I welcome everyone to our second session, the purpose of which is to discuss social policy issues in the context of the priorities of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. We are joined by: Mr. John McGeady, CEO, and Ms. Michelle Murphy, research and policy analyst, from Social Justice Ireland; and, from the Irish Homeless Policy Group, by Ms. Emma Byrne, chair, who is also policy manager at Focus Ireland, Mr. Mike Allen - a name well known to committees in the House for a long time - director of advocacy, research and communications at Focus Ireland, and Mr. Gareth Redmond, research and policy officer at Threshold.

They are very welcome to the committee today.

Before we begin I will outline a note on privilege and some housekeeping rules. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against a person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with such a direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement, and therefore any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, to confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus. That is part of the parliamentary liturgy we go through before every meeting. Witnesses will have five minutes to make their opening statements, after which we will then open the floor to questions from members. I call on my colleague, Senator Davitt, to resume the Chair. He had to leave because of a vote in the Seanad. Is that agreed? Agreed. I invite the witnesses to make their opening statements.

Gabhaim buíochas le baill an choiste as ucht an chuiridh. The findings of Social Justice Ireland's European research series, both the 2025 edition, which the committee has, and our forthcoming 2026 edition, show that while economic trends may present a particular picture, an analysis of social trends across EU member states reveals that the lived experience of many is very different.

Social Justice Ireland welcomes the EU's first ever anti-poverty strategy, which sets a target of eradicating poverty in Europe by 2050. In the context of previously missed poverty-reduction targets, the new strategy must be backed up with real investment, protecting people across the life cycle from the very young to the very old. More than a decade of prioritising economic growth over social development has led to reduced trust in institutions and the state, greater fragmentation, and erosion of the social contract. Failure to deliver on social aspects of policy, especially poverty, long-term unemployment and access to quality services, has severe implications for Europe, fuelling disengagement and distrust of the EU as a democratic project. A core logic underlying the new anti-poverty strategy is that future growth and adaptation to a changing world must not occur at the cost of social equity. During its Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Ireland can make the successful implementation of the EU anti-poverty strategy a key priority.

Committee members have received my written statement so I will not spend too much time repeating statistics they have before them, but I draw their attention to a few critical indicators. While the risk of poverty or social exclusion rate has improved marginally since 2021 when it was 21.7%, the average rate among the EU 27 still stood at 21% in 2024. That amounts to over 93.3 million people. In terms of employment, while progress is being made, we should be concerned that youth unemployment stands at 15.2%. In terms of education, it is concerning that the average early school leaving rate across Europe in 2025 was 9.1%. There is also significant disparity between EU member states when it comes to participation in lifelong learning.

In all of this, investment requires revenue. In terms of taxation, there is considerable variation between EU member states in respect of the total level of tax revenue as a proportion of GDP. In general, countries in the south and east of Europe tend to have lower levels of taxation and less well-developed social investment approaches and higher rates of poverty and social exclusion. Against the backdrop of the digital revolution and demographic change, an ageing population and workforce shortages in sectors such as health and social care, now more than ever we need to recognise the inherent value of all work, including work in the home, work done by voluntary carers and by volunteers in the community. A right to sufficient income must form part of this conversation. This requires adequate social protection for all persons in employment, including various types of self-employment and non-standard working, as well as a thorough consideration of policies such as the living wage, minimum income and basic income schemes.

At EU level, Social Justice Ireland recommends greater coherence of European policy. The EU anti-poverty strategy must be mainstreamed into EU governance instruments, including the European semester, European pillar of social rights action plan, EPSRAP, the social convergence framework, national action plans, the multi-annual financial framework in general and the European Social Fund Plus programme in particular. We believe that inappropriate EU governance structures that prohibit or inhibit legitimate investment by national governments should be addressed. Structural funds should also be of a sufficient scale to make an impact and greater priority should be given to bridging the gap between the economic and social dimensions of policy. We should build upon the current 2022 EU adequate minimum wage directive and the 2023 Council recommendation on adequate minimum income to provide a binding framework to regulate minimum workplace pay and social protection regimes. Social protection should be enhanced and shortcomings in existing systems must be addressed. Monitoring poverty among subgroups is needed and requires enhanced data collection and monitoring mechanisms. A focus on youth unemployment is also needed, as is support for developments in the social economy. Improved representation in EU policy-making is required, with meaningful engagement with stakeholders representing poorer people and those most at risk of exclusion. Finally, an EU human rights strategy should be adopted.

I thank committee members for the invitation to meet with them today to discuss the role that Ireland can play during its Presidency in advancing collaboration to end homelessness.

In her recent state of the Union address, Commission President von der Leyen acknowledged that over 1 million people are homeless in the Union on any given day. She recognised that despite housing being a European social right, the housing crisis has become a broader social crisis for Europe. We in the Irish Homeless Policy Group are faced with this crisis at first hand every day. While we acknowledge that the solutions to reduce and, ultimately, end homelessness will be implemented at local and national levels, their success will be shaped and enhanced by decisions made at EU level.

Today, we hope to convey three key messages. The first is that Ireland should use its Presidency to place homelessness back at the centre of the European agenda and to secure renewed political commitment to the goal of ending homelessness by 2030. One of the most significant EU-level developments on homelessness that we have seen occurred during the Portuguese Presidency in 2021, when every member state, including Ireland, signed the Lisbon Declaration committing to work towards ending homelessness by 2030. Since the 2021 Lisbon Declaration, we have seen a number of important firsts at EU level: the launch of the European Platform on Combatting Homelessness, EPOCH; the first ever European affordable housing plan; the first European homeless count; a special parliamentary committee on the housing crisis; the appointment of the first EU Commissioner for housing; and the establishment of the European Housing Advisory Board. The Lisbon Declaration marked a milestone in that, for the first time, the European Commission dedicated an initiative specifically to addressing homelessness. While this may appear too hopeful to some, we, along with our colleagues across Europe, believe that we can make considerable progress towards ending homelessness by the end of the decade if we invest wisely in the right public policies.

Second, the Irish Presidency provides a rare opportunity for Ireland to lead on one of our most pressing national challenges. Five years on from the Lisbon Declaration, we are now at the halfway point to our 2030 ambition. A key opportunity to recommit to this goal this will be advancing the EU Council recommendation on housing exclusion at a ministerial meeting in November which will be led by the Minister for housing, Deputy Browne. The Commission has produced a draft proposal that is currently under consideration by member states and sends a strong political signal. However, the Irish Presidency should take the lead in strengthening the draft in two significant ways. First, it is important that the word "homelessness" is used in the Council recommendation title as well as the less familiar technical term "housing exclusion".

Second, it is important for the recommendation to recommit to EPOCH, which is the primary mechanism for moving towards our 2030 goal.

We recognise the significant progress we have seen on housing and homelessness at an EU level in recent years, but also that we need to go further in ensuring new housing reaches the most marginalised. All the EU initiatives on housing mentioned earlier respond to the growing challenge of unaffordable and insecure housing for millions of Europeans. Significantly, each of these initiatives includes a section on homelessness, which is a welcome recognition of the link between economic questions related to housing and their social consequences. While more needs to be done to develop this homeless dimension of the housing crisis, we acknowledge the work that Irish MEPs in particular put into achieving what is included in the housing initiatives.

Despite progress and enhanced collaboration over the past five years, unfortunately, we have continued to see homelessness increase in Ireland and across almost all other member states. A central pillar of the European affordable housing plan is the removal of barriers to increase housing supply. While this is a familiar and necessary policy direction in Ireland, our experience shows that increasing supply on its own is not sufficient to reduce homelessness. When representatives from our group met Irish MEPs and EU Commission staff in Brussels last November, we highlighted the need for policies that ensure new housing reaches the most marginalised people who are trapped in homelessness. As the European Commission noted in its most recent country-specific report on Ireland, “To reduce homelessness, priority should be given to those already in emergency accommodation or at risk of becoming homeless." This policy insight must be at the heart of housing and homeless policies at every level. Furthermore, the affordable housing plan and the country report recognise that the housing crisis does not affect all people equally and that some groups, including migrants and ethnic minorities, are disproportionately impacted by homelessness. Clear recommendations and guidance can play a vital role in encouraging member states to protect fundamental aspects of the EU, including freedom of movement and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

We urge the Government to use the opportunity of the Irish Presidency to renew the European commitment to ending homelessness, strengthen co-operation between member states, and ensure that the ambition of the Lisbon declaration becomes a reality. The draft Council recommendation set out some specific ways in which this can be achieved and we are happy to expand on this during today's discussion.

I thank Ms Byrne. Members will ask now ask questions. Perhaps Senator Lynch would like to go first if she is ready because there might be a vote in the Seanad. If not, she can go second.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I thank the witnesses for their briefings.

Will members indicate whether their questions are aimed at Social Justice Ireland or the Irish Homeless Policy Group?

I have one for each.

Perfect.

I thank the witnesses for being with us today. I appreciate we have a big opportunity while hosting the Presidency of the Council of the European Union to highlight these issues and ensure they are dealt with, progressed or at least back on the agenda in a politically meaningful way.

My first question is for Social Justice Ireland. Long-term unemployment is a massive problem. There are 4.2 million people who are long-term unemployed in the EU. How have the European Social Fund Plus, ESF+, interventions failed to reintegrate these workers? Could the ESF+ be more effective in the way it is rolled out? That is quite a high number of people, particularly when there is fairly good employment across the Union more generally.

On homelessness and housing, the appointment of a Commissioner for housing is a step in the right direction. I find from talking to parliamentary colleagues across the Union that a lot of housing issues we are facing in Ireland are similar in many member states. It is important to focus on that and learn from one another and the commissionership provides an opportunity for that. Now that the Commissioner is in place, should Ireland demand that housing affordability metrics be directly integrated into the European semester fiscal monitoring? Would that compare and contrast provide more information?

I thank the Senator. Ms Murphy from Social Justice Ireland might answer first.

I thank the Senator for the question. The level of long-term unemployment is a huge concern for us, as is the level of youth unemployment, which has increased, including in Ireland. It mirrors the research from the Department of Finance on the impact of AI, particularly on entry-level jobs for young people and people leaving education.

On the funding and the ESF, and I am conscious the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, will be negotiated while we have the Presidency, it is crucial that the European anti-poverty strategy is embedded in the next iteration of the ESF+, but there has to be more local flexibility in how those funds are allocated. We allocate them to national policies, but to reach the really marginalised groups that were mentioned, particularly at a regional level, we need to look from an Irish perspective at how to allocate more flexibility in fund allocation and at evaluating programmes and projects as they are ongoing so that if an issue is found, the funding is redirected elsewhere.

We also need to have strategic key performance indicators, particularly as we are now moving into a situation where the impact of digital and climate adaptation on employment, future employment and even how we live, will be substantial. We have to be specific about the targets we have, the indicators we use and how we support people with skills, such as critical thinking. We need to make sure people do not lose skills that are currently being automated and we need to look overall at our education system, particularly further and higher education, and what the future holds for that system as we move into a changing demographic. Fewer people will be going into the system in the first place. Can we adapt it to more apprenticeships? Can we change the age profile by targeting older workers or people in employment? We also need to look at what to do for the employment landscape that will face people who are leaving further and higher education, and people who are trying to upskill or reskill and what opportunities are available to them. It really boils down to making sure the anti-poverty targets are embedded in the fund next time around and that there is more flexibility in how it is allocated.

I thank the Senator for the question. Most of the organisations in the Irish Homeless Policy Group are also members of FEANTSA, the European umbrella of homeless organisations. A number of years ago, I was president of FEANTSA and at that time I started an engagement with the semester process. I found it to be one of the most frustrating processes I have ever been involved in in my life and it was very difficult to see progress, but there is real progress there. When I was first engaged, it was during the crisis here and the semester process was recommending to Ireland that we deal with mortgages that were not being repaid by closing them quickly, therefore pushing people into homelessness, and in particular clamp down on buy-to-let mortgages that were no longer being paid. That started the process of landlords leaving the market, which is a big contributor to homelessness. That was because when the recommendation was made, there was no obligation to look at the consequences or the other side of the question - what could be called the social consequences of economic things - and also different economic perspectives or outcomes.

There has been considerable progress in adding additional dimensions to that. I was at the meeting this year and there has been a lot of progress on looking at homelessness for the first time and the housing crisis. However, the point I think the Senator is making about specifically naming affordability of housing as one of the criteria it needs to look at would be very helpful. I am conscious it is possible to overburden these processes with too many objectives, but that cannot be dealt with by leaving out the social objectives. That is a long way of saying "Yes".

Housing is not a competence and I would like to see it. Like the rest of us, I have travelled a bit and seen the same kinds of solutions.

Europe looked radically different from Ireland 20 years ago, but when you now see the development of apartments and all of that, there is a homogeneity in the approach. I would like to hear the witnesses' views on housing and homelessness as a Union competency, whether that would be helpful and what we could do to push that on.

I remember a previous Minister talking four or five years ago about the Vienna model. I am kind of afraid that we have forgotten about that. We are building apartments and people are paying rents. My understanding of the Vienna model is that it takes account of vulnerable times in people's lives, in that as they lose their jobs or retire, rents begin to taper down to take account of that. Clearly, there is a 20% social housing impact. I have been a public representative for 27 years and I am in my 11th year as a TD. Thankfully, there is a supply available that was not available before. My office and some of my colleagues would be able to have more good news now in terms of housing people than at any time since I have been a public representative. However, for the people who are not in the social piece and are paying rents, there is a potential jeopardy with their rents if they run into those vulnerabilities through changing jobs or losing jobs for a variety of reasons or if they are retiring. Will the witnesses speak to that? We need more thought on this. We did a lot of thinking about it three or four years ago but it seems to have gone from the debate now.

I thank the Deputy. I will respond to his question on the Vienna model. The Vienna model is a view of social housing that does not see it as just for the very poor or the poor, but for a wider range of people. It destigmatises it and creates a context for the people living in it, which is much more inclusive and protects people from the things that can happen in anybody's life. It also has positive impacts on the private market in Vienna.

However, I am wary of some of the talk we hear about how we should just adopt it. It is not like a resolution. It took them 100 years to build it. One of the things the Irish system has not faced up to in its aspiration to be more like the Vienna model is that it is incompatible with the idea that you have large-scale sales of social housing into the private market through sales to tenants. If we had retained all of the housing we built as social housing in Ireland, we would have a completely different housing system. I am not arguing that that should not have happened, as there are different reasons in Irish history why that might have needed to happen. In the future, though, if you have this system of selling social housing, you cannot build towards a Vienna model.

The other point is that Vienna has one of the highest levels of homelessness in Europe. They are beginning to deal with it now, but that is because the access to social housing created a barrier for entry. That goes back to the point we made in our submission. Ms Byrne talked about how simply having a good housing system or adequate housing was insufficient unless you looked at the barriers that faced the most marginalised and overcame them. In the Vienna model, while they do not call it a deposit, there is a certain amount of money you need to pay to access the system. Somebody who is marginalised cannot pay that. Now, through their housing first programme, they have introduced a system where the state or an NGO using state money can buy people into the housing system and, therefore, end their homelessness. It is highly successful. I am not saying that the Vienna model inevitably creates homelessness. Rather, I am saying that even good housing models need an additional element of thought about how they impact on homelessness and the particular exclusions faced by people who are destitute.

What about housing as an EU competency?

I am not sure that is a battle I would spend time on. A lot has been progressed by taking housing and homelessness as a collaborative area. There seems to be a level of willingness in the members states to work through the collaborative and voluntary process in the European Union. Would you spend political capital on putting in the legislation when more can probably be achieved through the existing processes?

That is interesting.

For homelessness in particular, you cannot forget the enormous extent to which the solutions for individuals are at local authority level. You can lose some of that if you overlegislate. I would not be against, but I am not sure if I would make it a priority.

I thank the witnesses for coming to speak to us. Regarding the contributions, we all talk about wanting a more social Europe. Unfortunately, there is a disconnect at times. We put things back to the European Parliament, as do other member states. That is genuinely not a cut at anybody sitting here or their party. There is an education element there but that is an argument for another day. I add to Mr. McGeady's point about the minimum workplace pay directive. I would add to that the right to collective bargaining. We are a trend-setter in the EU for all the wrong reasons there.

I turn first to social justice. How can the EU Presidency be best used to build up a more equitable society at Irish and European levels? I used to work in a secondary school. I see my ex-students coming out of college now and they are terrified that AI is going to take their jobs. Do the witnesses have a take on how AI might affect youth unemployment in the coming years?

On the homelessness side, given that solutions are probably quite tailored to different member states, I am curious if the factors that contribute to homelessness across the members states are relatively the same or are there curios, for want of a better way to put it? I assume that there is a lack of supply and inequality. We might have an odd one in the way we zone land. Is it all similar or are there differences?

On what the Irish Presidency of the EU can do, it has laid out three themes, which are values, competitiveness and security. From the values perspective, there are two aspects. One is strengthening civil society and withstanding a shift towards hard-right politics and populism. Another core aspect that can be prioritised is the re-emphasis on a social vision of Europe that emphasises investment. Many of the things we have talked about require significant levels of investment to make those improvements. However, we believe that you then get the return on that investment, so it links in and supports the competitiveness and security parts of the vision laid out by the Government. In its role as chair, it is going to try to prioritise and co-ordinate. As we said in our opening statement, we would like to see the Government emphasising the mainstreaming of the EU anti-poverty strategy through all of the instruments of the EU. A critical piece of that is the question of resourcing it. There is an opportunity for the Government to push that within the values aspect of its tripartite agenda.

On the question of the role of AI in education, I will pass to Ms Murphy.

So far, we are seeing it having a greater impact on younger people. That is a concern in terms of what employment will be available to young people. People have chosen courses but employment may not be available at the end of those. There is also the hollowing out of the labour force. People are not going to get the experience of learning a profession. You will have a certain level of management, but if you hollow out the rest, what happens when that management goes?

That is a huge concern. Then there are the knock-on social impacts for young people in terms of planning, housing, family formation and anything like that. It makes it very challenging.

The other point I would make, in light of the CSO figures yesterday, is that as we continue to use and promote AI, it will need more storage capacity, which means more pressure on our grid and on electricity use and more emissions. There is also an environmental aspect.

I thank Ms Murphy.

Sometimes when we examine homelessness data, particularly in light of the way Ireland reports it, it looks like there is a long list of personal reasons for homelessness. When we dig down into this across Europe, we find there are reasons homelessness patterns are slightly different in certain areas, but fundamentally it comes down to a lack of affordable social and public homes across Europe. Similar to Ireland, certain countries had huge sell-offs of social housing at certain periods. During the crash, there was obviously less funding available for building more.

Another thing we see across Europe, and in respect of which Europe has a huge role to play, relates to protection from eviction in the private rental sector. Eviction is one of the primary reasons people, particularly families in Ireland, enter homelessness, and this is a trend we see across Europe.

Another common cause of homelessness is eviction from state institutions into homelessness. In Ireland, for example, many people experiencing homelessness will have had experience of the care system and will have experienced a lack of protections when they left State care. People who leave prison can become homeless. Increasingly, we see people who have received refugee or asylum status being forced into emergency accommodation, straight from one State institution to another. We also see people being discharged from hospital straight into homelessness.

Those are the three primary reasons where we see commonality across all of Europe, which gives us an opportunity to work on them collectively. It is not that we have very specific reasons for homelessness in some places and not in others. We are aware that certain groups, such as migrants, people from Traveller and Roma backgrounds and people with disabilities, are vulnerable in the Irish housing system and in housing systems across the rest of Europe. They need to be at the core of the protection work we do on homelessness.

I thank Ms Byrne. Is Deputy O'Donoghue happy?

Yes. I thank the Chair.

On the EU anti-poverty strategy, the issue is sometimes about how the EU thinks about poverty. I remember being at the Conference on the Future of Europe and I found it to be a very middle-class thing. The issues that arose related to where poverty meets drugs and the associated chaos, particularly in deprived communities. We can barely get a conversation on it now. I accept that it is not what the EU is about, but sometimes it thinks in big-ticket ways and does not necessarily focus on poverty in a straightforward way. It examines GDP and GNI and talks in terms of security of a very particular type. We could actually say that, across Europe at the minute, one of the biggest dangers and risks to democracy is that there is a huge cohort who feel absolutely alienated from the political process and that they are not being represented. A huge number of people feel they are worse off than previous generations, which in some cases is true and in some cases is perceived, but politics has failed to engage properly.

I accept that action has to happen at a domestic level, so it is a matter of how to engage the European Council and draw on whatever benefits it provides to ensure action. This is vital. We have all seen the rise of what is termed the far right and whatever else, but what it really shows is that regular establishment politics has failed to deliver for people. They are looking for something different from what they see as a lack of choice.

Was that a statement or a question?

It is always somewhere in between. Most people never accept the premise of the question they are asked anyway and answer on what they want to.

Are there any comments?

It is really about delivery on the anti-poverty strategy, but that can involve a very generalised idea. We can break this down into homelessness and those issues relating to drug-related chaos and the lack of family and community interventions right across the EU.

I absolutely agree with the Deputy's analysis that much of what is driving the far right and so on is people feeling lost and not represented. One of the problems facing the homelessness sector in Ireland, however, is that there are a small number of individuals who feel it is within their gift to burn out the homes of people whose skin is a different colour.

I accept that there are other forms of criminality that have to be called out in every way.

I have heard very few public representatives speak about that. It would be helpful for everybody working in the homelessness sector and for the local authorities trying to deal with this issue if we distinguished between the real concerns people have, which the Deputy mentioned, and also used the opportunity to name the activity I have mentioned as something so un-Irish that we should make sure we isolate and condemn the people who are engaging in it.

Mr. Allen is 100% right. That has to be called out. It is wrong in any set of circumstances, whatever ridiculous reasoning is used. We could have a conversation about the number of people who have gone astray on the basis of social media, a lack of critical analysis and all those other factors.

I am talking about a large voter base that is not necessarily doing what we have been talking about but that is lost, and politics has failed in that regard. It is about how we engage with an EU anti-poverty strategy that actually improves people's lives and brings people back. Criminality needs to be dealt with by proper policing and whatever else is necessary.

First, I agree. Since the financial crash, fiscal governance has basically been prioritised at a European level at the cost of everything else. We have an opportunity with the revised or renegotiated multi-annual financial framework and the Presidency to put the anti-poverty strategy and social issues on the same footing as macroeconomic issues and to embed the strategy within the framework so we have country-specific recommendations, CSRs, on it. At present, we have five CSRs. The first is on investment in security and defence, while number five lumps together every single social issue, including homelessness, disability and poverty, although poverty is not explicitly stated. If Ireland worked during its Presidency to ensure the poverty strategy was embedded and given the same status as economic issues, we would have CSRs on it. We would have to make sure that investment through the European Social Fund, ESF, and other social investment funds delivered on social issues, and people would see a better quality of life. If people do not see that, social cohesion is going to fracture even more. That is the reality, because people do not feel connected to the EU as a project any more.

Yes.

Even in Ireland, where our MEPs are quite close to us, they still feel so distant from us. If people do not see their lives improving, and feel there is one rule for them and another rule for different economic sectors and everybody else, that breeds contempt. We have a strong history in Ireland of social dialogue and progressing social issues. If the Taoiseach were really serious about the values aspect, he would prioritise the social values of the Treaty on European Union and embed the strategy.

I thank Deputy Ó Murchú. His point was good and really worth making. Has he any other questions or is he happy enough?

I am never happy. The main point I was making was that while there is much talk of defence and security, the EU, with a view to protecting itself, needs to deal with the underlying issues of poverty, regarding which there has been abject failure for a long time. Regarding homelessness and the chaotic issues involved, I have mentioned drugs, but there is a whole cohort of people who cannot access mental health services and sometimes do not believe they need them. That creates a cohort who then become homeless and cannot necessarily get services.

Reference was made to people who avail of some sort of service temporarily after eviction but who find their way into homelessness. A situation that was desperate to start with just gets worse and worse.

In some cases - I think even in an Irish context - the rules were introduced from a human-rights perspective. In doing that, we must make sure we do not end up in the situations we had before where everybody ended up in an institution or one could be put there by a guy in a suit. In putting in protections in relation to that, we do not allow for the scenario where somebody is in an element of chaos and does not always recognise they are in an element of chaos. It is about catching that before it gets worse.

We have come a long way in Ireland over recent years. If we look back at perceptions of homelessness even ten years ago, it was very much people who may have mental health issues or who may have substance abuse disorder. It was very problematised and seen as a personal issue. I think we have come a long way and are now seeing those situations as a time to support people rather than penalise them for those situations. One of the most stand-out cases is the development of the housing first model in Ireland. When we talk to our colleagues in Europe, they are-----

One could hardly say it is sufficient.

The number of-----

No, the supports. I have seen the addition it is in those cases but it is about wanting something like housing first with a bit more teeth and even beyond that. When we are talking about wider family settings, it is a different level of support that is needed that does not exist at all.

Yes. Housing first in Ireland is probably somewhere we would really love to see some developments on. Housing first is very much seen as something for people who have a long period of homelessness. We are at the stage now where we have a lot of evidence and experience of making housing first work and it is time to figure out how we expand and deliver housing first to different groups of people. One of them is definitely from a prevention point of view. We should not have to force people to spend a certain amount of time homeless before they are eligible for housing first supports. That goes against the purpose of it.

It should be the case that if we can identify people in mental health institutions and addiction facilities we are not then forcing them into emergency accommodation to do a set amount of time before they move into housing first properties. If we were to catch them much earlier, the supports they need would be much more reduced or they may not need them for as long of a time.

When it comes to family units, a case we have been making for a long time in Focus Ireland is that housing first is very much seen as being for individual adults and single people, and that really does not reflect how people live. We have been saying that there should be some sort of housing first programme for families. It may not look the exact same as the housing first programme we have for single adults but, essentially, the idea is about having very intensive wraparound supports for families to prevent breakdown and catch chaotic or difficult behaviour early on.

Support the children.

Exactly. For example, we have wraparound facilities for housing first. We could have that involving Tusla, the Department of education, schools and hospitals. In Ireland we can build on an effective system that we have for housing first and expand it out.

We could then sell it to the rest of Europe.

Yes. Regarding the rest of Europe, we have been quite lucky in that we have had a lot of political support for housing first. Not every other country can say that. A lot of housing first projects get stuck at pilot stage and never expand nationally. In Ireland, we have had housing first integrated into our homeless system for nearly 12 or 13 years. It is time to learn from our experiences of housing first and figure out how we can broaden it to impact and benefit a lot more people.

A vote has been called. I thank the Deputy and Ms Byrne. On behalf of the committee, I thank all the participants for their engagement with us. It has been very fruitful and worthwhile. It was great to bash a couple of the topics around this evening. I am afraid it is a bad time because we are caught between votes in the Seanad and the Dáil, which leaves us in a bit of a mess, unfortunately. It has been very informative and we really appreciate the witnesses time and thank them very much for coming in.