The first rumblings of 'the crisis' - the financial crash of the last few years - together with subsequent recession in much of the world, and the associated austerity measures by many national governments and the EU itself, were felt in 2007 in the US housing market. It soon spread throughout many banks and across the Atlantic into Europe. Governments across the EU began to suffer budgetary squeezes in part caused by decisions to bail out failing banks incorporated in their nations and, soon, spending on social services and the public sector was diminishing in real terms. That social sector is yet to recover. The 'troika' has also been seen as a destructive tool of EU policy. The impact of many of these spending decisions has been felt by many of our most vulnerable citizens: the poorest, the disabled, older people, those requiring regular healthcare and treatment, the homeless, migrants, and so on.
"We need an EU that's a little less focused on markets and international trade, and a little more focused on the wellbeing of those living here"
The European parliament's employment and social affairs committee, of which I am a member, had long been concerned at this state of affairs, and in 2013 it adopted my report entitled 'Impact of the crisis on access to care for vulnerable groups' examining some of these issues in detail. It observed that the fundamental values of the EU, including access to care, healthcare and social assistance for all, should be respected even in a 'crisis situation', and that the crisis was hitting the most vulnerable groups disproportionately as they suffered the twin effects of income loss and reduced social and care services. Among almost 30 recommendations, it called for more early intervention, the need for whole-cost assessments of all cuts and changes to care schemes, EU-led austerity programmes to include an effective social protection and care element, a new law on 'carer's leave', new anti-discrimination measures, better dialogue between governments and care providers, including trade unions and for governments to pay close heed to especially vulnerable groups, including non-documented migrants, Roma and the homeless.
This is only a bare minimum. What we really need is a systematic uplift in the provision, and resourcing, of social and health services, provided by the public sector, across the EU. We need an EU that's a little less focused on markets and international trade, and a little more focused on the wellbeing of those living here. Indeed, the 'social Europe' that implies was certainly the vision of the EU's founders and with the advent of the European social fund and its EU2020 targets for reducing poverty, the EU has, to some extent, embraced it. It's now vital that EU leaders, if they, as many expect, seek to renegotiate the boundaries between EU and member state decision making, don't backtrack on this vision. For the Greens, a social Europe is not just a pleasant add-on to the European single market. A social Europe, one that really enables and empowers everyone to live a fulfilling life, within the limits of this planet and in solidarity with all its people and the future generations, is an integral part of the European identity and a key ingredient to our future success.
"The EU must ensure that member states do not reduce access to care for the most vulnerable as a short term money-saving measure, as the costs will be greater in the long run"
There is no doubt that the crisis presents a real challenge to the provision of social care, but it also represents an opportunity to do things better, if differently, and help build a more sustainable future for all of us. The new employment and social initiative provides some funding which could support this. The revised European social fund is due to see some 20 per cent of the money devoted to social inclusion, which could be used to support measures for vulnerable groups, and social innovation will also be open for more support. Partnership is seen as a key element for effective delivery. Many countries have seen effective NGOs and grassroots organisations crumble along with austerity measures. EU funds should be used constructively to create services that engage their users and there are many possible examples to draw on. In short, the EU must ensure that member states do not reduce access to care for the most vulnerable as a short term money-saving measure, as the costs will be greater in the long run. At the very least, comprehensive social impact assessments of changes in social security systems and provision of care services are essential to avoid making a bad situation worse.