Social Platform and EPSU make the case for public investment in social services

(15 December 2016)

EPSU was invited to intervene in the conference “Investing in services for people’s well-being – from good practices to better policies” organised by the Social Platform on 7 December 2016 in Brussels. With this event this EU-level platform of 48 EU-level networks of social NGOs wanted to show that investing in high quality social, health, employment services and social infrastructures is an investment in people and the future of European societies. As an input into the conference, sixteen case studies from thirteen EU Member States were developed to illustrate an approach that is focused on person-centred models of service design and delivery, tailored to the needs of the individual and promoting the fundamental rights of the users of social services and their empowerment.

In January 2017 the Social Platform will publish all case studies and the key findings from the conference, the “Social Platform Myth Buster on Services” was issued on the day of the conference. Key arguments of EPSU advocating for a social investment approach are also supported by evidence from the Social Platform “Myth Buster”. When deconstructing myth 8 “Why should we pay for public services that are inefficient? Private companies are generally more dynamic and efficient” it mentions the disastrous effects for the elderly people needing care and for the workers of British company “Southern Cross” after it went bankrupt. The example of positive effects stemming from public investments in child care made by EPSU at the Social Platform event - see EPSU's Briefing Paper and an example from Austria (see Annex 4: Practical example from Austria and the sector of childcare illustrating the benefits of a social investment approach) - is supported by the facts provided in the Social Platform “Myth Buster” in relation to myth 3 “Providing health, housing, social, employment and education services for all with public finances is not sustainable in the long-term”.

A final panel involving EPSU discussed the EU’s role as regards social investment initiatives and funding possibilities. EPSU supported requests of the Social Platform

1) to fight tax evasion and avoidance in order to increase public funding,

2) to reverse budget cuts and

3) to promote social investment in the broad range of social services also in the context of the European Semester (and here in particular by re-orienting the country-specific recommendations issued by the European Commission).

4) EPSU also agreed with most other panellists and participants that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) should be used to a larger extent to improve the qualification of the workforce in social services and to improve the qualify of the service provision and that the conditions to have access to the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) should be adapted to the needs and the particular situation of the social sector, with a certain share (e.g. 20%) to be earmarked for this sector.

In the debate and in its introductory intervention EPSU highlighted the following points:

1) National policies and regulation supportinve of systems with progressive taxation and socially agreed levels of taxation for quality public services are needed in addition to international and European tax evasion and tax avoidance rules "with teeth";

2) EPSU supports the call for a favourable treatment of public social investment in health and social services when the European Commission is assessing the compliance of EU Member States with debts and deficits in national budgets.

3) EPSU is critical of the explicit and implicit promotion of public-private partnerships (PPP) by the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) - EPSU has a body of evidence that PPP in health and social services not only fail to guarantee value for money fot taxpayers in a mid- and long-term perspective but often also entail lower service quality and negative outcomes when it comes to the employment and working conditions of the workforce. Many examples from the NHS in the United Kingdom, in particular there in England, allows EPSU to conclude that private finance initiatives (PFI) used there as "sale and leaseback models" and the financial engineering constructions based on excessive debt financing often lead to bankruptcies and as a rule also entail tax avoidance practicies;

4) For the broad range of social services to be provided on a continuous basis, in an affordable manner and accessible to those citizens that need them, EPSU sees no evidence for mid- and long-term positive effects for the general taxpayer stemming from the use of payment-by-results schemes and Social Investment Bonds (SIB) as a viable alternative to models of funding based on general taxes or social security contributions , to the contrary. In EPSU's view they also are not in line with the values and ethos of the "traditional" social economy and the commitment of cooperatives, associations, mutual benefit societies and foundations not to distribute possible profits to shareholders but to re-invest them into the social services they are provided.

Belgium