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.

Sentiment score: 0.11

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------

Sentiment score: 0.09

There is-----

Sentiment score: 0.00