems for himself. He made a very bold comment when he said this Bill will not increase the number of rough sleepers. Where is the Minister's regulatory impact assessment for that? Where is the data to show that definitively will not happen when every homeless organisation, NGO, etc., has told us it will? We did not need homeless NGOs or the likes of FLAC to tell us this would lead to an increase in rough sleeping. Common sense will tell you that this will lead to an increase in rough sleeping. In respect of the lack of an appeals process, the Minister said in one sense that you can apply and apply again but essentially that means that if somebody keeps being refused, the only recourse they have then is to try to seek a judicial review, which is absolute nonsense because anybody who needs emergency accommodation does not have the capacity to do that. I would appreciate if the Minister addressed those questions.

I do not sit on the housing committee, so this has come like a bolt from the blue for anyone who does not because of the suddenness of these changes. I will give some practical examples because this will cause absolute chaos for councillors and TDs who are at the coalface of dealing with the housing crisis. They are the least of my worries, obviously. I am worried about the people who will be affected. I am really shocked to read just now about all of the bodies that have condemned this legislation and the Minister is simply, yet again, not listening. We stood here during the international protection legislation and raised very similar concerns from human rights organisations about that legislation and this fits very much into that mould. The only thing I can think of is that this is about, as other TDs have suggested, the Minister virtue-signalling to the far right and people who are racist in this country. We have already had the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach linking homelessness with migrants and asylum seekers and now the Minister is sending out a message with this Bill that a lot of the homeless people are actually asylum seekers and that is why we have this crisis. That is the message the Minister is sending out. The Minister is not in any way thinking of the human consequences of this for victims of trafficking and for very vulnerable people. This is also very likely to be contrary to EU law and human rights law, according to the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Mercy Law Centre, etc. I can think of a couple of cases that have just come my way during the past couple of weeks. I will not identify the person but they were publicised for being a victim of a horrific assault on the street and they are homeless. They came to my office this week with an interpreter and with somebody else. They are working in this country. They had their refugee status granted. They were kicked out of the IPAS accommodation, which is what happens when you get your refugee status. You are left to fend for yourself and to find homeless accommodation. This person refused an offer of accommodation because they were being asked to share with a stranger. The Minister might actually understand that if you are walking up a street and stranger viciously assaults you, you might then actually have a fear of strangers. Under this legislation, what would happen to this person because they turned down what the Minister considers a viable offer of homeless accommodation? Thankfully, I was able to contact the relevant authorities, explain why and ask if another offer could be made. I can think of the case of another family in terms of this idea that everybody must be a fully fledged person who is entitled to social housing. There is a Palestinian family in my constituency and their elderly parents, with serious health issues, fled the genocide in Gaza. Some of the family were sleeping on the floor so as to be able to take in the parents and look after them. I am sure the Minister would agree that he would do the same for his family and I would do the same for mine. This family then had a fire in their accommodation and had to be moved. Thankfully, they were helped. Where would they stand with the local authority or the housing agency providing that accommodation if they had to get residency status for their parents before they could get help? They could have all been out on the street. The Minister is just not thinking, or maybe he is and he does not care. The other thing is the lack of discretion. I represent a constituency that has a massive amount of diversity and of homelessness. It has been so for about 12 years, long before any refugees or asylum seekers came in large numbers to this country. When I was elected to this House in 2014 during the by-election, housing was the biggest issue. There is no discretion for local authorities. I am sure the Minister is not suggesting that Dublin City Council is the same as Sligo County Council. They just have different demands and needs in terms of the populations and the problems they face. The Minister is taking away all discretion from the likes of Fingal County Council, Dublin City County Council, the other Dublin councils and other cities councils where there will be more people seeking support for homeless accommodation and refugees as well. This will cause havoc. Maybe the people affected do not go to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies. From what I hear anecdotally, they do not. It seems that people who desperately need help tend to come to the parties of the left. It just seems to be that way. The Minister is shaking his head but that is what people tell us, that the Government TDs just do not reply to them and do not get their hands dirty. We are the ones who take it on and that has always been the way in my constituency in any case, from what we can see. They are just not situated in the constituency where they get the votes and where these issues are a problem. This is shocking and follows very much in the vein of the international protection legislation that the Government brought through, ignoring human rights concerns and ignoring practical concerns that TDs are making. It is really shameful stuff in order to garner a few brownie points and tell everybody that refugees are to blame for the housing crisis.

Like other speakers, I think the Minister is making a major mistake. I was just talking to my party colleague Deputy Ó Broin. A lady contacted me today. She has been in recovery for eight months and is four months pregnant. She is homeless and on the streets. Tonight she is in the maternity hospital at Cork University Hospital, CUH, because there was nowhere else for her to go. If she goes into emergency accommodation where there is open addiction and open drug taking, her fear is that she may fall back into addiction. She is trying to protect herself and her unborn child. When she comes out of CUH tomorrow, she is going to the streets. What does the Minister's legislation mean for her? Does it mean she has no right to appeal? This is forcing people into unsuitable accommodation - especially people who are in recovery and are trying to keep their lives together. This woman is four months pregnant and she has been in and out of emergency accommodation for the last two years. She is 20 years old. As an adult, all she has experienced is emergency accommodation. Is she going to be denied the right to appeal? What happens to her under this legislation? Will the Minister explain that to me please?

I raised all the issues earlier that I wanted to talk about but I just want to ask the Minister something again. I appeal to him at this late stage to change the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. closure provision. I think it will lead to unintended, or intended, consequences that will be potentially severe this winter. I urge him to come up with some other form of wording, or just remove the provision. I just do not see why he does not remove it at this point. It is not necessary. I would ask him to do that on a humanitarian basis. Will the Minister also add an exception for victims of domestic violence and trafficking? I am just asking for those two concessions.

In relation to being able to reapply versus make an appeal, any appeal takes time. These people are in a crisis at that point in time - we agree on that - so the quickest method is to reapply rather than going through a complicated appeals process. In relation to the two nights for the initial situation, if that person cannot make other arrangements and is at risk of rough sleeping, such as over a bank holiday weekend, the local authority would be expected to give them another night. The whole purpose of this safety net is to ensure that they are given a place. On the lawfulness, the Attorney General's office is satisfied that all of this is in accordance with all law. We would not be doing it otherwise. This has no impact on people who have international protection and have a right to remain here. If they are lawfully here, they will be habitually resident here as well, so there is no impact on them. There is no impact on refugees either. They are also here as of right. If someone is an asylum seeker, he or she will be in an IPAS centre or other accommodation provided by the Department of justice. Again, therefore, whatever the status of that Palestinian family, there is no reason for them, or anybody, to be without accommodation.

Is the Minister saying the parents should be put in an IPAS centre?

On Deputy Gould's point, the woman in that very traumatic situation has been provided emergency accommodation in the past and there is no reason she would not be provided it again in the future. If there is any way the Deputy wants me to help with that woman, who is in a very difficult situation, he should please provide the details. It is the same for that Palestinian family. We are always happy to intervene. I am not going to comment on Deputy Coppinger's usual self-righteous nonsense suggesting she has a monopoly on compassion-----

There is no need for that comment.

You are unbelievable. You really need to get a grip on yourselves, the way you talk to the Opposition.

Yes, there was no need for that.

This is too often what we get, unfortunately-----

You are so sexist as well. It is only women you ever say that to.

It is very easy to come in here with your personal invective but you have to engage with policy. That is what we need to be doing rather than your usual commentary in relation to it-----

Sorry, but I am not going to be polite to you when we have a crisis.

I let you speak and as usual-----

This is a brutal piece of legislation-----

I let you speak but you will not let me speak.

-----so do not expect politeness.

It is a democracy. I know you do not really believe in this type of democracy but it is a democracy. What we are doing here is putting in very important legislation to bring consistency to social housing qualification and homelessness in this country. I believe it will help to bring clarity right across the country and will help people, in some cases, who are not getting their rights met by having this level of consistency and guidance that we have provided from the Department.

We now have to put the amendment to the amendment-----

Can I just ask one question of the Minister? That lady refuses to go into the emergency accommodation because she is in recovery and the accommodation presents a risk of her relapsing. This applies not just to that lady but to anyone in a similar position. They have no right to appeal and they then have to reapply to go on the housing list, which in Cork city takes five months on average. Where should they live for the five months? I do not need to go into the whole lot of it, but if the legislation the Minister is bringing forward is passed, if a person refuses to enter emergency accommodation either because of addiction or because she is a vulnerable woman who does not want to go to a mixed congregated setting with people in the throes of addiction, then that person will end up on the streets.

This refers to reasonable offers of accommodation, so it is not any offer. It is about turning down a reasonable offer of accommodation. It is up to the local authority to ensure that appropriate and safe emergency accommodation is provided, and for people like that woman in particular. I know the Deputy likes to absolve the local authority of any responsibility whatsoever for anything but it is up to the local authority to ensure appropriate emergency accommodation is provided. The local authorities are well funded to do so and they should do so for a woman in that very traumatic type of situation.

The amendment is carried and, therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 194(3), it is reported to the Dáil that the Long Title has been amended. Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, 26, 27, 32, 36, 47 and 48 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 5, line 11, after “hearings” to insert “, and the determination of disputes,”. Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, are technical drafting amendments to ensure that the Long Title of the Bill more accurately describes the content and purpose of the Bill, taking account of the Government amendments since publication. The Bill provides for procedures for the determination of disputes by the RTB and the enforcement of such determinations, increases the penalties for summary convictions for offences under the residential tenancies Acts 2004 to 2026, and provides for the RTB to serve fixed payment notices in respect of certain offences under the RTA. Government amendment No. 26 amends section 9 of the Act of 2004 to clarify that its provisions apply to all offences under the Act other than under section 148S(16). Separate provision is made within section 148S for the penalties to apply upon summary conviction and conviction on indictment for an offence under that section. Government amendment No. 27 provides technical amendments to section 9 to clarify that it provides penalties on summary conviction. At the request of the RTB, the timeframe to institute a prosecution is also proposed to be extended from one year to three years after the date of the offence. Section 148S of the Act of 2004 is contained in Part 7A, which provides for the investigation and sanction by the RTB of improper conduct by a landlord. It provides that a person who either holds, destroys, conceals or refuses to provide any information or records required for the purposes of an RTB investigation, fails or refuses to comply with any requirement of an RTB authorised officer or otherwise obstructs or hinders an RTB authorised officer in their work, is guilty of an offence. The penalty that currently applies under section 148S(16) on summary conviction is in line with the penalty that will apply, if the Bill is enacted, on summary conviction for all other offences under the RTA, that is, a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. The penalty that currently applies under section 148S on conviction on indictment will not change under this Bill, that is, a fine not exceeding €50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both. An offence under section 148S(16) is the only indictable offence under the RTA. Section 9 of the Act of 2004 provides for penalties on summary conviction. Section 148S(16), subject to subsection (10), states that a person who either holds, destroys, conceals or refuses to provide any information or records required for the purposes of an investigation, fails or refuses to comply with any requirement of an authorised officer under this section or otherwise obstructs or hinders an authorised officer in the performance of functions imposed under this Part, is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction or on conviction on indictment. Government amendments Nos. 32, 36, 47 and 48 clarify that it will not be required that a fixed payment notice or a copy be provided to the RTB with the corresponding payment of the fine. The aim is to provide for the payment of fines by landlords to be as streamlined as possible for the sector, including the RTB. The RTB is confident that it will be able to track individual payments to correspond with a specific fixed payment notice and, therefore, there is no need to burden the sector with a requirement to provide a copy of the fixed payment notice itself, as these amendments aim for efficiency.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 5, line 12, after “Board” to insert “, and the enforcement of such determinations”.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 5, lines 12 and 13, to delete “to increase the penalties for certain offences under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004” and substitute the following: “to increase the penalties for summary offences and to provide for the service of fixed payment notices in respect of certain offences under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004”.

Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendment No. 5 and the other related amendment as they do not arise from committee proceedings. I ask the Minister to move the recommittal.

I move: "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 5 and 25."

Amendments Nos. 5 and 25 are related and may be discussed together.

Is that with every group of amendments or-----

Are these new ones that were not on Committee Stage?

Yes. It is the same as the last question.

For every group of the new amendments that yesterday's motion referred to, we still have to agree each one of those groups. I have never come across that before. That is fine.

Yes.

You are in charge.

Okay.

Just about.

If I was we can all go home. That is agreed.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 5, line 13, after “2004;” to insert “to provide that the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 shall not apply to certain dwellings;”. Amendment No. 5 is a technical drafting amendment to ensure the Long Title of the Bill more accurately describes the content and purpose of the Bill, taking account of amendment No. 25, which proposes to insert a new section into the Bill to disapply the 2024 Act in respect of detached auxiliary dwellings that are developed as exempted development under the forthcoming amendments to the planning and development regulations SI 600/2021. Such detached auxiliary dwellings must be constructed, erected or placed to the rear of a person's principal house, that is, their principal private residence. The 2024 Act shall not apply to a detached auxiliary dwelling in a rear garden that is such an exempted development where the principal house is the owner-occupied principal private residence of the landlord of the auxiliary dwelling. Section 3(2) of the 2024 Act provides a list of dwellings to which the Act does not apply. Section 13 of the Bill proposes to expand this list to include paragraph (j) to disapply the Residential Tenancies Act in respect of the aforementioned detached auxiliary dwelling, subject to certain conditions, as outlined. The intention is to disapply the 2024 Act from the same day that the related exempted development provisions under the forthcoming amendments to the planning and development regulations, PDR, come into operation. On and after that date, the 2024 Act will disapply in respect of such detached auxiliary dwellings that might be developed in the future. It is the intention for a detached auxiliary dwelling that is developed having availed of the new exemption from planning permission to remain outside the scope of the 2024 Act, irrespective of any future amendment to the PDR requiring planning permission for such new structures.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Minister. We will deal with the substance of the exempted development regulations when they come to committee on Tuesday of next week. Many of us on this side of the House have long argued for some flexibility in our planning code for family members to be able to provide free-standing residential extensions in back gardens for direct family members. That is a matter we will debate next week. From our party's point of view, we do not under any circumstances support the renting out of free-standing residential extensions in back gardens. What is worse about these amendments is that not only will the Minister permit it, those who will rent such dwellings will have no tenancy rights whatsoever. These amendments will completely strip them of any of the protections under the Residential Tenancies Act in terms of rent setting or capping, notices of termination and all of the other protections that tenants have. My concern is that not only will the Minister strip a group of renters of their rights into the future, he is also doing something that is contrary to a century of tenancy legislation. The definition of a tenancy for very long period in this State, before and since the passing of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, is exclusive occupation of a dwelling. The whole idea of a licensee is that they do not have exclusive occupation of a dwelling. Rather, they are renting a room in somebody else's principal private residence and share their kitchen, bathroom, etc. These are free-standing residential structures and will have bathrooms, kitchens and a front door. They will share some services and road and pedestrian access, but they are dwellings in which the renter will have exclusive occupation. I suspect this will end up being challenged in the courts and the outcome of that will be very interesting. The bottom line is that a person who has exclusive occupation of a property they rent should be considered under law a tenant and have the full protections of the Residential Tenancies Act. Notwithstanding a separate substantive debate on the exempted development regulations will have next week, this is an incredibly retrograde step and one to which we are fundamentally opposed.

We have discussed this. We in the Social Democrats have serious concerns about the change being introduced. We are concerned in particular about the lack of rental rights that will apply to those residing in back garden sheds or structures. Why will the Minister not apply the Residential Tenancies Act to these dwellings? Obviously, I do not agree they should be rented, but what the Minister is doing is even worse in terms of allowing them to be licensees. Threshold, the renters' charity that does excellent work and which the Minister has engaged with, has expressed severe concern about the failure to protect people who will live in sheds at the back of people's dwellings. It is another piece of legislation that is being rushed through and the consequences are not being seriously considered. This will create modern day tenements in back gardens. It will be completely unregulated. People will be hidden. We know this is already happening. You can see on daft.ie sheds in back gardens available for rent. There is one in Walkinstown for €1,100 per month. Such dwellings will be completely unmonitored. Of course an exemption in respect of standards will have to be provided when they are built, but who is ensuring that there is hot water and tenants have access to decent facilities? Who will ensure that people who are renting these are living in proper, suitable standards? It will be a recipe for disaster. As the Taoiseach said, it is about incentivising people to provide this rental accommodation. The Bill will create another layer of accidental so-called landlords who are not professional landlords. Someone in their 50s or 60s may build a modular home in their back garden and have a family living in it. What happens when that person retires and decides they want to sell their home? The family would be evicted and have no protections whatsoever. This will lead to more homelessness and hidden exploitation. As Threshold highlighted, it will be students, elderly people and vulnerable groups who will be most exposed to this exploitation. On that basis, we will oppose the amendment.

We in the Labour Party support the need for more flexibility when it comes to exempted developments. What I do not support is the whole idea of allowing landlords to rent out "Cummins cabins", effectively, without any protection for tenants. The fact of the matter is renters will have no Part 4 protection or rent controls. They could be subject to summary eviction. Due to the fact these dwellings will not come under the RTB Act and will not require planning, it will be hard to identify where they are and to make sure that they are of a decent standard. I have no issue with more flexibility when it comes to exempted development. In fact, it is necessary. A couple of months ago, I asked the Minister if he would at the very least conduct a full review of the licensing system to make sure that it is sound. We have had a number of issues with it, in that there are major loopholes and, unfortunately, people have been exploited as a result. There is no safety net or protection against rent hikes, spikes or eviction. I am afraid that this could end up disproportionately targeting vulnerable people. I am thinking in particular of students, including international students. We have had loads of issues in recent years with international students being stacked into accommodation. Now they will potentially end up being stacked into what are, in effect, beds in sheds. Local authorities already find it difficult enough to inspect private rentals. Removing the requirement for RTB registration means it will be very hard to know exactly where any of these structures will be. The rent-a-room scheme works reasonably well but this will have the effect of distorting the spirit of the scheme because there will be completely unregulated, stand-alone private rental businesses in residential back gardens. I again call on the Minister, if he is going to do this, to at least look at the licensee system and the loopholes therein.

I will not repeat what my colleagues have said but the fact is we are denying tenants their fundamental protections and rights under the RTB. That is wrong. Tenants who are paying their rent every week, including where there is antisocial behaviour, are entitled to their rights. We are creating a two-tier system, with renters who are covered by the RTB on the one hand and then, on the other, people living in these beds in sheds. We are talking about independent accommodation in people's back gardens. It is not like renting a room in a house. These are stand-alone dwellings and the tenants living there are not sharing the homeowner's bathroom, front room or kitchen. People paying rent on a stand-alone residence should be entitled to the same protection as other renters. I ask the Minister, as others have asked him, to consider that. Why would he not provide people with the protections and rights to which they are entitled?

We are not talking about stand-alone properties. These properties are on the land and the curtilage of the homeowner. The renter shares all the services with the homeowner, including the driveway and the water and electricity facilities coming in. We already do this with the rent-a-room scheme. People can rent a room under licence in a homeowner's property. The residences we are discussing will likewise be on a homeowner's property. Such a building is considered an extension, albeit a detached one. It does not have its own folio, does not count towards housing numbers and cannot be sold separately. It is part of the main homeowner's property. Where a principal private resident avails of this exemption, constructs a detached auxiliary dwelling within an existing residential curtilage and rents it out, that arrangement will have to be outside of the remit of the Residential Tenancies Act. We cannot have homeowners in that situation, who may be elderly people and so on who cannot sell their home, subject to that type of obligation. I acknowledge it is a difficult situation but when we examine it, the idea that someone renting out a property on the wider property of a homeowner is renting a completely separate dwelling governed by the Residential Tenancies Act is completely unworkable and unmanageable. Homeowners would entirely lose control of their own home, their right to which is protected under the Constitution. That is the reality of the situation. These properties are built and have to be built to the highest standards. Building regulation compliance is not simply about when something is built; it is also about maintenance as well. Licensing is always kept under review but I take Deputy Sheehan's point in that regard.

Pursuant to Standing Order 194(3), it is reported to the Dáil that the Long Title has been amended.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 6, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “PART 2 AMENDMENTS TO HOUSING ACT 1988 Interpretation ( Part 2 ) 4.In this Part, "Act of 1988" means the Housing Act 1988.".

I move amendment No. 9: In page 6, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 1 of Act of 1988 Section 1 of the Act of 1988 is amended by the insertion of the following definition: “ 'Act of 2009' means the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009,".".[]

I move amendment No. 10: In page 6, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 10 of Act of 1988 6. Section 10 of the Act of 1988 is amended— (a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “A housing authority may, subject to section 10A and to such regulations” for “A housing authority may, subject to such regulations”, (b) in subsection (8)— (i) in paragraph (a)(ii), by the substitution of “own resources,” for “own resources, or”, (ii) by the insertion of the following paragraphs after paragraph (b): “(c) that person (whether as a household within the meaning of section 18A of the Act of 2009 or part of such a household) refuses one reasonable offer of a form of support referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (d) of section 19(2) of that Act, or (d) that person intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct which causes death or serious harm to another person in the accommodation or lodgings,”, and (iii) by the substitution of “the authority may determine that such accommodation or lodgings shall no longer be made available to the person and may require the person to vacate the accommodation or lodgings” for “the authority may cease to have such accommodation or lodgings made so available and may require the person to vacate the accommodation or lodgings”, (c) in subsection (10), by the substitution of “to determine if a person is homeless or to determine, under section 10A(1), if a person is eligible to access arrangements, assistance or accommodation provided by a housing authority under subsection (1)” for “to determine if a person is homeless”, and (d) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (11): “(12) Where, by virtue of subsection (1)(c), accommodation is provided or rented, or where lodgings are arranged, for a person and a child who normally resides with the person, a housing authority shall have regard to the best interests of that child when considering available accommodation or lodgings for that person under subsection (1)(c). (13) In this section— ‘child’ means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years; ‘serious harm’ means injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement or substantial loss or impairment of the mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any particular bodily member or organ.”.”.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 6, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “Insertion of new sections 10A and 10B in Act of 1988 7.The Act of 1988 is amended by the insertion of the following new sections after section 10: “Residency requirements 10A.(1) A person shall not be eligible to access arrangements, assistance or accommodation provided by a housing authority by virtue of section 10(1) unless the authority, having carried out an assessment, is satisfied that the person, and any person who normally resides with that person or who might reasonably be expected to reside with that person, meets the requirements referred to in section 20A(1) of the Act of 2009. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), section 20(7) of the Act of 2009, in so far as it relates to section 20A of that Act, and the said section 20A, shall apply subject to the following modifications: (a) a reference to a household shall be read as a reference to— (i) a homeless person who, but for being such a person, would live alone, (ii) a group of persons comprising a homeless person and one or more other persons who normally reside with that person, or (iii) a group of persons comprising a homeless person and one or more other persons who might reasonably be expected to reside with that person; (b) a reference to social housing support shall be read as a reference to arrangements, assistance or accommodation provided under section 10; (c) a reference to a social housing assessment shall be read as a reference to an assessment for the purposes of subsection (1); (d) any other necessary modifications. (3) Subject to subsection (4), where a person does not meet the eligibility requirements referred to in subsection (1) and, in the opinion of the housing authority, that person is seeking alternative arrangements, assistance or accommodation and no such alternative arrangements, assistance or accommodation are available to that person, a housing authority may, on the date on which such opinion is formed, make arrangements for, or provide assistance or accommodation to, that person by virtue of section 10(1) between the hours of 8 p.m. on that date and 8 a.m. on the date immediately following that date. (4) Where a housing authority has made arrangements for, or provided assistance or accommodation to, a person under subsection (3), the housing authority may make arrangements for, or provide assistance or accommodation to, that person for a further period between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. on the date immediately following the date on which the opinion referred to in subsection (3) was formed where, in the opinion of the authority, alternative arrangements, assistance or accommodation continue to be unavailable to that person. (5) 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). (6) Where, under subsections (3) or (4), arrangements are made, or assistance or accommodation are provided, such arrangements, assistance or accommodation shall not be considered for the purposes of determining, under section 20A of the Act of 2009, as applied by subsection (1), whether the person in respect of whom such arrangements have been made or to whom such assistance or accommodation has been provided, is habitually resident in the State. (7) Subsection (3) shall not apply to: (a) an applicant within the meaning of section 2 of the International Protection Act 2015; (b) a person to whom section 60 of the International Protection Act 2015 applies; (c) an applicant within the meaning of section 2 of the International Protection Act 2026; (d) a person to whom section 237 of the International Protection Act 2026 applies. Appeal of determination under section 10(8) 10B.(1) Where a housing authority determines, under section 10(8), that accommodation or lodgings shall no longer be made available to a person, that person may appeal that determination. (2) An appeal under subsection (1) shall be made to the chief executive of the housing authority concerned, or, in the case of Limerick City and County Council, to the director general of Limerick City and County Council, within 14 days of the notification by the housing authority to the person concerned of the determination under section 10(8). (3) An appeal under subsection (1) shall be in writing and shall state the ground or grounds on which the appeal is made. (4) An appeal under subsection (1) may, to support a ground of the appeal, be accompanied by any information relevant to the making of the appeal. (5) On receipt by the chief executive or the director general, as the case may be, of an appeal under subsection (1), the chief executive of the authority, or, in the case of Limerick City and County Council, the director general of Limerick City and County Council, shall appoint an officer or employee of the authority to decide the appeal (in this section referred to as an ‘appeals officer’) and shall furnish that person with the appeal. (6) An appeals officer shall be a person who— (a) did not make the determination concerned, and (b) is in a more senior role in the authority than the person who made the determination or in a role that is equivalent in seniority to a role that is more senior than the role of that person. (7) An appeals officer shall be independent in the performance of his or her functions under this section. (8) An appeals officer shall decide an appeal under subsection (1) within 14 days of receipt of the appeal and shall— (a) confirm the determination concerned, (b) vary the determination, or (c) set aside the determination and, where the appeals officer considers it appropriate, make an alternative determination. (9) In deciding an appeal under subsection (1), an appeals officer shall consider whether the housing authority acted reasonably and in good faith in making the determination, under section 10(8), that accommodation or lodgings shall no longer be made available to the person. (10) A decision of an appeals officer on an appeal under subsection (1) shall be in writing and shall include reasons for the decision. (11) An appeals officer shall provide a copy of his or her decision to the person who appealed, under subsection (1), the determination. (12) A decision of an appeals officer on an appeal under subsection (1) shall be final.”.”.

I move amendment No.1 to amendment No. 11: In section 10B(1), after “person” where it firstly occurs, to insert the following: “or under section 10A, that a person shall not be provided with access to arrangements, assistance or accommodation provided by a housing authority by virtue of section 10(1),”.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are ruled out of order.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 11, 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.”.

Amendment No. 15 is ruled out of order.

I move amendment No. 16: In page 12, after line 39, to insert the following: “(i) the determination was otherwise unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the household’s application.”.

Amendments Nos. 17 to 20, inclusive, are related and amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 18. Amendments Nos. 17 to 20, inclusive, may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 17: In page 13, 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.”.

I move amendment No. 18: In page 13, to delete lines 25 to 35 and substitute the following: “(9) On receipt by a housing authority of a social housing appeal made in accordance with this section, the chief executive of the authority shall request the Minister to nominate a person to decide the appeal (in this section referred to as an ‘appeals officer’). (10) The Minister shall, for the purposes of subsection (9), establish and maintain a panel of persons eligible for nomination as appeals officers, being persons— (a) who are officers or employees of a housing authority other than the housing authority whose determination is the subject of the social housing appeal concerned, and (b) who, in the opinion of the Minister, have sufficient knowledge and experience of housing law and social housing assessment to discharge the functions of an appeals officer. (11) The Minister shall nominate a person from the panel referred to in subsection (10) to act as appeals officer in respect of a social housing appeal within 7 days of receiving a request under subsection (9). (12) A housing authority shall provide such administrative support to an appeals officer nominated under subsection (10A) as the appeals officer may reasonably require for the purposes of deciding a social housing appeal.”.

I move amendment No. 19: In page 13, line 25, to delete “a housing authority” and substitute “the appeals office”.

I move amendment No. 20: In page 13, to delete lines 30 to 35 and substitute the following: “(10) An appeals officer shall be a qualified and suitable person appointed by the Housing Agency to undertake appeals with an appropriate knowledge, in order to ensure quality and consistency of decisions made over time.”.

I move amendment No. 21: In page 14, line 14, to delete “shall” and substitute “shall be in writing and shall”.

I move amendment No. 22: In page 14, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “Equality impact assessment 10.(1) The Minister shall, before making an order under section 1(4) bringing section 8 into operation, cause to be carried out an equality impact assessment of the residency requirements imposed by section 20A of the Act of 2009 (as inserted by section 8). (2) An equality impact assessment under this section shall assess the likely effect of the residency requirements referred to in subsection (1) on persons sharing a protected characteristic within the meaning of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2018, having regard in particular to— (a) race, nationality and ethnic or national origins, (b) family status, and (c) membership of the Traveller community. (3) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the completion of an equality impact assessment under this section, cause a copy of the assessment to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as precluding the Minister from commencing section 8 following the completion and laying of an equality impact assessment under this section, notwithstanding any findings contained in that assessment.”.

I move amendment No. 23: In page 14, to delete lines 28 to 37, and in page 15, to delete lines 1 to 27.

I move amendment No. 24: In page 15, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “Social housing assessment: transfer and recognition 11.The Act of 2009 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 20B (inserted by section 8): “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.”.”.

The time permitted for this debate having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of 7 July 2026: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and not disposed of, including those which in the normal course would have required recommittal are hereby made to the Bill, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."