It is long overdue for the Government to enact some changes to ensure that the implementation and enforcement of relevant Department circulars is put on a statutory footing. In doing so, the Bill takes some steps that are tentatively welcome but significant concerns remain that the legislation may make it increasingly difficult for those who should be entitled to access social housing to do so by increasing and complicating the criteria they have to meet. The Bill suggests an unreality in which the existing situation is in any way easy. It already is a complication and an absolute ordeal for many families just to get onto the list, never mind the journey towards getting an allocation. Individuals in our society who urgently require the support of public housing and emergency accommodation must have clearer pathways to accessing those rights. They must not be presented with further hurdles and complications. The Minister has assured us the Bill will not have such an impact on those requiring public housing but significant concern remains about what its ultimate outcome will be. A critical element of concern is the requirement that the habitual residency condition apply to every member of a household applying for social housing. Any of us who deal with social housing applicants know very many applicants will fall foul of this new rule and that it has been designed for just that reason. The habitual residency condition should only apply to one member of a household, not the entire household. The new rule is designed to ensure many households will not have access to public housing. An area that demands significant attention and modification is the ability of individuals to move between different local authorities without losing the social housing status they have obtained. A proposal to that effect, introduced in the Social Housing Passport Bill 2026, would have allowed individuals experiencing a variety of different problems and needs to transfer their status to their new local authority. Under current law, if individuals need to relocate to another area, they must reapply and, in effect, start from scratch. Many of us have asked colleagues in other constituencies to make representations to housing officials on behalf of families who are forced to move from our constituency - in my case, Dublin Fingal - to the colleague's constituency, whether that be in south Kildare, Meath, Louth or elsewhere, because of unemployment or inability to access private rental accommodation. Those people need to build lives, get their children into schools, etc., but could face losing the six, seven, eight, nine or ten years they have spent on the previous local authority housing list. That should not be allowed to happen. Another concerning element of the Bill is the application of a slip rule to all documentation that accompanies a notice of termination, including other relevant or similar statutory declarations. It is of the utmost importance that the handling of infractions of the magnitude of ending an individual's tenancy is done with clarity. Changing or altering contracts or documents without the proper procedure and at a moment's notice leaves room for significant harm. By allowing corrections to statutory documents and declarations in this manner, we are putting at risk the due process that protects tenants and other individuals involved. It is deeply important that should errors arise, whether clerical in nature or otherwise, they are handled and resolved in a manner that allows for the traditional due process for corrections. There is concern about the rigour of the new independent appeals process set out in the Bill. As recommended in the 2024 pre-legislative scrutiny report, this should be entirely independent of local authorities. Although the Bill establishes a formal independent statutory appeals process, it does not provide for its operation through a central body rather than through the proposed dedicated appeals officers. Anything but a central body would result in significant deficiencies and be incapable of meeting the gravity of these problems. The use of a central body for decision-making would allow expertise and institutional knowledge to accumulate over time, with the ultimate goal of a holistic and consistent system. These processes must go further in order to ensure the development of an appeals system that works for the benefit of the individuals who are in great need of help. Additionally, the introduction of this Bill has sparked deep, wide-reaching concerns among numerous human rights groups and other related charities and organisations, as it could restrict critical access to many programmes, such as emergency homelessness services and highly sought-after social housing for society's most vulnerable and at-risk groups. We must not ignore these calls for help. The core of these issues arises from the proposed right to reside and habitual residence conditions as prerequisites to receive public housing. Various front-line groups have cautioned that these measures risk the exclusion of at-risk individuals from the basic emergency shelter they so desperately need. This would effectively create a direct and purposeful pipeline to more homelessness and individuals on the street without proper accommodation. On homelessness, this Bill would greatly restrict access to social housing that so many individuals require. In the Bill as drafted, there exists no critical provisions for emergency accommodation as recommended by the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. It is of critical importance that we enable those in urgent need to acquire the social housing they so desperately seek. The focus of the Department of housing should be on taking effective action to meet these problems head on. It is of the utmost importance that this Government supports those in critical need, rather than imposing more restrictive access on individuals with such great needs, which this Bill would ultimately do. The issue of quality, affordable and easy to access housing remains a critical concern for many individuals in society. The damage this Government is doing with its housing policy is crippling communities. These are communities that have struggled, survived and thrived at various times over the years, but are now facing great harm from this Government. I will return to the issue of the Oliver Bond flats, an area that is very close to my heart. I spent an awful lot of time growing up there. I would not be here without Oliver Bond. It gave my nana and grandad a home when they needed one, and my dad and his siblings grew up there. There are five generations of people living in Oliver Bond who have, through all those generations, worked to ensure it has thrived and have created a wonderful, warm community. It has received regeneration in the past which has benefited the flats. I met Gayle Cullen Doyle a couple of weeks ago in Oliver Bond, and she spoke about the regeneration of the late 1980s and early 1990s. I remember the physical regeneration at the time. I remember the double-glazed windows, central heating and showers going in. Oliver Bond survived for 50 years without basic showering, central heating and all these things we take for granted in the modern day. Along with that, which I did not notice at the time as I was too young, investment and resources went in, with diversion programmes, drug addiction resources and health resources. That all went in at the time. Gayle will tell you - she has told anyone who has visited - that this was a big improvement. It helped turn around the difficulties of the 1980s in terms of the drug epidemic, which I have vivid memories of from that period in my mind's eye. However, that investment stopped and has stopped for the past 20 years. Now, Oliver Bond receives attention through the media for poor living quality and poor health outcomes. What does this Government and the Department do? It turns its back on the plan of investment for Oliver Bond to ensure that the next five generations of families can live there because, ultimately, the bottom line is they will lose 28 units in an overall regeneration. Instead of talking about units, the Government should be talking about homes. Oliver Bond and other flat complexes that remain in Dublin city are the beating heart and the last vestige of a living city, such has been the hollowing out of the city for people to be able to live there. If we continue to hollow out Oliver Bond, Pearse House, Markievicz House and others, we will push families further out of Dublin city and hollow it out. Oliver Bond should not be one-bedroom apartments and studios. It should be one-bedroom, studio, two-bedroom and three-bedroom homes. The whole panoply of community should be allowed to live there for the next 90 years and beyond. It should not be about the bottom line all the time. We need more housing; we need copious amounts of it. We need thousands more one-, two-, three- and four-bedroom homes all over the country. A reduction of 28 units would have to be accounted for, but when it will deliver overall more family homes for a community that has been in Dublin for 90 years, and needs to be there for another 90 years and beyond, Dublin City Council will need to swallow that. Those in opposition who are housing spokespeople and interested in this issue will understand that when it comes to regeneration projects because we know the complexities of it. Unfortunately, it seems those complexities are lost on the Department of housing. I am hoping that in the decision made in four to five weeks' time we will see common sense prevail, and that we will see a future not only for Oliver Bond but for other local authority complexes throughout Dublin city.

Sentiment score: 0.02