SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EUROPEAN UNION
Sub-Committee G
(Social Policy & Consumer Affairs)
House of Lords
London SW1A 0PW
CALL FOR EVIDENCE
Inquiry into the European Social Fund – A Review
Evidence submitted by Justin Brown – Head of Economic Regeneration Policy, on behalf of Lincolnshire County Council.
Economic Regeneration, Lincolnshire County Council, Beech House, WithamPark, Waterside South, Lincoln. LN5 7JH
Direct Line Tel No. 01522 550630
E-mail:
Date: 7th January 2010
- What is your view of the current objectives of the European Social Fund? Does the available funding align with those objectives? How appropriate do you consider the balance of projects funded by the ESF to be (for example the volume of projects designed to increase the adaptability of workers as compared to those designed to reinforce the social inclusion of disadvantaged people)?
1.1 Within Lincolnshire the County Council took the view in 2000, that in order to provide a localised balance of skills activity, that we would have to become a deliverer of ESF support to the county. At the time it was apparent that there were local gaps in skills provision, particularly within the social exclusion spectrum of support, and that the Local Authority had significant experience in supporting local providers to deliver this type of activity.
1.2 We had an effective partnership with both Jobcentre Plus and the Learning & Skills Council in Lincolnshire, which allowed each partner to play to their strengths in delivery, whilst also providing the widest possible mechanism for local providers to bid for resources to deliver targeted support.
1.3 Key to this approach was a consistent tendering process, with common timelines, a transparent approach to tendering, and a joined up approach in programme delivery for Lincolnshire. This fitted the ethos of local targeted delivery of ESF very well at that time.
1.4 In terms of the new 2007-13 programme this level of working has changed beyond recognition, and from the perspective of this Local Authority there seems now to be an emphasis on more subsidiarity/UK Government Policy with the key Co-financing Organisations of DWP/Jobcentre Plus and the Learning & Skills Council, rather than ESF objectives being met in a targeted and local manner.
1.5 There is a need to recognise “structural” nature of funding, which does include local authorities. At present there is and over emphasis on disadvantage/worklessness, which requires local integrated solutions, however this is not always borne out in practice.
1.6 Localised priorities important to a Local Authority are e.g., lower skills within workforce in Lincolnshire, careers guidance for school leavers, support for 14-19 NEET activities, increasing the ability for tailored provision at a sub-regional level to combat skills exodus, and encouraging of employment sectors to grow and expand.
- What has been your experience with the operating rules of the ESF? What has worked well? What problems have you encountered and how might the process be improved?
2.1 National programming and national tendering processes, have an emphasis on competitive tendering, or “first past the post” awarding of contracts. This means that their programmes are supplier led and unresponsive to local input and appraisal. This process has effectively reduced Local Authorities’ strategic programming role, as there is no equivalency of engagement at these levels, or at a local one. This provides a void at present that will need to be filled, so that activity can be effective at a local level.
2.2 Emphasis on certain types of outputs means some major generational issues are not tackled, as these targets are not flexible enough to be responsive at a local level. These are determined at a national level in some case, without any recourse to regional or local input.
2.3 There seems to be little in the way of linkages to Local Area Agreements with activity supported by the national or regional approach, which again severely limits Local Authorities’ strategic role.
2.4 It seems that audit processes and the fear of activity being deemed ineligible are tools that EU uses to determine how resources are used at a national level, not strategic influence.
- How effective do you consider the ESF to be? How is that effectiveness being monitored? And how is that information on effectiveness being shared and used?
3.1 At a local level ESF can be very effective in targeted activity to individuals and providing requisite support, when the contracting process is handled locally. This allows a more flexible approach to engaging providers with the right level of information prior to a tendering process, and then ensuring that local conditions are reflected within the tendering process, particularly at appraisal stage.
3.2 Where prime contracting arrangements are key to tendering arrangements, there can be less effectiveness at a local level, as the sub-contracting arrangements are not subject to the same level of scrutiny, as the prime contract lead.
3.3 This can also potentially mask how local effectiveness is reported, and how it is effectively monitored.
3.4 Levels of monitoring information provided, particularly when trying to make local assessments can be hampered, when only regional level statistics are available for scrutiny.
4. How successfully have national and regional administrations worked together in delivering the ESF, where appropriate?
4.1 National/Regional dimension “appears” to work well, but too much planning/too many documents and too strict a procurement policy are operated by national/regional bodies to allow local input and flexibilities.
4.2 Emphasis on these National/Regional policies, are to the detriment of local solutions/priorities.
5. How useful has the ESF been as a tool to respond to the financial crisis? How might its usefulness in responding to the current crisis be improved, and how might it be amended to ensure that it is able to respond more effectively to a changing economic climate in the future?
5.1 Much of the response to the financial crisis has been more ministerial led, than focusing on any regional/local input to the use of ESF. The timing of tenders rounds and processes have meant limited opportunity to tailor effective local solutions. They have also happened despite of regional structures being allowed to “fine tune” local delivery mechanisms.
7. What contribution can the ESF make to the EU’s renewed Jobs and Growth Strategy post-2010, including the European Employment Strategy? How can the EU best contribute to “jobs and growth” in the period 2010-2014?
7.1 Key points to look at are ones that strengthen “planning for the future”. This includes careers guidance, business planning, future proofing younger people’s skills, and making sure that at a local level all activity is co-ordinated to ensure economic growth is secured.
8. Bearing in mind the depressed economic context and the EU’s budget review which is intended to consider spending priorities post-2013, what do you consider the role of the ESF should be, if any, post-2013? On what sort of priorities should it focus, and how might it most effectively complement, rather than duplicate, other spending programmes?
8.1 A return to EU principles of concentration would be helpful, and provide a useful framework to base ESF as part of targeted programmes – both European & National.
8.2 ESF should become a European Skills Fund, not just supporting structural activities exclusively. This would then allow ESF to compliment other structural activity, and the plethora of more social funding sources.