We are now in public session. Apologies have been received from Senator Bradley. The purpose of today's meeting is to resume our discussion on living arrangements for people with disabilities. On behalf of the committee, I extend a warm welcome to Mr. Eddie Taaffe, chief executive of Waterford County Council and chair of the housing committee of the County and City Management Association, CCMA, and Mr. Toby Goodwin, behavioural scientist with Limerick City and County Council.

Before we begin, I will read a note on privilege and outline some housekeeping matters. All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against a person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that may be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. The evidence of witnesses who are physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. Members of the committee attending remotely must do so from Leinster House.

I now call Mr. Taaffe to make his opening statement.

I am the chief executive of Wexford County Council and chair of the CCMA's committee on housing. I am accompanied today by Mr. Toby Goodwin, behavioural scientist with Limerick City and County Council and member of the active travel, transportation, mobility and public realm team. On behalf of the CCMA, I thank the committee for the invitation to attend today’s meeting and for the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion on living arrangements for persons with disabilities. The CCMA welcomes the committee’s continued focus on rights-based, inclusive housing and on the practical challenges involved in delivering Ireland’s commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD.

Local authorities are committed to supporting disabled people to live independently and participate fully in their communities. Achieving this requires more than the provision of suitable housing. It also requires co-ordinated health and social supports, accessible application and allocation processes, inclusive public infrastructure, clear national standards and sustainable funding. Local authorities fully support Ireland’s commitment to Article 19 of the UNCRPD, which recognises the right of people with disabilities to live independently and be included in their communities. This policy direction is reflected in successive national housing plans and in the National Housing Strategy for Disabled People 2022–2027.

At local level, housing and disability steering groups bring together local authorities, the HSE, approved housing bodies and disability stakeholders to support the planning and delivery of appropriate housing responses. Meaningful engagement with disabled people and their representative organisations must remain central to the design, delivery and evaluation of these services. Regional interagency groups were established under the national housing strategy for disabled people to strengthen co-ordination between housing, disability and mental health services. Six groups are now in place, with all 31 local authorities represented through the regional structure. A key priority is the development of regional memorandums of understanding between local authorities and the HSE. These agreements are intended to establish clear arrangements for referrals, allocations, housing management and the respective responsibilities of housing and health services. Progress is being made across all six regions. The mid-west memorandum of understanding has been signed and is operational, while work is continuing in the other regions. Across the country, local authorities, the HSE and the Housing Agency continue to work collectively to strengthen these structures and ensure consistency in service delivery. The importance of the regional interagency group structure has also been recognised in the National Human Rights Strategy for Disabled People 2025-2030, which highlights its role in strengthening co-ordinated decision-making and service delivery between housing and health services. Progress is reported through established national monitoring arrangements.

While considerable progress has been made in establishing six regional interagency groups across the country, challenges remain in ensuring consistent implementation across all regions. These include finalising memorandums of understanding, strengthening governance arrangements, securing full membership participation and improving information sharing between housing and health services. Continued engagement between local authorities, the HSE, the Housing Agency and regional health area structures will be critical to achieving a fully co-ordinated approach to meeting the housing needs of people with disabilities.

The national guidelines for the assessment and allocation process for social housing provision for people with a disability establish a consistent framework and set of operational actions for local authorities, the HSE, approved housing bodies, AHBs, and service providers to improve access to housing for people with disabilities. A key objective of the guidelines is to improve the accessibility of the housing application, assessment and allocation process by embedding universal design principles and ensuring information and supporting documentation are available in accessible, easy-to-read formats. The national housing strategy for disabled people implementation plan commits to reviewing the guidelines and ensuring that each local authority embeds the revised guidelines into its policies and procedures. This review is being conducted by the Housing Agency in conjunction with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, and it is expected the revised guidelines will be published in due course.

Prior to the publication of the national human rights strategy for disabled people, the CCMA engaged in several discussions with the Department of Children, Disability and Equality regarding the critical need for a commitment to the provision of funding to support the role of access and inclusion officers within each local authority. During these engagements, the Department indicated its intention to secure the necessary funding to support these posts. However, to date, a funding mechanism has not been established or progressed. This has resulted in a delay in delivering the actions under the strategy.

Currently, across the sector there are various arrangements in place, with some local authorities having a dedicated role aligned to this remit and funded through the revenue budget, while others are managing the role on a part-time basis assigned to another officer or as part of a wider functional area. The provision of dedicated, centrally funded access and inclusion officer posts would provide greater parity and equity across the sector to support local authorities in meeting the commitments of the national strategy. Local authorities require the necessary funding, staffing and specialist supports for effective implementation. Without dedicated resources it will be challenging to achieve meaningful progress in creating inclusive, accessible services and facilities to meet the diverse needs of communities.

Key challenges include ensuring that local authority services, public consultations, digital services, public-facing buildings and elements of the public realm are accessible and inclusive for all members of the public; retrofitting older public buildings-----

We are over time, so we will stop there, if everyone is agreeable, as members have copies of the opening statement already. I thank Mr. Taaffe for his contribution. I propose that we publish the opening statement on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will move to questions and answers. As members will know, each member has seven minutes and we have a rota in place.

Cuirím fáilte roimh and I thank the witnesses for travelling to meet us. It has been five months since we last met Mr. Taaffe and his colleague who was with him that day. One of the key issues that we raised at the time was a recurring issue that was raised with me on 19 August, when I held a meeting in County Meath for families, parents and carers, where housing was the priority topic. Previously we raised with the CCMA the matter of the social housing application form. What has happened in the intervening five months since we raised that issue with the CCMA? Is any work being done to simplify the form and make it easy to be read? I do not think that would require the six regional groups and more than one memorandum of understanding to be in place.

My second question relates to the national housing strategy 2022 to 2027. We are in the twilight of that strategy, but Mr. Taaffe said in his opening statement that the revised guidelines will be published in due course. The guidelines are essential. They are essential for people in County Meath and I have no doubt they are essential for people in the 30 other local authorities. I can appreciate that guidance is required and local authorities want guidance, but in the case of this issue, I would think morality, a heart and an attitude are essential, given the vulnerable cohort of people we represent here. Why, when we are at the tail end of the strategy, are there laggards?

My next two questions are on challenges. Considerable progress has been made but challenges remain in ensuring consistent implementation. Again, in the absence of national guidelines, would the CCMA not take the lead on that? What are the specific challenges, apart from housing stock, relating to co-ordination and collaboration?

I will leave it at that for the moment. I appreciate the witnesses' replies and I will give them my remaining time. I will have a few more questions if we have a second round.

Work on the application form process is ongoing. Local authorities are working individually to make the application process as accessible as possible. Individual supports and assistance are provided at a local level by local authorities. If somebody has a difficulty or a particular requirement in completing their application form, that assistance is provided on a one-to-one basis whereby clinics are arranged. That is reasonably common throughout the local authority sector. A person can sit down with somebody in the housing department and we can take them through all the documentation that is required and explain areas to them, and there are easy-to-reach processes on our websites. Our websites are accessible and while I do not know the correct terminology, people can access software that reads out the actual process to people as well.

Housing applications are a complex process, and there are statutory requirements on each local authority governed by national legislation, national guidelines and national regulation. What we find is that the one-to-one clinic with people who might struggle in that regard is by far the most effective way of doing it. We sit down face to face in a private setting and go through the form with people. That is what we find is effective and is probably the most tailored solution to it.

On the housing strategy, the co-ordination with the HSE and other stakeholders is under way. The regional interagency groups have been set up and the HSE has appointed local authority-level co-ordinators for us to interact directly on individual families and individual cases at a county level or local authority level.

Why six years? The strategy began in 2022 and it is now 2026. Effectively, we have had five or six years up to this point but collaboration is only now being formalised.

The collaboration has been there but it was inconsistent around the country and that has mostly to do with resources on both sides. It is to bring a consistent approach and a consistent level of resources to it. Local authorities have been very active in this space and, in particular, in their social housing allocations and social housing build programmes. There are lots of examples around the country of specific housing solutions for people with disabilities and varying levels of need. I fully appreciate that we can always do more in that space and it is a case of building that programme project by project. It is also about co-ordinating the supports, and co-ordinating and tailoring the needs of particular individuals or families to a housing solution. The structure in place in that regard has been happening but it needs to be made more uniform and consistent.

The challenge, from the perspective of the CCMA, which we referenced earlier, is the delivery of tailored social housing solutions. The new housing delivery action plans, which local authorities are formulating this month for submission to the Department, will place a far greater emphasis on housing solutions and housing programmes tailored to meet the needs of people with different types of disability, whether that is intellectual or physical. An assessment has been done on the minimum - I stress that these are the minimum - levels of housing that should be provided in the new housing programmes that will be done by local authorities. We are looking at this from both directions. The HSE is giving us figures on what it feels is the need and we are looking at our own summary social housing assessments, where people gave us details of their requirements. We are tallying the two to see how they compare. The Department has also done an assessment of that. These will be fed into the housing delivery action plans, where local authorities will be tasked with identifying how they are going to deliver housing between now and 2030 to meet those needs.

I welcome both gentlemen and thank them for giving of their time because it is very important that we all move forward and work together.

How do the organisations ensure that people with disabilities and their representative organisations are involved in decision-making and service planning?

We have a structured engagement with the HSE. We meet personnel in the representative bodies reasonably regularly to discuss cross-cutting issues.

In the case of housing, for example, we have very active engagement with families who have housing needs both in terms of social housing supports and allocations but also through our private grant system for people to do housing adaptations. We have a significant programme there to interact with people.

When it comes to our wider public realm projects, we have a huge amount of engagement with our access officer, who guided us in making sure that any public realm works we do, like footpaths and anything in town centres, are designed to the relevant standards.

Are people with disabilities included at that stage?

Yes. We carry out walkability surveys in the town centres. We factor people with disabilities and older people into those surveys in order that their needs when it comes to accessing town centres are included in our public realm works at an early stage. They also recommend changes outside of that in order that all our work is compliant and done to the best possible standard. That is not to say that there are no issues. We have limited budgets. We are limited in the amount of work we can do, but we do our best. I might hand over to Mr. Goodwin.

I work in the active travel team in Limerick City and County Council. As such, I will only speak to that aspect of the discussion, which mainly concerns walkability audits. Within active travel, we are delivering new walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure around the city and county. When it comes to engagement with accessibility groups, we set up some engagement activities recently, such as the master plan for walking and safe routes for all initiatives. We ask the public to tell us about the issues, pain points and problems they face in their local neighbourhoods when they are trying to walk, wheel or cycle to their local shop, place of work, etc. We then take that data back in order to work to provide solutions.

We apply universal design to many of the main big infrastructure projects we deliver. It depends on the individuals running them. Hopefully, we see that engagement happening with different disability groups. I have been looking at the gaps between the big infrastructure projects, because there are a lot of areas where we still have not got the wide footpaths and dropped kerbs that we need to enable people to walk, wheel and cycle. As part of those public engagement workshops, we have invited disabled persons’ organisations, DPOs, as well as members of the public to engage with us. It is a challenge getting people to experience or spend time with us to talk through those issues, however. We have offered to go out and meet people. We met the Step Forward Disability Group in Limerick. A representative of the strategic policy committee for disabled matters in Limerick also sits on the Step Forward Disability Group. We have had regular interactions with that group when trying to propose new solutions and ideas. We sit with it and understand its issues. It is not always about infrastructural issues; sometimes, it concerns behavioural issues. We carried out a campaign around poor parking, for example, where we linked in with the annual event to try to prevent people from parking on pavements and blocking the way. We worked with local schools and the disability group in this regard. We brought them together in order that they could do an empathy exercise to try to understand that space a bit more.

Well done to both groups. It is important to include people who will be directly affected. How effective have the regional inter-agency groups been in improving co-ordination between local authorities and the HSE? Do gaps still remain? If so, what are they?

They have been effective. There are still gaps as a result of the time delay in setting them up and getting dedicated resources. They are essential to understanding what is happening across both the region and each local authority area, as well as for the co-ordination piece. Local authorities’ remit is the public realm, as we have outlined, and in providing housing solutions. We need to tailor those solutions. The best way to do that is to work with the experts, families and individuals involved, while also still trying to standardise our approach. We are getting there, but there is still a resource issue with ourselves and, possibly, the HSE in the context of gaining full understanding. Ultimately, housing takes a while to deliver. It takes time to design, build, etc. There is a long lead-in time. It is getting better, however.

Regarding support services for people who may need additional care packages, etc., that is more a matter for the HSE. We are not waiting for that. We want to get on and build housing, and that will be reflected in our housing delivery action plans. A much greater emphasis on will be seen on tailored housing solutions, as opposed to a broad solution.

It is hard not to look at housing for those with disabilities when we have the witnesses in front of us. There are six regional inter-agency groups that encompass the 31 local authorities. Is it correct that each local authority should have its own task force – that is probably the wrong term – on the issue of housing for disabled people? Such a group exists in Louth County Council. In fairness, it has seen some success over the years, although a great deal of that was built on the back of work done by the parents and friends of the intellectually disabled, which later became known as Inclusion Louth before it shut up shop. I refer to people like Mary Darcy, Mary Connolly and Eoghan Bailey. They always had an interaction – it was probably far from perfect - with Louth County Council. The council probably learned from that interaction and achieved a number of successes as a result. We know we are talking about minimum successes in this regard because we are not in the place we would like to be when it comes to housing.

This is about having best practice in place. The witnesses spoke earlier about ensuring that there is a conversation between the HSE, local authorities and, most particularly, disability and mental health services. I have only just come from a Topical Issue Debate in which one of the matters raised related to how we deal with mental health issues that arise in council housing settings in circumstances where there is a lack of resources and how we determine who can trigger what needs to happen. Anyway, I digress, and not for the first time.

Will the witnesses indicate which councils that have reasonable and working set-ups? For example, Louth County Council has a new 58-house estate in the village of Louth. One of those houses is working alongside Saint John Of God North East Services. That is the perfect scenario where the local authority provides the housing, which is built bespoke as required, and then a care service comes in to provide the necessary care. I remember Bernard Gloster, the former CEO of the HSE, talking about such a model. This was his idea on how it would work. Where are we seeing best practice? Where are we seeing such things happen?

What is the interaction with the HSE, because the Before We Die campaign highlighted the huge number of parents aged between 70 and 80 who are still providing caring duties? Obviously, in the first instance, the requirement is for the HSE to have this information and then to have a plan as to how this cohort will be looked after, as well as the wider family. Local authorities have a major role to play in that regard. It is about making sure all those pieces are in place.

A lot of good work is going on around the country, and that work has been ramping up over the past number of years. To provide some examples, Meath County Council has developed, in association with the HSE, Tuath Housing and Praxis Care, 44 units in Navan, while Galway County Council has developed 15 units. Definitely, there is a significant number of pockets of good housing schemes that have been designed either wholly in conjunction with the HSE and approved housing bodies, AHBs, or the voluntary bodies like the Deputy mentioned, or where a portion of the housing scheme - ten units out of 30 or 40, for example - are specifically designed for a person who has to use a wheelchair. There is already quite-----

Louth County Council is attempting that. A total of 60% goes on choice-based letting where everyone can bid. Obviously, there are older people and transfers, but 10% is specifically allocated for those with a disability.

We have carried out an analysis of the people on the social housing waiting lists. The current number of people with different types of needs and disability on the lists across the country is 7,000. That is the figure for the 2025-----

Does that number include those with intellectual disabilities?

Yes. I will provide the breakdown. A total of 2,000 people have an intellectual disability and a further 2,000 have a physical disability. Some 1,700 people have a mental health disability, while 700 have a sensory disability.

It is about aligning.

The issue is that, as the committee will be aware, our social housing needs assessment is heavily weighted towards people with a family member with an intellectual or physical disability and people who themselves have an intellectual or physical disability. That is why with choice-based letting, a portion of houses are reserved for people with special circumstances like that. The emphasis given to both allocation and delivery of housing is growing all the time. However, now that we are in a different space with the new programme, there is a far greater emphasis on defining what the needs are and meeting them, and that is where the housing delivery action plans come in where we are going to quantify that. At the moment what we are not-----

When does Mr. Taaffe believe the association will have that?

Local authorities have to submit the draft plans to the Department by this Friday and it will take a month or two for a bit of backwards and forwards on the plans, but they will be brought to council chambers in October or November.

Then we will have the number in relation to the need, but that is the need on the basis of those on the housing list. It is incumbent on us, but on the HSE in particular, to ensure the association is aware of all it is aware of because most of-----

Exactly, and that we have that captured correctly. There is a lot of work going on, either for wholly dedicated housing schemes or portions of housing schemes, and that we are capturing. We are working our way through those allocations. We have record amounts of social housing coming through the AHBs over the past number of years. The pipeline is good for the next few years. We have also standardised the designs for shared living. There is a four-bedroom house that allows a carer to live in as well, and there are single bedroom, single storey bungalows for people, whether universal design, UD, UD plus, UD plus plus, etc. Now that we have those standardised designs, it also means we can deliver that through Part V. We can give those drawings to our developers and say that, under Part V, we want them to do four of this or two of that or whatever. That is a new delivery form that we did not have before because we did not have standard layouts.

That makes complete sense. If we are talking about that 7,000 or whatever the figure ends up being, we are talking about a considerable amount. I accept not everybody is going to need to be housed straight away, but what is our timeline in relation to those homes being delivered? I get that I am jumping the gun slightly.

It averages at approximately 10,000 social houses a year for the next three years under the current programme, and then it is up to each local authority to determine what percentage, based on the numbers they are given, would be for people with disabilities as well as what the universal design and universal design plus would be, along with age-friendly housing and housing for older people. There is a big cohort for that as well.

I thank the witnesses for being here today. I and my colleague, Senator Stephenson, held a public meeting on disability issues in Kilkenny in June, and one of the issues raised with us was the provision of access officers across local authorities. We were told that Kilkenny County Council had at that stage appointed an access officer but that this was not a dedicated post and it was being combined with other responsibilities. The council's own disability inclusion strategy appears to confirm that. We also heard about a local resident who had been allocated a social house that was very well adapted internally for their needs, but the environment immediately outside the home was extremely difficult to navigate. That is a very striking example of how you could get one aspect of the environment - the house - right while failing to look at the person's ability to actually move around their neighbourhood and access local services and be part of the community.

What came through strongly from that exchange was the pivotal importance of access officers in joining up all of the features of the environment that make a difference to accessibility: housing design, roads, the public realm, the whole holistic picture. What is Mr. Taaffe’s understanding of how access officers are allocated across the 31 local authorities? Does he have a sense of how many dedicated full-time posts there are and how many posts are carrying other responsibilities? Is there a standard staffing model? For example, does a council serving a substantially larger population receive a greater whole-time equivalent allocation for accessibility work, or can a very large urban authority and a much smaller rural authority effectively both satisfy the statutory requirements simply by designating one existing staff member? Given the enormous variation in size and responsibilities of local authorities, does Mr. Taaffe believe requiring at least one access officer is adequate? Should there be clearer, more defined national staffing and resourcing standards for that function?

As I understand it, it is a mixture across the country. Some local authorities have a full-time access and inclusion officer or access officer and some will have a part-time role. It varies depending on the size of the local authority. For example, in County Wexford, we have a full-time access and inclusion officer who advises all sections of the local authority on relevant issues on access design but also makes sure our services are proofed for access for people, even people with a visual impairment, as to how they access our services and offices.

Some local authorities, as the Deputy said, have a part-time officer or the role is assigned to somebody who has other duties. Generally speaking, smaller local authorities are more inclined to have a part-time officer and larger local authorities have a full-time officer. We believe that the post should be full-time, permanent and funded. Obviously local authorities are funding those posts from their existing revenue budget and, as I am sure the Deputy can appreciate, there is huge demand from all sides on that revenue budget. We see a case for access officers to be funded centrally given the vital work that they do, and there should be a tiered approach, as the Deputy referenced. For bigger authorities it will take more than one post, given the volume of work going through. We absolutely see that as essential given the vital work they do, the proofing and auditing they do of council services and the advice they can give us.

On the issue of public realm works, where a house might be fully accessible but then you go out onto the footpath, unfortunately, that is the situation we are in, in particular in older towns and older parts of towns where the footpaths would not be wide enough and would not have the necessary dish curbings. What we are trying to do as much as possible is, whenever we do new works, they are fully compliant. As footpaths are replaced, roads are resurfaced and junctions are redone, they are, in the main, fully compliant with the modern standards and those standards are well understood by area engineers and our contractors doing the installing. Unfortunately, however, in older parts which have not seen that roads programme or resurfacing work, there are still areas that are not up to scratch or up to standard, and that is a difficulty.

Mr. Taaffe said that smaller councils or local authorities serving smaller population sizes might have a part-time access officer and larger ones might have a full-time officer. Is that decided in any systematic way or is it at the discretion of each council?

It is at the discretion of each council but the desired position, shall we say, of the CCMA is that everybody would have a full-time funded post to do that work. It is just that different local authorities have different abilities to be able to fund a post like that.

Does it happen then that it becomes part of the general pressure that an individual council is under to meet a staffing need elsewhere and that the access officer need is jostling for position with that?

Yes, and it is mainly to do with the funding of the post. I do not think there is any lack of desire to have a full-time officer, it is to do with the ability to fund that in our payroll budgetary process.

However, there is compulsion on a council to employ a full-time access officer?

Not as I understand it, but every local authority has an access officer. Whether the role is part-time or full-time is at the discretion of the local authority.

Is part-time, as in half time, the minimum provision Mr. Taaffe is aware of in each council or do some councils go below that?

I do not know is the honest answer. I imagine it is probably somewhere around 50%. It might be combined with some other part-time role as well.

It just seems quite ad hoc for something so important. Is there any way of this being more enforced?

My own view and that of the CCMA is it should be a funded post.

It should be centrally funded given the national importance. Those access officers are integral to delivering our national strategies. If the post were to become funded, it would be up to the local authority to put that in place. If we were getting funding for a full-time post, we would be obliged to have a full-time person in the post. We would be checked out and we would have verify that there is.

Following on from Deputy Quaide's question, how many of the 31 local authorities have an access and inclusion officer?

My understanding is that every local authority has somebody designated in that role but not all local authorities would have somebody full time in that post.

It sounds as if there is no nationally agreed job description. In some local authorities, is it more a case of ticking a box that they have assigned that title to somebody or is there any kind of national job description or standards expected of that person?

There would be a network of access officers as well so that they would be able to compare best practice and get together. It would be a reasonably consistent role with regard to what they do and do not do in local authorities. It is a twofold approach. It is advising other sections of the local authority how to make their services and any work they do accessible and inclusive. Some access officers look after disabled access for private development, while others do not. In some cases that goes through building control, which is fine, but some of it goes through the access officer. There are variances but it is about services.

Is there a document they can get to look at their job description?

As far as I know, there is. I have not seen it. I was involved in it when we recruited our access officer a number of years ago. It might have been updated since then.

Mr. Taaffe mentioned the national strategy. The pillar three working group is going to be meeting soon. Deputy Toole spoke about the fact that we are near the end of the strategy, with 2027 just around the corner. How often does that group meet and does it have a defined set of KPIs?

I must admit that it is something in which I am not directly involved so I am probably not the best person to ask about that. I imagine that it is meeting. There would be a national steering group and various stakeholders would be involved in it but I would have to come back to the Deputy about it.

No problem. How many of the 31 local authorities have completed their walkability studies?

I do not have an accurate picture of that but they are a consistent feature across all local authorities. Local authorities might not have completed walkability studies on all towns and built-up areas but there is a regular programme of doing them with the various stakeholders. It would not just be for people with varying levels of ability; it would be for older people and older person's councils would be involved in those as well. While I do not have exact figures in front of me, I imagine that every local authority has engaged in walkability studies in several of its built-up areas over the past number of years.

Mr. Taaffe mentioned that he would be hopeful for a national framework to support evidence-based decision-making and direct resources and that would be at national level. Active travel is nearly at a national level and I know Mr. Taaffe's colleague is over active travel. With regard to nationalising that, should that not be more of a local remit? In Ballina, our councillor, Marie-Thérèse Duffy, recently assigned money towards lowering a kerb. Sometimes I worry about taking every local issue to a national level. Will Mr. Taaffe explain why that national framework would work or what he envisages?

First of all, it is about working to national standards, agreeing what the standards are, uniformity across the work of local authorities and the prioritisation of the work of local authorities. That is where that comes in. It is about setting the frame for what we do, the best approach and the prioritisation of works and funding. The Deputy is right. That has to be delivered and decided on at local level. It is a combination of both but what is really important is the sharing of best practice. Making our services, including our online and information services, accessible is something where best practice can be done nationally and it can save us all from having to reinvent the wheel on what does and does not work. It is always a balance between what we should do as a collective and what works best and having that local discretion as well for priorities.

Sometimes we see that the walkability studies can be done but if there is no dedicated national fund, as alluded to by Mr. Taaffe, they can be left sitting on a shelf. If there is a hole in the footpath, the local authority will endeavour to fix it as quickly as possible. It should be the same for walkability. The actions that come out of a walkability study should nearly be seen in the same way. The kerb that was lowered in Ballina was lowered for a particular person but it will benefit many people with strollers and things like that as well.

Going back to memorandums of understanding for the regional groups, I am trying to understand why they are only being finalised at this stage in the strategy. It is great that we have the six regional groups. When did they become operational? They were dedicated to be assigned in 2022. When were they operational and what was the reason for the delay in the memorandums of understanding?

I have an update on those. There is no doubt that there was a delay in getting some of the teams and the relevant structures in place in the different organisations and then getting a standard memorandum of understanding agreed as to what the roles of the different organisations would be. Most of the drafts are either signed or in place and about to be signed. That will allow us to work away. The memorandum of understanding for the mid-west group, encompassing Clare, Limerick and north Tipperary, has been signed and the regional inter-agency working group is functioning, working well and agreeing work programmes. The REO in the HSE has been appointed for the south west and the memorandum of understanding is about to be signed in three of the other regions specifically.

If we can get that information afterwards, it would be super. Do those memorandums of understanding have any standardised data collection and measurement outcomes within them?

They do. They have set out what the priorities are and the role of each organisation in delivering the strategy, for example, who is doing what. It is about co-ordination and bringing together the key HSE and local authority staff who are making decisions on a daily basis to make sure that those decisions are aligned. It is for each organisation to deliver its KPIs. The agency group is to assist each organisation in meeting its KPIs. Our KPIs are to do with housing, including the delivery of housing, our accessible services, etc. The HSE would have a different set of KPIs.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. Cork city and county have a joined-up approach in terms of people with disabilities and access to housing and recognised autism as part of that as far back as 2018. I know that the county has exceeded its target of 20% allocation to disabled people as part of housing. Many individuals and families contact my office. One case involved a family that had been offered a house. The child was autistic and there was a balcony on the house. The family did not want to refuse the offer because they were afraid of the consequences of not doing so. They accepted it even though the child was a flight risk. They ended up having to install bolts in the house and get additional supports. In that instance, does Mr. Taaffe think that the information is being fully captured in terms of allocations and suitability? I know we see refusal rates as well. Do we actually know why people are refusing?

My second question relates to shortfall in capital. I do not know if Mr. Taaffe has the figures with him.

I know every house is different, but what is the average cost to build a suitable home versus the shortfall from the capital assistance scheme from Government? From a local authority perspective, what is not being met and what needs to be done?

I know that Inclusion Ireland has called for more data about housing, disability profiles, support needs and outcomes. It is calling for named individual officers in individual councils and for clear pathways. Would the witnesses support that? Following from that, would they agree that many of the access officers are tick-the-box exercises in councils and that in reality funding is not available to make these mandated, fully-funded positions? I asked many questions. I thank the witnesses.

Information sharing is definitely better than it was. It is about an assessment of an appropriate solution is. Sometimes, given the pressures on housing and the fact that we are under pressure to house a very long waiting list, we are not in the happy position of providing perfection and sometimes it is adequate. It depends on your definition of adequate. I do not know the case the Senator raises, but it is common and in Wexford we would always ask for an independent or a medical report or assessment so that it would not be a non-qualified person saying that the housing solution we are offering is acceptable. We would get independent expert advice, whether from the HSE, an occupational therapist or a general practitioner, that this will work and be okay. If it is not suitable, then we would not penalise people if they refused that offer because it is a particular set of circumstances. Most local authorities have a flexible approach to that. Sometimes the independent assessment does not tell you what the family requires and that can be a difficulty in some cases. We always try to come up with a solution.

On the average costs, generally speaking, new builds are looking at universal design or universal design plus. The cost differential between that and standard design housing is not that much. There is a misconception that this is more expensive housing. When dealing with new builds, it is not. Where it becomes very expensive is retrofits. We have a construction sector that is maxed out and it is hard to get people to even price retrofits.

On the question on data, the more data we have, the better our policymaking and decision-making become. We are in a much better space with the HSE and its assessment of housing needs for people with particular disabilities versus our own assessment from the information we have on application forms. We are getting to join the dots to a much greater extent through the regional groups and through the local HSE people on the ground. There will be a greater emphasis in the new housing programme on those tailored solutions.

Regarding access officers, my experience and all I can speak for is in Wexford County Council, where it absolutely is not a box-ticking exercise. Our access officer has even got into the stage where they proof our festivals. If we are hosting a festival, the access officer will proof the accessibility of that festival in terms of the information, the public realm, and so on. They review our roads, footpath and public realm programmes. They review our online services and any plans that we have to make sure that they reference people with different abilities. They also do the disabled access search for private developments. That is a wide-ranging role, both external to the organisation but also internal to the organisation. I would not see it as a box-ticking exercise. That speaks to the importance, going back to an earlier question from Deputy Quaide, of access officers being full-time posts. They should be funded because of the broad range of work that they do, like I have outlined.

I thank the witnesses for being here. I too was listening online and heard them mention Meath and the scheme in Navan. Meath being my council, I know they work very hard in this area with limited resources like every other council. To return to what the witnesses talked about with Senator Harmon about the cost, I agree that there is not a huge cost difference between this and traditional housing but I guess the cost is in the density. One is not building as many homes if one is building them for people with disability. Is there a larger cost difference between universal design and universal design plus? Are councils actually building to universal design plus for persons with disability?

Generally speaking, our own social housing programmes are fully funded and each local authority has a target that it has to reach for new build. Funding for that is in place and funding for universal design and universal design plus is generally in place once the argument is made and it is understood that the appropriate level of housing is being provided. Generally speaking, it is in place. For universal design plus plus, the difficulty I see is that it is a tailored solution for an individual, and if we decide that there is a person on our housing list who needs universal design plus plus, by the time we get to design it, go through planning, build that house and hand somebody keys, with the best will in the world, that is three to four years. What we would like is a situation where we can pre-empt that need, because there is a need, and actually incorporate these from day one without necessarily having an occupational therapist report for a particular individual at the end of that. The new housing delivery action plans exist to let local authorities have the discretion to identify how many different types of housing solutions they are going to build into their schemes. That will allow us to get on with that because we have identified it and numbers would be approved by the Department. As far as we can see in the local authorities, that is the case made for the number we are going to do, and we should not have to justify that any more, because it is an approved number.

The density issue is not a major concern. We can meet our density requirements on housing schemes and still meet our universal design, age-friendly housing, and all the different types of housing requirements, and still meet the density requirements. The additionality relates to what we call the H15 and H22 standard layouts. I could have this the wrong way around, but I think the H15 is a four-bedroom unit with a facility for a live-in carer. It is a shared living space for people with maybe intellectual and physical disabilities. There is the one-bedroom single-storey that would probably be universal design plus or universal design plus plus. They are standardised designs now so there is no more question of what universal design plus plus is. We now know what it is and we can give those to developers which are delivering houses under Part V and we can say that is what we want now. We can say we want the developer to do two or four of those, or whatever the number is, and from our interaction with property developers under Part V, they are delighted with that because they can say we have told them exactly what we want and we have even given them a layout, so they will build those.

That way we can integrate that housing into the wider housing issue. It is essential that we are not segregating people based on their ability. We are integrating them into the wider housing community.

On access and inclusion officers not being funded, which Department do the witnesses believe is responsible for funding them? What engagement have the witnesses had on it to date?

It could come from the wider health section, the housing section or the local government section. I do not think we really mind where it is coming from so long as it comes because the access officer's role is such a broad role. They have a role in housing, in planning, through the disability access certificates, DACs, in building control and in our wider services like library services. That is probably a difficult one. Our parent Department, if you like, is the local government section of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, but it is a wider remit than that.

Does the Department of local government fund most posts in the councils?

They fund through the local property tax and through other schemes. For example, we have posts funded by TII, the NTA and a range of different Government Departments.

That is the problem then, trying to find a home for it. I have not had this issue in Meath but I have heard it in the past year or so, that when people with a disability or their families have tried to get them on the social housing list, they have been rejected because of income limits, which apply to the wider social housing application process. Is that something that should not be happening and is not happening anymore?

As I understand it, the income limits are set nationally by the Department under legislation and regulation, so local authorities are bound by that. A local authority does not have much discretion in that regard as to who has an eligibility for social housing. Therefore, that would be an issue for the Department and the policymakers as to how they would see that changing or reflecting that. Unfortunately, local authorities do not have much discretion as regards income.

People with a disability are entitled to have housing provided to them and their only ability to do that is being on the social housing list.

As an example, I know of a family who, thankfully, are able to take care of their daughter until their end of life, but their only way of having her looked after into the future, because they obviously would not be able to fund her for the entirety of her life, is to be on the social housing list.

As I say, those issues and those criteria are set nationally. We also have funding for adaptations in private housing through the disabled person's grant. I think the last figure I had was something like €160 million available nationally to local authorities to do the housing adaptation grants so that people can apply for a grant where, for example, in that case, they have a dependant who has a disability or somebody acquires a disability through an unfortunate accident.

We are finishing the first round so I will make a few comments. I will pick up on what Deputy Dempsey said. Last Saturday, Deputies Toole and Ó Murchú and I attended a Before We Die campaign conference in the Helix, which was packed out. A lot of families there expressed huge concerns, as can be imagined, for their older adult persons with an intellectual disability and what they would do after their parents or those who care for them die. I was struck some of the commentary and some of the anecdotal stuff I heard when I spoke to people. A lot of people did not actually realise they had to apply to the social housing list because they would have assumed by dealing with the services over the years that automatically that would have been done for them. Some 2% of families tell us that they have done so from a survey done by the Before We Die campaign. I commend the campaign on the work it has done so far in highlighting this issue. We understand that 2% of families have a written plan in place, which means, unfortunately, that 98% do not. As was said, the housing application form was very complex for them. It was very upsetting for them to put it through. Some people when applying did not know why they had to put down details of all the family members in the house when it should just have been for the disabled person making the application.

I know, Mr. Taaffe, you will probably respond that it is a national set policy, but what plans are we going to do to address this issue whereby, especially for older people who are looking after adults with an intellectual disability, the disabled person individually can get on the housing list through an easier process? I understand what you said earlier about the council making an appointment for a person to come in and talk to someone. First, getting an appointment can take a long time. Second, the civil servant might say the person is missing their payslip or a parking disc or whatever and they have to come back again. How do we simplify that to make sure that older adults with an intellectual disability can access the housing list?

There are a couple of points in that. The first one is an awareness issue that people can actually apply on behalf of their adult children and that, once somebody has reached maturity, they are free to apply in their own right for social housing. We have a job of work to do nationally on raising awareness of that, but that can be done at a local authority level as well. This is something we can take back from the feedback and do that.

Regarding our application process, most local authorities would have the facility for people to come in and go through the paperwork, either at the counter or in a private, confidential meeting room. However, at the end of the day, we still require a certain level of paperwork, evidence and backup, if you like, to verify that the person is eligible for housing.

In fairness, we are dealing with people with an intellectual disability. It has been defined in many cases, dealing with services for a number of years, so I do not understand why we need specific information from them when we have it already. The campaign and the families are asking for the process to be simplified. It is an important point, as you said, that awareness is raised of the fact that the person living in the house themselves individually applies or somebody applies on their behalf, and that is reasonable.

In my experience, most people with an intellectual disability, but not all, will have a carer to help them, either a parent or somebody supplied by, for example, the HSE, who will accompany them and help them through the process. Obviously, we would assist them as best we can. I appreciate that is not in all cases. In some cases, we would ask the HSE if it could provide somebody to help them through the process so they can navigate as it as easily as possible. At the end of the day, it is about tailoring the solution to the individual. The key national piece is the awareness to get them to make the application in the first place and to help them through that process. We generally find that once somebody reaches out to us and says "I need to do this" or "I need help with this", we would adopt a very flexible approach, in Wexford anyway. We might put them in touch with a voluntary organisation if they were not in touch with one already, which would assist them and give them every available opportunity we could. It is about helping them and pointing them in the direction. However, the awareness for them to reach out to us in the first place and make that initial contact is an area we should be focusing on and then-----

Thanks, Mr. Taaffe. You have explained it but it is probably a job for the committee to highlight the fact we believe that the process should be made simpler and we might do that in our report.

I want to go back to the social housing list that was referenced earlier. You said there were more than 7,000 people on that, 2,000 with an intellectual disability, 2,000 with a physical disability, 1,700 with mental health issues and 700 looking for sensory accommodation. Choice-based letting was referenced. Some local authorities will be on board with that but some local authorities do not have choice-based letting yet, even though they are supposed to have it. That includes my own one in Limerick City and County Council. Can we get a breakdown by local authority of the number of people on the list? For instance, if there are 2,000 people with intellectual disabilities, how many does Clare County Council have and how many does Limerick City and County Council have? I do not expect Mr. Taaffe to have the information in front of him but if he could come back to us with it, it would be very useful for us.

I have the information here; I can submit it afterwards.

Perfect. That is great. My third question is about the access and inclusion officer. This issue has been raised by Deputies Quaide and Keogh and others.

Can we also get a list of which local authorities have such officers in place, whether it is a full-time or part-time position and any instances of local authorities that have more than one officer?

Given that there is somebody here who says he speaks for the active travel team, I will ask a number of question in that regard. There are, as we know, active travel schemes across Limerick. There is one from the Technological University of the Shannon to the city centre. There are four new bus stops. Have they been disability-proofed?

That scheme followed the universal design approach. Pavements are widened, junctions are tightened, dropped kerbs are put in place and modern standards are met for-----

The bus stop is now in the middle of the road. A person with impaired visibility will not know whether a bike has come from behind the bus stop. They will not be aware of that.

The floating bus stops the Cathaoirleach has mentioned are challenging. There are cycle lanes that intersect footpaths and bus stops.

I am running out of time. I have one other issue to ask about. Some of the corners have been tightened. I have asked the active travel team in Limerick to come out and look at a particular area. It has refused to do so. The team was responsive initially but now does not respond when public representatives raise issues. There is an issue at Johnsey's exit. Buses now have to mount the footpath there. How is that safe or secure, and not just for disabled people?

It is not complete. There is still work to be done to include lines being painted on the road to ensure that the traffic can navigate that-----

It has been going on for a number of months. People in vehicles have to cross over the white line to get out of the area. They cannot see as they come out because the cycle lane is in the way. There is going to be an accident there, as Mr. Goodwin is well aware.

It is an unfortunate situation. We cannot close the road for the considerable period of time required to complete the works. It is a work in progress.

That has been the situation for months. It is very dangerous. I use that exit on a daily basis.

It is challenging, particularly if we cannot close the road and do it all in one go.

I thank Mr. Goodwin. My time is up. In order to be fair to everybody else, we are going to move on.

I was lucky enough to have a long conversation with Mr. Tony Murray and Ms Susan Corrigan of Before We Die just at the point when they thought they would be able to get away home. The big issue is the number. Some 2,000 older children with intellectual disabilities are being looked after by parents who are over 70 years of age. As large as the list the witnesses have is, and it is possible that list will get larger, it probably will not cover all of this. I do not expect it to be answered here, but the big issue is that we need to ensure there is a system, whether it includes the community care records and whatever else, and whatever about the difficulty in filling out forms - and I have seen social workers have done work and elected representatives have facilitated people in that regard - that includes the HSE. We must ensure that the process starts. That is the big issue. We must ensure that people are on the list. The needs analysis is absolutely necessary. It is about delivering on that.

There have been a fair amount of secondary acquisitions. Houses have been bought in Louth. The tenant in situ scheme has probably become somewhat more difficult in the context of homelessness and disability. This is an issue that is more general. Would it be an issue for the witnesses? They could be okayed to buy a house for €430,000, and that is on the basis that it is new and does not have particular issues and the cost will be covered easily with the €10,000 or €15,000 for maintenance, whereas there are houses available at times, even with four bedrooms - and there is a lack of such properties - that could be bought for €200,000 or thereabouts but because there may be a cost of €50,000 or €60,000 required for refurbishment, there is push-back from the Department and it will not be allowed. Should that be resolved? Someone might be lucky with a house, and I wish them the best of luck, but there might also be significant issues around how something happened and whatever else when it is a matter of the local authority following the rules and working within its constraints.

We are constrained in the level of refurbishment funding that we can put into a second-hand acquisition. In our case, and I suspect most local authorities are the same, it is proving difficult to acquire four-bedroom houses. They are just not on the market and if they are, they are either very expensive and above our cost guidance or are in very poor condition and would require extensive refurbishment. That is an issue for us. Having said that, if it is a housing acquisition that is tailored or designed to help a family to exit homelessness, we would like additional flexibility on the refurbishment cost of those properties.

Some of these purchases would not even relate to disability. Housing for older people and housing adaptation grants were raised earlier. We all know that the cost of building has gone through the roof, but there are some specific cases. We are talking particularly about children who are getting older and who need a lot of support and have requirements. I have seen a number of cases where there have been bespoke solutions. Perhaps the local authority provided those involved with grant funding that was available but more money was needed and the people did not have it. Let us say the HSE stepped in. Such cases are few and far between. We need that to be more streamlined, and the witnesses would have no difficulty with that, rather than getting letters from agencies in relation to what they should do. An element of support is required for those very specific needs, particularly for those families with children who have challenging needs.

That is absolutely the case. The regional groups should put in place a structure to allow that. We do not want that discussion at regional level but at local level. The purpose of the regional group is to allow the structure at local level to have those conversations as quickly as possible and make decisions as quickly as possible so that the local authority or the HSE can drive on and provide that solution.

I have seen social workers who have done substantial work. I would not like to have their lists.

The Deputy's time has expired.

I would like to think we would have that service across the board------

We will move to the next member.

-----particularly for those with disabilities.

I will go back over some of the areas we have covered already, including the website and older parents, and linking that issue with the 6,400 target across the local authorities. The figures shared by the witnesses amount to 6,400. I know anecdotally in the Meath context and from the event in the Helix on Saturday that those figures are way off. There are complexities with getting an advocate in situations where an older parent has mobility issues. I would like to make a suggestion. Perhaps people from the local authority housing team could go to day services. Most towns and villages have day services and there may be 15 to 30 people attending. It could be flagged in advance that a family member or a particular person could assist where there are capacity issues. That could be flagged in advance. It would be like a workshop. That may help.

For older parents, of whom there are approximately 20,000, the website may be an issue. I do not for one moment mean to sound ageist in my remarks but I have received feedback from constituents. Navigating websites is very difficult. For something so important and complex, we have to meet the parents and families. Perhaps the front cover of the social housing application form, when the simplified form is introduced, could include a box to be filled in, similar to the four categories that were listed. That way, the situation would be clear straight away when the form arrives through the post or at the front desk and is opened. That would again identify, as we prioritise, that this is a person with a different ability and would flag that.

On active travel, Meath County Council hosts the age-friendly programme and does an extremely good job. The tagline, which is appropriate, is that if we are designing in an age-friendly manner, we are designing for everybody. The NTA's universal design model includes walkability tools. An audit was done in Ratoath four years ago and another was done in Dunshaughlin three years ago. We do not have any manifestation of that. The witnesses talked about the possibility of a ring-fenced fund, going forward, but surely in urban settings where you want access to businesses and services, there should be discretion whereby a local authority can decide that cycle lanes are not necessary for a certain community because it is ageing - and every community is ageing - and allow it the discretion to use the active travel funding to prioritise the walkability audit projects. Could that be fed back?

From the HSE perspective, the national push was to decongregate and move people out of the large settings, yet the reality of modern living is that a lot of people do not know their neighbours. The Remember Us group, in Balbriggan, Fingal, and the Homes for Us project have a concern about not being able to have clusters or groups of houses. That will occur in County Meath and in any local authority. I am flagging that there will be a need for groups and clusters of houses so that the community aspect can come into play.

Regarding the application form and the application process, those points are well made and there is definitely a job of work to be done on that.

I might just go back to the Deputy's last question on the clusters and the groups. I agree 100%, and that is critical for people with differing abilities and for age-friendly housing. We are ramping up a programme of age-friendly housing. I think the design aspects of age-friendly housing are well understood. What is not well understood is the need for communal meeting rooms in age-friendly housing, so we are designing a number of schemes now where there will be a communal meeting room that will allow people to meet.

Unfortunately, the way the NTA works is that it has an active travel programme and that funding has to be spent on active travel. Active travel is inclusive travel as well, however, and it does provide the necessary standards in terms of accessibility and walkability. That is all integrated into the active travel schemes.

Is the cycle aspect compulsory? Must cycling be done?

I am sorry, but I have to call the next person.

Okay. I will ask about it later.

May I bring the witnesses back, please, to the access and inclusion officers? They were spoken about already, but will the witnesses expand on what impact their absence is having on the delivery of services?

I would not be directly familiar with that because we have a full-time one in Wexford. I suppose if the role is part-time and that is all the local authority can devote to it in terms of cost and funding, it is about the way we can still meet our statutory requirements. I suppose it does involve spending less time raising awareness and proofing our services for access and inclusion and usability. That is an issue. It is a huge area that requires constant attention and vigilance as we roll out more services. Local authorities offer over 1,100 services across the board and all 1,100 have to be accessible and inclusive. That is a challenge. It is a challenge in the complex world that we work in, but local authorities, by and large, are still meeting those requirements and able to deliver those services. They might not be perfect, but they are a huge improvement on what they were a number of years ago.

On a general basis, what are the biggest barriers preventing people with disabilities from accessing housing and living independently?

It all boils down to ramping up the pipeline of tailored housing solutions, including bespoke solutions in our social housing programmes, and the new plan will go a long way towards achieving that. The integration and co-ordination with the HSE is happening. It is a little bit slower in some parts of the country than in others. It is there, though, and we know what we have to do. It is just a case of getting on with it now and delivering on our programmes over the next number of years.

I thank Mr. Taaffe.

I welcome Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Taaffe. I thank them very much indeed. I apologise because I was at another meeting earlier, but I have read the opening statements. In terms of delivering assisted living units and units for people with disabilities, are there short-, medium- and long-term perspectives that are looked at in terms of delivery? Could we get some more information in this regard? Is the national ability supports system, NASS, used in the context of that support?

Sometimes, someone might be dependent on carers or personal assistants. How does that system operate in the context of the collaboration between the local authorities and the HSE?

Equally, people with disabilities sometimes want to live in the area where they come from, grew up in and have friends and family in. I know it does not always work and units might be built in the next local electoral area over or whatever. How is that co-ordinated? Within reason, is an attempt made to let people live in the area they are used to and have their shop, school and other facilities nearby?

The short-term measures ongoing now are our allocations process and the greater weight given in the scheme of letting priorities to people with either different levels of ability themselves or family members with different levels of ability. Those allocations are ongoing. The local authorities operating choice-based letting would reserve a number of their houses away from choice-based letting to recognise that priority and to give them to people with particular needs in particular areas.

The medium- and long-term solutions are to ramp up the delivery and building of accessible housing tailored to people with either sensory disabilities or physical or mental disabilities. The new housing delivery action plans will have a specific requirement in them to identify what local authorities' proposals are to deliver that type of housing and those housing solutions. They will have to justify why they are picking those numbers, or, in other words, what assessment they have done and how they are going to meet that need. It cannot just be a case of picking a figure out of the air. There has to be something behind it. That process is ongoing at the moment and those plans will be published in the next couple of months.

Regarding the geographical distribution, that feeds into the housing delivery action plans. Most local authorities, under larger housing schemes, are trying to designate a proportion of those houses for age-friendly housing or for people with disabilities. It is a case of having the right mix, and that mix then gives choice. The more that schemes have an element of tailored housing in them, the greater choice people will have if they want to live close to an area or services they are familiar with.

Looking to the future, are local authorities usually looking ahead and planning ahead if houses are being built down the road? Will they be trying to incorporate a certain number of units for people with disabilities?

Yes, and that is the key to it. It is about age-friendly housing and housing for people with disabilities. We are always looking ahead and trying to predict. One thing we can be certain of is that we need to do more of it. We can never do enough of it, so the more we can do, the better.

I thank Mr. Taaffe.

I welcome Mr. Taaffe. Senator Murphy O'Mahony mentioned access and inclusion officers across the local authorities. How many local authorities have them and how many do not? What is the impact in areas that do not have such officers?

Regarding what was said about consistency, why is there not a consistent approach across the country to walkability audits?

Turning to housing targets and waiting lists, I know that the targets that will be set in future will have a certain number of age-friendly and disability-adapted homes on the list. How many people are currently waiting on the lists? I am referring to those specific aspects rather than just the social housing numbers on those lists. Have local authorities considered options like assisted-living villages, one-bedroom properties, etc., in conjunction with the likes of the HSE, to provide accommodation for persons with disabilities?

I do not have the exact data on the access officers. We can bring that back to the committee. As the Deputy will be aware, some local authorities have a full-time access officer and some are operating on a part-time basis. It very much depends on the size of the local authority and its ability to fund the post. The CCMA would be of the view that access officers should be full-time permanent posts in local authorities and they should be funded posts, given the breadth of work that they do. They cut across a lot of services and a lot of things we do. I will bring that information on who has part-time and who has full-time access officers back to the committee.

Walkability surveys have been around for quite a while. We have done a few in Wexford. We started them many years ago and are probably on our third or fourth iteration of them at this stage. Again, I do not have the data on it but I imagine most local authorities have done them. Some of them would be doing them on the basis of knowing they have issues which they want to identify and prioritise. Some may not have done them because they may have done them a few years ago, have solved all the issues or are in a reasonably good place and are prioritising other areas. I agree it is something that should be looked at. There should be consistency and perhaps a timeframe. The timeframe should be set and the groups that should be invited to participate in them should also be standardised. For some local authorities it is more about people with physical disabilities and in others it is more about older persons. I agree that there should be a standardisation and a model brought to it.

On the targets, currently on social housing waiting lists - this would be up to the end of 2025 - there are approximately 7,000 households with either one or more family members with a disability. Of these, 2,000 have an intellectual disability, 1,900 a physical disability, 1,700 a mental health disability and 700 a sensory disability. There is a miscellaneous category after that to bring it to the 7,000. We do have very good data on the needs of people on our housing lists but obviously that is not all of them. There are people who may not necessarily be on the housing list or may just fall short of the eligibility criteria and that is where the HSE and ourselves are working together to figure out that missing piece. Under the new housing delivery action plans, local authorities will be asked to identify and state how they are going to address providing housing for those people I have just outlined. There are new standardised designs for four-bedroom houses and for one-person apartments. That is not to say that everybody on that list would need a specifically designed house or a tailored house. In a lot of cases, a regular house with some adaptation would be sufficient. We have very good data on what is on the list and what is on the waiting list. It is now about aligning our capital plans, our programmes and our housing schemes to meet that need insofar as possible.

I apologise for being late. I was at the health committee and another meeting. I thank the witnesses for coming in. I am interested in the co-ordination they have been speaking to between themselves and the HSE and also section 38 and section 39 bodies. Other than the voluntary co-operation, are there any mandatory rules around that? Is there any mandate from Government for regular meetings and joint working in the provision of housing for people living with disability or older people?

There are a couple of different areas on the co-ordination piece. The first is that we have an age-friendly structure in each local authority whereby there is a co-ordinating officer who works with the various age-friendly groups, older persons councils and representative bodies on all aspects of how we make our local authorities age-friendly, both in terms of social housing and also all the other services that we provide. We also have representative bodies and groups on our strategic policy committees to feed into policy in that regard, and to interact with our elected members and our officials on their particular needs. We have co-ordinating groups at regional and county level with the HSE as regards the services we provide and the services it provides, how they can interact together and join up the provision of housing we do with the provision of the services the HSE does to make sure they are aligned. We are very much of the view that we should be building the housing, the services will follow on afterwards and we should not be waiting for everything to be aligned. Housing does take a while to deliver and it gives time for the services to then put the plans in place to support people once we give them keys to a house.

My concern is coming from my own background as a GP in a rural area dealing with both. I should not be dealing with housing issues. I am now as a TD but even as a GP I was writing letters for people who were living with disabilities to the local authority and that. My question comes back to whether it is dependent on the goodwill and professionalism, and I do not want to second-guess the professionalism, of local authorities and the HSE in a region? Are there any mandating powers to ensure that co-operation is happening? It is a vital part of the delivery of public services because the knock-on effects are so deleterious for the person living with it and for their ability to live and to maximise the potential of their own lives and living experience. Even from a selfish point of view, the State should be doing this because the cost for residential care is massive. We cannot continue doing that in an open-ended way. There will be people who need residential care, but there are many people in residential care who could do well in a supported environment in communities around the country. Is there a mandatory relationship there? Who do you report to?

The primary vehicle for that kind of mandatory and structured relationship is the regional interagency group where the HSE and local authorities get together. They discuss, agree and sign MOUs as to how they are going to fulfil their various mandated roles. Obviously, we have a mandated role to providing social housing under the Government's programme. We also have a mandated role to identify how many different types of specialist housing, age-friendly housing and housing for people with disabilities we are going to deliver in that programme. It is about the overarching piece on the interagency group with the Government, with people reporting to various Departments. There are then the operational plans, if you like, that each arm of local government and the State has. That piece in the middle is where we talk to each other and where we agree how we are going to meet our roles. The structure is there and it is being implemented. Some regions are slightly ahead of others, but it also just boils down to cold hard resources. It is not a lack of willingness; it is a lack of resources on the ground because this is a huge area.

I appreciate the answer.

Regarding housing for disabled people, how often are local authorities in a position where an appropriate house may be available but the person cannot move in because the HSE support package is not in place? Equally, does the opposite sometimes arise where the HSE has identified the support need but a suitable house is not available? This has been brought to my attention because I am aware of a case in my community where both a disability provider and the local authority gave a family a strong indication that a house would be made available for their son at the beginning of the year. The location was ideal. It would have allowed him to remain close to his family and community, which is very much at odds with the situation we often see of people being uprooted from their community and dislocated many miles away which puts significant strain on families. Understandably, this gave the family considerable peace of mind but since then there has been radio silence. It is a case on which I am following up. At this point it is not clear to me where the impasse lies, whether with the council, the HSE or the service provider. When housing and support need come together for a placement to happen, who is responsible for driving that process to completion?

Where it stalls between agencies, is there any mechanism to ensure that a family is not just left in limbo without answers?

There is no doubt there have been incidents exactly as the Deputy has outlined, where one or other of the legs of the stool have not been in place, or have been mismatched in terms of time. That is just unfortunately a feature of the world we live in. It is about trying to minimise that and foresee it before it happens. There is a greater level of co-ordination now. To be fair to an organisation like the HSE, they have recognised that issue and they are co-ordinating far better with us at the moment. At the end of the day, we still do not have enough accessible housing. I am not speaking for the HSE but I would imagine they would say they do not have enough care packages lined up for whatever reason it is. We are never going to eliminate situations like that, unfortunately, but it is about minimising them and seeing them before they get to that point.

From a local authority point of view, we are quite clear. We will build the houses. We have been told very clearly to build the houses and not to be waiting for other elements to come into play. We have time for them to come in and build the houses, and that is what we will be doing. We are going to identify them in the housing delivery action plans. To go back to the Deputy's earlier point, we are never going to be able to eliminate that. It is trying to keep it to a minimum as much as possible and to foresee it before it happens.

Does Mr. Taaffe have any comment on diffusion of responsibility, where there are a few agencies involved?

Again, it is about co-ordination. The role of the local authority in providing houses is very clear in respect of what we do and what we do not do. We do not get involved in care packages, we do not get involved in the operation and ongoing supports in a house, other than other areas that we do which would not be related to that. Our job is to build the houses and that is what we will do.

If the impasse lies with the council, is it the council's responsibility to communicate that to the family?

Yes. It is everybody's responsibility-----

Sometimes when it is everybody's responsibility, it is nobody's.

----to be open and upfront with the family and to be straight and to communicate clearly.

What are the challenges facing local authorities in relation to providing housing for people with disabilities?

The challenge is identifying and providing a suitable mix of housing in the geographical areas where people need that housing. It is not that there is a particular set of additional challenges for housing for people with additional needs. One could argue that the wider blockages or the wider issues with housing delivery apply just as much in that area. One of the challenges we faced up to now was identifying the actual, real need out there and whether the support packages were going to be in place once the person was given keys to a tenancy.

The point was made earlier that the local authorities have very good data now, which is really good. At least when we know the data, there is a possibility of putting solutions and putting projects in place to tackle things. Some AHBs support people with disabilities specifically, and then we see local authorities that are trying to do it. We know how many people are on the list and what disabilities they have. Why can we not match up delivery with the need?

The housing delivery action plans, which local authorities are working on as we speak, are to identify where specialist and tailored housing is going to be delivered to meet that need. The emphasis up to now has been on the wider housing piece and meeting targets, but now that local authorities have a very strong pipeline of social housing and affordable housing, the emphasis in the new plan will be on meeting the needs, particularly of age-friendly housing, housing for people with disabilities and the different housing types that are suitable. There will be a greater emphasis in the new plan.

Is there a legal requirement for local authorities to achieve those targets? How will it be ensured that the targets are delivered? Whose responsibility will it be? We can have one local authority doing brilliant work and another that is dragging its heels. Who is going to ensure that these houses for people with disability or for older people are actually delivered?

The ultimate oversight is with the elected members in that particular local authority. The first job of the local authority is to say what it is going to do and bring that plan to the stakeholders, namely the elected members and the public, and say this is how we are going to meet our need as per the guidance, circulars, legislation and so from central government. Oversight of that ultimately rests with people like myself, the chief executive, to implement those plans that are agreed. We go before our elected members every month and the members are entitled to ask any question as to why targets have been met or not met, and where things are at.

That is a weakness in the system. The Department of housing and the Department of disability probably should have oversight to ensure those targets are being delivered, for older people as well. Some local authorities are brilliant and some are not as good, let us call a spade a spade. There should be a mechanism in place to ensure they are being delivered. I was just touching on another issue we have in Cork, and probably right across the State. There are people in hospitals now, in beds, because they cannot go home, because their homes have steps, the bedrooms and the bathrooms are upstairs. I have spoken to people in Cork. It is falling between the HSE and the local authority if they are council tenants. If they are private tenants they are waiting on the disabled persons grant, which is actually the case for council tenants as well. I know of a lady who was waiting to get handrails put in. In the end, her kids came together to pay for them. If a person is coming out of hospital, surely to God there is an onus on the HSE to work with the local authority to ensure their house is fit for purpose before a person is put in there.

Absolutely. The Department provided approximately €130 million in 2026 for the housing adaptation grants for older people and people with disabilities, for the likes of that work the Deputy outlined on private housing. In the case of my own local authority, there is a huge programme of work for things like ramps, wet-room showers, steps and so on. We also have a very active programme in our own social housing. We are absolutely ploughing through that work at the moment for people. There should not be a delay. We are well funded in that. It might be the case that people are not aware they can apply to the local authority or to the HSE for that. This is where the co-ordination piece comes in, such that the HSE is aware of what we can do and the funding that people can apply for. There is a huge amount of that work going on, to the best of my knowledge in every local authority. Certainly in Wexford County Council we do a significant amount of that.

We have now finished round two, so the Deputies who are still here can have two minutes if they want to come in.

Thank you. I want to reiterate that point about making the application process simpler. I appreciate the huge amount of work that has been done to identify the approximately 7,000 people. However, as I said, those of us who were in the Helix on Saturday heard that there is serious doubt over the accuracy of figures that are in use. At the meeting I had in Navan, the majority of those in the room had not made an application. I deliberately stalled bringing forms and going through them. I thought that because we had met previously on the application form, there might be something coming. We will not wait.

On Part V, obviously flexibility would be required from local authority to local authority, depending on the number of people.

Does Mr. Taaffe think Part V should be subdivided to stipulate a minimum percentage of homes for people with different abilities, for age-friendly and for the balance? Is that under discussion?

It is not under discussion, to the best of my knowledge. I would be wary of that because every Part V development is different - different location, different house type. The objective the Deputy is looking for can still be achieved by discussion with the developer. In Wexford, because we have a relationship with developers and they are coming in on multiple schemes, we can say "This is the house type we want". The local authority controls to a significant extent what the developer delivers under Part V and can ask for that type of housing. Once developers know what the ask is, it is possible to do that. It can be done without having requirements and can be done appropriately.

Fragmentation of services and fragmentation of responsibility are recurring themes we hear about in respect of disability provision. Families are often caught between agencies - between the local authority and the service provider, with the HSE in the background. Responsibility is often unclear. Is there a formal structured mechanism for joint forward planning through which the local authority, the HSE, approved housing bodies and providers would meet systematically and regularly to plan for the enormous level of need out there and, crucially, assign responsibility for the different parts of the plan?

There is. The primary area to iron out systemic issues between local authorities and the HSE is the regional interagency group. Local authorities meet on a county-by-county basis but there are national structures as well with AHBs and on their role in housing provision and housing services. There are structures in place where systemic issues can be dealt with and greater clarity brought to who does what and the how, where and when of service provision. That is not to say there should not be active and ongoing local engagement as well. That boils down to local authorities, and I imagine the HSE is in a similar postilion. We struggle with resources, the ever-increasing demands on us, staff churn, staff change and new ways of doing things. There are serious demands on us for all the services we provide but we are meeting our social housing targets, or are not too far away from them. There is a strong pipeline there. There is a lot of housing activity going on in every local authority. There will be a greater emphasis on housing for the disabled in the new plan.

Going back to the point Deputy Quaide made, who is responsible? We see people who are in hospitals and want to go home but cannot because their home is not accessible or disabled-friendly. There seems to be no sign of joined-up thinking or people being pulled together in a room to say, "We have ten people here now. This is the plan to get it sorted." I have seen families put under tremendous emotional pressure to take loved ones out of hospital and bring them home. We had a situation where the neighbours had to come out and lift the person back into the house because there were three steps to the house. This person was after losing their legs. When they have to go to a hospital appointment, they phone the ambulance or fire brigade to come and lift them out. There is no way anyone should ever be sent home like that.

I know there is unbelievable pressure on the HSE regarding bed management but if a person goes into hospital and the doctors know they need an adapted house, work should start straight away, whether it is Cork City Council, a local authority or a private house, and the grants should be fast-tracked. Trying to get an OT out to assess a house and a person takes a long time. There are people in hospitals who do not want to be there and probably feel they are at risk of picking up infection or getting sick. They want to be back home and we want people to be able to go home when they want to.

Absolutely. No doubt about it, there is a shortage of OTs, both private and publicly, to do those reports. We act as quickly as possible when a case like that comes to us and somebody needs an adaptation. However, if, for example, a shower or bathroom needs to be changed, that involves design work and getting a quote for it. Those things take time and I do not see any way around that. Local authorities do their best. We have a number of housing technicians that are experts in that and highly experienced in it. They will know whether a ramp, steps or a handrail are suitable, or whether a wet room shower is possible in the house. We have contractors who will do that work for us as quickly as possible. I accept it is not a perfect situation to make an adaptation when somebody needs it yesterday, if you know what I mean. We are well funded on that and we have an active programme in our own housing and in private housing. Local authorities are doing their best to meet that need.

I will ask a question about when a universal design house is delivered by a local authority. I was talking to a councillor up the country recently who said going into the house was perfect and inside was perfect, but when they looked out the back, there were three steps to the garden. Who cleared that for a disabled person when, obviously, they cannot use the back? They can use the inside of the house and the front entrance. Is there someone responsible for overseeing that?

That should not be the case. That should have been picked up at design stage. Maybe there is alternative access to the garden. I do not know that instance. That would not be considered best practice or even good practice.

I seek a clarification. Mr. Taaffe spoke about age-friendly co-ordinators in councils or whatever. We also have the access and inclusion officers. Are they the same person in many cases? If not, how do they interact?

They could be the same person. I would not have detailed knowledge of that across the local authority sector, but generally they would be different people. In Wexford, we have a full-time age-friendly co-ordinator and a full-time access officer.

I thank Mr. Taaffe and Mr. Goodwin for attending and providing various briefing materials in advance, which assisted the committee in its deliberations. I thank members who attended and the stakeholders who engaged with the committee. We are doing a report on accommodation for people with disabilities and will be completing it over the next while. With the agreement of the committee, we will go into private session. Is that agreed? Agreed.