Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 9, line 10, after “2015” to insert the following:

“and who has arrived after the commencement date in section 1(4) of the Social Welfare and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024”.

I have a few general questions and observations regarding the legislation which I may ask about later. The first three amendments are closely related. I raised a concern on Committee Stage that the hinge upon which this all hangs is designated centres. While we have had a little detail in the interim, these centres do not exist yet. The Minister is getting reassurances from the Department of children that these will be like oil and water and no one who arrived from Ukraine prior to the passing of this legislation will be in designated centres and nobody who arrives after will be in any of the centres that currently exist - they are not necessarily designated as centres but there are congregations of Ukrainians, sometimes a very large number, in hotels, bed and breakfast accommodation and different locations. That distinction is insufficiently clear. It would be preferable to operate on the basis of the date. I used the architecture of the legislation in the amendment, which states, "... who has arrived after the commencement date in section 1(4) of the Social Welfare and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024". That is basically to say that people who arrive after the commencement of the legislation would be on the different rate of payment.

Amendment No. 2 relates to designated centres. It is our view that if we are going to bring legislation, provisions and the situation that exists more into line with other jurisdictions, an anomalous situation would be created if there were a different rate inside and outside. We do not agree that people should be forced out after 90 days. It will not be realistic for many of them, particularly if they are located close to big urban centres - it will not be easy for them to find alternative accommodation. Conversely, in areas further out, a perverse incentive is created. Inside the centre, if there were two adults and two children, between the payments and child benefit, they would receive about €828.80 a month. If they were outside the centre, they would receive €2,192 a month and there would be €800 towards rent. Even before the €800 towards rent, they would be two and a half times better off. It is not difficult to imagine that some people might decide they would be in a better position if they sought accommodation in the private rental market.

They could not be blamed for doing that but in places where the rent may not be as high as it is on the east coast, they could potentially be in a position to decide to compete in the private rental market, which is already under severe pressure throughout the country. That anomaly is being created. To follow that point through to its logical conclusion, we do not agree with the proposition that people would be forced out after 90 days. If people are in a position to find rental accommodation, they will be competing in an already overheated rental market. If not, where will they go? They could potentially end up on the street. I do not agree with the 90-day proposal. It is not right.

The final amendment proposes to bring the current wording on the assistance required into line with the wording of the temporary protection directive. This would place the State in a better position to be able to respond in a flexible way.

These designated centres are new. We currently have a regulated, albeit flawed, direct provision system as well as the emergency accommodation created over the past two and a half years, and now we will have this system. Will any agencies be authorised to inspect the new designated centres? How will compliance with human rights and the dignity of their residents be ensured? Will people have access to the trauma-informed medical care they will potentially need? We need more detail on the inspection and quality of those locations.

To summarise the amendments we have brought forward, the distinction between inside and outside does not make sense. Bringing the rate more into line with what exists elsewhere is logical in the context of the pressures that exist. However, we should not be creating incentives for people to depart from their accommodation which will force them to compete in a private rental market. The rate provided inside and outside should be the same. The definition that hangs very much on the designation of the centres is not logical and will be difficult to sustain for both the Department of Social Protection and the Department of children.

See this speech in context