The Supreme Court has upheld legislation that restricts access to certain welfare payments for beneficiaries of temporary protection who are housed by the State, in a ruling affirming the Oireachtas’s broad discretion to link social welfare eligibility to the overall level of public support provided.
The challenge was brought by a Ukrainian couple who argued that changes introduced under the Social Welfare and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 unlawfully discriminated against them after their payments were withdrawn.
The couple, identified in court as A.A. and B.B., came to Ireland after fleeing the war in Ukraine. A.A., who has significant disabilities and uses a wheelchair, received a disability allowance, while her husband received carer’s allowance. Those payments ceased when their accommodation fell within the scope of the new regime.
The case arose from Government changes to the support available to Ukrainians granted temporary protection. Under the revised system, those living in designated State accommodation receive accommodation and meals, as well as a reduced weekly payment.
The appellants argued they were treated less favourably than Ukrainians living independently, recognised refugees, and other recipients of disability-related payments.
They contended that the distinction amounted to unlawful discrimination based on their place of residence.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the constitutional equality challenge and upheld the legislation.
The court held that the legislation reflected varying forms of State support and legal circumstances rather than an arbitrary distinction between people.
The court found that the Oireachtas was entitled to take into account that residents of designated accommodation centres have accommodation and meals provided by the State.
The judgment noted that welfare recipients living independently must pay for rent, food, utilities and other day-to-day expenses from their own resources. By contrast, residents of designated accommodation centres receive many of those supports directly.
In one of the judgment’s most pointed findings, the court said it was “wholly unrealistic” to compare the disposable income of someone paying ordinary living expenses with that of a person whose accommodation and meals are already funded by the State.
The court held that it was legitimate for the Oireachtas to respond to pressures on accommodation capacity and to pursue policies that encourage greater independence among beneficiaries of temporary protection, provided the State continued to meet its legal obligations.
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Oireachtas enjoys broad discretion in designing welfare policy and may lawfully apply different welfare arrangements where State support varies.