Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do we go through this section by section?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are only discussing the amendments.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will not discuss the sections?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, we will move on to the next Stage after the amendments. This is the Deputy's chance to talk. Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are being discussed together.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perfect. I am very happy to do that.

These amendments relate to what is effectively new legislation introduced by the Government on Committee Stage, which is extremely poor practice in terms of having any parliamentary oversight. We should have had new legislation. The Government wants to strip rights from Ukrainians and put them on poverty rates as it treats other asylum seekers. It should have the courage to bring forward the heads of a Bill and have pre-legislative scrutiny and debate, as opposed to bringing this measure into legislation that has nothing to do with it. We supported this Bill on Second Stage because of the long-overdue reforms it makes to the treatment of maintenance by the social welfare system. Instead, we have two new sections that are far-reaching and shameful for the Government, in particular the Green Party.

Under the Government's proposal, Ukrainians will be subjected to this. The Government likes to talk a lot about its support for Ukraine. It often suggests that we are in some way soft in opposing Putin's imperialist invasion of Ukraine. The war is ongoing and people are still fleeing from it but the Government is saying these people will lose their accommodation after 90 days and will have to try to survive on €38.80 a week. It is nothing short of shameful.

The Government knows this is not enough money to live on. In 2020, its own advisory group, addressing the provision of support, including accommodation, to persons in the international protection process, recommended that the weekly expenses allowance be increased from January 2021 and then "revised regularly in line with the cost of living". Of course, the initial increase it recommended never happened and the €38.80 was not increased in line with the cost of living either. Since 2020, prices have risen by roughly 20%, so families in direct provision, who are already in extreme poverty and hardship, have faced a cut of 20%, or one fifth, in their income in real terms over the past four years. That has forced women and girls in direct provision into survival sex work. The Government knows this and is now proposing that the same thing should happen to Ukrainian women and girls who come here fleeing a terrible and ongoing war. You would think from what the Minister is going to say that the war had ended. Surely she would not be seeking to discourage Ukrainians from coming here if the war was still ongoing and people were still being killed daily but that is exactly what she is doing. She is talking about effectively creating a pressure for Ukrainians to go back to an active war zone.

It was a mistake for the Government to create a two-tier asylum system in the first place, where it treated Ukrainians with some basic modicum of decency by giving them a basic amount required to survive while continuing to put the rest of asylum seekers on extreme poverty levels. That was a mistake but the mistake was not in treating some people with respect and decency but in not treating all asylum seekers with a basic level of humanity and decency or giving them enough to survive on some sort of reasonable level. The Government is getting rid of the two-tier system but instead of levelling up, it is bringing both tiers down to the pitiful levels of €38.80.

The Minister stated on Committee Stage that once the Bill is enacted, Ukrainians will only be able to stay in the new accommodation centres for 90 days. After that, they will have the choice to leave and look for accommodation in the middle of the worst ever housing and homeless crisis created by the Government or, in the Minister's words, "return home" to a war zone. The Government currently participates in the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. It has sent soldiers to train Ukrainian army personnel. It has used this to drive a coach and horses through neutrality, yet it is saying these people should simply be pressured to go home and given a choice between homelessness and returning to an active war zone. The Minister even had the gall on Committee Stage - I read the proceedings - to lecture Ukrainians fleeing a war that has killed huge numbers of people, stating that "people have to take responsibility for themselves". That is truly shocking.

I oppose Sinn Féin amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and amendment No. 1 because it is related. The 90-day period is going to happen. People are going to be forced out of accommodation centres because the Government will get a majority. The effect of the amendments will be to make life even more miserable for Ukrainian refugees who are already suffering the massive trauma of conflict, displacement and the deaths of loved ones. With the Sinn Féin amendment, not only would people be down to €38.80 when they are in an accommodation centre but when the Government kicks them out of the centre, they would still be on €38.80. How on earth are people supposed to survive without having any accommodation if they are only on €38.80?

Regarding amendment No. 3, the Government has at least the basic decency to maintain equal rights to healthcare for future Ukrainian refugees, whereas Sinn Féin - as far as I can tell but Deputy Ó Laoghaire can clarify - wants to strip them of that equality. It wants to limit healthcare for these families to "emergency care and essential treatment of illness". Leaving aside even basic humanity, I cannot understand how it would make sense to deny Ukrainian children access to childhood vaccinations. I do not think that will be covered by this wording. It is also not clear to what extent mental health care would be covered. Would trauma counselling count as an essential treatment of illness? I suspect the answer might depend on who is asking the questions.

I am opposed to these amendments but I am also opposed to the scandalous insertion of new sections, and on that basis I am opposed to this Bill at this stage.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to Deputy Ó Laoghaire's amendments but first, to clarify for Deputy Murphy, I flagged very clearly on Second Stage that I would be bringing these amendments forward. I outlined it then and so, in fairness, that was explained at that stage.

What we are trying to do here is bring us in line with other European countries in order that Ireland is not seen as a more attractive destination than any other European countries. I would also say to the Deputy that we have not been found wanting when it came to supporting Ukrainians. We have put roofs over the heads of 75,000 Ukrainians in this country.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are 600 men on the streets now because they are not Ukrainian.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have put a roof over the heads of 75,000 Ukrainians in this country. We have done everything we could do to assist them in the awful plight that they have and had.

On Deputy Ó Laoghaire's amendments, I do not propose to accept these amendments. I understand the Deputy's intention here is to link the new payment rate of €38.80 to a person's date of arrival rather to the fact that they are staying in designated accommodation. We discussed this last week, and I know that the Deputy raised a number of issues with regard to how the designated centres would work. I understand that the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, has written to the Deputy to clarify how this will work in practice and I might take this opportunity to once again explain what is the intention.

Once this legislation is enacted, the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, will designate a number of accommodation centres that will be solely for use by new arrivals from Ukraine. The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth has done a lot of work in preparing for this with regard to identifying suitable centres. It has 3,200 beds lined up already in accommodation centres for new arrivals. The first two designated sites are the Stradbally site and the Ballyogan rest centre. Work is also well under way on three further sites that will come through the refurbishment programme the Department is working on, and the Minister will announce details of those in due course. We discussed this, and I said I would raise the issues the Deputy raised with me at the Cabinet committee meeting. We discussed it, and the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, and his Secretary General were absolutely clear that they have sufficient accommodation lined up for this purpose. Part of the reason for that is the number of new arrivals from Ukraine has reduced significantly. In January, the numbers arriving were down by about 50% compared with December. As I said, the Minister and his officials are confident that they will have enough available space in the new designated centres to cater for the new arrivals.

If I accept the Deputy's amendments to link the payment rates solely to the date of arrival, it would mean two things. It would mean that new arrivals, regardless of whether they are in State-provided accommodation or not, would only get a payment of €38.80. There are people coming here who may not take up the offer of State accommodation, and if they were able to locate their own accommodation, they would then be entitled to the full payment. The intention here is to bring us in line with other European countries. Basically, it is one or the other. If one gets one's accommodation provided by the State, one does not get the full social welfare payments but the reduced payment. That is what we are doing with the legislation. If I accept the Deputy's amendment, it would mean that even those not in State accommodation would only get €38.80.

The second issue is that if we link it explicitly to the date of arrival, it would mean that we could not, in the future, look at reducing the payments for those who are already here and in State-provided accommodation. The temporary directive is due to end at the end of March 2025, and as we look ahead to that and start to plan for what happens afterwards, I do not think we should tie our hands by saying that once a person arrived here after a certain date, they are guaranteed State-provided accommodation and full social welfare payment indefinitely. If they are here before a date, then that is the situation at the minute. What we would be saying, if we accepted the Deputy's amendment, is that we would be doing that indefinitely. I do not think we should do that. It could well be the case that down the road, we may have to make the decision that anyone in State-provided accommodation, regardless of what date they arrived on, they will only receive a payment of €38.80. It is important, therefore, that we retain some level of flexibility here.

The Deputy mentioned the 90 days as well, and I will answer that question here. There are a lot of people from Ukraine who have found their own accommodation, and we have a large number of people coming into this country to take up employment. They have to find their own accommodation, whether they are workers in our health service or in other sectors. As I said earlier, the fact that we have managed to put a roof over the heads of 75,000 people really is a remarkable achievement in itself. However, people have to take responsibility for themselves and decide that if they are going to stay in Ireland, then they will either have to get a job, find their own accommodation or move on. Once the 90 days have lapsed, beneficiaries will vacate the designated accommodation so that new arrivals from Ukraine can be supported. The conditions applying to State-supported accommodation in Ireland for beneficiaries of temporary protection will have been widely communicated in advance of the commencement of the new accommodation policy to ensure that they can make an informed decision as to whether they travel to Ireland. During the 90 days in designated accommodation, beneficiaries will be supported in finding employment and sourcing accommodation which may be private, with their own income or rent supplement or both, or the offer of a home pledged through the Irish Red Cross or private individuals. Once beneficiaries leave designated centres, they will be entitled to apply for social welfare payments equivalent with Irish citizens, and transport to and from designated centres will continue to be arranged.

It is also impossible to predict whether the 90-day policy will actually give rise to homelessness. What we do know is that a no-change policy carries risk given current accommodation constraints in Ireland and the challenges of continuing to source accommodation, in light of migratory pressures and crisis situations. The present policy of support does not align with other member states or incentivise independence or integration into communities.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of things. I want to respond to Deputy Murphy first with regard to amendment No. 3. It is about bringing it in line with what is in the temporary protection directive but really, the intention is to put people arriving under the temporary protection directive on the same footing as those who are fleeing conflict and oppression. In other jurisdictions, it would obviously be my intention that they would be in a position to apply for medical cards and get all the same medical treatment that asylum seekers coming from countries other than the Ukraine would be entitled to. What is in legislation and the International Protection Act 2015 goes some bit further than that, and led to the situation where medical cards were being given out without a means test, and in a position that was not really comparable either with asylum seekers or, to some extent, with Irish citizens. That is the intention of amendment No. 3. Perhaps further consideration can be given to the wording of that in the Seanad. However, with regard to medical cards, the approach that was taken to Ukrainians and the fact that there was no means test, I think that is a very different position than what existed for other asylum seekers or for Irish citizens.

I certainly never indulged in, and would not agree with, the characterisation of People Before Profit with regard to Putin and Ukraine or anything like that. An awful lot of that commentary was juvenile, to be totally honest.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not say the Deputy was doing it.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know the Deputy was not. I just wanted to put that on record.

Regarding the 90 days, and the point that the Government is going to do that anyway, that is not something with which we agree.

As I said, there are two big problems with it. There is an incentive there when we compare what people will receive inside State-provided accommodation with what they will receive outside it. It absolutely is the case that in large parts of the country, people might feel they are better off trying to compete in the private rental market. However, as much pressure as there is on emergency accommodation, I would say there is as much and more pressure on the private rental market. That potentially will be seen in parts of the countries where rents are not as high as they are in Dublin and Cork, including on the west coast and in the midlands, which are the places where the large bulk of Ukrainians currently are located.

I see I am over time.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy, as proposer, will have another chance to speak.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I finish my point briefly?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will get a full two minutes after the Minister responds.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister was at pains to emphasise how much Ireland has done, how proud we are of the people we have taken in and so on. However, she wants to cut the payments to Ukrainians. She wants people to live on €38.80 a week while living in overcrowded and inadequate emergency accommodation. She thinks that is okay, and so does Sinn Féin. In fact, it is pretty poor. Would the Minister live in conditions like that? Setting aside that people have fled a war to get here, does she think it is acceptable to have anybody living like that in this day and age? In fact, it is a scandal that anyone is living like that. The Government was treating Ukrainian refugees with a modicum of decency, saying they had the right to work and giving them a PPS number and the right to access social welfare. Those are the basic things we should be doing. The scandal is that this was not extended to all asylum seekers. It played into the hands of the far right by putting forth the idea that there are good asylum seekers, who are mostly white and from Europe, and bad asylum seekers. That was wrong. It is really bad that the Government's response now is to bring everything down to the same level.

Will the Minister clarify, as she seems to be suggesting, that when the temporary protection directive expires, all Ukrainians who are here will have their payment reduced to €38.80? Will she confirm that this will not just apply to those who are not yet arrived and can therefore make a judgment on whether to come but that the people who are here, including those arriving today or tomorrow, will also have their payment reduced to the pitiful level of €38.80?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The temporary protection directive expires in March 2025. My colleague, the Minister for Justice, was at a Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in Brussels at which the issue was discussed. We will move forward on the matter in consultation with our EU partners.

On Deputy Murphy's question, I said it could well be the case that, down the road, we may have to make the decision that everybody in State-provided accommodation, regardless of what date they arrived, will receive a payment of €38.80. That is exactly what I said.

The designated centres will be fully serviced, with all meals and all laundry services provided, together with other supports. Beneficiaries of temporary protection can apply for a medical card. It is a means-tested benefit but they can apply for it.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To respond to Deputy Murphy, we do not agree with the 90-day provision. I have pointed out the issue with incentives and the challenges they could create. Another consideration is that people in places like the east coast, Cork and so on will not be able to find accommodation and could end up on the streets. It is wrong that this might happen to people who are fleeing their home country and seeking international protection.

Deputy Murphy made the point that the Government is going to go ahead anyway and apply these provisions to everyone. That is not provided for in this legislation. It is a threat by the Government at this point. If the argument is made that the Government will do what it wants to anyway, one could, by the same token, argue that any amendment to Government legislation is futile. If a provision is not contained in the legislation presented, the same logic would say there is no point in proposing amendments. We do not agree with people being turfed out after 90 days. In many instances, they will not be able to find anywhere to go.

The Minister and the Department are not right in saying that what is contained in my amendments constrains future action. That is not the case any more than it is in respect of what is currently in the legislation. The claim is not true. If the Minister could give a chapter-and-verse explanation as to how it is the case, I would appreciate it. If we are coming to the end of the temporary protection directive, and Europe may legislate to extend it in some shape or form, then, as I said in committee, thought needs to be given to how people will come into line with the rest of Irish immigration legislation. They will be able to apply for international protection or they can apply for a visa. Some of them will go onto the international protection rail. While we are seeking to decouple international protection payments and payments under the temporary protection directive, a review of the equity and adequacy of payments to international protection applicants needs to be considered. It is questionable whether the amount is adequate. The point is that if the Minister is going to try to anticipate this and plan ahead, as I said she needs to, that discussion must happen. I do not see anything in my amendments, no more than what is in the legislation as it stands, that would prevent that.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, to delete lines 14 and 15.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 3 cannot be moved as it has been ruled out of order.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not get an answer to my question as to what in my amendments constrains future action. We might consider this issue further in the Seanad. I just do not accept it is the case. Sometimes, bald statements are made but I am not sure there is anything to substantiate this one.

As I outlined, there are currently three tiers of provision. First is the direct provision system that has been in place for some 20 years, which has a certain amount of regulation although it is not anything like adequate. Second is the emergency accommodation that has been provided ad hocin the interim period. Now there will be a third type of provision in the designated centres. These three types of provision are not anywhere near the kind of accommodation we might like to provide but the emergency circumstances are such that accommodation needs to be sourced and provided as quickly as possible. If we are to provide a bare-minimum standard of care, it is important that there be some sort of mechanism for inspection of the new centres. I do not know what authority will be responsible for that. I would like some clarity in that regard.

I again make the point that it probably was a mistake in regard to the temporary protection directive and the international protection legislation of 2015 to create a difference between international protection applicants and temporary protection beneficiaries, with the latter placed outside the international protection system. It is right to bring them in line, both those arriving after this legislation is introduced and very likely, over time, those who are here already, albeit that needs to be done in a tapered and sensible way that ensures there is adequacy. It is important that we consider whether the payment that is made to international protection applicants is adequate.

I think that is a reasonable question that should be put. It has not matched the pressures that exist because of the cost of living crisis.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the point of bringing into line how Ukrainians and other asylum seekers are treated. The question is whether we go down to how asylum seekers are treated with inhumanity or go up to how Ukrainians were treated with basic humanity. Sinn Féin and the Government are saying that we should level down to the level of inhumanity. Sinn Féin's position was for the scrapping of direct provision. It was opposed to direct provision, correctly, because it is an inhumane system. It is a profiteering, privatised system and we should treat people with respect. Ireland is a rich country; that is the truth. Ordinary people in this country are not rich and struggle, there is no question about it. However, the scarcity that exists is an artificial one. It is scarcity because of the Government's refusal to tackle the big corporations and its pursuit of a housing policy which is about enriching those who already own property; multiple corporate landlords, private developer and so on. We do have the capacity to say that we will provide a basic standard of living as we did with Ukrainians. The idea that we should be levelling down is really poor. Moreover, the right to work is going to be a key issue. It was a progressive thing for Ukrainians that they could come in, get a PPS number and be given the right to work.

If we listen to people who are complaining, or raising questions about centres of asylum seekers, they often talk about single men. People often say that the men will be just hanging around because they have nothing to do. These people would like to work and contribute to our society. They would like to earn a wage. It is true now that after six months they can work, which is better than the system we had previously, but we should have a system where we give people access to the labour market very quickly. This would mean a reversal of the view which sees people coming here as being a burden that we are unable to take. Instead, we could see that people are coming in here with skills and talents that we need for our health service, construction industry and public services, all the different things that we need in our society.

It is a little bit similar to the pandemic unemployment payment. For a moment, members of the Government thought, "Jesus, people like me could end up unemployed. What would be the minimum I would need to survive?". The idea of €350 came about. The same kind of thing happened with Ukrainian refugees. All of a sudden, refugees were not people who had a different skin colour or were coming from a different continent. These were European and white and we thought about how we could treat people who were fleeing a horrible war. A basic model, which has some elements of humanity in it was created. That was the glimpse of people here asking themselves how they would like to be treated if there was war here and they fled to another place and were traumatised. That is what we came up with for the Ukrainians.

Instead of scrapping that and bringing them down to the level of how all other asylum seekers are treated, that is what we should have done; we should have considered how people should be treated. There is a problem with the Government talking about how it is levelling it because it does not want to create a pull factor. This is playing into the idea that this is what is happening here and that people are coming here because of our very generous system, and so on. That is a mistake. We should treat people with humanity. A famous quote attributed to Tony Benn states that if you see how a government treats refugees, that is how it would treat you if it could get away with it. For a moment, Ukrainians were treated with a level of decency and now that is being done away with. We should all be standing together and opposing the levelling down of Ukrainians and fighting for the levelling up and equalisation of other asylum seekers. For that reason, I will be voting against this legislation.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said to the Deputy earlier, this is to bring us in line with other European countries. Reducing the payment to €38.80 per week for new Ukrainians coming into this country from now on it brings us better in line. We need to be careful here because there is a distinction between the IPAS legislation and what we are talking about today. This is not about international protection, it is specifically about the beneficiaries of the temporary protection directive, who are the Ukrainians. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, will bring proposals to Cabinet on revisions to the White Paper.

People coming from Ukraine can work here. They have access to our health and education systems. When they are not in a designated centre, they can continue to access social protection payments. Some 17,000 people from Ukraine are actually working in this country. The Deputy bandies about the word "inhumanity". I challenge him to ask any Ukrainian who has come to this country if they have been treated well by the Irish people.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the Minister live on €38.80 per week?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think he will find that they will say they have been. I have been to the centres and I have met people and spoken to them. I can tell the Deputy that they were very glad of the welcome they received here.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So why is the Government ending it?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know if the Deputy ever leaves Dublin but if he was to go down to any of the communities such as in Clare, for example, he would see the welcome they received there. They received the same in many other counties. I ask the Deputy not use words like that because it does not reflect what is happening here.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do not treat people like that. Reducing the payment to €38.80 a week; the Minister is a disgrace.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To Deputy Ó Laoghaire's point, there is a dedicated complaints system, if people are not happy. There is an IPAS centre for refugees in my own county of Monaghan. I have visited it on many occasions. The standard of accommodation has improved considerably over the years. It is not, as Deputy Murphy claims, some kind of substandard accommodation that people are living in. There are some really good centres. I visited the one in Monaghan at Christmas a year ago. Many people and families have their own independent accommodation on the site. I will stand over the fact that when people come to this country, they are treated with respect and dignity.

To Deputy Ó Laoghaire's other point, an inspection regime also exists and we can provide a note on that. I think I have covered all the questions that were raised.