2026-02-18

The report of the investigation into mental healthcare given to children and young people in Kerry has now been published. The young people affected, their distraught parents and their families have waited years for answers. The investigation of these case files of 300 children in north Kerry was, as the Taoiseach knows, originally ordered in the aftermath of the 2022 Maskey report. The distressing findings of that report into the care of vulnerable children by south Kerry CAMHS provoked shock and public anger at the time. That investigation revealed that children in crisis were subjected to harm, that there were serious deficiencies in care, that there was a total lack of oversight and that children were being overprescribed medications. These negligent prescribing practices had devastating consequences, which included psychological distress, cognitive impairment, considerable weight gain, excess sedation and high blood pressure. I have met with and spoken to some of the young people and families in Kerry and they have told me of the devastation this caused to their lives. One heartbroken father told me how he dreamed of his son striding the pitch of Croke Park. He was a fine young footballer, but following the lad's treatment by CAMHS this father has been left wondering if his son will ever be able to watch a match, never mind have a pint or a friend. This father, like so many other parents, is filled with guilt for trusting a system which failed their children. Today, the full story of what was done to children and young people in the care of north Kerry CAMHS has been brought to light. The findings of this report seem damning. The HSE has already issued apologies to more than half of those whose files were examined. The human price that has been paid was laid bare by one mother who spoke on the radio this morning. Mary from Tralee said the treatment her teenage daughter received from north Kerry CAMHS devastated her life. This child had been diagnosed with depression and PTSD. She had been prescribed antidepressants, anti-anxiety and antipsychotic medication. Shockingly, the HSE has admitted that she was diagnosed without an appropriate assessment, that there was no clear rationale given for the medication prescribed and that there was a complete absence in the monitoring of the impact of these drugs on the child. Mary has said all this destroyed her child and that there was no happiness left for this child. This is just one case of hundreds, just one family of hundreds and just one area. These young people were in crisis. They reached out for help, and they were failed. Teipeadh go tubaisteach ar an gcúram meabhairshláinte do leanaí agus daoine óga i gCiarraí. Ní mór don Rialtas gníomhú chun a chinntiú nach dtarlóidh a leithéid riamh arís. What will the Taoiseach do now to ensure the children and young people affected by this scandal get the proper care they need? Has he established if this scandal is more widespread? What other areas does it affect? How many children, young people and families does it affect? How will he assure families in Kerry and right across the country that this will never happen again?

Ar dtús báire, ba mhaith liom a rá gur uafásach an scéal ar fad é an méid a tharla i gCiarraí thuaidh maidir le cúrsaí leigheas intinne. Is drochscéal é. Is féidir liom a rá go bhfuil sé uafásach. At the outset, the report is not published yet. The Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, will bring a memorandum to the Government this afternoon and will publish the report in its entirety in the aftermath of the Cabinet meeting later this evening. The first principle in medicine is "Do no harm". Harm has been done here in the treatment of several young people in north Kerry. The Minister was anxious for open disclosure meetings with the families and those affected to be the first priority, in advance of the publication of any report. That has happened, and simultaneous to that, both assessment and proper treatment are being provided to put those young people on a proper pathway. It was important from the perspective of the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, that in the interests of the children and families, they would be communicated with directly in advance of publication of this report. My understanding is that letters were issued to all the families yesterday to arrive this morning. That was a clear instruction, and I think it was obviously the correct thing to do. The families will continue to have access to a clinical support team and a dedicated open disclosure helpline. The Minister will visit Kerry tomorrow and Friday to meet and engage with families affected by the findings in the report, with CAMHS staff and with the regional health forum. In addition, after the situation in south Kerry, the Minister commissioned a national audit. The HSE's prescribing audit and the Mental Health Commission did not identify any concerns relating to prescribing practice in services outside of Kerry. Dr. Colette Halpin and about ten consultant psychiatrists undertook this review. It took longer than anticipated, and there will need to be an extended look back in terms of absolute certainty for all cases. I also understand there is a referral to the Medical Council in respect of what has transpired here. I listened this morning to the mother of one of the young people concerned. It was a harrowing account. The issue spoke to overmedication, a lack of a multidisciplinary approach and a lack of complementary therapies or therapies other than medication and psychiatry, which is a fundamental issue. The HSE serious incident team was established to deal with this. This is absolutely unacceptable. The same approach will be taken with all the families involved, as was taken in terms of south Kerry with an apology from the HSE in the first instance, but also to engage with each family. The more fundamental focus and priority is on the well-being of all involved and that there will be continued supports for them.

The difficulty is that the priority and focus has not been on the well-being of children and young people. In fact, many families and parents wonder what on earth is going on with this litany of appalling treatment of children and young people. We have children whose SNAs are being taken from them, children waiting for an assessment of need, children with no school places, parents forced to campaign and fight for basic services, and children with scoliosis and spina bifida waiting for surgery. Seven-year-old Roxanne Kelly and her family now have to fundraise for the surgery she requires in America. Parents and families are literally battling the State daily for basic services and support. This has now become a hallmark of Government and a hallmark of how our society operates. It is deeply unacceptable. What about accountability? Who in the end is answerable for all of these things that happen daily to children and young people, let it be said on the watch of the Taoiseach's Government?

Fundamentally, there has to be accountability from a clinical perspective. That has to happen. We do have a Medical Council and we do have a framework. I do not want to prejudge anything here but clearly there are issues in relation to that dimension of it. We have to be very careful at the same time. The Deputy mentioned a case there. That is, fundamentally, a clinical decision-making situation. I think it is wrong for Dáil Éireann to attempt to adjudicate and, if you like, ordain what should happen where there are very serious clinical issues at stake, for example in the case of the person the Deputy mentioned. I have read the background note to that case and I do not want to discuss it in public. There needs to be some sense of order here in terms of what lines we cross. Are we now going to be dictating the optimal clinical situation for someone to have surgery in every individual case? That is not tenable.

Of course it is not.

It is not tenable and I do not think we can as a Dáil but that is what the Deputy was suggesting in that last exchange.

Thank you, Taoiseach.

No, I am not.

Thank you, Taoiseach. The time is up.

You just did and I think it is wrong-----

The time is up.

That is a cynical-----

I call Deputy Bacik.

I am sorry but you referenced the case. I am happy to discuss that case with you offline-----

Thank you, Taoiseach. I call Deputy Bacik.

Given your record on children and young people in the State-----

Taoiseach, Deputy Bacik is on her feet.

The Taoiseach is not happy to answer questions.

I am happy to answer questions.

Taoiseach, please. The time is up. I call Deputy Bacik.

The public outcry this week from parents, SNAs, principals and teachers has demonstrated the level of fear and distress created by the Taoiseach's Government with their crude approach to SNA allocations. We have all been reminded this week about the vital work that SNAs do in our schools. To the children who need them they are indispensable. One mother wrote to me yesterday and said, "My daughter feels safe with her SNA by her side. I honestly do not know where we would be without that help. No teacher, no matter how dedicated can meet every complex need alone." Another email, which the Taoiseach also received, asked him bluntly, "[H]ave you any idea what it is like to be a teacher or an SNA in a classroom in 2026? Along with sustained under funding of schools these people are bearing the brunt of the Irish Government's failures". She is right to say this because the Taoiseach's Government is failing school communities. I have seen the NCSE letter that was sent to many school principals last week, abruptly informing them of the impact of the Government review. In one letter dated 10 February that I have seen the principal was told that "a surplus of three SNA posts has been identified in your school." Without any prior warning, this principal will find themselves with a near 50% reduction in SNA supports for this coming school year. Many more principals received similar letters. It is no wonder there was an outcry at what amounted to a cut in SNA allocations for so many schools. Yesterday the Government sensibly paused its review in a last minute U-turn but a pause is not a plan. We need clarity on what happens next. As my colleague, Deputy Eoghan Kenny, said, any change in the allocation process must be phased in and new supports must be put in place before existing lifelines are taken away. Instead, it seems the Department of education's way is to strip supports before new ones exist while children are still waiting years for assessments. Of course, SNAs have to be allocated correctly but many schools are struggling with large class sizes and limited resources to support children with complex needs. Every week I hear from principals who are fearful they cannot provide for those pupils needs. Every week I hear from teachers and SNAs - we all do - who are struggling to cope in the classroom. Every week we hear from exhausted parents desperately fighting for a school place or for supports for their child. Of course it is the children who bear the brunt waiting years for an assessment or diagnosis and years spent without appropriate supports. The current practice of the Taoiseach's Government had allowed children who have not yet received a diagnosis to avail of the help of an SNA. That practice, as we know, was plugging the gap of the scandalous waiting lists for assessments of need, a list that the Government has failed to clear. Now a national increase in SNA numbers offers little reassurance if individual schools are losing posts and children are losing support. When you remove an SNA from a mainstream classroom a child suffers. It is as simple as that. I have two questions for the Taoiseach. Will he clarify what yesterday's announcement of a pause actually means for schools? Will he apologise to schools, parents and school communities for the shock news of SNA cuts that so many schools received last week?

First of all, we need to have some degree of objective assessment of what actually has happened in terms of investment in education. Investment in education has increased dramatically over the past number of years - of that, there is no question. Just go through the number of extra teachers in our education system over the past number of years, which is quite significant. We have had a sustained reduction in pupil-teacher ratios over the past years. We have had record increases in capitation grants to schools, most recently in the last budget. In terms of special needs assistants, in 2020 there were 16,000 SNAs in our schools; in 2021, it went to 18,000; in 2022, it went to 19,000; in 2023, it went to 21,000; in 2024, it was close to 22,000; in 2025, it is 23,000; and by September of the next school year, it will be 25,000. That is not cuts and that is not a reduction in expenditure in education. That is expansion and an increase. Could we at least agree that? The issue then becomes the deployment of those special needs assistants to the children most in need. That is an overall increase. By September of 2026, we will have had an increase of 8,775 special needs assistants in our schools. This is a 54% increase. By any yardstick, that is a fairly dramatic and substantial increase. Of course parallel with that, needs have increased and challenges have increased in our schools. With regard to the deployment, there should be regular reviews to make sure we are targeting the children most in need and that the children most in need get the optimal services. The idea that there would be no reviews, and I am sure the Deputy is not suggesting there should never be a review-----

I never said that.

Yes, I was just making the point. I presumed the Deputy did not and that is what I was saying. If the Deputy accepts that there are reviews, then reviews can work both ways because of changing need. A lot of schools get increases when those reviews are done. I think the mistake made here is that there has not been a comprehensive review for quite a number of years. The NCSE endeavouring to correct that in one year is, in my view, not the correct approach. That is why it has been paused. We will ensure the Minister, Deputy Naughton, the Minister of State, Deputy Moynihan, and the officials will engage with the NCSE. We will also engage with the schools. Many of those have already appealed, as they do, and we will try to resolve these issues with the schools on an ongoing basis.

With respect, the Taoiseach's response missed the point. We are not disagreeing on the big picture of funding. We are not disagreeing with the Taoiseach-----

You said we were cutting back.

Sorry, Taoiseach-----

Of course reviews have to be carried out but it is about how a review is carried out and how it impacts on individual schools. It is no comfort to the principals who have received letters telling them about a cut, and it is a cut effectively, in their individual schools. It is no comfort to them to hear the Taoiseach speak about the macro and about the overarching numbers. What we have not seen with the way in which the review was carried out is any appreciation of the destabilising effect the removal of SNAs from mainstream classes has on those classes and those school communities. What we do not have after yesterday's announcement is any clarity on what this means in practice. What does it mean for the redeployment of SNAs? What does it mean for schools that got letters saying they were going to get an increase in SNA allocations? We need clarity. That is what we are looking for. Of course reviews have to be carried out but they must be done in a respectful manner and in a phased, incremental manner, so that principals do not get a shock letter saying they are going to have a halving of their SNA allocation next year without any prior warning.

Obviously, any school where a need has been identified for additional SNAs will get that additionality.

Is that a commitment?

Sorry, Deputy-----

In terms of the SNA-----

Is that a commitment?

Please-----

In terms of the SNA redeployment scheme, the Deputy must know that the Department has been working with the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, and education stakeholders, including Fórsa, to develop an SNA redeployment scheme to retain experienced SNAs in our schools. A circular on this new redeployment scheme is being finalised and will be issued in the coming weeks. There are no cuts, obviously - no school is losing any SNA - this school year.

The Taoiseach speaks about "this school year" but I am asking about September.

I am glad, although I might have misinterpreted her, that the Deputy agrees with us on the macro picture. In other words, she agrees that there has been very significant expansion of SNAs.

Yes.

That is something that needed to be said on her side. I appreciate that she has acknowledged the expansion that has occurred.

It is the impact on-----

The Deputy can correspond further.

I fully accept that. We have paused it. I fully accept what has happened in that regard.

What does that mean?

The next-----

Thank you, Taoiseach.

There is a-----

I call Deputy Cairns.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to talk to the Taoiseach about this SNA fiasco. I will get straight to the point. This Government seems to think disability is almost exclusively physical. It is 2026 and that is akin to saying mental health is not a thing. I should not have to explain this but children being able to communicate, regulate and participate is just as important as their physical needs. My first question is this: does the Taoiseach recognise that? I think this is something he cares about so I will presume he does recognise it. Why does this policy on SNAs ignore that? Yesterday, thanks to public pressure from parents and school communities, the review of SNA allocations was paused. Where are we today? The schools that were told they are losing SNAs, like Belgooly National School in my constituency, have no idea if those cuts are still happening. Schools that were told they are being allocated additional SNAs do not know if these increases are going ahead. Children, SNAs, parents and principals are all in limbo. All they know is that there will now be a review into the original review. Nobody knows how long this second review will take or what the criteria for it will be. The criteria are key. An SNA's work is not an optional extra. They do extraordinary and essential work, helping children with their medical needs and helping them through anxiety and through painful transitions and tough and difficult moments. Without SNAs, children would be excluded. Even with an increase in the overall number of SNAs, the reality is that we need more. Instead of doing what needs to be done to achieve that, and instead of improving pay and conditions, professionalising their role and including more secondary care needs in their contracts, the Government has reduced this essential support to numbers on a spreadsheet. It has completely missed the point. When I spoke this morning to an SNA, Samantha O'Flanagan, she put it better than I could. She wants to know this: When a child won’t come up the stairs because of anxiety, when they run out of the classroom because they are dysregulated and overwhelmed, when they sit in a corridor crying because they are so emotionally distressed, what is the teacher meant to do?! What are the up to 27 other children meant to do? This is the reality in schools. Emotional regulation and sensory support is just as important as physical care needs. Children need to feel safe in school, to be regulated in order to learn, and SNAs are the ones who facilitate that. I will return to my original question: does the Taoiseach recognise that disability is not just physical? If so, why does the SNA policy ignore that? Will the Government scrap this policy and focus on what needs to be done?

With respect, I know the full needs of every child. They extend beyond the physical. It is a bit much of a question to ask but we will leave it at that. I am a parent as well. I was a teacher. My fundamental objective in politics is to realise the potential of every child in this country. In terms of SNAs, the 2014 circular is clear on the sensory needs and the role of SNAs in relation to that. A workforce planning exercise is under way in consultation with all stakeholders as to the optimal role of SNAs. In terms of communication and so forth, in my view therapies are essential. We do not have an adequacy of provision in therapies in terms of communication for every child. That is why we are bringing in a school-based therapy service to have an optimal approach to enabling children to be in a position to communicate properly and effectively from early in their lives and to get help in that regard. That is why the language classes came in many years ago. Across the country we have specialist language classes that do very well in helping children with language difficulties early in life and reintegrating them into primary schools. We need more of that. Fundamentally, we need more therapists and multidisciplinary teams in our special schools and, ultimately, in our mainstream schools. I committed to this at the outset of this Government. I made it an election red-line issue that we would have therapies in our schools. There was resistance in different quarters. In my view, the health-based approach that was there from 2013 onwards was not optimal and did not succeed in terms of progressing disability. There are ongoing challenges and issues around that. We said from the outset there would be therapies in our schools. Special needs assistants have key roles in respect of facilitating the participation of children with intellectual, physical and sensory disability in our schools. It should and must be part of a multidisciplinary approach, ultimately. To me, that is the approach that ultimately will benefit children. I think taking therapists out of special schools in the last decade was a mistake. That is why we are correcting it now with a schools-based approach. I do not want to conflate therapies in total with the SNA issue, but SNA numbers have expanded. It is governed at the moment by the circular of 2014. There is a workforce plan for the SNA role. That is not completed in terms of clarity, direction and consistency within the entirety of the workforce. There has been a lot of progress in terms and conditions for special needs assistants over the last number of years and that will continue.

The Taoiseach said it is a "bit much" to ask that question and I have to say I agree with him. I do not think we should have to ask that question but the reality is that the policy - the implementation of this - does not represent his words here today at all. Over time and incrementally, it has happened that the allocation of SNAs is based almost exclusively on physical needs and not other needs. That is the reality. Speak to the SNAs, the teachers, the principals and the families. I did not want to have to ask the Taoiseach that question but I had to ask him because he needs to put his policy where his mouth is. He recognises that there is a problem with this policy because it has been paused. It would not be paused if he did not recognise that. The question that I am asking and, indeed, that Deputies have been asking him for the past 24 hours is this: what happens now? How long will this review take? Will the Taoiseach change the approach? Does he recognise that we need more SNAs? Will the focus be on that, rather than on looking at a spreadsheet and deciding who can be moved where? The Taoiseach knows how disruptive that is to a classroom. How long are children, families and schools going to be left in limbo?

We have increased the number of SNAs.

I said that.

You did not, actually.

I am asking-----

Deputy, the Taoiseach is responding.

Sorry. We have increased significantly the number of special needs assistants. I would welcome a proper engagement on this subject. The fallback position from Opposition all the time is "more, more, more, more". We should look at optimal deployment of all resources in our education system and at outcomes. There have to be reviews. Surely people are not suggesting we will never have reviews. There are limits-----

If you could answer the question, it would be helpful.

I am answering the question. The Deputy's attitude is that we can go to 26,000, 27,000 and 30,000 and it will be fine. That is not the full answer. In every area of policy, that is her answer - no analysis, no attempt at evaluation. Are we doing the right thing? Is this getting the optimal outcome for a given child? We need multidisciplinary approaches; that is my view. We need more SNAs. We are employing more SNAs. There will be up to 25,000. There will be 1,700 extra by September 2026. That is an increase.

Today it has been announced that the Government intends to introduce age restrictions on social media. Most parents around the country will be in favour of that. I have spoken to many children around this and they have said they could do without social media if none of their peers had it. It is the fear of being left out that is the biggest issue for a lot of children in relation to this. I recognise that screens have radically changed childhood in the past ten years: from 24-hour bullying to unhealthy, passive physical inactivity; and from isolation and loneliness to violent pornographic content on their phones on a regular basis. Social media is made as addictive and sticky as possible, and even adults find it very difficult to handle social media. Aontú produced a Bill five years ago that sought to ban the provision of hardcore pornographic material to children. Hardcore pornography companies, some of which operate in this city as part of the Government’s foreign direct investment policy, are providing hardcore material to children. Children experts from all over the world are saying that consumption of hardcore pornographic material by children as young as ten is leading to an increase in sexual violence against women. Indeed, incidents of children sexually abusing other children have significantly increased in this country in recent years. The law, as it stands, is making victims and perpetrators out of children because we are not protecting children from this content. The Ana Kriégel case was one such horrific case. Ana was violently attacked, sexually assaulted and murdered in an abandoned house in Lucan in 2018 by two boys aged 13. An examination of Boy A’s phone revealed that there were 12,000 images on it, the vast majority of which were pornographic in nature. I will not mention some of that content because there are children in the Gallery. You would imagine that particular murder and sexual assault would have jolted the Government into action to protect children from this material, but since then there has been tumbleweed in relation to this material. When we launched our Bill, we got measured tones of shock from the Taoiseach and others, but we got no action on the issue at all. With all the talk of social media and the serious problems in that regard, there is a bigger problem about which there is no talk or action. In the context of our child protection laws, there are dozens of men on a regular basis before our courts who are found with thousands of images of children, abusive material, and videos and photographs of the most serious and explicit nature. On a monthly basis, these individuals get suspended sentences in this country. When it comes to the Government’s initiative in this regard, I am asking the Taoiseach for an holistic, coherent approach to all Internet content for the protection of children.

Certainly, we can have an holistic, integrated approach to what is horrific criminal activity and behaviour in terms of presenting, enabling or facilitating access to hardcore pornographic material for children. That is illegal and against the law, and it will be prosecuted. If, by “integration”, the Deputy means integration with the Courts Service or decisions of judges, we cannot do that because we have the separation of powers. The Deputy knows that. We cannot dictate to judges. We can enact laws and there is work under way in the area of online safety, particularly for children. It is a whole-of-government priority. We want young people and children to be safe online. It was interesting last year that when we brought in the pouches for schools and allocated about €9 million to it, there was an outcry in the Dáil. The Opposition attacked it. I cannot recollect whether Deputy Tóibín attacked it, but the Opposition said it was a waste of money and the wrong thing to do. The Deputy probably did attack it. The point is-----

It was a stupid thing to do.

It actually has worked. It is only one of many things we have to do, but maybe if people stopped the knee-jerk necessity of attacking Government for the sake of it because, from their perspective, they think it is the right thing to do, we could focus on the issue of the protection of children. In that instance, it was to give space to children to allow them to concentrate and socialise within the school environment. It is very good. It has worked and it is a good idea. It is something that Northern Ireland did before us on a pilot basis. We need to do more in terms of age verification and we are looking at integrating an age verification tool into Ireland’s digital wallet. A voluntary pilot is envisaged in the coming months. Coimisiún na Meán is now at the heart of our online safety framework. It has been established fairly quickly in relative terms as our online safety and media regulator under the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022. Europe has enacted the Digital Services Act and the EU terrorist content online regulation. They all form part of our framework. We have an online safety code implemented by Coimisiún na Meán and further work is being done on that. With regard to the European Union, we work with our European Union colleagues in terms of the regulatory environment to make sure we have the strongest possible frameworks in place to protect children. Admhaím gurb é an rud is tábhachtaí ar fad ná leanaí a chosaint. Níl aon amhras go bhfuil dainséar ann. Déanann sé damáiste do leanaí. Caithfidh muid gach aon iarracht é sin a stopadh.

First, the Government’s approach to this is shockingly poor and one-dimensional. It does not cover all of the Internet threats to children at the moment. When it comes to the Government’s plan to create a digital ID, there is no real detail. It is not well thought out and there has been no consultation with stakeholders. I have heard some of the Taoiseach’s party colleagues mention a public service card maybe being at the heart of this. Given that the Government has already broken the law twice with a public service card, I do not think that is a logical idea. The idea that we would mandatorily collect facial biometric data from millions of citizens is an invasive thing in a liberal democracy. There will be significant push-back, I believe, if access to social media is dependent on every individual within society providing materials like passports, etc., to social media companies. For all the critics there are of social media, social media is a public good. I have a different suggestion, and that is to stop young people having smartphones. That is easier to regulate and provide under law. It would go some way in reducing access to the content about which we all have a concern in this Chamber.

The Deputy spent the first three minutes attacking and condemning us and the last minute saying that if we are going to do something to protect children, we had better be careful not to do it. He has his reasons on civil-----

I am offering a solution.

On civil liberty grounds, he is now saying not to do that. Perhaps we need proper engagement in the House. In first three minutes, the Deputy spoke about how terrible we are in not protecting children and so forth. We are coming up with an age verification tool to protect children and he is telling us not to do that if it has implications for civil liberties and so on. That is basically what he is saying. However-----

I also suggested an alternative.

On the alternative, I am not clear about the feasibility of banning mobile phones in their entirety. We did it in schools and the Deputy opposed it.

No.

We did, and the Deputy opposed it.

No. I opposed the spending of €9 million for it.

The Deputy opposed the policy of enabling schools to ban mobile phones in schools and now he is telling me we should ban them all over the country, and for every child-----

Teachers and parents were laughing at the idea.

Thank you. I call on Deputy Aisling Dempsey.

Is the Deputy talking about children aged 12, 14, 15 or 16? Where is the cut-off?

Sixteen. I am saying the cut-off should be 16 years of age.

Sixteen years of age. Okay.

Thank you, Taoiseach. Deputy Dempsey is on her feet.

Yes. No problem.

That will be easy to implement, I would say.

Much easier.

Come on.