Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Early Childhood Care and Education Programmes

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 1 May 2018

Tuesday, 1 May 2018

Ceisteanna (31)

Anne Rabbitte

Ceist:

31. Deputy Anne Rabbitte asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if her attention has been drawn to the confusion and anomalies caused by the age limits that her Department has imposed as eligibility criteria for the early childhood care and education, ECCE, programme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18799/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (7 píosaí cainte)

My question is to ask the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if her attention has been drawn to the confusion and anomalies caused by the age limits that her Department has imposed as eligibility criteria for the ECCE programme; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Since the inception of the early childhood care and education programme, ECCE, age limits have been used to determine eligibility for the scheme. These rules are a necessary component of any Government scheme and ensure that Exchequer funding is used for its intended purpose. In 2010, only one ECCE year, or 38 weeks, was available. I enhanced this in 2016 and, on average, children benefitted from 61 weeks. From this September, the additional investment I secured in budget 2018 will enable all children from the age of two years and eight months to be eligible for two programme years.

While children will be eligible for two years of ECCE, not all parents choose to avail of it. There are two factors that prevent absolute standardisation of how much time children will utilise from the two years available. As Deputies are aware, school entry occurs at one point in the year, September, but children are born across the full year. Parents can opt to start their children in school at either four or five years of age. I fully accept that the use of age limits in a scheme such as this creates a situation whereby a child can fall just outside the age range. Under current rules, children born in January are most affected. However, we have to place an age cut-off at some point, whether this is at two years and eight months, or higher, or lower than this. The scheme as it exists provides eligibility for two years but enables parents to decide how much of ECCE is in the best interest of their child. I have asked for a consultation with the parents of children with disabilities, as I think the Deputy is aware, with regard to how the age limits affect them and I am due to receive the report on this consultation in late June. I will be happy to update Deputies as soon as possible thereafter on any changes to the scheme as a result of this consultation. I am conscious that age-based rules can be somewhat confusing, but my Department will continue to promote good communication of the ECCE scheme, so that parents and providers are clear about the rules involved.

I thank the Minister and acknowledge that the ECCE scheme has been extended to the two years. I also acknowledge that she has brought it back to one entry point. There had been much confusion about that. Going back to the entry point, children that are two years and eight months old on 1 September cannot enter into the two-year ECCE scheme. That is where the problem is. Can the Department look at this in another way so that two years before a child starts school, he or she would be allowed to enter into the ECCE scheme? I know what I am saying is simplistic but age has been a barrier here and it has been so prescriptive that the childcare providers themselves have to know exactly who they will get funding from. I can see it completely from their point of view. Parents might choose to let their children be that little bit older or younger and, as the Minister said, children born in January are particularly caught. Is there any way the Minister can work with the Department? She did it already, which I have to acknowledge, with the upper age limit. She has already overcome that obstacle. Is there enough time between now and September to make it non-prescriptive, so that children can get their two years?

My Department is looking at all sorts of possibilities. I understand the Deputy's concerns and think they are real. She represents her constituents very well. I thank her for acknowledging that we have almost got over that exemption issue. We are finalising the consultation and expect to come forward with some results in light of that. I have indicated that it is possible that the outcome of those consultations may give rise to policy proposals that might have a wider impact on the ECCE scheme in general as well as the issue of the school age exemptions. We may be able, in the context of that consultation, to consider these wider issues. Maybe decisions or recommendations will have been found. As the Deputy would be aware, any changes could have financial implications, some of them significant.

I acknowledge the financial implications but if the child falls into that January category, the parent ends up footing the bill for the difference even though he or she was technically within the rules, that is, that we would give two years ECCE to all children. We are looking at approximately 58,000 children. It is not 58,000 children who will be impacted by any manner or means. It is a cohort of children who are that age. If we say we are giving ECCE to all children and that we are doing early intervention, we should give them that opportunity. We would be giving a little control back to parents. Also, if childminders or childcare providers in crèches know that flexibility is there, which the Minister is talking about the possibility of, is now not the time to iron it out and to have the conversation from the start to the end so that we can give that clarity to parents?

That is what I am trying to describe to the Deputy. These considerations are happening in the context of that other consultation. I understand that if the policy is to offer two years, parents hope to be able to access that. To give the Deputy a practical response, specific to what we were speaking about there with regard to the January issue, to resolve the concerns being raised, my Department would have to further lower the age limit to two years and five months, possibly. If we were to do that, this would have cost implications. A further €20 million per annum would be required. It would place a greater burden on ECCE providers as many children in the age group are not toilet trained. It could also have an impact on ratios. These are the kinds of issues being considered in the context of those very real questions and concerns that parents are raising about children's age.

I would like to be able to continue discussing this issue with the Minister.

Barr
Roinn