James Browne
Wexford · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“I cannot accept amendments Nos. 10 and 11. The interpretation of "lawfully resident" and "habitually resident" is construed in accordance with section 20A, which sets out the new residency requirements for social housing applicants.”
“The safety net provision is to be provided by the local authority on a night-to-night basis, and this is to allow local authorities to reassess the circumstances each day to determine whether the safety net should still be provided.”
“I cannot accept amendment No. 21. This amendment proposes the introduction of a social housing passport allowing households to transfer between local authority areas while retaining their original waiting list or transfer list position. The amendment as it stands is well-intentioned.”
“No one factor is intended to be decisive and it is not necessary for a person to score strongly on all five factors outlined in section 20A(7) in order to get a positive decision. However, the local authority decision-maker must be confident that there is strong evidence that it is the applicant's main centre of interest.”
“In relation to Senator McCarthy’s amendment, while it was a very well intentioned and constructed amendment, it has been disallowed. It was not my decision on those matters. I am satisfied the safeguards and safety net are there for those who are not entitled by way of legal or habitual residence.”
“In practical terms, if an Irish citizen has severed ties abroad and has decided to return home, the process of establishing habitual residency could be determined from day one.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,384 lines we hold for James Browne, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 28.
“Somebody from one local authority area may move to another area and immediately move to the top of the list, to the detriment of people in that local authority's area. There are practical problems there. In an ideal world, everybody's waiting times in various local authorities would be very similar, this would not be an issue and passporting could be implemented. I have no difficulty with the theory of it but there are some very real practical problems with it at the moment.”
“One of the biggest problems is that while some local authorities are now making significant headway in the delivery of social housing and their waiting times for people to access social housing have fallen significantly, other local authorities are not stepping up to the mark. They are not making the same effort or using the available resources from the Department. We are now getting a significant variation in waiting times as well. We need to get all local authorities to deliver social housing so that we get the waiting times somewhat equalised. There is a very real risk whereby local authorities with long waiting lists, with people waiting for long times, are neighbouring other local authorities with shorter waiting lists as a result of the effort of those local authorities.”
“This protocol was developed following detailed engagement between the Department, local authorities and relevant stakeholders. Given the complexity, fairness implications and administrative burden identified, it would not be appropriate to accept the amendment at this time.”
“The four Dublin local authorities, for example, have arrangements within their county which allow social housing applicants to apply for housing in up to two of the other Dublin authorities simultaneously, while similar arrangements apply in the two Cork and two Galway local authorities. Under existing legislation, guidance to local authorities has long provided significant mobility supports, particularly to victims of domestic violence. Crucially, the Government recognises the need for targeted mobility in exceptional circumstances. As Members will be aware, the Government recently agreed a dedicated local authority protocol to facilitate the transfer of social housing waiting list time for victims and survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence.”
“Allocation systems also vary between local authorities. Some local authorities place particular emphasis on waiting time, while others use more complex prioritisation approaches. Transfer arrangements also vary. In that context, waiting list positions are not directly comparable. In addition, there are substantial operational complexities, including the absence of shared ICT infrastructure to support real-time, inter-authority social housing application transfers at scale. While offering greater choice and flexibility, a housing passport may not generate sufficient allocations to justify the additional resource and operational costs that would be involved. Importantly, flexibility already exists within the current system.”
“I cannot accept amendment No. 21. This amendment proposes the introduction of a social housing passport allowing households to transfer between local authority areas while retaining their original waiting list or transfer list position. The amendment as it stands is well-intentioned. However, such an approach as drafted gives rise to significant legislative, operational and fairness concerns and is, therefore, not suitable for inclusion in this Bill. The current social housing system is based on local assessment of housing need and local allocation of available homes. Housing need is assessed under nationally prescribed regulations, while each local authority operates its own allocation scheme that reflects local demand, housing supply and priorities. Income eligibility thresholds vary between local authorities.”
“I am happy to provide a brief reply. We are satisfied that the residency requirement in section 20 of the completed final draft is compatible with the Constitution and European and international law. Of course, local authorities are public authorities. They are independent in their decision-making. They have to abide by the law and are subject to the Equal Status Acts but, as Minister, I have no role in their compliance with this legislation. Where local authorities are in breach of the Equal Status Acts, there are other avenues of redress.”
“As I set out earlier in the debate, there will be careful and detailed monitoring of the application of this legislation and any data created from it as well. That is very much the intention with this legislation.”
“Children are excluded from the lawful residency requirement. It is difficult to see how, if their parents or one of their parents is living here, a child would not also be habitually resident. Family reunification is planned and intentional. It is a very different scenario. The examples given by the Senator seem to be more focused on joint family reunification, which is a different matter altogether.”
“This consideration included a wide range of issues, including a detailed examination of existing legislation in the areas of qualification, decision and appeals, as well as the current local authority operational system. Legal advice in this context pointed to the necessity for an independent and impartial appeal as a more legally robust arrangement than providing, for example, for a procedural review only. The appeals function within each statutory housing authority will provide an independent, accessible and fair appeals service in a prompt manner without the necessity to establish a new entity or body, with the associated governance and related complexities.”
“Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment. The amendment proposes a provision that a social housing appeal shall be made to an independent appeals officer located within the Housing Agency. This would be inefficient and administratively unworkable because 31 separate local authorities would be submitting appeals to a single office, which would be operationally impractical at scale, given the volume of social housing appeals dealt with across all local authorities. This is in addition to the financial cost of its establishment, which has not been costed. The appeal provisions contained in section 20B have been developed following legal advice, consultation and engagement with local authorities.”
“This is a status determined other than by the local authority in most instances, based on the nature and status of their permission from the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. In order to ensure consistency of application across local authorities, guidance will be issued to local authorities to instruct that a refusal of accommodation following an assessment of eligibility must be communicated in writing, and that the person in question will have the right to have that decision reviewed by a more senior member of the local authority. Accommodation can be provided through the safety net provision while that process is under way, if no other accommodation is available to the person in question.”
“The proposed amendment is not necessary as they are not eligibility criteria for social housing support and, therefore, could not be included as grounds for an appeal under section 20B. As already indicated, these provisions have been the subject of detailed legal advice and review and I am confident that they are robust and will introduce further transparency into local authority decision-making in this regard. Furthermore, section 10B(7) explicitly provides for an appeal against a decision by a local authority under section 10(8) to withdraw the provision of homeless accommodation. There is no statutory appeal in circumstances where a person is found to be ineligible for access to homeless supports and accommodation due to their legal and-or habitual residency status.”
“Unfortunately, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18. Under subsections 20(4) and 20(6) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, the Minister has the power to make regulations setting out the criteria for determining the eligibility and need for social housing support. The legislation in relation to eligibility makes specific reference to eligibility criteria based on income, the availability of alternative accommodation and previous rent arrears in local authority housing and, in relation to the determination of the most appropriate form of support, any social housing support previously provided to the household. The eligibility criteria will now include lawful and habitual residence.”
“For example, this means that under the Bill an EU national who is a worker is permitted, and qualified family members can meet the residency requirements under section 8. On this basis, the Department is satisfied that section 20E in its entirety is robust and fully compatible with the Constitution, as well as being compliant with applicable European and international law.”
“I cannot accept amendment No. 14. As outlined on Committee Stage in the Dáil, my Department has engaged in extensive and continuous consultation with legal advisers throughout the development of the residency requirements, from initial drafting to finalisation. This has involved detailed consideration of all relevant constitutional, European Union and international legal principles. Legal advice received during drafting outlined that the State is entitled to lawfully restrict access to social housing supports during the first few months of residence on the part of EU and EEA nationals and their families. Permitted and qualifying family members of an EU national exercising free movement under SI 548/2015 are provided for under section 8.”
“I am happy to address that because I have addressed it in multiple debates already in relation to this miscellaneous provisions Bill. There is a problem with the lack of consistency in the application of the circular across the country. We are deliberately bringing this in to ensure there is regulatory certainty and consistency, and we will also be providing guidance and training to our local authorities to ensure it is applied consistently. I have said, not just in this debate but also in previous debates on this Bill, that there is a problem with a lack of consistency across the country.”
“I remind the Senator that only two weeks ago, I deliberately changed the rules so that somebody who is a victim or survivor of domestic violence can bring their time on a social housing list from one local authority to a different one. We have to be very careful not to put out misinformation here that might dissuade people from seeking help. I know that is not the Senator's intention, but putting out that kind of statement and claiming it as fact when it is an opinion, and in my view a very wrong opinion and interpretation, can be counterproductive in these circumstances.”
“As the Senator is fully aware, when a person is trafficked into this country, the supports are provided by the Department of justice, which initially decides the status. People being trafficked are not in any way affected by this legislation and it is the same with domestic violence. I have clarified this on a number of occasions, but I will clarify it again. This is about habitual residents in the State; local entitlement within a local authority is a different question. However, once you have established legal entitlement to be here, and you have habitual residence, you are entitled to social or emergency accommodation. There is also a safety net there.”
“Putting these requirements on a statutory footing ensures there is a robust statutory and regulatory framework in an area of increasing demand and, likewise, public and political scrutiny. The intention is to protect the State's efforts and resources in the area of social housing to focus on the provision of supports for those who meet those eligibility requirements, eliminating the ambiguity and supporting those who need support. I again highlight that children are exempt from the residency requirements. It is about consistency. It applies equally, whether somebody is Irish or not, if he or she is legally and habitually resident here.”
“No one factor is intended to be decisive and it is not necessary for a person to score strongly on all five factors outlined in section 20A(7) in order to get a positive decision. However, the local authority decision-maker must be confident that there is strong evidence that it is the applicant's main centre of interest. These mirror the provisions in social welfare Acts. However, the decision that a local authority would take is a distinct decision under the Act. These legislative reforms are building on existing policy and procedures, which, in the first instance, define social housing as a long-term housing support. Therefore, successful applicants must be in a position to demonstrate that they have a long-term right to reside in the State and, similarly, have a long-term intention to remain in the State.”
“I cannot accept amendments Nos. 10 and 11. The interpretation of "lawfully resident" and "habitually resident" is construed in accordance with section 20A, which sets out the new residency requirements for social housing applicants. Section 20A provides that "A household shall not be eligible for social housing support unless at the time of carrying out the social housing assessment" each member of the household is lawfully resident, habitually resident, meets any condition applicable to a member and no member is subject to a condition that prohibits availing of social housing support. The habitual residence requirement is a question of fact which seeks to ascertain where the applicant has established his or her centre of interest in the State by examining, for example, family connections, length of stay and employment history.”
“I probably lost the question in all of the invective. The why is in the interest of fairness. We are providing housing supports for people and the requirement is that they are legally here and intend to make this their home. That is not an unreasonable requirement of people to whom we are providing social housing or emergency accommodation. For those who do not meet those requirements, there is a safety net there.”
“The safety net provision is to be provided by the local authority on a night-to-night basis, and this is to allow local authorities to reassess the circumstances each day to determine whether the safety net should still be provided. That safety net under this section will be provided in circumstances where a household is ineligible and where the household is seeking alternative assistance or accommodation but does not have such available, and the local authority can continue to provide a safety net service for as long as those circumstances exist. It is important to emphasise that there is no two-night limit on this. In relation to the Cathaoirleach's decision on amendment No. 9, that is a matter for the Cathaoirleach. The merits or otherwise of such a decision or justification is not a matter for me to comment on.”
“This will ensure the State is operating a harmonised and consistent approach to the provisions of social entitlements in general. These eligibility criteria specifically relate to an individual's connection to the State and not to an individual's established connection to a specific local authority. Until such time as a definitive determination on eligibility has been made and any appeal on that determination has been concluded, a local authority may provide homeless supports and accommodation under section 10(1) in the normal course of the person. To guard against an increase in rough sleeping, a safety net service has been introduced to allow local authorities to provide emergency accommodation to a person deemed ineligible for homeless supports and services.”
“The Government supports section 7 standing part of the Bill and cannot accept any amendment to it. Section 7 introduces two sections into the Housing Act 1988, section 10A and section 10B. Section 10A implements the Government's policy aim of introducing eligibility criteria around legal and habitual residency in respect of section 10 local authority-provided homeless services and supports while at the same time offering a safety service in line with Ireland's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. In line with the amendments to eligibility for social housing support, lawful residency and habitual residency as eligibility criteria for accessing homeless supports are being put on a statutory footing.”
“In implementing this provision, clear guidance will be provided to local authorities to ensure that the eight-to-eight period is applied as a minimum statutory provision.”
“I cannot accept the proposed amendments. The safety net provision for persons or households who are ineligible for homeless accommodation is not a continuous provision. The inclusion in the legislation of the hours of 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. makes this clear. This provision allows local authorities to reassess the circumstances each day to determine that the safety net is still necessary. The inclusion of the specific hours of 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. rather than referring to singular nights of accommodation is to make absolutely clear that sleeping hours provision should be available all year round and should not be curtailed in summer months where "night" could be interpreted as a shorter period.”
“I have answered all the questions already. Nobody is sending anybody out. The only circumstance in which this may happen is where somebody has been given a reasonable offer of a home and turns it down. The local authority may then act. It is not that it will; it may. It can take all circumstances into account at that time. There are many safeguards but we want people to spend the minimum amount of time in emergency accommodation and that is a good thing. We do not want people spending time in emergency accommodation. Where there is a reasonable offer of a home, that is the best solution for that family, not staying in emergency accommodation.”
“The Senator is talking about a situation where a family has refused a reasonable offer of a home. There is no reason for a family to refuse a reasonable offer of a home. Training and guidelines will be given to make sure the offers are reasonable and people are dealt with compassionately. I do not envisage those circumstances arising. They should not arise.”
“A number of new safety nets are being introduced in terms of decision-making. It has to be a reasonable offer and it always has to meet the needs. There is an appeals mechanism and the best interests of the children are considered. There will be clear guidelines and training for local authorities to ensure consistency. If somebody refuses a reasonable offer that meets their needs, then the safety net is the night-to-night accommodation that will be provided to them. Nobody should have to rough sleep.”
“I fully agree with the Senator that there should be guidelines to follow to ensure that there will be consistency and they will follow because part of what we are doing here is ensuring consistency across the country. Part of what we are doing here is ensuring consistency across the country. We are implementing a statutory appeal for the first time. That should help a family in that type of situation. We are also introducing an obligation on local authorities to have regard to the best interests of children when making decisions.”
“This measure is being introduced to ensure that no individual or family remains in homeless accommodation any longer than is absolutely necessary. Those powers will also extend to circumstances where a person engages in reckless or intentional conduct which causes death or serious harm to another person in homeless accommodation. That is another important part of this section and reason why it should be passed. This measure is being introduced to protect the health and safety of users and staff of homeless accommodation. The amendments to section 10 will also place an obligation on local authorities to have regard to the best interests of children when making a decision on the allocation of homeless accommodation to a homeless family with children.”
“The Government supports section 6 standing part of the Bill, and cannot accept any amendment to it. Section 6 of the Bill comprises amendments to section 10 of the Housing Act 1988, and the purpose of these amendments is to extend local authority powers to withdraw the provision of homeless accommodation. Those powers will extend to circumstances where a household refuses a reasonable offer of social housing accommodation. That word is very important as it is not any offer; it must be a reasonable offer. Any offer must meet the needs of the person to whom it is being offered and he or she may appeal that decision as well. I do not envisage any situation where somebody will be, as the Senator put it, put out onto the streets.”
“In terms of the specific impacts of the legislation on particular groups and the overall approach to monitoring EU statutory requirements, I am happy to engage with the Senators this time next year in the context of the data that I have referred to.”
“My Department is also working in close collaboration with the Local Government Management Agency to progress enhancements to IT databases and housing management systems across the local authority sector. The purpose of this work is to ensure that systems are appropriately configured to capture, monitor and report on the decisions in a consistent and structured manner. These system updates will also facilitate more efficient administrative processes within the local authorities and support the standardisation of practices across the sector. In the longer term, the enhanced data capability will allow the Department to better assess trends in decision-making, identify areas for improvement and ensure that the appeals process is operating effectively and fairly.”
“The Department, in collaboration with the Housing Agency, will provide comprehensive guidance, training and workshops to all local authorities on an ongoing and regular basis. This guidance will be a live working framework that will benefit from ongoing updates and the input of officials in the Department of foreign affairs and bodies like Crosscare and others. There is a strong consensus that a standardised approach to the implementation of the EU provisions is critical. The introduction of a new social housing appeals mechanism is a further important development. Applicants will be able to make a statutory appeal of the decision not to grant them eligibility for social housing support.”
“Current diaspora strategies commit the Government to addressing obstacles faced by returning emigrants, including issues relating to documentation and other administrative processes, to ensure that returning to Ireland is as straightforward as possible. These habitual residency requirements will not undermine those objectives. I have already confirmed very little additional information will be required as part of the application process for social housing. Much, if not all of the existing documentation required - for example, proof of address, income and history of residency permission - will suffice. However, where additional evidence or supporting material for an application is required, local authorities will be empowered to request that to support their decision-making.”
“Additionally, no one factor is decisive, and an applicant need not score strongly on all five factors to achieve a positive decision. I am aware that there have been concerns raised by some parties, including Crosscare and Safe Home Ireland, and other organisations representing the interests of the diaspora returning from abroad. I assure Senators and those bodies that it is not my intention, nor the intention of my Government colleagues, to place additional burdens on those individuals. Government policy explicitly recognises returning emigrants as a valuable asset in bringing international experience, skills, and networks that contribute to Ireland’s social, cultural, and economic development.”
“In practical terms, if an Irish citizen has severed ties abroad and has decided to return home, the process of establishing habitual residency could be determined from day one. It is neither intended nor anticipated that the residency eligibility criteria for accessing homeless support under section 10 of the Housing Act 1988 would have a disproportionate impact on Irish citizens returning to live in Ireland following extended periods of residence abroad. While a local authority is determining whether a member of a household is habitually resident in the State, it will take into consideration all the circumstances of the case as set down in section 20A(7) in the Bill. The five factors are not exhaustive and other evidence may be drawn upon to support a positive decision by the housing officer.”
“In relation to Senator McCarthy’s amendment, while it was a very well intentioned and constructed amendment, it has been disallowed. It was not my decision on those matters. I am satisfied the safeguards and safety net are there for those who are not entitled by way of legal or habitual residence. That can be ongoing for as long as is necessary but it will be night to night. I am satisfied the vulnerable groups the Senator mentioned will not be impacted. As for those who are the beneficiaries of temporary protection, they of course are accommodated by the Department of justice and it is that Department's duty to ensure they are properly cared for. In regard to amendment No. 2, Irish citizens are automatically legally resident. That is made clear in the proposed section 20A(3)(a) set out in the Bill.”
“I am subject to correction, but I thank it is the first time it has ever been part of a housing plan. These rules are mainly the codification of existing rules. There are requirements for legal and habitual residence, which again are relatively straightforward. It is just to demonstrate that it is somebody's intention to make this their home. There are also safety nets in place to ensure that nobody has to sleep rough.”
“The words "any", "not any" or "allowed" are not in the legislation in that matter. I turn to Senator Stephenson. There is no change for survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, people who are victims of human trafficking or the Traveller community in this legislation. I am also satisfied that there are no additional barriers for any of those vulnerable groups who will continue to be supported. Last week I brought in new rules allowing survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence to bring time served on a local authority list into another local authority as they leave. That is something that should have been brought in before, but I was glad to get this in. Domestic, sexual and gender-based violence is an important part of the housing plan I brought in.”
“On Senator Higgins's point, children are exempted from lawful residency requirements. We are not just worried about social housing numbers. We will increase the social housing limits, which will increase the number of people under social housing limits. Any suggestion that we are doing this to somehow reduce the number of people on the social housing lists will be proven incorrect when we increase the social housing limits, which in turn will increase the number of people on the social housing lists. I am always concerned about anybody having to wait for a home, but what that number is in the context of some reputational issue is not something that bothers me at all. I want people to get access to the housing they need. It is also not any offer. It refers to refusal of a reasonable offer.”
“They ignored the warnings of Sister Stanislaus, God rest her soul. They belittled Father Peter McVerry when he warned there was a homelessness crisis coming. They just pretended and did not want to address the issue. Driving down delivery to that level has meant the curve going back up has taken a significant amount of time. Remember that number - 75 social homes. That is what the Labour Party delivered the last time it was in government.”
“Anybody else who is here in the short term and who does not meet the other requirements will be provided with night-to-night accommodation as necessary if they are at risk of rough sleeping. On the eight to eight, it is not only eight to eight. The guidance to local authorities is that it is very much a minimum. If it was simply to use the word "night", in the summer months, that would only be a matter of a few hours. We decided to put in a minimum time limit there to ensure that people would, particularly in the summer hours, get a minimum provision in relation to it. That was very important. On addressing homelessness, the Government last year delivered 9,089 new-build social homes, the highest number in the history of the State. The reality is the last time the Labour Party was in government it built 75.”
“Tenants' rights were increased to be the strongest in the history of the State, which, of course, the Labour Party voted against. We have momentum now in the delivery of homes across this country, and in the delivery of social homes. We have seen drawdowns by first-time mortgage applicants increase. We have seen commencements and planning increase as well. In regard to landlords pulling out, we saw an increase last year in the number of landlords and tenancies as well, so I think that is a reflection of that. It does not affect anybody who is an international protection applicant because they were provided with accommodation through the International Protection Accommodation Services, IPAS, process.”
“These are people's private homes and while I understand the call for tenants' rights, these are non-connecting extensions put onto people's principal private residences - their own private homes - and it would not be appropriate to treat somebody renting out a room or a modular home on the principal private residence, where they are sharing entrances and services, with the same level of position. In relation to Senator Harmon's points, the night shelters are not capped at two nights. It is night by night. It is two nights for the first time and then night by night after that, as long as necessary. There is no cap on it. This requires legal and habitual residency to be entitled to social housing. Anybody at risk of rough sleeping will be provided with accommodation. The tenancy rules were increased.”
“I do not expect any increase in the numbers sleeping rough as a result of decisions in this legislation. There is no reason for any increase in rough sleeping as a result of the decisions here. There is a codification of existing rules. In regard to County Laois, I fully encourage Laois to apply for further funding. We have provided over €500 million for homeless accommodation and supports this year and there is a significant amount of funding there for that. The Senator also raised the issue of back gardens in the legislation, which is addressed in other legislation but is also touched on here.”
“I thank Senators for their contributions. I will address some of the issues that have been raised. In relation to Senator McCormack, it is very disappointing that the Sinn Féin spokesperson, or any Sinn Féin Senator, did not remain for the answers, but anyway. Irish migrants returning are not affected by this legislation. It reflects current rules. For Irish migrants returning, it would be very straightforward for them to establish habitual residence. They would, of course, already have a legal entitlement to be here. On the appeals mechanism within the local authority, it is independent within that local authority and the local authority is the best body to hear those appeals. There has been significant scrutiny of this legislation, as is happening at the moment.”