Imagine if childcare, elderly care and support was added in, or conversely, the cost to the economy if it was withdrawn. Care infrastructure is an enabler to the economy and should be valued and invested in in the same way as roads or broadband.

Care as an industrial Enabler

Without a healthy population we will never have a fully productive population. At present 26% of working age people are inactive but 50% of them are sick or looking after people who are sick. 50% of those who are sick cite mental health. We are all carers and cared for, a participative and mutual approach to caring about and for each other needs to be enabled and be essential to our productivity.

Care provision is considered of low economic value and is therefore provided for low pay or for free by a workforce made up of 80% women and 20% men. Many work part-time on minimum wage and zero hours contracts affect 20% of the workforce. The provision of free care is estimated to be on a scale at least equal to paid-for care and it is estimated at least 2/3rds of unpaid care is done by women.

In 2016 The Women’s Budget Group demonstrated an investment of 2% of GDP in care industries would create 1.5 million jobs compared to the creation of only 750,000 jobs with the equivalent investment in construction and that the social benefits would be greater and impact on more people.

In re-valuing Care, we need to consider the impact, and economic cost, if it was withdrawn. The cost of people leaving employment to care for people with Dementia alone is now £3.6bn per year (Dementia UK) in addition to the £11.6bn free care and £10.3bn paid care linked to dementia.

LCR CA’s existing evidence and Position Statement identify ill health, physical and mental health and caring responsibilities as the primary barriers to productivity. National Government also identify the ageing society as a Grand Challenge. Despite these acknowledgments we believe that LCR’s position statement does not recognise the full value of the care sector.

The analysis of this data and the conclusions drawn angered many who attended our one-day event and were wholly rejected. The assumption that all those staying at home with the elderly or who had childcare responsibilities were making ‘lifestyle’ choices was challenged. Those who took early retirement or redundancy as older women noted they were pushed out or could not progress at a senior level, and are now self-employed; those so called ‘stay at home mums’ who were unable to secure flexible working had no choice but to stay at home. Many had suffered mental ill health because of their work environment and the psychological damage caused by systemic sexism, racism, ageism and exclusion.

A caring infrastructure that enables physical and mental wellbeing, values the care of children and the elderly as a desirable contributor within our economic ecosystem, and removes the inequalities that gaslight our sense of worth will enable optimum productivity in whatever way we define it. We propose Care is re-valued as high value contributor whether it is being paid for or not and the psychological and physical impacts of inequality are recognised as risks to productivity that must be mitigated at individual, community and LCR levels.

We ask LCR to invest in Care on the same scale as they invest in the physical redevelopment of our city region.