Apologies have been received from Deputy Devine and Senator Ruane. Deputy Ó Murchú will substitute for Deputy Devine for the next few weeks.

I am delighted to open the seventh public meeting of the joint committee. We are starting a new module on education, youth and prevention. Today's session will focus specifically on education, awareness and addiction prevention in schools.

I welcome Ms Gráinne Egan, principal officer, and Ms Celeste O'Callaghan, principal officer, Department of Education and Youth; Ms Maria O'Brien, principal officer, and Mr. Rob O'Toole, principal officer, Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science; Ms Rachel O'Connor, deputy director, National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals, NAPD; Dr. Sarah Craig, director of health information and evidence, and Mr. Brian Galvin, programme manager for drug and alcohol research, Health Research Board, HRB; and Dr. Aisling Sheehan, programme lead, alcohol, mental health and well-being, and Professor Bobby Smyth, consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist in the adolescent addiction service, Health Service Executive, HSE.

Before we begin, I will read a note on privilege. All witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. Members of the committee attending remotely must do so from within the precincts of Leinster House. This is due to the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the place where the Parliament has chosen to sit. In this regard, I ask that members participating via MS Teams confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus prior to making a contribution to the meeting.

The format of today's meeting is that I will invite witnesses to deliver their opening statements to the committee. Following that, I will call on members to put questions to the witnesses. All opening statements have been circulated to members and will be published on the Oireachtas website after this session. As agreed, we will limit each opening statement to five minutes to allow plenty of time for questions and answers. I am conscious that a wide range of issues will be subject to discussion today. If necessary, further and more detailed information on certain issues can be sent to the clerk to the committee for circulation to members. Members will be in and out of the committee meeting as they are required to be in other places so I ask witnesses for their forgiveness about that.

I invite Ms Egan to give her opening statement on behalf of the Department of Education and Youth.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the invitation to attend today to discuss the important issue of addiction prevention, education and awareness in schools. The Department’s focus is on facilitating children and young people through learning to achieve their full potential. In that context, a number of areas across the Department’s that connect with addiction prevention and the many factors that play a part in it. These include curriculum, social inclusion, and youth work in particular.

In regard to the curriculum, drugs prevention is addressed within the subject area of social, personal and health education, SPHE. Across primary and post-primary stages, the curriculum specifications for SPHE have been recently updated. Research and consultation are core elements of the curriculum development process. SPHE aims to equip students with the skills, understanding and knowledge to navigate the world around them, including the online world. The focus is a positive one, supporting students to be able to make good decisions. At all levels of schooling, there are multiple strands within SPHE addressing a range of issues in a way that is designed to be appropriate to the age and stage of development of the learners. Learning outcomes that relate to substance misuse and addiction are included in the health-related strands of each specification, including developing an understanding of the risks and consequences of different addictive behaviours; discussing the societal, cultural and economic influences that affect young people’s choices about smoking, alcohol and other addictive behaviours; building young people’s skills and strategies for managing peer pressure in situations involving substances; understanding the science of addiction and the consequences of different kinds of addiction; and building help-seeking skills and awareness of where to find information, support and help.

Learning across SPHE is interconnected in nature and, in addition to the specific learning outcomes that relate to substance misuse, SPHE includes significant learning about mental health and emotional well-being which supports young people in building healthy coping strategies for dealing with challenging situations. Given the nature of SPHE, teacher competence and confidence are central to teaching and learning. Oide, the professional learning service for teachers, provides a range of professional learning experiences to support the updated SPHE curriculum specifications. In the 2024-25 school year, more than 2,400 teachers have attended training on either senior cycle or junior cycle SPHE teaching and this significant level of provision continues to be rolled out.

In addition, teaching and learning resources are being continually developed and updated through a partnership between the HSE, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, and the Department. These are available as online toolkits and equip teachers to teach all aspects of the SPHE curriculum. In 2025, over €50 million was allocated to UBU Your Place Your Space, which is a youth service funding scheme that targets young people aged between 10 and 24. The scheme provides funding to 249 targeted youth services across the 16 education and training boards. While all 249 UBU services contribute to providing young people with positive options for their personal, social and recreational needs, the Matt Talbot Adolescent Services and the Limerick Youth Service Community Drug Education and Prevention Project are two services specifically aimed at drug prevention and support for young people.

The Department also provides funding for two local drug task force projects. Blanchardstown Early School Leavers is a local response to significant numbers of young people aged between 12 and 16 in the area who were not in education. Familibase in Ballyfermot primarily provides an early intervention and prevention service working with children, young people and families affected by parental substance misuse or mental health issues. In addition, the Department provides funding to the Talbot Centre for an education worker. The centre is a free support service for children, young people and families affected by the misuse of drugs and alcohol based in Dublin’s north inner city.

The delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS, programme is a key policy initiative of Government to address concentrated disadvantage. As the committee members are aware, it is a goal of this Government to reduce educational disadvantage. DEIS provides additional support to schools with the highest levels of educational disadvantage, seeks to improve education outcomes, tackles intergenerational disadvantage and empowers children and young people to achieve their full potential. The DEIS programme supports almost 1,200 schools and 260,000 children and young people with an annual investment of over €180 million. Additional funding secured in budget 2026 for the implementation of the new DEIS strategy, and particularly the new DEIS plus scheme, is a further positive step in this Government’s commitment to lift more children and young people out of poverty and give them the futures they deserve.

Ms Egan, we are a minute over. I might come back to you at the end to finish because the section on home-school liaison is so important, if that is okay.

That is fine.

Thank you so much for your contribution.

I invite Ms O'Brien to make her contribution.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before it. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to its important work under the second module on education, youth and prevention and to speak to the theme of education, awareness and addiction prevention in schools. The Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science has a central role in ensuring that our further and higher education institutions foster safe, inclusive, and healthy learning environments for all students.

Within the higher education sector, the Higher Education Authority’s, HEA, healthy campus charter and framework provide the foundation for a whole-campus approach to well-being. This approach encourages institutions to address locally identified student needs in alignment with national health priorities including alcohol, drug and tobacco use, as well as mental health. The healthy campus self-evaluation tool enables each institution to assess its progress in areas such as governance, campus culture, communication and health focus areas. Through this structured process, colleges can identify and strengthen their responses to substance use, addiction prevention, and related risk behaviours.

The Department and the HEA also work closely with colleagues in the Department of Health, HSE and Health Research Board to promote data-driven, evidence-based interventions. A recent example is the E-SHEILD project led by University College Cork, which builds on the national framework for response to the use of illicit substances in higher education. This initiative empowers students and institutions alike to take leadership roles in prevention, education and early intervention. Across the system, institutions are embedding health and well-being supports, from addiction recovery and counselling services to peer-led awareness campaigns and digital well-being tools. These efforts complement the national student mental health and suicide prevention framework, which is currently being updated to reflect the latest evidence and best practice.

Within further education and training, or FET, a wide range of programmes aim to raise awareness and reduce harm for individuals, families and communities, including young people. Across all FET provision, policies and procedures on drug use are in place. Each education and training board, or ETB, has an overarching drug use policy, which individual FET centres then adapt to meet their specific needs, supported by detailed procedures. While large-scale, impactful preventative education is challenging in many parts of FET, where there are short-term and part-time courses, targeted initiatives are making an impact. The Youthreach programme is important in this effort. Serving 7,000 early school leavers annually, Youthreach provides two years of education and training in a safe, supportive environment. Social, personal and health education in Youthreach covers drug awareness alongside mental health, well-being, and decision-making. Many centres partner with local drug task forces and other specialist agencies to deliver workshops and counselling. For example, Blanchardstown Community Training Centre is grant-funded by its ETB to deliver the Youthreach programme. It works with the local drugs and alcohol task force and the D15 community addiction team to provide programmes such as Know Before You Buy, which raises awareness about the dangers of drug debt and criminal networks.

Preventative education also extends to justice workshops for individuals engaged with the criminal justice system. Funded by the Probation Service and supported by ETBs through tutor co-operation hours and other supports, these workshops often include drug education for both prevention and recovery. Dublin and Dún Laoghaire ETB, for instance, supports such workshops in Clondalkin, Dún Laoghaire, and Tallaght.

Community education plays a vital role in reaching those who have faced barriers to traditional learning. SOLAS funding for community education has grown significantly in recent years, from €11 million in 2018 to over €17 million in 2025. In addition, a wide range of community education projects are supported through SOLAS's reach and ALL collaboration and innovation funds, with allocations of €4.5 million and €1 million in 2025, respectively. A significant share of funded projects focus on drug education, including preventative education. The Matt Talbot Community Trust in Ballyfermot is a strong example. It is supported by City of Dublin ETB with tutor co-operation hours and a Reach fund grant and offers person-centred supports, workshops, and peer-led discussions to support people in recovery.

Finally, addiction studies courses are available across FET, from Level 5 modules in community development to programmes delivered in prison education units. Such programmes not only raise awareness but also provide pathways for individuals in recovery to progress in education and contribute to prevention efforts within communities and amongst young people. While challenges remain, ETBs and their partners play an important role in delivering preventative education across Youthreach, justice workshops, community education, in prison settings and other parts of FET.

A Chathaoirligh, the Department recognises that prevention and education are most effective when delivered collaboratively; linking policy, research, and lived experience. We are committed to continuing this partnership approach so that every learner, across every part of our education system, can achieve their full potential in a safe and supportive environment. I thank the committee for the invitation and for considering this submission from the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science.

I thank Ms O'Brien so much for your contribution.

I invite Ms O'Connor to give her opening statement.

On behalf of the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals, I thank the committee for the opportunity to represent the voice of post-primary school leaders. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important national conversation on education, awareness and addiction prevention in our schools. NAPD represents the leaders of second-level schools across all sectors. As school principals and deputy principals we are not only tasked under the Education Act 1998 with managing schools, but we also endeavour to lead learning, foster equity, and provide opportunities for growth and development for every student.

Schools acknowledge that their role is to meet the needs of their students academically, socially, holistically and pastorally. Every day in our schools we see at first hand the challenges and opportunities facing young people as they navigate adolescence. They are growing up in a complex and often pressurised environment, one that demands not only academic achievement but also resilience, emotional awareness and responsible decision-making. Schools, therefore, play a central role in supporting the well-being and personal development of all students.

We believe education plays an important role in addiction prevention. Schools are trusted spaces where young people can explore issues openly, build critical thinking skills, and learn to make informed choices. In addressing substance use and addiction prevention, our approach must be grounded in education that enables rather than simply instructs. Education is the key that develops understanding, confidence and fosters agency. In addition, it also must be recognised that schools are not medical establishments, they are not treatment centres and they are not counselling clinics; they are in fact schools whose primary responsibility is the delivery and support of learning. The recently redeveloped senior cycle SPHE curriculum provides an essential framework for this work.

It adopts a holistic and evidence-based approach to well-being, relationships and responsible decision-making. The curriculum enables students to examine topics such as mental health, risk behaviour and substance use through dialogue, reflection and critical analysis. Importantly, it moves beyond the delivery of information towards the development of life skills, self-awareness, empathy and the ability to seek help. In doing so it equips our young people with the personal and social competencies that act as protective factors against addiction and substance misuse.

The work of schools in this area aligns closely with the Department of Education and Youth’s well-being policy and framework for practice and with the wider youth strategy for education, both of which place the well-being of young people at the heart of the educational experience. These policies recognise that well-being is not a stand-alone subject but is the responsibility of the whole school community. They also highlight the importance of collaboration between schools, parents, youth services and community and health agencies in promoting addiction prevention and early intervention. As school leaders, we fully support this joined-up approach.

The challenges associated with addiction cannot be addressed by schools in isolation, they require sustained partnership across sectors. Most schools have an operational student support team. This team involves all of the significant school personnel to support the student, for example, the principal and-or the deputy, the career guidance counsellor, the year head, the special needs co-ordinator and other qualified or interested teachers. The student support team meets regularly and implements school-based interventions to support the engagement of a student with their learning in school. There are, however, limits to what the student support team can do to support students. Schools are only available to students during their opening hours from Monday to Friday and for 166 school days in the year. In addition, it is particularly concerning if a student is not attending school, which is a common consequence for students experiencing trauma or having significant personal issues. Additionally, it is fair to say the majority of schools do not have access to a home school community liaison teacher. This presents particular difficulties for schools connecting with the home to positively collaborate in the best interests of the student.

Across the post-primary sector significant and commendable work is already under way. Teachers deliver SPHE and well-being programmes with professionalism and commitment. Many schools engage external agencies and guest speakers to complement classroom learning, with lived experience and specialist knowledge. However, we must acknowledge the ongoing challenges that impact the consistency and depth of this work. These include timetabling pressures with an already demanding curriculum, variations in provision and access to specialist supports across schools, and the need for sustained professional development so that teachers feel confident in facilitating sensitive and complex discussions around addiction, mental health and personal responsibility. Addiction prevention is most effective when embedded within a whole school culture that promotes inclusion, belonging and respect. School policies on well-being, relationships and behaviour must be coherent, consistent and rooted in care. Equally, the broader senior cycle framework provides a timely opportunity to strengthen the role of well-being within the curriculum. Embedding prevention and resilience as part of our educational vision rather than as a single programme or initiative is key to long-term impact.

We respectfully propose that the committee support continued investment in SPHE, well-being and teacher professional development, facilitate stronger interagency collaboration between education, youth and health sectors, recognise schools as key partners in national addiction prevention efforts and ensure that the voices of young people continue to inform policy and practice in this area. Education remains our most powerful tool for addiction prevention by equipping young people with the knowledge, skills and confidence to make positive choices. We help them to build not only healthier lives but stronger communities and a safer future for all.

The Health Research Board, HRB, welcomes the invitation to attend this Joint Committee on Drugs Use and to present some of its work in relation to drug use and intervention and prevention strategies. The HRB is an established statutory agency with a history of involvement in drug and alcohol research and providing expertise and evidence for policy in this area. The organisation’s expertise and capacity to provide evidence is recognised by policymakers as an essential asset in policy formation in the drugs area. HRB staff have worked very closely with policymakers on successive drug strategies and participated in important policy implementation committees such as the steering group, working on the new national drug strategy, and the Citizens' Assembly on Drugs Use in 2023.

The HRB manages two national surveillance systems that collect, analyse and report data on entries to alcohol and drug treatment and deaths in which drugs, including alcohol, are a contributing factor. Data from these systems form an important evidence base for policy and practice in relation to drugs and alcohol. The HRB is Ireland’s national focal point to the European Union Drugs Agency, and as part of its European reporting requirements, epidemiologists and social researchers based in the HRB provide information on key health indicators related to drug use and its consequences. We also report on drug markets, drug-related crime and responses to the drug situation, including treatment, harm reduction services and prevention. Our relevance to the work of the joint committee lies in our recognition as a trusted voice for high-quality data and evidence that is used to inform policy practice and ultimately to positively impact on the health and well-being of society.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak today. We will outline the challenges of substance use among young people in Ireland, the importance of education and awareness within our wider prevention approach, and how we can further strengthen our collective response.

In Ireland, approximately two thirds of young people engage in hazardous or binge drinking. Irish research shows that early initiation of alcohol increases the risk of other substance use, with high-risk alcohol use doubling the odds of other drug use. Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug amongst young people. Some 12% of 16-year-olds and 59% of 20-year-olds have used it. Approximately 28% have tried other drugs. We also see rapid growth in vaping and concerns about gambling addiction. Cannabis is the most common substance used among 17- to 20-year-olds treated for problematic drug use. Our recent study found cannabis use was associated with early use of alcohol, smoking and e-cigarettes. Peer use and peer pressure were strong predictors of use.

These patterns highlight the importance of early, sustained prevention in all settings, especially schools, colleges, communities and homes, where we can equip parents and build resilience skills and confidence before risky behaviours are born. Prevention efforts must also consider the wider building blocks needed for good health and well-being, including fair pay, good working conditions, good housing and access to quality education.

In public health, we describe prevention across three levels. Primary prevention focuses on stopping problems before they start, secondary prevention involves early detection and providing support to prevent escalation, and tertiary prevention addresses existing problems through treatment and recovery supports, aiming to reduce harm and minimise long-term impact. Prevention of substance misuse operates through environmental measures, such as the enforcement of laws and regulations governing the availability of drugs and alcohol and creating youth spaces that make healthy behaviours easier, as well as universal interventions, including national information resources such as the HSE’s website, and the Department of education’s actions in schools, and targeted and indicated interventions for young people and communities at higher risk, such as early school leavers and children of substance users. The HSE delivers drug and alcohol information through drugs.ie, askaboutalcohol.ie and the HSE drug and alcohol helpline. In 2024, there were 6,488 contacts to the helpline, and the web content on alcohol and drugs attracted more than 700,000 site visits.

Online resources include guides for parents and public webinars, including a recent webinar for parents on vaping and canabanoids. In schools, HSE health and well-being supports the Department of Education and Youth in the implementation of the well-being policy and framework for practice. The HSE has co-developed resources for junior and senior cycle SPHE in partnership with the Department of education, the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, and the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA. Work is in progress to further develop resources for the senior cycle SPHE, providing 60 learning hours over two years that will be mandatory for all schools from 2027. These support young people to develop resilience, critical thinking and confidence to make informed decisions. For the senior cycle, the HSE, Department of education and drug and alcohol task forces jointly developed Know the Score, the evidence-based substance use prevention education programme. This provides 14 interactive lesson plans designed to help young people make conscious, informed decisions about alcohol and drugs. An independent evaluation, funded by the Department of health is under way and will inform future content. The HSE and the Department of Education and Youth provide professional teacher training and learning, reaching approximately 1,000 teachers each year, including training on Know the Score, skills for facilitating SPHE, and new training on mental health and emotional well-being education, developed with NEPS and the NCCA.

In higher education settings, the HSE supported the creation and implementation of the Higher Education Authority’s healthy campus charter and framework. Another initiative funded by the Department of Health's drug prevention and education funding programme is the E-SHEILD programme, which supports students and higher education institutions to reduce both the harms experienced through drug use and the number of students choosing to take drugs. A national implementation of the framework for addressing the use of illicit substances in higher education colleges will commence in 2026. These are important, given that the majority of people who use ketamine and cocaine commence taking them between the ages of 18 and 20.

While education is a key setting for prevention, actions are also required in family, social, community, online and policy settings. Those who enter the workforce straight from school and early school leavers also require preventative interventions. Given the association between mental health difficulties and substance use, we also support the implementation of our national mental health policy Sharing the Vision, and the HSE's child and youth mental health office action plan. A strong prevention system relies on co-ordinated, interagency work across education, health, child and family, youth and community sectors. Structures that support this include drug and alcohol task forces and children and young people’s services committees, who lead a range of interagency prevention initiatives such as Planet Youth and Communities That Care. However, Ireland's current prevention efforts vary geographically and may not fully reflect best practice or population needs.

To design an effective and equitable national approach to prevention, we must understand the underlying causes of drugs and alcohol use in Ireland and the strengths and limitations of current responses. Public health in the HSE is currently leading a national needs assessment for drugs and alcohol prevention to answer these questions. That will be concluded in 2026 and will inform HSE prevention efforts as well as supporting the implementation of the forthcoming national drug strategy and Healthy Ireland strategy. Early findings indicate a lack of comprehensive national infrastructure for drug prevention, with gaps in resourcing, training, staff support, research and evaluation.

To strengthen our collective response to prevention, we need to apply a health-in-all-policies approach across the health, education, justice and community sectors to create a coherent and supportive prevention environment and address the broader determinants of substance use. We also need to build a prevention system and workforce, and invest in environmental, universal and targeted prevention initiatives. We need to complete the HSE's national needs assessment for drugs and alcohol prevention and develop an implementation plan to act upon its findings. We need to continue to support the frameworks of the Department of Education and Youth and the Higher Education Authority. We also need to ensure programmes are evidence-informed, consistently implemented with quality and adequately resourced to deliver at scale nationally, while allowing for flexibility to meet the needs and contexts of local communities. Prevention works best when it begins early, is sustained and is supported by the whole community, with schools, families, services and policy systems working together. The HSE is committed to collaborating with partners to achieve this.

I thank the witnesses for being here today. Before I went into politics, my career for more than 30 years was in the area of education. I worked for QQI, and HETAC and FETAC. I recognise the value of the work all of the witnesses do, and the importance for our young people of having a decent education system. I also recognise that addiction is not caused in a vacuum and we need to make sure we have measures in place that give people the tools to deal with it. We usually run out of time and do not get around to all of the questions, so I am glad that all of the presentations were so comprehensive. I have a few questions I would like to ask. We will see how we get through them.

My first question is for the Department of Education and Youth. I recognise its role and how central it is to the development of policy and delivering programmes. What was its engagement with the Department of Health in drafting the forthcoming strategy? Did it have any input and, if so, how in depth was this? I am concerned to hear that DEIS schools have been closed to new applicants and that only DEIS plus applicants that already have DEIS status are up and running. If that is the case, it is a very regressive step.

My next question is for the Department of further and higher education. Is there scope or an agreed process to ensure students at third level who come forward looking for help are not penalised or flagged because they have done so? What education programmes are available in prisons? How successful have they been?

I also have a question for the HRB. The original Rabbitte report put heroin in the context of marginalised communities. That was the first time it was recognised that poverty and socioeconomic marginalisation contribute to addiction. Is this still the considered opinion? Has that changed? Does the drug crisis remain mainly in marginalised communities?

On the list the NAPD provided, how can we help to facilitate stronger interagency collaboration between education, youth and health services? How do the witnesses see that working?

Deputy Graves asked about our engagement with the Department of Health on the drugs strategy. Our Department was a member of the steering group for the previous strategy for the period 2017 up to this year. We worked quite closely together. We had a number of actions in it, which are similar to what was outlined in the opening statement. We are awaiting the next stage of engagement on the new national drugs strategy. We are ready and willing to engage with the Department of Health, but it has not happened as yet.

It has not happened.

We have not had engagement on the new strategy at this stage but, as has been said, we do have a lot of engagement with the HSE in the context of support for the work we are doing. We see our role in the next strategy as building on the work we are doing on the curriculum and inclusion. It is in these areas where we see our engagement.

The Minister committed to publishing a new DEIS strategy and details of the DEIS plus scheme before the end of this year. The DEIS strategy will set out the Department's strategic direction for improving opportunities and achievement levels for children at risk of educational disadvantage. It will develop more innovative approaches to tackling education disadvantage. The DEIS strategy will be published before the end of this year.

In the meantime is DEIS closed to new applicants?

It was never open to applicants because the DEIS identification model was applied consistently across the board to all schools. Schools were then selected for inclusion in the new DEIS based on their concentrated level of disadvantage. It will also apply for the DEIS plus scheme. There will not be an application process for schools.

With regard to the study on poverty, the HRB has done some work with Pobal to look at its deprivation index and link it with our drug treatment data. We are updating this in order that there will be more information available, hopefully early next year. Certainly the previous study had a high correlation between areas of high deprivation and presentation for treatment.

There have always been certain areas identified as having high drug use and addiction, but now we know that every village and town is affected in some way, and there are no services. Is this still considered to be an issue for marginalised areas. Many of us know that is not necessarily the case. Perhaps it is worse in marginalised areas, but it is affecting everybody.

Our service deals with young people for whom prevention has failed and who end up needing addiction treatment services.

We see young people from every sector of society. If we go back a couple of steps towards some of the survey data, such as Dr. Margaret Brennan's recent research looking at the Growing Up in Ireland data about people's initial steps into drug use, we see there is no socioeconomic gradient at the age of 20. If there is any slight gradient, it is that young people from wealthier backgrounds are potentially more likely to step into cocaine use. Therefore, the relationship between drug use and deprivation that was genuinely extremely strong for drugs like heroin in the past remains strong for drugs like crack cocaine now, but for all other drugs, their usage is pretty much universal across the board.

I thank Deputy Graves. She can come back for a second round. Deputy Sherlock is next on the list.

I thank all the witnesses very much. I want to say a particular "Hello" to the representatives from the Health Research Board. I thank them for all their work because that data is vital in terms of us understanding what the picture is.

My first set of questions is to the Department of education and NAPD. The point has been made that, obviously, not every school has a home-----

HSCL.

Yes Obviously, we very much welcome DEIS plus. We are going to see it announced over the coming weeks and we look forward to seeing the list of what schools are going to be included and all of that. However, I want to ask about the non-DEIS schools. I am thinking of, for instance, special schools that deal with emotional behavioural difficulties, particularly severe emotional behavioural difficulties. Most, if not all, of the children in those schools are presenting with behaviours arising from trauma or other issues in their home or community environment. There are not any of the facilities or provisions that are made for DEIS schools available to special schools working with those children who are there because of the trauma they have experienced. I would like to hear from the NAPD and, in particular, the Department. From the Department's perspective, do the witnesses see a lacuna in the supports it puts in place? I am conscious that the conversation today is about awareness and addiction prevention, but I would like to think we are also talking about the children who are living in a household with addiction, how they are supported and the role of the Department of education in that. I will go first to the NAPD, though.

I thank the Deputy for that. It is not only special schools that are not in the DEIS programme. It could be commonplace in a town that there is a post-primary school that is not designated DEIS for whatever reason yet has four feeder DEIS primary schools. That leads to a lack of key personnel. Schools are doing their very best in terms of the early intervention piece and engaging with the HSE, Know the Score, social, personal and health education, SPHE, and so on. However, there needs to be personnel on the ground to implement and roll out these programmes. For example, we still have not gone to full restoration of guidance counselling in our schools. We do not have home school community liaison people in our schools. I was principal a post-primary DEIS school for ten years and, given where it was, I had the wealth of all of these supports, including the school completion programme. It was a rural DEIS 1 band school, so it had a full myriad of complications exactly as the Deputy described.

To go back to the other Deputy's question about interagency support, that is in addition to what we do in schools. The other agencies need the capacity to deal with what we refer to them. If we cannot deal with something in school in the first instance because we are lacking these key personnel, we are up to nothing. We can only work with the hand we are dealt. We do not choose to be in or out of DEIS. Every school would love to have DEIS status.

Of course.

It gives a lower pupil-teacher ratio, access to resources, greater funding and so on. Unfortunately, we do not all have access to it.

Just to be clear, we accept that not every school can be DEIS even though we might want those supports. With regard to special schools that are specifically dealing with children who have additional needs because of severe emotional behavioural difficulties and that cannot access those services, do Ms O'Callaghan and Ms Egan believe there is a gap there?

I will come in briefly to say it is a little bit difficult to say without maybe having an awareness of examples of specific schools-----

Well, it-----

-----but there are things in place that would support those schools. There is a strong focus on well-being overall, so the well-being policy and framework for practice would apply to all schools. The kinds of support that come through that and the National Educational Psychological Service would be available. However, it can depend on the specific gaps the Deputy is thinking of. Are we thinking of things like ensuring that people have trauma-informed training and so on so that there is trauma-informed training across a whole range of different areas both within well-being and also the youth side? There are those kinds of support but, obviously, if there are schools with specific challenges, we could answer a bit more specifically on that. Does Ms Egan want to mention the home school community liaisons?

The special schools have got support as well. There are also resources and supports from the National Council For Special Education, NCSE, for those schools.

In relation to the home school community liaison co-ordinators, DEIS is built on the basis that it is supporting the schools that are serving the highest concentrations of students that are experiencing educational disadvantage. The HSCL is a key support under the DEIS programme. The HSCL is allocated to DEIS schools. Currently, we have 528 HSCLs in the system, supporting 628 DEIS primary and post-primary schools.

I thank the witnesses. I have other questions I will ask in the second round. I will give an example. I apologise because, obviously, I am bringing a different angle to the conversation, but I believe it is important. There is a school in the constituency the Cathaoirleach and I are in called Casa Caterina. It is a severe emotional and behavioural difficulty, SEBD, special school. All the children there are attending because of the challenging behaviours they present arising from trauma that almost all of them have experienced. They have no access to the school completion programme. They have no access to home school liaisons. They have no access to all the other provisions we have put in place for a DEIS school. I would see that as a gap because notwithstanding that they have lower teacher-to-pupil ratios and that they have special needs assistants, SNAs, in the classroom, there is also a glaring need and, indeed, an absence of those specific provisions that are in place for every other DEIS school across the country. Since it is not a DEIS school, it cannot gain access to them. I know that other officials in the Department are aware of this and I would love to continue that conversation with the witnesses another time.

I thank Deputy Sherlock. The next contributor is Senator Ryan.

I welcome everybody. It is lovely to see them here. My question is around external providers and facilitators. I worked in schools for almost ten years, primarily with secondary schools, working with principals, second level transition year, TY, co-ordinators and SPHE teachers providing services in the drugs space around being an external facilitator for that. This question is primarily for Ms O'Connor, but it is open to everybody as well to see what their feelings are. Does Ms O'Connor believe there should be an external database of external providers that are evidence based and quality assured? From working in it, one of the huge things the teachers would always speak about was the fear and confidence around teaching about substance misuse. If a student were to ask them a question and they did not know the answer, it is like the world would end. It was a confidence issue, but equally one of timing. An SPHE teacher might be teaching business, English and Irish and then going in to their pupils and talking about sex and drugs. They are just horrified. Does Ms O'Connor think there should be a database? Is the Department maybe looking at a database of external providers? We have Know the Score and all these programmes, but schools are still going to rely on external facilitators because they bring something a little bit different than the curriculum does.

Absolutely. It is important to bear in mind that it is only very recently that Dublin City University, DCU, for example, introduced SPHE as a core subject for people to become qualified in as teachers.

Then, as with any teacher - and I was a Gaeilge and geography teacher many moons ago - you also seek an expert external to your subject. That would be absolutely worthwhile, particularly in the SPHE space. There is a huge legacy of people in our system who are not technically qualified SPHE teachers but who may have upskilled through the programmes that Oide and other entities provide. There is a legacy in the system of teachers who are not confident. They are almost like timetable fillers. Schools ask who is left over and who they can get to teach these core subjects. It has changed dramatically over the past couple of years. To be able to lean in to a database where the drugs prevention, the relationships and sexuality or whatever other aspects could be identified would be very worthwhile and very helpful for schools.

Why has that not been established to date?

From the Department's perspective, I will come back on a couple of things that connect with that. Following the revision of the SPHE curriculum, we now have a fairly up-to-date curriculum from primary through to senior cycle. That curriculum is mandatory, for the first time, at senior cycle, which is a significant step forward. We have placed a real focus on training teachers to support that. In the 2024-25 school year, 2,400 teachers availed of the training that was provided by Oide in respect of the junior cycle SPHE specification and the senior cycle specification. It is really important that teachers have the skill, competence and confidence to deliver that specification. They know their students. There is a large piece about the professionalism of the teacher in determining what is appropriate for the age, stage and the context of the class in front of them. There are many sensitive issues, and there will be different contexts around some of this teaching in different schools in various areas. All of that needs to be taken into account. The other important piece we are doing is working with the HSE, the NCCA and NEPS in relation to resources to support the teaching of SPHE. There are online toolkits for all of these. The resources that are there are available for teachers to draw on to support them in delivering the specific learning outcomes-----

I get that, but what I am talking about is the external facilitators. What Ms O'Callaghan is saying is that the onus is on teachers.

I am saying that is the optimum. Obviously, schools will avail of the services of external practitioners. We are aware of that, and we give them guidance in respect of it. The NCCA liaises with different organisations in relation to resources and makes resources available. Where there are resources that could be made available for teachers, it could be done by means of that method as well. We have not developed a specific database in respect of external providers. There are a huge number of external providers. While we give guidance to schools, it would be about engaging with those providers to try to determine which of them would make the list. There are a lot of different aspects involved. It is not something we have attempted. We have put our focus on trying to upskill the teachers and support them.

Definitely. When we talking about drugs, however, there are not a whole pile of external providers-----

Right.

-----that come in. There are, maybe, many when it comes to mental health and sexual health consent, but in the context of substance misuse in the secondary school space, there are not a whole bunch of external providers. As a result, it would not be too difficult to create a database. It is just for schools to be able to say that they need external help. Obviously, in an ideal world, the teachers in a perfect school that has all the resources would be able to teach it themselves. That is not the reality, however. Many schools are at a disadvantage depending on the areas in which they are located and how many students and teachers they have. As a result, they rely on external providers. Regardless of whether the best models are there, they will still use external providers. Would there be no place for a database in order that they can-----

That is not something we have looked at to date. As with everything, we would take that away and consider it. Our first focus has been on the teachers and the resources to support them, but, in that context, we would certainly look at what else is out there.

Would Dr. Sheehan like to comment on that?

The HSE very much supports the Department of education in its efforts around trying to build the skills, competencies and confidence of teachers. I completely take the point around there being a need for additional supports and targeted interventions. In the work the HRB is doing at the moment in trying to map prevention initiatives across the country and ourselves in the HSE public health, looking to see, from a needs assessment perspective, what is happening, what are the strengths and where are the gaps, we can see there are parts of the country where that external support is there, be it through HSE education officers or drug and alcohol task forces with dedicated prevention education officers. However, we see that it is patchy and that it is not always using the most evidence-based approaches.

The Department of Health is rolling out some training around the prevention curriculum of the European Union Drugs Agency and that compiles the evidence-base from an international perspective on what is effective in schools. We also have some really good practices and some home-grown initiatives in Ireland. Off the top of my head, there is an initiative in the mid-west, namely the Let’s Learn about Drugs and Alcohol Together programme, that is being run in schools and that works with parents. There are sessions with parents and young people as well. The challenge for us is not having a national infrastructure to identify the good practice where it is happening and also as regards support. We hear a lot on the ground about there being a challenge in getting access to funding to do data analysis research, etc., to build the evidence base in some of those home-grown projects. From our perspective, we would really love to see the development of an infrastructure to support communities to select evidence-based prevention programmes that meet the needs of their local contexts. Adaptations may be required to put those evidence-based approaches into settings.

A HRB study on prevention services in Ireland did a piece of work with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in trying to assess the extent to which our prevention services are adhering to those stringent standards. That survey is nearing completion. It will not have the database that the Senator is thinking about, but at least we will be able to identify those services that provide this input in schools and whether their work is based on the standards, evidence and so on. It is not exactly what the Senator is talking about, but it is in that space.

I thank Senator Ryan. Deputy Burke is up next.

I thank all the witnesses for the work they are doing in this area. It is quite a complex area in which there are many challenges. I also thank them for their presentations.

Ms O'Callaghan spoke about the briefing of 2,400 teachers who have attended training. We are talking about people who already have experience before they access training. Is there any feedback from them as regards how the service and the supports in our schools could be improved? Obviously, it is a two-way process. Any training is about getting information out and helping people to deal with issues. What is the level of feedback as regards areas they have identified that may not be incorporated into the training?

I will come in on that. The training of the 2,400 to whom I referred is provided by Oide in respect of the SPHE curriculum at junior and senior cycle. That figure relates to the teachers who have attended both of those training courses. The feedback has been very positive. Oide has reported that teachers are happy with the training and that it is providing them with a very good insight and a very good introduction to the teaching of SPHE. Some teachers who attend the training would already be SPHE teachers and are availing of it in order to teach the updated curriculum; then others would be new to SPHE.

On the supports schools want, I was in a secondary school in the past few weeks where 20% of the students would be regarded by the teachers as being at risk. I wonder about the additional supports for teachers who will be required to deal with situations like that. The school in question is in a DEIS area.

Do we have adequate supports, and is there further work we can do to provide those supports for teachers?

I will hand over to Ms Egan.

NEPS provides a lot of support to schools. That includes general support and advice from a NEPS psychologist either through the school's assigned NEPS psychologist or through the NEPS advisory support line. The NEPS advisory support line provides access to schools that do not have an assigned psychologist. Also, NEPS has a national and regional support and development service for all school staff. That is advertised through the education support centres and covers areas such as trauma-informed practice, cluster group support for post-primary special education teachers and special class teachers, and training for student support teams. It also supports interventions around reluctant school attendance and school avoidance behaviour.

I want to touch on the use of sport organisations in terms of getting a message out there, in particular where there are people who are involved in sports organisations but there are also people not involved in sport. I am talking about young people. If we go down to the juvenile court, any day, about 90% of the children in there are not involved in any sport organisations. How can we work with sport organisations to get young people involved?

Regarding those who have dropped out of school, I was involved in a project going back a long time where young people had dropped out of school. Most of them were referred to us by An Garda Síochána. We provided the young people with training five days a week and then helped them get into employment. When we did a survey of the people who had left us five years earlier, over 70% of them were in full-time employment. Most of these people were initially referred to us by An Garda Síochána. Are we doing enough in that area? What further action can we take in those two areas?

On the question about sport, one of the things the Department of education has supported is a programme called the active school flag. That is something that has just been launched at post-primary level after having been in place at primary level for a number of years. The purpose of that is around physical activity from a health and well-being perspective. It also provides young people who do not see themselves as sporty or active with an entry point into physical activity. The active school flag programme connects with sports organisations including the GAA, for example, and the local sports partnerships. It is a really strong programme in terms of trying to connect our young people through their school setting with sporting and physical activity opportunities in the community.

For a number of years the Department of Education and Youth has provided out-of-school alternative education provision for children who, for various reasons, have not been able to thrive in mainstream schools. Some of this started in the 1970s with the establishment of the five youth encounter projects. We fund a number of these alternative settings. The DEIS plan that was published in 2017 contained a commitment to review out-of-school education provision. That review was completed and published in 2022. The Minister at that point established an implementation group to progress the recommendations of the 2022 report. That group comprised all the relevant stakeholders and it met for-----

Regarding people who drop out of school, it is not just a question of dealing with the students themselves. It also involves dealing with the parents and family supports and in a lot of cases dealing with An Garda Síochána. There are a lot of people we need to involve. Are we co-ordinating that enough? The project I was involved in got everyone involved so there was a better outcome for the young person, rather than them going down the route of criminal activity or into the drugs world.

With the review of out-of-school, we had all the relevant areas around the table looking at that review. The Department of education provides funding to settings like the five youth encounter projects. They get very intensive supports so they can provide an individual education plan to those students and provide a kind of therapeutic support to them as well. That includes things like summer provision, a youth worker in those schools and provision of hot meals in the school during the day. It would also link them in to various community services, like the youth sector.

I thank the witnesses for coming in today. The work they do is really important, both the formal and informal support of young people. I think it was the HSE statistics which said two thirds of young people have abused alcohol, 60% of young people have used cannabis and about a third have used or abused drugs in some respect or other. They are really depressing statistics. They are just utterly depressing. I say that as a mother of young adults and as a parent more so than as a public representative. I am also a founding director of a youth service, a justice youth diversion programme. I know the incredible work that youth services, families, schools and clubs do with our young people, but it is clearly not enough by any measure. I am a firm believer in prevention in every respect; avoid trouble if you can. We need to bring forward really strong recommendations for a comprehensive health-led approach.

My first question will relate to the UBU funding. Those statistics, as I said, are very depressing but they are very global. Two thirds of young people having abused alcohol, 60% using cannabis, yet UBU funding is targeted at marginalised young people and justice youth diversion funding is targeted at marginalised young people. That is young people and families who have come to the attention of An Garda Síochána, with regard to the justice youth diversion. Why are we not looking to support young people outside of the formal school setting? I do not want to take away from the value of the work being done in the formal school setting. However, there is an incredible opportunity in the youth space outside of the formalised, time-tabled work done in schools and in clubs and other training environments, to inform and support young people to make healthy decisions and be more critical of their own choices, to empower them and help them build resilience. Why are we not expanding our funding to make it more globally available to all young people considering the statistics we have as a society? One of our big struggles as a part-UBU funded youth service is that we do not get multi-annual funding. As a voluntary board director since 2008, we struggle every year because we have to worry about what our funding is going to be. We are employing eight people, so we are responsible as their employers. It is a real struggle for us each year to contend with that and it does not send a signal to youth service providers and practitioners that they are valued, that their work is valued or that it is seen.

We should look at that if we want to really invest in our young people and equip them to make the right and healthy decisions, so that they can fully contribute to our society in a way that is critically informed, resilient and sustainable. I ask the Department of Education and Youth to respond to that.

I will attempt to respond to that. I do not work in that area, so I may need to come back to the Senator later about some of what she asked. The funding that is provided for youth is both for UBU services, as the Senator mentioned, along with the funding that is made available to other youth organisations and services. Overall, that is quite a significant amount. That can go to different organisations that provide different services. Obviously, there is a very significant focus on UBU.

The funding has increased year on year since 2020. The increase that has been provided overall is approximately €22 million over the past five years. There is an additional €8 million of funding on top of that for 2026. It is increasing. While I do not know - I will come back with more detail - I suspect the answer to the Senator's question is that there is obviously an initial priority placed on services for those who are most at risk and most vulnerable. That probably has to be the priority. In terms of the detail underneath that, we can come back with a more detailed answer and follow up for the Senator.

I thank Ms O'Callaghan and I appreciate her reply. If the Department was able to come back to us on that, it would be helpful for the committee. While I acknowledge that funding has increased, costs have increased, our population has increased and needs have increased, particularly youth population needs. If we consider Covid and the impact it had, such as the social isolation and social dysfunction that came with it and the consequences of those, all of that has massively increased the need for supports. The costs have increased very significantly. We do not get any funding for administration, yet all of our funding is dependent on the administration, whatever about the quality of the youth service. It would be helpful if the Department could come back to us with that information.

Tremendous work is being done by youth services up and down the country. I am regularly struck by the thoughts and experience of meeting some young people who do not get to engage in youth services at all. They do not get to meet an adult who is not a teacher, parent, family member or medical practitioner. They do not get to meet an adult who is not meeting them in a formal setting and engaging with them at their own level. Doing that is invaluable and people should be able to it in this society. We should invest in it because we will get better, healthier adults.

Some of this is almost the same conversation we had at a meeting of the children's committee earlier, where we discussed child poverty, child deprivation and early interventions. We do not have enough of early interventions. We always need more of them and more resources and we need to ensure we provide an interagency solution. I have seen that school settings are the campuses that are best served for offering those types of resources.

I am sure the HRB can add to this but if we accept that the circumstances in relation to drug use, and the chaos, crime and everything else that comes from it, are through the roof, even compared to five or ten years ago, what is the needs analysis in relation to the resources we need at this point in time to offer a service? I accept there needs to be a service across the board because there is a huge number of people who fall into addiction. There have always been addiction issues in Ireland but there are very specific issues that happen in deprived, working-class areas.

We talk about early intervention, multidisciplinary teams, interagency solutions and all-of-government approaches but we rarely see them. I would be happy enough if we at least had the right questions in front of us and we could then find the answers. Is anyone willing to take that on?

Who is up for the challenge?

I echo what the Deputy said. As someone who was a post-primary school principal for ten years, I would love to get my hands on an interagency, multidisciplinary group that would help me, when needed, in the early intervention space to help a child who is in crisis or need. When you go back to the practicalities of actually running a school, we speak of trauma-informed practice and restorative practices in our school but where do we put it in? As a principal, where do we find the time and space? Before we even have to consider trauma-informed practice, to introduce restorative practice into my school, which has over 60 teachers, meant that I and the deputy principal had to provide supervision to four classes at a time for 18 months while every single member of staff got eight hours of basic restorative practice training. There is absolutely an ideal out there but the practicalities in schools make it incredibly difficult.

It is resource intensive if you are serious about it.

It 100% is. We identified the need for restorative practice as an absolutely crucial piece to running our school in terms of early intervention and prevention. However, it meant the principal and deputy principal had to prioritise it and everything else was parked at that time. If we could plug into interdisciplinary, extra agency support, we would be in a far better place in the upstreaming and helping our young people.

Ms O'Connor is talking there about the reactive piece. The other piece is early intervention because in many cases, people know families who are in difficulties early on. Schools are very good at finding these issues and they could intervene cheaper, quicker and better.

We 100% could. It is about identifying that hidden harm. That is through the home school community liaison officer and an actual person who can go and visit homes and read the room if a child has not been attending and so on. It is also about the school completion programme and identifying those at early risk of leaving school. Restoration and building on key personnel in schools are crucial.

That cannot all be put on schools, either.

No.

With prevention and early intervention, it can be very challenging to make the case for the investment given the huge range of needs that are there. To go back to Senator Fitzpatrick's point, the statistics are really depressing but, certainly when it comes to alcohol, they have become quite normalised within society. We are up against a huge challenge of trying to challenge that. The good news is that there is a good evidence base for what works. We have some really good models of good practice within Ireland, such as the area based childhood, ABC, programme. That is a really strong prevention early intervention programme. The challenge is getting the investment to bring these types of initiatives to scale.

We are brilliant at pilots.

Yes.

Gavin McGee from ABC was here earlier. He said we have 12 of these across the State, which involve home visits, and there are two part-time staff in Louth.

There is early years mentoring and a whole range of supports. There is evidence of what works. We can look to other countries which have achieved great things, such as Iceland which has managed to dramatically reduce its alcohol and drug use through a range of measures, both policy and things like----

Sport engagement.

Yes, it offers leisure cards, which give all children and young people access to structured, planned leisure activities, and these are provided free. That offers a little bit of hope in that we have really good, strong evidence of what works. The real challenge is resourcing those.

That is for the not so complex cases right through the very complex cases. We generally leave it until far too late. We have seen some of these pieces in the news and the dreadful circumstances.

All the witnesses will talk about certain aspects, whether addiction services or preventative measures operating in educational settings. Given everything that the witnesses have seen that works, what would they need to have a proper system that actually works for them in their setting? That is probably only the first step.

I will try to answer that from a Department of education perspective. One of the elements that is important from an education perspective and capturing the children we deal with is the curriculum piece, which I think is really important in terms of skill building.

It provides children with coping skills and decision-making skills to deal with what comes at them. Obviously the range of social inclusion elements, including the DEIS scheme, the home school community liaison scheme, and the well-being and NEPS supports are all elements, given that this is a multidimensional problem.

It probably needs more.

To bring it into the specific lens of this committee, as the new national drugs strategy is developed, we would hope to collaborate and work with the Department of Health.

So would we.

We would see that as the national policy framework within which these things could be reflected.

Professor Smyth talked about the Growing Up in Ireland research and one of the comments he made was that people from more affluent backgrounds are likely to commence drug use when a little bit older. Does he mean in their 20s?

Eighteen to 20.

They will have come through the school system. Can you reverse engineer that for me? What supports would be in place in the school systems that they may have come through? If the propensity is cross-societal, what supports would be in place in the school systems that would have perhaps held off that engagement in drug use until they were 18 and into their 20s?

The same study looked at risk and protective factors that were evident at the age of 17. A total of 3% of survey participants used before the age of 17 and that rose to 20% by the age of 20. At the age of 17, the characteristics associated with greater risk of use were some of the ones with which we would be more familiar. Parental substance use and drug use within the community were factors.

Is that still in the affluent cohort?

No, that was at the age of 17. It is who commenced use between the ages of 17 and 20. Again, it was those who began drinking at an earlier age, males and people who lived in urban settings, particularly in Dublin. The socioeconomic factors were not particularly strong, but if there was any slight trend, it was just a slight trend towards those from more affluent backgrounds. The point, really, is that socioeconomic background by the age of 20 is not a certain predictor of cocaine use.

Will the witnesses from the Health Research Board outline, given their own research, the trends that are in place in the Irish school system at the moment? What is the drug use of choice? How are children getting hold of these drugs? What does the research show?

There are two big schools surveys, the ESPAD and HBSC. The HBSC is a general health survey and interviews 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds, and cannabis is the main illegal drug. An important and optimistic note to make is that the problem of alcohol has come down a bit. As Professor Smyth pointed out, early initiation of alcohol use is a good predictor of difficulty with other drugs in adulthood. Where people are getting it is not covered in detail in the survey. It is usually friends at that age. People do not have a relationship with a dealer at that age.

Can the principals tell me whether the research captures their on-the-ground experience? In schools they would have heard stories of children with balloons or different things that come in and out of trend, so does the research capture the experience on the ground?

Yes, and we would call for more research in that area. Young people in schools are incredibly inventive in terms of drug use in schools. Even with the use of vapes in schools and distribution of same, it is impossible almost to keep up what the next trend is and the next substance misuse, and so on. Again, it is that preventative but early intervention space of knowing and having enough key personnel in schools to be able to identify a change in behaviour, a disengagement from school, absenteeism or all of a sudden some young person turning up who has not been seen in months. It is being able to read what is actually happening with the young people in our schools. Having teachers who can be highly skilled and trained in delivering SPHE curriculum is only one part of the much larger jigsaw in terms of a school community and it is engagement with homes in that space. They are absolutely indicative of what is happening but we would love more of the same to aid us in identifying those trends.

Are the appropriate supports in place for secondary prevention? I know everybody is trying their best and would like to do more. In terms of a teenager coming forward or being discovered to be in the throes of drug addiction or even selling drugs to fund a drug addiction, what supports are available?

Going back to what Senator Fitzpatrick mentioned about the informal spaces outside of school, when we distinguish between prevention and early intervention, schools are excellent in the early intervention space. We identify something that is going wrong and put a support in place for a child within the resources available to us. In the preventative space, leaning on something that Mr. Jim Lyng from Jigsaw said not so long ago with the NAPD, preventative space is a far greater societal piece that must include all stakeholders, including parents in the very first instance. However, that depends on parents who have a capacity and are not themselves already affected in the addiction space. We need to be really careful not to put the burden of full societal prevention on schools because it is a much larger piece. Schools are really good at targeted early interventions. It is a bigger conversation but one that we welcome.

Yes, and it is definitely one that we, as a committee, want to engage in. We absolutely would not be placing the full responsibility on schools and I do not think anyone holds that belief, but we are conscious that schools are often a sanctuary for young people. In that space where a young person has that one good adult, often in school, inevitably they will come forward and will get all the available support, but I wonder what is actually available in reality.

There are great programmes in schools. Under the old national behaviour support service there were great programmes in schools like check and connect. In my school, every single staff member was trained in check and connect. That meant there were 60 adults engaging with 60 children and they met with them formally and informally several times throughout the week. Literally, it was a conversation to check and connect.

Going back to what Senator Ryan said about engaging with external services, very often in the teaching demographic, teachers generally are from a particular background with a particular level of educational expertise and so on. Very often, if we engage with external people who can share the story of the impact of addiction with young people in schools, it can be really powerful. We can be very trained in SPHE and so on, but we may or may not have the personal experience that may have an impact on young people. There are wonderful programmes going on throughout the SPHE. As I said, Know the Score by the HSE is a fabulous programme. The three different strands of SPHE and the check and connect programme are really effective. Again, consistency in, and coherence in approach to, the use of them in our schools is really important.

A previous Growing Up in Ireland paper and international studies have shown that a good presence in school and good activity in school makes people feel at home and comfortable in school, so it is a big protective factor. In terms of information on drugs and resilience, etc., if children feel that they are in a good space in school and feel they belong, it is very good for them.

It is a really interesting conversation on the change in patterns in terms of drug use and drug users. The demographics and age are a concern. We, as a committee, need to look at how the services and the forthcoming drugs strategy respond to those changes. If the witnesses have any suggestions, we are more than happy to hear them.

This is something the committee needs to really concentrate on.

I thank Deputy Graves and call Senator Fitzpatrick.

I am not sure who, but either Dr. Sheehan or Ms O'Connor used the word, "consistent". They both stated that there are great programmes and pilots, and we have been able to develop and improve the concepts. My question is for the witnesses from the Department of education and the HSE. What mechanisms are in place to evaluate the consistency of delivery across all geographic areas and, more importantly, identify where there is an inconsistency regarding or an absence of resources and to correct that? I refer specifically to prevention, education and awareness.

I referenced the HSE public health needs assessment on drug and alcohol prevention that has commenced and that will run into the early part of next year. That is an attempt to try to map across the country. It is a national needs assessment, but it will break down by health region what is happening, what are the strengths and what are the gaps. We will not be going into huge detail in terms of what is happening in individual schools, communities and settings, but it is an attempt to try to get a national picture of what is working well and where the gaps lie. It is intended to develop an implementation plan for the HSE in terms of how we can strengthen our prevention mechanisms. At the moment, we do not really have an implementation infrastructure to support the identification of good practice and we need investment in research and evaluation to even demonstrate some of that impact. We do not then have an infrastructure to support how we would scale that up and support communities across the country to scale up good practice. In the next national drugs strategy, we would love to see how we would build that infrastructure and a prevention workforce that can support its delivery.

That is great. It is really valuable work. When will there be even an early version of the findings and early indications? It would be incredibly valuable for this committee if we could get some insight into or visibility of it before we complete our work.

Of course, we would be really happy to share a copy with the committee. We are aiming for a first draft by the end of quarter 1 of 2026. In other words, March. We would be really happy to share it once it is available.

It would be great if we could get that. Ms O'Connor very eloquently articulated the challenges of running busy schools, the demands on teachers and the nature of the school environment. On the consistency of the delivery of SPHE, I saw the numbers. Some 1,000 teachers had completed it, or maybe that was the HSE number. It was 2,400 from the Department of education in 2024 and 2025. How many teachers are engaged in teaching daily across the country? As a proportion, what do the 2,400 teachers represent?

It is quite significant. We have approximately 700 post-primary schools. Those 2,400 teachers would have been trained in relation to the post-primary curriculum either at junior or senior cycle. It is a significant number against the overall number of schools. It is fair to say that a teacher may move in or out of teaching SPHE. They may not necessarily teach it every year, so that number is probably a reflection of the fact that some teachers may be trained but that different teachers may require training the following year. We are aware of that and would encourage schools to try to have a core SPHE team. That is what a lot of this training is focused on.

In terms of consistency, there are a couple of points. We have put a big focus, as I said, on trying to ensure that teachers can avail of training and on trying to ensure that good classroom resources are available for them in order that they can address the learning outcomes within SPHE. The HSE, NEPS and the NCCA have worked very closely with us on that. We are able to avail of the HSE's expertise in relation to prevention for those.

The third aspect is the role of the inspectorate in carrying out SPHE inspections and looking at what is happening. An inspector will talk to the students in a school as well as to the teachers when carrying out a subject inspection. The fourth, and very important, aspect is that the new curriculum specifications will be subject to evaluation. In general, for junior cycle, there would be what we call an early enactment review after any subject has been through a three-year cycle. For SPHE at junior cycle, which was introduced in all schools in September 2023, the review will happen in 2026. Again, that will get the views of teachers and students in relation to their experience of how SPHE is being taught and whether it has been useful. That is an important element, and it will also happen at senior cycle.

I thank Ms O'Callaghan. I am sorry, I am going to have to move on. Senator Ryan is looking to come in.

My question is more of a blue-sky one. What Ms O'Connor said is fantastic, and it does take more than just a school setting. The onus cannot just be on the school; it has to be on the community and on us, as siblings, families, community groups, etc. Young people know drugs are bad, but they are still going to use them for myriad reasons. Some are using them for the fact of the fun of it - the mystery of the use. Some, though, also use them to self-medicate and to fill a hole. When it does become problematic, much of the time drugs are a symptom of something bigger. They just ease the pain for people. In an ideal world, what would a prevention programme for young people look like? If we are looking at prevention, as opposed to intervention, we are looking at how young people manage their emotions a lot of the time. They are growing up in a space now that is totally different from that which existed when I was in school.

Equally, it is really great to hear that SPHE has come so far along, because when I was in school it was horrendous and we did not learn anything. The structures were not there. The teacher just did it on the side and that was it. All I learnt was to never do heroin. I did not learn anything else. In an ideal world, what would it look like to give young people a holistic approach to education around prevention while also looking at what else we can encompass in that without just telling people that something is a drug, that they should not be using it and where they can get help?

I completely agree with the Senator in terms of SPHE. If we look at the health and well-being strand of SPHE, it is about exploring the determinants of good health. In the very first instance, this is about what does it look like in order that our young people know when something is not right. It is also about examining social norms, attitudes and beliefs relating to alcohol, tobacco, vaping and substance use and explaining the pathways towards addiction and the signs and consequences of different kinds of addiction.

Going back to what my colleague from the Department of Education said, it has to be age appropriate and delivered in a way that is consistent from primary level to post-primary to further and higher education. The issue is how early do we start in an age appropriate way in order that we can do it. The family unit must be involved in that conversation or in dealing with whatever situation a young person might find themselves in. The school is almost like it is in loco parentis for 166 days a year, and then there is the situation outside of that. I have seen it every year. You let your cohort of students go for the Christmas holidays. You know what they are facing into, and it is heartbreaking. They come back and it takes up to the February mid-term break to bring them back down again, and to re-establish the order and boundaries in their lives. It is very difficult. All we can do from a very early intervention age is focus on the SPHE specification, as we said, as consistently as possible. In fairness to the NCCA, the SPHE specification was the subject of robust consultation with a huge number of stakeholders to get to the point of dragging it into relevance. Once we deliver it in a consistent way with highly trained professionals across primary to post-primary school, we will be in a far better place than we were when we were in school. I was probably there much earlier than the Senator. We are in a far better place now. We just need to build on what is working in the system.

I just want to echo what Ms O'Callaghan has said. There are lots of learning outcomes in SPHE that do not mention drugs or substance misuse but are actually very relevant in terms of learning how to manage emotions, learning coping strategies for situations, even social situations, and even learning at the more junior level in junior cycle about students' sense of self, self-esteem and those kinds of things. Those aspects are all really important.

If the question is what a prevention programme looks like, I would say we are acutely aware that SPHE teaching can do so much but it is one piece and where a child is really struggling or really in trouble, an SPHE class is not the answer. From that perspective the importance of our work with the HSE, our co-operation with the Department of Health and making sure what we do in schools is informed by the expertise that exists in the health sector is really important.

I have one question for the HSE. Last week I raised the issue of when there is knowledge of a new drug emerging in the system and when a health awareness campaign is rolled out. I used the example of HHC last week and how there were three years before we saw something and legislation to outlaw it. Will the officials talk through the current process in the HSE and further improvements that need to take place so we can shorten that time between when a new drug emerges and when we get the information out there? Does the HSE have to wait for the legislation? I would like to hear from both of the witnesses in that regard.

From our perspective, colleagues in HSE social inclusion are working with HSE communications on the drugs.ie campaign. That very much takes a harm reduction approach targeting people already using drugs. On the alcohol side, we have an alcohol prevention communications campaign. I think we can look at other areas where we need to focus more on prevention rather than necessarily harm reduction. At the moment, HSE communications is leading out on the development of a new vaping prevention campaign. We have received funding from the Department of Health to develop that campaign. Focus group testing research is under way to design and implement that. We would be really open to looking at how we can strengthen our communications and become more responsive. I would be really happy to follow up with colleagues working more directly with that, if that is helpful.

One of the frustrations with the current state of play is that no one in the HSE has a lead responsibility for primary prevention of drugs. The health and well-being section have led out on alcohol but historically it has not had that mandate or resources to lead out on drugs. The focus of drugs.ie, as Dr. Sheehan mentioned, is more on people who are established drug users and trying to reduce the harm. Hopefully that is something that will change but that will require some resourcing.

On the specific issues, when a new drug does emerge like HHC, there is a wariness to charge out with public information across the board initially because what we may be doing is just piquing people’s interest in a new drug. The challenge is to respond in a more targeted way. Where I would like to see a bit more public information would be around the drugs that everyone knows about. We are not going to pique people’s interest in drugs like cocaine or cannabis - everyone has heard of them - but people would be better equipped with actual factual information so they can make more informed decisions about whether to step into those worlds or not. With new trends in drugs it is genuinely more challenging and we are often trying to do something in a more targeted, localised way to focus information at the most at-risk group.

I thank the witnesses for that. I appreciate there is a question of timing around the appropriate juncture to make the awareness available. I was struck earlier this year when the HSE officials were telling us they had been given the resources at that juncture to roll out a campaign and it seemed that rather than having to depend on doing it drug by drug that the initiative could be taken by the HSE itself to roll out a campaign rather than going cap in hand to look for resources for a specific campaign to be rolled out. It would seem to me that the campaigns should be on the go the whole time and should be responsive to the circumstances. One of the challenges of the new national drugs strategy is to ensure that clear funding line is there and that there should not be any interruptions or blockages in that regard.

My question is to the Department of further and higher education on our third level colleges. Have other jurisdictions been examined and can we learn from those in relation to helping our third level colleges to deal with this challenge? Has any major research been done by the HSE, the colleges themselves or individual researchers on the extent of the challenge in third level colleges? The witnesses referred to the E-SHEILD project in University College Cork. Can the Department of further and higher education witnesses give a further explanation of that project?

On the international question, obviously all our higher education institutions are their own organisations. They are very well connected to other European universities. Their policies, procedures, strategies, communications are informed by the relationships they have.

I will have to come back to the Deputy on E-SHEILD. I do not have the detail. We will get a full note for him.

On research, has any research been done on the extent of the problem in our third level institutions? Let us take something simple like the number of people who have dropped out of college as a direct result of addiction issues? Has any research been done on that area?

We have national data from the My World Survey 2 and the drugs use survey in higher education. It would be helpful for the committee if we sent a note on those.

I am conscious the Health Research Board might be able to provide some information.

I was going to refer to the third level study on drug use. It is a very comprehensive study and very detailed. E-SHEILD grew out of it. It is probably the best study we could have on drug use among third level students. It was quite consistent with other studies on drugs. From the Growing up in Ireland survey and the third level survey we have very good data.

Looking at the universities, is there a sufficient amount of work being done by the universities themselves in dealing with this challenge? Could a lot more be done?

I could not comment on that but the E-SHEILD programme is very innovative and progressive. It has been in place for a number of years. That kind of intervention is appropriate and useful.

More from a data collection point of view rather than from the research side, I mentioned earlier our national drug treatment reporting system, which is collecting episodes of treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. One of our initiatives in the past year or two has been to look at the provision of treatment services within the university and college sector to try to get a fuller picture of what is available for young people in terms of treatment. It has been difficult to get that connection and engagement with the colleges but it is something we are very keen on doing because it adds to the fuller picture around treatment services.

Does Dr. Craig think colleges could do more in this area regarding people who have particular issues?

Is it a case of "It is not our responsibility", whereas in real terms it is by all of us working together that we can deal with issues like this? Could colleges do a lot more on this issue?

The problem is that we do not know the extent of the provision in the colleges and universities. We do know that there is a range of services offered in all colleges and universities. We would like to collect that information to report more widely. Then we would understand.

Is there a proposal to do that?

It is the work we are doing around looking at the coverage of the treatment system we have.

I am conscious Dr. Sheehan wanted to come in.

I am a little familiar with the higher education context. There is a big digital intervention component. UCC is also supporting the lead-out on a new framework for addressing the use of illicit substances within higher education colleges. A new steering group is being established and that framework will be implemented from next year. Professor Eamon Keenan in the HSE, the clinical lead for addiction, will be chairing that group. My understanding is that there will be a focus on that from 2026 onwards.

Dr. Sheehan spoke about a national needs assessment. Could we have some detail on that?

This initiative is being led by HSE public health. It is a needs assessment on drug and alcohol prevention. There is a whole range of methods being used. It is looking at the epidemiological data on drugs and alcohol, mainly drawing on sources of evidence from the Health Research Board and other sources. We are currently designing a national survey of the population which will be delivered in conjunction with IPSOS, looking at community perspectives around drug and alcohol use. We have also completed focus groups with co-ordinators of regional and local drug and alcohol task forces and people are working across different sectors, namely, the early years, education and youth, and community sectors. We are also planning, early in the new year, to do in-depth community needs assessment with two specific communities, one in an urban area and one in a rural area. This is a collaboration with the RCSI. There is a whole range of methods being used for the needs assessment. Also feeding into that is the initiative the HRB already referenced.

What is the timeline?

We should have a draft report ready, hopefully by the end of March 2026. As I was saying to Senator Fitzpatrick, we are happy to share that with the committee.

That is brilliant in the sense that it will find out what the need is and what the issues are. I accept there is an issue on what prevention is, particularly when we are talking about young people who generally think they are going to live forever. There are then more complex cases where people take drugs as part of dealing with their own set of circumstances. We all know the issues as regards intergenerational trauma, poverty and all those obstacles to getting beyond that.

We cannot expect educational institutions, third level or second level, to deal with everything, in fairness. The need for a service was raised and the fact that they can be part of something but cannot necessarily create it themselves. That probably is the case. It is very hard to see how a national drugs strategy can just exist over here in the Department of Health. I get that officials from the Department said there would be a fair amount of engagement across the board. We can talk about child deprivation and any of the interrelated issues, such as justice and youth diversion projects, but if we are not putting a strategy together in which everything comes into play and is dealt with, from the addiction services that are required across the board right down to these complex cases, we will continue to fail. That is accepting that drugs are going to be with us for a long time and there is no justice or policing solution. Sometimes, unfortunately, people still think such a solution is out there.

We do not have a good sense of the extent of prevention services. We know a lot of good work is going on at the moment. Unlike treatment services, we do not have a good picture of them. Our study is going to have an account of all the prevention services outside of schools.

That is absolutely necessary. It is good it is being done. It is a pity an awful lot of it was not done before but we are starting from here. We need to get a picture. I imagine all of this is going to show the huge gaps that exist. We need a holistic, interagency intervention. I nearly bore myself with these terms at this stage.

Thank you, Deputy. My question is related to where Deputy Ó Murchú finished. How much does undiagnosed neurodiversity play a role in what we are discussing today? I am conscious that one of the reasons I can sit here and be attentive for two hours is that I take ADHD medication most mornings, which I did not have when I was younger. I imagine my teachers bore the brunt of that. We have talked about self-medication and people dealing with their own set of circumstances. Is lack of access to early intervention for neurodiversity issues culminating in young people self-medicating when they get a little bit older? Does that come up in any of the research?

We have known for decades that young people with ADHD are more likely to head down a path of substance use, particularly if it is untreated. Difficulties with treatment access are obviously then problematic. The issue with autism and autistic spectrum disorder is definitely an escalating challenge. Maybe it is something we were oblivious to ten or 15 years ago. It is part of our day-to-day work at this stage. I would say 20% of young people accessing our service have that diagnosis. Certainly, the delays in young people accessing appropriate assessments and supports are problematic. As the Cathaoirleach said, for some young people with autism, they can be sensorily overwhelmed by just the regular world, and may find that by taking substances, they can dial themselves down. We would much rather they had coping strategies to deal with that other than using substances.

Do we know how many young people have been excluded or expelled from school due to taking drugs or being involved with drugs? Do we capture data of school exclusions or expulsions? Where are they asked to go afterwards and what supports are in place?

The Tusla education support service and the educational welfare service are responsible for statutory school attendance. They collect data from schools on an annual basis on the number of students who are expelled. In September, they published the data for the 2023-24 school year. That report is available on Tusla's website. While it does publish the numbers of students expelled in both primary and post-primary schools, and in special schools, it does not provide a breakdown of the reasons students were expelled.

That might be helpful to the Health Research Board. Do any witnesses have anything they would like to say or feel anything has been overlooked in the engagement?

Deputy Colm Burke spoke about drop-outs. My colleagues in the Department of Education and Youth answered queries there. We also spoke about the Youthreach programme. I think a short note for the committee would be helpful. The other query raised for the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, from Deputy Graves, was on education support in prisons and afterwards in terms of probation services. We have a short note here that we are very happy to send on to the committee.

Thank you.

When you look at some of the data, you can feel a bit pessimistic, as Senator Fitzpatrick mentioned.

Maybe it is worth reminding ourselves of one of the successes we have achieved as a society. In the 1990s and 2000s there was a horrendous heroin problem which affected young people, particularly those from very deprived backgrounds. We have been tremendously successful at ensuring this particular problem has not found its way into subsequent generations. That, at least, is a note of success. Trying to figure out exactly how we achieved that success is harder to answer but it was a complex multifaceted approach, which had its origins in our first national drugs strategy.

I thank Professor Smyth and the other witnesses for giving us their expertise today. It has been really helpful.