2026-07-15

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 (Revocation) Order 2026, a copy of which was laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 2nd July, 2026. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Deputies for meeting to discuss this motion concerning the order I propose to make, in conjunction with the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, to reduce the monthly financial contribution payable under the accommodation recognition payment, ARP, scheme to €400 from September 2026. The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf. The scheme currently involves a tax-free monthly payment of €600 to hosts per eligible property used to accommodate people granted temporary protection from Ukraine. The motion before the House arises on foot of a Government decision of 26 May last in respect of the phased reduction of the ARP from €600 to €400 from 1 September next, with a view to ending the scheme entirely at the end of March 2027. As the payment is made monthly in arrears, the first payment at the reduced rate will be made in October. The ARP scheme is provided for under Part 2 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022. Section 9 of that Act enables me to make an order amending the amount payable under the scheme, with the consent of the Minister for Social Protection and the Minister for public expenditure and reform. I have consulted both Ministers, who have expressed support for the proposed reduction in the rate. The Act of 2022 also provides that the draft order laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas cannot be made law until a resolution approving the order has been passed by each House. The ARP scheme was introduced as an emergency measure at a time of exceptional need, when the demand for accommodation for those seeking refuge from Ukraine outstripped the availability of accommodation. The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation. It has introduced a stream of accommodation that would not otherwise have been available, and it has allowed my Department to move away from a reliance on State-contracted accommodation in the tourism sector. Since July 2022, the scheme has supported more than 29,000 hosts providing accommodation to approximately 66,500 people granted temporary protection. There are currently over 41,000 people with temporary protection accommodated with the support of the scheme. I thank the hosts who have opened their homes, the Irish Red Cross, the International Organization for Migration, their partners and the Irish public, who have shown unwavering solidarity with the people of Ukraine. The scheme's payment rate is not, nor has it ever been, linked to the actual cost incurred by the person providing the accommodation. It is a recognition of the valued contribution of those who host. The payment is not intended to substitute rent, nor is it available where a rental agreement is in place. It is also not aligned with market rental rates. The rate has previously been amended twice. It was increased from €400 to €800 on 1 December 2022 to coincide with the introduction of the offer a home scheme. This measure was invaluable in generating emergency accommodation from a stock of holiday homes and largely unused vacant properties. The rate was subsequently reduced to €600 from 1 June last year to address concerns about the scheme's potential impact on the rental market. Other measures were also taken earlier this year to limit eligibility for the scheme to preclude properties registered with the Residential Tenancies Board with a view to safeguarding rental accommodation for tenants. The draft order before the House would have the effect of revoking the previous order amending the monthly contribution rate and restoring the rate to the original value of €400 specified in the 2022 Act when it commenced. I note the amendment Deputy Carthy has tabled. That will be addressed later. I recognise the concerns raised by Members of this House in previous debates about the equity of the scheme, which is not available to other cohorts. To that end, my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I had signalled plans to phase out the scheme when the scheme's extension until 2027 was considered by the Houses in March. This remains our position.

The Minister has outlined very clearly our intention in relation to this matter. We have always been very clear that the ARP would be a temporary provision. It was introduced in 2022 as a response to a crisis, always with the view that it would be phased out. That remains the case. The planned closure date for the scheme is March of next year. As the Minister indicated, we have engaged in a number of processes with a view to looking at the longer term situation for Ukrainian people who are in our country, who have made a home for themselves here and who we want to continue to encourage to participate in Ireland in every way. The measure before the House will enable that. However, we believe the time for the temporary scheme has come to an end. Therefore, March 2027 remains the date for bringing it to an end. It is important to look at the ARP in the context of what is happening here. We are reducing the payment back to the original rate in order to fulfil the original intention. We thank the people for the generosity they showed in opening their homes to Ukrainians who came to live with us here in Ireland. The latter is part of Ireland's ongoing support for Ukraine as it endures the totally unacceptable war of aggression being waged against it by Russia. We want a situation whereby people will have the ability to share their homes with Ukrainians. Other measures are in place in this regard, including the rent a room scheme. People can continue to have arrangements with Ukrainians if they so wish. What we are bringing to a close is the temporary nature of the ARP. It is important, as the Minister has mentioned, to recognise and thank all of the people who participated in the scheme, and to recognise the work of the Irish Red Cross and the many people who have made the scheme a success. We recognise that there are difficulties with schemes, and that is why this one has been under constant review. It is also why we have taken the decision to see the approval of the Dáil to reduce the payment to €400 and why we put other measures in place. It is important to recognise that Ukrainian people play an incredible role at so many levels within our society. They have come here, endeared themselves to the Irish people and made a great contribution to our country in a few short years. What we want to work towards is a solution which recognises that contribution and which examines how, in the longer term, we can work with the Ukrainian people in our country and with the Government of Ukraine in order to ensure that a pathway exists for them to either continue to live here or, if they so choose, to return home. All of the necessary supports in that regard will be put in place by the Government. Deputies' approval for the motion is important, particularly as it will lead to a more equitable and better outcome for everybody, including Ukrainians in our country.

I move amendment No. 1: To insert after "on 2nd July, 2026": "and: further calls on the Government to provide that the Accommodation Recognition Payment (ARP) scheme shall apply only to: — 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 24 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.". The Minister and Minister of State know that Sinn Féin and I have been raising serious concerns about the Ukrainian ARP scheme for a long time. It is interesting that the Minister of State suggests that the motion is about returning to the original intention behind the scheme. That is a tacit acknowledgement that there was a move away from the original intention. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the onset of war, there was an enormous and generous response from the Irish people, particularly those who opened their homes and their spare rooms to Ukrainians fleeing the war. Those people absolutely deserve to be commended. When the ARP scheme was brought before the House, there was absolutely unanimous support for it. However, Government moved away from the original intention behind that scheme, at one stage increasing the payment to €800 per month. That was a tax-free payment given directly to landlords, with no means test applied. This meant that a person who was on more wages than someone who was in desperate need of housing could benefit from the scheme when the latter could not. The exclusionary nature of the scheme, available to Ukrainians fleeing war but not to anybody from anywhere else in the world, including Irish citizens in this State, led to heightened division in communities all over the country. We in Sinn Féin repeatedly brought people's concerns to the attention of the Government, but we were repeatedly ignored. Likewise, it ignored the concerns repeatedly brought to its attention regarding the impact this was having on the private rental market in certain areas. For several years, the Government refused point-blank to acknowledge that this was having an impact on the private rental market until the Department of housing's reports highlighted out what was already blatantly obvious. The scheme was being utilised by landlords to receive tax-free payments in respect of which they could demand top-up payments from tenants or residents but with none of the obligations that would apply in respect of other tenants in a dwelling. It took a huge amount of effort and wherewithal to drag the Government to a place where it finally and reluctantly acknowledged that there were serious problems with this scheme. That is why we have seen the backtracking that has taken place over the past number of months, and the ultimate decision to bring the scheme to an end on 31 March 2027. What we still do not have is clarity as to what impact Government decisions will now have regarding private rental accommodation and the wider situation relating to housing. The truth is that after March of next year, there will be thousands of Ukrainians who will be moved from either ARP accommodation or State accommodation. Once again, in an all too familiar story, we will end up with a belated and, probably, knee-jerk response. The Government completely ignored the unfairness at the heart of this scheme regarding the putting in place of a housing support for one cohort, the members of which, nobody disputes, were in need of housing, but that was not available to any other cohort. It put in place non-means-tested housing assistance. That was deeply unfair and led to the heightened division which we have seen over the past number of years and which have been exploited by some nasty actors. Let us imagine a situation where two people on a factory floor whose earnings are the same are in need of housing. One is left to languish on a local authority housing list or, perhaps, does not even for that list and is forced to deal with the private rental market in circumstances where they are extorted. The other person, who earns the same wages and who, perhaps, has the same housing needs, because they were born in a particular place on the planet, has access to a housing support to which no means test applies and for which the landlord is getting a tax-free payment in respect of which a top-up can be paid. That is clearly a roadmap to create division and dissent. It is absolutely unforgivable. Everybody recognises and accepts that there was an emergency situation in 2022 and that there was a need to be nimble and introduce measures quickly. However, to allow that to continue for five years is inexcusable. That is why we have brought forward similar amendments on several occasions suggesting that a means test be introduced in order to ensure fairness. The Government rejected those amendments. Let us bring it back to the original intention. This payment should be for people who are accommodating, in their own homes, people fleeing war. Everybody accepts that is a good initiative which should be supported. In fact, that type of initiative should be expanded to other people in need of housing. Every time our amendments have been brought forward, the Government has rejected them and denied the existence of any of the issues at the heart of them. To their shame, other Opposition parties have also objected and refused to support the amendments to which I refer and called me all sorts of names for having the audacity to look for a bit of fairness and transparency in respect of all this. This scheme will end in March next year. We still do not have transparency regarding the number of dwellings that were utilised in the context of this scheme and that should and could have been available on the private rental market. That is the litmus test. In its documentation and reports, the Department of housing has acknowledged that this scheme had an impact on the private rental market, yet Government has consistently refused to divulge exactly how big that impact has been. That points to a fear on the part of the Government that if the figures were divulged, it would be seen to have used taxpayers' money to create a significant distortion, especially in areas where rents in the private rental market would traditionally have been lower. People have been denied housing as a result of this scheme. That is unacceptable. I say to those Opposition parties that have taken the opportunity to attack Sinn Féin every time the ARP comes up that they should read the Government's report, namely the regulatory impact analysis relating to the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026. That set out very clearly what Sinn Féin has said time and time again in relation to the ARP scheme, namely, that it is having a negative impact on the private rental sector. That is beyond doubt. Dragging this out and then creating another cliff edge in March of next year will affect thousands of people whom we do not yet know how they are going to be housed and whether the Government is going to introduce something else that will further distort the private rental sector or the housing market. I ask the Minister and the Minister of State to learn from their mistakes and engage with all Members of this House and the appropriate committees before the very last minute, as has been standard up until now.

Before I call Deputy Gannon, I welcome the Spangle Hill Men's Shed group, who are visiting Dáil Éireann today with Deputy O'Flynn.

The Social Democrats will be opposing this motion and the amendment. The motion is not simply an administrative change, but a decision to reduce the accommodation recognition payment from €600 to €400 per month. I believe that is the wrong decision, not because this scheme should exist forever, but because reducing the payment now will make an already difficult situation significantly worse for people fleeing war, for hosts, for our housing system, and ultimately for all of us in the State. I spoke on this issue in the House last year when we debated the extension of the scheme and my view has not changed. This is a scheme that actually does work. It is one of the few parts of our response to the war in Ukraine that has genuinely delivered. It is a rarity for me to come into the Chamber and acknowledge a Government scheme that works, but reducing it has the potential to have an impact that goes very significantly towards creating further hardships for people. Since it was introduced, it has accommodated more than 66,500 people fleeing the war in Ukraine. Today, over 41,000 people are living in more than 23,000 homes supported by this payment. Almost half of those living in Ireland under temporary protection are accommodated through this scheme. That is not a small programme. It is one of the central pillars of Ireland's humanitarian response. Only a few months ago, I hosted a briefing with the Irish Red Cross and I heard directly from people who have built lives here through hosted accommodation. People who had fled war arrived carrying trauma and they slowly managed to rebuild some sense of normality. I remember one mother telling us that her daughter had arrived here as a toddler and she was now settled in school. She speaks with a little Dublin accent. That is no small thing, because that is what integration looks like. It is homes, communities, friendships and kids speaking with little Dublin accents. Hosted accommodation gives people something emergency accommodation never can. It gives people stability, continuity and dignity. It also makes financial sense. Hosted accommodation is dramatically cheaper than State-provided accommodation. The Irish Red Cross estimates that this scheme costs the State around €11 per person per night, compared with approximately €48 per night for full-board State accommodation or otherwise in private accommodation. That is not only the more humane option, but also the more cost-effective one, yet today we are debating a proposal that risks pulling the rug from underneath thousands of those families. The Irish Red Cross could not be clearer. It says that reducing this payment is likely to lead to a significant reduction in the number of people willing to continue hosting. In fact, since the Government made this cut, the Red Cross said it had already seen an increase in hosting arrangements coming to an end. This is not theoretical any more. The Irish Red Cross also warns that 86% of hosts say that this payment is important for them to continue their hosting arrangements. If those arrangements collapse, we are potentially talking about 35,000 people looking for somewhere else to live, but any number of them is going to create strain on the system. We know what will happen next. People do not suddenly find affordable rental homes. They do not suddenly qualify for HAP. They do not suddenly move into social housing. They enter into an accommodation system that is already buckling under the weight of unprecedented demand. A simple question should be asked. Where exactly are those 35,000 people supposed to go? The alternatives very clearly do not exist. People under temporary protection cannot simply access HAP or homeless services in a way that many people assume. Rent supplement remains extremely restrictive. The Irish Red Cross found that only 16% of those who applied for rent supplement were successful and only 20% of people who tried to access the private rental market managed to do so. They are astonishingly low figures, but they tell us something very important: that this is not a transition plan or a displacement plan. The Government cannot reduce one of the only accommodation schemes that is working while pretending that realistic alternatives already exist. This is a scheme that works. This is a scheme that has people in homes. One of the reasons I will continue to support this scheme is because I do not like to be hypocritical in how I present myself when I come into Dáil Éireann. This is a scheme that has, at different times, paid €800, then €600 and now, potentially, €400 to people in homes. I have often come in here and lambasted the fact that we monetise poverty and oppression too often in this State. We transfer a huge amount of money to private operators who open up accommodation in office blocks or elsewhere for people in emergency situations. That is not a scenario I want. I believe there has to be a transition plan but I do not believe I can come in here and advocate against this without presenting what I would do differently. This system works. The only analysis we can rely on is from the Irish Red Cross, which has surveyed host families and people who avail of the accommodation recognition payment, and it has found that it works. It works in the communities in which people are placed. It would be grossly hypocritical for me to come in here and present an argument that was not based on available data, albeit from the Irish Red Cross, in the absence of any from the Minister. To end this scheme now risks placing huge strain on an already overstretched emergency accommodation system, the homeless system and a rental market that is in chaos. All of these things are potentially what awaits us here because of the reduction in this payment. We understand the cost of living. People in this country are struggling to pay their ESB bills and to put food on the table. To reduce that fee by another €200 means we are simply expecting people to continue having people from Ukraine living in their homes. That is an expectation that is going to be too heavy for many. What we are doing here is reckless. I will be voting against the motion.

This is kind of like a repeat speech from when we previously discussed this issue. The motion is erroneous and mean spirited. The real question for the country is where these people are going to go. The options are not there. It would be one thing to say we would do this if the options were there but we are going to be throwing tens of thousands of people into a situation where there are very few options. In many cases, there will be no options. As we all know, the private rental market is a mess. It is not going to be feasible or possible for these people to be accommodated in it. We will obviously be voting against the motion as well as the amendment that has been put down. The temporary protection orders have worked. The only data that we have available, as has previously been said, is from the Irish Red Cross. It shows that they have worked. I do not see why, in the spirit of where we are and after everything we have said about the war in Ukraine, we are actually going to go and take this away now. It is downright hypocritical to do this on the one hand and, on the other, to embrace the Ukrainian President and speak in the manner in which we do. Why are we making this change for something that is pretty low - €600? Why are we deciding that we want to get rid of this and phase it out? We are a non-militarily aligned country. We are a country that does not participate in wars. We are neutral, but we are not neutral when it comes to our views on this war. We have also said quite clearly that we would support the Ukrainian people. In that capacity, surely this is the manner in which we should do it. We need to embrace the fact that many Ukrainians are participating in Irish life and contributing so much here in Ireland in many various ways - economically, socially, educationally, etc. From the perspective of it being the right thing to do, phasing this out now and doing it in this manner is quite mean spirited. It lacks consistency in terms of what the Government is saying about the war in Ukraine. It certainly goes against all available data that we have at this moment in time.

I oppose this new cut to the accommodation recognition payment. This is the second cut to the payment, which was previously cut from €800 to €600, and now the Government wants to cut it further to €400. The Irish Red Cross has written to all of us outlining the devastating impact this cut will have not only on the 41,072 people who rely on it to keep a roof over their heads but, potentially, on the wider migration and accommodation systems in this country. Already since the Government announced its intention to cut the ARP, an increasing number of hosting arrangements are ending. A Red Cross survey of hosts found that the current rate of €600 was important for 86% of them to continue hosting. If even a fraction of that 86% stop hosting because they simply cannot afford it any more, what will it mean? It will mean thousands or tens of thousands of newly homeless people, overwhelmingly women, children and families. These people will not have the right to emergency accommodation. Very many of them will have no choice but to go on the streets. This will be the consequence of the decision. Is this what the Government wants? Is it what Sinn Féin wants? Sinn Féin's contribution to this debate, not just today but every time we have discussed it, has simply been to say to go after the Ukrainians harder and make it even more difficult for them to access accommodation than the Government wants to make it. Sinn Féin's amendment also manufactures a non-existing conflict between the ARP and the rent-a-room scheme by saying that ARP hosts must not have availed of the scheme in the past two years. A landlord can earn €1,166 a month tax free under the rent-a-room scheme compared to €600 now and €400 in the future through the ARP. Nobody who is solely motivated by money would choose the ARP over the rent-a-room scheme. It is not competing with the private rental market. The vast majority of hosts are hosting people in their own homes out of humanitarian concern and humanitarian motivation. With this cut, many of them simply will not be able to do it any more. The only other option open to many Ukrainians forced out of their homes as a result of this cut will be to apply for international protection. What happens if tens of thousands of people do this? The system will become even more overwhelmed. That is what happened in France when over 11,000 applications for international protection were made by Ukrainians last year. Is this what the Government wants? Is this what Sinn Féin wants? They might not but they seem prepared to take the risk that this is what is going to happen for the perceived political gain of being seen to be hard on immigration and hard on Ukrainians in particular. It is a glaring contradiction for the Government in particular, with it hosting President Zelenskyy in Dublin, talking about doing everything we can for the Ukrainian people and praising them on the one hand and, on the other, turfing tens of thousands of Ukrainians out onto the streets. The temporary protection transition scheme, due to open for applications in September, is to be limited to households earning at least €29,432 a year that somehow manage to pay for accommodation privately out of this. ARP recipients are not eligible. With average rents at €21,060 a year, this would be some achievement when the median wage of Ukrainian workers according to the Central Statistics Office, CSO, is less than €30,000.

Our relationship with Ukraine is becoming increasingly hot and cold. Government spokespeople continue the line about the country standing resolutely behind Ukraine, yet it looks like we are selling alumina to the Russian war machine. During his recent visit, I was worried that certain Ministers had been physically attached to President Zelenskyy, they were standing so close to him in the pictures, yet we are offering Ukraine our best broken-down armoured cars. Now we have a situation whereby we are systematically cutting the supports for Ukrainian civilians living here. This is not to say our level of support should not taper. There is a case for tapering but my concern is about making the changes to the accommodation recognition payment to make it less attractive while at the same time ending the remaining State-provided hotel accommodation. We have the cumulation of these two changes at a time when we know there are already wide pressures across the private rental accommodation. It is this combination I am particularly concerned about. We know that the ARP works. It supports 41,000 of the Ukrainians living in our country, which is about 50% of them. It works with regard to the central goal of providing accommodation to those who need it. It works by providing this accommodation at a far more reasonable price. It is about €11 per night for a Ukrainian supported using the ARP versus €48 for those using full State accommodation. It is also effective in promoting integration. The whole idea of the hosting model has enabled Ukrainians living with Irish families to get a better sense of Ireland and be better linked to education, job opportunities, community and sport. It has, as Deputy Murphy has said, kept Ukrainians out of the international protection system. I have argued throughout the time Ukrainians have been here that it would be a huge mistake to direct Ukrainians to the international protection system, which we all know is already under huge strain, because it could not cope with the numbers that would be affected. There is national support for the ARP. The most recent polling done earlier this year showed 68% or 67% of Irish people still agreed with supporting Ukrainians through it. There is another point that we should bear in mind when we listen to the media. We know that this is an ongoing war and in recent months it has appeared in some elements that Ukraine is doing better, but Ukraine is still a dangerous place for civilians. About 250 civilians were killed in the month of April, with more than 1,000 injured. Ukraine is still a dangerous place and it is not easy for people to bring themselves, vulnerable family members and children back to what is still a war zone. For this reason, at a time when we have a system that works and we are cutting away another part of our State support through direct State accommodation, it is wrong to bring this proposal forward and I will oppose it on behalf of the Green Party.

The Irish people are a generous and decent people and have been over the past number of years, with the provision of supports to people from Ukraine who are fleeing the war. This is right and just. The war unleashed on Ukraine is absolutely wrong. Aontú will support the reduction in the rate of payment under the scheme. The scheme that was created was uneven, unfair and discriminatory for those seeking accommodation or housing. It created a two-tier support system, which is unfair. This two-tier support system has threatened cohesion. It has caused anger and pushback among the general public. There have been reports of Facebook pages where Ukrainian nationals have posted messages looking for homes where they say they can afford the rent and they can pay an additional tax-free €600 on top of what the asking price is. Landlords are rational and they will make economic decisions to best suit themselves. Landlords have been more inclined to take on Ukrainian tenants over Irish tenants in recent years. This system is discriminatory. It gives an advantage to guests in the country over the people who have lived here for most of their lives. The fact that this is not being means tested is extraordinary. That we can have two people living on the same street and on the same wages but one of them is getting a further subsidy from the Government is shocking. The fact that many in this Chamber do not understand this is also shocking. We can have a Ukrainian family on a six-figure salary who can get the subsidy and a neighbour on a five-figure salary who cannot. I am very disappointed to see that the Government, the Social Democrats, the Labour Party, the Green Party and People Before Profit will vote against an amendment that wants to means test the payment, as an amendment also did on the previous occasion, and put it on a level footing with other housing assistance payments. Most parties will also vote against the proposal to protect rent-a-room tenants from eviction. It has been reported again that some landlords who wanted to take rent from the ARP scheme made way for that scheme by removing certain tenants in the rent-a-room scheme, which was also wrong. There is a disconnect in the Chamber among some of the parties in relation to these supports. The housing crisis is the Government’s fault. The lack of supply is the Government’s fault. Anyone who sat the leaving certificate economics paper just a few weeks ago will know that demand also has a role. It determines what rents are, the price of houses, etc. It is physics and maths and not ideology. We need to get to a situation where we equalise supply with demand. This means the Government building more homes but it also means making sure demand is not too much. To make sure we do not have a pull factor, it is important the services and the provision in this country are equal to those in other European countries, so there is fair distribution of people from Ukraine who need help.

We took in the Ukrainians as part of a Europe-wide collective effort. We might have been perceived as being more generous than some countries precisely because of our military neutrality. We are not giving weapons to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia, so we did have to go above and beyond. I think that is only right and fair. A lot of the Ukrainians who have come here have settled. Some of them have got jobs. I do take the point about means-testing in terms of increased contributions within the confines of the ARP payment, for example. There was the original €800. If people have a job and can contribute €200, I think it makes a lot of sense. I do not think cutting it, however, sends out the right message. On the one hand, we are inviting President Zelenskyy to Ireland for the European Presidency, with all the pomp and ceremony, and then we are trying to keep Aughinish Alumina on the sidelines. We are saying slava Ukraini and then basically treating them like dirt. We have an obligation and responsibility to help people, so let us live up to that. I do not think this motion is dealing with the particular circumstances. Ukraine is the first step. The next step will be the Baltics, and the step after that will be Poland. We have to show solidarity in that specific geographic context. I also mention a separate issue in my constituency. A lot of Ukrainians were staying at the Citywest location. A good portion of these people have disabilities. It now seems they are being sent to the four corners of Ireland. This is in a context where kids have been going to the local schools, people have built up links with local communities, learned the language and are making a contribution. I want to read some excerpts from a letter written by the Ukrainians in Citywest. It stated: Many Ukrainian people in Ireland are now facing a new and deeply worrying stage in their lives. After fleeing war, rebuilding their lives from nothing, finding work, placing children in schools, accessing medical care, and becoming part of local communities, they are now being told that State-provided accommodation is changing. This issue is not simply about hotels or accommodation centres. It is about whether people who have already integrated into Irish society will be allowed to keep the stability they have worked so hard to build. Many Ukrainians in Ireland are working, paying taxes, studying, raising children, supporting family members with disabilities, using local services and contributing to Irish society. For these families, [forced] relocation to another county is not just a change of address. It can mean losing access to work, schools, colleges, doctors, disability services, transport links and community support. The letter continued: We are not asking for indefinite hotel accommodation. We are asking for a fair, humane, disability-sensitive and employment-sensitive transition. The current approach risks causing disproportionate harm to working people, families with children in education, people with autism, PTSD, anxiety, disabilities or complex medical needs, and vulnerable adults already connected with HSE and disability services. For a disability [related] person, shared toilets, shared corridors, noisy communal spaces and high-density accommodation are not minor inconveniences. They are ... real barriers to basic daily life, [like] using the toilet, washing, eating, sleeping, leaving the room, attending appointments or going to work or college. The letter also stated that, "Any relocation decision must therefore include an individual assessment of disability-related needs, employment, education, transport, medical care and service continuity." We bring people in and then we put them in a difficult position. This is not the right way to go about it. We could ask the average Ukrainian about this. I met a Ukrainian citizen who moved to Adamstown some years before the war. Some Ukrainians have been living and working in Ireland. The vast majority, however, did not ask to come here. They did not ask to have to stay here so long. We do have this attitude that Ukrainians are basically skiving when they could go back to their own big country. This is what is on social media. Ukraine, however, has a war effort it is trying to sustain, and we need to show solidarity and continue to try to help them as best we can.

I thank colleagues for their contributions. What is apparent from them is that there is a divergence of opinion not just between the Government and the Opposition but throughout the House when it comes to how we respond to this issue. In a way, I think this reflects the complexity of the issue. It is sometimes healthy that there are diverging views around this House and issues are not just presented in a binary way. There are, however, two points on which I think there is general agreement in this House. The first is that the Irish people have been very generous in their response to the plight faced by Ukrainian people since the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022. One of the obligations under the temporary protection directive is that we provide access to the means of accommodation. There was no requirement on Ireland to provide accommodation for people who came to Ireland claiming temporary protection. We decided, however, that we would go beyond what was set out in the temporary protection directive and that we would, in fact, pay for and provide accommodation for people arriving from Ukraine after 2022. I think that was a very generous step to be taken by the Government on behalf of the Irish people. Everybody in this House agreed in respect of that decision. I also think, however, that we need to be aware that the cost of doing this is very significant. If we look back to 2024, for instance, the cost to the State of temporary protection accommodation was in the region of €1.16 billion. That was just in one year, in 2024. If we look at the accommodation recognition payment that we are debating here, since that was introduced back in June 2022 and up to June 2026, a period of four years, the cost of this has been €496 million, which is €0.5 billion. The point I am making is that the response of the Irish people has been very generous. I think there is agreement on this point. The second thing I suspect there will be agreement on in this House is that I certainly did not expect in February 2022 - maybe other people here did have the foresight to realise this - that the war would be ongoing four and a half years later. It is very significant in terms of the fact that temporary protection was introduced later in 2022 and it is still ongoing. There is a debate in Europe now as to what will happen in respect of temporary protection. I do think, however, that the length of the war has had an impact. It must have an impact in terms of Government policy. I thank Deputy Gannon for recognising the effectiveness of the Government. The ARP introduced has been a very effective measure. The last time we debated this topic, there were concerns here regarding moving it from €800 to €600 and that this change was going to significantly undermine it. I do not believe it has. I think it has continued effectively. What we are doing now is reducing it back to the originally intended €400, with notice that come next year, it will be removed completely. It is important to note that many of the people availing of the ARP are diligent people who are able to work and who are working. They also have very good relationships with the persons providing the accommodation. All those factors together indicate to me that there will be mechanisms for people either to stay in that accommodation with their own private arrangement or to secure accommodation elsewhere. The question that has been put out there is where they are going to get accommodation. It is instructive to note that a lot of people are still coming into Ireland each month under the temporary protection directive. They apply for temporary protection but many of them do not look for accommodation because they have a network here that enables them to receive accommodation. I will turn to Deputy Carthy’s amendment, which I cannot accept. His amendment, in short, is about the need to introduce means testing. This is a payment, as I said, made to the owner of the property. It is not a payment made to the Ukrainian people. It would be highly unorthodox to means-test the person not receiving the payment. As we have also indicated here, the scheme is going to end next year, so we would expend a lot of bureaucratic and administrative time in setting up a means-testing mechanism that is not necessary and would not be of use next year. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment. Deputy Tóibín spoke about an amendment. I do not know if he has an amendment before the House but if he does, and it is as he indicated, I cannot accept it either. I thank everyone very much.