European Social Fund (England) Angus Gray Head of European Social Fund Division Department for Work and Pensions

A COMMON STRATEGIC APPROACH Europe 2020: EU drive for greater impact, better alignment & stronger accountability  Improved focus and prioritisation to drive faster economic growth  Better co-ordination and integration between EU programmes  Programmes focussed on delivering results and impact  More transparent, efficient, streamlined and simplified delivery systems for beneficiaries

COMMON STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK Opportunity to align substantial investments:  Regional economic development (ERDF)  Skills, employment & pre-employment (ESF) And also:  Rural development (EAFRD – currently part of the CAP)  Fisheries (EMFF – currently part of the CFP)

THEMATIC OBJECTIVES COMMON STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FUNDS 1.Innovation and R&D 2.ICT: Improving access; quality and usage 3.SMEs: Improving competitiveness, incl. in the agricultural and aquaculture sectors 4.Shift to low carbon economy 5.Climate change adaptation and risk management 6.Environmental protection & resource efficiency 7.Sustainable transport and unblocking key networks 8.Employment and labour mobility 9.Social inclusion and fighting poverty 10.Education, skills and lifelong learning 11.Improving institutional capacity for efficient public administration (‘Technical Assistance’)

 Integrated interventions  Geographic flexibility (eg. National\issue based; pan-regional city-wide; local communities)  Streamlined systems (reduced red tape for beneficiaries in exchange for stronger performance management accountability at Member State level)  Community-led local development (all 4 funds) ‘Local Action Groups’ able to draw on all 4 Strategic Framework funds according to an integrated plan.  Joint Action Plans (ERDF & ESF only) Lump sum payments to a single beneficiary up to €10m or 20% of an Operational Programme (whichever is lower) to manage a group of projects aimed at a specific purpose (but not for infrastructure or major projects)  Integrated Territorial Investments (ERDF & ESF only) Urban development or Territorial strategy drawing on a multiplicity of programme strands and programmes. Management can be delegated to a city or NGO. COMMON STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK - OPPORTUNITIES

‘LESS DEVELOPED’ REGIONS  GDP/head below 75% EU27 average  75%-85% EU co-financing available for wider range of activities  Safety net” of 2/3 of previous allocation for regions moving ‘up’ and out of this category  At least 25% spend must be from European Social Fund  Likely to be West Wales and the Valleys + Cornwall and Scilly Isles

‘TRANSITION’ REGIONS  GDP/head between 75% and 90% of EU27 average  60% EU co-financing  Safety net” of 2/3 of previous allocation for regions moving ‘upwards’ into this category  At least 40% spend must be from European Social Fund, of which 70% of each programme must focus on only 4 priorities, with 20% earmarked for tackling social exclusion at national level  80% ERDF to focus on only 3 priorities  Likely to include : –Devon –Lincolnshire –East Yorkshire & N. Lincolnshire –Shropshire & Staffordshire –South Yorkshire –Merseyside –Lancashire –Tees Valley & Durham –Highlands & Islands –Cumbria –Northern Ireland

‘MORE DEVELOPED’ REGIONS  GDP/head more than 90% EU27 average  50% EU co-financing  At least 52% spend must be from European Social Fund, of which 80% of each programme must focus on only 4 priorities  At least 20% ESF to focus on social exclusion at national level  80% ERDF to focus on only 3 priorities:  Innovation  SME competitiveness  Low carbon and energy efficiency (at least 20%)

ESF thematic objectives  European Commission proposes enhanced focus on Europe 2020 growth strategy: promoting employment & labour mobility investing in education, skills & lifelong learning promoting social inclusion & combating poverty enhancing institutional capacity & efficient public administration

European Commission investment priorities  18 investment priorities including:  Access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people, including local employment initiatives and support for labour mobility;  Sustainable integration of young people not in employment, education, or training into the labour market;  Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation;  Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change;  Active and healthy ageing;  Improving the quality, efficiency, and openness of tertiary and equivalent education with a view to increasing participation and attainment levels;  Enhancing access to lifelong learning, upgrading the skills and competences of the workforce, and increasing the labour market relevance of education and training systems;  Active inclusion;  Promoting the social economy and social enterprises.

European Commission delivery options  Options in regulations to encourage local engagement: Integrated Territorial Investments Community Led Local Development Role of cities  Existing and new financial instruments which might help to encourage social investment

Draft EU Recommendations to the UK  Commission has indicated that the UK should focus ESF on: Continuing to improve the employability of young people, in particular those NEET, building on the Youth Contract. Ensuring apprenticeship schemes are taken up by more young people, with sufficient focus on advanced and higher-level skills, and involvement of more SMEs. Taking measures to reduce the high proportion of young people with very poor basic skills. Stepping up measures to facilitate the labour market integration of people from jobless households. Fully implementing measures to facilitating access to childcare.

ESF England: policy priorities  Policy priorities will be determined by cross-Whitehall discussion:  DWP: overall ESF lead, and responsible for Social Justice and employment policies;  BIS: overall structural funds lead, and responsible for skills and growth policies;  MOJ: lead on help for ex-offenders;  DfE: lead on young people (e.g. NEETs);  DCLG: lead on ERDF and interested in links between funds.

ESF : initial policy thinking  Focus on disadvantaged groups, particularly those not eligible for, or not well served by existing mainstream provision.  Opportunities to support recently published Social Justice strategy.  Groups likely to include: young people not in employment, education or training; troubled families; ex-offenders; unskilled people.  Also scope to support growth agenda through funding self- employment and entrepreneurship, and upskilling employees, particularly in SMEs.

ESF : delivery issues  Currently ESF is managed as a national programme which brings a number of advantages :  coherence with national policy priorities – ensures that ESF complements and does not duplicate or support local alternatives to the Work Programme or skills strategy;  match funding comes from national programmes;  delivery is efficient (low national overheads);  sound financial management through standardised national procurement and control systems.  Need to make ESF visibly responsive to local needs, particularly given Government’s localism agenda and focus on core cities?

ESF : challenges  How can we get more local input into strategic planning of how the funds are spent?  What advantages could closer alignment of funds (especially ESF and ERDF) bring?  Are there arguments for different local delivery models? Which sub-national organisations have the capacity and capability to make a difference and take on the financial risks?  If some national elements remain, can we put in place effective mechanisms for local engagement in programmes ?

ESF : possible options  Separate approaches for (a) Helping disadvantaged groups; and (b) Supporting Growth, with the second aligned with ERDF (and therefore “regionalised”).  Different arrangements for engaging civil society organisations, particularly in delivering social inclusion activities.  Some core cities having greater local control.  Enhancing local input to CFOs’ procurement arrangements, through better consultation with local stakeholders.

Discussion Points  What innovative approaches towards helping the most disadvantaged should we be facilitating through ESF  How might we increase the responsiveness of ESF programmes to local needs. Is London a model to copy ? Are there LAs with the match funding and capacity to be CFOs? A Civil Society CFO? How do we make national CFO procurement more responsive to local needs? How local is local ? Which objectives are best met at local level ?