I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, to the House.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for selecting this important Commencement matter. I join him in welcoming the Minister of State to the Chamber.

I have asked for the Minister to make a statement on when Ireland intends to ratify the optional protocol to the United Nations convention against torture. As the Minister of State knows, Ireland signed that convention in 2017 and is the only EU country yet to ratify it. To give some background, this came about as a result of some ongoing engagement with the Mental Health Bill that completed all Stages in the Oireachtas last week. We had, shall we say, a robust and protracted debate on many aspects of the Bill, which is only right and proper in these Houses. One of the recurring themes was human rights issues and concerns about those. Concerns were raised by the Mental Health Commission but during the previous week we had statements from the Minister for justice on the prison system generally as well as penal reform. They were statements as opposed to legislation, but again there was that recurring theme.

Much of what I have to say comes from the request by Mr. Mark Kelly, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, who has raised serious concerns about this issue. I draw the attention of the Minister of State and Senators to the Bar Council review published last week in which Mr. Kelly set out very clearly his concerns about the prisons. Prisons and mental health are two different things but the Minister of State will of course be aware that RTÉ's "Prime Time" did a major investigation into the mental health issues associated with people who were incarcerated in prisons. The overcrowding is another challenge but I do not want to get too far removed from the core of what I want to ask the Minister of State about.

In Mr. Kelly's article, which I will make available to Members later but is in the library as we speak, he does not mince his words about his concerns. I will list the concerns, as I understand them. Ratification is critical to creating independent oversight of our prisons, psychiatric units and detention facilities, as recommenced by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. Key implications of the delay have been put to me and I am satisfied that they meet these criteria because I have spoken to a number of NGOs, Departments and other Government bodies. The concerns can be summarised as follows. We are missing the oversight mechanism. Ireland has not formally established an independent national preventative mechanism to inspect places of confinement, as required by the treaty. The treaty applies to all areas where liberty is restricted, including mental health units, immigration centres and Garda stations. There are concerns about those places. I understand that the Department of justice has been developing an inspection of places of detention Bill but I do not know where all of that is at. I understand that elements have yet to be finalised. I believe the Minister is absolutely committed to a wide consultation with all the people involved but there are serious issues in relation to this. I understand that the Government has cited on many occasions that there are complex issues around the consultation and it has emphasised it is its intention to safeguard people, especially vulnerable individuals in detention.

My real question is on when the Government intends to ratify this important protocol. I will finish by thanking the Irish Penal Reform Trust, which the Minister of State is very aware of, as well as Mental Health Ireland and other advocates and NGOs in this sector. The real question is when will Ireland will be in a position to fully ratify the optional protocol to the United Nations convention against torture, which is important safeguarding legislation.

I thank the Senator for raising this very important matter. The Minister sends his apologies for not being able to attend. I did read Mark Kelly's article. The Senator is right; it does make for interesting reading. Ireland ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 2002 and signed the optional protocol to the convention, OPCAT, in 2007. OPCAT obliges signatory states to establish a system of inspections of all places where persons can be detained to be carried out by inspection bodies to be known as national preventive mechanisms, NPMs. This will mean making changes to how prisons are inspected but it will also affect other places where persons are detained for any reason, such as detention in the Central Mental Hospital and the detention of children in Oberstown.

The Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration is currently working with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to draft the legislation needed to enable ratification, namely, the inspection of places of detention Bill. This is a commitment in the 2025 programme for Government and the intention is to publish the Bill in the coming months.

The legislation will provide for the designation of a single NPM to visit and inspect all places of detention in the justice sector and for Government Ministers in other sectors to appoint appropriate NPMs for places of detention within their remit, for example, certain healthcare settings. The existing post of Inspector of Prisons will be replaced by a new post of chief inspector of places of detention to take on the role of NPM for the justice sector, to include prisons, Garda stations, the courts and vehicles used by the Irish Prison Service and An Garda Síochána. This means that the new chief inspector will have a mandate to monitor a person’s entire journey through detention, from the point of being placed in a Garda vehicle, through to their time in a cell in a Garda station, in court, on remand and, if sentenced, into a term of imprisonment. The OPCAT will be ratified after the legislation is passed by the Oireachtas. It is expected that the necessary arrangements will be in place within the following 12 months to ensure that inspections can be carried out in places of detention across the State.

That is very encouraging and succinct. I like the responses to Commencement matters that come from the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration because they are clear. There is a great sense of clarity about them. We now have a timeline that the Minister of State has confirmed to the House, which is great. It is 12 months. It would be ideal if it could be a bit shorter but clearly there is a lot of work to do. It has to go through both Houses so there are a lot of bits and pieces to that and I understand that. I thank the Minister of State. It is good news in that an agreement is now in place and a clear understanding of the pathway to see the full ratification of this important document. I again thank the Minister of State and ask him to convey my thanks to the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration.

To give further clarity to the House, in preparation for its future role as the inspectorate of places of detention, the current Office of the Inspector of Prisons, OIP, is participating in the Council of Europe NPM forum and attending the NPM workshops. The OIP is also engaging with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission to designate a co-ordinating body of the multi-member NPM in the general scheme.

Stakeholder engagement is ongoing and has commenced with An Garda Síochána as well as the existing Garda accountability mechanisms, including the Policing and Community Safety Authority and Fiosrú. Planning is taking place regarding future training needs within the inspectorate and framework development for the future monitoring and functioning of the office and the Inspector of Prisons has been supported with additional funding and resources to expand the current prison inspection programme and to prepare the office for its new role as NPM.

I thank the Minister of State for addressing this really serious issue. It is actually a follow-on from a call I made yesterday to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to assist in move-on accommodation for survivors of domestic violence. This urgent issue needs multi-departmental collaboration. To our shame, hundreds of women and children all over the country are leaving abusive homes or situations, seeking safety in refuges and trying to rebuild their lives but they are facing a really uncertain future because there is simply nowhere for them to go after they leave the refuge. At the same time, the State through the Criminal Assets Bureau is seizing millions of euro worth of assets from criminal activity every year. That raises a very simple question. Why are we not using some of those proceeds more directly to support the very people whose lives have been damaged by violence, intimidation and abuse?

Refuges do extraordinary work - they save lives - but they are not designed for long-term living. Across the country, women and children are ready to move on and rebuild their lives but cannot do so because suitable accommodation simply is not available. This gap is not just a housing issue; it is a justice issue as well. What I am proposing is practical and achievable. We should examine how assets seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau could help fund move-on accommodation for women and children leaving these domestic abuse refuges. This is about making crime pay back. Money generated through exploitation and harm should be used to provide safety stability and a fresh start for those who have experienced that harm. We already have a system that removes wealth from criminal hands. The question now is whether some of that wealth can be redirected in a way that delivers a clear and visible social benefit. Even if it is not the actual house itself, a modest allocation from the proceeds could help local authorities and approved housing bodies deliver move-on accommodation. It would ease pressure on the refuges, free up emergency spaces and, most importantly, give women and children the stability they need to rebuild their lives.

There are international examples of this approach. In Italy, assets seized from organised crime have been repurposed for community use. On a recent visit to Lusaka in Zambia, I learned that with the assistance of our own embassy there, accommodation for vulnerable women has been supported through properties confiscated from organised crime gangs. That is where I got the idea for this. We do not need to replicate those models but we can certainly take inspiration from them because here in Ireland we already have structures in place but what is needed now is a policy decision and that collaboration through the Departments of housing, justice and possibly health.

I welcomed the continued investment in refuges around the country, including the confirmation yesterday of a refuge for Cavan and Monaghan, but we must also complete the next step of that journey. I am also working with the Departments of housing and health on how vacant or derelict buildings, particularly over-the-shop premises in our towns and villages, could potentially be used for this accommodation. Even unused HSE buildings could be used.

Making crime pay should mean taking assets from the criminals and restoring dignity, safety and opportunity to those victims and survivors of domestic abuse along with the victims of more and more human trafficking. I am asking the Minister to examine this proposal and consider how the proceeds of crime can be used in a more directed, targeted and impactful way to help these women and children in crisis and to rebuild their lives

I thank the Senator for raising this important matter and congratulate her on her briefing in the audiovisual room yesterday. Well done to her for her advocacy. I know she had 14 ambassadors in support but she is right. Refuges save lives but they are not for long-term living. I share completely her views. The Minister sends his apologies for being unable to be here today. He thanks the Senator for raising the important matter of the examination of the use of properties seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau as move-on accommodation for women and children leaving domestic, sexual and gender-based violence refuges.

The Government fully recognises the importance of ensuring that victims of domestic violence have access not only to emergency refuge spaces but also to safe and sustainable accommodation options when they leave those settings. The transition from refuge accommodation to independent living is a crucial stage and ensuring appropriate supports at that point remains a priority across Government. This is reflected in the actions set out in the zero tolerance strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence.

In relation to the specific proposal raised, the Minister advises that the use of property seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau for move-on accommodation is not currently under consideration from a policy perspective. It is also important to emphasise that the safety of victims of domestic violence underpins the development of all accommodation responses. In that context, the repurposing of properties, including those seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau, may not be capable of meeting the necessary security, confidentiality and suitability requirements.

That said, it is important to recognise the contribution that proceeds of crime already make to community supports. Funds generated through the Criminal Assets Bureau are channelled into the community safety fund, which supports a wide range of projects aimed at enhancing community safety and supporting vulnerable groups. A number of these projects directly support services for victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence.

There is also ongoing and significant work across government to increase safe accommodation capacity for victims of domestic violence. This includes continued investment in refuge development and provision designed to assist survivors before they move toward independent living.

In addition, significant progress is being made through interdepartmental collaboration between Cuan, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, and local authorities. The review of the 2017 policy and procedure guidance for housing authorities in relation to assisting victims of domestic violence with emergency and long-term accommodation needs is currently under development by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

The Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration and Cuan welcome the review and update of the 2017 guidance, which prioritises both emergency and long-term accommodation needs for households affected by domestic abuse and violence. A key objective for Cuan is to establish a system for collecting and reporting data on the needs and outcomes of households identified as victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence across local authority areas. This data will provide an evidence base to inform the development of services in Cuan's national services development plan.

Cuan continues to enhance its partnership with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage in the roll-out of this guidance and to identify opportunities for strengthening its implementation throughout the sector. Taken together, these measures demonstrate a sustained commitment across government to strengthening the accommodation pathway for victims of domestic violence. While the specific proposal relating to Criminal Assets Bureau-seized property is not under active consideration, the Government remains focused on expanding safe, appropriate and timely housing options through existing mechanisms and developing policy. I will certainly bring back the remarks the Senator made this morning. There is much merit in what she suggests. I commend her on her work and ongoing advocacy. It is a very important issue on which we must continue to shine a light, and we must also provide a range of sustained solutions as she proffered this morning.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. I thank him for his comprehensive response and his own personal comments. I note that the mechanism is not currently under consideration from a policy perspective but let us begin the conversation to make that a possibility. I would also argue that these houses would possibly be more than ample in terms of security for these women and children.

We are doing really well providing refuges; it is not the refuges, it is the post-refuge care that we need. We need a multi-pronged approach. It will take the Departments of housing and justice, and possibly other Departments, to come together and start planning for this eventuality because while we are building social housing as fast as we can, it is not fast enough for some of these women who need to move on and rebuild their lives, and then other women can move into the refuges. I appreciate the Minister of State's comments on that, but we need to focus more right across the Departments on how we can support these women. I would like to see more focus from the Departments of justice and housing on the third phase of the rehabilitation for these women and children.

I again thank Senator Comyn for raising the matter. She is right. She has initiated the conversation here. She is also right about post-refuge care and a move towards independent living. She eloquently outlined it. I agree that it a multi-sectoral, multi-Department and multi-agency approach is required. I know the work that is being done in my city of Cork. It is a whole-of-community response - the Government, the local HSE and other agencies are involved, including the Department of justice. Senator Comyn is correct that the whole focus needs to be put on it. As the Minister stated in his reply, which I am delivering on his behalf, while the mechanism is not being actively considered, it is important that the Government is fully committed to ensuring that survivors of domestic violence have access to safe, secure and appropriate accommodation at every stage of their recovery and transition. I assure the Senator that the Department and the Government look forward to working with her to keep the person, the woman and the family at the very heart and core of what we are talking about this morning. I thank her again for raising this matter.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, for joining us here this morning. I want to raise the need for the Minister for Transport to make a statement on the support packages available to the haulage industry during the current period, including the introduction of barrier-free tolling for hauliers.

As all Members are aware, the haulage industry has faced considerable challenges in recent times. The announcement of significant supports last week in the form of a €220 million package has been welcomed and is a significant boost. However, there are other measures that could be taken, which merit consideration, to enhance the already announced supports, in particular the introduction of barrier-free tolling on all tolls across the country, as is currently done on the M50.

The Minister may be aware that our fellow EU members are already making this move. For example the A13-A14 motorway corridor between Paris and Normandy has completely removed barriers from the motorway and instead is opting for tag and remote payment.

Our current tolling system has significant negative impacts from an environmental viewpoint, an economic perspective and also from a health outlook. According to figures provided by Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, HGV drivers are wasting over €26 million worth of diesel annually due to the stop-start process at toll barriers. This wasted fuel generates nearly 45,000 tonnes of carbon emissions every year, which is equivalent to nearly 30,000 kg of CO2 daily from the 24,264 HGVs that pass through Irish tolls. I know the Minister will be familiar with those statistics.

We should also note the harmful pollutants released by idling vehicles stuck in queues at toll booths. Nitrogen oxides, NOx, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are all emitted in excessive amounts when engines idle. These pollutants contribute to air pollution, which is not only harmful to the environment but is also linked to respiratory illnesses such as asthma and more serious illnesses. As drivers often search for coins or cards to make payment, tolls also increase the risk of accident, and this has resulted in serious accidents. The coroner for Cork city highlighted these risks following one fatal accident.

In terms of the toll fees, the industry was facing rising costs well before the fuel price rocketed up in recent weeks. Obviously the industry is essential for the entire country and strong consideration should be given to reversing the toll increases that were implemented in 2026 or at least the Minister should make a vow to freeze them at their current level for a prolonged period.

I thank Senator Crowe for raising this important matter, which I am taking on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien.

The Minister for Transport is responsible for overall policy and Exchequer funding for the national roads programme. As Members will be aware, once funding arrangements have been put in place with TII, under the Roads Acts 1993-2015, and in line with the national development plan, NDP, the operation and management of individual national roads is a matter for TII, which ultimately delivers that under the national planning framework.

TII, through a service provider, operates the M50 and Dublin Port tunnel tolls on behalf of the State. Along with Exchequer funding, toll revenues received by TII contribute to the funding of essential services on the national primary and secondary road network, including general day-to-day maintenance and operation of the network, such as pavement repair and renewal, incident and emergency response, winter gritting, safety barrier repair and renewal, and energy supply and maintenance of route lighting.

Senator Crowe referred to the M50. The origin of the single M50 toll point was to fund the construction of the West-Link Liffey bridge and the associated section of the M50 in 1990 under an early form of public-private partnership, PPP, contract. The State bought back the West-Link bridge concession in 2008 and, as Senator Crowe rightly said, converted the toll plaza to a freeflow barrier-free tolling arrangement.

With regard to the Dublin Port tunnel, it is important to point out that the barrier serves as an important mechanism to ensure that traffic congestion does not take place within the tunnel, in accordance with normal good operating practice. The other eight roads are PPP roads, which were constructed and are now operated and maintained under long-term contracts with TII. As Members will know, the basis for the PPP toll road contracts arose from a Government policy initiative which identified PPPs as an essential component in contributing to the financing and delivery of national road improvements. Revenue generated by these roads is collected by the PPP company and is used to repay loans arising from the construction of the road and to fund ongoing operations and maintenance activities. Any change to the mechanism by which tolls are collected on these routes would need to take account of these existing contractual commitments.

Regarding changes to toll prices, toll by-laws for each individual road set out the basis for calculating maximum tolls each year. Maximum tolls are calculated for each vehicle category. TII calculates the maximum tolls for the Dublin Port tunnel and the M50 and decides the actual tolls that should apply. The PPP companies calculate the maximum tolls for the eight PPP concession schemes and propose the actual tolls that should apply.

The mechanism for these calculations is set out in the individual toll by-law and is based on the consumer price index. It would be fair to point out to the House that the tolls charged may not exceed the calculated maximum toll for each scheme. The Minister has no formal consultative role in this; it is a matter for TII. It would be a question of a shortfall of funding in terms of the different categories the Senator spoke about. It perhaps should be examined in the context of the point made on the loss of diesel and barrier-free tolling which is something we should consider. The Senator is correct about match days, in particular. The Cork-Portlaoise and Cork-Fermoy roads have a lot of barriers.

The road transport sector is of great importance to our country and in that regard I welcome the recently announced support scheme that has been put in place. TII, in conjunction with toll operators, has undertaken trials permitting HGV tolls to be paid without the need for vehicles to stop. These trials have taken place at toll locations on the N25 Waterford bypass and on the M7 and M8 Portlaoise local road network. These trials apply to primary HGV lane one at each toll location and are backed by advanced variable messaging. These trials were successful and were immediately extended, with limited trials now under way on the M1 Gormanston to Monasterboice and M8 Rathcormac to Fermoy toll locations, with TII aiming to facilitate similar transitioning to rolling out HGV tolling, where feasible, at all toll locations. I thank the Senator for raising this important matter.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. It is clear that the trend is heading towards barrier-free tolls sooner or later. Fermoy is a perfect example. We should take the necessary action to ensure we can make this change in Ireland as soon as possible because of the range of benefits it provides and to support the haulage industry. It is vital.

Having spoken to operators in the industry, I know this is something they have raised for quite a while. At this stage, it would be welcome to see action being taken as a priority. I appreciate TII has responsibility for setting toll prices but given the current circumstances, the Government would benefit from considering how this can be amended. Consultation between the Department of Transport and TII on this issue would be welcomed by all.

I thank Senator Crowe for raising the matter. Barrier-free tolling is something we need to explore. We have seen how successful it can be. The Senator referenced other parts of Europe that have introduced it. We need to take into account emissions and the waste of diesel. Despite the fact tolling may not be popular, it helps to fund maintenance and ongoing work. We have seen the benefits of tolling for our roads. I will bring the remarks of the Senator back to the Department in the context of toll revenue being reduced and the success of our motorway and interurban routes. I will ask the Department to engage further with the Senator on the matter.

Late last year, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights wrote to the Government to urge it to recognise socio-economic status as a legal ground for discrimination. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have delayed this change for the past decade and refused to support legislation I introduced in the Dáil and Seanad that would finally have included socio-economic disadvantage as a ground of discrimination.

People are being denied jobs or services on the basis of their accent or the community they come from, which is clearly wrong and a form of discrimination. It is long past time for the Government to recognise this for what it is and support legislation that would ban unfair discrimination against working class communities. Inner city communities, in particular, face social stigmas in the workplace, in job interviews and while dealing with State institutions. Their struggles cannot continue to be swept under the carpet. This is a systemic issue that dates back generations for many people living in flat complexes who report high levels of generational and present day social exclusion and discrimination that is directly and indirectly due to their socio-economic background. In many ways, they are treated as second-class citizens simply because of where they come from or how they speak and are perceived. Low socio-economic status defines them as people.

Ireland is a country with significant inequality and inflexible social strata, copper-fastened by socio-economic disadvantage and how people's opportunities are constrained by the prejudice of others. If we are serious about equality and allowing people the opportunity to succeed, we must ensure that socio-economic disadvantage does not prevent someone from bettering themselves and improving their community. This is an issue that has been left on the back-burner for far too long. Communities need action and equality in practice, not just in theory. I would be grateful if the Minister of State could provide an update on this equality legislation and if people from disadvantaged communities who face discrimination every day can expect the Government to finally recognise their lived reality.

I thank Senator Andrews for raising this important matter. The Minister would like to thank him for raising the matter in the Seanad.

I fully subscribe to his point that there is no place for discrimination in any shape or form in our society, in particular on the basis of disadvantage or socio-economic status. That should be unacceptable in our country today. However, it is fully recognised that despite the great progress we have made on many social issues, people in Ireland can often, as the Senator outlined, face barriers on the basis of their background. That is wrong. The Employment Equality Acts and Equal Status Act prohibit discrimination on specific grounds. Under these Acts, discrimination occurs where one person is treated less favourably than another in a comparable situation because they differ under any of the following grounds: age; civil status; disability; family status; gender; housing; assistance payment; membership of the Travelling community; race; religion; and sexual orientation.

The previous programme for Government included a commitment to introduce a new ground of socio-economic discrimination in equality legislation. In November 2024, the Government approved in principle the introduction of such a ground as part of the wider reform of the Employment Equality Acts and Equal Status Act. The planned reforms included in the general scheme and heads of the Bill of the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill aim to improve the effectiveness of the Acts in combating discrimination and promoting equality for all. The general scheme underwent pre-legislative scrutiny by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Children and Equality last year. The recommendations of the committee, including those related to the introduction of this new ground, are now being examined by departmental officials and the drafting of the Bill is under way.

The approval in principle of the introduction of a new equality ground is subject to the completion of an assessment of the potential cost to the Exchequer and an enhanced SME test to examine the potential impact on SMEs of the introduction of such an equality ground. Officials in the Department of Children, Disability and Equality are working to carry out these assessments while work continues on the rest of the Bill. It is important to outline to the House that this issue is examined thoroughly and the potential costs and proposed wording are carefully considered to ensure there are no unintended consequences.

A significant challenge in introducing a new protected ground in Ireland's equality legislation is ensuring that it can be understood by everyone. The public and businesses small and large need to be clear on what the ground is and what it covers. Past attempts to legislate in this area have been held back by difficulties in defining terms such as "socio-economic status" or "disadvantaged socio-economic status" with the degree of clarity and lack of ambiguity necessary for the Statute Book.

It is vital that the definition of a new ground can be legally robust and well-understood by service providers and employers. Extensive work has been carried out by officials in the Department to scope, deliver and develop policy on what a new equality ground should encompass. This ongoing work is intended to ensure that a proposal can be brought forward that gives everyone clarity as to their rights and obligations under the laws. The intention is that a memorandum would be brought to Government setting out the outcome of the test and the recommendations of the pre-legislative scrutiny process and putting forward options regarding the possible introduction of an equality ground based on socio-economic status.

I share the view of Deputy Andrews. It is important that we give people clarity and certainty and end discrimination, because it does exist in some cases. I know people who feel like that. I fully agree with the remarks of the Senator.

When will the memorandum be brought to Government? It really is urgent. There are any number of reports, studies and definitions and any amount of research but the time for research, studies and definitions is long past. The Government knows what needs to be done and it needs to do it. We have a situation where discrimination on grounds of race, religion and gender, among others, has been made illegal, which is very welcome, but we need to ensure discrimination on socio-economic grounds is introduced as a matter of urgency. The Government cannot kick the can down the road. They know it is there, as the Minister of State said. There needs to be urgency and we need action now.

I again thank Senator Andrews for raising the matter. To be fair, I do not have a timeline for him in terms of the Government's amending legislation. It is important that the issue is examined thoroughly. I am not saying this to kick the can down further because there are potential costs. There is also a proposed wording. As I said in my reply, there must be no unintended consequence and clarity and certainty need to be given. It is also important to recognise the Government is considering recommendations of the report based on the pre-legislative scrutiny, which was important.

All of us want to see discrimination on the basis of disadvantage removed. It is unacceptable. To pose a question to Senator Andrews, as two people committed to this, will the introduction of a socio-economic ground root out the causes of disadvantage in itself? It may not but it would be an important step in tackling discrimination and encouraging change. We need to continue the work. We need to have advocacy and conversations such as the one we are having this morning because it is real. I am a former teacher. I meet past pupils and people every day who tell me that because of the location they come from they feel they are not getting a fair chance. That is not right in a world where we should all be treated equally. I look forward to working with Senator Andrews on ensuring we end that discrimination.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, for being here this morning to take this Commencement matter. I am here to speak about the croí cónaithe property refurbishment grant and the criteria for the drawdown of payment after work has been completed. As things stand, there is a requirement that the applicant submits receipts for every individual piece of material and labour used in the refurbishment of the property in order to draw down the reimbursement payment. In turn, it is a requirement of a member of the clerical staff of the local authority to go through and assess every one of those receipts in advance of approving the payment. Assessing all of this puts a massive burden on the local authority in terms of manpower. In the vast majority of local authorities around the country, only one or possibly two additional staff members have been given to oversee the croí cónaithe scheme and its smooth working.

I understand there is clearly a need to ensure that all materials and labour are procured from tax compliant and legitimate sources but this concern could be addressed post payment by selecting a sample number of random applicants to be assessed or examined. This would act as a deterrent to ensure no non-legitimate sources of material or labour are used. This system is used in many Department of agriculture payment systems. If we were to change the system of examining the receipts and invoices to a sample-based system, we would take out an awful lot of the delays in payments to applicants. These delays put a lot of financial pressure on people. They cause a need for bridge funding to be secured by the people going ahead with the projects and sometimes it is not easy to get this funding. In many cases, it causes delayed payments to the tradesmen who have done the work as people wait to receive the reimbursement. I am anxious that we look at addressing this and perhaps use a similar system to what is proposed for the diesel scheme being put in place for farmers and agricultural contractors. This will involve a sampling of 5% of the applicants post payment.

I thank Senator Murphy for raising this matter. I also thank Senator Duffy who has been working with him on this. I will bring the suggestions he made to the Department. Some consideration should be given to them because Senator Murphy is well versed in the matter.

The important point for the Government is that bringing existing vacant and derelict buildings back into use as homes is a priority for the Government and a central element of our housing plan. Significant progress has been made in addressing vacancy. A key measure that has been introduced is the vacant property refurbishment grant. It provides substantial support to bring these properties into use as homes. The grant provides support of up to €50,000 for the refurbishment of vacant properties and a further €20,000 for derelict properties. Feedback on the grant and the level of interest in the grant has continued to grow, with over 17,400 applications received to the end of quarter one this year, of which over 13,100 applications have been approved and over 5,300 grants paid, totalling almost €285 million. Recognising the need to bring as many vacant properties into use as homes, particularly in our towns and cities, a new expert advice grant and vacant above the shop grant were introduced to support bringing vacant upper floors into residential use, with a package of up to €140,000 available for the conversion of vacant space in such properties.

The grant process involves the local authority receiving and reviewing applications to ensure that grant conditions are met, and arranging for a qualified person to visit the property to check the refurbishment work being applied for and to assess the proposed cost. When the works are completed, the local authority will conduct a final property visit to review that the approved work has been completed in line with the grant application. The grant is paid on completion of the approved works, ensuring that the applicant has carried out the works applied for. This is also the approach in other grants, such as the SEAI and housing adaptation grants. It is important to note that introducing a system of having completion certification by a relevant qualified professional would result in every applicant having to engage the services of such a qualified professional, which would then result in an additional cost to the applicant.

In December 2025, the Government approved an additional sum of up to €100,000 per annum for each local authority to support the effective and efficient administration of the grant, in addition to the annual payment of €60,000 for the vacant homes office in each local authority. It is the responsibility of each chief executive to ensure appropriate resources are assigned to administration of the grant. Under Delivering Homes, Building Communities, more will be done to tackle vacancy and dereliction. The plan will ensure that the activities and resources used to address vacancy and dereliction are co-ordinated, and that legislative powers are used proactively to bring dereliction and vacancy to an end. As a result, families and people can become part of, and contribute to, vibrant thriving communities. I will take the points Senator Murphy raised back to the Department.

I fully agree with the Minister of State that inspection of the property post completion of work by a properly qualified engineer or other professional is absolutely essential. However, there are major savings to be made in terms of the clerical administration of the scheme, as I outlined. I thank the Minister of State for his commitment to assess this. I also thank my colleague, Senator Duffy, for the work he has done on this to date. I look forward to working with the Minister of State on it.

Senator Murphy made some very interesting points that require us as a Government to listen. I reassure him that we are committed to addressing the issue of vacancy. I thank him and Senator Duffy for their advocacy and work in this regard. We know the success of the vacant property grant - we have seen it throughout the country. We should always look at how we can improve the effectiveness and delivery of the scheme. I will bring Deputy Murphy's points back. It is worth saying that it is not proposed to introduce a system of completion certificates because the Government feels it is not necessary at the moment. I will take the points Senator Murphy has made back to the Department.

The grant is making a real difference, as we both agree, in urban and rural areas. We will continue to support bringing many properties back into use as homes. I am happy to talk to the Senator further on this matter, because there is merit in what he said. I thank him for raising it.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to discuss this all-important topic. I am asking the Government to reduce VAT on sunscreen and sun protection factor, SPF, products to 0%. The Irish Cancer Society tells us that over 13,000 people are diagnosed with skin cancer every year. While we encourage people to wear sunscreen and to use SPF products, under law, these are seen as cosmetic products. Under EU law, they are categorised as cosmetic but they are proven to prevent skin cancer. The latter means that these products have been placed in the wrong category. When I raised this matter in August of 2024 and again in June of last year, the then Minister for Finance, former Deputy Michael McGrath, went to the European Commission to see if the categorisation could be changed to pharmaceutical. A lot has happened in this space. In 2022, a 0% VAT rate was applied to hormone replacement therapy, HRT, patches and creams and to sanitary products. While we have come a long way, one of the most effective creams in protecting people from skin cancer is still in a different category. I really cannot figure out why such products are classed as cosmetic.

In some ways, the EU is being contradictory, with certain products in the 0% VAT category and others, like sunscreen, in the 23% category. Some stores have reduced the price of sunscreen to encourage people to use it. For low-income families especially, it is very costly. The price also seems to go up in the summer months. Dermatologists recommend that we should apply sunscreen all year round. We should be pushing to have sunscreen declared a pharmaceutical product and made subject to a 0% rate of VAT. I look forward to the Minister of State's response.

I thank Senator Byrne for raising this issue. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Troy, has been delayed and apologises for not being here to take it. Senator Byrne has significant interest in this matter and has raised it repeatedly in the House. I thank her for the work she is doing in that regard. This is an important issue, and the Senator is right to highlight the anomaly in terms of pricing. Also important are the year-round piece and the piece around low-income families. The points the Senator makes are worth listening to.

I am advised by Revenue that the VAT rating of goods and services is subject to EU VAT law, with which Irish VAT law must comply. In general, the VAT directive provides that all goods and services are liable to VAT at the standard rate unless they are exempt from VAT or fall within Annex Ill of that directive, in respect of which member states may apply reduced rates of VAT. The reduced rates of VAT in Ireland are 9% and 13.5%, respectively. Unfortunately, under EU law, there is no scope for a reduction in the rate of VAT on sunscreen products as they are not one of the products listed in Annex III. As a result, the supply of sunscreen products is liable to the standard rate of VAT of 23%. This goes to the heart of the Senator's argument in terms of the categorisation of sunscreen products.

As the Senator knows, there has been ongoing engagement on this issue with the European Commission since 2023. Clarity was sought on whether the text of Annex III of the VAT directive which refers to pharmaceutical products could be understood to include sun protection products. Unfortunately, the European Commission confirmed that it was not possible for sunscreen products to be considered pharmaceutical products because they are deemed to be classed as a product in the category of cosmetic or toilet preparations. Senator Byrne is right, and I concur completely, that these are not cosmetic products or toiletries. They are pharmaceutical products that prevent skin cancer. She is 100% right about that, and I am not just saying that as her colleague and friend. She is right that sunscreen prevents skin cancer.

The Commission advised that a reduced rate cannot be applied to sun protection products such as sunscreen. In the broader context of Annex III of the VAT directive, I have been advised that an agreement was reached to amend and expand its scope in April of 2022. Changes to the VAT directive, which require unanimity among member states, were negotiated over a four-year period. I understand that changes made to Annex III of the VAT directive did allow the Government to apply a zero rate of VAT to non-oral medicines such as HRT patches and creams and to nicotine replacement therapy patches. In addition, the Government was also able to move the VAT rate for automatic external defibrillators to zero, which the Senator will be aware was a long-standing request of many in the Oireachtas. Also worthy of mention is the fact that Ireland has always maintained a zero rate of VAT on oral medicines. We ensured that these zero rates were maintained in the 2022 agreement. While these were successful outcomes, I regret it was not possible to secure changes in respect of sunscreen. It is my understanding that no further changes to Annex III of the VAT directive are expected in the medium term, which is unfortunate.

The Senator's points were well made. I will bring them back to the Department. It is important that Senator Byrne continue to advocate for this change, not only through the Oireachtas but also through the Inter-Parliamentary Union. In that context, I urge her to engage further with the Department and with European colleagues. This is an important issue, and she is right about it. I thank her for raising it and am sorry that the reply I have given is not as positive as she deserves.

I appreciate the response and the Minister of State's personal interest in this matter. It is something that we should all be interested in because, ultimately, skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in Ireland. We all know somebody who either has it or has recovered from it. If we can prevent it, we should do so. I thank the Minister of State for his suggestion that I should continue to campaign on this and should approach colleagues in the EU. I certainly will do that. Will he inform the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance that I will be coming back to him on this?

Again, I thank Senator Byrne for raising this very important issue. I appreciate the importance of it for so many people. She is right that skin cancer is prevalent, and we are seeing that much more now with climate change. She is right that sunscreen is an important part of safeguarding our skin against sun damage and skin cancer. Her advocacy this morning stresses not just the value of wearing sunscreen but also that we need to be a bit more hands-on and take a more common-sense approach in the context of VAT. Sunscreen is not a cosmetic or a toiletry. It is a pharmaceutical product for the prevention of skin cancer. I regret that the VAT applied is at a rate of 23%. That is a matter for the European Commission. It would do no harm to engage with EU Commissioner, former Deputy Michael McGrath, and other Commissioners on the matter.

Senator Byrne's work on this issue is important, and she should not be put off by this morning's reply. More and more people are being diagnosed with skin cancer, and it is becoming common across Europe. While being diagnosed with melanoma may not be as catastrophic as it once was, it is still not a nice diagnosis to get. We need to continue to highlight both the ongoing risk of and ways to prevent skin cancer. This is one way of doing it. I again thank the Senator for raising this matter. I look forward to working with her further on it.