Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Feb 2024

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I wish to ask when the Government plans to conduct a review of the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010. Are there plans to prepare a Bill to amend the Act, should it be required, to update the legislation? My understanding is that there is a commitment to review the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 in the programme for Government which has obviously not yet taken place. Not to put too fine a timeline on it but we are skating towards the end of the lifetime of this Government. Revised guidelines were introduced in 2019, which included provisions for increased health and welfare requirements for all puppy and dog breeding establishments. They are not mandatory and, as far as I can tell, there are no consequences for non-compliance. Statistics released by the Department of Rural and Community Development show that 7,352 dogs entered Irish pounds last year, up 77% from 2021. Moreover, 340 dogs were euthanised in Irish pounds - twice as many as in 2021. These shocking figures come as the ISPCA estimates that 30,000 puppies a year are produced in Irish puppy factories. This figure does not take into account the number of puppies born into backyard breeders, illegal puppy farmers or registered sellers which, according to the DSPCA, is around 70,000 per year. This poor regulatory framework has created a €187 million industry and has resulted in Ireland being a huge exporter of puppies to more tightly-regulated countries. Aside from welfare concerns, this industry presents a range of other issues such as tax avoidance, given the high level of cash transactions, environmental concerns due to the high level of waste produced by hundreds of dogs on sites, the spread of disease and fraudulent practices. An overhaul of Ireland's legislation is necessary and has been promised in the programme for Government.

The Dogs Trust is seeking an amendment for a definition of a dog breeding establishment, for example, to cover not fewer than three bitches to ensure the welfare of dogs is protected, with a requirement for any breeding less than that to be registered. The Dogs Trust is calling for the staff-to-dog ratio to be sufficient to meet the welfare needs of all dogs. There are some really worrying statistics. There is up to one person caring for 30 dogs at any given point when you look at the size of some of these factories. Dogs Trust recommends greater alignment with UK licensing systems, for example, to bring all animal activity licensing under one licence and Department. It is calling for the establishment of a fully-trained and qualified national inspectorate to service more than one local authority. We have all probably heard stories, not just at Christmas, around the inspectorate not having the resources, funding or staff to do inspections or else only holding it up to the most severe of cases. The Dogs Trust wants to see new standards introduced for compliance in local authority areas such as standard licensing templates, necessary checks and balances for approval, for example, inspections, approved socialisation programmes for dogs and puppies and strengthening of penalties where non-compliance and cruelty are found. It is also seeking the introduction of a retirement protocol for bitches and stud dogs for all licensed dog breeding establishments.

We need to tighten up legislation including on actual numbers but also enforce that legislation. Vet Tim Kirby said that fundamentally, from an ethical point of view, in the interests, safety and welfare of these dogs, it is abnormal to have them in these environments. Puppies have to be exposed every day to events to be normalised dogs, which is something puppies from very large-scale industrial units do not get. When will the Government go along with what it said in the programme for Government, which is to review the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010? Are there plans to prepare a Bill to amend the Act, should it be required, to update the legislation?

I thank the Senator for her question. I am taking this Commencement matter on behalf of the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Humphreys, who sends her apologies to the Senator for being unable to be present to take the Commencement matter herself. The Department of Rural and Community Development has policy and legislative responsibility for two areas relating to dogs - the Control of Dogs Acts 1986 to 2014 and the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010. Legislative and policy responsibilities in relation to the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 and Control of Dogs Act 1986 transferred to the Department from the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government in July 2017, when the Department of Rural and Community Development was formed. Under the Dog Breeding Establishments Act, local authorities have responsibility for all operational matters. This includes powers in relation to the licensing and inspection of dog breeding establishments.

The Department published dog breeding establishment guidelines in 2018. These guidelines were issued under section 15 (4) of the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010, following a public consultation process, and set standards that must be followed not just in relation to the structures but also the management of the establishment. This extends to exercise, to socialisation, and to enhancement and enrichment of the dogs. The Department officials are reviewing the existing legislative provisions under the 2010 and the Control of Dogs Act taking account of recommendations from, inter alia, the report of the working group on control of dogs; the consultation on the Dog Breeding Establishments Act Oireachtas with stakeholders and experts in the field; the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine; and the outcomes of the public consultation undertaken by the Department in 2019.

Updates to the existing legislation are required and it is proposed that amendments will be made through a control of dogs and dog breeding establishment (miscellaneous provisions) Bill. Among items under consideration for this Bill are the inclusion of additional breeds in the restricted dogs list, updates to definitions contained in the Dog Breeding Establishments Act, and the potential for expansion of this Act. In November the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Humphreys, announced the establishment of an independently chaired high-level stakeholder group that will inform decisions regarding any potential legislative change. The first meeting of the group is scheduled soon and the Minister will be announcing full details of the membership of this group shortly. The group comprises a broad range of expertise including sectoral and academic experts. Groups like Dogs Trust, which the Senator mentioned, and the ISPCA are included and the members will be well placed to identify challenges and solutions in relation to the existing legislation and recommend a way forward.

In addition, the Department of Rural and Community Development collates and publishes annual statistics on local authority dog-related activities. These include, for example, information on stray and unwanted dogs, dog licences, enforcement actions, and the operation of local authority dog shelters and dog breeding establishments. These statistics include the number of inspections carried out on dog breeding establishments. The statistics are available on the gov.ie website and the statistics indicate high levels of inspection for all licensed dog breeding establishments.

In order to further support developments in this work and to provide a strong evidence base to inform policy making, the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, has asked her officials to request additional information from local authorities going forward. This would include the number of puppies born in dog breeding establishments as well as additional information in relation to surrenders. The Senator will be aware that the issues raised require analysis and consultation to ensure amendments are not just robust, fit for purpose and implementable but that they also deliver the best outcomes for communities and for dogs themselves. It is our intention to work closely with stakeholders and experts as the work is progressed and particularly on legislative changes. This may mean that progress might not be as fast as some would like. There is, however, a value in having the conversations now to deliver the improvements that we know are needed.

If I understand correctly what the Minister of State has said a review is currently being undertaken and there is a plan to bring amendments or changes to legislation, that there will need to be changes under the Control of Dog Breeding Establishment Act - forgive me if I did not quite get that - and the first meeting will be held soon. Obviously that is great but is there any idea how long this will take? Is it likely to happen this side of Government or is it foreseen to take a little bit longer? There needs to be zero tolerance for the cruelty or neglect of any puppy or dog. Dogs Trust, the ISPCA and others - myself included - have worked with rescues and we have seen the cruelty and neglect on puppy farms. Dogs Trust has said: "Many mums are so distressed and down shut down when they enter our care that they don't bark or make a sound". It is soul destroying.

It is very positive there is a review on this. I am just wondering if there is any idea of the timeline as to how long this might take.

The Department is reviewing the existing legislative provisions under the Dog Breeding Establishments Act and the Control of Dogs Act to take into account the recommendations from the report of the working group on the control of dogs, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and consultation with stakeholders and experts in the field, which was the outcome of the public consultation undertaken by the Department in 2019.

Updates to the existing legislation will be required and it is proposed that there will be amendments, which should assist with some of the points Senator Hoey mentions, in particular in regard to puppy farms.

I also welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber this afternoon. I raise an issue today with regard to the warmer homes scheme. As she is no doubt aware, the Government's climate action plan was published in November 2021. Among many other very welcome schemes, it included the warmer homes scheme. I have been contacted by a constituent. I would like to put on record the correspondence the person received from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, which, through the warmer homes scheme, provides free home energy upgrades to homeowners who get certain social welfare payments. These upgrades help improve the energy efficiency and warmth of the homes. The constituent who contacted me has mould in the house so there is a necessity for the scheme to be expedited, not just for the environmental outcomes but to help with the personal needs of the people who are probably living in energy poverty at the moment.

For the record, the correspondence the constituent received stated:

Current approximate wait times from initial application until the completion of works on the Warmer Homes Scheme is in the range of 24 months. It is important to be aware that it may take more than a 2 year waiting time before your home is completed. The following are the current approximate wait times for each stage of the application process.

- Survey - Approximately 14 months- Works Completed - Approximately 24 - 26 months from application- Post works BER/Inspection - Approximately 2-3 months after works completed

As per the estimated timeline, the post works BER/Inspection could be 29 months after the application is first made.

The SEAI also stated elsewhere:

We appreciate that the wait time may be disappointing for homeowners, however, the scheme does work within tight parameters and resources. This coupled with a high demand has led to the current wait time.

I do not want to be negative here this morning. I welcome this scheme and all similar schemes, but the wait times I have outlined associated with the application are not acceptable. This is on the back of the climate action plan, which was introduced in 2021. The application I am referring to was made in 2023, which was basically at the outset of the process, or the infancy of the project. The target is for 500,000 houses to be done by 2030. If we have such large wait times at the outset, it is quite obvious that by the time we get further into the decade, by 2027, 2028 and 2029, if the interest remains as it is at present, this process is only going to snowball and God knows what the wait times might. Thankfully, there has been a keen interest and a large uptake and this has been given as the reason for the long wait time

We must also take into consideration that, along with the warmer homes scheme, there is also the local authority retrofit programme and the low-cost energy home loan scheme for people who do not qualify for social welfare. Thankfully, the demand is enormous. There must be manpower issues. When we ask a question we are told how much money is being invested in the programme but money is not always the answer to every problem. There must also be manpower issues relating to bureaucracy and administration staff given the waiting times at the outset of a programme. It leaves a lot of questions to be answered. I hope the Minister of State might have some of those today.

The climate action plan does set out ambitious targets to retrofit the equivalent of 500,000 homes to a building energy rating of B2-cost optimal and the installation of 400,000 heat pumps in existing homes to replace older, less efficient heating systems by the end of 2030. The national retrofit plan sets out the Government's approach to achieving these targets.

Fairness, universality, and customer centricity are three of the key principles of the national retrofit plan.

In line with these principles, the plan recognises that supports are necessary to help households vulnerable to energy poverty to retrofit their homes. The warmer homes scheme, which provides fully-funded energy upgrades for households at risk of energy poverty, is a critical support in that regard.

Increased awareness of the multiple benefits of retrofit and significant improvements to the upgrades provided under the warmer homes scheme has resulted in increased levels, as the Senator said, of demand for this scheme in particular. Approximately 24,000 applications were received by the SEAI in 2022 and 2023. More than 1,600 additional applications were received in January of this year.

The depth and complexity of retrofits provided under the scheme have also increased significantly in recent years. This can be seen in the average cost of upgrades provided, which increased from €2,600 in 2015 to €24,000 last year. Last year, we saw very strong growth in the delivery of energy upgrades under the scheme, with 5,900 homes upgraded. This was an increase of 33% on the number delivered in 2022.

The average waiting time from application to completion of upgrade works for homes completed in 2023 was just under 20 months, which is a decrease from average of 26 months for homes completed in 2022. It is a six-month reduction. The reduction in wait times follows a range of measures introduced by the Department and the SEAI, including: additional staff who have been allocated to the SEAI for the warmer homes scheme; a significantly increased budget allocation; SEAI work to increase contractor output through active contract engagement and management; and actions to address ongoing supply chain and inflationary pressures. In addition, the SEAI established a new €700 million contractor panel in September 2023, which is in place for the next four years. This added seven additional contractors, bringing the total number operating on the panel to 36. The overall spend for 2023 was €157.4 million, which is the highest ever to date under the scheme.

It is also important to note that the worst performing homes are prioritised under the scheme following a Government decision in 2022. This means that homes rated E, F or G on the building energy rating scale are prioritised for works before those with better energy ratings. This also means the support is reaching the homes and households most likely to be affected by energy poverty faster.

In order to further increase the impact of this prioritisation, the SEAI will shortly be going to tender to expand the capacity to carry out BER assessments under the scheme. This year, the budget for the scheme is increased to nearly €210 million. This is the largest allocation ever for this scheme and will support even more households at risk of energy poverty with energy upgrade works in their homes. This includes funding from the European Regional Development Fund.

I welcome the Minister of State’s response and I welcome and appreciate the facts she mentioned with regard to the increased spend and the reduction of six months. However, the reduction of six months to 20 months is still unacceptable. I also welcome the fact that new staff are being recruited. This needs to happen.

The bottom line on this is we can all say we are delighted about the large uptake. However, even with the large uptake, we knew setting out that the target was 500,000. Even with the keen interest, we still will probably not make the 500,000. We knew the target at the outset.

I welcome the changes that have been made but there more is needed. Perhaps there needs to be a root-and-branch look at the entire scheme, the bureaucracy and the application process to help trim some more time along with the six months that has already been trimmed off to reach a more acceptable time.

We all know what happens in Ireland and all over the world. Somebody applies and get the letter that I put on the record today. They talk and other people hear there is such a wait, and it puts those people off applying at all. We need to be putting a positive spin on this.

I acknowledge the Senator's comment on the reduction of time from 26 months to 20 months. It is progress and I think there will be more progress as time goes on. I note he welcomed some of the measures that have been put in place, including around staffing, which hopefully will help. It is important to note there are other schemes as well. Some 700 approved housing body and low-income homes were upgraded under the national home energy upgrade scheme and the community energy grant scheme. I appreciate the points the Senator raised and I will bring them to the attention of the Minister for the environment.

I welcome the Minister of State. This is a matter for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, so I am mindful of that. On 7 February last the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, on the steps of the Iveagh Markets on Francis Street, made a fantastic announcement of a €9 million investment there for works to preserve the building. It would be really fantastic except it is exactly the same announcement that was made on 21 September 2023 by both the Minister, Deputy O'Brien and the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan. From September, Dublin City Council was given the go-ahead to go to tender on the works. The tender was due to be publicised in January this year. There is talk that it will take somewhere up to 18 months. The difficulties in all of this are as follows.

In 2019, the Howley Hayes dilapidations report on the Iveagh Markets stated there was urgency because the building was badly damaged. This building was gifted to the people of Dublin by the then Lord Iveagh as a market for the people of Dublin. It has been allowed to just sit there and rot for an incredible length of time when it could be an amazing tourist pull and facility for the local community. It could be an amazing facility. A beautiful building has been left to stand there rotting. In 2019 it was urgent. This is 2024. In contrast, in February 2023 Dublin City Council put out a report that stated the roof could be preserved. In January 2024, it noted there had been a collapse of part of the roof. On a day-to-day basis, when we receive orange weather warnings and so forth, we are just a day away or a storm away from this entire entity collapsing. Nobody has a sense of urgency. All we get are political statements last September and the same one regurgitated in February this year. Meanwhile, the people who are the friends of the Iveagh Markets, such as James Madigan, Noel Fleming and Kim Olin, who are working from day to day in keeping this on the political agenda and protesting outside City Hall, have heartache to see that this beautiful facility is collapsing.

The other issue to note is that in the announcements for the tender, a two-stage tender is up for offer. One stage to prepare access routes and to make it safe for contractors to go in and do the work. Phase 2, with the 18 months, is to put the premises in such a state that it is ready for regular inspection and maintenance. At the end of the €9 million expenditure - which I note is significantly short of the €12 million estimated cost in the Dublin City Council report, so I wonder where the €3 million is coming from - at the end of that, we still will not have a facility to which the community has access, to which the people of Dublin and of the Liberties in particular have access. There is therefore a false building-up of optimism here indicating that this is only a few months or years away. It is not. That is a fact. I have asked for a schedule of works, what are the next steps, what is going on, to try to establish as a matter of fact what the situation is.

I thank the Senator for her question which, as she pointed out, I am taking on behalf the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Members will be aware of the urban regeneration and development fund, URDF, which is a flagship element of Project Ireland 2040. It was established to support more compact and sustainable development through the regeneration and rejuvenation of Ireland’s five cities and other large towns in line with the objectives of the national planning framework and the national development plan. This will facilitate a greater proportion of residential and mixed-use development to be delivered within the existing built-up footprints of our cities and towns and will ensure that most parts of our urban areas can become attractive and vibrant places in which people choose to live and work, as well as to invest in and visit.

To date, there have been three calls for proposals under the URDF, with more than €1.8 billion provisionally allocated. Calls 1 and 2 are supporting 132 proposals, comprising more than 400 individual projects, while call 3 is supporting the tackling of long-term vacant and derelict properties through a €150 million revolving fund. Under call 1 of the URDF, Dublin City Council received approval for six projects with a funding commitment of €18 million. Under call 2, funding of €174 million was provisionally allocated for the council's two successful proposals, namely, the north inner city concept area 1, to which €121 million is allocated, and the south inner city concept area 1, to which €53 million is allocated. The total funding approved, therefore, under the URDF programme to date in Dublin city comes to €192 million.

Under the third round of funding support, Dublin City Council put forward proposals for essential preservation works to the Iveagh Markets, with an estimated cost of €12 million. Following a detailed review of the proposal, the Department determined that it was in keeping with the aims and objectives of the URDF programme. Consequently, Dublin City Council was approved for a €9.017 million grant for the Iveagh Markets project from the fund.

As the Senator said, the Iveagh Markets building is one of an impressive collection of buildings and places donated to the citizens of Dublin by the Guinness family. However, it is in poor condition due to a combination of neglect and damaging interventions. Parts of the building are now unsafe. The current priority is to prevent further deterioration of this protected structure. Following completion of essential stabilisation and repair work, this significant part of the city's architectural heritage will be secured, allowing Dublin City Council to develop long-term sustainable proposals for its reuse in the future.

The essential stabilisation and repair works required in order to safeguard the structure for future use are estimated to cost €12 million. They consist of the following measures: the backfilling of the site, which was subjected to significant ground removal works in the past, in accordance with archaeological licence conditions; conservation repairs to the roofs, valleys, internal gutters, parapet and large roof lights of the wet market and dry market, including conservation repairs to the access ladders and gantries; conservation repairs or reinstatement of the rainwater disposal system; essential repairs to stabilise the inward leaning parapet of the north-east corner of the markets; essential repairs to stabilise the Diocletian-style arched windows and associated brickwork in the dry market; managing vegetation growth on the site and its structures to ensure it does not further compromise the buildings; protecting and securing the windows and doors; providing safe access to the structure to facilitate a regular inspection and maintenance programme; and identifying and making safe any electrical connections and other utilities in the building.

Dublin City Council has appointed a full design team to manage the project. The works will be carried out in two stages. Stage 1 involves a minor contract for immediate stabilisation works, which will commence in March of the year and finish by early summer. The estimated cost is €200,000. Stage 2 involves comprehensive repair works. They are expected to go to tender and commence onsite by late 2024 and to take up to 18 months to complete.

I thank the Minister of State. The urban regeneration and development fund certainly is a noble undertaking. Two minutes of her statement were taken up with outlining what it involves. That is not the Minister of State's fault; she is merely the messenger. I want to know when the Iveagh Markets building will be of use to the people of Dublin rather than standing there unused. The problem is that it has stood empty for decades and was allowed to deteriorate. It is fantastic that the building is to be stabilised and maintained. The works the Minister of State outlined certainly are urgent. However, we need to move on and we need a plan. The cost of the restoration of the market is €23 million. She said that it is a €12 million project, yet the Minister announced an allocation of €9 million. There is a shortfall. I presume it is being paid by Dublin County Council, and so it should because the neglect was caused under its oversight. It occurred on the council's watch. Addressing that neglect is a matter of urgency and it needs to be done immediately.

We have seen something of a transformation of Francis Street recently, with fantastic public realm works completed. Using the further funds under the URDF, Dublin City Council will be in a position to carry out essential works on the Iveagh Markets building, which is a focal point of the street.

The works now proposed to be carried out by Dublin City Council are not to be confused with those required to allow the building to reopen for use. The current project scope is limited to essential stabilisation repair works necessary to safeguard the structure. The Minister looks forward to seeing the works progress so that the fabric of this beloved building can be restored and its future secured.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach. Gabhaim buíochas léi as ucht teacht anseo. I appreciate that she always deals with areas of special needs with sincerity and honesty. I wish to draw her attention to a lovely school in a rural part of County Roscommon, Granlahan National School on the Roscommon-Mayo border. It is a small school which had 32 pupils in 2022-2023 and 39 in 2023-2024. The projected figure for 2024-2025 is 42. Therefore, this is a school with growing numbers of pupils which is important. They are all people who will be remaining in the area. They are not people who will be moving on.

The problem is that special education hours are proposed to be cut from 22.5 hours to 17.5 hours from September 2024. That is a 22% cut even though enrolment will increase by 25%. This has come as a great shock to the principal and the other teachers there as well to the parents of the pupils. The school never had as much need for this service and certainly does not want it cut because it will lead to all sorts of problems. The school has a number of pupils with a diagnosis and some incoming pupils are undergoing or awaiting assessment. In some circumstances they will have special needs and will need psychological services.

While I know Government is making a great effort to improve these services and ensure all children are looked after, and no doubt in some places figures are improving, there is a danger that some of the smaller schools could lose out as we have seen with what is about to happen in Granlahan National School. It would be tragic if some children in our system could not avail of those services. The teachers and parents have made a huge effort to ensure all children get assistance where they need it and the hours that they have are very valuable and valued. As enrolment is clearly increasing, we certainly cannot cut back on this service.

I will not prolong the issue. It is basic and down to earth. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. I hope the Minister of State will be able to provide some comfort that I can bring back to the school. I await her reply with interest.

I thank the Senator for raising this extremely important issue. I have noted the contents of his contribution.

The current model of allocation was commenced in 2017 on foot of a 2014 NCSE report. The model aimed to move away from a diagnosis-led system of allocation to an identified-need-driven system. This was to provide greater certainty to schools about the additional teaching allocation they would receive. A key attribute was that it provided schools with a greater level of autonomy in managing and deploying the additional teaching allocation to meet identified learning needs within the school.

The Department conducted a review of the model in 2022 to ensure that it was meeting the changing needs in special education. During the review process there was full consultation. The Department sought and listened to the views, concerns and issues raised by our education partners and schools with the existing model. The engagement with our key stakeholders, including staff representatives and management bodies, took place on a number of occasions in order to get feedback on the current model and to take on board the issues that needed to be considered for a revised model. All that feedback was brought into this current allocation.

I wanted to set that out at the outset.

It is also important to say that overall there has been an increase in special education teaching posts throughout the country. We now have 14,600 such posts supporting mainstream classes, which is an increase of 1,000 since the end of the 2021 school year. We should also bear in mind that 98% of children, including those with special educational needs, are educated in mainstream classes. There has, however, been a limited change to the methods used to allocate special education teachers, SETs, to mainstream classes. The allocations to schools issued on 6 February arise from that review. Of all schools throughout the country, 67% have either increased their allocation or retained their previous allocation. Of those schools whose allocation has been decreased, and I appreciate what the Senator said about this particular school, 70% have reduced their hours by five hours or less, which is the situation for Granlahan National School, Ballinlough, County Roscommon.

The SET allocation is designed to distribute additional teaching resources across the entire education system as fairly as possible. The Department, along with stakeholders, is cognisant that the model needs to continue to evolve so that the SET allocations process takes into account new or improved data sources and other changes within the school system. This school has a significantly reduced level of students who have a standard ten, STen, score of 1, 2 or 3 in English and have special education needs in maths on a three-year average basis. These are the categories that get the highest level of support. There are no special classes in Granlahan National School. The Senator said enrolments have gone up slightly but they are relatively stable, although with a small increase. My understanding is this increase is not sufficient to counteract the significant reduction in teaching need as per the standardised test results.

The school can, however, engage with the NCSE to review this, and speak to the special educational needs organiser, SENO, to see if a conversation can be had around it. I would not like the message to be that there is a cut at the school. This is about fairness across the system in general and trying to match the greatest level of need with the number of teachers.

I appreciate the Minister of State's reply. There is nothing I can argue with as such. She is right. However, I said that while there is no doubt that there has been an increase in special education teaching posts throughout the country, it looks like some of these smaller schools could lose out. I appreciate that the school authorities can have conversations with people within the system, including the NCSE and others, but the school knows of people who are being assessed at present and that it will have more need for this service. If that is now being cut, when the school has a greater need for that service, I can appreciate the difficulty it is in.

I will certainly return to the principal to discuss what the Minister of State has stated. It is to be hoped we will be able to get a solution. I am sure the Minister of State will agree that none of us want a situation where any child will lose out. I appreciate what she said about minimum hours and so on but, as I said, for a smaller school that will have increased enrolments in the coming years, and is currently having people assessed, I see its point of view and the problem it has. I will take up the option indicated by the Minister of State to see if we can get a solution to this.

We obviously do not want a situation where a school feels its needs are not being met in order for it to look after children with additional needs. We want to give the supports. The NCSE is there and the school should speak to it. If there are to be future enrolments, of course its allocation will be reviewed. Complex needs are now taken into account in two ways. First, those students who are performing at the lower levels in standardised tests, which indicate the greatest level of need for additional learning support and, second, pupils with more complex needs who have been exempted, or given the highest weight, are considered.

As I said, the SET model allocations will see 30% of schools having no change and 37% seeing an increase. Of those schools, such as the school the Senator Murphy mentioned, that have seen a reduction, 70% have had their hours reduced by five hours or less. The reduction at individual school level is being driven primarily by the change in demographics and reducing enrolments, especially in the primary sector, but that is always subject to review if there are increasing enrolments down the line.