Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

On Second Stage, the Minister referred to the pre-legislative process and the recommendations of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children. Interestingly, the analysis by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service provides the full list of joint committee recommendations. I want to put on the record that a number of them were not part of the Bill. One recommendation was that consideration could be given to broadening the eligibility criteria to include young persons deemed to have exceptional needs. I would take that as meaning that exceptional needs could be seen in educational terms. That is not part of the Bill. The Minister has already dealt with the question of replacing the word "may" with "shall", which would impose an obligation on Tusla, the HSE and any other State bodies identified by way of regulation to co-operate in planning for the needs of children and young persons leaving care. That is addressed in part.

Something else that is not part of the Bill is a recommendation that consideration could be given to ring-fencing a budget for the provision of aftercare services. They are not part of the Bill either. I acknowledge and commend the Minister for managing to get an increase in his budget. I think it is €36 million this year. The overall cost in his Department for Tusla is almost €700 million so we are not talking about small money here. I fully acknowledge that. I do not wish to in any way diminish the difficulty the Department has, particularly as a spending Department, in trying to get more money out of the Exchequer but there seems to be a very genuine concern that has been expressed by Senator van Turnhout about "may" and "shall". If one looks at the response of the relevant agencies involved in this area, one can see that time and again, they make reference to resources. The wording of section 45 has given rise to debate with stakeholders, including Focus Ireland, maintaining that there is currently no statutory obligation on Tusla to provide the services. In essence, this means that once a child reaches the age of 18, he or she is no longer deemed to be in care. While the legislation does empower Tusla to make continuing provision for young people formerly in its care, it is a purely discretionary power. One can understand why there is concern among those engaged in the area of child protection. Time and again, it comes up that the Bill only guarantees a plan, not its implementation. Barnardos has said that. It is rather interesting that it makes the distinction. It said that it is a crucial difference in that it guarantees a plan but not its implementation.

Again, I am sure this affords the Minister an opportunity to reassure all those organisations and individuals involved in child care that insofar as is possible given permissible resources, he will have a totality of approach to this and that he will ensure that where possible, funding and resources will not inhibit the work of Tusla in ensuring that children in care are provided for. I was very concerned about those over 23 continuing full-time education. Despite the fact that I was of the opinion that care and the financial resources of Tusla would stop after the age of 23, if I am correct the Minister has stated that this would not be the case and that flexibility is built into the system. In other words, it is reassurance. Could the Minister confirm this view?