Housing and Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-14 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland 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? --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-07-14/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-27T06:52:15+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-07-14