Mr. Conor Stitt:

I am sure every witness and every member of the committee can attest to aftercare and the value it has as a positive intervention for young people. It was very welcome that the CEO of Tusla stated that the upper age limit should be considered in the context of the review. The Department noted that amendments were made in 2017 and that it might be too soon to consider changes. I think it was more that there was no time to consider them as part of the review.

There are a number of critical issues with regard to aftercare eligibility. The first is that many of those who are very vulnerable and in need of aftercare do not get it because of the eligibility criteria. One of these criteria is the 12-month rule. A person has to have spent 12 months in care between the ages of 13 and 17 in order to access aftercare. The full-time education requirement means that a person will be able to avail of aftercare up to the age of 23 if they are in full-time education or training. Education does not suit everyone who might a care leaver at that specific time in their lives, so that is one aspect that could be improved.

There are also issues regarding those who come in under section 5 of the Act and who appear as temporarily homeless or those who are unaccompanied minors or separated children who are still having their international protection applications being processed. There are a number of key critical issues.

What might be prudent within the committee's report is to suggest that following one year of enactment of this specific amendment Act, they might consider our view of aftercare eligibility. The further we leave those changes, the further people might fall outside the eligibility criteria. It is timely to consider this.