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.

Sentiment score: -0.06