Ms Bernie McNally:

I am happy to answer that question. The way the policy paper was developed in the first place was that the 15 hours came from evidence that exists that children benefit from 15 hours of care and education etc. Beyond that, we know, for example, that very long hours in low-quality services may not be good for children. Therefore, that was a consideration. The Bill certainly allows that where there are children who may be vulnerable for one reason or another, be it homelessness, teenage pregnancy or a variety of other reasons, sponsor agreements can be entered into with Tusla, the HSE, the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Justice and Equality. We can make a facility that children will receive much more than 15 hours. It could be 40 hours. That is very much central to the legislation. The 15 hours provision would be set in the regulation. There is the possibility in it of changing that if required. We would pull back to the type of evidence that exists on this. We want to do what is right for children across a range of issues. We want to get the best outcomes for them. That might include, on some occasions, assisting the parents into employment and avoiding them getting into a poverty trap. It is a complex area. That is our rationale here. There are a number of children in this context whom public health nurses etc. have referred. The sponsor agreement will be very much set out in the legislation.