Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft: Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 (Section 9(2)) (Amount of Financial Contribution) Order 2025, a copy of which was laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 14th May, 2025.

I thank the Members of Dáil Éireann for meeting to discuss this motion concerning the order the Minister for Justice, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, proposes to make to reduce the monthly financial contribution for hosts of temporary protection beneficiaries from Ukraine under the accommodation recognition payment, ARP, scheme.

The Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 provides that the draft order laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas cannot be made law until a resolution approving that order has been passed in each House. As announced in March this year, the draft order under consideration proposes a reduction in the monthly contribution from €800 to €600 from June 2025. The first reduced amount will be paid in July by the Department of Social Protection, which administers the scheme on behalf of the Minister for Justice.

My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Foley, has already sought and received the consent of the Minister for Social Protection and the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform for the reduction, as required by law. She also consulted with me and the Minister for Justice on the matter, due to the pending transfer of responsibility for this matter to the Minister for Justice. When the scheme was introduced in 2022, the monthly contribution to hosts was €400.

It was not linked to the actual cost incurred by the person providing the accommodation and was a recognition of the humanitarian response to displaced Ukrainians. The contribution was increased to €800 from 1 December 2022 to coincide with the introduction of the local authorities' offer a home scheme for Ukrainians. Harnessing the many generous offers of accommodation pledged by the public and increasing the financial support available to hosts was seen as important in addressing accommodation challenges due to the continuing arrival of Ukrainians into the State. Pledged accommodation, whether spare rooms in people's houses through Irish Red Cross pledges or vacant homes through the offer a home scheme, were of significant value to the State in the humanitarian response to the Ukrainian crisis. I thank the Irish Red Cross and its partners for their ongoing engagement with hosts, beneficiaries of temporary protection and communities in implementing the Ukraine response pledged accommodation programme.

From the launch of the ARP scheme in July 2022 to date, some 23,900 hosts have availed of the ARP contribution in respect of some 54,500 beneficiaries. In March this year, when the extension of the ARP scheme was being considered in this House, many Members of the House reflected on the many positive aspects of the scheme. They acknowledged it as an innovative measure which has generated emergency accommodation out of largely unused housing stock. The scheme tapped into the goodwill of thousands of households and provided an economically and socially viable alternative to accommodation in the tourism sector. Under the scheme, Ukrainians have had access to accommodation that is more suitable for families, and that is a path towards independent living. The scheme has been a lifeline for displaced Ukrainians, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation and has contributed to a shift away from a reliance on State-procured accommodation in hotels and guesthouses. On 18 May this year, more than 38,700 people were being housed under the scheme. This now exceeds the number in State-procured accommodation, which is some 24,100.

Notwithstanding the success of the scheme, it is now timely to reduce the level of the financial contribution under the ARP. I also acknowledge the concerns that were raised by Deputies in this House in March regarding the potential impact of the scheme on the private rental market, and note the amendment that Deputy Carthy intends to table today. I will address this matter later in the session. The reduction seeks to mitigate any unintended impact of the ARP on the private rental sector. While there are no definitive findings of any impact, I am mindful of the concerns expressed by Oireachtas colleagues and hope that the reduction will go some way towards alleviating those concerns.

My Department has shared ARP data for analysis undertaken on behalf of the Department of housing and it has been difficult to reach any definitive conclusion on the matter, in part due to the provisions of the scheme. For example, a property that is registered with the Residential Tenancies Board might also fall within the remit of the ARP as a tenant may apply for the ARP subject to the consent of the property owner and other tenants. There are also likely to be cases of RTB property registrations which were terminated for a range of reasons, such as the sale of property or change of use, in respect of which an applicant is in receipt of the accommodation recognition payment.

While there have been concerns about the scheme's possible negative impact, the results of the Irish Red Cross research of ARP hosts cannot be ignored. That research found that over 90% of hosts are not landlords, and that their primary motivation for involvement has been supporting people fleeing the war in Ukraine. The proposed reduced contribution reflects recent policy changes which aim to ensure that temporary and timebound supports for beneficiaries of temporary protection are proportionate and equitable. Our policies are continuing to evolve as we transition from a crisis to a more measured, standardised and sustainable response. Last year, for example, the 90-day State accommodation policy was introduced and the rate of payments to beneficiaries in designated accommodation centres was reduced. Those policies resulted in a significant reduction in the number of beneficiaries arriving in Ireland and reduced numbers in State-procured accommodation.

I know that there are conflicting views on the impact of reducing the rate. There are those who see the current monthly tax-free contribution of €800 as outcompeting local renters. There are those who are concerned that the reduced rate will place a burden on hosts and that they will not be able to cover the cost of housing. The contribution is not, nor has it ever been, linked to the actual costs incurred by the person providing accommodation. It is not intended to substitute rent. It is not available where there is a rental agreement in place. With regard to so called top-up payments, the ARP does not create any obligation for the beneficiaries in the accommodation, such as payment of rent or provision of services. However, a beneficiary may agree to contribute towards certain household costs such as utilities.

A concern related to the proposed reduction is that beneficiaries may lose their accommodation and become vulnerable to homelessness. There may be a risk associated with reducing the contribution and it is impossible to predict ARP applicant attrition rates. In that regard, although the reduction has been flagged for some months, the number of ARP applications has continued to increase. Should hosting arrangements end, and they can end for a range of reasons, beneficiaries who may require support will be provided with that support. Of course, it should be recognised that there will be others already in employment and settled in local communities who will seek to make their own arrangements, as many of their compatriots have already done.

A monthly contribution of €600 tax free is still an attractive payment and is the equivalent of a normal rental property of over €1,000 per month, as most landlords pay 50% tax on rental payments. Since 2022, a number of European countries have introduced financial support schemes for private hosts for displaced persons from Ukraine. Most of those schemes' rates have been reduced, while others have been discontinued. Even after the proposed reduction, the accommodation recognition payment scheme is at the generous end of such schemes, both in the duration for applicants and the level of contribution. I hope that by continuing the scheme at a reduced rate, we can achieve a balance between the needs of displaced people, the hosts who have extended a warm welcome to them and the wider community. The House's approval of this motion today will endorse that approach.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Labour Party will not be supporting the Government motion to cut the accommodation recognition payment from €800 to €600, nor will we be supporting the Sinn Féin amendment, which I call on its members to withdraw. Sinn Féin should support the parties of the left in opposing the motion and the €200 cut to the payment.

Since the outbreak of the Russian war of conquest against Ukraine, we have been proud to stand in solidarity with Ukrainian people. When the Dáil last discussed this motion to extend the scheme in March, it was confirmed that over 37,000 Ukrainians were being provided with accommodation in over 20,000 properties, down from a high of over 52,000 beneficiaries. This is by any measure a very successful scheme that has ensured Ukrainians have a place to call home and it saved the State millions of euro that would otherwise have been spent on private or commercial accommodation. As the Minister said in March, the average cost per night is €13, compared with €45 in commercial self-catering accommodation. There is a significant risk now that the cut to €600 will result in extra cost for the State by putting Ukrainians at risk of homelessness. That would pile further pressure onto the private market and worsen the housing crisis.

Internal documents on the ARP scheme obtained by the Irish Daily Mail and published last Wednesday by Craig Hughes show officials in the Department of public expenditure are concerned about the knock-on effects as there is a risk that it will end up costing more than it saves. A memo from the Minister stated there was a risk that this could undermine ongoing efforts to reduce reliance on expensive commercial accommodation and that, in effect, Ukrainians would be transferred from homes to hotels. The Minister of State should confirm if a business case was produced for the decision. It is estimated the current system is saving the State €1 million to €2 million every day based on current numbers. It takes pressure off the private rental market and, importantly, helps people integrate and learn English faster. It embeds people in their local communities through their hosts. A price cannot be put on those benefits to Ukrainians and local Irish communities.

The stated reason for reducing the payment is that it will facilitate the winding down of the scheme in an orderly way in advance of the temporary protection directive ending in March 2026. The Minister of State should clarify what will happen later this year and into 2026 if the directive ends next March. What is the transition plan? Is it to end the scheme entirely next March? If the war continues with Putin showing no sign of ending it, what is the Government prepared to commit to support the thousands of Ukrainians now living here?

Sinn Féin's amendment refers to the impact on the private rental market. However, I refer the Sinn Féin Members to the survey of hosts by the Irish Red Cross which showed that the vast majority of hosts, 91%, are not landlords, have never been registered with the RTB and do not wish to become landlords. Some 86% of hosts reported that their ARP is important for them to continue their hosting arrangements.

We all know the solution to the housing crisis is to build more homes and renovate and restore thousands of derelict properties across the State. We should also look at measures to bring holiday homes back into use. How many empty homes are there right now across the State, whether second homes or being used as Airbnbs? Putting the blame on Ukrainians is cynical and exploitative. Across our communities, they have worked hard to contribute and play their part. Nearly 25,000 Ukrainians are at work and over 17,000 children are in school. They are helping small schools across the country stay open. They are contributing to our economy and providing vital skills and filling jobs in every sector, addressing a shortage of labour in our economy. This scheme is supporting mostly women, children and older people who have fled their home country because of the Russian war of invasion.

The cost of living is not coming down in this country. It is the opposite; costs are going up. Electricity, grocery prices, insurance - you name it, the costs are rising. The cut will impact host families and change the basic economics for them. There will not be a once-off cost-of-living package in this year's budget, thereby piling further pressure on families. The Government is taking a huge risk by cutting this payment. It could have major ramifications in the private rental sector if more Ukrainians have to find accommodation there and, as internal Government memos show, there is a real risk it could result in higher costs if more commercial accommodation is needed. In a world of great uncertainty, I urge the Minister of State not to add to it but, instead, to maintain the payment. The ARP is a model scheme and has worked well. The Minister of State must also outline to us the long-term plan for the supports in place for Ukrainians and continue to pledge Ireland's solidarity for their cause.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This proposed reduction in the accommodation recognition payment from €800 to €600 a month is not just a bureaucratic tweak, it is a deeply short-sighted move that will hurt the very people we have asked to step up, that is, the thousands of families who have opened their homes to Ukrainian refugees fleeing war. When the war began and we stepped up, we talked about the huge solidarity the Irish people demonstrated to the Ukrainian community who came here, to our towns, villages and cities. Now, while the war still is not over, the Government is saying that it will take that down a little bit.

We should be honest in recognising that this payment works. We know that. A recent survey of hosts carried out by the Irish Red Cross indicated that 91% of them had a positive experience. We should also remember that these people were never landlords. Some 91% of homes involved in the scheme were never registered with the RTB. These were ordinary families, not investors or speculators, and they did not join this scheme for profit. They were ordinary families who answered the call that came from all sides of this Chamber. Most cited solidarity as their primary motivation but the €800 payment makes it possible for them to keep going, especially now, when the cost of living continues to rise.

Cutting this payment is not just bad social policy, it is bad economics.

Internal Government documents, now public thanks to media reporting, show that cutting the payment could actually cost the State millions of euro more. If even 10% fewer people were to take part in the scheme, this reduction could push an extra 100 people per month into emergency accommodation such as hotels, bed and breakfast accommodation and guesthouses at a potential additional cost of €7 million by the year's end.

This measure is not just penny wise and pound foolish; it is self-defeating. There is an aura of cruelty being built into it. The Department of integration has offered no clear business case to justify this cut. It is my understanding that the Department of public expenditure has asked for one and simply has not received it yet. The Department had to model the cost itself and those models showed what many of us already know, namely, that this is a functioning scheme that is no doubt under pressure and cutting supports risks breaking it. The rationale given is that the change will help us to wind down the scheme in advance of the end of the EU's temporary protection directive in March 2026. That is a full nine months away and there is no guarantee that at that point this war we all recognise to be cruel and unjust will have ended. We all stand in the House on every anniversary of Russia's cruel and unjust invasion and express solidarity with the Ukrainian community but none of us were told that solidarity comes with a clock ticking.

The war in Ukraine has not ended and the needs have not changed. People are still seeking refuge and communities across Ireland are still stepping up, not only to provide solidarity, although that is there in abundance, but being enhanced by it. We also should not forget what happens when we try to cut costs haphazardly. Only recently, more than 200 Ukrainian refugees living in Dublin 1 were told out of the blue that they would be uprooted. Some would be sent to County Kildare, others to Bray and, astonishingly, children were to be separated from their parents and sent to Swords, all with 48 hours' notice. That is not how a compassionate or competent government acts. That is chaotic. It is cruel and, at its very essence, retraumatising of a people who have to actively flee from a war.

We cannot separate policy decisions like these and propose they be cut from the human consequences that follow. If we reduce this payment, we reduce the capacity of communities to host and if we reduce capacity, more people will end up in emergency accommodation. That means more rushed evictions and more upheavals. Without a shadow of a doubt, we should improve the scheme where necessary. Let us tighten it and provide oversight if there is evidence of abuses but let us not destroy something that works just to tick a budget box.

What we need right now is certainty. We need clarity for host families. We need stability for those still fleeing the war and we need compassion to remain the cornerstone of our refugee response. We will not support the cut and we will not support Sinn Féin's amendment. We think we should protect what works and maintain sensible schemes that encourage integration rather than isolation.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also do not support the change to this scheme or the amendment proposed. Let us put this in context. Some 91% of the people who are participating in hosting refugees under this scheme have never been landlords before. It is not true that this scheme will interfere or has interfered with the housing market because nine out of ten of hosts never would have been landlords. I do not understand why this argument is being made consistently other than to potentially lean in to some of the anti-refugee or racist sentiment that is building up in society.

The second issue is that two thirds of those surveyed might also be open to hosting other refugees. Given that we know this scheme is costing the State a lot less than housing refugees in State accommodation would, it is important to note that it is being cut off as an option. Also, we know there will be opposition. If all of these people are turfed out of their accommodation, there will be opposition to building large-scale facilities as we have seen in every single town and county. It is irresponsible to cut the scheme and then propose it be ditched altogether.

Most people have had a positive experience. The scheme is far from perfect; I am not saying it is perfect. There is a lack of oversight and there are issues such as people being asked for top-up payments, which obviously happens in the private sector as well. According to the Irish Red Cross, people have been participating out of a sense of benevolence and wanting to help people who are fleeing war. The scheme could be extended to other groups in the future, rather than the State having to seek accommodation for them. By the way, it is surely better for integrating people into society to have them living in a community or on a street alongside other people rather than stuck in one building with maybe hundreds of other people. It is much better as a form of integration.

In one of the scenarios, the Minister of State found that even if 10% of people were to stop using the scheme because of this reduction, it would cost €7 million more to house the people affected in private accommodation than the State would have had to pay otherwise. I see this as being a part of a general trend of cruelty and hostility towards people seeking international protection and migrants in general. It adds to the message that goes out of "Don't come here", and it sends a message to Ukrainians to go back to their country. It is a mistake for Sinn Féin to lean into this racist sentiment in society. It will not win Sinn Féin any votes. All it does is give grounds and arguments to the far right. It will not work.

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

Fine Gael's manifesto for the previous general election stated it would "Stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes." It would, it said, "unequivocally support Ukraine". That promise, like all the other promises of this Government, lasted approximately 100 days. It was not worth the paper it was written on. One of the first things the Government is doing is slashing supports to Ukrainian people who have fled to Ireland, by cutting the ARP from €800 to €600 per month. The Government started kicking Ukrainian refugees out of hotels ahead of the elections last year in an attempt to appease the far right. As a result, since last May, the percentage of Ukrainian refugees relying on the ARP has risen from 27% to 46%. One in two Ukrainian refugees is now reliant on this payment. This cut will have an immediate impact on nearly half of all Ukrainian refugees living in this State.

Currently, 37,500 people rely on the ARP to keep a roof over the heads. The Government knows that many of the hosts would not be hosting if they were not getting the €800 payment. In one survey, three quarters of hosts said they would not be able to continue to accommodate Ukrainians if the payment was cut. An even higher percentage - 86% - told the Irish Red Cross that the payment is important to them continuing to host. The Government knows that cutting this payment will mean families being evicted onto the streets, forced to return to an active war zone, or - in circumstances where they can - going into the private rental market and adding to the pressures there.

The point has been made repeatedly that this makes no financial sense. I do not think this is an example of petty penny-pinching by the Government. I think the Government knows it will cost more money than it will save but it is willing to spend money on perfomative, expensive cruelty. It is like the chartered deportation flights. They make no sense in economic terms and are an extraordinarily expensive way of deporting people but it is about the theatre. Similarly, this is about saying to people, "Don't worry, we are dealing with these Ukrainians. Look, we have cut the payment from €800 to €600." This Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Lowry lackey Government is so right wing it is more interested in pandering to anti-immigration sentiment and the far right than in preventing even more families becoming homeless, while Fine Gael champions the idea of supporting and standing with Ukraine.

It is disgraceful that Sinn Féin's amendment urges the Government to go even further in its attacks on refugees. This is part of a failed tactic where Sinn Féin chases after the far right for votes. It did not work during the previous two elections last year. in fact, it backfired disastrously by centring and problematising the issue of immigration and taking pressure off the Government that has been responsible for the housing crisis, cost-of-living crisis and everything else because it suggests the problem is actually immigrants, which is wrong. All it means is that Sinn Féin ends up participating in attacks on refugee families and making those attacks even worse.

It does not even gain anything politically. It just cedes more and more ground to the far right and honest, ordinary people see it as being dishonest and flip-flopping. Rather than dividing the working class by attacking particular groups and pitting people against each other, we should be fighting for universal, non-means tested payments, higher wages and universal public housing for all. We should be trying to lift the level of how we treat refugees, not drag it down. That is how we fight the far right, by addressing the poverty and inequality it exploits, not by making poverty and inequality even worse.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is one of the areas where there is a large chasm between where the people of Ireland are and where the political establishment in Leinster House sits. Most people want to be able to provide shelter for those who are fleeing war and violence and to be able to help people, especially from Ukraine, given the horrendous war happening there. However, most people want a level of fairness in the system. They want that two people living on the same street will not have a difference between them that gives one family an advantage in accommodation over another. They also want a situation where resources are given to those who need them, rather than to people because of the colour of their skin or their nationality.

Here we have a payment which is given to individuals irrespective of the level of income they earn. There is no threshold for the income that is earned by a person under which they can achieve this income. It is incredibly wrong that we have a situation where people in one house could earn €100,000 and gain this particular support and next door those on €30,000 do not gain this particular support.

A tenant came into my office recently. She is a woman who has two children with autism and a baby on the way. She lives in a two-bedroom apartment on the third floor of a block of apartments. It is difficult for her to manage her family in that situation. She was in tears because she has another child on the way and cannot gain access to another house with better accommodation due to the housing crisis. A father came in recently who recently separated and is living in emergency accommodation. He cannot bring his children into the emergency accommodation because there are ten other men living in it and he cannot gain access to a house which would properly accommodate his family. Many people are living in difficult situations and find themselves in competition with individuals who are given a higher level of support than they are to gain accommodation. Most people outside this House, the majority who are not worn down by ideology and just have a common-sense practicality to them, recognise that is absolutely wrong.

Aontú has said from the start that we need to give shelter to those who need it, but we need to make sure the supports we provide do not provide a pull factor for people to come to this country or give someone an advantage over an individual in this country. No one from outside the country should get any more than anyone in the country as regards the supports they get to live. That has not been the case and it has been a significant ingredient, if we are honest, in a lot of the anger and frustration that has built and bubbled up in communities. The Government's approach to this whole process has been one of chaos and it has damaged the cohesion that existed, unfortunately, in the past.

I welcome that Sinn Féin has moved onto this ground as regards the common-sense element. It is important that we start to get mainstream political parties talking about the need for equality in the supports families get for accommodation. It is absolutely necessary that we have a means test in the system. It is mind-boggling to most people that it is not properly means tested. Perhaps the Minister of State will ask whether that can be done in future.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I take a slightly different approach from that of Deputy Tóibín. We have to remember what the ARP is for. It is part of our contribution to help war-torn Ukraine which has been aggressively attacked by Putin's regime. As we are not a military country - we are militarily neutral and not participating in any transfer of weaponry - we have made a contribution as part of the effort to help Ukraine. That includes taking in displaced people from Ukraine and giving them the comfort and safety of living in a democratic area while the war effort continues at home where people cannot live in many cities. There have been a lot of tropes about apartments for rent here, there and everywhere. Ukraine is not able to function and we should continue to help Ukrainians as long as this is part of an overall EU arrangement.

People raise issues about the pressure on housing. The Government's failure to build houses has added to that. It is also the case, as I referenced in the Dáil, that while people welcome those who are genuinely fleeing persecution, be they from Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan or other countries, they do not like people abusing the asylum system who claim asylum but are found not to have leave to remain. Many people in that category are still in the country and putting pressure on our housing and accommodation services. In that context, there is a balance to be struck. As I said in my midnight plane to Georgia speech, many of the economic migrants abusing the asylum process are very nice people, but we do not have the capacity. A Ukrainian fleeing a war cannot be equated with an economic migrant. It is a different thing. Ukrainians, Syrians, Afghanis and Sudanese, people who are actually fleeing persecution, need to be treated differently.

When people are granted full refugee status, they go on the list like everyone else, which is fair enough. For Ukrainians, however, it is not like that. They might end up going back to Ukraine, but they have built a life here, sent their children to school. In many instances, people have got in touch with me because they have had to move to another area and the child was taken out of school. It is hugely disheartening. Friendships and any stability they have are broken up. While many Ukrainians have expressed a desire to go back to Ukraine when the war is over to help to rebuild their country, some will stay in Ireland and the onus is on us to make sure they are well trained, well integrated and net contributors to Irish society. We have done a lot for the Ukrainians and they have expressed gratitude, but that does not mean that because there is pressure from extremist groups, which paint anyone with a different accent or skin colour as part of some great replacement, the Ukrainians should be targeted by a Government trying to appear to get tough. There are areas to get tough on. Do not pick on the Ukrainians or those who are genuinely fleeing persecution.

The ARP reduction will not encourage anyone to rent out commercially. It is a different scheme. Many people who have given properties under this scheme do not want to become accidental or HAP landlords and be tied in. That is the reality. Therefore, let us keep the ARP scheme going for as long as it takes.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for their contributions and for taking the time to consider the motion to reduce the amount of the monthly contribution under the ARP scheme for people hosting beneficiaries of temporary protection. As provided by the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022, the draft order laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas cannot be made law until a resolution approving that order has been passed by each House. Therefore, approval of the motion in Dáil Éireann is essential to ensure the monthly contribution is reduced from €800 to €600. This will allow for a more standardised and sustainable response and address the possible impacts, as I said earlier, on the rental market. It is also for reasons of equity. The reduction will also allow for an orderly wind-down of the scheme as we advance towards the end of the temporary protection directive in March next year.

While the impact of the reduced contribution is impossible to predict, I believe many hosts are involved in the ARP scheme for humanitarian reasons. This has been borne out by Irish Red Cross research. As I mentioned, beneficiaries whose hosts wish to end their involvement in the scheme for whatever reason and who may require support will be provided with that support. Clearly, and in recognition of significant integration efforts, there will be many others who will make their own way in communities into which they have become integrated. My Department will continue to track the scheme activity levels with assistance from the Department of Social Protection.

I acknowledge the concerns raised by Deputies, particularly in respect of the possible displacement effect the scheme has on the private rental market which is under extreme pressure.

I note the proposed amendment put forward by Deputy Carthy, which seeks to limit the extension of the scheme to beneficiaries of temporary protection covered by the scheme who satisfy a means test. It is also proposed to restrict the scheme to applicants intending to host beneficiaries in their own residence and who have not availed of the rent-a-room scheme in the previous 12 months so as not to affect the private rental sector. Finally, it was proposed to extend the scheme to applicants not in receipt of any additional or top-up payments from the beneficiary. I oppose the amendment to the motion. I note that a similar amendment was tabled in the Dáil in March this year when the matter of the scheme's extension was being considered. As the Minister, Deputy Foley, indicated at the time and as acknowledged in the amendment itself, the matters raised in the proposed amendment to the ARP scheme would require an amendment to primary legislation that established the scheme in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022. They are therefore not matters that have a bearing on the motion under discussion here, which is simply to reduce the financial contribution.

On the issue of means testing for beneficiaries, it is important to note that the ARP is actually a goodwill payment to recognise the contribution of those who opened their homes to people fleeing the war in Ukraine. As I said in my earlier contribution, the payment is not intended to substitute for rent. It is not available where there has been a rental agreement in place. The legislation is very clear in this regard.

With regard to top-ups, the ARP does not create an obligation for beneficiaries such as payment of rent or the provision or services. However, a beneficiary may agree to make a contribution towards costs such as utilities. That is a matter for the parties themselves.

Deputy Carthy's amendment to limit the scheme to those hosting in their primary residence would result, I believe, in reduced availability of accommodation for beneficiaries in need of shelter. It would preclude unoccupied homes offered through the offer-a-home scheme such as holiday homes which have been a valuable source of accommodation. It is clear that the scheme has been responsible for introducing an accommodation stream that would not have been otherwise available and which has been a vital element to the State's response to the Ukrainian crisis in providing shelter to families in need.

The ARP is acknowledged as an effective instrument of public policy and an extension to next March was recently approved by the Oireachtas. We now need to fine-tune the scheme in a balanced way to respond to concerns raised. I hope Members will support the motion. As the Minister, Deputy Foley, confirmed when consideration was being given to extending the scheme, its operation will be subject to monitoring by relevant Departments.

I thank those in our communities who welcomed Ukrainians into their homes and provided them with a safe space, support and stability. I also record my appreciation for the Irish Red Cross. I confirm that I am not in a position to accept the amendments to the motion as proposed by Deputy Carthy. The draft order being considered cannot be law until a resolution approving the order has been passed by each House. Therefore, approval of the motion by the Dáil today is essential to ensure the level of monetary contribution under the ARP scheme is set at what is considered to be a more equitable rate and to better serve the public interest.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is deferred until the voting block later tonight.