Transcript Angus Gray

European Social Fund 2014-2020 (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’)
COMMON STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK - OPPORTUNITIES
 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.
‘LESS DEVELOPED’ REGIONS 2014-2020
 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 2014-2020
 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 2014-2020
 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 2014-2020 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 2014-2020: 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 selfemployment and entrepreneurship, and upskilling employees,
particularly in SMEs.
ESF 2014-2020: 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 2014-2020: 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 2014-2020: 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 ?