I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, to the House.
Nithe i dtosach suíonna - Commencement Matters
Septic Tanks
I thank the Cathaoirleach for selecting this Commencement matter. As Members know I tabled it on a number of occasions and I have written to both the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, on this matter. I welcome the opportunity get some clarity on the matter because the discrepancies around the septic tank grants have existed now for too long.
On 27 June this year, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, issued its latest report on domestic wastewater treatment systems. There are nearly half a million systems, mainly septic tanks, in Ireland and the report stated that fixing faulty septic tanks was taking too long. It went on to say that half of septic tanks inspected failed and 20% were a risk to human health and the environment. It also criticised the discrepancies between local authorities in terms of the numbers of inspections carried out. Where septic tanks fail inspections, local authorities issue advisory notices to householders, setting out what is required in order to fix the problem. The report by the EPA found there were 550 cases where issues that were notified to householders more than two years previously had still not been addressed. That brings us to the core element of today's matter.
The grant levels are too low to have the impact they were set up to achieve, and significant numbers of householders are being excluded from the current grant supports through no fault of their own. The current grants that are available, as the Minister of State will be aware, cover 85% of the costs of remediation works up to a maximum of €5,000, which is wholly inadequate given inflationary impacts and the increased costs associated with repairing or replacing septic tanks or both. This needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
The other substantive issue relates to the exclusion of properties from grant supports because the property owner did not register their septic tank, as required, by 1 February 2013. While I can to an extent understand the logic of not rewarding those who fail to comply with registration regulations, there have been many instances, some of which have been brought to my attention in county Waterford, in which the new owners of properties cannot avail of the grant supports available because the previous owner failed to register the septic tank, and that is fundamentally unfair. If someone buys a property with a septic tank that was not registered, he or she will have no way of rectifying the fact the previous owner did not register it by 1 February 2013 and, as a result, such people will be locked out and excluded from getting the grant support they need. This is yet another reason remediation is being put on the long finger by many. It is expensive to carry out these works and while the grant supports are there for this purpose, many are being excluded from them. I see it as a water quality as well as a fairness issue.
I understand a review has been carried out into the domestic wastewater treatment grants, which I had called for last year from the Minister of State's predecessor, Deputy Peter Burke. We need to know when the review will be published, what changes are expected as a result of it and a timeline for their implementation. In that context, the level of grant supports, and the exclusion of certain householders who had not carried out the registration by 1 February 2013, must be addressed in whatever that review recommends.
I thank Senator Cummins for raising this important matter and giving me the opportunity to address it. As he will be aware, the Department provides funding for water services in areas of rural Ireland where no Uisce Éireann water services are available. The Department's rural water programme uses Exchequer funding to deliver improvements to water services throughout the rural water network.
As part of the funding being provided, grants are available to households with domestic water treatment systems, commonly known as septic tanks. The grant is administered on behalf of the Department by local authorities. The grant scheme was introduced by the Department in 2013 and is aimed at providing financial support to assist householders to carry out works to rectify or upgrade defective septic tanks. In 2020, the Department amended and improved the terms and conditions of the grant available to allow households to recoup up to €5,000 and removed the requirement for a means test for eligibility purposes.
The Water Services Act 2007, as amended, requires all owners of premises served by a domestic water treatment system to register their system with the local authority by the prescribed date of 1 February 2013, as the Senator noted. To be eligible for the grant, the owner must have registered their septic tank with the local authority by the prescribed date, and I am pleased to say approximately 98% of all systems are now registered with local authorities. Having a strict cut-off date to register has played a key role in this success.
The Department is carrying out a full review of all matters relating to the grant scheme and the review is at an advanced stage. I note the Senator's call for matters to be dealt with as quickly as possible. Extensive consultation with relevant stakeholders, including a recent focused workshop with local authority staff administering the grant, has been completed. A key point raised by stakeholders relates to the requirement to register septic tanks with local authorities by the prescribed date. The Department is actively considering all aspects of the current grant scheme, including the prescribed date requirement, as a matter of priority.
The Senator focused on the level of the grant and the exclusion, and both of those matters are being considered. I hope the Department will come to a speedy conclusion on the review with all the relevant stakeholders and especially the local authorities.
I thank the Minister of State. My concern is with the timeline for the review, which has been going on for quite some time. It was my understanding that the review was completed.
In his response, the Minister of State cited that 98% of all systems are now registered with local authorities, but the question is what percentage were registered before 1 February 2013. I would argue that it was considerably lower than the 98%. What that is actually doing is excluding a significant cohort that were not registered by that date, so it must be included in the recommendations of the review that these are taken into consideration and are able to avail of a higher grant in this space along with all other registered septic tanks. It is an issue of equity and fairness. Many are being excluded through no fault of their own, in particular those who purchased properties between 1 February 2013 and 31 July 2023. I ask the Minister of State to expedite this as quickly as possible, to revise the grant that has been announced upwards, and to include householders that were not registered before 1 February 2013.
I again thank Senator Cummins for raising this important matter. The Department is very conscious of all the issues he raises, including the level of the grant and the exclusion of certain categories on the basis of data registration.
We want to have a comprehensive review. I accept that timing is of the essence. The EPA report more particularly puts it further in context. I assure Senator Cummins that the Department is actively examining ways to improve the availability of grant assistance to households to fix faulty domestic wastewater treatment systems. Senator Cummins makes the points very well. I will take them back to the officials so that we can ensure that everything is covered in the review and that we get the review completed as quickly as possible.
Local Government Reform
I thank the Minister of State for coming in to respond to this Commencement matter, which comes on the back of a very fruitful meeting between the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, and the Labour Party Seanad grouping last week. It is also an issue that has been articulated to us by many councillors. I am sure the same is true of the various party groupings, including my esteemed party colleague, Mary Freehill, and others in my own party. I refer to the gratuity payment, if that is the correct term, which is now to be calculated based on the pre-2021 salary. My understanding is that this is pretty out of synch with how other gratuity payments are calculated. I think it is contrary to the normal terms and conditions that apply to public sector employees and other officeholders, such as ourselves in both Houses. We know that the gratuity payment is capped at a maximum of 20 years' service, regardless of length of service, by councillors. It just seems unusual to me that it is calculated on the pre-July 2021 salary. I am interested to hear the reasoning for that.
I have spoken to many people in regard to it. When we sent this around to councillors I received pages upon pages of responses from them on how it affects them. There is great umbrage and annoyance evident. I will read some of them out in a moment. There is a sense that the gratuity calculations of elected members should be aligned to their final salary upon retirement rather than the current calculation, which is based on the pre-July 2021 salary. Some of the comments that I got include phrases like, "The prevailing circumstances are out of synch with public service national pay arrangements." or "It is an issue of fairness." or "It is shocking to see how undervalued we treat the first point of call in our democracy here in Ireland." or "It is a very shabby way to treat the local councillors that are available 24/7 all year round." or "As a lifelong trade unionist, my take on this is one of fairness".
From my experience for workers who are made redundant or who reach retirement age and such, the calculations of the payments due are based on the current salary or the previous year's salary, which is fair and correct. However, when it comes to councillors, the calculations are on very outdated rates, which is inherently unfair. Do not short-change councillors who give a lifetime of service to public life.
The Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, has been engaging with various Departments on this. It has been putting forward proposals and has done a full costing on this. It has been suggested that the reason for this anomaly is a wording issue regarding the terms “remuneration payment” versus “representation payment”. If that is the case, is this just an issue of wording that needs to be changed? If that is the issue, when will that wording be changed? Or, is this a part of a bigger plan, which is to ascertain what it will cost and whether it will cost the council or the State? If it is an issue of cost, that strikes me as unusual. As I said and has been mentioned before, there are very few or no circumstances I can think of where people's final gratuity is placed on a different year to the one in which they leave the job - whatever that job may be. I therefore think it is unusual.
To conclude, this commencement matter raises the question as to why this calculation is based on the pre-2021 level. Is there a plan to change it? Is it taking a while to change it because of a wording issue, namely, the terms “remuneration payment” versus “representation payment”? If that is the case, when will the new wording be put forward to get this sorted?
I thank Senator Hoey for raising the important matter of the retirement gratuity payable to local authority members. It is a matter of which I am acutely aware. It came up when I was taking part in a session on local government on Wednesday, 28 June. More particularly, I have spoken at length with the AILG, the Local Authorities Members Association, LAMA, and councillors nationwide. I travel to all the local authorities, so I am very aware of it. I want to thank the Members for their consistently strong support for local government and councillors. It is important that the vital service given by councillors in their communities is appropriately recognised. I understand the phenomenal work councillors do. It is something about which I am acutely aware.
Unlike the Members of this House, councillors are not part of any single public service pension scheme. The current arrangements for the non-contributory lump sum are unusual in a public service context. I want to give a background to this, because we need to do a proper body of empirical work on this, and I am working with my officials on this. The terms for gratuity payments to councillors are set out in regulations. In essence, retired councillors receive a payment currently worth up to a maximum value of €76,664, subject to their period of service. The gratuity becomes payable once councillors reach the minimum age of retirement which, under the scheme, is 50 years. The calculation of the gratuity is based on the representational payment that was in place when the principal regulations were given effect in 2002, which at that time was worth €11,000 per annum.
Over the years, the representational payment has been adjusted in proportion to any adjustments made to the salary of a Senator. The adjusted representational payment is currently worth €19,166 and the maximum gratuity payment that is payable to a councillor after 20 years of service is worth 400% of that. This would give a maximum gratuity of €76,664.
Where persons cease to be councillors before the age of 50, the gratuity will be preserved until they turn 50, and will be calculated on the basis of the adjusted representational payment on that date. It is the case that the gratuity is not currently linked to the councillors’ current annual remuneration payment of €28,145 per annum, as Senator Hoey has noted. The Government's decision of 2021 to reform the financial support package payable to councillors did not provide for this. Neither did the Moorhead Report recommend any increase to the gratuity. This was before my time as a Minister of State. However, I am acutely aware of this situation, which has been raised with me by the representational bodies, the AILG and LAMA, as well as councillors across the length and breadth of Ireland.
I have instructed officials in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to review the situation, which we have been doing for a period of time, to set out how the councillors’ retirement gratuity may be more closely aligned with their current annual remuneration package. I have said this to both the AILG and LAMA. I want to do a proper body of empirical work that does justice to this request. It is something I take very seriously. I note that any adjustment to the existing terms of the retirement gratuity for councillors will require new regulations made with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform.
My officials are currently liaising with officials in that Department in this regard and anything I bring forward will have to be agreed by it. I thank the Senator for raising this important matter. It is one of the overall issues for councillors to which I am giving serious attention.
I thank the Minister of State. My understanding, from the conversation I had with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, is that it is waiting for the Minister of State to complete this work in order for this to proceed from the Department. Does he have any idea when that work will be completed? Is it planned to have it done ahead of the local elections in 2024?
As to the assertion that this is not being done because the Moorhead report did not recommend it, it is unusual to do something so out of sync with norms in terms of gratuity just because a report did not recommend it. That strikes me as an unusual reason to do it.
This is part of the bigger conversation. Among the AILG, the LAMA and councillors, there is much worry about what we want from local government and local democracy. It is time we had an honest conversation about our local government system and what we want from it. Do we want to continue the current system of administration or to move to one of true local democracy? This payment is only a small but important part of that because it demonstrates the Government's commitment to recognise the work councillors do, which, as somebody said, is done 24 hours a day for 365 days a year.
I again thank the Senator for raising the important matter of councillors' retirement gratuity. I will make a couple of points. I have been in this role for a relatively short time. I have given priority to councillors' security costs and there are also the issues of the gratuity for councillors and getting maternity leave for women councillors embedded.
The views Senator Hoey expressed will be given serious consideration. There are two aspects to the timing. We have to get this right. I want to ensure this stands up and that there is a logic to anything I take to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. We must get this right out of respect to councillors. It does not need to be rushed but there is a timing aspect. It is my intention to make any adjustments that are required in a timely manner. I am acutely aware that local elections are coming up next year. I am firmly of the view that anyone thinking of running for election to local office should be able to know the conditions pertaining to his or her retirement gratuity. It is a priority for me in the context of the overall interests of councillors. We are doing a serious body of work on the review. I am looking to have this matter concluded as quickly as possible. It is vital that we get it correct.
Planning Issues
I thank the Minister of State for being here. While childcare is primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, there could be a planning solution to the serious shortage of childcare places in local communities. It will not fix everything but it is the kind of change we need to see.
The childcare facilities guidelines for planning authorities from 2001 are in place to steer local planning authorities such as Fingal County Council on the provision of childcare facilities for local communities. However, the guidelines are not delivering high quality and affordable childcare places in communities that desperately need them. The current planning guidelines stipulate a benchmark of at least one childcare facility per 75 dwellings in new housing developments and it is recommended that services look after approximately 20 children. That is reasonable and would have gone a long way to avoiding the problems we have. What is not reasonable are the grounds on which developers or builders can get around those requirements.
The first ground is the number of studio or single-bed apartments in the development - as if people in one-bedroom apartments do not have babies. There is also an exception if there are childcare facilities in adjoining developments, even though they might be full or may not take into account the types of childcare people need. There might be an ECCE provider but it might not have all-day care. These guidelines do not take into consideration the nuance that is required.
What is also not reasonable is when childcare facilities are required under planning and they are built but are not opened. There are numerous examples of this in Dublin West. We would not let social housing sit idle like this when there is a community and social need so why are we doing it for childcare? Not only that but some childcare providers in my area are ready, willing and able to open new services, including in the units that were planned and built for childcare, but they cannot get a call back from the builder or vendor. Some of these units have been sitting idle for years while families suffer from a lack of childcare and then the builder invariably applies for a change of use. Developers also seek to postpone childcare to a later phase of the development and maybe use a bigger unit, which limits the kind of childcare provider it might be suitable for and means the planning authority has less leverage to make sure the developer does it. Some of the buildings that are built are not economically viable for providers or they might be just shy of what is required under regulation. I know from talking to planning authorities that they have to battle with builders and developers to provide childcare facilities. They want them to do it. The same thing is happening under strategic development zones even though the point of an SDZ is to make sure community services and housing come together in new developments. By tightening up the planning system, we could stop this dodging and dithering.
I reached out to our 30 county childcare committees, which try to match children and families with services and engage childcare services about possibilities for expansion. Under the same guidelines, county development plans and local area plans are to have policies in relation to childcare provision, including consultation and participation with county childcare committees. I reached out to all 30 and 16 of them came back to me. All but one said there was not enough engagement with their local authority on the delivery of childcare places. Only six of those 16 had contributed towards the recent county development plans and every single one of them said supply was not meeting demand, in particular from birth to ECCE preschool. How do we match demand and supply if no one is responsible for overseeing the delivery of the different types of childcare needed locally? How do we do it if no one is actually matching demand with supply and if the system of delivery is this ad hoc? The system needs to change.
I thank Senator Currie for raising this matter. I want to give a bit of context because she is going in on a planning issue. The national planning framework 2018 recognises the importance of the provision of childcare facilities, specifying that:
the continued provision and enhancement of facilities and amenities for children and young people, such as childcare, schools, playgrounds, parks and sportsgrounds, remains necessary and will need to be maintained at similar levels for the foreseeable future thereafter.
We are doing a review of the national planning framework at the moment. That is the current plan. We are doing a revision of the existing one as we speak and hope to have that finalised by next May.
Furthermore, the national planning framework includes a specific national strategic outcome entitled access to quality childcare, education and health services, while national policy objective 31 identifies the requirement to invest in "A childcare/ECCE planning function, for monitoring, analysis and forecasting of investment needs, including identification of regional priorities" and "The provision of childcare facilities and new and refurbished schools on well-located sites within or close to existing built-up areas, that meet the diverse needs of local populations". The childcare committees should be feeding into that and the Senator has highlighted that.
The national planning framework policy approach sets out that the provision of childcare facilities should be planned to meet needs. In this regard, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth monitors early learning and childcare capacity on an ongoing basis, with a particular focus on responding to the unmet early learning and childcare needs of families. The Department also liaises with the city and county childcare committees to match children and families with vacant places and national development plan funding has been allocated to that Department to provide new places.
Officials from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage are also currently engaging with officials from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth with regard to the need to update the current section 28, Childcare Facilities: Guidelines for Planning Authorities to support this policy. My Department is taking this very seriously.
The guidelines for planning authorities relating to childcare facilities were issued in 2001 by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, to provide a framework to guide both local authorities and developers in the consideration of planning applications with specific regard to the consideration of childcare facilities. Planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála are required to have regard to the guidelines in carrying out their functions. The guidelines are intended to ensure a consistency of approach to the treatment of applications in respect of the land use planning aspects of childcare provision for relevant planning applications, developers and childcare providers in formulating and considering development proposals.
Subsequently, the then Department of Environment, Community and Local Government issued Circular PL 03/2016 in March 2016 which, having regard to the extension of the ECCE scheme the Senator referenced and associated increased demands on childcare facilities with effect from September 2016, requested that planning authorities expedite all preplanning application consultation requests from childcare facility providers with regard to proposals to extend opening hours to increase capacity or to provide new facilities and expedite, insofar as is possible, consideration of all planning applications or section 5 declaration submissions in respect of childcare facilities to facilitate the expansion of required capacity as appropriate.
This circular also requested that planning authorities exclude matters relating to childcare facility standards outlined in appendix 1 of the Childcare Facilities Planning Guidelines 2001, including the minimum floor area requirements per child, from their consideration of planning applications relating to childcare facilities, and to solely focus on planning related considerations that fall within the remit of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, in the determination of such planning applications.
In light of the policy approach set out within the NPF and more recent policy developments with regard to the provision of childcare, an interdepartmental meeting was held in 2022 to discuss the review of the 2001 guidelines and further engagement has taken place more recently. It is a matter on which I will follow up. It has been agreed between the Departments that, in the first instance, feedback will be required from planning authorities as part of this review, and steps are currently being taken to engage with these key stakeholders.
On foot of this ongoing engagement, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth has been included in the updated list of prescribed bodies that need to be notified on certain planning matters, including the formulation of county and city development plans and local area plans. I will undertake to keep the review that is under way with the local authorities and the interdepartmental group as a priority. I will take a personal interest in this as it falls within my remit as Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage with responsibility for planning.
I thank the Minister of State. I am aware of that review and I am glad it is happening. There is a reason I am pitching this to him. I pointed out why the guidelines are not delivering and that they are not working. In the same way we do with social housing, we need to take a Part V approach when it comes to childcare.
A childcare facility should be mandatory in a new development and in an area that needs childcare. It should be agreed before commencement. During the preplanning stage, childcare facilities similar to approved housing bodies could express their interest and work with local authorities and developers on the type of childcare facility that is required in that area. If private suppliers are not available to do it, and the Minister said there will be a future dedicated agency for childcare, the State should step in and acquire and run those facilities as community childcare with the assistance of the committees on the ground. That would bridge the gap we have between planning and provision. The local authorities are up for this. They do not want to battle with builders to do this. The Part V approach would close that gap.
I thank the Senator once again for raising this important matter. She has identified the issues. In her view, it is now about process. A review is currently under way of the planning guidelines for childcare facilities. Second, officials from my Department and the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth are engaging in updating the section 28 Childcare Facilities: Guidelines for Planning Authorities with feedback from the individual local authorities.
Regarding the point the Senator raised on section 5, it is considered part of this review process. It is hugely important for parents to have adequate childcare facilities in their own areas. People are under enormous pressure in their daily lives. Ideally, they want childcare facilities within walking distance of where they live. That should be the objective, as well as people being able to live and rear their families in their own locality. The Senator raised an important point. I will feed it into the review group and I will take a direct interest in the planning aspect.
Disability Services
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, to the House. As always, it is a pleasure having her here.
I welcome the Minister of the State to the House to discuss the issue of Drumlin House and the need for the expansion of services there. We all know about the importance of support services for people with disabilities and their families. Places like Drumlin House are totally committed to providing training and support for people to meet their needs and be the best that they can be. I would like to pay tribute to Breege O’Reilly, the manager, who the Minister of State met when she kindly visited there upon my request some time ago, and the 35 or 40 staff who also work there and are totally dedicated to the 90 or so service users and trainees who use the services at Drumlin House. I know there are many other facilities located throughout Cavan and Monaghan and we are deeply indebted to all the staff who work at them. I am sure the Minister of State would agree. They are totally committed to the work they do to ensure the people they care for can be the best that they can be in their lives. We are very grateful to them for that.
As the Minister of State knows, we have an ever-increasing population, as borne out by the recent census figures, and with that comes pressure for additional services. We all know that Drumlin House - which, as I said, looks after more than 90 service users - is bursting at the seams. They do fantastic work but more space is badly needed to facilitate more people not just there, but in other locations. However, primarily, we are discussing Drumlin House this afternoon.
I understand that as part of the plan the Minister of State is working on, in addition to hoping to expand the services of Drumlin House, she is looking at the possibility of satellites or hubs in different locations throughout Monaghan and Cavan. That is very welcome as well. I would like the Minister of State to expand on her plans with regard to Drumlin House. I know Drumlin House is close to her heart because she said that to me many times when we discussed the work that goes on there. I would be grateful if she could provide an update on the plans for Drumlin House and the expansion of that facility, as well as for other additional facilities that are so badly needed within counties Cavan and Monaghan.
I thank the Senator for raising this important matter. Drumlin House training centre provides rehabilitative training and day services for adults with an intellectual disability, some of whom have autism, physical and sensory disabilities, and complex needs. The service has been one of the main providers of places for school leavers in the past 20 years. The Senator is quite right that we visited it. I got a wonderful reception. I compliment Ms O'Reilly and her staff but I also want to compliment the board. The fact that the Senator is even raising this question to me indicates that we are talking about a progressive organisation that wants to future-proof its building to meet the changing needs of the people in its community. They not only want to look at the building but they want to look at the hubs - the satellites - as they decide how to cater in the community.
It has a real understanding of what the new directions model is about, which is leaving nobody behind, and being person-centred. To me, that is so important.
The service has seen a rise in referral numbers and an increasing level of need in recent years, and particularly in 2022. I am familiar with the service, and I am pleased to note that the head of operations, disability services, has confirmed that €80,000 for operating costs for Drumlin House has been approved and is being transferred to community healthcare organisation, CHO, 1 for issuing at the next funding release date. I think that was something that the Senator and I agreed on that day, that it needed a few bob.
On accommodation, the occupational guidance service of HSE's Cavan-Monaghan disability services has alerted Drumlin House management to the fact that the numbers and needs are projected to increase in 2023 and 2024, and will continue year on year thereafter. Drumlin House also provides day service placements for individuals who exit its own rehabilitation. The Senator is right. Currently, it is providing support for 95 day service users, and I know that over the next five years, we are going to see that increase by about another 50 day service users needing access to it. Analysis of post-primary and special school referrals to adult day services indicates a growth in demand for such specialised places over the next five years. Demographic trends indicate that since 2016, the number of school leavers who require a HSE day service has doubled in Cavan and Monaghan.
In order to provide places for future school leavers, a business case has been submitted to the head of service for disability services for a bespoke stand-alone facility at CHO 1, which will ensure that adults requiring intensive day service supports will be provided for. This will meet the needs of the projected numbers of school leavers who have been identified for the years from 2023 to 2028, which is approximately 50 children. The Drumlin House proposal is for capital development of its current main site, together with a plan of what it would be seeking to develop in its place. The proposal also details the school leaver projections. From 2024 to 2028, it has been estimated that 50 new attendee placements will be required for individuals leaving the Holy Family School, Cootehill, a significant number of whom will choose to attend Drumlin House if there is capacity. This proposal was submitted to the national HSE and CHO 1 disability services last April.
The wonderful part about me moving from the Department of Health to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth is that I have my own budgetary line when it comes to capital. I have just left a meeting and it is important not to be simply firefighting all the time within the area of disability, whereby parents feel that they are forgotten about all the time. What has been presented there at local level - exiting primary, going into post-primary, engaging back with the HSE, forecasting, knowing what we need to provision for, building in advance, meeting the needs of - that is how one gets that into the capital plan. That is my understanding.
My understanding also is that the cost of it is around €4.5 million. The necessary property transactions application forms have been submitted to HSE estates nationally, and a decision is awaited. This would provide a high-support facility and would ensure that appropriate environmental accommodation will be designed and planned to meet the needs of adults.
That is great news, and I know that when the Minister of State was down there, she was very impressed with it. She said that she took away learnings from that visit and that she would be back with positive news. I am delighted with the news she has given to us this afternoon. She has kept her word, and there is no surprise there when it comes to that. She is totally dedicated to her post and I compliment her on the work that she is doing. I am delighted for the people in Drumlin House and for the service users that there are plans for its expansion. As the Minister of State stated, it is important that we plan for the future in the knowledge that the numbers are on the increase. That is great news today and I thank the Minister of State sincerely for it.
I thank the Senator. It is also important to note that Ms Edel Quinn in CHO 1 is working closely with Ms Breege O'Reilly, and working locally with the Cavan-Monaghan disability service leads in the HSE to ensure that we have a building that is fit-for-purpose for the people in the area. They are working to ensure that we can build up the hubs and the satellites but also to make sure that we modernise and meet the needs of the young and not-so-young adults in order that it is a fit-for-purpose, bespoke unit. It is on our capital plan, and I have no doubt that Senator Gallagher, along with his colleagues, will ensure that it will get a fair hearing and make its way to the capital plan for 2024.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 1.45 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 2 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 1.45 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.