Ms Pauline O'Reilly:

I thank the Chair and the committee for the invitation to speak here today. Being seen goes to the heart of what I am going to talk about, so that recognition was really important to us. I was to have a colleague here today and it is appropriate to say that she is with her three children because her husband could not take time off of work for her to be here. I will start with that in an emotional way because this is emotional for us. When we go into the polling station as people who are carers and have been carers and mark an X beside a "Yes" or a "No" on that ballot paper, we are all attempting to assert our values. It is not a piece of legislation. It is something more visceral and it is important to remember that the Constitution is a document that represents the people’s voice. That includes carers.

We also support the approach of the National Women's Council of Ireland. Today, therefore, we are calling for an amendment to Article 41.2 that is compassionate, including the removal of the paternalistic and sexist language that we can all agree is offensive and the inclusion of a recognition that nurturing is important to who we are as a nation. We mean this in the broadest possible sense of community. We respectfully question the idea that deletion is simpler. Life is not always simple and it exists in the margins of economic activity far too often. We feel this is a unique opportunity to express ourselves as a people and if further examination is required to do this, then that is important work and can be done before any referendum takes place.

I am going to touch first on the notion of equality because this seems to have been key to the Minister’s motion. We firmly believe that the liberation of women is being conflated with economic activity for women rather than looking at equality within the home and the workforce. There are many different measures that can be taken within the workforce as well as within the home. Some may say that care work is something that holds us back as women and as a society, but in fact it is the lack of choice, the lack of financial support and the lack of recognition that really holds us back. Whether we work outside of the home full-time, part-time or not at all, caring still happens. The cared for must still be cared for by someone. We know that, currently, women carry out most of this work. We would like to see a more equal contribution from all genders and we believe that this can be achieved only by elevating the status of care work. Even within the paid workforce women carry out the majority of care work, such as in crèches, and these roles are among the lowest paid. Who are we that we diminish the value of being with children and vulnerable adults and put every other work above that?

When we voted "Yes" on 25 May, we voted not only for the choice to end pregnancies, but also "Yes" to support with the continuation of pregnancies for those who made that choice. Deleting care from the Constitution flies in the face of the commitment made on the doors, including my me, to support all choices. I am speaking on my own behalf when I say that. I will outline some practical considerations that we feel people should take on board when it comes to the referendum. I ask that we put ourselves in the shoes of those going in to vote. We do not want to pit ourselves against anyone. That can often happen when people are in different circumstances in the home and outside of the home. We are fearful that a referendum that offers deletion versus retention instead of amendment versus retention would do that.

With tax individualisation in 2000, the reduction in supports for lone parents who care at home and the lack of an increase for foster carers, we have experienced at first hand the erosion of the supports for families. Article 41.2 has never been challenged directly and certainly not in the Supreme Court. Even as it stands, however, it could be argued that certain minimal supports such as child benefit and home carer tax credit could be dented more easily if it were removed without amendment. This will weigh heavily on our members and other carers, who rely on these and other supports, when the time comes to vote. They will be weighing up their commitment to gender equality, which most of us genuinely have, with the hard facts of looking out for our families' financial survival and our children's futures.

The Stay-at-Home Parents Association is a relatively new organisation, unlike some of the others here. We were formed out of a common feeling of isolation and the lack of a voice. There are no trade unions for those engaged in unpaid work nor could we afford to join a union. No statutory bodies have been established to support our work in the home but we are a huge section of the population, past and present.

From the outset we have been firm as an organisation in our belief that all families should be supported equally, whether engaged in paid or unpaid work and whether headed by lone parents, married or cohabiting couples, including those from the LGBT+ community. As an organisation we are secular. We will take people from any religion and none. We want to be recognised for our diversity as families in the broadest possible sense in an ever-changing society.

What is care? There is the physical and mental labour it entails, but there is also the time away from paid employment that we cannot ignore. It always means providing for those who cannot earn an income and, therefore, it is financially a very difficult position for most. The committee may have heard that more parents would choose to work outside of the home if childcare was affordable. Some would but there are also many who cannot afford to stay home. It is the lowest paid who return to work the fastest because they need the financial support. The fact that we need more childcare is true. That is a discussion for another day. We certainly believe that everybody should have all choices on the table but staying at home is almost never the cheaper option, yet the majority, 62%, of those who stay at home are the sole caregivers to their children according to the CSO. To this figure should be added all of those who are cared for and those who care on a non-full time basis - on maternity leave, on parental leave, and during every single waking moment outside of paid employment. As a society we would not be looking for these supports if being with family and community did not matter to us.

While we seek to put forward the position of parents and guardians caring for children - and that is my job here today - we believe that the care of older persons and vulnerable adults is equally important. Many of us in this room would be in that position. We also recognise the valuable social and cultural contribution that the children and adults who are being cared for make to society. This is often forgotten. We are carers for people because those people matter.

The reason care work should be recognised in the Constitution, as opposed to in legislation, is that Governments enacting such legislation are often concerned with short-term economic activity - budget to budget kind of stuff. The Constitution should assert higher values. Fundamentally we want Governments now and in the future to take note that paid labour market activation is not the only goal of our society, in fact it is a means to an end for our society and not a goal at all. We want time with our families whatever their shape and wherever we work.