Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 (Section 9(2)) (Amount of Financial Contribution) Order 2025 (Revocation) Order 2026: Motion
Dail Éireann — 2026-07-15
============================================================

Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South

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.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2026-07-15/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-09-14T01:01:08+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-07-15