Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

I move amendment No. 1:

to insert after "on 14th May, 2025":

"provided that future financial contributions under Accommodation Recognition Payment (ARP) Scheme shall only be paid after the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 has been amended to provide for the following:

— existing recipients with respect to the beneficiaries of temporary protection currently benefitting from the scheme where those beneficiaries of temporary protection have satisfied a means test similar to those applicable for other housing assistance payments;

— new applications who propose to host a beneficiary of temporary protection in their property which is also their own primary residence and who have not availed of the Rent-a-Room Scheme in the previous 12 months; ensuring that the ARP does not further distort the rental sector; and

— recipients who are not in receipt of any additional or 'top-up' payments from a beneficiary of temporary protection.".

This motion reduces the accommodation recognition payment from €800 to €600 but it does not deal with any of the other issues regarding the ARP which need to be addressed. As the Minister of State alluded to, Sinn Féin has repeatedly highlighted issues of unfairness with the Ukrainian accommodation recognition payment scheme that the Government has simply, again, ignored. For far too long, members of this Government have essentially stonewalled anyone who pointed out that the scheme was impacting on the private rental market, particularly in counties that might traditionally have lower rents. There was a point-blank refusal to deal with this issue on numerous occasions when Sinn Féin raised it.

It is acknowledged that at the beginning this scheme was an emergency measure to support those who opened up their own homes to people fleeing war, which was commendable. What we have increasingly been seeing is landlords in the private sector availing of the ARP because in some areas it is financially advantageous for them to do so compared with renting to other potential tenants. It is important to say that it frees landlords of the obligations they would have to tenants under formal tenancy agreements, which is something that some landlords unfortunately see as advantageous.

Currently, we know that the State is paying landlords €800 per month, tax-free, to accommodate a person from Ukraine here under the temporary protection directive. That puts other renters, including people who might be on lower incomes or in a more precarious situation, at a severe disadvantage as the scheme has incentivised landlords, particularly when there is a new property, to rent their properties to Ukrainians under the scheme, especially where there might be lower rents traditionally. The tax-free payment is going to be reduced to €600 but it is hard to know what difference this will make. The Minister has essentially not only refused to state that Government will ban the practice of top-up payments but has defended that system. We have a situation where, uniquely within the private rental sector, unregulated payments are being made, with no way of knowing what level they are, whether they are genuine payments towards costs incurred or whether they are top-up rental income being paid tax-free to landlords concerned.

The motion before the House today can only be described as a missed opportunity because there was a chance to address a number of key problems with the scheme that make it inherently unfair, including allowing for top-up payments and, crucially, for the introduction of a means test. We can have a situation where one person who is availing of this scheme could be employed in a well-paying job and, because there is no means test as there is in every other rental support scheme, they are availing of this subsidy.

That is what makes this scheme divisive, deeply unfair and why, in our view, it should be ended for new entrants. It should be means tested, as all other housing supports are, and the practice of permitting top-up payments should be banned. In addressing the problems with the scheme, we are clear that obviously there should be no cliff edge that would put anyone at risk of homelessness. There is an important distinction to be made between those who are housing families in their own homes and landlords in the private sector who are availing of the ARP. The Government has to acknowledge that distinction as well.

The Government has said this reduction is to mitigate any unintended impact on the private rental sector. That is very interesting because the Government was at pains to deny that there has been any impact on the rental sector at all when Sinn Féin repeatedly raised these problems. There is an issue with an absolute lack of transparency from the Government regarding what analysis or documentation it has regarding the impact of the ARP on the private rental sector. What we do know is that there are a number of reports in existence but FOI requests for access have been refused. We are told there is a record dated 30 September of last year entitled Accommodation Recognition Payment and Potential Impact on the Private Rental Market. We know there is a record dated 14 February this year entitled ARP and the Impacts on the Private Rental Market. That was a paper prepared for the Taoiseach, we are told. We are also told there is a record dated 26 February this year entitled Impact of ARP on the Rental Market. What we do not know is what any of those reports actually say because in the first instance the Minister of State refused to acknowledge they existed and now he is refusing again to admit there is any impact on the private rental sector. It was only in response to a parliamentary question last week that the Minister for Justice, who has now assumed responsibility for the ARP, explicitly acknowledged that the ARP was impacting on the private rental sector. However, all we have is the Minister's understanding of the indicative findings. We have not had sight of any of this research. We are simply told that the proposed reduction in payment seeks to mitigate against unintended impact on the private sector but we do not know if any of these reports have looked at the impact on top-up payments, as I have mentioned, that have been permitted alongside the ARP.

Let me be very clear. All the reports on the ARP impact on the private rental sector must be published without any further delay. This is taxpayers' money, a lot of it, being paid under a scheme and it is absolutely unfair and quite disgraceful that we are being expected, as Members of the Oireachtas to stand, speak and vote on motions such as this one without any access to information that is within the gift of the Government to share. That is why Sinn Féin has tabled an amendment to the motion to ensure the following steps are taken to address the fundamental elements of the unfairness within the ARP prior to any further payments being made under this scheme. Just to be clear, our amendment calls for an end to the scheme for new entrants. It confines the ARP to primary residents, in other words, people who are housing people from Ukraine in their homes, something we have repeatedly said is very commendable and that should be supported, but does not displace the private rental sector. We have said quite sensibly that the ARP should be means tested, as is the case with every other housing assistance payment. It is crucially important that we ban the practice of top-up payments under the ARP, particularly unregulated top-up payments that have nothing to do with throwing a few euro towards the cost of electricity or groceries in a family home but are, rather, I suspect, additional payments being made to landlords tax-free. I urge the Government and all Members of this House to support the amendment.

See this speech in context