NWC calls for funding for early childhood education and mother and baby unit in pre-budget proposal
In its pre-budget submission the NWC called on the Government to seize the opportunity to deliver universal, inclusive public services that support women "as part of a new feminist economic model that prioritises care for people and planet and creates an Ireland for all."
Other proposals by the NWC include the establishment of Ireland's first mother and baby unit ; the extension of the fuel allowance to those in receipt of the Working Family Payment and to implement minimum BER for rented properties; tackling violence against women, and the provision of 250 more refuge units, especially in counties with no available refuges, and supports for long-term.
'At a time when unprecedented economic resources are available to Government, now is the time to invest in a way that betters the lives of women in Ireland. Budget 2026 must clearly do that by investing in public services," said NWC director Orla O'Connor.
'Despite repeated commitments by Government, Ireland still lacks a dedicated mother and baby unit for women needing inpatient mental health care after childbirth. Budget 2026 must deliver on the capital funding necessary to establish this essential service.
'Violence against women continues to be at epidemic levels, and access to refuges and long-term accommodation is a significant barrier for many victim-survivors. Budget 2026 must have strong budgetary commitments to provide more refuge units – particularly in counties that currently have no available refuges – and provide supports for long term housing for victim-survivors.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Redress for school abuse survivors would be biggest in State's history, sparking fears among officials
A redress scheme for survivors of sexual abuse in schools would be at a 'far greater scale' than any other scheme in the history of the State, and could have 'far-reaching implications'. A group of civil servants across five senior Government departments warned they could not support a call for such a redress scheme without 'concrete data' about how high demand and what 'potential costs' would be. It is possible that a commission of investigation would have to start its work before a redress scheme is set up, with the early stages of the inquiry being used as a way to measure demand for redress. There are concerns among senior sources about the impact the redress scheme would have on budgets for present-day needs. The Government will now consider if the insurance policies of schools found liable for abuse can be used to 'offset' the costs of payments to a possible 40,000 survivors or more. READ MORE This week Ministers agreed to set up a commission of investigation into historic abuse in schools. Minister for Education Helen McEntee said 'further' investigation and analysis was required before an anticipated redress scheme for abuse survivors could be announced. [ Q&A: Will survivors of historical abuse in schools be compensated? And who will be liable? Opens in new window ] The commission of investigation and proposed redress scheme were among the recommendations of a scoping inquiry published last year, which detailed 2,395 allegations of sexual abuse at 308 schools run by religious congregations, involving 884 alleged abusers. An inter-departmental group report (IDG) including officials from the Departments of the Taoiseach, Education, Justice, Children, and Public Expenditure and Reform wrote a report examining the main recommendations of the scoping inquiry. The group of civil servants felt that setting up a redress scheme for survivors of sexual abuse in schools was 'as complex' as setting up a commission of investigation. Analysis by the Department of Public Expenditure warned against 'the significant risks' of a 'rushed' redress scheme, 'including the assumption of risk by the State when liability should more appropriately be borne by third parties'. The report said that recent case law on the liability for the actions of school employees found that 'the State does not have such liability'. IDG said such a redress scheme requires 'serious and careful consideration' and that it could have 'far-reaching implications'. [ The Irish Times view on the inquiry into the handling of child abuse in schools: a mammoth task Opens in new window ] The IDG report noted that based on information from the Central Statistics Office (CSO), there are more than 41,300 people aged 35 or over in Ireland that have been affected by sexual abuse in schools, with the added note that sexual abuse tends to be 'under-reported'. 'In the event that a comparable number of people applied to any future redress scheme, the impact would be considerable and certainly on a far greater scale than any such scheme implemented to date in Ireland,' it said. It said: 'Concrete data regarding the potential scale of historical sexual abuse in day and boarding schools in Ireland is unavailable and in the absence of such information, the IDG is not in a position to advise on an appropriate response to [the recommendation for a redress scheme] at this time.' Officials will now carry out further work on the practical issues of a redress scheme. [ Highest number of abuse allegations in 16 years received by Catholic Church's safeguarding body Opens in new window ] International examples of redress schemes that succeeded in getting third parties found liable for abuse to pay for redress will also be examined, including a scheme in Australia that succeeded in getting religious organisations to pay for redress by threatening to withdraw charitable status or state funding. Survivors had stressed to the scoping inquiry the need for the future Commission of Investigation to be carried out quickly, with Ms McEntee this week setting a five-year timeline for the inquiry. The IDG has proposed letting the commission sit in parallel 'divisions' to save time. This would be the first time in the history of the State that an inquiry has been carried out in such a way, and it would be likely to require additional legislation passed by the Oireachtas.
RTÉ News
2 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Dáil blackout brings cost of living crisis into spotlight for Government
"Have you paid the electricity bill, minister", came the pointed quip from Social Democrats TD Jennifer Whitmore in a Dáil chamber unexpectedly thrown into darkness on Wednesday morning. A power outage had temporarily shut off the Leinster House lights and, as luck would have it, the black-out happened just as the Government was insisting it is not trying to hide the cost of living crisis in the political shadows. Moments earlier, the Dáil had been locked in debate over surging grocery prices and TD claims some families are spending more than €3,000 a year on buying the basics from supermarkets. As the lights flickered back on, Deputy Whitmore took the opportunity to intensify the political spotlight. "When the Government talks about the crisis in grocery prices it tends to do so in the past tense. "It talks about rapid price increases when Russia invaded Ukraine, as if the crisis ended there" Deputy Whitmore continued. "However, what is not acknowledged is that those prices never came down and now grocery costs are skyrocketing again, while the Government sits idly by and watches it happen. "Part of the privilege of being in Government is that the Minister of State can intervene. "The big question the Minister of State needs to answer today is why she has done none of these things. Why is the Cabinet acting like bystanders, narrating a problem instead of doing anything?" Deputy Whitmore asked. The claim was something the Government could no doubt have done without. However, given the Opposition's renewed focus on the cost of living crisis this week, and the Coalition's view that no specific package to address the situation will be included in this year's budget, it is one likely to be returned to in the weeks and months to come. Cost of living crisis The reason for that renewed opposition focus on the cost of living crisis is largely due to developments outside of Leinster House in recent days. On Tuesday, children's charity Barnardos published the findings of a new survey of 1,000 families, conducted on its behalf by Amarach research. The survey said 40% of families who took part have borrowed money to pay for their children's essentials, and that one in three households went into arrears on their electricity bills at least once between April 2024 and April this year. In addition, it also found that 40% of parents have skipped meals so their children had enough to eat, and 12% have used a food bank in recent months. Those figures were followed on Thursday by new Central Statistics Office findings showing that food inflation (4.6%) increased by more than twice the rate of general inflation (1.8%) in the 12 months to June, with some families now paying upwards of €3,000 per year for groceries. And they came in the same week as a lack of clarity continued over the student fees saga, with students protesting outside of the Dáil and Trinity College Dublin issuing invoices of just over €3,000 to some students for the new academic year. Add into the mix the latest Sunday Independent/Ireland Thinks opinion poll which last weekend suggested cost of living (32%) remains the second most important issue for voters behind only housing (51%), and the raft of numbers and statistics point to one conclusion: The cost of living crisis debate has not gone away, and remains a weak spot for Government which the Opposition is now keen to target. Dáil debates That targeting was most keenly felt on Wednesday, when - after the Leinster House black-out was quickly resolved - the spotlight was soon shone firmly on the issue. Hitting out at the situation during a Social Democrats motion seeking to address "price gouging" by supermarkets, party TD Gary Gannon said families across Ireland are having to choose "between eating and heating" while party colleague Rory Hearne said food banks have confirmed the biggest growth in people attending are those in "working families". Similar concerns were raised by Labour's Ged Nash, who said "if it walks, talks and acts like price gouging, it very well may be", before dismissing previous promises to take action without ensuring reforms were introduced as the equivalent of the Father Ted reference "can anything be said for another mass?" And they were joined by Sinn Fein's Pearse Doherty who accused Government of "sitting on your hands" over the issue, a claim the Coalition was quick to reject. Responding to the criticism and further allegations that previous promises to address the high price of groceries failed to stop those prices rising higher, Fianna Fáil's Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise Niamh Smyth said the Government is not ignoring the issue. "You walk into a supermarket, come out with a handful of items and will have spent €50 or more. "I appreciate that is a huge challenge for parents. In today's world, to have parents going without feeding themselves to ensure their children are fed is very difficult," Minister Smyth said, adding that Government is taking steps to resolve the situation. These steps, she said, include plans to give the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission greater powers to take action against supermarkets, a view repeated on Friday by Fine Gael's Minister of State for Retail Alan Dillon. Some progress, perhaps, but on the wider point of whether a cost of living package is needed in the upcoming budget is causing some division too, with Sinn Fein TD Johnny Guirke claiming while special supports are needed none are being promised as there is "no election this year". That stand-off had been repeated a day earlier over the student fees controversy, with Fianna Fáil TD for Further and Higher Education James Lawless coming under similar pressure over whether help will be provided to households struggling with rising costs. During a debate on the potential €1,000 increase in student fees this September, taking place in the Dáil as students watched on from the public gallery, Minister Lawless was told by Independent TD Seamus Healy that Government is "throwing students under the bus" if they go through with the fee increases. That view was repeated by Labour's Spokesperson on Education and Youth Eoghan Kenny who said when you have to choose between education and costs "you realise how little you are valued by the State", and by Sinn Féin's Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire who said "there are Cabinet ministers who think the cost of living crisis is over". Those claims were roundly rejected by Minister Lawless, who insisted Fianna Fáil is the "party of education" and that while he agreed with the sentiment of some of the Opposition barbs many were in his view "cheap populism" and "points scoring". But with rising costs and growing financial pressures in households nationwide, it is an open question over who voters would rather believe. Extra budget supports or not Politically, it all leads to one brewing pre-budget row, even this far out from October - and one which may prove difficult for Government to overcome. In recent months, the Government has clearly and repeatedly outlined the economic constraints it may need to work within over the coming period due to the ongoing financial certainty in the wider world. But while that is a widely accepted view, the Coalition cannot ignore the financial pressures being faced by the general public either. That is a political dilemma and one that the Opposition calls for greater cost of living support is likely to increasingly target, and also one which a Government caught between national need and individual household circumstances may find increasingly difficult to avoid.
RTÉ News
15 hours ago
- RTÉ News
High Court to rule later on challenge regarding junior ministers at Cabinet
The High Court has reserved its decisions on challenges by two TDs to the attendance of junior ministers at Cabinet meetings. A three-judge division of the court presided over by the High Court president, heard the challenges by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly and People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy over the course of the week. Mr Justice David Barniville said these were very interesting and difficult cases. He said the judgments would be worked on over the next number of weeks, but it was unlikely they would be ready before the end of the legal term at the end of this month. Both Mr Daly and Mr Murphy in their separate cases say the attendance of what are known as "super junior" ministers at Cabinet meetings is unconstitutional. They say the Constitution limits the Government to the 15 full Cabinet ministers appointed by the President and the participation of others in the Cabinet meetings is not permissible and also breaches the provision on Cabinet confidentiality. In his action, Mr Murphy is seeking injunctions to stop the attendance of the junior ministers at Cabinet. Mr Daly is also challenging the legislation permitting an allowance to be paid to such junior ministers for their attendance. In her closing submissions on behalf of the Government, Senior Counsel Catherine Donnelly said Mr Murphy's case depended on making fine distinctions between matters such as participating in a Cabinet meeting versus providing participants with assistance as well as having political influence versus influence on legislation. She said these distinctions were "unstable" and completely unworkable and had the potential to undermine the very constitutional values Mr Murphy suggested he was attempting to uphold. Ms Donnelly also noted the evidence of former super junior minister Finian McGrath who said he was treated exactly the same as full ministers. She suggested the judges were being asked to make a ruling on the subjectivity of how ministers of state might feel. She said that just because there may be other people attending a meeting of the Cabinet, did not mean the 15 full ministers were not acting with collective authority when they made their decisions. And she said Mr Murphy's side had not explained why Cabinet confidentiality was threatened by the presence of junior ministers but not by others who might be there such as the Secretary General to the Government, the Attorney General or other advisers who could attend. Ms Donnelly told the court she did not accept the characterisation of the case by Mr Murphy's side as a case based on the fundamental rights of citizens to designate their rulers. She said the attendance of ministers of state at Cabinet meetings did not interfere with this and did not dilute the accountability of the Government to the Dáil. 'Clear evidence' Senior Counsel John Rogers for Mr Murphy said his side had put forward the "clear evidence" of former deputy Finian McGrath of his active participation in Government decisions. He said the Government had not disputed that this level of participation by junior ministers was continuing in the present Government. Mr Rogers said it was his case that junior ministers who attended Cabinet were treated in all respects as if they were members of the Government. He said their influence in the Cabinet room was unconstitutional. He said it fractured the collective authority of the Government and breached Cabinet confidentiality. He said there was no legal authority anywhere entitling the junior ministers to be at Cabinet meetings. Mr Rogers said the constitution prescribed a course whereby the people would get their rulers, and that should be protected. He said the Government's case came down to the entitlement of the Taoiseach to invite who he wished to attend and participate in Cabinet meetings on an ongoing basis. Mr Rogers said any participation by outsiders on the basis of equality with ministers was a dilution of collective responsibility and accountability to the Dáil. Senior Counsel Feichin McDonagh who represented Pa Daly said an issue relating to memos which could only be brought to Cabinet by senior ministers was an attempt to rely to try to gloss over the substance of junior ministers' participation in Government decisions. Mr McDonagh also pointed out that all of the lawyers present in court were "assisting the court" and none of them were "taking part in the decision making" of the three judges. The court may give its decision at some stage in the autumn. Legal sources expect the issue eventually to be decided definitively by the Supreme Court.
