I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond. He is no stranger to this Chamber.
Nithe i dtosach suíonna - Commencement Matters
EU Directives
I welcome the Minister of State. I think this is the second time he has come in for a Commencement matter for me and I really appreciate his continued engagement on international development. I have asked him to come to the Chamber today to address the deeply concerning developments regarding the EU corporate sustainability due diligence directive, which I will refer to as CSDDD. It is a law that Ireland has rightly supported, and represents a hard-fought victory for corporate accountability, human rights and climate justice. The directive is not abstract or bureaucratic legislation. It is a direct response to very preventable human tragedies like the collapse of the Rana Plaza on 24 April 2013, when over 1,130 garment workers were crushed to death in Dhaka in Bangladesh while sewing clothes for European brands like Zara, Benetton and Penneys. Completely structurally unsound and built without proper permits, the building fell on itself the day after visible cracks were ignored by factory owners. Those lives were lost because profit was prioritised over safety and because there were no legal obligations on companies to prevent or respond to such corporate abuses in their supply chains.
The CSDDD legislation was designed precisely to prevent this kind of harm, by making due diligence mandatory, enforceable and accountable across the EU. It is the product of decades of advocacy and built on key voluntary frameworks including the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. After two years of intense negotiations, the directive was finally passed and entered into force in July 2024 with member states including Ireland being required to transpose it into national law by July 2026. Just months after this important victory, however, the European Commission has tabled its Omnibus 1 proposal under the banner of cutting red tape. This is a dangerous misrepresentation. The omnibus proposal actually goes much further, threatening to dismantle the vital protections and safeguards for basic rights of workers and vulnerable communities, both in Ireland and around the world. Far from being a technical simplification, the proposed changes would undermine the very core of the corporate sustainability due diligence directive. They do so by diluting the due diligence duty and weakening the legal obligations on companies to prevent and address human rights and environmental abuses; removing the EU-wide civil liability regime, thereby stripping victims of a clear and enforceable route to justice; eliminating the requirement for companies to implement climate transition plans; and limiting stakeholder engagement, silencing effective communities and workers. This process has been completely rushed without proper consultation or impact assessments. It is in direct contradiction of the EU Commission's better regulations principles, which are supposed to guarantee transparency, evidence-based policymaking and public input.
I acknowledge the statement made by the former Minster of State with responsibility for this directive, the Minister, Deputy Calleary, shortly before it officially entered into force. He affirmed that Ireland had consistently supported the objectives of the CSDDD and called for ambition in the protections it would provide. His remarks clearly reflect a commitment by the Government to ensuring this legislation would be both meaningful and enforceable, yet today the commitment is lacking. Despite the Government's stated position that it supports the simplification agenda only insofar as it does not undermine human rights and environmental protections, Ireland has remained worryingly silent during ongoing Council negotiations on the omnibus proposal I acknowledge that some of those negotiations are probably confidential. I am sure that will be one of the Minister of State's responses. We have failed to join like-minded member states in actively defending the core provisions in the directive, provisions that now pose a real risk of weakening or removing some of those protections altogether. The silence does matter. The omnibus proposals do not represent minor adjustments. They are an unravelling of these hard-won protections. It would be a profound setback not just for corporate accountability but for the EU's credibility when it comes to upholding human rights and environmental rights.
Will Ireland be publicly defending the core provisions of the CSDDD, acknowledging the limitations the Minister of State may have when it comes to the specifics of the negotiations? What is Ireland's position on the four key areas under threat, namely, the due diligence duty, the EU-wide civil liability regime, the implementation of climate transition plans and the stakeholder engagement component? Will Ireland be taking a clear and vocal stance at the upcoming meetings at Council level in Brussels? I believe the Minister of State may have been at a meeting on this yesterday. Will Ireland be pushing back against the different roll-backs of the provisions that are fundamental for the human rights and environmental protections?
I thank the Senator raising this important matter and for her ongoing advocacy and engagement, in a very constructive manner, on a key issue of importance not just to Ireland and Europe but to the wider world.
It is extremely important.
The increased focus on burden reduction, or simplification, at EU level is inherently linked to efforts to enhance European and Irish competitiveness in the evolving global trading environment. The Letta and Draghi reports published last year were clear that we must become more innovative, more productive and more competitive. The importance of reform is being pushed strongly by the European Council which last October called for a “simplification revolution” by ensuring a clear, simple and smart regulatory framework for businesses and reducing administrative, regulatory and reporting burdens, in particular for SMEs. Under this mandate, the Commission has proposed a series of omnibus packages on the simplification of various pieces of legislation. To date five of these packages have been published. These include the omnibus package on sustainability; the omnibus II package on investment simplification; the omnibus III package on Common Agriculture Policy reform; the omnibus IV package on the extension of certain mitigating measures available for SMEs to small mid-cap enterprises; and the omnibus V package facilitating investment in defence capabilities. I have 2 minutes and 45 seconds to address the particular points raised by Senator Stephenson. Together with all member states, Ireland is examining the omnibus proposals in detail. I want to be clear that as a matter of principle, we do not endorse a regression of existing standards. Simplification cannot be a race to the bottom. It has to be about better regulation not deregulation.
With regard the proposed changes to the CSDDD, it is important that we do not lose sight of the objectives of the directive, which aims to promote responsible business conduct. The Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Deputy Burke, has been very clear that he is supportive in principle of initiatives to simplify reporting requirements and reduce costs on companies, most especially SMEs. The Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment is continuing to assess the implications for business, including SMEs, as the discussions on the omnibus proposal progress at EU level.
Bearing in mind the mandate from the European Council, and taking into account the current environment, we acknowledge the efforts of the Commission in implementing real change for business. I have no hesitation to make it clear that Ireland is keen to play its part not only in shaping the policy around simplification and competitiveness but also in doing so in a holistic manner. We want a more competitive Ireland and a more competitive Europe - we need that - but if we do not base that competition on standards, values and ethos that matter to how we do business, it is a race to the bottom that we are so keen to avoid.
The Senator mentioned meetings that have taken place in recent weeks. Most of these have been done at official level rather than ministerial level so I have not even been in the room. However, I am aware of the discussions to an extent. Ireland has been consistent in its proposal that we support like-minded countries who want to ensure the hard-fought gains of the last few years are not lost. I give the Senator a commitment on the public record that we will absolutely support that the efforts of the CSDDD on the four key areas she addressed are kept in focus and that we do our part to ensure they are maintained. We are not in the business of backing off from what we have achieved. This Government has been in office for quite some time. We have been involved in the discussion. We have not achieved everything that we want but we will not undermine or lose sight of what has been achieved simply because we are in a slightly difficult situation. I am happy to go into more detail but I think I have addressed the key issues the Senator raised and hopefully given her the reassurance the House requires.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for his commitment to those four areas and putting it on the record. I recognise what he says about simplification not being a race to the bottom and it is not about deregulation.
We met Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment officials yesterday at the enterprise committee and had a good engagement with them there. I was concerned with their emphasis on the due diligence approach not being watered down. I disagree with that entirely in terms of the omnibus proposals. I feel that the risk-based approach in the CSDDD provided more simplification for the supply chain. The new proposal is an omnibus, focusing only on tier 1, which means that human rights and environmental abuses will not be identified. That is concerning.
The Department officials also emphasised that plausible information is the new tool under the due diligence procedure. However, plausible information is not actually a legal concept under EU law. It places an undue burden on NGOs and civil society stakeholders, which we directly fund through the Department’s work in Irish Aid and through human rights work that we fund. It is a particular concern for me that we are hearing something from the Department of enterprise that I do not think is in line with our human rights obligations around the due diligence duty we have.
It is clear that this is a moment of change in the EU. It is clear that the need for Europe to become more competitive is existential. However, in just over 12 months Ireland will take over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union and our role in the simplification of the competitiveness agenda will be pivotal. Our role is not only to deliver on that agenda but also, as the Senator rightly says, to make sure that agenda is delivered in a manner that still maintains the hard-fought gains. As we work with the EU and other institutions and member states across Europe we seek not a diminution of ambitions but rather a rationalisation of the current framework. Our goal is a system that is streamlined and efficient yet still underpinned with strong values and a commitment to good practice. We will not lose sight of this. The very clear practical concerns the Senator has raised will be taken on board by officials in my Department and by those working in partnership at team Ireland collectively. What we do from an Irish Government point of view will absolutely be best in standard. I think Irish Aid has demonstrated that. Our ambitions in various countries will be maintained. We will be at the forefront in the European family to make sure that what has been gained will not be lost.
Residential Institutions
I thank the Minister of State for coming here to take this Commencement matter. It relates to Westbank orphanage in Greystones, County Wicklow. I have raised the need for the Minister to explore all options to provide supports and redress for the survivors affected and by persons who availed of its services. This organisation is very well known. This matter has been well documented on current affairs programmes on RTÉ radio and television. Everyone shakes their head and says it is all shocking. You meet people in here day in, day out with so many of these stories. They are all saying it is all terrible yet they are in the heart of power in the corridors of power here and suddenly they are helpless to do anything. It is an extraordinary situation that I find myself in here as an advocate very regularly advocating around these organisations.
I think everyone here will appreciate there is a need to understand and make sense of what happened in anyone’s past, but particularly in relation to Westbank orphanage. Many children came from Northern Ireland into this establishment. There is also a need to learn from the past. We all must learn from the past so that similar things would never happen again as they did in Westbank. There is also the call for collective solidarity which is really important. The former residents of Westbank talk of a desire for justice, compensation and redress. Later we will discuss all those issues in the context of the legislation to wrap up Caranua and put in place some educational and health supports. That is for later. However, unfortunately Westbank is excluded from that.
For context I will read very briefly from a letter that was addressed to the then Taoiseach, Simon Harris on Monday, 8 April 2024 which I subsequently forwarded to Deputy Roderic O'Gorman who wrote back saying it was not a matter for him but rather Deputy Norma Foley as the then Minister for Education. The letter reads:
Congratulations on your election as Taoiseach, scheduled for tomorrow.
I rang your office on Tuesday last (2 April). I was asked to write to you to explain the injustice of denial of redress to residents of Westbank orphanage. […]
In 2018, Minister Katherine Zappone invited nr to join Collaborative Forum, to advise on compensations arrangements for former mother and baby home residents. I continued in that capacity to advise current minister Roderic O'Gorman.
The Minister's compensation scheme made me ineligible for compensation. I will not even get an 'enhanced' medical card, though that is of little benefit where I live in Armagh. […]
The Mother and Baby Home Commission of Inquiry (MBHCI) recognised the injustice of denial of redress to Westbank residents. The MBHCI twice called on the government to grant redress to Westbank residents.
- The Commission's 2nd Interim Report (2016) stated (section 5.14) that Westbank "should have been included in the Residential Institutions Redress Scheme."
- The MBHCI's ... Final Report [in 2020, not that long ago] emphatically restated this position. It said that Westbank was "unfairly excluded from" the Residential Institutions Redress Scheme.
On behalf of the Westbank residents, as a conduit and a voice for them, I am calling on the Government to reopen the situation. I believe they have a strong case. I have reviewed all the files in relation to this matter. I have sought external advice. There may be other options that will have to be triggered in the coming days if there is not a favourable response from the Government on the final requests that have been made in the past few days. The Minister of State might be able to enlighten us today on what reliefs or alternatives could be available for the past residents of Westbank.
I am grateful to Senator Boyhan for raising this important issue. To clarify for the Chamber, before I get to the specifics, as Senator Boyhan will appreciate, the mother and baby institutions payment scheme opened for applications in March 2024. It provides payments and health benefits to people who spent time in any of the mother and baby or county home institutions that were identified by the mother and baby homes commission of investigation. As Senator Boyhan knows, a large part of my work as Minister of State with responsibility for the diaspora has been working with those survivors of institutional abuse, particularly in Great Britain and a not insignificant number in North America as well, who we have been desperately trying to get into the scheme. They are absolutely people who deserve the attention that for so long they did not get.
The institutions covered by the payment scheme are set out in Schedule 1 to the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023. As the Senator has laid out, Westbank orphanage, which was previously known as the Protestant home for orphan and destitute girls, or the Harold's Cross orphanage, was not investigated by the commission of investigation because it operated primarily as a residential children's home rather than as an institution providing ante- and post-natal facilities. In its second interim report, the commission outlined that Westbank orphanage may have been unfairly excluded from the residential institutions redress scheme, administered by the Department of Education and Youth. It did not consider that it would be appropriate to include Westbank in its terms of reference. The report states, “Westbank was not generally regarded as a mother and baby home but rather as an orphanage.” Chapter 2 of the social history section of the commission of investigation report details the different types of institutions that existed and whether they could be considered mother and baby institutions. Westbank orphanage is listed as a residential children's home. For this reason, it is not included in the mother and baby institutions payment scheme.
The proposals for the payment scheme were developed following extensive deliberations on the very complex issues in question. They were informed by consultation with survivors, as well as the recommendations of the commission of investigation and an interdepartmental working group. The Government ultimately decided on a scheme which is, in overall terms, significantly broader than those recommended by the commission.
The Government recognises there are people who suffered stigma, trauma and abuse in other institutions. If it were to come to light that an institution in respect of which the State had a regulatory or inspection function fulfilled a similar function with regard to single women and their children as those included in the payment scheme, section 49 of the Act provides that the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, may insert an additional institution into the Schedule.
I believe the opportunity that lies before us this morning is to continue the process the Senator started to right what is an historical injustice, particularly in relation to the Westbank home. I give my personal commitment to Senator Boyhan, on the floor of this Chamber, that we will take this forward together, engage with the line Minister and get this included. That is only right and just. I will play my full part in everything that is required to make that happen. I will ensure the Tánaiste will also do so, and he has asked me to convey that to the Senator here on the floor of the House.
I thank the Minister of State. The one line that jumps off the page in his official written response is that the Westbank was not generally regarded as a mother and baby home but, rather, as an orphanage. What is the difference? Abuse is abuse. Emotional abuse, physical abuse or sexual abuse in any setting, whether in a State school, this building or anywhere else, is not acceptable and justice has to be done at the end of the day. I welcome and will take up the Minister of State's invitation to collaborate and work together to see what we can do.
I was speaking to a person yesterday about this matter who made the poignant observation that rising above the weight of the past is not easy; the past continually elbows its way back into the present. Escaping the memories of horrific abuse is a journey with many turns and indeed many setbacks. The people of Westbank want justice and they want an acknowledgement that what they said and are continuing to say is true. They want to be believed. It is incumbent on us, particularly later today, not to pass the buck but, rather, to take our responsibility seriously and engage with the Minister of State and other Ministers. For us to come in here and keep saying we can do nothing is simply not on. I thank the Minister of State for his time.
As of 8 June more than 6,500 applications had been received for the payment scheme. More than 5,200 payments had been processed and completed or were in the process of being made. More than 5,800 notices of termination had issued applicants, over 82% of which contained an offer of benefits. The value of financial payments to date is more than €65 million, a not insignificant amount of money but, in the context of what went on for decades and decades, no amount could be put on it.
As I pointed out, section 49 of the Act provides the Minister with a clear opportunity to add an additional institution based on the advocacy and the determination received. That is the opportunity for Westbank. It is an opportunity that needs to be realised. I thank Senator Boyhan for raising the matter today.
I thank the Minister of State.
Road Safety
I thank the Minister of State for attending this morning. I believe this is our first official interaction in this House. He is most welcome.
I want to highlight a stretch of the N25 road which runs from the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy bridge in County Wexford, through south Kilkenny and into Waterford city. I am referring specifically to the stretch from the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy bridge to the Luffany roundabout at Slieverue. On Monday night I attended a public meeting organised by a local committee campaigning for safety improvements and upgrading of the N25. Approximately 600 people were in attendance. The audience heard from local residents, the IFA, representatives of farming groups, the road haulage industry and representatives of truck drivers who travel that road and also, most significantly and poignantly, residents who unfortunately had suffered bereavement. In recent years there have been 12 fatalities, four of which have occurred since 2022. This road sees approximately 15,000 journeys and really serves as the main gateway for anybody in the south east who is travelling to work in Waterford city. Many people in my own County Wexford travel this stretch of road.
Since 2007 there have been discussions on upgrading this road. In fact, detailed design was done until 2011 when, unfortunately, due to the economic circumstances at the time, the project was shelved. It has been revitalised now and is progressing its way through the eight phases of development with TII.
I would like an update on where exactly this project is and what funding commitment is there. Unfortunately, to have a stretch of road in 2025 that has seen 12 fatalities in the past number of years is simply unacceptable. This road upgrade deserves prioritisation and the advocacy of that group. I commend the group on mobilising the local area. A total of 600 people is not an insignificant number to attend a public meeting.
I thank the Senator. This is our first official engagement. He should not tell the world we had dinner together last night. Let us keep it official as far as possible.
As the Senator is aware, the Minister for Transport has responsibility for overall policy and Exchequer funding in relation to the national roads programme. Once funding arrangements have been put in place with Transport Infrastructure Ireland under the Roads Acts 1993-2015 and in line with the NDP, the planning, design, improvement and upgrading of individual national roads is a matter for TII.
The Government has earmarked €5.1 billion for capital spending on new national roads projects from 2021-30. This funding will enable improved regional accessibility throughout the country as well as compact growth, which are key strategic objectives. The funding will provide for the development of numerous national road projects, including the completion of projects which are already at construction stage and those close to it.
The funding for new roads was phased across the period of the NDP, with €1.1 billion allocated for national roads from 2021 to 2025 and €4 billion allocated between 2026 and 2030. As the greater portion of this funding becomes available in the second half of the decade, this means that TII has been unable to provide funding over the past three years for the N25 Waterford to Glenmore scheme. However, approximately €502 million of Exchequer capital funds have been provided for national roads through TII to local authorities in 2025 alone.
The N25 Waterford to Glenmore project would link the N25 New Ross bypass and the N25 Waterford city bypass and is expected to consist of approximately 9.4 km of high-quality road, completing the upgrade of the N25 between New Ross and Waterford. This would also address the safety issues on the stretch of the N25 between Glenmore Hill and Luffany roundabout. With regard to the status of this project, the preferred transport route was selected in 2021. As the scheme did not receive an allocation for 2025, it cannot progress to the design and environmental evaluation phase at this time and remains at the end of the route options selection phase. Subject to the ongoing NDP review, it is intended to fund this project next year to complete the route selection phase and to commence the design and environmental evaluation phase.
With regard to improvements to the existing road, the Minister understands from TII that three high-collision location sites have been identified in recent years on this section of the N25. One site at Curraghmore was improved as part of a pavement scheme in 2020 and saw the introduction of central hatching and ghost island junctions. Another at Gaulstown involved roadside boulders being removed and I understand that at Ballynamona, a fixed-speed camera has recently gone live. In recent years, substantial lengths of timber post and rail fence along this section of the N25 have been replaced with tension mesh fence, making the roadside boundary more forgiving. The signage at the end of the southbound climbing lane near Glenmore is under review by Kilkenny County Council. A scheme to improve this has been designed and is expected to be implemented in the coming months.
Work is starting on this project but I think we all agree that it needs to happen quicker. We are looking into 2026 to really get the emphasis on this project. I am more than happy to take back the concerns the Senator has raised here in the Chamber this morning but also to make it clear that these are the concerns of a sizeable amount of the local population, and they are more than happy to mobilise to get behind this project. I will refer that to the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and the Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, and make sure we get this project delivered as quickly as possible.
I thank the Minister of State, and I welcome the commitment by the Government in the House today to funding the next phase, which is the design and environmental evaluation phase. It will be good news for the residents in the area.
One specific question that I ask the Minister to take up with his colleagues in Government and the Department of Transport is responsibility for the speed limit. There was quite a lot of discussion at the public meeting on the speed limit, whether it is to be set as a national road by TII or if it is the responsibility of Kilkenny County Council. Is there an opportunity to reduce that speed limit as it exists in those three high-collision areas from 100 km/h to 80 km/h? Perhaps the Department and the officials might come back to me on that.
I am more than happy to take that up with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and would suggest that the Senator puts those concerns in writing to TII, as I think he already has. A lot of this is about getting people together in the one discussion. There are multiple local authorities involved, a State institution and the Department over all with the budgetary and policy purview. I completely understand the concerns and agree with the need to review those speed limits now and not just wait until this project is finished. I will convey that to the Minister, Deputy O'Brien.
Special Educational Needs
I understand Senator Crowe will be sharing time with Senator Curley.
I thank the Acting Chair. Dyslexia is a learning difference that affects about one in ten students, manifesting in a spectrum from mild to severe. As the Minister of State and Senators will be aware, it is legally recognised as a disability under both Irish and EU law. That recognition ensures the right to various accommodations in both education settings and the workplace.
In many countries, students with dyslexia and other neurodiverse conditions are granted additional time to support them during their formal State exams. For example, these countries include France, where students receive 33% additional time; Italy, where it is 30% additional time; and the UK, where students receive 25% additional time. There is currently no provision for extra time in Ireland despite advocates having raised this for years. I raise this today having been approached by a mother in Galway a number of weeks ago who told me how much stress this was causing and how much her child would benefit from a time allowance similar to that available in other European countries. This is an issue affecting thousands of families in the country every year. They are not looking for special treatment, merely just a level playing field that acknowledges their child's situation.
Dyslexia also impacts on confidence, esteem and relationship building, naturally enough. Students with dyslexia process information differently from students without it. This is in regard to reading text, processing what that information means, understanding it and how to articulate the information, either verbally or as an answer to an exam question on paper. When this is all combined and under time constraint, a person with dyslexia can become stressed, anxious and often freezes.
I thank Senator Crowe for raising this. I was a secondary school teacher before I came was elected to the House and the one thing I never really understood in the Irish education system in general was the obsession we have with time limits in exams. That is the kind of concept Senator Crowe is focusing on today - the time we allow students with dyslexia.
We were all fed clichés as students that the leaving certificate is an opportunity to show off what we know, not a test of what we do not know, etc., and that is nonsense. Bloom's taxonomy, probably the most recognised hierarchy of intelligences, would suggest that memory and understanding - the entire tenets of the leaving certificate - are 90-95% of what you do in your leaving certificate exams.
The leaving certificate was definitely not designed with dyslexia in mind. If you take it that memory and understanding and memorising huge reams of text to regurgitate them on paper only to forget about it for the rest of your life afterwards are basically what the leaving certificate is, and I have seen that as a teacher, then it definitely was not designed for students with dyslexia.
All that said, I welcome that there is a RACE review about to be undertaken, which means that Senator Crowe's Commencement matter today is very timely. I have been speaking to special needs co-ordinators in schools, particularly in my own school back home that I used to teach in, Presentation College Athenry. The one thing that was reinforced to me was that, if we are going to explore the concept of additional time for students with dyslexia, let it be on a school-based assessment. That is a really positive step that could be taken. When the RACE concept in general was given back to schools and a lot of the priority and power was given to schools to have assessments at school level, it really changed the game. Schools know their students best; they really do. They deal with them daily, see the needs of each student and can tailor their reasonable accommodations to each student's needs. Giving it to the school and giving a school-based assessment the priority would also avoid the whole idea of reasonable accommodations becoming the preserve of those who can afford private psychological assessments. It is really important that it would be an equal concept.
I thank the Minister of State for his time and gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir Crowe.
I thank both Senators for their contributions this morning, particularly Senator Crowe for placing this. I will be quite frank; this is the second time I have taken a Commencement matter of this nature. Admittedly, the first time was not in this iteration of the Seanad but it is remarkable that, two years on, we are dealing with the same question. I hope we will be able to give more of a positive update than the last time.
The State Examinations Commission, as the Senators are aware, has responsibility for the reasonable accommodations at certificate examinations, RACE, scheme. A central tenet of the RACE scheme is to ensure equitable treatment for all candidates. The range of accommodations provided within the scheme has been designed to ensure fairness for all when facilitating candidates in demonstrating their level of achievement. It is important to note that access to the scheme is needs-based rather than based on a specific diagnosis.
The review the Senators have both raised is being undertaken by the SEC during a time of senior cycle redevelopment and in the context of the wider special educational needs policy landscape. It is a comprehensive and system-wide review of the scheme. The programme for Government commits to developing an appropriate mechanism to allow additional time for students with specific needs and in certain circumstances, and to ensure those who use assistive technology can do so in State examinations. The review by the SEC, which is under way now, will seek to take account of these, all relevant issues and best practice internationally, including the examples cited by Senator Crowe.
The review is being directed by the board of commissioners of the SEC and overseen by a steering group, with the terms of reference published on the SEC website. The steering group is chaired by the CEO of the SEC and is composed of external members drawn from Government, academic and international organisations and internal SEC members of staff. The inclusion of internal SEC members of staff as well as external members is designed to ensure that rolling changes can be implemented as the review progresses rather than awaiting a big-bang approach at the end of the full review period.
Already, and on a pilot basis for the 2025 examinations, additional time for vision-impaired candidates who are under the care of the visiting teacher service is being increased from ten minutes per hour or part of an hour to 15 minutes for junior cycle, leaving certificate applied and leaving certificate.
This increases the additional time for these candidates to between 25% and 38% of total examination duration. For example, for an examination of two hours and 30 minutes, additional time of 15 minutes per hour increases the total examination time provided by 30%. This goes to Senator Curley's point that this is the opportunity. There is no sacred cow in terms of time limits. We can adjust it and be more reflective of the needs of the individual student. We are already doing it on a trial basis. Let us not dismiss this.
The consultation that will take place over the coming months will inform any appropriate changes to the shape of the scheme for the 2026 State examinations and those thereafter, with the details of the scheme for 2026 to be communicated to schools before the end of 2025 in line with normal timelines. Given the wide range of difficulties for which accommodations are sought, it is intended to seek the views of users through extensive consultation and engagement in order to capture all perspectives and to ensure all voices are heard equally. This will include young people with special educational needs, their families and representative organisations, including Dyslexia Ireland. It will take place over the coming months. I will make sure that the content of this debate is also included in that consultation.
The SEC acknowledges that there is increasing complexity in the special educational landscape, and, by extension, on the impact on candidates with special educational needs taking certificate examinations. Extensive consultation and engagement to be undertaken as part of this comprehensive review will provide an opportunity for the views of those affected to be incorporated into the considerations.
I thank the Minister of State. I am aware of the review, but given the mountain of research that has already been conducted on this topic, I believe they have all the evidence they need to make the right decision and finally correct this. I urge the Minister and the Department to engage with the State Examinations Commission as a matter of priority.
I am not trying to be facetious, but the fourth last paragraph was a beautiful exposé of how obsessed we actually are with time limits in State exams. I welcome the fact that a broader review is taking place and that this will be taken into account. I stress to the Minister of State that zero additional time is allocated right now to students with dyslexia, who, in many cases, have a reader with them in the exam. The reader cannot explain anything or interpret the text for the student and is simply there to read the exam for them. I have been a reader, not during the State exams but in special centres during mock exams. I know it adds time to what is needed in order to actually get the student to a stage where he or she can answer the question. Additional time is not an advantage and it does not disadvantage any other student. It simply gives the student extra time to write down what he or she already knows and has in his or her brain. It is a no-brainer. I thank the Minister of State for his time.
The key point is that this will be concluded and communicated in order that it will be in place for the examinations in 2026. We are at an advanced stage. The work is largely done. Let us finish it off. Changing this in order that we implement this in September rather than December will not make a difference for those sitting the State examinations in 2026. Let us make sure that due process is followed.
I completely take on the insights of both Senators, particularly Senator Curley's real-world experiences in reading settings and all that. There are some obvious changes here that have been done for people with other additional needs. To spread it to dyslexia makes sense to me as a layperson. As a Minister of State, I am more than happy to engage with my colleagues in the Department of education to make sure that these views are incorporated into the review, and that the review is ultimately one which meets the needs of the students as well as possible.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 10.13 a.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 10.31 a.m.
Sitting suspended at 10.13 a.m. and resumed at 10.31 a.m.