Vol. 1091 No. 2
1. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Social Protection the action he is taking to improve the quality and consistency of first-instance decisions on social welfare applications, particularly where a significant proportion of decisions are subsequently overturned on appeal; whether his Department has reviewed the reasons for those decisions being overturned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [67551/26]
Mine is a fairly straightforward question. I need to understand what the Minister is doing to improve the quality and consistency of first-instance decisions. The reason I ask is partly due to the fact that I am tracking the figures but also due to what I see coming into my constituency office. I ask the Minister to refer, if he could, to the domiciliary care allowance application process.
That is the one that, anecdotally and according to the figures, seems to be the most problematic.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as an gceist seo. As she knows, we in the Department are committed to ensuring that decisions on social welfare applications are of consistently high quality and in accordance with legislative provisions and the general principles of fair procedures and natural justice.
Proportionally, the number of appeals received equates to about 1% of all decisions that are made by the Department. In 2024, the Department reported 3.4 million decisions and the appeals office reviewed 40,684 appeals. In 2025, the Department made almost 3.6 million decisions. The number of appeals received was lower at 39,642.
We have worked hard to improve the appeals service. In 2025, a total of 51,638 appeals were finalised. Of these, 24% were revised by the scheme area of the Department without having to be considered by an appeals officer. This means that the decision was revised at the earliest part of the review or appeals process. Some 21% were allowed or partially allowed by an appeals officer and 46% were disallowed. The remaining appeals cases were withdrawn.
It is important to note that where an appeal is allowed or partially allowed or a decision is reversed, this does not necessarily indicate that the original decision was incorrect. In many cases, an appellant submits additional information or evidence during the review or appeals process that was not available to the deciding officer. That is where I am going to focus. I will focus on getting that information and encouraging the provision of that information at the beginning.
I thank the appeals office, which is doing extraordinary work at the moment. It significantly reduced the number of appeals awaiting decision in 2025. Appeals on hand reduced from 21,629 at the beginning of 2025 to 9,633 at the end of the year, which was a 55% reduction. That movement has continued throughout 2026. At the end of June, we had 6,695.
The waiting list for domiciliary care allowance appeals is just over nine weeks at the moment. We are at all times focused on bringing that down.
The domiciliary care allowance and disability allowance are particular concerns for me. I have spoken previously about the issues. It is rough on the families. They have to write about their children on their worst days and about all the bad things that they do to the family. That is not where people want to be. Considerable work could be done by the Minister's Department in advance of that.
Notwithstanding that, for 60% of domiciliary care allowance applications, the original decision is overturned on appeal. The Minister is telling us that 45% of appeals are upheld and 24% of them are upheld without having to go to a higher officer. That is not a case of more information being added. That points to something being missed in the first instance.
I want to convey to the Minister on behalf of my constituents and the multiple people who have contacted me about the issue that the appeals process is very rough for those people who are going through it. When their circumstances do not change, their appeals are being overturned. I understand that there is sometimes new evidence but sometimes there is none, and that is a problem.
I assure the Deputy that we do not want it to be that way. Way back in the spring of last year, our first Question Time focused on the domiciliary care allowance. I thank the Deputy for her interest. We have worked hard to try to make it as easy as possible. We introduced online applications. We are introducing an online appeals office, which gives people time in their own space to do that. We are constantly working to make it as easy as possible. The applications process is now online. Since it went online, just over 45% of applications have come in online, which probably gives an idea of the profile of the demographic applying. I am constantly focused on the issue. As I said, the waiting period for the domiciliary care allowance is 9.2 weeks for appeals. That was considerably higher prior to the focus that the appeals office has been putting on it. We had discussions last week at management board level as to how we could make the appeals process tighter for disability allowance, in particular. The amount of information that can come in on an appeal is quite extensive. That changes a lot decisions. To go through that information takes time. We are looking at how we can use our best processes to manage that.
An overturn rate of 60% points to a problem. I also thank the people in the appeals office. We deal with them on a regular basis and I know they are doing their best. Having said that, there is an issue. I cannot think of any other instance where there would be a 60% overturn rate. That kind of rate is a structural failure. I am not necessarily calling it an "error rate", but the original decisions are not good and that is why they are overturned. In the intervening time, families are left without money. I welcome the fact that the waiting time is coming down, but it is still nine weeks that people will be left without money and there will then be more time required to process that. There is only so much that people can do while they are waiting. There is a toll on families.
I welcome the focus on the appeals process. I would welcome and appreciate it were the committee to get regular updates on what is happening and if things are going in the right direction. Sometimes, the anecdotal evidence takes a while to catch up, and that is fine and I am perfectly willing to accept it. For the moment, however, I see from the people coming into my office and from people contacting me from outside my constituency that the 60% figure is a worry.
I would not say that 60% of decisions are overturned. That figure means that extra information was supplied during the appeal or review. That information might not have been available originally and would have changed the outcome.
I will certainly give an update. We will try to give a regular update to the committee. It would be of use to me, too, so we can look to see where there are pressure points. I thank the chief appeals officer and her staff. They have put significant work and investment into dealing with this issue. They constantly show their empathetic natures and understand the need to guide people and mind them through the appeals process. People are under considerable pressure and the appeals office is attuned to that. We are more than happy to deal with any specific case that the Deputy has in mind.
2. Deputy Eoin Hayes asked the Minister for Social Protection the work his Department is undertaking to increase uptake of the working family payment. [67508/26]
My question is about the uptake of the working family payment. As the Minister knows, child poverty is one of the priorities for the Government and a major scourge within our society. I would like to hear how the Government is focusing on getting families who need that payment and would do very well with it to take it up.
I thank the Deputy for his question. As he knows, reducing poverty and supporting families begins with ensuring that people are aware of the assistance available to them. The working family payment is a weekly, tax-free payment for employees on low earnings who have children. Evidence shows that it is an effective means of targeting support towards vulnerable working families and reducing their risk of poverty. This Government has therefore increased the working family payment income thresholds in successive budgets, enabling more families to qualify.
My Department promotes the scheme across the year through information campaigns, engagement with stakeholders, direct communications, information on our website and through social media. We have amended the application process to make it as clear and straightforward as possible. We have also introduced an online application process through mywelfare.ie.
The budget process always raises awareness of the working family payment. As part of budget 2026, we increased the working family income threshold by €60 for every family size. I also increased eligibility for the fuel allowance to include working family payment recipients. That had a significant impact on the amount of applications we received. The number of families receiving the working family payment has increased from 47,000 in 2023 to more than 56,000 in 2026, which is an increase of almost 20%.
My Department and I are focused on continuing to improve awareness of all of our schemes, improve accessibility to the understanding of those schemes and to improve the uptake of those schemes. When we complete the current budget process with whatever changes are made, we will once again renew promotional campaigns and awareness-building campaigns. We will also work with various employer groups to ensure they are aware that their employees could be entitled to this payment.
I thank the Minister for his reply. On Committee Stage, the assistant secretary general shared the information that, as the Minister said, there would be 56,000 recipients in 2026. However, the Department estimates a 53% uptake among those who are eligible, which means that approximately 50,000 people who would get that payment were they to apply for it are not getting it. That is a big problem. What comes to mind for me is the fact that the Government was able to work with Revenue to identify all recipients of carer's allowance and target them in quite a negative way in terms of tax bands.
It seems the Minister is not doing the positive side of that story, which is working with other agencies to target the families who need support, reach out to them, send the community welfare officers out, send officials from the Department out or whatever it is. For some reason, the Minister is not focusing on these neediest families. I ask him to consider how he can work to identify these families and reach out to them proactively rather than relying solely on an application process.
The 50% figure is based on a 2023 paper by the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI. Since then, as I said, we have increased the number of families by 20% and that continues to increase. The working family payment, because it is connected to earnings, is complicated and complex. That earning profile can change depending on work patterns so it is not a direct correlation in terms of it. Certainly, however, I will ask my officials to pursue if there will be information available through working with Revenue. We had a debate in this Chamber on Tuesday evening about not sharing information. We also have to be very careful in relation to that. I have to say that I think the Deputy will see greater uptake. The alignment of the fuel allowance payment to the working family payment did more to raise awareness of the working family payment than a lot of things. I think the 2026 figures will show growth. The working family payment is one of the most important payments in the Department. It encourages people to go out to work. It acknowledges that there is an expense in going to work. I will be doing my utmost to promote its availability and accessibility but also to ensure people know they may or may not qualify for it. That is the biggest challenge with the working family payment.
I accept that. I appreciate anything the Minister and his officials do in that regard. It is important to acknowledge that consistent child poverty is at 8%, so it is double what it was before. When we take housing into account, it is about 10%. It is about 26.6% for families whose youngest child is between the ages of zero and five. Working families really do need this kind of support.
Child poverty is something that comes up in the context of the budget every year. Last year, the Taoiseach said he wanted a second tier of child benefit. The Minister said he wanted a second tier of child benefit; he did not deliver it. This year, the Minister said he would like to deliver a second tier of child benefit but he cannot deliver it in this budget. It would, therefore, be helpful to know what he thinks about reforming the working family payment and this question of second tier of child benefit. What is the plan over the course of the Government? Will the Minister introduce it over the coming years? Why not this year? Importantly, I spoke to a paediatrician recently. I was expecting her to talk about healthcare or the HSE. The thing she focused on was child poverty and this question of a second tier of child benefit. I would be really interested to know how the Minister is actually going to tackle this problem, including the housing costs that are plunging people into poverty.
I assure the Deputy that we are very focused on child poverty. I am not just waiting; we are doing a lot of consultation on what a second tier of child payment might look like. One of the models that is most quoted would result in potentially thousands of families getting lower income on that model, so it is important that we review all the options.
We moved last year in budget 2026 to increase the child support payment by €16 and €8. That was a record increase. We are negotiating with the Department of public expenditure in relation to the child support payment for this year. That goes directly to the lowest income families. As I said, we also increased the threshold for the working family payment last year and we added the fuel allowance to the working family payment. It was first time people who were in work were able to access the fuel allowance. That was worth, given the extended season, about €1,100 per year to those working families.
We are doing the work on what a second tier of payment might look like but we are also ensuring those families are getting payments and support when they need it most. We will continue the work. I do not want a situation where, potentially, up to 100,000 families are worse-off because we introduced a second tier of child payment. That is not going to happen. In the meantime, we are supplementing their working incomes as well.
3. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Social Protection the assessment he has made of the recent findings on child poverty (details supplied); whether he considers that the current system of income supports is sufficiently targeted at families experiencing poverty and deprivation; the changes he believes are necessary to ensure that children in the most disadvantaged households benefit from rising household incomes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [67549/26]
The ESRI findings on child poverty are a pretty damning indictment of the statements the Minister and the Government make. I think we will find it very hard to disagree with that. I am interested to know whether the Minister accepts the ESRI findings and its statement that "the Government is very far from meeting its target with regard to reducing child poverty". Rhetoric is one thing, and to be fair to the Minister's boss he is very big on that, but actual delivery is another. The statistics do not bear out what the Minister says in this Chamber. It does not seem to be translating. I want to know specifically whether the Minister accepts the ESRI findings. Does he accept that child poverty is rising?
I thank the Deputy. I welcome the publication of the ESRI report and the focus it puts on child poverty. The focus is very much aligned with mine and the Government's, including my boss, which includes the reduction in child poverty as one of his top priorities. Our determination to deliver this priority has been reflected in a number of major measures, which I have just discussed with Deputy Hayes but I will reiterate them for the House. We have significant increases in the targeted payments, namely, the working family payment and child support payment. That includes 26% in the over-12 child support payment in 2026, which followed on from a 15% increase in the 2025 payment. We have made successive increases of €60 per week in the working family payment threshold and, as I said, we have expanded access to the fuel allowance for nearly 50,000 families who are in receipt of the payment. These increases are in addition to the expansion of the hot school meals programme, the introduction of the free school books programme and the provision of free GP care for children.
In the context of my Department, the total value in budget 2026 alone was €320 million. Many of these measures have not yet been reflected in the survey on income and living conditions, SILC, data on which much of the ESRI report is based. However, I note that while there has been an increase in the number of people living at home at risk of poverty, the core measure for consistent poverty, which is favoured by many advocacy groups, has improved. It was at 7.8% in 2025, down from 8.5% in 2024. That is too high and I am focused on driving that down.
There are a number of proposals within the ESRI report. The proposal for a two-tier payment, which we just discussed, differs from the proposal contained in the 2025 edition of the report. That indicates that this is a complex challenge. It is complex to get a new payment structure that reaches more families at risk of poverty without disadvantaging those who are already in receipt of existing claims. We had 270 submissions in response to our public consultation and we will be including the work of the ESRI. We will be engaging with the committee in relation to this. My most important work here is to ensure that we do not disadvantage families by moving to a different model.
I do not think the measure the Government uses for poverty will in any way interfere with the people who are living with material deprivation. I genuinely think they do not care what metric the Government chooses to measure it by because they are in poverty. The ESRI tells us very clearly that there is a rise. Some 17.4% of children are living below the poverty line. After housing costs, that goes to 22.7%. In fact, we are going in the wrong direction when it comes to child poverty. That is not a failure of the systems that are used to measure it. With the greatest of respect, that is a failure of the Government and the gap between what the Minister says he wants to do and what he actually does. The Minister has spoken repeatedly about a second tier of child benefit. That is something he should look at because the families of those children living in those homes need in-cash transfers to be able to get themselves out of poverty. Rather than quibble about those figures from the ESRI, the trend, no matter what way we measure it, is only going in one direction. That speaks to the fact that there is a gap between what the Minister said and what the reality is and that gap is widening, not closing.
We also look at the measurement of consistent poverty. That is taken from the Central Statistics Office's, CSO’s, indicator of consistent poverty. Our child poverty target is based on the CSO figures. The CSO's Survey on Income and Living Conditions, SILC, 2025 showed a decrease in consistent poverty from 8.5% to 7.8%. It also showed an increase in children experiencing enforced deprivation from 21.2% in 2024 to 19.6% in 2025. The social protection measures in budget 2025 and budget 2026 are not captured in those figures because there is a lag in terms of how those figures are measured. We are again in negotiations with the Department of public expenditure for a substantial child poverty package in the context of budget 2027.
They are in addition to the school meals programme - which, for a family with up to two children, can save up to €1,100 per year - the schools books programme and various other initiatives that are under way under other Departments.
We are very focused on this. We are seeing progress. Is it quick enough? No, absolutely not. The second-tier payment will be part of that. I reiterate that some of those who are promoting models that are being discussed and endorsed at the moment would leave families on lower incomes worse off. We cannot allow that situation.
I do not think the Minister is in any danger of leaving people worse off just because he thinks the measurement might be off. With the greatest of respect, I think that is a bit of a nonsense argument. The Minister can see the trend and what way it is going. I do not want to get into an argument because there are people at home who, God love them, might be watching this wondering what we are talking about. This is about child poverty, yet they would see the Minister and me arguing about the figures. The measurement the ESRI gives us is a very important one, as is the fact that it gives its own narrative opinion, which is that the Government is very far from meeting its target. This is a fact. The ESRI is a very respected institution. Its estimation of what the Government and the Minister's Department are doing is that they are very far from meeting their target. There seems to be a huge gap between talking about an additional rate of child benefit and doing it. I sincerely hope the Minister does not wait until just before the next election before rolling out a package because people, and children in particular, need that support now.
I can assure the Deputy that we are not just talking. I reiterate the changes in last year's budget in the context of the child support payment, which included a record increase, particularly for over-12s, the full expansion of the hot schools meals programme and the expansion of the fuel allowance to working family payment recipients, with 50,000 extra families entitled to the fuel allowance. They will all make a difference on those figures. Yes, the ESRI is respected. I listen to it and I value its opinion but when I look at the figures from the Central Statistics Offices, CSO, which has access to live figures and detailed information, they are showing us going in the right direction in terms of a reduction from 8.5% to 7.8%, and from 21.2% in 2024 with regard to children in forced deprivation to 19.6%. All of that is happening in the context of a growing population. Is it fast enough? Absolutely not. That is why we continue to direct resources and time and inject energy into this. The consultation in relation to the second-tier payment has given us a lot of food for thought, with over 220 submissions that will be seriously considered. I will engage with the joint committee on these and we will bring clarity to this a lot quicker than the timeline I just outlined.
5. Deputy Paula Butterly asked the Minister for Social Protection the changes he proposes to introduce to support women of older generations who are not eligible for a contributory State pension despite having made PRSI contributions through employment during their working lives but who do not have a sufficient contribution record to qualify for a pension at pensionable age; whether he is considering any further measures to recognise periods spent out of the workforce due to caring or family responsibilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [67756/26]
There is still a significant amount of women of older generations who are not eligible for State contributory pensions despite having made PSRI contributions through employment during their working lives but who do not have a sufficient contribution record to qualify for a pension when they come of pensionable age. Is the Minister considering any further measures to recognise these periods spent outside of the workforce due to family responsibilities or a caring role?
I thank Deputy Butterly for her question. As the Deputy knows, the State contributory pension is financed through the Social Insurance Fund, with entitlement based on a person’s social insurance record. To qualify, a person must generally have at least 520 paid contributions, which is equivalent to ten years of contributions. This requirement maintains the contributory nature of the scheme. It ensures a sufficient connection with the social insurance system.
The system makes significant provisions for gaps in a person’s contribution record arising from caring responsibilities. Up to 20 years of home caring periods or homemaking disregards may be included when calculating a person’s rate of contributory State pension, subject to the relevant conditions. These periods can improve the rate of pension payable but they do not satisfy the minimum requirement of 520 paid contributions.
Further, where a person has provided full-time care to an incapacitated person for a total of at least 20 years, long-term carer's contributions may be awarded. These are treated in the same manner as paid contributions for the contributory pension. This can enable a long-term carer to qualify even where they do not otherwise have the 520 paid contributions.
For those who do not qualify for a contributory State pension or who qualify for a reduced rate, they can apply for the means-tested non-contributory pension, which provides an important pension safety net subject to the relevant means, habitual residence and other qualifying conditions. Alternatively, as the Deputy will be aware, where a person is receiving a contributory State pension, an increase for a qualified adult may be payable in respect of their spouse or partner, subject to an assessment of the qualified adult’s means. We hope that these measures mean that no one with a financial need is excluded from a payment in their old age.
In its 2021 report, the Commission on Pensions strongly supported the minimum requirement of 520 paid contributions. Any future changes to that would have to be considered in the context of the sustainability of the State pension fund and the Social Insurance Fund going forward.
I acknowledge the measures that have been introduced over recent years, including the homemakers scheme, home caring periods and long-term carer's contributions. They are positive developments and help to ensure that caring work receives greater recognition within the pension scheme. However, some women from older generations are not benefiting fully from these reforms because they had already reached the pension age before many of these measures were introduced or because they do not have the minimum level of paid contributions needed to access the contributory pension scheme. A concern for me, particularly in my constituency in County Louth, relates to women whose caring years took place largely before 1994. While home caring periods and other reforms have improved recognition of caring responsibilities, many women feel they have received little recognition for years spent raising families at a time when pensions supports for carers were far less developed. Many of these women made contributions during their working lives.
The Social Welfare Act 1997 legislated for changes in the minimum number of paid contributions. The number increased to 520 in April 2012. The homemakers scheme allowed time spent caring for children under 12 since 1994 to be disregarded in the divisor of the yearly average method of calculation. Home caring periods were introduced for those who reached State pension age after September 2012. They can be awarded from any time, including pre-1994. Each of the pension caring supports is specific to the method of calculation but we have to ensure equality, and there is a concern that if pre-2012 pensioners were also allowed to avail of the total contributions approach, including home caring periods, their arrangements would be significantly more generous than those of post-2012 pensioners. I am happy to engage with the Deputy if she has specific cases, so we can give her a more detailed response. We are very focused on the sustainability of the pension fund going forward but we do want to acknowledge those who spent time away from the workforce in a caring capacity. I am anxious, within the context of sustainability, that people do not lose out and about the need for fairness for every pensioner.
I thank the Minister for offering to look at this in more detail, including specific cases. These women, for decades, did everything that society asked them to do. They worked, stayed at home and took care of their children and other family members. It is really important because it is that cohort of older women, who in many cases could be our own mothers, who do not have their own financial independence. It is maybe means-tested or linked to their spouses' entitlements. That is really unfair and when we talk about equality, we have to give women the recognition for the work they have done inside and outside the home down through the decades. We are in modern times and we keep saying there is more equality but where is the equality for that cohort of women? The only options they had back in the day was the famous pin money or runaway money. Let us give them that comfort.
I will engage with the Deputy because that is also the cohort of women that was forced to give up work when they got married, by law. My own mother was one of those. We will certainly engage with the Deputy but it is important that we have that concept of fairness across the system. We also have to keep a very firm eye on sustainability, as we are all getting older. The Deputy is right in regard to those people who made caring their priority and had no other choice. We will engage with her in that space.
With the permission of the House I will go back to question No. 4.
4. Deputy Mark Wall asked the Minister for Social Protection if he is considering extending the age for domiciliary care allowance from 16 to 18 in budget 2027. [67640/26]
Thank you very much, a Chathaoirligh. I thank the Minister for taking the question. Is he considering extending the age of domiciliary care allowance from its current position of 16 years of age to 18 years in the upcoming budget?
I thank the Deputy for his ongoing interest in that. The domiciliary care allowance, DCA, is payable to a parent or guardian in respect of a child under 16 who has a severe disability and requires continuous care and attention. There are currently 65,950 families receiving this allowance in respect of approximately 75,500 children at an investment of almost €359 million in 2026. DCA stops being paid when a child turns 16. That aligns with the age disability allowance becomes available. If the young person has a disability that significantly impacts their daily living activities, they can then apply for a disability allowance payment in their own right of €254 per week, subject to satisfying the qualifying conditions for that scheme. That compares with a monthly payment of €380 under DCA.
I have no plans at this point to extend the age of entitlement for DCA. My focus in relation to carers remains the process of phasing out the means test for carer’s allowance, which is consistent with the policy approach advocated in the programme for Government and by family carer organisations. As the Deputy knows, significant improvements have been made in this area over the last number of years. Where a parent or guardian in receipt of DCA is also receiving carer’s allowance or carer’s benefit, those payments may continue after their child turns 16 where the qualifying conditions are met. There is also the carer’s support grant which is payable where full-time care continues.
I am absolutely focused on keeping the range of supports under review. This has been examined and predecessors in the Department tried to make movement on this some time ago but there is considerable debate within communities about this. I am happy to engage with Deputy Wall on how we could do it. We might get a chance with the next question to go through some of the concerns people have in this space.
I thank the Minister. I have been on this for six years now and I spoke to his predecessor about it. She made attempts to raise this from 16 to 18 as well. The Minister has continued on that and we have had a number of conversations on it.
Recently we conducted a survey of almost 1,000 people and well over 900 of them wanted this increase. They wanted it because they are finding it very difficult to prove, in their opinion, that their child who continues to have the disability qualifies for disability allowance. Disability allowance is in essence a job-seeking payment and that is the problem here. When you have a child who is 16 and going to a special school or a mainstream one, it is so difficult to prove that child is not fit for work, basically. That is what the vast majority of parents we dealt with in that survey have said and it is why they are looking for this extension.
I am happy to engage with the Deputy on the survey and the feedback on it. DCA is not means-tested or taxable. We discussed with Deputy O'Reilly earlier that we have done a lot of work to try to reduce the burden of the application process and the appeal waiting times. The number of families in receipt of DCA has increased by 41% in the last five years and more than doubled in the last ten. The number of children for whom a DCA is paid has increased by an even further amount.
I will certainly engage with the Deputy on it. I have looked at this since he began raising it with me and gone through previous files. There are very differing opinions even with some of the disability groups on it. It would a worthwhile discussion at the committee - I see the Chairman is here - to engage with this and understand where people's feelings are strongest on this and why in particular there is a lot of opposition to it. I would like to engage with the Deputy on the survey and go through it. I can see Deputy Boyd Barrett looking at me as well. I would like to engage on what this change would mean and what the drawbacks of it are. We have to go through those drawbacks, which have been outlined by a number of groups in recent years.
The Minister has thoroughly engaged with me on this matter but the issue is the latest figures we have from his Department show nearly 16% of children were refused disability allowance when coming from DCA. That is almost 1,300 children who now have no payment. As the parents of those children regularly tell me, and I am sure other Members, their child's disability has not gone away. It is just they have been unable to prove and qualify for disability allowance. The disabilities their child and loved one has remain and they are still paying for it. They are paying for private services, as we know, though I am not going to go into that today. The problem we have is what to do for those 1,300 children and their families who are now without a payment. As the Minister said, there are more people entitled to DCA and that is good but the figure is only going to grow, so it is a debate we need to have. The vast majority of respondents to our survey said they wished for the age limit to be extended. I hope we can have further discussions on it.
Let us do that and let us bring this to a head. It will not be in advance of this budget but let us bring it to a head over the course of the next number of months and try to get an understanding on some sort of agreed way forward. Previous Ministers tried to change this and they had to stop. We will certainly look at the Deputy's survey, engage with the committee and get a number of different perspectives on that. Ultimately, it is those children and their parents we need to keep our focus on so we do not have that cliff-edge at such an early stage in life. I am happy to engage and will get my office to follow up on that.
