Like my colleagues, I know first-hand the benefit that SNAs have had in my own family, and there are many others in my family who have worked as SNAs. That is why we, as Government TDs, when we voted for a programme for Government and for budgets, were pleased and proud to see increases in the number of SNAs. I can say clearly that we would not have voted either for a programme for Government or for budgets that saw a reduction in SNAs. Yet, last week, Government TDs and, it would appear, Ministers and the Taoiseach as well, were taken aback by correspondence from people who said their schools were losing large numbers of SNAs. I believe there is a question as to why the Government, a body of people who come into this House and support budgets, despite the implementation of that policy, found that the outcome was a reduction in SNAs. Of course, the people who received those letters thought there was a reduction because they were losing SNAs in their school. There was no context or wider discussion. My understanding is that only a certain number of schools were considered for the review while other schools were not considered. I ask how there can be a review that does not take into account all schools when trying to balance the use of SNAs across the system. There are serious governance and oversight issues here that we have to examine. How can a body like the NCSE issue letters to some schools that would see them losing multiple SNAs, and not realise the impact that would have? How could it apply the 2014 circular in the way it did? It would appear that in some parts of the country, it was very strictly interpreted, and in others, it was not. How could we have a situation where the NCSE would send out such correspondence, which has had such a profound impact on schools across the country, and the Government and those people who support the Government were taken by surprise? There is a serious issue around oversight and the operation of this review. The Government acted quickly, but it should never have happened in the first place.

Sentiment score: 0.13