Crime Prevention
I thank the Ministers for being here this evening. I raise the issue of the need for a better protocol to be put in place in relation to the offence of spiking. To explain what I am referring to, we are all aware that, when people are out enjoying themselves on social occasions, there are incidents of their drinks being spiked. Essentially, drugs are put into their drinks without their consent or knowledge. This is an extremely serious offence. In some cases, it can lead to much more serious offences such as sexual assault or violence. These incidents are a massive concern in our society and among our electorate.
What prompted me to put down this Topical Issue this week was a story that came to me from a good friend of mine regarding an incident involving her daughter. I obviously will not refer to names or anything but this happened in Cork in recent weeks. This woman's teenage daughter was out enjoying herself socially and suddenly became extremely intoxicated not because of the drink she consumed - she was only drinking moderately that evening - but because, in her strong view, her drink must have been spiked. She attended Cork University Hospital and it is from there that the story really begins to explain why there is a need for a far better protocol to be put in place for incidents like this. One of her parents had to come to the hospital to explain the situation. Effectively, her explanation of what had happened to her was being doubted. Because it was leaving certificate night, there was an assumption that she had drunk too much. Her story was not fully listened to and she was not attended to in the way she should have been. There was no mention of calling An Garda Síochána. There was no reference to a urine or blood test. Effectively, there was no protocol in place.
I appreciate that this straddles the Department of Health and the Department of justice. At the root of all of this is a very serious offence. Unfortunately, we are led to believe there is a significant incidence of this offence taking place across the country. Many campaigners in the area of sexual assault and sexual violence argue that it is a very significant issue. Mary Crilly, a renowned campaigner in the area of sexual violence who supports those who are victims of it and works closely with the Sexual Violence Centre Cork, has highlighted this as a significant issue and has pointed out that significantly better systems, protocols and laws need to be put in place.
It is an offence to spike someone's drink. I understand it is classified as a poisoning offence. I am interested in knowing how many convictions for this offence there have been. I suspect there have not been many at all because they are not fully investigated in most instances. That is very serious. The Government needs to become far more alert to this and put in place a significant strategy to deal with it. There are consequences to a spiking incident, whether the spiking of a drink or people being injected with something without their knowledge in a nightclub or other venue. If we do not follow through on this, it will become a much bigger issue. I ask that a protocol be developed and a strategy put in place by Government to address this issue once and for all. We must support victims, believe their stories and ensure they are given the benefit of the doubt in relation to their reports. A proper system must be put in place involving blood testing and sampling to determine what has been injected into victims' systems and there must be proper follow-through by An Garda Síochána comprising an investigation into the venue where the offence is likely to have happened and so on. That is what I am asking for here this evening.
On behalf of the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, I thank Deputy McGrath for submitting this Topical Issue and acknowledge the concerns raised in relation to the very serious issue of drink spiking. Spiking is a crime that preys on vulnerability, that undermines consent and that can have devastating consequences for victims. The Government is committed to taking a zero-tolerance approach to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence.
The final implementation plan for the third national zero-tolerance strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence was launched in June and sets out the delivery targets and collective action needed to tackle domestic, sexual and gender-based violence to the end of 2026.
The programme for Government also includes a commitment to introduce stronger laws to combat the spiking of drinks. Currently, there is no specific crime type of spiking. Spiking may be reported as an independent offence in the form of poisoning, or it may be used by offenders to facilitate the commission of other crimes. Spiking a person’s drink or spiking someone by injection are, in effect, poisoning offences under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, which can result in a three-year prison term. Section 12 of that Act applies to anyone who intentionally or recklessly administers a substance capable of interfering substantially with another person’s bodily functions, which explicitly includes inducing unconsciousness or sleep. A person guilty of the offence of poisoning may be subject to a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment. Depending on the nature of the substance administered, it may be possible to charge a perpetrator with endangerment under section 13 of the Act. This provides that it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly engage in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another. The offence of endangerment carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
An Garda Síochána takes all reports of spiking seriously and investigates thoroughly to determine the exact nature of each incident, including through the results of toxicology reports. The nationwide roll-out of the divisional protective services units has ensured that victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based crimes presenting to An Garda Síochána are met with a consistently high standard of specialist, sensitive, professional and expert assistance. There is now a protective services unit in every Garda division. An Garda Síochána advises any victim of an incident or spiking to report it to their local gardaí. The Garda continues to engage with partner agencies in monitoring the reporting of these matters for early warning of any identified patterns. These partner agencies include the HSE, the Health Protection Surveillance Centre and the Health Products Regulatory Authority. Any incident of this type, including those where there is evidence to suggest a link with spiking, will be investigated either by local gardaí or those supported by or attached to the divisional protective services unit.
I thank the Minister of State for the response. I acknowledge that the Government is committed to taking a zero-tolerance approach in relation to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. Of course, I also acknowledge the zero-tolerance strategy and its recent launch, and also the additional funding provided. It is welcome that the programme for Government specifically includes a commitment to introduce stronger laws to combat the spiking of drinks. However, as has been reported, there is currently no specific crime type of spiking. That is a very significant issue.
With all due respect to the Minister of State, his response referred very much to the criminal offence of poisoning and to potential penalties, including the three-year sentence, but what I am trying to focus on in particular are the measures in place when someone presents in a hospital in the strong belief that their drinks were spiked. Often, such people will have been enjoying themselves and having a few drinks, but nothing excessive, and will suddenly have got into a state not explained by the amount of alcohol consumed, for example. The logical conclusion will be that something was put into their system without their consent.
We need to be very careful about how we approach these situations. In this particular case, the system let the individual down. There was no proper seizure or protocol put in place. Doubt was cast on the person’s story and that is not acceptable. The benefit of the doubt needs to be with the victim in these scenarios and we need to ensure there is a proper set of procedures in place such that if someone believes their drink was spiked some evening or on a night out, a blood sample will be taken, the Garda will be alerted and the incident will be reported and logged, with proper follow-through. I would be genuinely interested in knowing how many convictions have occurred in relation to the offence of poisoning and drink-spiking incidents. I know the Minister of State may not have that figure this evening, but this is something we should highlight.
Again, I thank the Deputy for raising what is a very serious issue. I acknowledge that the incident in question was very serious for the person and family on whose behalf he is raising this matter. Combating and eradicating sexual and gender-based violence is one of our core priorities. The programme for Government reaffirms our commitment to introducing stronger laws to combat the spiking of drinks. This is a specific and targeted commitment to protect people, particularly in the night-time economy, and to ensure our laws are robust enough to hold perpetrators to account. It sits within the overarching goal of the prosecution pillar of the zero-tolerance plan, which is to ensure that our justice system effectively vindicates the rights of victims and survivors. Our Department will progress this important work to strengthen the law, ensuring those who carry out this cowardly act face the serious consequences they deserve.
While the zero-tolerance plan contains 95 distinct actions across prevention, protection and prosecution, the promise to strengthen laws against drink spiking is a fundamental component of our mission. It demonstrates our resolve to address all forms of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence and to adapt our laws to tackle specific threats as they arise. As a Government, we are dedicated to making our communities safe for everyone.
I assure the Deputy I will make the Minister and the Department, and, by extension, An Garda Síochána, aware of the issue he has raised here on the floor of the Dáil in view of the seriousness of the incident and his call for a review of the protocol.
An Garda Síochána
I wish to raise a matter of very serious importance, namely the use of pepper spray by An Garda Síochána. My concerns arise from what happened last Saturday at Dublin Port. A group of protesters went to the port in solidarity as we approach two years since the genocide in Gaza began, and in light of Ireland’s continued favourable trade with Israel. This was part of a global movement. In Italy last Friday, for example, workers held a general strike to try to stop the barbarism and bloodshed. The protesters at Dublin Port, who were entirely peaceful, met a large cordon of gardaí who blocked their path and prevented them from progressing. The gardaí then proceeded to use pepper spray indiscriminately, without any verbal warning and at a distance closer than the recommended 1 metre minimum. Gardaí also had riot shields and used long batons on the day.
I have a statement issued by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties following the events. It states it was gravely concerned by the heavy-handed policing approach to the protest. It refers to the indiscriminate use of pepper spray and states any use of force by gardaí must always be proportionate and necessary, in line with Garda policies.
Let me set out what Garda policies stipulate and how they were breached. Human-rights law provides broad protection for the right to peaceful protest. It actually protects the right to block a road. The only ground upon which gardaí can use pepper spray is if they fear violence is being used directly against them. The UNHRC specifically notes that mere pushing or shoving or anything like that, which was not even the case at the port because people were just walking, does not constitute or amount to a threat or to violence. Independent legal observers were present on behalf of the ICCL on the day and will, I hope, provide a report.
I turn to the Garda’s own regulations on the use of pepper spray. They state gardaí must always consider non-physical approaches, obviously. Paragraph 1.4 states the fundamental principle underpinning the use of pepper spray is that it must comply with the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and accountability and is not to be used in a non-discriminatory manner. The regulations also state: "Every effort should be made to resolve an incident without resorting to the use of force." They add that gardaí "should avoid extended or repeat uses of Incapacitant Spray". That certainly did not happen.
A councillor there on the day gave witness testimony. A young member of my own party who works with me went down with her friends. She is in her 20s and was not even particularly taking part in the protest and was sprayed with pepper spray. I want to make it very clear that this is double strength pepper spray that the Garda is now using. The impact of it was felt by people for more than two days. Women I know who were the victims of this told me that they showered about three times and they were still burning the next day. There was absolutely no justification in using that type of what is basically chemical warfare against peaceful protesters. There was no threat of violence. This pepper spray was not used at the race riot, for example, when gardaí were under attack. I think it was being used for a different reason. There had been an effective protest the previous week that had an impact at the port. By the way, people are entitled to do that. The Garda was determined that would not happen again and it wanted to send a message to pro-Palestine protestors not to go to the port again. That is what I think happened.
I am responding on behalf of the Minister for justice to the issue that was raised. We in Ireland are lucky to have a police service in An Garda Síochána that has the widespread community support that has been hard earned over decades of service to the State and to our people. The common refrain from the public is that they want more gardaí in their community and on their streets. This is certainly not the case in many other jurisdictions in the world. This is because An Garda Síochána undertakes an important role in upholding and protecting the human and constitutional rights of everyone in our community. It does this by providing a high quality, effective policing service in partnership with the community and in co-operation with other agencies.
In relation to the use of incapacitant spray, it is one of a number of tactical options available to gardaí when faced with the use of force or the threat of violence when it is reasonable to believe that such force or threat of violence may result in injury to themselves or others. Information on the use of force, including the use of incapacitant spray, is published on the Garda website and in the Commissioner’s monthly reporting to the Policing and Community Safety Authority.
The right to protest peacefully is enshrined in our Constitution and legislation. An Garda Síochána, through its human rights-led approach to policing, seeks to uphold and protect the right to freedom of assembly and to protest while also upholding the law and protecting the safety of the public when required. Balancing the right to protest with protecting the public and upholding the law is a complex task. An Garda Síochána's policing approach to protests is focused on keeping the public at large safe and preventing antisocial or criminal behaviour while respecting the right to peaceful assembly under the Constitution. Protests create operational challenges for An Garda Síochána, especially where those protestors engage in force against Garda members and seek to push violently through cordons.
Factors such as the number of persons protesting, the location of protests and actions at the protest as well as the health and safety of all, including gardaí, require significant assessment. A detailed policy document on the use of incapacitant spray has been developed by An Garda Síochána and is publicly available on its website. The fundamental principle underpinning this policy is that any action taken which requires a member of An Garda Síochána to use an incapacitant spray must comply with the fundamental principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and accountability. It must also be applied in a non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. In policing protests, it should be noted that the Garda engages in a gradual response that is reasonable. Where physical force is used against members of An Garda Síochána, they are entitled to respond in a proportional manner.
I agree with the Deputy that there is a right of protest in this country, but I do not think the right of protest should allow a bunch of protesters to lock down this city by blocking Dublin Port as they did. They had no right to do that. They should not do that. They inconvenienced the entire city. I wonder does the Deputy support the idea, the principle or the action of locking down this city by blocking Dublin Port. Does the Deputy think that is right? I certainly do not, and millions of people around the country do not either. I think I have responded in a comprehensive manner to the Deputy regarding the issues she has raised. I support An Garda Síochána and its actions. I have seen the videos in this regard. Protestors have a right to protest, and in this case they were protesting about something that is fundamental, and all of us in this House support trying to sort out the issues in Palestine, but locking down the Dublin Port tunnel does not achieve anything. I would like to hear what the Deputy has to say in this regard. Does she agree with and did she support blocking the Dublin Port tunnel and reducing this city to a mass gridlock? Did she agree with it and does she agree with it?
I hope I get the extra half minute now that the Minister of State got. I will tell the Minister of State what I agree with. I agree that this Government that is meant to support the Palestinian state has utterly failed to carry out action in the past two years to do that. It would not even pass the occupied territories Bill.
That is not true.
We are the second biggest trader with Israel.
That is not true.
It is true.
It is not true.
The Minister of State asked me a question. I totally agree that workers and young people throughout the world have been the only saving grace as this horrific genocide that we are seeing livestreamed on our phones each day has occurred. Only for the protest movements that are happening, there would be no action at all. The EU has been an utter disgrace throughout this and obviously the US has been a partner in the genocide. The Government is complicit in that it did nothing. I know the Government does not like that being said, but the word "complicit" means doing nothing when you see things happening as well doing something.
That is not true.
Nobody would have to protest if the Government actually undertook and carried through its so-called support for Palestine. The injuries sustained include one person who has a broken wrist.
What about locking down the city and the tunnel?
One young woman I know is on crutches. I got a phone call after and went down myself, and I actually saw a second round of pepper spray used. The impact on some of the people and the effect of it was absolutely horrific. I remind the Minister of State there is broad protection for the right to protest, nationally and internationally. If you are walking on a road or even if you are going to block a road, the Garda does not have the right to use pepper spray. Blocking roads is an effective means of protest. It was done for the right to vote for women. It was done for civil rights. It is done for lots of things. The Minister of State wants ineffective protests that achieve very little. He asked me if I think people have the right to block a port for a period of time.
The Dublin Port tunnel.
I absolutely do to stop a genocide. They were not blocking the port tunnel. They were up at the port. The Minister of State does not know what they were going to do because they were actually blocked by the Garda. They were not actually blocking anybody.
You see, the Deputy tries to own the argument every way. She does not have a monopoly on concern for the Palestinians. I have been to the Middle East. I have been to Palestine and to Ramallah and Hebron. I have walked the streets of East Jerusalem. I have been to the settler communities and seen the impact those have on the people of Palestine. The Deputy does not have a monopoly on concern for the Palestinians. She likes to present that she has a monopoly on it. The protestors do not have a monopoly on it. This Government has done more than any other Government across Europe in terms of trying to highlight and support the cause of the Palestinian people. I wonder if the Deputy thinks that locking down Dublin and reducing it to gridlock and impacting hundreds of thousands of people is acceptable. The Deputy failed to address it. Did she support it and does she support it? She obviously does by her silence.
For a genocide? To block a road to stop a genocide? Absolutely.
You cannot have it both ways. You want to have it both ways. The Deputy thinks we can just lock down Dublin city centre every single day of the week.
Not every day, just one day
That is what the Deputy is saying, because if it is okay once, then it is okay twice. Where does it go from there then? The Garda was right and acted completely correctly in my view.
They were right; okay.
I have seen the video and I will support every single member of An Garda Síochána who policed that event because they were looking out for the hundreds of thousands of people around this city and region who-----
The Minister of State will not wait for any report. He will just-----
-----have an absolutely right go about their business and use the public roads to get on with their business, get home to their families, do their day-to-day activities, get to work, get home, rear their children and bring their kids to their clubs and their sports. The Deputy, though, seems to think that locking down Dublin is acceptable.
It is about gardaí breaking their own rules.
No, it is not. People are absolutely entitled to protest. Nobody disputes that. The Deputy, though, wants to elevate it and bring it to a place where it actually discredits what they are protesting for, and that is regrettable.
You are the one who has broken lots of laws with your housing and your properties.
Schools Building Projects
My question for the Minister for education relates to Presentation Primary School in George's Hill. Before I get to the problems about the school, I want to say that this is a great school in the heart of the north inner city in Dublin 7. It is a DEIS band 1 school. It probably has one of the most diverse populations of all schools in the country and has a significant amount of need, both social and educational. It has a hugely committed staff, who go above and beyond in ways that will never be aired. Three years ago, the Department paid for extensive works to the school, including three new autism classes, a lift, a new rooftop yard, fire doors, a reconfiguration of the top floor and other works. I understand the project manager was KSN, the main contractor was Vision and other contractors were involved.
These works should be a source of pride for the school. Instead, the school has been left with a disgraceful botched job that no one seems to be taking responsibility for. The lack of accountability and oversight by the Department of education is frankly disgraceful. I visited the school a number of weeks ago. My appeal to the Minister of State and to the Minister for education is to visit this school. What I saw was asbestos in the floors throughout the building and broken tiles that occurred during the works and on which children are walking every single day. There is water ingress on the roof yard. The plug points have no earthing. The roof shed is disintegrating. It is on the fourth floor. It is a flat roof and it is unprotected. Think about that in the middle of a storm. The floors were damaged when the fire doors were being installed and the plumbing is simply inadequate. One of the maddest things when you walk through the school is that the walls are only half-painted. The painter went to a certain point and no further.
Some of these situations arose during construction. Some of it was pre-existing. When the contractor went to the project manager three years ago, they were told the Department had not approved expanding the scope of works. Earlier this year, the Department said it should have approved them but, lo and behold, the project manager said the account was closed and the case had to be resubmitted. When the school went back to the original contractors for new quotes, they declined and advised the school to find an alternative elsewhere. When the school went elsewhere for those quotes, every other contractor said they could not get involved in this and that the school would have to go back to the original contractors. You could not make this up.
All the while, this is a school catering to some of the most disadvantaged children in this city. The principal herself has had to climb onto the roof to apply Tec7 to a leaking roof light. She has had to paint a closet room to try to create some space in the school and has had to become an expert in unblocking toilets. This is the reality of this school. There are other schools that are suffering from a severe shortage in terms of the capitation grant and the cost of running the school. More crucially, we have a very real health and safety risk here. In fact, it is an immediate health and safety risk. The Department of education, to my mind, has done nothing to investigate the works that it paid for three years ago, nor has it taken any actions to ensure that the contractors it paid actually did the correct work.
A letter was sent to the Department last week from the board of management of the school. I appreciate that it is budget week and there is lots to be done, but the letter pointed out that there is an immediate health and safety risk. As of this afternoon, there has been no response from the Department of education to that school. If that school were in a better off area with parents with more political capital, I think there would be a speedier response. As of this afternoon, the Department of education has not acknowledged any of these problems. Tonight, I want to hear from the Minister of State what the Department is going to do about it.
I am taking this matter on behalf of my colleague the Minister for education, Deputy McEntee, who is unfortunately unavailable this evening. I thank Deputy Sherlock for raising this matter as it provides me with an opportunity to clarify the position in relation to the repurposing works undertaken at George’s Hill primary school in 2022. The Deputy may be aware that George’s Hill is a Catholic, co-educational primary school. The school has a current enrolment of 165 pupils and a staffing level of a principal, nine mainstream class teachers and three special class teachers.
The project approved by the Department of Education and Youth in 2022 provided accommodation for three special classes and associated ancillary accommodation for students with special educational needs. In addition, repurposing works were completed to provide a general-purpose area and a rooftop play area. This project was delivered under the Department's devolved special educational needs reconfiguration and modular accommodation programme. This programme involves the use of project management supports that are designed to enable the accommodation to be provided as quickly as possible and help ease the administrative workload for school authorities in the management and delivery of projects. The project was completed in 2022.
The school principal made contact with the Department of Education and Youth’s planning and building unit earlier this year relating to a request for further works. It appears that the works described may fall within the scope of the Department’s emergency works scheme. The advice given to the principal was that the next step was for the school to submit an application under the emergency works scheme for consideration. The Department has no record of receiving an application from the school and will make contact with the school directly in this regard.
Since 2020, the Department of Education and Youth has invested over €6 billion in schools throughout the country under the national development plan, involving the completion of over 1,300 school building projects. Government support for this investment, including by way of supplementary capital funding, has delivered real benefits for school communities. Supplementary capital funding of €210 million was approved by the Government and has brought the total capital allocation for 2025 for the Department of Education and Youth to €1.6 billion.
I thank the Minister of State for that reply on behalf of the Minister for education. I have to ask him directly. Is he comfortable with children walking on asbestos tiles every day of the week? The tiles were broken by works undertaken three years ago. We know that there is no safe level of asbestos. I have to ask him that direct question.
The Minister of State said the project was completed in 2022. He mentioned the good money, €6 billion, being spent on schools. Some of it has been well spent. Some of it, frankly, has been appallingly spent. A project manager was taken on to oversee this project. It is a project manager who, I am aware, is also involved in other school projects at this time. If that project manager has reported back to the Department of education that the project has been completed, there is a serious dereliction of duty there. In fact, I would go as far as to say that somebody has been seriously negligent in reporting to the Department. There is fault here on the part of the project manager and whatever officials in the Department wrote the statement claiming the project had been completed in 2022.
It is a source of shame that the Department of education would consider any works left half-done to have been completed. This is particularly the case in a school that provides a safe and secure space to children, many of whom have gone through trauma, are going through homelessness accommodation or have seen things in their life that any child should not see. There is an even greater impetus and need to ensure that we get things right in this school, yet we have this nonsense that the project was completed in 2022. That is factually incorrect. I would like the Minister of State to bring that back to the Minister for education and to plead with her to visit the school as soon as possible.
I listened to what the Deputy said and some of the charges she made are fairly grim. My understanding, from reading the reply prepared for me, is that the works that were contracted for in 2022 have been completed. It was only this year that the school principal made contact with the Department looking for further works to be carried out. As of when this reply was put together, the application had not yet come in from the school.
They cannot submit it because they cannot get a quote.
They could put in a report from an engineer with a costing on it, I am sure. Nothing has been received. The Department has no record of receiving it. It is going to make contact directly with the school as soon as possible because it is important that no school or child be left in a danger, if that is the case.
I come from a construction background. If the works were completed in 2022 and it was 2025 before the principal made contact, I would be concerned.
There is a new school principal.
To fully answer the Deputy's question, I will take her concerns back to the Minister. The Department will be making contact with the principal as a matter of course because no application has come in yet. If there are difficulties in that regard, I am sure the Department of education will be able to assist with advice on how to get the costings together in order to make the application formally.
Grant Payments
I raise an issue relating to ancillary grants for schools. This affects many schools in my area. Last week, I met the principal and treasurer of St. Mary's Boys National School in Booterstown. It is by any measure a fantastic local parish school. It provides a service for the community and does so in a way that contributes much to provide for special educational needs and children from the IPAS centre in Blackrock. It does a good job and does it well.
It gets an ancillary grant, as the Minister of State will be aware, as many schools do. That grant was used in the past to pay secretaries and caretakers. Since the secretaries, for example, were put onto the payroll of the Department, a decision has been made that schools do not need the same ancillary grant. A difficulty arises here. I raise this issue specifically in relation to St. Mary's Boys National School but it also applies in other schools. The difficulty is that the Department has made a calculation which assumes that those school secretaries were paid all year round, 12 months per year when, in fact, very often they were part-time workers who were not paid in July and August. The calculation takes into account money that was available to the school and was used to pay for important things, including electricity, insurance, heating and lighting. The Department decided to cut that out. St. Mary's Boys National School reckons it is at a loss of between €4,000 and €6,000 on the basis it would not have been paying those people in July and August.
The Department may well say, "Tough", but I do not think that is the right answer. I welcome the resolution of the issue with the caretakers and secretaries. I supported them totally in their call to be put onto the payroll of the Department and to have the same terms and conditions in respect of pensions, sick leave and all the other employment benefits that teachers in schools have. They are entitled to those and I hope the workings of the WRC will result in a positive outcome in that regard. You cannot have a desire to solve that problem and also expect the schools and the communities they serve to be less well-off as a result.
The Department needs to take account of the fact that the cutting of the ancillary grants is an unfair measure that disadvantages schools, which are doing a good job for communities. They are doing their level best on pretty tight budgets.
St. Mary's Boys National School serves 170-odd boys. Let us do something that helps them. Instead of saying we are cutting out that grant, let us acknowledge the reality of what was happening and the way in which secretaries were paid. That should also be reflected in the reality of the way in which the ancillary grant is paid.
I welcome the increase in the capitation grant from €224 to €270 per child enrolled. That is very welcome. Let us be clear, however, that it is not enough. Schools need that money and that increase because of the increase in all the costs that come with running a school. Let us not penalise them by hitting the ancillary grant. I ask the Minister of State in the first instance to acknowledge the fact that this calculation by the Department is perverse, incorrect and unfairly reflects the needs of the schools. It is something that the Department can address by changing the calculation and acknowledging that schools did not pay people 12 months per year and there were two months during the summer when school secretaries were not paid out of those ancillary grants, and, therefore, to remove them is both arbitrary and unfair. I hope the Minister of State can acknowledge that and we can make some progress towards fixing the problem.
I am taking this matter on the behalf of the Minister for Education and Youth, Deputy McEntee. I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to outline to the House the position in respect of St Mary’s Boys National School, Blackrock, County Dublin. The Department is committed to offering all available and appropriate supports to schools. As the Deputy rightly pointed out, budget 2026 includes €39 million towards increased capitation funding for primary, post-primary and special schools to provide additional financial support towards their running costs. This will see an increase in the standard capitation rates paid to schools of €50 per pupil for primary schools, from €224 to €274, and of €20 per pupil for post-primary schools, from €386 to €406. Over the past three budgets there has been in an increase of 49.7% in the level of capitation rates paid to primary schools.
The ancillary services grant is payable to recognised primary schools and special schools in the free education system. The grant is intended to cater for the cost of employing secretaries and caretaking staff. It is up to the boards of management to allocate this funding as per their priorities. As per Circular 40/09, the capitation grant provided for general running costs and the ancillary services grant provided for secretarial and caretaking services may be regarded as a common grant from which the board of management can allocate according to its own priorities.
After Fórsa accepted the Workplace Relations Commission agreement about salaries and leave for grant-funded school secretaries, the secretaries who accepted the agreement were added to the Department of education's payroll from September 2023. Because of this, the ancillary-related grant funding has been updated. Schools are no longer paying these salaries directly.
Since the 2023-2024 school year, schools have been paid the usual ancillary grant amount minus the amount that schools previously paid to grant-funded secretaries prior to their acceptance of the new terms and conditions. Schools provided the Department with these details and this information is now being used to reduce the ancillary-related grant funding. Schools should be in no way disadvantaged by this as the grant is reduced only by the amount they previously paid to their secretaries.
To date we have issued correspondence to schools with details of the arrangements for September to December 2023, January to August 2024, September to December 2024 and January to August 2025.
In some situations, the salaries of ancillary staff in a particular school may have been higher than the ancillary grant due to the school and the school may have funded this difference via other revenue streams. In situations where the salary that a school was paying their secretary was higher than the ancillary grant due to the school prior to them being added to the Department of education’s payroll, the ancillary grant is reduced to nil. This should not impact the school's financial position.
For the specific school mentioned, the ancillary grant has now been reduced to nil as the salary the school was previously paying their secretaries, prior to their moving to the Department's payroll, is now higher than the ancillary grant available to the school prior to reductions being applied. A full review of the grant was completed by the Department in September 2025 and an update was provided to the school on the breakdown of the grant. The rate of ancillary services grant has not decreased and continues to be paid based on the relevant enrolments in the school multiplied by the rates set out in Circular 17/21.
Work is ongoing to identify a method of standardising the reduction to the ancillary-related grants for the longer term where school secretaries are being paid on the Department's payroll. The House should note that the reductions may change when a permanent model for ancillary-related grant reductions has been finalised.
The financial support services unit, funded by the Department, is an important source of advice and support to schools on financial matters, including budgeting and cash flow management. Contact can be found on its website.
I thank the Minister of State, to a point. An awful lot in that response is not relevant to this particular school. What made my blood boil, to be perfectly honest, was when the Minister of State said, "Schools should be in no way disadvantaged by this [meaning the changes in respect of the secretaries' payment] as the grant is reduced only by the amount they previously paid to their secretaries." He spoke about a review in respect of this particular school in which the Department decided that the amount paid to the secretaries was greater than the level of the grant that was given, and, therefore, the grant is being reduced to nil. The first thing I said when introducing this Topical Issue was that that was not the case. This school is being impacted by these changes. It was paying less to the secretaries than the ancillary grant. Therefore, it had money left over that it used to pay for important goods and services in the school. It is now left without that money because the Department has decided the school was paying the secretaries all year round when, in fact, it was not. This is not some kind of smoke and mirrors. The school is not trying to hide anything. It published properly audited accounts. I met Mr. Noel Scully, the principal, who is doing an excellent job, and Mr. Conor Gahan, the treasurer.
They have put together accounts that show this very clearly, so whatever review the Department has carried out is incorrect because it has come to a conclusion that leaves the school worse off. All the policies in the world can state that this should not impact on the school's financial position, but it has impacted on the school's financial position. St. Mary's Boys National School is between €4,000 and €6,000 less well off every year because of this change. The bean counter within the Department who has done this has made a mistake or has wilfully ignored the facts of the matter. Will the Minister of State please commit to me that the Department will examine this again, review it and be honest about the matter in terms of looking at what the actual end costs for St. Mary's Boys School are? If the Department can establish that the school has been left less well off than it was before this review - I am confident that it will be able to do so - I ask it to reinstate the ancillary grant in order that it can pay for what it needs to pay for.
I feel the Deputy's frustration. I will repeat what is contained in the reply. For the specific school mentioned the ancillary grant has now been reduced to nil because the salary the school was previously paying its secretaries before they moved to the Department's payroll is now higher than the ancillary grant available to the school prior to the reductions being applied. A full review of the grant was completed by the Department in September of this year, and an update was provided to the school on the breakdown of the grant. I suggest that if the school is not happy with the breakdown of the grant, its representatives should go back to the bean counters, as the Deputy called them, or whoever did this in the Department. If the breakdown is wrong, the school should be able to demonstrate that it is wrong. Genuinely, no school should be penalised as a result of the good work that was done to get school secretaries onto the Department of education payroll. If there is a particular problem with this school such as an anomaly in the way the calculations are being done - the Deputy has the update from the school, and the breakdown of the grant has been given to the school by the Department - there is a bit of work to be done between the school and the Department to sort it out.
I will definitely bring this matter back to the Minister. I suggest that the Deputy should speak to the school's board of management and the school authorities to make sure they have received the breakdown of the grant with the clarifications on it. If the school representatives do not agree with that breakdown, my suggestion is that they should go back to the Department and try to get the matter ironed out that way.
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. It could be an issue in other schools so we have to get it right. The transfer of school secretaries to the Department of education payroll was the right move - it is very important that we applaud it - but I do not believe schools should lose out as a result of the good work that was done at that time.
Fisheries Protection
I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, my concern about the proposal by Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, to close the Cong salmon hatchery at Cong on Lough Corrib. I cannot get clarity as to whether a decision has been made, or is due or pending. This concern has been brought to me by angling groups, in particular, but also by groups that advocate for the conservation of salmon on the Corrib and by tourism stakeholders. Many of the anglers who have visited my constituency office recently have fished at the salmon weir in Galway for many years. Generations of Galwegians have fished at the weir for years. It is a tradition that has been passed from generation to generation. They have told me they are concerned about the future of what has been a traditional pursuit for many people. Galway and the Corrib have been famous for the quantity of salmon available to be fished by locals and tourists alike.
The Minister of State will be familiar with the salmon weir in Galway; I think most people are. People have fished it for generations, but the concern now is that the stocks are at a low level. Anglers advise me that this has been a particularly bad year, unfortunately. The decision of IFI to close the hatchery at Cong will exacerbate this and will hasten the end of their pursuit. It is of great concern. There has been a notable decline in salmon stocks on Lough Corrib over the past 50 years. The causes of this decline, of course, are complex. It is difficult to pin it on one particular issue. The decision to close the hatchery is not something that will ameliorate this; in fact, it will make it worse. I understand that the Cong hatchery is the only IFI facility that produces salmon smolts. In 2016, IFI decided that not only was it not going to close the hatchery at Cong but also that it saw it as something that would be an upgraded facility for research. That is part of the issue here because, disappointingly, IFI is now alleging that it is no longer required as a research facility, while also ignoring its use for social activities and the tourism industry. The hatchery helps to ensure there is an adequate level of salmon in the Corrib for locals and tourists alike. The decision to close the hatchery will undoubtedly make things worse. It will undoubtedly reduce the numbers. There is no evidence whatsoever to say that closing the hatchery will enhance the Corrib salmon. I ask the Minister of State to engage with IFI on the issue, to prevent the closure of the hatchery, and to plead for the local anglers and others who come to Galway to enjoy the Corrib for fishing pursuits.
I thank Deputy Connolly for raising this issue. I know of his great interest in the angling sector. He is passionate about this issue and it is very close to his heart. He has had a number of discussions with me about angling, generally. I must begin by putting on the record that operational matters such as this are the preserve of IFI. I have no direct capacity to force it to do anything other than follow its duties. It does not fall to the Minister in this regard. I have been in discussion with IFI to try to understand more fully and clearly what the issue is. I understand that in July of this year, IFI notified the Department that a board decision had been taken to cease the operations of the Cong salmon hatchery in north Galway. The hatchery is a complex of buildings, ponds and a rearing station owned and operated by IFI. For many years, the hatchery has produced salmon smolts for release into the Corrib and Erriff catchments, initially to address declining stocks, as the Deputy identified, following a disease outbreak, and later to support research around salmon return rates and sea lice, and angling for Atlantic salmon.
Together with officials, I have liaised with IFI on the decision to close the Cong salmon hatchery. IFI has indicated to me that it no longer has any requirement for access to what it refers to as ranched smolts. Moreover, and I think this is the important piece, there are some scientific concerns regarding the impact of ranched salmon being released into a special area of conservation and the potential negative impact on wild populations of Atlantic salmon. There is no longer a research requirement within IFI to produce smolts. According to international evidence-based guidelines from the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, NASCO, there is no conservation basis for the farmed production of smolts, given the status of wild salmon populations in the Corrib and Erriff catchments. It follows that there is no benefit to wild salmon populations from the release of ranched smolts into those systems.
The presence of ranched fish can result in interbreeding with wild salmon, which are genetically unique to each system. This has a range of well-known risks to the wild stock as outlined by NASCO, which has advised:
Risks associated with stocking have been well documented and largely result from the relaxation of natural selection and the impacts of domestication leading to maladaptation and reduced individual fitness. In some cases, stocking has been linked to declines in wild population productivity and reduced wild fish individual fitness.
The scientifically accepted view indicates that human interference in the mating selection has the risk of affecting the fitness of the offspring. Both the Erriff and Corrib catchments have sizeable stocks of wild salmon to meet their natural reproductive capacity and do not require supplementation with the hatchery stock.
Research advice details that the Corrib wild Atlantic salmon stock was assessed as being above its conservation limit in all years since 2007, as has the Erriff, with the exception of 2025, when it was assessed as marginally below that limit. On the basis of international best practice, as reflected in the NASCO guidelines, salmon ranching was therefore not advised in either catchment to supplement the wild salmon populations. Even for degraded wild populations, stocking of ranched smolts from hatcheries in general is not advised in rivers where the wild stock has the potential to naturally rehabilitate.
A decision was sought from the board of IFI as to the continued production of smolts from 2026 onwards. At its meeting on 30 June, the board, in consideration of all the facts outlined, took the decision to cease production of ranched salmon smolts at Cong hatchery and their release into the Erriff and Corrib catchments. Returning adult ranched salmon shall continue to be removed and recorded for several more years until returns cease for the Erriff and Corrib catchments. Clearly, this stands as an evidence-based decision on the part of IFI, carrying out due diligence across scientific, environmental and conservation grounds. I trust the Deputy will appreciate the rationale based on those decisions. It is a complex issue which anglers are not entirely happy with. I have to put on record the basis for it.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. There is an independence to the board of Inland Fisheries Ireland. I recognise that the Minister of State is being prudent in not interfering in its decision-making processes. I do not have the scientific background required to challenge some of the content of the response. Nevertheless, there are a number of things I note. This hatchery has been in place since before 2016, and possibly before that. I am not sure of the foundation date. It is not recently that the Corrib has become a special area of conservation. It has been one for some time. I imagine that consideration was previously given to whether this would have an impact on that SAC and whether the activities of the hatchery would have been a negative in terms of the conservation of the salmon population in Lough Corrib. However, I am not sure about that.
I have been made aware by people who frequent the Corrib that Cong hatchery brood stocks are indigenous Corrib salmon. This suggests that the evidence IFI is putting forward regarding the risk to wild stocks is limited. I am not sure whether it stands up. I am not sure there is interbreeding with different species of wild salmon. The hatchery produces indigenous Corrib salmon. Correspondence from IFI states that the stock levels meet its objectives, but that is not the sentiment among anglers. They have been angling on the Corrib for generations. Stocks are declining. The hatchery was one conservation measure that maintained the stock. It seems this decision was made by IFI without consultation with local anglers. Those anglers take great pride in their pursuit and in the natural facility of the Corrib. They would not do anything to harm the stock of salmon or the natural environment of the Corrib. I ask that IFI engage with local anglers on the issue.
I understand the anglers' perspective, but IFI is charged with the conservation of the Atlantic salmon stock. It is conscious of the protection and preservation of that species in all its forms. There is a concern that once the stock is above the conservation limit, it is not justified. At the time it was there before the conservation limit was under pressure, there was also an exercise in trying to understand the patterns of return. That was a separate project which is no longer relevant from IFI's perspective. Knowing his interest in this area, I will ask IFI officials to meet the Deputy and share with him all the details and data in order that he can understand the reasons behind this.
I recognise that anglers are an important part of the ecosystem relating to our fisheries. In virtually all cases, they are the custodians of the waterways. They act to preserve and protect that resource in a respectful way. I met some of the anglers from the Corrib. I think I was due to meet them this week but due to other events meetings had to be postponed. I am happy to have ongoing dialogue with them. The Deputy fed into the provision in the programme for Government about the protection and preservation of the salmon stocks in the Corrib region. I look forward to ongoing dialogue with him. My office will be in touch in relation to setting up a meeting with IFI.
Cuireadh an Dáil ar athló ar 7.06 p.m. go dtí 2 p.m., Dé Máirt, an 14 Deireadh Fómhair 2025.
The Dáil adjourned at 7.06 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 October 2025.