WITH MAIREAD MCGUINNESS bowing out of the presidential race, Fine Gael’s support seems set behind former social protection minister Heather Humphreys.

But as Humphreys announced she would run, critics revived a controversy from her tenure as Minister for Social Protection: the government’s proposed overhaul of disability payments, set out in a Green Paper condemned as punitive and demeaning.

“Humphreys also pushed the Green Paper on disability, a proposal widely condemned by disability activists and people with long-term illnesses,” a post on X by People Before Profit read.

“Her plans would have created a cruel, three-tiered system arbitrarily based on a person’s supposed ability to work.”

Senator Tom Clonan also responded to Humphreys’ announcement with a post featuring the hashtags #NotMyPresident and #Ableist.

“This Minister sought to introduce legislation to compulsorily medically examine disabled Irish Citizens for ‘work’,” it read.

(The Journal has reached out to Humphreys for comment).

So, what was this green paper? And what did it propose that was so controversial?

The Green Paper

In September 2023, the Department of Social Protection published the Green Paper on Disability Reform, a 47-page document outlining plans to reform how benefit payments are paid to people with disabilities.

In a document of frequently asked questions (FAQ) released in February 2024, the government outlined how the document was supposed to be used.

Its answer to the question “What is a Green Paper?” reads: “A Green Paper is a government proposal on how to improve something or solve a problem. It doesn’t claim to be the best solution or the only solution. Its real purpose is to encourage thinking and discussion.”

This sentiment is expressed throughout the paper. In her foreword to the paper, Humphreys writes: “The purpose of the Green Paper is simply to provide one possible answer to help focus the debate and provide a basis for concrete suggestions.”

And, unlike other government plans, there are “suggested questions to consider”, such as “Do you agree with standardising the age requirement under the new tiered payment at age 18?

“If not, what approach would you propose?”

In essence, the Green Paper is looking for feedback for its proposal that would create a three-tiered system for disability payments, while simplifying other aspects of the system.

Pushback

Public consultation events were held to gauge how the paper was received, and readers of the document were encouraged to send feedback.

However, reception to the Green Paper was poor, prompting protests and receiving criticism from other politicians, as well as from disability groups and activists.

Less than two weeks after public submissions on the document were closed at the end of April 2024, the government scrapped the Green Paper.

In the wake of this rejection, Humphreys said the government would “need to have a fresh look” at disability reform.

The Dáil was dissolved in December 2024. Humphreys did not contest the general election that followed.

What the paper proposed

The Green Paper begins by describing the current system of disability benefits as inconsistent and inadequate.

It says the current system “assesses people in a one-size-fits-all way” and fails to target employment service supports at those who might benefit from them.

It notes that disabled people often face higher-than-average costs and that the different schemes (Disability Allowance, the Blind Pension and Invalidity Pension) are inconsistent in how they define or assess disability, how much they pay, and how recipients are taxed.

The paper recommends that the government scraps the current, confusing three-strand system of disability benefits and replaces it with a different system — one that also consists of three strands of benefits based on different levels of disability.

The scheme that it proposed to discuss involved categorising people’s disabilities into one of three strands (called tiers in the system). These run from “very low” to “high capacity to work”, the latter for people who had to stop work due to a disability, but should be capable of taking up other employment in the future.

While the paper uses other terms, Humphreys described the plan in person as categorising disabilities as “profound, moderate or mild”.

It was proposed that those with the lowest capacity to work should be paid a rate of €265.30 a week, while those with the highest capacity to work would continue to be paid €220, the then-standard payment rate for Disability Allowance (this has since been raised to €244).

It was also proposed that people whose condition was expected to improve over time should only have this new payment granted for a restricted period (with extensions possible).

Proposals were also made to change the supports for people working or entering work depending on which tier the recipient was assigned to.

For example, those that were seen as having moderate to high capacity to work would have been “required to engage with the Intreo service and take up reasonable offers of training and employment programmes or offers of employment appropriate to their capacity and circumstances”.

Criticisms

Controversy hounded the government since the Green Paper was published, both over its contents and the government’s reaction to criticism.

Speaking in the Dáil, People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy said the proposed plan of putting people into tiered categories based on how much they can work is rooted in a “fundamentally Victorian view of the deserving and undeserving poor”.

Murphy went on to ask the Taoiseach if he has seen the film ‘I, Daniel Blake’ which tells the story of a man in the UK who is denied social welfare despite being declared unfit to work by his doctor.

“The reason I ask is that it seems the Government is out to make this film happen in real life in Ireland by copying the Tory policy of the work capability assessment,” Murphy said.

In response, the Taoiseach said he did see the film.

“It is a very good film, by the way, and I would recommend it to anyone,” Varadkar said. “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 and honest people who need help and have done as much as they can for themselves.

“There are other programmes, like ‘Benefits Street’ and so on which show a very different picture. Of course, as is always the case, the truth lies somewhere in between,” the Taoiseach said.

This was soon followed by a flurry of headlines featuring the Taoiseach’s mention of Benefits Street, a controversial Channel 4 documentary that received hundreds of complaints for its “unfair, misleading and offensive” portrayal of benefits claimants.

The criticism of the government’s Green Paper continued. 

Fallout

Senator Tom Clonan said that the system proposed by the government’s Green paper was “punitive”, alleged it was “a direct copy of a British austerity measure”, and sought to categorise people into “groups of ‘deserving’ and ‘non-deserving’ poor.”

The FAQ addresses this criticism in part, saying: “The Green Paper is not based on the UK system. The system proposed in the Green Paper aims to simplify and combine features that are already part of our system of disability supports.”

It goes on to say that the proposed model uses a different model of disability assessment than the UK’s version.

“The Green Paper proposals are not a cost-cutting measure,” the FAQ reads. “The proposed measures will lead to an increase in spending on disability schemes.”

Many disabled people have also said they experienced trauma in healthcare settings, and some have said that medical reassessment would cause unnecessary stress.

Activists also said the language about people with “mild” disabilities needing to take up job offers was too vague and could lead to disabled people being forced to work when they cannot.

The FAQ that was released near the end of the assessment period states that disabled benefits recipients “will not be forced to engage with Intreo or to work”.

However, this seems to be at odds with the Green Paper, which stated that “people will have to engage with the Intreo Public Employment Service and take up reasonable offers of places in training and employment programmes, and take up employment opportunities that are appropriate to their capacity and circumstances”.

Some disability activists also described the plans as a “degrading and humiliating” value judgment that would give the impression that some people were falsifying the extent of their impairment or illness.

Activists also said disabled people were excluded from work due to discrimination and that the tiered system would not foster increased employment.

Some also criticised the plan for proposals that would lead to “increased surveillance” on disabled people, namely needing to be reassessed to see if their ability to work had improved.

The FAQ for the Green Paper does partially address this.

“Medical assessments are already part of the system of disability income supports. Every person currently on a long-term disability payment, such as Disability Allowance, provided documentation on their condition which was assessed by one of the Department’s Medical Assessors.

“Most medical assessments are desk-based.

“The Green Paper proposes to continue to use the existing system to decide whether someone is eligible for payment and to then assign people into one of the three tiers.”

While that is true, it does not address the fact that the system proposed by the Green Paper implied there could be ongoing assessments in order to categorise disabilities over time.

Humphreys was quick to scrap the Green Paper after the sour reception so it’s impossible to now know how such a system would have worked in practice.

Whether the proposals have left a bad taste in the mouths of the electorate will be seen during her campaign.

The Journal’s FactCheck is a signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles. You can read it here. For information on how FactCheck works, what the verdicts mean, and how you can take part, check out our Reader’s Guide here. You can read about the team of editors and reporters who work on the factchecks here.