Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

My earlier concerns, as expressed on Second Stage, have come to fruition. I am grateful to the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for preparing a detailed analysis of the Bill. In section 5, the Minister is changing the principal Act significantly. We had put down an amendment - it was ruled out of order - concerning those over the age of 23 who were previously in care and who are now pursuing full-time education. That is not at all unusual. There are many young people over the age of 23 pursuing education. Take, for example, the Minister’s profession of medicine. It involves six to seven-year course and it would most definitely engage young people over 23 years.

The Library and Research Service digest states, in the context of the Child Care Act 1991:

Where a child leaves the care of a health board, the HSE can assist him for so long as the board is satisfied as to his need for assistance up to the age of 21 years (or later if continuing in education). There is an option rather than an obligation to provide aftercare.

However, on the Minister’s proposal with this Bill, the digest states:

Tusla must prepare an aftercare plan for an eligible child or an eligible adult following an assessment of needs. There is no statutory obligation to implement the plan. There is a statutory obligation to take Tusla resources into account when drawing up the plan.

On the upper age limit for provision of aftercare, which was the core of our amendment, the Child Care Act 1991 provides for support:

Up to the age of 21 but if the person is in education then until the completion of the course of education in which she or he is engaged. No statutory upper age limit.

That is the wording of the Oireachtas Library and Research Service digest of the Bill. However, the Minister has changed it in the current Bill, which reads:

Up to the age of 21 but if the person is in education when Tusla can continue to provide assistance up to:

(a) the completion of the course of education in which he or she is engaged, or

(b) the end of the academic year during which the person turns 23, whichever is the earlier

Can the Minister explain why he has changed the provision? I appreciate he has to obtain advice on this. The provisions already in existence in the Child Care Act 1991 seem to have worked reasonably well. The Minister is now denying those who are in the middle of full-time education. Once they are past 23, that is the end of it. I am raising the matter for clarification, not to be scoring points. I am reading the analysis of the Oireachtas Library and Research Service. If the Minister could just deal with that specific issue for the moment, please.