PARENTING, CARE AND MOBILITY IN THE EU

Abstract

Abstract This article explores the tensions between migration, career progression and parental responsibility in the EU. It considers how female scientists, whose career progression is so often contingent on their obtaining international experience, negotiate their work and family life in a 'foreign' Member State. Focusing on the specific issue of child care, the paper illustrates the limitations of EU equality initiatives in enabling women to effectively balance the demands of full-time scientific research with their domestic responsibilities. A widespread lack of accessible and affordable child care across the Member States, coupled with the common dislocation from informal support networks that inevitably occurs as a result of migration, means that women are, more often than not, unable to fully enjoy the benefits of both professional and domestic life simultaneously. Rather, they are faced with the unenviable choice between giving up or reducing the amount they work, delaying motherhood or giving up the opportunity to migrate altogether. This raises important concerns not only for women themselves, whose dilemma remains unresolved by the extensive body of EU law and policy in this area, but for the scientific sector which has yet to find an appropriate strategy to curb the relentless leak of female talent. Notes 1. This book details the findings of a three-year European Commission and Nuffield Foundation-funded research project exploring the impact of intra-Community migration on children's lives. 2. The analysis is confined to data collected in the 15 'old' Member States and does not consider the status of women in the 10 new Member States that acceded to the EU on 1 May 2004. 3. Mobility and Excellence in Science Careers (MOBISC) was funded under the European Commission's (DG-Employment) 5th Action Programme's Community Framework Strategy on Gender Equality (2001–05). For further information on the MOBISC project, see Ackers (forthcoming 2005 Ackers , H. L. (ed.) (2005) Gender, Mobility and Academic Career Progression: a Case Study of Science Careers , Edward Elgar , Camberley (forthcoming). [Google Scholar]). 4. An ESRC-funded project entitled 'Mobility and Excellence in the European Research Area' (MOBEX) and completed in 2003. 5. This is largely explained by the fact that employment is a key factor motivating migration and that women most commonly migrate in their 20s or early 30s when family and other personal responsibilities present less of a barrier to labour-market participation. 6. The most recent European Labour Force Survey paints a similar picture, taking into account the position of women across the 'old' EU 15 as well as the additional 10 accession Member States (see Aliaga, 2005 Aliaga, C. 2005. "'Gender gaps in the reconciliation between work and family life'". In Statistics in Focus: Population and Social Conditions 4/2005, Luxembourg: European Communities. [Google Scholar]). 7. The launch of the European Research Area in January 2000 (COM(2000) 6 final) is particularly indicative of the growing emphasis on science as a forum for nurturing globally recognized excellence. 8. From 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families, OJ Sp. Ed. 1968, No L257/13, p. 485. 9. Council Directive 90/364 on the right of residence, OJ 1990, No L180/26, Article 1. 10. Council Directive 90/365, OJ 1990, No L180/28, Article 1. 11. Council Directive 93/96 of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students, OJ 1993, No L317/59, Article 1. 12. Official Journal L 257 of 19.10.1968. 13. OJ 1971 I 149/2. 14. This provision has been broadly interpreted by the ECJ to include almost any social or tax benefit, whether or not it is linked to the worker's employment contract, including family and child benefits. For examples, see Case 207/78 Ministère Public v. Even [1979] ECR 2019, Case 32/75 Cristini v. Société nationale des chemins de fer français [1975] ECR 1085, Case 63/76 Vito Inzirillo v. Caisse d'Allocations Familiales de l'Arrondissement de Lyon [1976] ECR 2057, Case 65/81 Francesco Reina and Letizia Reina v. Landeskreditbank Baden-Wurttemberg [1982] ECR 33, and Case C-151/94 Commission v. Luxembourg [1995] ECR. I-3685. For more detailed discussion of the impact of Article 7(2), see O'Keefe (1985 O'Keefe, D. 1985. 'Equal rights for migrants: the concept of social advantage in Article 7(2), Regulation 1612/68'. Yearbook of European Law, 5: 93[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). 15. This notoriously complex instrument has recently been amended and 'clarified' by Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, 29 April 2004, OJ L166/1. 16. All of these free movement provisions have recently been amalgamated within a single free movement directive which will come into full force on 20 April 2006. See Directive 2004/38/EC on the Right of Citizens of the Union and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Member States, O.J. L158/77, 30 April 2004. 17. For an updated overview of the range of family rights associated with the implementation of free movement, see Woods (1999 Woods, L. 1999. 'Family rights in the EU: disadvantaging the disadvantaged'. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 11(1): 17 [Google Scholar]); Castro Oliveira (2002 Castro Oliveira, A. 2002. 'Workers and other persons: step-by-step from movement to citizenship'. Common Law Review, 39: 77[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]); and Barrett (2003 Barrett, G. 2003. 'Family matters: European Community law and third country national family members'. Common Market Law Review, 40: 369–421. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). 18. Case C-138/02 Collins (Judgment of 23 March 2004). 19. Case C 413/99, Baumbast and R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] 3 CMLR. 20. For notable examples, see Case 43/75, Defrenne v. Sabena [1976] ECR 455; and Case C-342/93, Gillespie v. Northern Health and Social Services Boards [1996] ECR I-475. For more general academic discussion, see Hervey and O'Keeffe (1997 Hervey, T. and O'Keeffe, D. 1997. Sex Equality Law in the European Union, London: Wiley. [Google Scholar]); and More (1993 More, G. 1993. '"Equal treatment" of the sexes: what does "equal" mean?'. Feminist Legal Studies, 1: 45[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). 21. Council Directive of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, 75/117/EEC, OJ 1975, No L45/19. 22. Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women regarding access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, Official Journal L 039 14.02.76 p. 40, Derogation in 194N, Incorporated by OJ L 001 03.01.94 p. 484. This has been amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 September 2002, Official Journal L 269, 05/10/2002 P. 0015–0020. 23. Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health conditions at work for pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, Official Journal L 348 28.11.92 p.1. For a critique of these measures, see Burrows (1991 Burrows, N. 1991. 'Maternity rights in Europe: an embryonic legal regime'. Yearbook of European Law, 11: 273[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]); and Cromack (1993 Cromack , V. (1993) 'The EC Pregnancy Directive: principle or pragmatism?' , Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law , vol. 4 , pp. 261 – 72 .[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]). 24. OJ L 123, 08/05/1992 P. 0016–0018. 25. OJ C 218 of 31.07.00 p. 5–7. 26. O.J. 2000 C 364/01, 18.12.2000. 27. In some Member States, voluntary agencies also fulfil an important role in the provision of child care support such as after-school clubs and youth activity groups. 28. Such as access to state-subsidized crèche facilities that are available in the UK. 29. Other research identifies grandparents as a particularly crucial resource in this respect, particularly following parental divorce or separation; see Douglas and Ferguson (2003 Douglas, G. F. and Ferguson, N. 2003. 'Grandparents after divorce'. Family Law, 33: 653–658. [Google Scholar]); and Ferguson et al. (2004 Ferguson, N., Douglas, G. F., Lowe, N., Murch, M. A. and Robinson, M. 2004. Grandparenting in Divorced Families, Bristol: Policy Press. [Google Scholar]). 30. The numbers following quotations from research respondents refer to the respondent identification code given in the original transcripts of interviews to ensure respondents' confidentiality. 31. See also Jenson (1989 Jenson , A. M. (1989) 'Reproduction in Norway: an area of non-responsibility' , in Family Divisions and Inequalities in Modern Society , ed. P. Close , Macmillan , Basingstoke .[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). 32. See also the recent Research of Fraisse, 2003 Fraisse , L. (2003) 'Changing Family Structures and Social Policies: Childcare Services in Europe and Social Cohesion' , in : Hantrais , L. (2003) (ed.) Policy Relevance of Family and Welfare Research , Brussels : European Commission (DG for Research, Citizenship and Governance) . [Google Scholar] Jaumotte, 2003 Jaumotte , F. (2003) 'Labour Force Participation of Women: Empirical Evidence on the Role of Policy and Other Determinants in OECD Countries' , OECD Economic Studies no. 37, 2003/2 . [Google Scholar] confirming these findings. 33. See n. 24. 34. In fact, 2003 Eurostat data suggest that female researchers are generally much more likely to assume short-term public-sector jobs of this nature than private-sector posts; see European Commission (2003a). 35. Levin v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie, Case 53/81 (1982) ECR 1035 (1982) 2 CMLR 454. 36. Case 196/87, Steymann v. Staatsecretaris van Justitie [1988] ECR 6159. 37. Martínez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern, Case C-85/96 [1998] ECR I-2691. 38. Article 18(2) EC provides the basis for this decision in that it empowers the Council to adopt provisions that facilitate the exercise of Union citizenship. This is not to suggest that a requirement to establish a pre-existing right to reside in the host state no longer exists, even though the basis of this initial right is not clearly established in Sala. The current position seems to be that the burden is on individual Member States to limit the general, presumed right provided for by Article 18. 39. The importance of enabling principal care-givers to remain in the host state with their children in spite of their disqualification from the scope of the free movement provisions was confirmed in the joint cases of Baumbast, referred to above, n. 19.