Paul Murphy warns government is copying UK's work capability test
Paul Murphy challenged the Taoiseach over plans he says mirror the British Tory work capability assessment and warned the proposals for disability and domiciliary care allowance would create a dehumanising, tiered system. He called for automatic entitlement to invalidity pension for those permanently incapable of work, employer-led inclusion measures, and expanded illness benefit access for the self-employed.
Government proposals and disability assessments
Mr Murphy argued the government's proposals introduce a medical assessment to judge capability for work and would sort people into three tiered categories based on how much they can work. He described the approach as rooted in a Victorian view of the deserving and undeserving poor and warned it would place huge pressure on claimants.
Personal testimony and human impact
A parent of four with disabilities told Mr Murphy the proposed assessment process would be dehumanising and "soul-destroying" as families try to prove they are "disabled enough" to receive support. Mr Murphy contrasted that testimony with his invocation of the film I, Daniel Blake to illustrate how similar assessments can fail to recognise real incapacity.
Policy alternatives proposed
Mr Murphy urged changes to qualifying conditions for invalidity pension so that those permanently incapable of work would be automatically entitled. He also called for an onus on employers to deliver real inclusion and for illness benefit criteria to be expanded so self-employed people can qualify.
Climate, peatlands and structured dialogue
He thanked deputies for raising peatland restoration, re-wetting, drawdown of funds and GAC, and said the Department of Agriculture would be asked to clarify the matter. He proposed a better structured dialogue on climate action and land use involving government, farm organisations and environmental NGOs, modelled on existing tripartite arrangements, while stressing such dialogue must not delay action or abandon legal commitments.
Nitrates derogation and international engagement
Mr Murphy said keeping the 220 nitrates derogation is essential and that moving to 175 would be catastrophic for farm incomes, the food industry, supply-chain businesses and export revenues. He noted an invitation has been extended to the Environment Commissioner to visit Ireland, including a suggested farm visit, and defended ongoing ministerial engagement with the Commissioner against claims of limited contact.
Taoiseach's reaction to the film and UK model
The Taoiseach confirmed he had seen I, Daniel Blake while serving as minister for social protection, called it a good but one-sided film, and said reforms of Irish disability payments would not follow the UK model.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
I want to ask the Taoiseach whether he has ever seen the film i.e. Daniel Blake. It is very good, but it is very difficult to watch because it is about people with disabilities forced to go through medical assessments under the work capability assessment introduced by the British Tory government and just their disabilities not being recognised, their inability to work not being recognised, it is really a heartbreaking, very difficult film to watch. The reason I ask it is because it seems to me that the government is out to make this film happen in real life in Ireland by copying the Tory's policy of the work capability assessment, that is the essence of what the government's proposals in relation to the disability and domiciliary care allowance are, introducing a medical assessment to assess capability of work and then putting people into three different tiered categories based on how much they can work. It seems to me rooted in a fundamentally Victorian view of the deserving and undeserving poor. Either a person is fit for work or they are not fit for work. This idea of a tiered system is just about dragging people through the mill and putting huge pressure on people. A woman was in touch with me, a parent of four children, all of whom have disabilities, who have a disability herself. She said the assessment process would be dehumanising, soul-destroying to try and prove that you and your children are, quote, disabled enough to get the support needed. If the government is genuinely concerned about persons who are long-term sick, they should change the current conditions to qualify for invalidity pension. If someone's medical condition deems them permanently incapable of working, they should be automatically entitled. If there is a real desire to help people with disabilities into the workforce, then an onus should be placed on employers for real inclusion. The government should expand illness benefit qualifying criteria to allow self-employed persons to qualify. Once again, I thank the deputies for the important issues they raised. Deputy Cowan raised the issue of peatland restoration and re-wetting and the drawdown of funds and GAC. I don't have information to hand, but I think he's correct in that the Department of Agriculture will want to clarify the matter in the coming weeks, and I'll ask that that be done. On the general issue, I'm firmly of the view, and I said this when I met the IFA a few weeks ago in Limerick, that I think we need a better structured dialogue when it comes to climate action and land use in relation to agriculture, one involving government, involving farm organisations, and also involving environmental NGOs, and I'm going to give some consideration as to how that might best be done. We have a model when it comes to industrial relations called the LEAF. It's the unions, it's the employers and the government all trying to work together, making compromises, and then trying to implement solutions. We don't have that when it comes to climate and agriculture and biodiversity, and I think we should. But any such structured dialogue would have to focus on identifying the problems, finding workable solutions, and then implementing them together. No dialogue can be about delaying action on climate or on biodiversity loss, and no dialogue can enable us to resign from international commitments or legally binding commitments. In relation to nitrates, I think one thing we're going to have to do is work very hard and play very smart when it comes to keeping the 220 derogation. We may be the only country that has a derogation in a few years' time. Other countries see that as a competitive advantage for us that they have to vote for, and that puts us in a difficult position politically. I do think we can defend it, and our model of grass-based agriculture is different to that in other countries where it's much more intensive and much more indoors and not as grass-based. And going to 175 I think would be catastrophic, not just for farm incomes but also for the wider food industry. And we have to remember it's not just about farmers. It's also about everyone involved in the supply chain, farm-related businesses, the food industry as well, and also export revenues for the country. So there has to be a national effort, I believe, to make sure that we maintain that 220 derogation. Mr McAulog and I have jointly invited Commissioner Sinkiewicz, the Environment Commissioner, to Ireland. I don't know if he will be able to come to Cork or not, but we will suggest him that he does visit a farm somewhere in the country if we are able to work that into his programme. I'm glad he accepted the invitation to come here. I don't want to and I never have raised expectations as to what is possible, but we do want to explore any flexibilities that might exist in terms of timelines and other matters and welcome the fact that he is going to come to visit. I think it is worth pointing out that Minister McAulog probably meets him on a monthly basis at Fisheries Council and other meetings. This idea that he only met him by video conference was very unfair and it doesn't represent the level of engagement that has occurred between the Minister and the Commissioner. Deputy Murphy asked if I have seen I, Daniel Blake. I have. I saw it when I was Minister for Social Protection. I think it is a very good film. By the way, I would recommend it to anyone. It is, of course, one-sided. All of the characters in the film, or at least all of the people in receipt of benefits in the film, are very genuine people, very honest people who need help and have done as much as they can for themselves. There are other programmes like Benefit Street and so on which would show you a very different picture. Of course, it is always the case, the truth lies somewhere in between. That is the real world we live in. But I do want to say this, in terms of reforming our disability payments, we are not going to follow the UK model. The UK model is all about knocking people off benefits. Our model, and it is still under development, is about recognising that all disabilities aren't the same and some people need more support than others.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
