Mr. Mark Considine:

There can be a little bit of a misunderstanding about these rules. It just does not happen that if a child is picked up early we take the money back. The scheme is designed to ensure that the money is spent as best as we possibly can on children who are in attendance and the money follows the child. We want to strike a balance with that and remove some uncertainties from providers by saying that if attendance varies from week to week, it does not adjust the allocation unless it happens over an extended period. They would get a notice at eight weeks that the number of hours the parent indicated was required had not been used and then, after 12 weeks, they would need to adjust the position if that has not changed. It reflects what the parent actually wants from the provider.

The original design, as well as ensuring that the money follows the child, also reflected the varying usage of provision by parents. Families do not always work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. They work on different days and they do shiftwork. They might need three days. Their actual need for provision varies greatly so it enables them to articulate how many hours they want. A measure of provision is then agreed with a provider and then the State helps to pay for the provision for children. It strikes the balance between ensuring the money is used efficiently and making sure that there are not wild fluxes in funding the services.

The balance of the attendance-based model needs to be taken in conjunction with the core funding, which we have spoken about. Other models are not related to attendance and provide funding across the board, reflecting the capacity and attendance pieces and making sure the parents are not penalised for picking their children up early. I have heard that reported several times but it is not the case.