Letter to Minister Browne on the Housing and Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026

Minister James Browne, TD

Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage

Custom House,

Dublin,

D01 W6X0 

9 June 2026 

Re: Housing and Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026

Dear Minister Browne,

I refer to the Housing and Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 which was published on 3 June. We note that this legislation, amongst other things, amends the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 to provide for additional requirements relating to residency in the State to be satisfied in order to be eligible for social housing support. 

You will recall that the Commission previously made a submission on the General Scheme of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024. The Commission also sent correspondence on 12 September 2024 in response to the Minister’s letter of 2 August 2024.

The Commission understands that it is intended that the Dáil Second and Third Stages will take place on 11 June and 16 June respectively. The Commission has concerns at the very short time between publication of the Bill and subsequent Stages, and the reduced opportunity that this provides for parliamentarians to analyse the Bill and submit Third Stage amendments. This constrained timeframe also limits the ability of the Commission as the National Human Rights Institution and National Equality Body to provide detailed observations on the legislation. 

Notwithstanding the limited timeframe, the Commission sets out below its preliminary observations on the Bill and reserves the right to provide more detailed comments at a later stage.

General observations

As the Commission previously set out, the proposed changes to social housing assistance relating to lawful and habitual residency requirements will likely result in more people being denied access to social housing support and emergency accommodation, and will potentially have significant implications for victims of trafficking and other structurally vulnerable groups. 

The legislation purports to put the policy position in Housing Circular 41/2012 on access to social housing supports for non-Irish nationals (“the Circular”) on a statutory footing, as well as adding habitual residence as a requirement for social housing. Whilst habitual residence has not been a condition of eligibility in relation to accessing social housing supports to date, it has been a feature of social welfare law for almost 20 years.

The Commission has had substantive engagement with the issues arising from the lawful residency requirement under the Circular and its application which has resulted in the unlawful exclusion of certain cohorts of people from accessing social housing supports including EEA nationals. As Independent National Rapporteur on the Trafficking of human beings we have also raised concerns about the application of the Circular in relation to victims of trafficking. 

While the habitual residence condition as it has been applied under social welfare law is applied to all applicants for benefits regardless of their nationality, it is not neutral in its application in practice. Migrant, Traveller, and Roma families face particular challenges in meeting its conditions, due to their employment patterns, absence of family ties, or overall length of time spent in the country. 

The State has also been criticised by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 

“about certain conditions attached to social security benefits, including the habitual residence condition, which effectively denies access to certain disadvantaged groups and has a significant-discriminatory effect on Traveller and Roma communities, victims of domestic violence, people experiencing homelessness and migrants”.¹

Residency

The new section 20A(1) provides that to be eligible for social housing support each member of a household (except for children) must be lawfully and habitually resident in the State. This requirement could have the consequence of disentitling an applicant from obtaining social housing assistance on the basis of the residence status of another member of their household. This could amount to an unlawful interference with the private and family life of the applicant, and it is difficult to see how it could be objectively justified. In addition, the requirement that all members of the household meet the habitual residence requirement could be said to be unreasonable and disproportionate and contrary to EU and ECHR caselaw.²

Section 20A(1)(c) requires that a member of a household who is an EU/EEA national exercising their freedom of movement rights under EU law must have been lawfully resident in the State for at least 3 months immediately before the application for social housing assistance. However, this requirement is contrary to EU law which makes clear that there is no minimum time period for a worker, self-employed persons or those who retain that status from accessing social housing assistance.³

Section 20A(3) provides a list of those who shall be considered to be lawfully resident in the State. However, this list should also include parents of EU citizen children accessing education in another Member State in line with the decisions of the CJEU in Ibrahim (C310/08)58 and Teixeira (C-480/08).

Failure to provide for exemptions in relation to habitual residence 

In regard to victims of trafficking, as Independent National Rapporteur on the trafficking of human beings we have long noted the serious issues faced by this category of persons in regard to the habitual residence condition. Issues for this category have been acknowledged by the State under the current guidelines concerning the habitual residence condition, noting presumed victims of trafficking recognised under the current identification and assistance system should be regarded as satisfying the habitual residence condition.⁴ We further note there is a new National Referral Mechanism established in law since 2024 and while not yet operational this legislation must be aligned with the new system.

We flag that the amended 2024 EU Anti Trafficking Directive provides strengthened obligations on Ireland as a Member State, including regarding assistance and, in particular, housing, and is due for transposition in Ireland by 15 July 2026. 

The Directive is clear regarding conditionality:

‘Member States should also ensure that victims receive assistance irrespective of their nationality or of being stateless, of their citizenship, their place of residence or residence status, as well as of the form of their exploitation. The assistance should aim at their full reintegration into society, which can include access to education and training, and access to the labour market, in accordance with national law, as well as a return to an independent living.’ ⁵

Under Article 11 the Directive requires the State specifically to ensure that “shelters and other appropriate interim accommodation” shall be provided in “sufficient numbers”, be “easily accessible” and must provide “adequate and appropriate living conditions with a view to a return to independent living” and be equipped to accommodate the specific needs of children (Article 11(5a)).⁶

The Commission as National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings is concerned that the Bill as drafted does not give effect to the rights to assistance, including safe and appropriate accommodation conferred on victims of trafficking. 

We consider that the failure to provide for exemptions for victims of trafficking or victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence will potentially result in very vulnerable groups of people being excluded from accessing social housing support and being totally reliant on emergency accommodation and homeless supports in order to access accommodation. This could exacerbate the difficulties already experienced by these vulnerable groups. 

In order to avoid such difficulties, it is open to the State to include an exemption and/or a discretion to allow a housing authority to provide social housing assistance in certain limited circumstances notwithstanding that a particular applicant would otherwise not meet the habitual residence criteria. 

Impact on homeless services

Consideration should be given to the potential impact of the amendments under the General Scheme on access to emergency accommodation. There is evidence of conflation of the regime governing the provision of emergency homeless supports and that relating to the provision of social housing support. Those working within the system have highlighted the barriers applicants face when attempting to access emergency homeless supports due to the application of social housing eligibility criteria. It should be set out clearly in the legislation that the requirement to prove lawful and habitual residence does not apply to applications for emergency accommodation.

Appeals

The Commission previously recommended that a formal, standardised independent appeals mechanism in respect of social housing decisions be set out as a statutory requirement in the legislation and welcomes that provision has been made in the Bill for social housing appeals. However, the Commission has concerns that certain aspects of the appeal framework as set out in the new Section 20B may not be compliant with fair procedures. 

These include the following:

• The appeal must be made on information previously provided – there is no provision for a de novo appeal.
• The timeframe for lodging an appeal is very short being 14 days (not working days) from the date the determination is made, not when it is received by the applicant. This timeframe compares unfavourably with the 28 days provided for an appeals officer to make a decision on the appeal. 
• No provision is made for the provision of legal advice and assistance, or the translation of documents if required.
• No provision is made for an oral hearing or providing evidence on oath which may not comply with the requirements set out in the Supreme Court decision in Zalewski.
• The decision of an appeals officer is stated to be final. However, no guidance as to when and how a new application can be made is provided. 
• Where an appeals officer decides to vary or set aside a determination the date of the decision shall be deemed to be the date of the determination. No provision is made to backdate entitlement to the date on which the original determination was made. 

In accordance with our publication policy this letter may be published on our website. 

We invite the Minister to consider these points and we offer further engagement with you and your officials.

Yours sincerely,

Liam Herrick

Chief Commissioner, 

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission 

1 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Ireland (2024), para 34.

2 Collins (C-138/22) and Niedzwiecki v. Germany (App No. 58453/00).

3 Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States; Article 2(1)(f) of Directive 2014/54/EU on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers; Garcia-Nieto (C-299/14), para 44.

4 Operational Guidelines: For Deciding Officers and Designated Persons on the determination of Habitual Residence

5 Directive (EU) 2024/1712 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 amending Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, Recital 18 

6 Article 11(5) corresponds broadly with the language of Article 12(1)(a) of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, which refers to “appropriate and secure accommodation”. Article 6 of the Palermo Protocol similarly specifies the need for provision of appropriate housing to victims and other implementing measures to provide for their physical, psychological and social recovery. We further note Article 12 of the Warsaw Convention.