Naoise Ó Cearúil (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

134. To ask the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment for an update on his plans for a successor scheme for the basic income for the arts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34834/25]

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

138. To ask the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment further to his announcement that the basic income for the arts pilot scheme is to be extended by six months, his plans for the permanent roll-out of the BIA scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34911/25]

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

141. To ask the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment if his Department has undertaken any analysis of the effectiveness of the basic income for the arts scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34056/25]

Naoise Ó Cearúil (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The basic income for the arts pilot scheme has already shown a transformative impact. Artists report producing more work, enjoying better well-being and feeling more financially secure. It has been extended for six months to allow for a full evaluation. I ask the Minister outline to his plans for a successor scheme and to confirm that budget 2026 will include ring-fenced funding for its continuation.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 134, 138 and 141 together. As the Deputies will be aware, the programme for Government commits to assessing the basic income for the arts pilot research scheme to maximise its impact. The scheme has now been operating for almost three years and is underpinned by a robust research programme collecting data about all aspects of the lives of the artists and creative arts workers who are participating in the scheme.

There is clearly broad support for the scheme, as is evident from the numerous representations from colleagues to me on behalf of their constituents. Last week, I announced that Cabinet agreed to my proposal to an extension of six months, to February 2026, to allow for further evaluation of the pilot data, which will provide the evidence base for Government to make decisions on the next steps. This will also give sufficient time to engage in stakeholder consultation.

I am aware there is broad-based support for the scheme across the sector, and I have met the National Campaign for the Arts to discuss this. I intend to bring proposals for a permanent intervention to Cabinet as part of budget 2026, using the evidence arising from the research programme and stakeholder engagement. The programme for Government and the Government’s research and innovation strategy note the importance of incorporating the use of evidence into the policy development process and of improving links between policymakers and researchers. This is a key programme to bring research and data to provide an evidence base for Government to make decisions on future policy for the arts.

The rate being paid to recipients is €325 per week and this allows for 2,000 people to receive the payment within the current pilot scheme, which costs €35 million per year for 2,000 recipients. The current scheme costs €105 million for its three-year duration. The full cost of the six-month extension is €16.7 million. The net overall cost of the pilot is likely to be less, given the number of recipients who were previously on social welfare supports prior to entering the scheme.

The scheme's research pilot is designed as a randomised control trial in order to make it possible to identify causality and has benefited from the involvement of external researchers. This randomised control trial includes a treatment group of 2,000, that is, recipients of the payment, and a control group of 1,000 who are not in receipt of the payment. The control group provides the same survey data as those in receipt of the payment and, although that cohort does not get the payment, individuals are paid €650 per year to participate. The differences in outcomes for the treatment group and control group illustrates the impact of the basic income for the arts payment to those in receipt of it. The control group data shows that they suffer more from the precarious and inconsistent nature of their income. It is important to note that even those in receipt of the payment fare worse than the general population in terms of deprivation and depression.

This is the first large-scale randomised control test undertaken by a Department and represents one of the leading impact evaluations under way in the public sector. Evaluation of the pilot is and has been continuous, with participants completing a detailed survey every six months. The Department has undertaken a broad research programme, including two papers based on the baseline survey, that is, information about participants' lives before they received the first BIA payment and two impact assessments that have been published to date.

The Department is preparing a report examining the first 24 months of the scheme, which is due to be published over the summer months. An interview research paper written by an independent researcher was also published recently. This paper collects the experiences of 50 recipients, who have been interviewed by a sociologist.

While the research phase of the scheme is still ongoing, it is clear from the evidence collected to date by the Department on the scheme that it is having a positive impact on participants. This data shows that the BIA payment is having a consistent, positive impact across almost all indicators, affecting practice development, sectoral retention, well-being and deprivation.

In terms of ongoing evaluation of the scheme, work has recently begun with an external independent economic consultancy to prepare a full cost-benefit analysis of the BIA. The aim of a cost-benefit analysis is to compare the benefits and costs arising from a specific policy, in order to determine its net value. Therefore, the costs and benefits arising from the BIA will be measured and compared to determine its effectiveness prior to any decision on a successor programme. In addition to the cost-benefit analysis, the contractors will map available funding opportunities for artists in Ireland and examine how the BIA functions within the broader art ecosystem, to understand if it is a more or less efficient policy than similar supports.

As I mentioned, I also recently published a qualitative research paper, based on interviews with recipients of the BIA. This provides the lived experience of some of those in receipt of the BIA. This report found that the stability of the payment has significantly reduced underlying financial stress, to provide relief and peace of mind that allows recipients to experience a reduced sense of anxiety about meeting their basic needs.

As part of the policy development process, the Department established an interagency consultative committee on the basic income for the arts research scheme. This committee is an opportunity for the research outputs to be shared across relevant Departments and agencies and allows for discussion of the research findings. I know that the BIA support is hugely valued by artists in receipt of it. It has also been the subject of much positive commentary at home and abroad, and makes an important statement about how Ireland values the arts.

A Government decision will be required on any successor scheme to the pilot, and the future of the BIA will be decided when the results of the research are available, something which is facilitated by the extension I have announced. I plan to engage with stakeholders over the coming months to determine what adjustments could be made to the scheme and how the eligibility and other criteria might be refined. I look forward to bringing forward the proposals I have at that stage to my Cabinet colleagues as part of budget 2026.

Naoise Ó Cearúil (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for the reply and for the work he continues to do on the basic income for the arts pilot. The scheme has made a real difference to the lives of close to 2,000 artists. We know that the evidence the Minister has mentioned points to positive outcomes across practice development, sectoral resilience and community engagement. Given the Department is preparing the full report and a cost-benefit analysis, will these findings be published in full? I appreciate the Minister will bring them to Cabinet, which will be able to make a decision thereafter, but it would be great if the findings were published and we could see the evidence. Does the Minister accept it is more than just an income support for artists? It is a statement about the value we place on culture and creativity in Irish society. A successor scheme or a continuation must be co-designed with artists, including those with disabilities and from minority backgrounds, to ensure it is inclusive and accessible from the start.

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

Aontú has supported the scheme from the outset. The reason we have done so is that, unfortunately, poverty and the arts are often synonymous. People who work in the arts probably have the most precarious work that exists in the country. Their lived experience is often the direct opposite of people's understanding of the glamour of the arts. The difficulty I have with this is that we have a project that has been going on for three years and we still do not have a decision on it from the Government. Absolutely we need time to evaluate and to make a decision but I have been long enough around here to have noticed that difficult decisions are often kicked down the road. I have a worry that only one quarter of the people who need this particular payment are in receipt of it. Now we will see another nine months pass without a decision being made on their experience. Theirs is probably the only sector of society which should get an income but whose income is decided on a random basis. It would be great to crystallise the decision as soon as possible.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank both Deputies for their support. To reply to Deputy Tóibín, this is not a difficult decision that has been kicked down the road. The scheme was due to end in August and the easy thing to do would have been to wind it up but I did not do that. I have extended it past the budgetary date at the end of the year and into the new year. This will give me an opportunity to use empirical quantitative and qualitative data to demonstrate to the public and to colleagues in the Government that this is a scheme worth retaining. As with any pilot scheme, such as with regard to grassroots music venues, with a pilot there is always a confined number of people at the start. Invariably there will be people who are disappointed. This is the nature of pilot schemes. I welcome the fact that Deputy Tóibín's party supports it.

Deputy Ó Cearúil is right that the concept of this when my predecessor introduced it was to give people the opportunity to practise while, at the same time, taking them out of a poverty trap. The cost-benefit analysis will give us an opportunity to see what has been defrayed by way of social protection payments and what has been offered by way of this payment. We will then have a more holistic view of the outputs regarding what the State has gleaned and gained from making the investment, how the artists themselves have gained, how the community has gained and what the costs are. The costs can be borne and weighed in terms of savings made from the non-payment of social protection as against, on the other side, the assignment of moneys under the basic income for the arts. There is a bit of work to be done on this yet but the community has responded very positively to my position on this, which is that I want it retained. I do not think this is kicking the can down the road. It is making sure before I bring a proposal to the Government that we have all our ducks in a row.

Naoise Ó Cearúil (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Other countries such as Finland and Germany have introduced similar schemes as part of long-term cultural and economic planning. Has the Department engaged with these international examples or does it plan to do so? Something I am very conscious of, and I know the Minister is also, is ensuring there is no cliff edge for participants when the pilot ends. Many of these artists will have structured their lives and livelihoods around the scheme. We have to allow them a level of certainty and make sure they understand whether there will be a continuation or an end to it at any stage so they are prepared for it. What we need is a permanent inclusive scheme with certainty, as I have said. I appreciate the level of research the Minister needs to do before continuing it. I also appreciate that the pilot scheme will continue until February 2026.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Ó Cearúil. At a recent meeting of culture ministers in Brussels, a number of colleagues from other member states spoke to me about this and they could not believe, to be quite honest about it, that we had introduced a scheme of this nature. They were envious, to put it mildly, that we have a scheme of this nature and that we have the resources and capacity, based on the economy and the way we have managed the country's financial resources, to introduce this, albeit on a pilot basis.

Deputy Ó Cearúíl is right with regard to a cliff edge. This is why I did what I did last week. I had to make sure we removed the cliff edge. Had I not done anything, and had I just wound it up and brought the data to the Government after the fact, then everybody would be out in August. I did not think that was the most appropriate way to deal with it. I have given certainty to the first 2,000 people. Ultimately this will be a decision for the Government. It will be a resource-based decision. There are competing demands in the Department and between Departments. Everybody who comes in here to ask oral questions will ask about agriculture, roads, schools or doctors. This is a competing demand. I welcome the fact that Deputies from all parties and none are supportive of it. Any support that can be articulated to my colleagues in the Department of Finance and the Department of public expenditure and reform would be very welcome.