Minister James Browne, TD
Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage
Custom House,
Dublin,
D01 W6X0
8 July 2026
Re: The Housing and Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 – Government Report Stage amendments
Dear Minister Browne,
I refer to the Government amendments relating to Part 2 of the Housing and Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 (‘the Bill’) published in advance of Report Stage in Dáil Éireann.
As you may recall, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (‘the Commission’) previously made a submission on the General Scheme of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024 (‘the General Scheme’)1. The Commission subsequently wrote to you following the publication of the Bill in June 20262 setting out our preliminary observations and concerns relating to the proposed additional residency requirements regarding eligibility for social housing support including the implications for structurally vulnerable groups.
In our letter and submission, we also stated that 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. In this regard we noted that there is evidence of conflation of the regimes governing the provision of emergency homeless supports and the provision of social housing support, and noted that 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.
Therefore, it is with considerable concern that the Commission notes that the Minister has brought Report Stage amendments to this legislation that, rather than emphasising the separation of the social housing and homelessness regimes, purport to introduce additional lawful and habitual residence eligibility criteria to the provision of accommodation to homeless persons under the Housing Act 1988.
Legislative process
The Commission understands that it is intended that the Dáil Report Stage will take place on 8 July and that the Bill will be enacted by 16 July. The Commission has previously expressed its concerns at the very short time afforded to parliamentarians to analyse this Bill as it progresses at pace through the legislative process. We are deeply concerned that amendments that purport to significantly amend the regime governing the provision of accommodation to homeless people, and that could result in greater numbers of already vulnerable people being denied emergency accommodation, are being introduced at such a late stage of the legislative process with no pre-legislative scrutiny and limited opportunity for meaningful consideration by parliamentarians and representative groups. Once again, we note that this constrained timeframe also limits the ability of the Commission as the National Human Rights Institution, National Equality Body and National Rapporteur on Trafficking of Human Beings to provide detailed observations on the amendments.
Notwithstanding the limited timeframe, the Commission sets out below its preliminary observations on the amendments and reserves the right to provide more detailed comments at a later stage.
Homeless services
The proposed amendment Section 10A provides that a person will not be eligible to access emergency accommodation unless the Housing Authority is satisfied that the person and anyone else who resides or might reasonably be expected to reside with the person meet the same lawful and habitual residence requirements that apply to social housing.
This represents a significant departure from the current legislative framework governing homelessness. Until now, access to emergency accommodation has depended on whether a person is homeless within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988 and unable to provide accommodation from their own resources. The amendments introduce an additional eligibility threshold which will likely exclude people experiencing homelessness solely because they do not satisfy residency requirements.
In addition, these requirements could have the consequence of disentitling an applicant from obtaining homeless accommodation 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 caselaw3.
Where a person does not satisfy those requirements, the amendments appear to provide only for the provision of one night’s accommodation from 8pm to 8am, which may be extended for one further night, where no alternative accommodation is available. However, there is no obligation on the housing authority to provide such accommodation in these circumstances.
The practical effect of these amendments is to increase the likelihood of people experiencing homelessness being refused accommodation and supports, and could result in increased rough sleeping/street homelessness, including for children.
Impact on vulnerable groups
In our previous submission, the Commission highlighted the long-standing difficulties arising from Housing Circular 41/2012 and from the application of the habitual residence condition within the social welfare system. These concerns have been repeatedly raised by the Commission over a number of years and have been reflected in the observations of United Nations treaty monitoring bodies.
The Commission remains particularly concerned about the likely impact of the proposed residency requirements on migrants, Traveller and Roma communities, victims of trafficking, victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, people leaving institutional settings and others who may face particular difficulty demonstrating habitual residency requirements despite experiencing acute housing need.
As Ireland’s independent National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings, the Commission is especially concerned that the amendments provide no exemption or specific provisions for victims of trafficking. This is despite strengthened obligations under the Recast EU Anti-Trafficking Directive requiring Member States to ensure that victims have access to appropriate accommodation and assistance irrespective of nationality or residence status. The Commission is particularly concerned that a victim of trafficking refused homeless supports on the basis of residency would then be forced to rely on the provision of night-to-night accommodation. This would be entirely inappropriate for a victim of trafficking and would not be compliant with Article 11 of the Recast Directive which 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))4.
Similar concerns arise in respect of victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, who may experience particular barriers in satisfying residency requirements when seeking to leave abusive situations.
Appeals
The Commission notes that provision has been made in the amendments for an appeal framework however, we note the limited nature of same as it applies only to decisions to withdraw emergency accommodation and not to decisions refusing the provision of accommodation on the basis of residency status. We also have concerns that certain aspects of the appeal framework as set out in the new Section 10B may not be compliant with fair procedures. These include the following:
- The timeframe for lodging an appeal is very short being 14 days (not working days).
- 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.
Conclusion
These amendments represent a significant expansion of the proposed residency requirements by applying them to emergency homeless services for the first time. The Commission has substantive concerns that these provisions may result in vulnerable people being denied ongoing access to emergency accommodation and may have a disproportionate impact on groups already at heightened risk of homelessness and housing exclusion. Furthermore, the amendments do not appear to align with binding EU law on anti-human trafficking.
More broadly, the Commission remains concerned that the legislation has proceeded without any published human rights or equality impact assessment demonstrating the necessity and proportionality of these measures or addressing the concerns consistently raised by the Commission, civil society organisations and international human rights bodies regarding the discriminatory impact of habitual residence requirements.
We remain available to engage further with you and your officials on these matters.
Le meas,
Liam Herrick
Chief Commissioner
Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
Footnotes
1 Submission on the General Scheme of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024
2 Letter to Minister Browner on the Bill, June 2026
3 Collins (C-138/22) and Niedzwiecki v. Germany (App No. 58453/00).
4 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.