Social Housing Passport Bill 2026: Second Stage [Private Members]

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The idea behind the social housing passport is a very simple one. It allows people on local authority housing waiting lists or in receipt of social housing supports like the housing assistance payment, HAP, and the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, to be able to move from one local authority to another and to take their years on the list or on transfer list with them. It was a long-standing commitment of Fine Gael, the Labour Party and, indeed, until recently, the Minister of State's party. Alan Kelly, when he was the Minister for housing back in 2014, included it in his housing plan at the time. Simon Coveney, when he was the Minister for housing in 2016, included a commitment to introduce a social housing passport. In 2016, the Minister of State's party colleague the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, also made a commitment to introduce a social housing passport in his plan. I was genuinely surprised when that commitment was not repeated in the programme for Government and was not contained in the current housing plan. It is a very simple solution to a very real problem affecting large numbers of people and there simply is no sensible or credible reason not to do it.

The Bill I am introducing with my colleagues here this evening is very simple. It gives the Minister for housing the power to put in place a social housing passport by way of regulations. The fine detail of that would be a matter for the Minister and Government, but the legislation sets out a number of core principles of how the passport would work. First, importantly it would be for both people on the list and people in receipt of social housing support, such as HAP and RAS. It is not just the 61,000 households on our council lists but also the 55,000 or so households in HAP or private sector RAS.

Second, and also important, is that it would not simply allow people to move freely around the country and change housing list. The legislation sets out the minimum criteria against which a tenant would be able to access the passport, for example, if they were able to take up an employment or educational opportunity in another county, if there was a healthcare arrangement involved, if they were fleeing domestic, sexual or gender-based violence, or other exceptional and compassionate grounds. A relatively narrow set of circumstances would allow somebody to apply for it.

I will give a few concrete examples of why this makes eminent sense. Somebody living in Dublin is seven, eight or nine years on a local authority housing list and is in employment, and their employer offers them a job in Cork in the Minister of State's own constituency. This gives them an opportunity to advance economically and they would still be eligible to remain on the local authority housing list in Cork as they would in Dublin. Therefore, because they have a live offer of a job, instead of what we ask them to do now, which is to choose between giving up their many years on the list and giving up the opportunity for employment advancement, they would be able to apply to Cork city or county council, provide the evidence, move onto that list and take their years with them. Therefore, they would not lose the opportunity for their permanent affordable home, nor would they lose the opportunity to advance economically.

There is a particular problem with how this challenge operates in Dublin, because unique to Dublin, we have four local authorities. While you are still only allowed to be on one list, you are allowed to have areas of choice in the other neighbouring local authorities. I am not sure if Cork city and county councils do that; they might be the only other in the State. In Dublin, somebody starts on the Dublin city list but cannot find rental accommodation in the city, so they end up renting in my constituency or Deputy O'Reilly's constituency in south Dublin or Fingal. They could be renting for a long time, and eight, nine, ten or 11 years pass before they approach their eligibility date for a social home. However, their children are all in school and the local clubs. The person may have local employment. They are rooted in the community in south Dublin or Fingal. However, because of the way in which the council lists operate, they will never get a permanent home in that local authority area. Their only option will be to eventually take up an allocation in another part of the city beyond the catchment area of their employment, educational supports, friends and family. They then face a dilemma, because many people do not understand this when they go on the list. They only begin to understand it many years later. They have to decide whether to give up those years and start again on the list in the local authority in which they are living or completely uproot their family to move to another part of the city. That does not make any sense whatsoever.

I understanding that one of the reasons for it no longer being part of the programme for Government housing plan is because there was concern among the County and City Management Association, CCMA, and the local government sector about having too liberal a regime. I fully support that. I do not believe that people should just be able to move around for no reason. There should be very clear, legitimate and sensible reasons, and if the reasons we have set out here are not to the Minister's liking, this allows him to set the regulations in whatever manner he decides.

It is disappointing that the Minister of State has tabled his 12-month amendment. This Bill says to the Minister to go away, do the regulations and consult with his officials, and there is no need to delay that for 12 months. I presume the only reason the amendment is here is so that the Government does not seem to be voting against the Bill. I do not believe anybody could say that it was anything but eminently sensible legislation.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Government is not moving forward with the passport, it gave a commitment last year - something that my colleagues, Deputies Devine and O'Reilly, had been raising regularly - to at least introduce a social housing transfer protocol for women experiencing domestic, sexual or gender-based violence. That was published last weekend, and I welcome it. However, even with that, there is a problem. The way in which the circular is set out, it only applies to households on council lists. That means households in emergency accommodation, living with family or friends, or in the private rental sector receiving rent supplement, because that is not a social housing support. That is only about half the people who might actually need this. By excluding social housing tenants in receipt of HAP or RAS - the approximately 55,000 households that would need this vital and, in some cases, life-saving transfer protocol - they will not be able to access it at all. It is disappointing that, when several journalists have contacted the Government and the Department looking to confirm on the record that HAP and RAS tenants are not included - we know that they are not - and set out why and if that will be reconsidered, instead of giving a straight answer that, yes, they have been excluded, and explaining why or giving a commitment to review and change it as a matter of urgency, there has been an attempt to confuse things, saying that HAP people can move into HAP tenancies in other local authorities. Of course, you can have HAP all over the State, but what you cannot do as a HAP tenant under this transfer protocol is move your HAP transfer list from one local authority to another and take your years on the list with you. You are punished if you try to do so.

The Government has made its position clear. The Minister of State has a well-crafted script from his officials, which is absolutely fine, but I cannot imagine that, knowing the realities of life as he does, being a constituency politician like the rest of us, he does not see the value in this. I make a personal appeal to him that, whatever he says on the floor here today, he use his influence in government if he believes this is a good idea. He might use his influence inside the Department and reopen the conversation with the Minister about a full-fledged social housing passport, as proposed. It is one of those occasions where you might not think it is a huge issue, but it affects thousands of people.

I thank my colleagues, including my constituency colleague Deputy Ward, who is not here today because he had another engagement. He wanted me to put on the record the actual experience of a constituent of his for whom this issue was very pertinent. I will read it into the record, if that is okay with the Minister of State. The woman in question said, "When I registered with [Dublin City Council] I was already staying in Saggart", which as the Minister of State will know, is in South Dublin County Council, "but the sad part is I didn't know I had to register with [South Dublin County Council] and the lady I spoke to at [Dublin City Council] did not redirect me he just registered me." Sonas, which is her domestic violence support organisation, asked her to reach out to Deputy Ward and share her entire story, which is the information I will now outline:

The reason this matter is so important to me is because I am a survivor of domestic abuse. The father of my child subjected me to severe abuse and made threats against my life, including telling me that if he ever found me, he would kill me and dump me in a dumpster. These threats and experiences caused me years of fear and trauma.

For the last number of years, I have finally been able to rebuild some sense of peace and safety in South Dublin [where she lives]. I do not have family in Ireland, and the only support system I have is the community I have built around me here over many years. It has taken a very long time for me to feel safe enough to live without constantly looking over my shoulder.

The thought of being moved to the Northside [to the Dublin city list, which she is on] leaves me extremely vulnerable. I know nobody there, and I fear that I could come into contact with people connected to my abuser, forcing me to relive trauma that I have spent years trying to overcome. I cannot imagine having to start over again [on the south Dublin list] while carrying that fear, not only for myself but also for my child.

Another constituent wrote:

You wouldn't believe how this effects my mental health, I am 16 years on [the Dublin City Council] list only that I am from the DCC area reason why I started my application with them, I moved to Clondalkin when I was pregnant with my daughter who now is 16 years old and we've set roots here, my both children go to the local Irish schools, my daughter is a Ranger in the local girl guides, my son plays GAA for Clondalkin along with other afterschool activities, I am a preschool and afterschool teacher in the Clondalkin area 13 years now. We have solid roots here and became apart of the community. Recently I've being in touch with other local TDs to voice my story and I know I am not the only one.

These are two cases - the case in Saggart and the case in Clondalkin. Neither of these people can access the social housing passport protocol, as the Minister of State has set out.

Both have compelling reasons that they should be able to do so.

I look forward to the Minister of State's speech. I look forward to hearing why he thinks it is sensible to defer giving the Minister the power to set out the regulations as he sees fit. I ask him again to see the sense in this and talk to his colleagues. I am sure his backbenchers have many constituents like ours who see this as a sensible move. It would be one of those rare occasions, if the Minister brought in his own legislation, where this House would be unanimous in saying that the Government is doing some good on housing, and we all support it. I am not precious about the Bill in front of us. I would quite happily withdraw it tomorrow and give all the credit and kudos to the Minister, Deputy Browne, if he wanted to do it himself, because the crucial thing here is that there is a cohort of people who are being treated unfairly by being denied a reasonable chance of progressing in their life because of a very bureaucratic rule. Let us get rid of it. Let us put a social housing passport on the Statute Book and let people get on with their lives in the way that we would all like them to do.

Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan)

I move:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann resolves that the Social Housing Passport Bill 2026 be deemed to be read a second time this day twelve months, to allow for further consideration of the proposals in the Bill.".

Before I go into the detail of the amendment and the rationale of the crafted speech, explaining why we are moving the amendment, speaking frankly, of course there is a lot of sense in the Deputy's proposal. In his opening statement, he outlined probably only two circumstances where it makes sense that there is flexibility and mobility between local authorities. Absolutely. I will come back to the horrible situation, as the Deputy outlined about a constituent, where someone is fleeing domestic violence and in constant fear, but there are other reasons, including educational, health, family, and personal reasons. There are so many reasons. The Deputy is right that there would be broad consensus that doing something in this area would make sense. We will, however, move the timed amendment.

We need balance. We represent different constituencies and different local authorities. I remember the approach to social housing allocations in Cork being amended. Cork moved away from a localised allocation and broadened it to the entire county. That change was met with a lot of resistance, and we can understand why. Someone in my hometown of Clonakilty could be on the housing list for a number of years and then, for example, someone from Mallow or Youghal, a completely different area of the county, might come in and there would be a backlash to that. It made sense, however, because at the end of the day, that person in Youghal was desperately in need of social housing too and was assessed in that regard. Time is needed to make sure this is standardised.

The other thing is something I am sure the Deputy will have dealt with in his time as a public representative. When I was a councillor, something that came up a lot was that when people were doing their income returns they were assessed and told that if there was a change in their circumstances, they had to inform the council. They then found that because their income had pushed up above the threshold, they were taken off the social housing list. Then, a year later, their income may have fallen below the threshold, and they would be back at square one. The point of the timed amendment is that we look at these many inconsistencies in detail. There is a lot of validity and sense in what the Deputy is saying, and I do not think there is any issue with saying that.

That said, I have moved the amendment, and I welcome the opportunity to speak further on the Bill. Having carefully considered the proposal contained in it, the Government's view is that significant policy, operational, legal and administrative issues remain unresolved. For that reason, we believe the Bill requires further examination and development before proceeding. Accordingly, we are proposing that a timed amendment of 12 months is appropriate in order to further consider the Bill and allow these important matters to be fully assessed. This is not an attempt to dismiss the underlying objective. Rather, it reflects the fact that the issues involved are complex and require careful consideration to ensure that any changes introduced are fair, evidence-based and capable of successful implementation.

Social housing is fundamentally based on an assessment of need and an allocation of scarce resources. Every local authority is required to operate within a consistent statutory framework, but it must do so in the context of local circumstances. Housing demand in Dublin differs significantly from that in Donegal. The pressures experienced in Cork city are different from those faced in Longford and Leitrim. Availability of housing, demand for support, demographic trends, employment patterns and local housing markets vary considerably throughout the State. For that reason, while social housing assessments are governed by national regulations, local authorities retain responsibility for adopting allocation schemes and reflect the realities of their own areas.

This is not an accident of policy. It is a deliberate feature of the system. It ensures that elected members, through the adoption of allocation schemes, can respond to the particular circumstances facing their own communities while operating within nationally prescribed rules. As a result, local authority allocation schemes have evolved to reflect those differing circumstances while operating within a national framework.

The Bill proposes a system through which applicants could effectively transfer waiting list time, list position or housing support between authorities. Any proposal which seeks to do this must therefore grapple with the reality that these lists are not interchangeable. They are not created under identical conditions. They do not reflect identical housing markets. They are not responding to identical levels of demand. That distinction is critically important.

Therefore, before legislating in this area, a number of important questions require further consideration. First, there are significant issues of fairness and equity. Under the proposals as drafted, a household could potentially relocate from one local authority area to another while retaining waiting time accrued elsewhere. While this may benefit the household seeking to move, it could also affect households which have been waiting for housing support within the receiving authority for many years.

A key question that requires further examination is how any transfer system could balance mobility of one household with fairness for other applicants already waiting in that area. Further, to allow a household in receipt of social housing support to transfer to another local authority, as outlined in the Bill, requires further consideration. One household may have spent many years on a waiting list prior to allocation in an area experiencing extreme housing pressure and limited supply. Another household may have spent a shorter period waiting in an area where housing demand is lower and allocations occur more frequently. The Bill assumes that these previous waiting periods can be treated as directly equivalent. Housing allocation must always involve consideration of the wider community of applicants. Every decision affects not only the person receiving assistance, but also every other person awaiting assistance. This is why the Government believes that the issue warrants detailed analysis before any permanent legislative framework is established.

There are substantial differences between local authorities that have not been fully addressed in the Bill. The Bill as it stands assumes a degree of standardisation which does not currently exist. Income eligibility thresholds vary between local authorities. Allocation systems also vary between local authorities. Some local authorities place particular emphasis on waiting time. Others use more complex prioritisation approaches. Transfer arrangements also vary. In that context, waiting list positions are not directly comparable. A person who is high on one list is not necessarily comparable to someone on another list because the underlying rules, priorities and housing pressures may be entirely different.

The Bill as it stands would therefore require local authorities to recognise and effectively backdate applications that were assessed under different systems and according to different local priorities. Some local authorities place considerable emphasis on waiting time when prioritising allocations. Others utilise broader systems which take into account multiple factors. Some authorities face acute supply constraints in particular housing categories, while others experience very different patterns of demand. In practice, this means that waiting list positions are not standardised. The Bill as written would require local authorities to compare applications which have been assessed under different rules, entered onto the lists at different times and prioritised according to different criteria.

Before establishing the national transfer mechanism, further work is required to determine how applications assessed under different systems could be compared fairly and consistently. Without such examination, there is a risk of unintended consequences for both applicants and local authorities.

There are significant operational and administrative issues that require further scrutiny. At present, no shared national ICT infrastructure exists that would facilitate the type of real-time transfer of social housing applications or social housing support and associated records between all authorities envisaged by the Bill. This is not a minor administrative adjustment. This goes to the heart of whether the proposed scheme could operate effectively in practice. The scale of the technological challenge is particularly significant. A national information technology platform capable of facilitating the type of real-time transfer system envisaged by the Bill would need to securely share sensitive applicant information between all local authorities. Most importantly, implementing such a system would require significant investment and specialist development, with robust governance ensuring compliance with data protection obligations, substantial lead-in time and ongoing support and maintenance.

At a time when the Government and local authorities are focused on accelerating housing delivery, reducing homelessness and supporting increased social housing supply, we must be satisfied that any new programme represents an effective use of finite resources. Before imposing new statutory obligations on local authorities, it would be prudent to undertake a detailed assessment of implementation requirements and timelines. Further analysis is also needed to establish whether expected benefits of the proposed scheme are proportionate to the likely costs involved.

The Bill also proposes an all-island dimension. While we fully support practical co-operation across this island, where appropriate, we must be realistic about challenges involved. Social housing systems in Ireland and Northern Ireland operate under separate legislative frameworks, separate administrative arrangements and separate allocation systems. The Bill assumes a degree of automatic recognition between those systems that simply does not exist. No detailed policy development or feasibility assessment has demonstrated how much an arrangement could operate. Given the complexities already identified within our own system, the prospect of creating a cross-jurisdictional social housing passport would present even greater challenges.

For all of these reasons, the Government is not opposing the Bill but seeking time to consider these important matters in detail. While these matters are being considered, it is important to remember that there are already measures within the current framework that facilitate housing mobility in certain circumstances. The four Dublin local authorities have arrangements within their county, allowing social housing applicants to apply for housing in up to two of the other Dublin authorities simultaneously. Similarly, arrangements apply in the two Cork local authorities and the two Galway local authorities. Crucially, the Government recognises the need for mobility, particularly in exceptional circumstances.

Under existing legislation and guidance, local authorities have long provided significant mobility supports, especially to victims or survivors of domestic violence. Households may move and relocate between housing authority areas under the housing assistance payment scheme, where the household income is within the relevant income limits. Local authorities will also prioritise allocation to those households they consider to be most in need at any moment in time. Local authorities may also provide for exceptional or emergency cases to qualified households, allowing immediate housing outside of normal waiting list priorities should circumstances require, including in cases of domestic violence.

The Government also fully recognises that there are situations where mobility is not simply desirable but necessary. All Members will be aware that the Government has developed a specific protocol to enable victims and survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence to transfer social housing waiting list time between local authorities. This protocol was developed following detailed engagement between the Department, local authorities and relevant stakeholders. It gives effect to a commitment contained in Delivering Homes, Building Communities 2025-2030, which recognises that fleeing domestic violence continues to be a significant factor in presentations to homeless services, and committed to removing barriers faced by victims and survivors. In circumstances where a person may have spent years waiting for social housing support, the prospect of losing all accumulated waiting time could understandably act as a deterrent to relocation, even where personal safety demanded it. This is a focused response, addressing a clearly identified need, allowing support to be provided where personal safety and protection are at stake. This approach reflects our view that mobility is required and reforms should respond to genuine need while protecting fairness within the wider social housing system. This demonstrates that where specific barriers have been identified, policy responses can be developed in a measured and evidenced manner.

The Government remains committed to improving how social housing supports are delivered. We want a system that is fair, efficient, recognises exceptional circumstances and that continues to prioritise those households with the greatest need. That is why we are seeking time to carefully consider this matter in detail to determine how any broader mobility framework would interact with existing arrangements and to ensure reforms are sufficiently developed, fair and workable. Deputy Ó Broin made some good points in his opening remarks which are hard to dispute in terms of why there should be some type of passport or mobility between local authorities. He set them out very well. In the example where someone is fleeing gender-based or domestic violence, we have proven that we can do it and show that degree of flexibility. The timed amendment indicates that we are not necessarily disagreeing, but the Deputy might also accept in the circumstances I outlined in my speech that there are complexities, not just the IT and administrative complexities, but the fact that within different local authorities there are variations that may be difficult to overcome. All of that evidence, the benefits, the cost and the resources that will be put into it have to be examined. In my time as Minister of State, timed amendments are not all that frequent. Let us face it, the Government either proposes amendments or opposes most of the legislation coming from the Opposition. A timed amendment is an indication that we are certainly willing to work with all parties to try to find a solution to some of the genuine issues outlined by the Deputy in his opening remarks.

Deputy Máire Devine

I think the Minister of State should welcome this legislation. I think in some of what he said, he has, but this timed amendment of 12 months is disappointing. We live in a society in which we have seen, in the last decade and a half or two, the explosion of harm against women and often their children. It has become quite scary for women in this country and worldwide. It is to keep us in our boxes and to make sure we do not go any further. The guys want to have their say still, albeit in an aggressive and violent manner.

Being the spokesperson for domestic and gender-based violence in my party, my concentration will be on those fleeing or attempting to flee domestic and gender-based violence. I acknowledge the recent introduction of the protocol for transfer by the Minister, Deputy Browne. I think it was last week. Again, as my colleague, Deputy Ó Broin, has said, it needs to be in the Statute Book. A protocol is a bit wishy-washy - no offence meant. It does not give robustness and comfort to those trying to flee terror and flee those who would harm them and, in some cases, take their lives. I think three women have lost their lives in this country in the last week and a bit. That is significant. That shows that we need to be urgent about it. A timed amendment of 12 months does not cut the mustard, to be honest.

There are often years of trauma and violence. Every one of us in our constituency office will deal with women coming in and I see the terror on their faces. It takes them a good few visits before they actually say that they need to leave and that they do not know how much longer they can stay safe there. We know the time when women leave is often the most dangerous time for them and their children. The refuges are often very full and oversubscribed. They often turn away people. I think they turned away several hundred women and their families in the last few months. It is concerning. Housing is a human right. Protection of bodily integrity, of mental well-being and of safety is a human right. We need to act with that lens. It is so heartbreaking for me and everybody in constituencies who come across it. I am trained, to some extent, with my previous profession, but most of our staff are not. I have made sure a lot of Sinn Féin office staff have been trained in how to deal with it because it can be overwhelming as it is on the increase.

There is a timed amendment on this legislation, which would allow a simple and practical issue that somebody cannot live next door, on the same street or in the same neighbourhood as their abuser. It is a no-brainer. It is about trying to get away to settle somewhere, to feel safe somewhere and to add to another community that will promote family life, safety and the joy of living from day to day as opposed to always looking behind in terror at what has been done. It could be a simple thing. I have taken the differences throughout the councils throughout the country into account. Surely that is what Committee Stage is there for. I am not sure about the 12-month delay. It will still have to go to Committee Stage regardless, so maybe we should do a robust Committee Stage on this. I urge the Minister of State to introduce this.

We cannot sit back. This is too urgent for over half the population in this country. The exclusion of HAP and RAS from the protocol is also concerning. As Deputy Ó Broin said, 50,000 households would not be eligible if they were to try to avail of this.

It is incumbent on us to care for our communities and society and give very basic care so that someone who needs to is able to say: “I am out of here. I am gone. I do not want to leave a trace behind me. I want to go somewhere where I will not bump into this person.” Kids will be traumatised as well. That person will be able to avoid bumping into someone who means them harm and has probably harmed them for years.

I urge the Minister of State to roll back on that. Committee Stage is the place to battle all this out.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

I am sure the Minister of State is aware but we are really only having this debate because of the housing crisis being created by his Government and its policies. Notwithstanding that, there are many consequences of its housing crisis and this is one. It does not affect an awful lot of people but for those it does, the impact on them is absolutely huge.

The Minister of State cited all the difficulties, including the operational issues, the technological challenges and his concerns about the lack of standardisation. On 5 February, I raised a question on Questions on Promised Legislation on a matter that was unrelated to this. The Tánaiste, the Minister of State’s boss, took the chance to update me. He said:

While I am on my feet, I also want to say the Deputy raised an issue with me before in the House in relation to victims and survivors of domestic abuse, when they are moving from one local authority list to another, and the time they were on the previous list not being recognised. It is an important issue. I acknowledge and thank the Deputy for raising it. On foot of that, the Minister for housing has said he will issue a direction to all local authorities to make sure that issue is rectified.

He did not see any of those problems the Minister of State outlined; he just said it would be done and rectified. Those were his words and he is the Minister of State’s boss. I just wonder sometimes when there is confusion like that coming from the Government. Sometimes it seems like people might not acknowledge the work that has gone into a proposal that is being made. It is four or five years since I raised the issue and I raised it in relation to a constituent of mine. I have used various names for her because I will not her name out of fear for what could happen to her. This woman lives in north county Dublin. She was almost murdered by her partner. He served time in prison and the Minister of State will know that people do not go to prison in this State unless they have done something very serious. He nearly killed her and he went to prison. He has done his time; that is how long the housing list is. He is out and he lives in the area where she was originally on the housing list. Nobody explained to her when she fled domestic abuse and a man who was trying to kill her and her kids and she went to north county Dublin. The local authority continued to write to her to check that her circumstances had not changed and she had not somehow fallen out of eligibility. She had not. She has been 14 years on the list and now she is number two on the list for the area where he lives. She has a notice to quit. She is due out of her home on 20 July. Because she is a HAP tenant, she is not covered by that circular. When he Tánaiste told me it would be done and rectified, I told her that. I told her the Tánaiste, the deputy Head of Government, the deputy boss man, said it would be rectified because it is an anomaly. The Minister of State knows that; we all do.

It has been created by the housing crisis. Nobody should have to wait the time that people have to wait to be housed in this State. Nobody gets a free house. We know people pay their differential rent. She now finds herself in a situation whereby as a HAP tenant, she might not be covered by that protocol. I just cannot understand that when she spent all those years on the list. She works damn hard in north county Dublin in a job that the Minister of State or I would not fancy doing, but she does it and she has raised her kids in north county Dublin. It is not that she will not move because it is awkward for to get the kids out to school or anything like that; it is that she cannot go back. I have letters, which the Minister has as well because I have sent them to him, from An Garda Síochána saying she cannot go back because that man potentially will still do her, and her children, harm. Her notice to quit expires on 20 July. I am hoping there is something in the piece of paper the Minister of State has that is going to give me some comfort that this woman will be safe.

The timed amendment is not often used. It is a facility open to the Government and I understand that sometimes it is necessary. I have brought forward legislation and timed amendments have been moved to them. I get how it works – I have been here and seen it done but I do not see the purpose of it in this instance. The legislation does not say that the HAP passport, as we have called it, or whatever way the Government wants to put it, has to be introduced immediately. It actually provides for time for that. It gives the Minister the power to do it. The Minister of State is right that there are issues around standardisation but there is not a local authority in the State where a person would wait for less than 11 years. The Minister of State might know. People would be lucky if they were housed in some places after 11 years. People are setting up their whole lives because of this. If people move to another place beyond one list because they simply cannot get anywhere else to live, in that time they could have children, get a job, put down roots, join a club and be a really active member of the community along with their kids being active members of the community and then have to move or be faced with a choice of losing all that time. That is time invested. These are not people who do not work. Most of them work very hard but they do not earn the kind of money that means they can buy a house which is the only way they will get that security. They want that security for their family and to be able to raise their kids knowing where they are going to live this time next year. That is not outrageous or unreasonable. There is nothing in the operational and technological issues the Minister of State has outlined or in the concerns he has about standardisation that should prevent this legislation from going to the next Stage. As my colleague said, any issues with the legislation can be outlined on Committee Stage and can be dealt with then. The legislation does not mandate the Government to provide the passport immediately. It gives the Minister the power to do it. I do not understand why any Minister would not want that power unless he or she was not interested in resolving the issue. I am sure that is not the case but the Minister of State can clarify that in his concluding remarks.

This is an issue I have raised previously. I was very taken by this individual case and for that reason I have raised it seven times or more in this House. I did go to my constituent on 7 or 8 February after the Tánaiste gave me that commitment and I told her that I thought she would be okay and she would be able to take her time with her and I genuinely hope that she will.

The other problem this woman has, through no fault of her own, is that the vast majority of the emergency accommodation is in Dublin city. If people approach staff of the Dublin Region Homeless Executive, they cannot necessarily tell them where they are going to be housed because they are dealing with a constant emergency. Without a guarantee for where she is going to be housed, she has a genuine concern about having to leave the place she is in now. She also has a notice to quit. There is no refuge in north county Dublin, in case the Minister of State thinks that might be a solution. There will be one at some point in the future but there is not one now. It would not be appropriate for this woman to go to a refuge in any event because she has somewhere to live now. She is very close to being housed.

On the timed amendment, I recognise that in some instances there are genuine issues that have to be worked out but none of those issues prevent this legislation passing here this evening. Any issues with the legislation can, of course, be dealt with on Committee Stage as the Minister of State knows but there is nothing in the legislation that mandates it to happen immediately. The legislation gives the Minister the power to do it.

All the issues the Minister of State has identified - the operational issues, the technological challenges and the concerns about the lack of standardisation - the Minister will be empowered then to deal with, and then we can make a real change. The length of time people spend waiting for social housing, which I fear will get longer because the Government keeps missing its targets, which are already too low, is quite scandalous. I am sure the Minister of State will agree with that. Life happens while you are waiting, and that makes it very complicated for people. The Minister of State has acknowledged that victims and survivors of domestic abuse are a separate and discrete category. It is not fair to ask them or any other person to have to choose between waiting 11 or 12 years on a housing list or taking up a job opportunity or an educational opportunity. I think the legislation means that the Government could get working on that very quickly.

Deputy Rory Hearne

I commend Deputies Ó Broin, Ward and O'Reilly on bringing forward this Bill. I support it completely, and the Social Democrats will support it as well. We think it is very straightforward and sensible legislation that should be pursued and implemented as quickly as possible. It is disappointing that the Minister of State has tabled the timed amendment. I understand that he says that it is to engage with the Bill. I genuinely hope he means that and this is not just a delay tactic. I would have thought that the Government would have just allowed it to go forward to committee and we could engage with it and progress it. That is not to say this is not complex. It is complex, absolutely, and I acknowledge that, but there is clearly a need for it as well.

We have heard cases put forward today. I think there is an acceptance that in previous Government commitments there has been an acceptance that there is a need for a social housing passport. It makes sense. What is clear when you read the Bill, as put forward, is that it is not a generalised free-for-all whereby people can go wherever they want. It very clearly sets out that it is on exceptional grounds and based on need. A number of them are outlined, such as domestic violence, situations of education, employment, medical treatment and compassionate grounds. We can think of many circumstances where there might be a situation.

Ireland is a small country. It is not some massive place where people do not have connections. People have family connections across this country. I think of someone who falls ill, someone who acquires a severe injury and who wants to try to move back close to family, adults who have children and whose parents may be living elsewhere or have moved elsewhere and who want to try to get support from them because childcare is so expensive. There are many reasons we could see situations - and we know of them - in which people would be able to move and bring their time spent on a housing list with them.

As I said, the Bill sets out very clearly that the Minister can and should put forward regulations that would stipulate what the grounds are. Of course, the councils could find ways in which it is not about even equivalence of time to a person living locally but is about being able to transfer the time and the need. We want to make social housing and public housing what it is in other countries, which is a tenure that people really want to live in and aspire to live in, but one that is not stigmatised, which, unfortunately, is what 40 years of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael housing policy has done. It has undermined and stigmatised it. I have written a lot about this, about how it was stated many times that social housing estates were failed, that it was a failed tenure, that it just created ghettos. This was a whole shift away from social housing. It is fundamentally why we are in this crisis, but part of it is that kind of overly bureaucratic approach to the delivery of social housing. Social housing should be a tenure that enables people to live the lives they want to live. In particular, Fine Gael is a party, it says, about employment, enterprise and enabling people and helping them lift themselves up. Surely the ability to move for employment would be a key thing that would enable people to do that. We all believe social housing, receipt of social housing and receipt of social welfare should not stop people advancing in terms of employment, education or social mobility. They should be able to go along with them in order that they facilitate and support them, but this is actually stopping that because there are inevitably people turning down employment and education because they would lose their time on social housing waiting lists. Creating a modern public housing system that supports people to develop in their lives and progress should include this measure. As I said, it is not a free-for-all but has very clear grounds set out around it.

I want to talk a bit about the issue of the housing assistance payment and RAS because there is a real issue, as the Minister of State knows, with HAP in that people in receipt of it, once they get it, are taken off the housing waiting list and are asked if they want to go on a transfer list. Some people fill out that form; others do not or are not aware of it. We therefore have these 56,000 households that are not on the housing waiting list. I am really shocked that the new measure the Government has brought in for victims of domestic abuse and people fleeing domestic violence and domestic abuse does not apply to HAP or RAS. I am absolutely astounded by that. It is completely wrong. People on HAP, as I am sure the Minister of State is well aware, are evicted and are at high risk in terms of housing poverty and housing insecurity. HAP is a precarious form of housing, and the idea that their housing needs are met is just completely flawed. Looking at domestic violence, Deputy O'Reilly set out a case which is really heartbreaking, and it is wrong that someone is left in that situation. We are seeing an epidemic of domestic violence by men, and the housing crisis is absolutely worsening it, with women not having the freedom to leave and being stuck in situations. That is absolutely wrong. It puts their lives in jeopardy and, ultimately, in some situations, is inevitably leading to them being murdered or losing their lives in their own homes because they cannot find a safe place. Refuges are full. One way the State can support women leaving situations of domestic violence is enabling them to move with a social housing passport. It should be applied to the housing assistance payment and RAS. I assume - I hope - that that will be done as soon as possible because it is absolutely wrong that the State is leaving people in that situation. In particular, I hope the Minister of State intervenes in the case Deputy O'Reilly has brought up. In addition, as Deputy Devine said, this situation is unacceptable to us as a society, so we need to do everything we can.

I thank the Deputies for the work done on the Bill. I support it and I hope the Government is genuine in terms of engaging with it.

Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan)

I thank all the Members who contributed. I reiterate - and it is not disingenuous to say - that I genuinely hear what they are saying. The proposal makes sense. I hope as well, however, that they will understand that, yes, we were able to do a focused protocol on people fleeing gender-based violence and domestic abuse. I might come back to some of the issues Deputy O'Reilly raised specifically. The broad national approach to this does require further consideration. I do not necessarily think it can be done on Committee Stage. Deputy Ó Broin asked me to use influence. I know where the Minister, Deputy Browne, stands on this and he does see value in what is proposed. Within the Department, we will use those interim 12 months wisely to research and assess the different issues I raised, such as the IT, the administration, the variation in approach and the pros and cons, for want of a better term.

I gave the example in County Cork where, when the approach was changed in allocating houses in my home town of Clonakilty to people on a waiting list in Youghal on the other side of the country it was initially received with a bit of resistance but that is now the standardised approach. If we were to do this on a national level despite the terrible circumstances people will be fleeing, such as domestic abuse, I am sure the majority of people would fully understand those circumstances and the other circumstances we mentioned like education, work and health, etc. It just all needs to be assessed. I say again I think the proposals broadly make sense.

As the Bill stands there remain significant unanswered questions concerning fairness between applicants, consistency between local authority systems, implementation, capacity, costs, governance arrangements and the feasibility of cross-jurisdictional operation. The all-Ireland approach raises further legal and practical difficulties as social housing support in Ireland and Northern Ireland operates under separate legislative, administrative and allocation frameworks. These are not peripheral issues. They are central issues. The Government believes that legislating before those matters have been fully examined would be premature. For that reason, we are proposing a timed amendment for a period of 12 months to allow further consideration of this Bill. That period would allow for detailed engagement with local authorities, other key stakeholders and relevant Departments to further examine the administrative, legal and financial implications and to allow a more comprehensive assessment of how mobility objectives might best be achieved without creating unintended consequences elsewhere in the system. This approach reflects a commitment to careful policymaking and to ensure that any future reforms are evidence based, practical and fair for all social housing applicants and tenants. Important flexibility already exists within the current framework. Local authorities have long provided significant mobility supports under existing legislation, as well as guidance, particularly to victims of domestic violence. For many years local authorities have supported victims and survivors of domestic violence under the Department's policy and procedural guidance for housing authorities in relation to assisting victims of domestic violence with emergency and long-term accommodation needs. This was first published in 2017. Through these arrangements local authorities can prioritise cases through allocation schemes and assist with access to HAP and RAS supports to work with existing social housing tenants where tenancy issues arise. More recently the Department has worked closely with local authorities, particularly through the CCMA housing committee with a range of stakeholders to develop the new protocol for victims and survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. To transfer social housing waiting lists between local authorities, the protocol will form part of the updated guidance currently being prepared by the Department. It has been positively received by organisations that work directly with and advocate for victims and survivors.

The guidelines are from 2017. This is what has informed and guided local authorities with regard to situations where those who are fleeing domestic violence can be accommodated in other local authorities. Through the protocol, as the Deputy pointed out, if you are on the housing list that transfer is now possible. We are saying that we are going to update these guidelines. Perhaps that is the key opportunity to look at the situation outlined by Deputy O'Reilly where someone is a HAP tenant. Under the legislation someone who is a HAP tenant is considered housed. Deputy Ó Broin and I can both see the difficulty in that. There is an opportunity there when those guidelines are being updated. We are currently in the process of updating those guidelines. Perhaps that is something that can be------

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

The Minister of State is confirming to the House that they do not currently apply to HAP or RAS tenants currently. That is the position.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

There is-----

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

That is just factually correct.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister of State's time is up. The Deputy has ten minutes. He can put it to him.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Sure.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. My natural disposition as a person is to treat people at face value, but ten years in this House has made a bit of a cynic of me. When I see the timed amendment, given the fact that a commitment was made by three previous Ministers to introduce the social housing passport over a period of 14 years there was clearly plenty of time to have considered those matters. The Minister of State and I also know it is normal for legislation to be passed in this House but for another 12 months to be required for regulations before the intent of that legislation becomes operational. However, I will put my cynicism to one side and genuinely engage with him at face value. Let us test this over the next 12 months. I will respond constructively to a number of the issues he has raised.

First, it is obviously the case that different local authorities operate different allocation schemes. We have three different bands of income eligibility for social housing and different local authorities have a mixture of time on list or priority. It is quite a complex system. We also have a situation where there already are opportunities for people to move within local authorities or across local authorities, such as HAP crossovers where those issues are addressed simply. When you move from HAP in the local authority whose list you are on to HAP in a neighbouring local authority, you accept the fact that the HAP rates in that neighbouring local authority could be lower. That is the fact of moving from one administrative arrangement to another. Likewise, Dublin City Council has six or more areas of choice. I find its system probably one of the most complicated in the country. People move from area of choice to another over the lifetime of their wait for social housing. That means as a consequence that people can move down the list as well as up. That issue of potential inequity the Minister of State mentioned is already part of our system and it would have been part of his own system prior to the creation of a single area of choice. The real inequity of course is somebody having to lose their time on list to move to another local authority. That is the fundamental question here. While I appreciate his Clonakilty and Youghal example has some relevance, we are not proposing that people can do what is currently possible in Cork. He knows that and has been clear about that. We are setting out five specific sets of circumstances where that would be permissible. Under our scheme, the person moving from Youghal to Clonakilty would have to have a specific reason like taking up a job or education in Clonakilty or accessing long-term medical treatment, etc. It is much more specific and much less likely to create some of the tensions he mentioned. Of course, we used to have intercounty transfers, and we used to have intercounty mutual transfers. They used to be part of our system, albeit in an ad hoc manner.

With respect to the challenges on the administrative burden and cost I again think the HAP crossover shows there are straightforward ways to do this. I acknowledge it would create a small amount of additional administrative burden, but you are not talking about creating some new mammoth system. I think the issue of technological challenges is a bit of red herring. Nobody is proposing the need for a national IT system. We can already deal with intercounty protocols of various kinds using the existing systems there, imperfect as they are. The fact that the domestic, sexual and gender-based violence transfer protocol has been introduced, albeit on a limited initial basis demonstrates that those problems can be overcome. I am not at all suggesting that a Bill like this would pass through the House and then, within days, those systems would be in place. I accept it would take some time and engagement on those but I do not think there is as much of a challenge as the Minister of State suggested.

He is correct that we have made provision in the Bill for an all-Ireland dimension. It is general. It is a "may". It is following engagement on a cross-jurisdictional basis. Having lived there and having been a tenant of the Housing Executive for nine years, I an aware the systems are different. If we think the intercounty local authority complexities are complex here, they are even more complex there. I do not for a moment think that would be a quick or straightforward challenge. For people who live across the Border regions, there is real value in looking at it, which is why we put it in the Bill.

On the protocol, which was published last week, the Minister of State is not the first person to say to me that when it is revised, there might be a way of looking at addressing the issue of HAP or RAS tenants. That is quite a big admission, literally a few days after the thing was introduced. Let me make the case in the few minutes I have for why that issue needs to be addressed much more urgently, separate to this legislation. I do it by illustrating the absurdity of the arrangement that is proposed. As we know, people living in the private rental sector in receipt of rent supplement remain on the local authority housing list. They are not defined as in receipt of social housing support as per the legislation or adequately housed. They are renting and they are in receipt of rent supplement.

If a woman in that situation is at risk of, or is experiencing and seeking to flee, serious domestic, sexual or gender-based violence, she will be able to access the protocol. That is a really good thing and I welcome it. However, if a woman living on the same street in a similar private rental property who has been on the council list for the same length of time happens to be in receipt of HAP because of the consequences of the Housing Act 2010, is not on the principal council waiting list and is in receipt of social housing support, she is deemed under law to be adequately housed and will be denied access to the protocol. That makes no sense. Let us park the issue of whether people on HAP or RAS are adequately housed; that is an argument for another day. It would not have been administratively or legally unduly complex to have included HAP and RAS tenants in the protocol. It would have required a bit of extra work and flexibility, but how can we stand here and say a woman in need of the protocol on rent supplement can access it but a woman in need of the protocol on HAP cannot? It makes no sense.

When I say this to some people - and I take it from the Minister of State's reaction when Deputy O'Reilly and I raised it - there is some surprise. People's initial reaction is it does not make any sense. Obviously, it throws up a broader question. Those folks are on transfer lists and other people are on transfer lists. How do we start to disentangle that? I do not for a moment suggest those things are not tricky, but let us deal with the numbers. According to the latest summary of social housing needs assessments, 61,000 households are on council waiting lists, although we know a large number of them are single people. About 49,000 households at the end of last year were on HAP, while there were about 7,500 private sector RAS recipients of the 14,000. That brings us to over 56,000. They are predominantly families and people with children. In fact, there is a larger number of women with children there. So when I say potentially half the cohort of people who will need access to the protocol will be denied, that is just a statistical fact. I have said publicly, including to the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, last week, and will say it to the Minister, Deputy Browne, when I have the opportunity, that I do not think we can wait for a review of the protocol to fix that. Ministerial direction needs to be given to the officials, who in turn have to go back to the local authorities. There will be some local resistance to this. I have talked to the local authorities and I get it, but that needs to be urgently changed. That circular needs to be revised and reissued as a matter of urgency. If we do not do that, we will put a cohort of women at serious risk and in precarious positions.

I fully accept the Government's bona fides in introducing that protocol. Deputy O'Reilly welcomed it last week when it was published and I am welcoming it today. I know the Government is trying to do the right thing but it cannot do the right thing when half the cohort of people who need that crucial intervention are denied it for narrow, rigid, bureaucratic reasons.

I may regret saying this, but I will take the Minister of State at his word that he and his partners in government are genuinely interested in getting this proposal right and are willing to work with all of us in opposition to address it. I look forward to all the Opposition being invited up to the Custom House, having tea and biscuits with Nina and the team and teasing these issues out along with the local government sector. I think we have technical solutions to some of the issues the Minister of State raised. I know some of the arguments some in the local government sector are making are not as problematic as they may seem. If in six months - and definitely in 12 months - there is no movement, I will come back here and say, "Minister, I was wrong to take you at face value. I should have allowed my cynicism to shine through because you haven't taken the issue seriously." Let us fix it. It can be six months, 12 months or whatever length of time the Minister of State thinks it will take, but let us do it. Nobody in this debate has said it should not be done or that there are not good reasons to do it. I am willing to work with anybody in government, and with any officials in the Department or the local government sector, to get it right. Let us go and do it.

Amendment put.

An Ceann Comhairle

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 15 July 2026.

Cuireadh an Dáil ar athló ar 7.05 p.m. go dtí 2 p.m., Dé Máirt, an 14 Iúil 2026.

The Dáil adjourned at 7.05 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 July 2026.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 9 Jul 2026

Social Housing Passport Bill 2026: Second Stage [Private Members]

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Jul 2026