Mums Hub made a submission to the Department of Social Protection’s public consultation on potential new Working Age and Targeted Child Payments.

The full submission is ten pages long, because the issue is not simple.

But the heart of it is.

Care cannot be invisible in social protection.

If care shapes whether mothers can work, what hours they can take, whether childcare is possible, whether employment pays, whether they have income in their own name, and whether children are growing up in secure homes, then care has to be part of the design.

Too often, policy talks about work and care as if they are separate.

But for mothers and primary caregivers, they are connected every single day.

A mother may want to work, but need school-hour employment. She may want to increase her hours, but cannot find childcare. She may want to retrain, but not be connected to employment supports in her own right. She may be caring full time, but not seen as someone who is also contributing to the economy and society.

Any new payment system for working-age adults and children has to reflect real family life, not just what work looks like on paper.

Mothers Are Not Unwilling to Work

One of the most important points in our submission is that many mothers are not disengaged from employment.

They are unseen by the systems that are supposed to help people return to work.

That is a very different problem.

Through Mums Hub, we meet mothers who want to work, train, rebuild confidence, contribute, and have income in their own name. But many of them are not recognised as jobseekers in any meaningful way, because they are not available for full-time or fully flexible work.

They may only be able to work part-time. They may need school-hour roles. They may need term-time work, flexible hours, remote or hybrid options, or a gradual return after years spent caring.

But if the system is built around full-time availability, then these mothers become almost invisible.

They are not treated as serious jobseekers, even when they are actively looking for work that can fit around care. They may also be unable to access the same supports available to other jobseekers, such as training, advice, return-to-work guidance, or employment pathways.

That matters.

Because the issue is not lack of ambition. It is lack of recognition.

Our local evidence showed that 54.2% of the mothers surveyed were not in paid employment, but around 85% wanted to work or increase their hours. The strongest support need identified was help finding flexible jobs, reported by 71.7% of respondents.

Those figures confirm what we hear every day: mothers are not sitting outside the labour market because they have nothing to offer. Many are outside because childcare is too expensive or unavailable, school hours do not match work hours, flexible roles are hard to find, confidence has been knocked after years spent caring, or they cannot access employment supports in their own right.

There is another problem too.

Many mothers are assessed through household income, but household income is not the same as income in her own name.

A household may appear to have money on paper, while the mother herself has little or no independent income, little access to supports, and very limited financial choice. That can leave mothers locked out twice: locked out of suitable employment supports, and locked into financial dependence.

That is why we are asking for primary caregivers to be recognised in their own right.

Not as an afterthought within household income.

Not only as someone’s partner.

But as a person with her own needs, her own skills, her own ambitions, her own right to access support, and her own right to be recognised for the caregiving and labour she is already doing inside the home.

Because that work is not invisible because it has no value.

It is invisible because the system has chosen not to count it.

Make Work Pay in Real Life

Another point we made in the submission is that “making work pay” has to mean more than a calculation on paper.

Of course payments, earnings, tapers and thresholds matter. But for mothers and primary caregivers, the question is often much more practical than that.

Can she get childcare? Can she afford it? Does it cover the hours she needs? What happens during school holidays? Can she get to work and back in time for collection? What happens if a child is sick? Are there actually suitable flexible jobs available, or is she being told to take work that simply does not fit the reality of her family life?

Because if the answer to those questions is no, then work does not really pay.

It may look like it pays in a system, but not in a home.

Not when childcare costs take most of the income. Not when the hours make school collection impossible. Not when transport eats into the working day. Not when a mother is expected to be available as if she has no caring responsibilities at all.

This is why care has to be part of any new Working Age Payment.

If the Department wants to support modern work patterns, then the system has to recognise that many mothers are not moving neatly from no work into full-time work. Some are trying to take the first step back. Some are trying to increase hours slowly. Some can only work while children are in school. Some need flexibility because care does not happen outside the working day. It happens right through it.

And that should not make them less worthy of support.

A modern income-support system should help mothers move towards work in realistic steps, not punish them because the only work they can currently manage is part-time, flexible, school-hour, or care-compatible.

Making work pay means making work possible.

Financial Independence Is Family Wellbeing

Another part of the submission that mattered deeply to us was financial independence.

For many mothers, income is not only about work, career, or personal ambition. It is about choice. It is about safety. It is about being able to make decisions, meet needs, leave harmful situations if necessary, and care for children from a place of more stability.

This is especially important when supports are assessed mainly through household income.

A household may appear to have money on paper, but that does not always mean the mother has access to money in practice. It does not always mean she has income in her own name. It does not always mean she has financial choice.

And we have to be honest about why that matters.

For women experiencing domestic abuse, coercive control, or financial abuse, lack of independent income can make it much harder to leave or to make safe choices. Financial dependence can become part of the trap.

This is not about suggesting that every partnered mother is unsafe or financially controlled.

It is about making sure policy does not ignore the mothers who are.

Children’s wellbeing is connected to the wellbeing of the adults caring for them. If a mother is unsafe, financially trapped, unsupported, or unable to access help in her own right, that affects the whole family.

That is why financial independence should not be treated as separate from child poverty, family wellbeing, or social protection.

It is part of all of them.

Care Is Infrastructure

The central message of our submission is simple: care is infrastructure.

Unpaid care supports children. It enables paid work. It holds families together. It sustains communities. It keeps the wider economy moving.

And yet, too often, it is still treated as private, invisible work that mothers are expected to absorb on their own.

That has to change.

If care is not recognised in social protection, then mothers and primary caregivers will continue to be pushed into impossible choices. Work or care. Income or presence. Financial independence or family responsibilities.

But real life does not divide so neatly.

Care shapes whether work is possible. It shapes what hours are possible. It shapes whether a mother can train, apply for jobs, attend appointments, take up employment, or increase her income. It also shapes children’s stability, safety, and wellbeing.

That is why we asked the Department to look at a care-sensitive approach to any new Working Age Payment and Targeted Child Payment.

This could include a protected caregiving element, primary caregiver recognition, or what we called a “Care is Infrastructure” payment.

The point is not to trap mothers outside work.

The point is to recognise the care they are already providing, while also supporting real choice, financial independence, and realistic pathways into employment where appropriate.

Because care should not make mothers poorer, more dependent, or invisible.

What We Are Asking For

The recommendations in our submission are practical, but they all come back to the same principle: social protection has to reflect real family life.

That means designing any new Working Age Payment and Targeted Child Payment with a care-sensitive lens.

It means recognising that unpaid care affects income, employment, child poverty, family wellbeing and financial independence.

It means supporting primary caregivers in their own right, not only through household income or a partner’s situation.

It means treating part-time, school-hour, flexible and care-compatible jobseekers as legitimate jobseekers.

It means testing “make work pay” against real life: childcare costs, school hours, transport, children’s needs and the actual availability of suitable flexible jobs.

It means investing in community-based return-to-work supports, so mothers can rebuild confidence, update CVs, access training, explore options and connect with employers in ways that fit around care.

And it means building safeguards around financial independence, domestic abuse, coercive control and financial abuse, so that reform does not leave mothers or children more vulnerable.

Above all, it means asking one simple question before any new system is introduced:

Does this recognise the realities of unpaid care, or does it continue to make that care invisible?

Putting Mothers on the Record

When I added this submission to the Research & Evidence page on the Mums Hub website, I realised it was our fourth public consultation submission since September.

That made me stop for a moment.

When you are in the middle of the work, you do not always notice what is adding up. You are just reading, writing, researching, editing, checking evidence, and trying to find the right words for what mothers are living every day.

But seeing those submissions together made me feel proud.

Mums Hub may still be small, but we are putting mothers’ realities on the record.

Mothers are done being unseen.

Not as a slogan, but through evidence, submissions, workshops, employer conversations, and every space where decisions are being made about work, income, children, families and care.

The full submission is now available on the Mums Hub Research & Evidence page, alongside our other submissions.

Because care cannot be invisible in social protection.

And mothers should not have to keep proving that their lives, their work, and their children’s wellbeing matter.

‍