The EU Care Strategy: a watershed moment for unpaid carers and care workers across Europe?
The Care
Matters podcast is brought to you by the ESRC Centre for Care and CIRCLE, the
Centre for International Research on Care, Labour and Equalities. In this
series, our researchers welcome experts in the field and those giving or
receiving care to discuss crucial issues in social care, as we collectively
attempt to make a positive difference to how care is experienced and provided.
Hello and
welcome everyone to this episode of the Care Matters podcast series hosted by
the Centre for Care. My name is Becky Driscoll and I'm one of the research
associates at the Centre which is hosted by the University of Sheffield. So my
role is focussed on making sure that we use our evidence to influence policy
across all four nations of the UK. So often this means responding to government
consultations, parliamentary enquiries and really looking for opportunities to
shape the public debate on what care looks like.
I'm really
excited that this episode is going to focus on the European Union Care
Strategy, which was formally adopted in December 2022. Now, while the UK is
obviously no longer a member of the European Union at the Centre for Care,
we're very keen to have an international perspective and indeed we've got lots
of international research partners that we look to work with really
collaboratively. And it's really important, all of us at the centre that we
look to learn from new approaches in different countries around the world as
much as possible. So this episode, I'm really delighted to welcome two
excellent guests to talk to me today about the EU Care Strategy.
So we're
joined by Stecy Yghemonos and Zoe Hughes, really looking forward to great
conversation today by means of introduction. Stacey is the Executive Director
of Eurocarers, which is a European network working with and for informal or
unpaid carers. Eurocarers brings together over 70 organisations from 25 countries
around Europe who work collectively together to ensure that the growing care
needs of the European population are addressed in a universal and equitable
way, and that the vital contribution that carers make is values recognised and
supported.
Zoe is a senior
policy and research officer working for Care Alliance Ireland, which is a
national network of voluntary organisations supporting family carers in
Ireland. She joined the organisation in 2015 with qualifications in social
work, social policy and Disability Studies, and she's previously worked with a
number of different academic and voluntary sector organisations. So she's
particularly interested in the topic of diversity with caring along with
inclusive and participatory research methods. She coordinates policy and
research functions of Caroline's Ireland, and she's written an award winning
discussion paper series which aims to bring together less discussed and perhaps
more challenging topics forward for consideration by professionals who support
family carers.
She also
somehow manages to find the time to undertake her doctoral work at University
College Cork, where she's focussing on the topic of family care within the
LGBTQ community. So with no further ado, I'll perhaps come to you first, Stecy,
and it would be great if you could perhaps give us a bit of background to the
EU Care Strategy. So if you could summarise for us briefly what it's all about
and why it's come about in 2022.
Sure. Hello,
everyone. And first of all, thanks for having me as a contributor to the
series. So the European care strategy was put forward, as you said, by the
Commission actually a few months ago already, but it was formally approved
earlier in December.
So it is a
proposal put forward with two main objectives. The first one is to boost access
to good quality, affordable and accessible care services across the EU. And the
second objective is to improve working conditions and work life balance for
carers, both professional and informal. So the strategy has a life course
perspective and so it focuses both on child care and long term care, even
though, of course our focus is primarily on on long
term care. For those of us who are familiar with the decision making process.
The strategy
package actually consists of a new communication and two proposals for council
recommendations respectively on child care and long term care, both of which
have been endorsed by Member States very recently. And for those of our
listeners who are not familiar with EU jargon, communications essentially serve
to define the context for action programmes and future policies and
recommendations are used to suggest a line of action without imposing any legal
obligation on Member States. In other words, none of these instruments. So the
package, the strategy package is actually not binding on member states. Having
said that, Member States are usually expected to oblige to the suggestions
made.
As part of
council recommendations in as I said, these recommendations were approved by
member states a couple of weeks ago. If I may, I just want to build on what you
said earlier in your introduction regarding the impact of Brexit and the fact
that, of course the UK is not part of the Union anymore.
What we see
based on, on our experience is an observer of the EU decision making process,
but also as a contributor wherever we can is that usually these strategies and
these initiatives, they tend to inspire action beyond the EU. So for example,
Norway recently developed a national carers strategy and it's a direct
by-product of the UK strategy. We know also, based on previous initiatives
related to care and caring, a new level that the British Government also kept a
close eye on those developments and maybe was also inspired to develop, you
know, similar initiatives.
Now, the
strategy came about, in my view, for two main reasons. The first one is, of
course, the fact that due to demographic, ageing and increased longevity in
Europe, we see a growing prevalence of age related diseases, chronic diseases,
a growing demand for care and as a result, a pretty thorny challenge in terms
of the sustainability and the quality of our care services. And these
challenges concern pretty much the entire continent. So certainly all of the EU
member states. So they there is an added value in having some sort of a
coordination mechanism on caring, caring European level. The second reason, of
course, is the pandemic, which has really acted as a catalyst by shedding light
on the many limitations and weaknesses of our care systems, and then therefore
also on the urgency of reinforcing these services.
So the
commission proposal, the package is a direct response to calls from various
stakeholders, including European parliaments, civil society organisations,
social partners, but also national regional governments. The strategy does not
mean that all countries are expected to put the exact same policies and support
measures in place. But at least the strategy is a tool to ensure that all
relevant objectives are pursued by all relevant actors on both formal and
informal long term care. So the strategy is a great milestone, we believe, for
the future of care and caring in Europe.
It's very
timely, actually. There's been a lot of focus on what needs to change in social
care across all four nations of the UK. So in Scotland obviously a real push to
develop a national care service. Wales, lots of initiatives to improve working
conditions. And in Westminster, House of Lords report looking at social care
and trying to really reframe it, thinking about making sure for unpaid carers
that it's a real genuine choice to want to care for their loved one. That's
something they're forced to do by a lack of availability of services and also
making sure that that social care support is seen as an enabler, something the
title of the report is A Gloriously Ordinary Life, and I think that's a really
inspiring well, it's an ordinary but inspiring vision that I think lots of
people across the sector very enthusiastic signed up to. So the timing of it, I
think even as you say, we're not a member state, I think hopefully there is the
opportunity to learn from what's going on across many different European
countries.
And I guess
Zoe from your perspective it'll be really interesting to hear in the Irish
context what is the added value that that Stecy talked about, that having an EU
wide strategy brings as opposed to kind of everybody, different countries just
going off and doing their own thing, cycle strategies.
So again,
just, you know, this is the first time I'm speaking, so thank you very much for
having me along and I really appreciate it. And coming from the Irish
perspective, you know, we've had a national care strategy here that focuses on
family carers, which is the term we use in Ireland on family carers for the
last ten years know. So it's for us it's really good to see something at a
European level that we can use to build on what we've done before and what has
been in place in an Irish context. A lot of the a lot of the actions that were
in our national care strategy are kind of part of the European strategy or
they're, they're, you know, they're they're third
links, if you don't mind, or they're very similar. So it's really good to see
that. But also as a policy officer, you know, I. Want to be able to use the
European strategy to be able to show, okay, you know, we're doing well, you
know, on a policy level, but we need to keep going with it. We need to keep
pushing. And I always like to I like to call it ammunition, and I know that's
quite an aggressive term. But all of these policies that I can draw upon in my
discussions and working towards changing the services on the ground is really,
really helpful because I think a lot of it you kind of have to push from the
top down on policy to get this the bottom up services working well for family
carers and for those that they care for. So from that perspective, that's the
real for us in Ireland anyway.
That's how I
see the real added value of the EU care strategy. And again, it kind of goes a
little bit of a way as well to increasing that recognition of the work that
family carers do just on a daily basis, which I think is really, really
important. You know, we can't focus on that too much because it could be an
awful lot of lip service, you know, there can be an awful lot of well we have a
policies in that case, you know, and the whole point of it then is to figure
out ways to action that policy, which is a big bugbear of mine when it comes to
policies in general, you know, we can have great stuff on paper, but it's about
actioning them. And that's kind of where I always try and put my focus is on
the at the actioning of those at a local level.
So anything
we can do to put that pressure on our local and national actors of policy makers
is so, so helpful, which is why it was so great to see this.
And you
remind me and no one terminology is important for all of our listeners. So here
in the UK and at the Centre for Care, I wouldn't say necessarily that everybody
is using the same terminology consistently all the time, but certainly we tend
to talk about unpaid carers to distinguish people who are caring for a partner
or
family
member, perhaps a friend or a neighbour, as opposed to somebody who's a care
worker. They said it's their job, their ploy by an agency to go and support
somebody. Where is this? The EU strategy talks about informal, informal carers
and so you just mentioned the language of family carers. So Stecy, if I can
come to you to say a little bit about the language in the care strategy and
what's meant by that those times.
Sure. And
this is a very important point indeed. So we speak about the informal carers,
usually colleagues in Ireland speak about family carers indeed. And in the UK
we speak about unpaid carers. We're essentially talking about the same people. So
family members, friends or neighbours who provides what we say in our
definition of usually unpaid long term care to a person with a disability, a
chronic disease or any other long lasting care needs, or could be an addiction,
for example, outside of a professional context.
So why do we
speak about family carers at the EU level? Simply because at this stage the
majority of the existing legislation in EU level, certainly international level
is well, for example, the W.H.O. or the OECD. Well, that legislation tends to
refer to informal care or informal carers. So in order to avoid confusion, we
tend to stick to that wording just in passing. Based on the definition I just
shared with you, it is very clear there's actually no easy or no perfect
terminology, informal care. Well, there's some of my colleagues quite rightly
would say that there's nothing informal by the informal care. It's very
demanding and very intense when you speak about family care. Well, what about
friends and neighbours and unpaid care? Nowadays in some countries, in regions,
informal carers have access to some form of financial support. So I mean, none
of these wordings is really meeting or ticking all of the boxes of the
definitions. So unfortunately, there's no there's no perfect terminology.
Exactly. And
I think whatever time analogy we use, for me, one of the real strength of the
strategy is that it makes it very, very clear that we can't look at either
unpaid carers or care workers in isolation, the two sides of the same coin, and
that actually most member states, if not all across Europe, have relied far too
much on the unpaid labour of caring for carers from the carers. And that this
really needs to change is isn't sustainable. It's not sustainable on people in
terms of their mental health, their physical wellbeing, how they're able to get
by day to day financially and that we really need to be thinking of the two
kind of hand-in-hand. So I wondered if it's this that certainly resonated with
us in the UK. I want to say if that's something that you kind of equally
recognised in Ireland?
Absolutely.
Of course it is. Yeah. I mean the thing about it is, is that I like to think of
the caring. Experience it. You know, use a bit of a flow return. But as kind of
it's not just about one or two or even three people, it's about kind of a whole
system around somebody who requires support. And it's always mutual. It's
always, you know, it's never one way. It's everybody gets cared for. Everybody
cares for lots of different people. So whether, you know, you're a family
member or friend or a neighbour who's caring in that way. Nine times out of ten
there will be some level of formal or state support in some way, certainly in
our lives anyway. The whether that's, you know, home help or home care or a
service personnel assistance, there's usually some mix of that.
And if you
discount one or the other, then that whole balance gets just shifted, you know.
So it doesn't to me, it just doesn't make sense not to think about everybody in
that relationship, the family, the wider family, the person obviously who is in
receipt of care at the centre and then all of these other elements around that
that creates that experience where ideally people can live for as long as
possible with support in their own homes, communities where they've always been
or where they would like to stay, as long as that's their choice, you know. And
I think to do that, you need all of these different elements of care. And so
when you're thinking about trying to find ways to enable people to do that,
then you have to think about all those different elements.
So to take
one out of it, which is make it so imbalanced, it would be like taking family
carers out of the loop of care. It is it just doesn't kind of doesn't make any
sense, you know, and a lot of people, you know, a lot of people who are in
receipt of care, they don't necessarily I always find it in speaking to people,
they don't necessarily want all of their care maybe to come from a family
member because their do you know, they understand that family members need
breaks, particularly when things are quite intensive.
And that's
where then, you know, perhaps the more to use the term, the more formal or, you
know, the paid care, I suppose, comes into it because it can get very, very
intensive. And, you know, you have an emotional link there when it's a family
member that can get quite intensive, you know. So I think having breaks and
that's where that that paid peace comes in. I think I don't know if you agree,
but that's how I see it. Anyway.
I completely
agree. And actually we have quite a lot of convincing data showing that there's
no way around, you know, the combination of professional and informal care.
And, you know, even if we wanted to try and replace informally care by
professional care, it would actually be very, completely impossible just for
financial reasons.
And the
value of informal care in Europe is so significant, so big that actually trying
to replace informally carers by care professionals would entail more than
doubling the current budget devoted to professional long term care, which was
which is completely impossible because we're already struggling to maintain the
current budget for long term care as is.
So yeah. So
we certainly need to maintain some level of informal care into care mix. But at
the same time as it was mentioned by both of you earlier, we need to ensure
that informal care is and remains a choice for informal carers as well. So
people should be able to choose to what extent and whether they want to be
involved in provision of a bit of informal long term care in the first place.
And so we also need to invest more proactively in the profession in long term
care, good quality, professional long term care, and in particular in community
based in-home care in order to alleviate the so-called burden. I'm saying so
because some of my colleagues don't like to speak about the burden of informal care.
But at least to ensure that there are alternative options to the provision of
informal long term care and the combination of the two.
So
alternative options to informally care and support to informal carers will
create an ecosystem where people are able to decide whether or not they want to
be informal carers and to what extent they want to be involved in the provision
of informal care, as I was saying before.
So that's
really what we're pushing for now. And the strategy, the UK strategy explicitly
recognises the need of both options and the need to boost both options. But at
the end of the day, you know, we believe that informally care should supplement
professional care and not the other way round. And unfortunately, many
countries at this stage care systems heavily relying on informally carers so
that that. Needs to be rebalanced. That needs to be changed. So again, the
strategy provides a great tool to at least guide member states towards this
rebalancing.
I think that
is certainly a very to me that strikes me as quite actually for a lot of member
states quite a radical notion. Is quite far from where we are today to say that
people should have a free choice whether they want to take on a caring role or
not. And in particular, I think that would be quite radical in its implications
in terms of gender equality. And that is a very strong theme that runs through
the strategy that I think a lot of us would see as one of its real strengths.
So I
wondered, what do you that to me that's really, really stood out. Is it the
need to redistribute caring responsibilities, both in terms of the unpaid care,
but also in terms of attracting men into the sector as well? I definitely pick
that out as one of the strengths of the strategy. I wanted to put both of you
in the European perspective and within the Irish context. So what you think
would be some of the key strengths of the strategy?
Sure, I'm
happy to start. So, yes, certainly the gender equality dimension is very
strong, very prominent in the strategy. The idea is, at least on the side of
the commission is fairly simple. Informal care is a major barrier to in terms
of women's ability to access the labour market or at least good quality, full
time jobs. Many family carers have to reduce their working hours. And of
course, a typical informally carer in Europe is a woman usually between 45 and
75, so of working age. So given the also the limited remit of EU institutions
in the field of employment and social affairs, it should also be said it still
belongs to Member States to decide and shape their policies in those areas as
they see fit. But the role of the Commission is to coordinate between Member
States. So the Commission is really trying to use the policies where it has
more power, let's say so economic governance, access to employment as an
instrument to boost or to promote gender equality.
So in that
context, the strategy is indeed used to say, okay, if we manage to rebalance
the provision of unpaid care, both childcare and long term care between the
collective and individuals, then that will give more women a chance to access
the labour market. But then, as I said before, again, we need what, whether we
like it or not, will need to maintain a share of unpaid care in the mix. And so
another way of boosting gender equality is also to improve working conditions
in professional care.
So to make
sure that also more men are attracted to the sector, because obviously the idea
is that if you improve salaries, if you improve training and working conditions
generally, you know, more men will be attracted to join the sector. So the
strategy the strategy also includes quite a lot of objectives or principles
around these targets. And we can expect that indeed member states and again, by
and large, all European states will probably take more initiatives in those
areas in the future.
Yeah, I mean
from an Irish perspective and from my perspective, I, I love data and this is
where the research bit of my policy and research role comes in. And there's I
was really pleased to see a kind of a focus on data on, you know, monitoring,
on gathering information, on an onus on member states to actually review
targets and look at things and make sure that that, you know, the targets are
being reached and that the work is being done. And for me, from a policy level,
you just have to have that built into any sort of policy action plan or
anything that's related to honestly anything that stretches anything. You know,
that's a very broad thing for me to make. But that was I think that's one of
the biggest weaknesses that we have in Ireland. We have lots of great policies
on paper and we a previous senator, Senator Kent, her, she's no longer a
senator, but she was fantastic and did a lot of a lot of work in disability
care in Ireland, in our in our national government. And she once said to me
that Ireland has an implementation deficit disorder. And I just really liked
that phrase because it just shows, you know, we've got great stuff on paper,
but the implementation of it can fall down sometimes, you know, when
governments change when. National frameworks change. And I think having a focus
on monitoring and on evaluation and on data gathering at an EU level which
obviously spans, you know, a lot longer than our national governments. I think
that's so helpful. I think it's so important for any plan like this to have
that kind of built in is so important because without evidence, we can't know
what we're doing well, we can't know what's being what we can learn from other
member states. And that's part of the whole point of the EU is to work, is
working together and learning from the different member states and finding out,
okay, you know, that's fantastic over there.
Maybe we can
maybe you can replicate that here. So I think that for me was one of the
biggest strengths that immediately jumped out to me. There's lots of great
stuff in it, you know, but I think, you know, like I say, it's, you know,
implementation is the key on this. You know, having it written on paper can
only go so far for the actual to making an impact on individual families, lives
and individuals. And that's the whole point of stuff like this is to have
impact. So without the evaluation, you know, how are you going to know what the
impact is? So that for me was one of the bigger strengths of of the strategy.
I think the
point you make about implementation is, is absolutely key is and I think a
cynic could say, well, it's all very well and good to have these strategies on
paper that they sound. They've got their very lofty aspirations. But what's the
what's what difference is it actually going to make to somebody in real life on
the ground? And so I guess I guess I would say, see that that sort of
implementation deficit disorder, is that something you recognise kind of across
Europe, all the other countries? Do you think that has made much more progress
in terms of actually making, you know, translating aspirations on paper into
action on the ground that we might be able to learn from?
Yes,
certainly. I mean, generally speaking, I'd say that Nordic countries or Western
European countries have probably been better or more active in the sector
compared to other countries in Europe. But again, we have good hopes that now with
the strategy that we change for various reasons, and I'll get to that in a
second.
But first of
all, let me say that, you know, the fact that we now have an EU strategy is not
nothing. I mean, it's a major achievement in, quite frankly, on our side. It
took us more than 15 years actually to convince member states in collaboration
with the Commission, that there was an added value in having a coordinated
approach on long term care at European level. So I mean, you know, it's not
easy to convince 27 member states to sit down together at the same table to
discuss common objectives. And now we have reached this point. But obviously,
you know, as it was said by you in that and I agree, the strategy is, at the
end of the day, own your strategy. It's a you know, it's a compass, it's a
plan. It sets a direction. But now we are yet to see how that will be
interpreted by member states, of course. Now I believe the strategy could
change a lot in terms of the gaps when it comes to the implementation across
Member States and across Europe, again, for various reasons besides the, you
know, the list of common objectives and common principles
First of
all, the strategy is accompanied by funding, which is always a very nice
incentive for member states and stakeholders to try and comply, at least with
the or try and achieve the objectives. So for example, through the Structural
Funds, Member States will be able to access additional financial support as
long as they can demonstrate that they are doing their best to implement the
strategy. The same applies to stakeholders and to some extent also outside of
the EU. The Commission is also putting quite a lot of money in, for example,
new research projects to collect additional data about, amongst other things,
the situation and needs of informal carers and the identification also of
potentially good or promising practises. So this is something for all of us to
keep an eye on. And then the strategy is also entails that Member States will
have to submit every year national action plans to monitor development and to
keep track of progress.
And again,
this is this is a voluntary process, but it's naming and shaming kind of
exercise. Obviously, that means that every year member states will probably
meet, discuss progress. And those member states who have even done so much
maybe to implement the strategy will be diplomatically reminded by the
Commission and fellow Member States of the need to, you know, to do more. And
again, that's very useful when again, bearing in mind the limited role of
institutions in those in those areas. So again, the strategy, you know, I don't
mean to sound too optimistic or naively optimistic, but it certainly holds the
potential to make a big difference.
Thanks, Stecy.
And thinking about putting together the National Action Plan in Ireland, so
what will that process look like? Who will be some of the key people who'll be
involved? What do you think might be some of the quick wins that you might be
able to make progress on? And what do you think might be in Ireland's some of
the trickier areas or the basic going to be just much more challenging.
To answer
your first question, who will be involved and what would it entail? I actually
don't know. I'm looking forward to finding out what it's going to look like
because we like I said, we've had a national care strategy here in the last ten
years and it's really due for a renewal. So I don't know, like it didn't have.
It didn't have. I'm a big fan of policies, having strategies, having a start date,
an end date, a budget and an implementation plan. I think if you don't have
those sort of three or four things, you know, it's heightened to nothing.
To use a
phrase that we used in Ireland here, you're not going to get much traction on
it. So I do hope that the action plans will tie in to our national care
strategy or that they can be they can overlap, you know, to try and make it a
bit more efficient. You know, let's not let's not do too many things. Let's not
have to do two or three different things at once. But I would love to. See
someone in Ireland have the, the main responsibility for caring and family
carers in general.
It kind of
now it fits easily in our political kind of policy landscape. It sits mostly
through older persons, but then you know, then you know, to disability and then
you have, you know, I mean, so it's an it's an uneasy mix in Ireland of where
it might fit. So I really don't know how that's going to be managed. I, I do
think that some of them the quick gains, quick wins. I'm always I was sceptical
of that term when it comes to policy because. So that's quick.
I mean I
hate how long policy takes, you know, change takes, but when things are done
quickly, I was kind of go, oh, they don't. Well, like, are they done with the
right kind of frame of mind, you know? And I think, you know, there's a lot of
stuff within the strategy that actually Ireland is kind of already doing or is
in the process of doing work life balance and that kind of stuff as well. So,
you know, I think some of those will be will kind of be encouraged to be
finished, open and in place a little bit faster. Um, but again, like a simple
thing about that is that we have a piece of legislation in, in Ireland, it's
the carers leave and it basically enables a person to take two years, up to two
years of leave from their employment.
Their job is
kind of kept for them to go back to after they finish caring and then they get
a, you know, a social benefit, you know, to keep them out of poverty while
they're there caring for someone who has an illness or a disability. And the
take up on that is super, super low and we don't really know why in Ireland. So
I do kind of wonder going, okay, well what's, what's that about? And how is
that going to map on to the work life balance? Is there what's the appetite?
You know, how how's that going to work? So I really don't know, to be honest
with you. I don't know. It's shifting landscape in Irish politics at the
moment. And, you know, we have a coalition in Ireland that's our major you know,
government parties are all in coalition together.
So there's
kind of lots of big personalities, lots of big, you know, policy issues that
are being worked out. So I just I just don't know. I think some of the
challenges will be I think one of the kind of preparation I kind of the one
that really stuck out to me is looking at the kind of how services are provided
and making those changes. So there's a point in the in the strategy I just
picked it out was like making the services accessible means that different
working time patterns might require care at atypical hours, for example, for
shift or night workers. And I can see that being a real challenge from a kind
of a home care perspective in Ireland, because in general it's very difficult
to get overnight night time home care and it can happen, but it's very, very
rare.
It's usually
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. AM. Weekends might be a bit tricky as
well by the staff. So then you're kind of back to encouraging staff in to the
sector, making it more, you know, appealing. So I think that's that to me is a
challenge and I think a lot of it's going to be challenging, but that's no
harm. I think if things are too easy, are you then really pushing the boundary
of what can be done?
Thanks, Zoe.
So I think you pick up on a really important point there, which is about making
sure that there are good measures to say that unpaid carers can have a really
healthy work life balance to make sure that juggling those different
responsibilities in their life less and less stressful, really.
So I want
you to ask you about what you both thought about what might potentially be one
of the weaknesses in the strategy. And that's where they it focuses too heavily
on unpaid carers of working age. I think often the conversation can be kind of
focussed around employment and providing unpaid carers. We've seen as a barrier
to being a productive citizen and I wonder if this is kind of a bit of an
instrumental way of looking at things and if we might want to sort of frame the
issue a bit differently?
Yes. Well,
first of all, again, let me reiterate that the strategy from our perspective
when it comes to unpaid carers. So the group the group I represent is extremely
comprehensive. Quite frankly, the commission did manage to take pretty much all
of the right boxes in terms of the, you know, what the strategy includes when
it comes to what needs to be done to support informal carers. The strategy
calls on Member States to do three things essentially. First of all, put in
place instruments to identify and recognise informal carers. Secondly, develop
support mechanisms, access to information, training, counselling, respite, the
need to improve collaboration between informal and professional carers.
And then last
but not least, the need to provide unpaid carers with financial support. So as
you can see, it's a very impressive and very good list of at least ambitions.
But you're right, obviously, nothing is perfect. And there are weaknesses in
the strategy. And the main one from our perspective relates again to the
mandate of the commission. We think the fact that he only has a limited. So we
mandate in the areas of employment and social affairs.
And it's it
concerns the fact that the strategy primarily focuses on carers of working age
or informal carers who wish to combine caregiving responsibilities with
professional responsibilities. And that comes at the expense of young carers
who are still completely invisible on the EU policy agendas or older carers. And
these people obviously also need support and they need to and they deserve
recognition and, and we need to address their needs as well. So we are trying
to encourage obviously the commission, but also through the implementation,
implementation of the strategy, we will ensure to support Member States so that
the expense may be the scope of the measures they are planning to put in place
to these subgroups of informal carers as well. So that's one very clear
weakness. Then in the run up to the launch of the of the strategy, high level
EU officials in charge of the dossier mentioned several possible options that
we expected to be more prominently included in the strategy. And then finally
they are mentioned but only in passing. For example, the need to to ensure that the time spent providing care to a loved one
is also taken into consideration the calculation of pension credits. That's a
very important support measures of measures that could or should be put in
place to supporting family carers.
And that's
particularly, particularly important to gain in the context of gender equality
and the gender pension gap. So we are also working hard with the Commission and
in the future with Member States to ensure that these measures are also part of
the package. Yes. And then again, I mentioned the need to provide financial
support to informal carers. It's still interesting to see that in the strategy
when the Commission calls on Member States to provide this financial support.
The Commission adds as long as it does not deter informal carers from accessing
the labour market. Which shows that the assumption is still that if we provide
two too many support measures to informal carers and certainly financial
support, some people may prefer to actually stay at home and take care of a
loved one rather than having an active, professional life.
And
obviously, this is completely I mean, the best evidence that we disposal shows
the exact opposite. Obviously, most carers, when presented with the possibility
to receive good, you know, a good level of support, including financial
support, still preferred to maintain an active social and professional life
obviously.
So, you
know, there's still quite a lot of a lot of work to be done in convincing
policymakers and changing mindsets and addressing this false assumption that if
we provide too much support for family carers, that we come at the, you know,
the detriment of all of their moneymaking activities or their willingness to be
productive citizens, as you phrased it, Becky. So great step forward with the
strategy, but the battle is not entirely over yet. Still a few things that need
to be made, that need to be tweaked, I suppose, as we implement the strategy.
And from
your perspective, Zoe, Would you agree with some of those issues that Stacey
raised in terms of what might be missing or what might be framed in a slightly
problematic way?
Yes, I have
said it. I was I was biting my lip, not because I disagree with anything you
said, just to be clear, but that that term in particular, productive member of
society, I think is one of the most dangerous it's one of the most dangerous
things in this.
When we're
talking about this because by saying I'm not I'm not calling you on that,
because that's the terminology that's so often used. You know, it's kind of
like, you know, well, you can be a carer so long as eventually you're going to
want to go back in and make money for somebody, right? Like that's the end game
here. And it's like in some ways, like what is what is more productive than
ensuring that someone is content and happy and that you are as well as a
person, not as a not as a potential worker, but as a person and as a family
that that works for you.
So I really
you know, it's dangerous to give me a platform, so I'm really not going to I
could go on for a long time about that. And so I'll save you all from that. But
I do think that's in general, I always get concerned when I see that when I see
the focus on, you know, working age because again, like Stacey said, it gets
rid of inattention as so vitally important around young carers. It is a way,
it's, you know, it takes, kind of takes older carers and particularly carers
who are in there who are caring for each other, if you know what I mean. Like
that, that idea that you are either cared for or you are a carer is so
problematic because it kind of, it has this duality to it that it has this kind
of binary thinking to it, that I'm really not a fan of binary thinking anyway.
But in this
case it's so dangerous because it's the idea that you can't be disabled and be
a carer, you can't be older and be a carer, you can't. And you know, in my bio I specifically
said about that idea of intersectionality because you can be so many different
things and being a carer is one section of it and it's about trying to figure
out balance between all of those that work for the person and for the family in
general. So I always have a real issue what there's, there's, you know, and it
comes off up it comes up all over the place.
You know,
this is not just an EU strategy, you know, issue. It's certainly comes up, you
know, a lot of the time. Say, for example, you know, funding calls for supports
for organisations in Ireland are so often, you know, it's funding for people of
working age to enable them to go back to get into the labour market. You know,
this is a real focus on that and a lot of family carers don't like that because
and rightly so, because it kind of it gives the insinuation that well you're
not really working, you're not really being productive, you're not really a
part of society, you're not really doing this because you're not, you know,
actually working, you know, and it's like, okay, you, you, you be on call for a
sick person 24 hours a day, seven days a week and see how much work it is, you
know? So it's just it's a language thing.
It's a
terminology thing, maybe. But I think it's so important because it kind of it hints at where the value is really put in society so
that that aspect of it is quite problematic for me. So I agree with I agree
with what everybody said, but I just that that idea of a productive member of
society and almost divorcing that from being a family carer is so problematic.
I think. And
I think it comes back to that, that broader point that you were making earlier
about. What we value. And I think you can see perhaps low levels of pay and
poor working conditions is kind of a reflection of how little value society
puts on this really, really important work and kind of the consequences that
has for people's well-being as a result. So I'd just like to say a massive
thank you to both of you for joining us. It's been a real pleasure to talk to
you today. I guess finally, other kind of any final reflections you'd like to
offer on the strategy and before we wrap up?
Yes. Well, I
would say that even though you're based in presumably in the UK, if you're
listening to this podcast, keep an eye on the strategy. I think the strategy
can be a useful tool and a useful inspiration to also encourage your own
government to be more active on the topic.
Also, it's
always useful to learn from other member states and I know obviously the Centre
for Care is very active and instrumental in that regard. So well. So yeah, keep
an eye on the strategy and obviously we'll do our best to keep you informed,
informed as well.
So thanks
again for the opportunity to speak about the strategy today and looking forward
to the next steps of our collective work then.
Yeah, so
Stacey just kind of said everything I was going to say, to be quite honest with
you. So I don't really have much else to us, except I definitely would agree.
You know, I think one of the one of the big benefits of being part of the EU
and part of this kind of, you know, you know, national international groups
like Eurocrats, for example, you know, we're Care Alliance Ireland, we're a
member of Europe. CARES has been so beneficial to learn from other places and
other people at other member states and see what works really, really well, but
also what doesn't work well.
You know, I
think sometimes we focus a little bit too much on we have to learn for what's
good. And I actually you almost learn more from what's not been working or has
worked in the past and is now no longer fit for purpose. And I think, for
example, our Irish strategy, it felt like it was really great when it when it
came out in 2012, but it's a relic of its time now know. So I think that's
really important to keep that in mind going ahead is that, you know, there's no
we can kind of move and shift and move with the times. And I think the
strategy, I think, is a good starting place for that. Maybe particularly when
you take into consideration that hopefully the monitoring reports from the
individual member states may be available for us to look at and that that way
then that would be a really great to be able to see from other places what
people are doing and how things are being done. So you and I just want to again
say, you know, thanks for the opportunity to come along. It's been it's been
great, actually. So thank you for that.
And perhaps
we'll have and perhaps we'll have you back on again in five years
time celebrating the enormous progress we've made across the EU. And I
hope I'll be able to say that here in the UK we've also learnt a lot and
implemented lots of measures that would improve people's wellbeing. So great.
Thank you very much.