Anne Rabbitte (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

265. To ask the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the cost to expand the second year child care ECCE scheme from 22 weeks to 32 weeks; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8963/17]

Anne Rabbitte (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

266. To ask the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the cost to expand the second year child care ECCE scheme from 22 weeks to 36 weeks; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8964/17]

Anne Rabbitte (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

267. To ask the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the cost to expand the second year child care ECCE scheme from 22 weeks to 38 weeks; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8965/17]

Anne Rabbitte (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

268. To ask the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the cost to expand the first year child care ECCE scheme from 38 to 40 weeks. [8966/17]

Anne Rabbitte (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

269. To ask the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the cost to expand the first year child care ECCE scheme from 38 to 42 weeks. [8967/17]

Katherine Zappone (Dublin South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 265 to 269, inclusive, together.

When introduced, the ECCE scheme provided free-preschool for 38 weeks of the year, the 38 weeks broadly mirrored the primary school academic year. When ECCE was expanded as a result of Budget 2016, it enabled all children to attend ECCE from the age of three, entering at one of three entry points after their third birthday, September, January or April, and remain there until they started in primary school, with the exception that they could not be more than 5 years and 6 months when they finished ECCE in June. This followed a recommendation from the Expert Group " Right from the Start".

The expansion of ECCE increased the average time in ECCE from 38 weeks to 61 weeks with children benefitting from a range of 51 weeks to 88 weeks. Whilst the terminology of "a second year" is often used, it is important to recognise that most children do not benefit from a full second year. All children currently finish in ECCE in June regardless of when they start (September, January or April).

The Deputy has a number of questions relating to an increase from 22 weeks, in the “second” ECCE year (the first chronological year), to the weeks outlined hereunder. There are three intakes for the additional weeks provided in Budget 2016 (September, January and April). The questions have been answered using the assumption that the January and April intake of children would be extended so that each intake would be entitled instead to 32, 36 and 38 weeks for their first year in the respective questions; September intakes will always have 38 weeks.

The cost to increase the January and April ECCE intakes to 32 weeks in their first year would potentially be €38 million.

The cost to increase the January and April ECCE intakes to 36 weeks in their first year would be €48 million.

The cost to increase the January and April ECCE intakes to 38 weeks in their first year would potentially be €53 million.

The cost to increase the first year of the ECCE scheme from 38 to 40 weeks would potentially be €8 million.

The cost to increase the first year of the ECCE scheme from 38 to 42 weeks would potentially be €17 million.

As a general principle and to provide a guideline, we can consider that each additional week for the April intake in their first year would cost €1m, each additional week for the January intake in their first year would cost €1.5m and each additional week for September intakes (including year 1 and year 2 children) would cost €6million.

It should be noted that this question only addresses the financial aspect of such increases. Any such changes would require revision of rules around eligibility and enrolment dates and would need to look at issues of capacity with regard to physical space, staffing capacities and other associated matters.