EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL & INVESTMENT FUNDING (ESIF), 2014-2020 (NON) INCLUSION OF GYPSY, ROMA, TRAVELLER COMMUNITIES IN STRATEGIES AGREED BY LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIPS (LEPs) 1. The European Commission is quite explicit about how the strategy to support ‘Roma inclusion’ can be supported by the use of EU funds: The EU supports work done towards Roma integration by EU countries through its European Structural and Investment Funds. The European Union finances projects that contribute to fostering Roma integration across Europe. It supports the work of EU countries to improve the lives of all vulnerable people, including the Roma, through the European Structural and Investment Funds, principally the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). How are the funds allocated? The distribution of these funds and the management of the programmes are the responsibility of national authorities. Funding is provided on the basis of calls for proposals/tenders and never in response to spontaneous requests1. 2. In 2014-2020, just over €6bn of EU funds will be available for UK based projects. 3. The recent record of the use of EU funds in Central & Eastern Europe to support Roma inclusion has been very mixed; there is extensive documentation of state and regional authorities siphoning off funding, secured to support Roma inclusion, and being used for non-Roma beneficiaries2. Nevertheless, within the UK, the 2014-20 ESIF programme provides many potential new opportunities. 4. At a meeting of the National Roma Network (10 Sept 2013), Angus Grey (ESF programme lead at DWP) attended and gave a presentation on the 2014-20 ESIF programme; colleagues from DCLG/NRCP were present at this meeting. The presentation included the following slide: “HM Government Opportunities for supporting Roma  Detail will depend on LEP strategies / priorities and on delivery arrangements in each LEP area.  Some may have very specific objectives; others may take a more generic approach.  Activities could, in theory, include:  encouraging access to other employment, skills and social inclusion provision; 1

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/roma/eu-funding/index_en.htm

2

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/beyond-rhetoric-2011-0616.pdf

1

 

outreach activity; specific projects designed around needs of specific groups”

5. The minute of the meeting also says: It was confirmed that if the UK does not meet the EU criteria for Roma then the LEPs would not be able to allocate funding through that specific funding stream...... there is a requirement that at least 20% of ESF must be spent on social inclusion, which can cover Roma. Angus (Grey) stated that it is easier to focus on areas where it adds value to national programmes and the lack of a national approach on Roma makes it more difficult. He confirmed that he will ensure there is enough flexibility to allow ‘softer’ social inclusion targets for Roma rather than narrow jobs and skills targets 6. At a meeting of the Gypsy Roma Traveller All Party Parliamentary Group (4 December 2013), it was agreed that all relevant Local Enterprise Partnerships in England by approached to confirm that their draft strategies referred to Gypsy Roma Traveller communities/populations in their localities, with a view to ensuring that GRT were explicitly potential beneficiaries for subsequent ESIF programmes, 2014-2020. All LEPs had to submit their strategies to the UK government by January 2014. LEPs are private sector-led local agencies. 7. RSG contacted a number of LEPs in areas which we were aware had settled Roma communities. These LEPs were: Leeds Sheffield Derby/Nottingham, Manchester Birmingham Stoke/Staffordshire Leicester South East (Kent and Essex) London – (via TM) 8. Leeds, Sheffield, Greater Manchester, Stoke/Staffordshire and Derby/Nottingham responded that they would include/had included either explicit reference to Roma migrant communities (Leeds, Sheffield), or Traveller communities (London), or implicit inclusion of GRT (Derby/Nottingham and Stoke/Staffordshire). 9. At a further meeting of the national Roma network (24 January 2014) the progress of completing ESIF strategies by LEPs re Roma was further discussed. This meeting was again attended by colleagues from DCLG/NRCP. It was made clear that without their being explicit reference to the needs/relationship to the labour market/’social inclusion’ of Roma communities in the ESIF, it was very unlikely that any subsequent funding programme would be developed by the LEP which would explicitly focus (and hopefully benefit) local Roma communities. 2

10. In 2015, RSG undertook to explore each of the 39 LEPs strategy for the use of ESIF in detail. 11. Only three LEPs specifically referred to Roma – Leeds, Sheffield and to a lesser extent, Birmingham. Leeds ESIF strategy includes an extensive description, analysis and sets of proposals for Roma inclusion3. Similarly, the Sheffield strategy includes extensive description and analysis of Roma communities in South Yorkshire, and proposals for action4. Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP referred (in terms of social inclusion issues) to: “Of particular note has been FE work with young people from the Roma community who have had difficulty engaging with the education and training system5”. 12. Only six LEPs specifically referred to Gypsy and/or Traveller; Cambridgeshire/Peterborough; Leeds; Sheffield; Solent; London and The Marches. Cambridge/Peterborough LEP explicitly refers to, There are complex issues around migration, ranging from movement among the area’s high end workforce and potential future non-EU migration. Parts of the (LEP) area also experience seasonal EU migration to support the agriculture and horticulture sectors and there are specific issues generated by some of the UK’s largest concentrations of gypsy and traveller communities6 (my emphasis) However, despite claiming ‘ownership’ of one of the largest Gypsy/Traveller populations in the country, the only proposals suggested by the LEP in the proposed social inclusion programme are directed at workers “with poor English language skills”7. 13. A number of LEPs specifically referred to migrants; e.g. Black Country, Derby/Nottingham, Humberside, South East Midlands and Cambridge/Peterborough all referred to ‘EU migrants’, and Lancashire, Oxfordshire, New Anglia, Leeds and Sheffield all included ‘migrants’. 14. A larger number of LEPs included standard wording around ethnic minorities, black and minority ethnic communities or BME. This was mainly in terms of describing the local labour market and wider local ‘social inclusion’.

3

http://www.the-lep.com/LEP/media/LCR-Portal/Portal-images/pdf%20downloads/A/Leeds-City-Region-ESIF-FINAL-31-Jan-2014-Revised-

May-2014-FINAL.pdf?ext=.pdf (p79, p167) 4

http://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SCR-ESIF-FINAL-1.pdf (p23, p124)

5

http://centreofenterprise.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GBSLEP_A4_070214_v8.pdf (p117) 6

http://www.gcgp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GCGP_European-Structural-and-Investment-FundsStrategy_October_2015_Update_FINAL.pdf (p6) 7

http://www.gcgp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GCGP_European-Structural-and-Investment-FundsStrategy_October_2015_Update_FINAL.pdf (p121)

3

15. Similarly, a number of non-metropolitan LEPs include analysis of labour markets which feature the extent of non-English speaking workers8, and their origins, as well as including proposals for supporting and investing in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programmes. 16. One LEP (West of England) described their population as ‘white’ and ‘ethnic’ (as though ‘white’ was itself not an ethnicity); Over the last five years white males aged 25-49 claimants have been consistently the largest claimant group in the West of England, followed by white females 25-49. White males 18-24 and 50+ are the following two categories with ethnic males 25-49 making up 6.8% and ethnic females 25-49 3.1% of total claimants9 17. As did Greater Manchester; their strategy includes one reference to “ethnic communities”, and one to “ethnic groups”10. 18. A worrying number of LEPs – and not all in rural sub-regions - made no mention of their communities, populations and labour markets according to ‘race’, ethnicity or national origins; resulting in no proposals designed to address disadvantage or discriminatory practice based on ‘race’, ethnicity or national origins. 19. Big Lottery funds, via Building Better Opportunities (BBO), are matched with European Social Funds (one of the elements of the ESIF) throughout 38 LEPs in England - all except Birmingham/Solihull. The funds are to “tackle poverty and to promote social inclusion”. In 2015, the first tranche of joint Big Lottery/ESF programmes was launched. The project backgrounds, project descriptions and project participants give a clear indication of envisaged impact of the funding. 20. Only two LEPs refer to explicitly to Roma communities or individuals in their projects. These LEPs are:  Leeds (“Marginalised migrants”; value - £2.8m)  Sheffield (“Holistic support”; value - £2.7m) 21. Two other LEPs refer explicitly to “Gypsy, or Roma, or Traveller communities or individuals” as potential beneficiaries in their projects:  The Marches  Worcestershire

8

New Anglia is a good example. http://www.newanglia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2015-11-27-New-Anglia-LEP-EU-InvestmentStrategy-version-Nov-2015-FOR-GOV.pdf (p27 and p58) 9

http://www.westofenglandlep.co.uk/assets/files/Funding/EU%20SIF%20strategy%20FINAL.pdf (p41) 10 https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/downloads/file/118/european_structural_and_investment_plan__investment_funds_2014_-_2020 (p65)

4

22. A number of other LEPs are hosting programmes which refer to beneficiaries who are of black and minority ethnic origin/people with English as a second language; these programmes might include Roma (but it is unstated), and might include other migrants, and refugees. These LEPs include:  Lincolnshire  New Anglia  Greater Cambridge/Greater Peterborough  West of England  Thames Valley Berkshire 23. The policy direction of the UK government 2010-2015 has been (a) to focus regeneration and the supposed re-balancing of the economy on private-sector led growth and strategy and (b) to devolve (some) decisions down to localities, under the localism agenda. In the case of ESIF, this has taken the form of placing strategic and policy development with new sub-regional, private sector led agencies – the Local Enterprise Partnerships. It is apparent that many of these agencies do not have a focus, the experience, or the commitment to explore how inequality and exclusion operates in both the economic and social spheres. 24. The involvement of the Big Lottery has certainly made an impact in terms of emphasising aspects of the programme and intended beneficiaries. This is apparent from their guidance, produced in October 201511. All of the BBO/ESF programmes require a particular proportion of beneficiaries to be of minority ethnic origin (or similar); it is unlikely that this would be the case if the LEPs were the sole determinants of the project outline, based on their ESIF strategies. 25. What is lacking within the UK context, is the absence of any input and guidance from central government and the NRCP to the LEPs to consider how the ESIF could be used to secure “Roma integration”. 26. A main co-sponsor and co-funder of the ESIF programmes is the Department for Work & Pensions. And yet throughout the 163 pages of the DWP ESF Operational Programme 20142020 guidance, there is no mention of the EU Roma integration programme; or to any mention of the particular needs of Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities re accessing the formal labour market, employment rates, social exclusion etc. This is in contrast to the background information provided by exampling other aspects of inequality and segregation in the labour market and employment opportunities re gender, ethnicity (e.g. Pakistani and Bangladeshi workers/communities) and disability. 27. And again, where there is guidance about the co-ordination with other EU funding arrangements, there is (correctly) particular mention of the needs of particular client groups; for example, asylum, migration and integration funding. However, despite the role that 11

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SWwPr9uVBwcJ:https://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk//media/Files/Programme%2520Documents/Building%2520Better%2520Opportunities/building_better_opportunities_prog_guide.pdf+&c d=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

5

Strategic Migration Partnerships in England have played in relation to Roma migration and settlement (in Yorkshire & the Humber and in Kent/South East), there is no suggestion that these links (with SMPs) could be utilised to explore the use of ESF for Roma settlement. In relation to asylum, migration and integration, the guidance suggests: In order to further support complementarity, the two Managing Authorities will also explore ways of developing a more joined up approach to future, for example, by exploring ways of linking the Strategic Migration Partnerships and Local Enterprise Partnerships12. 28. It is clear that in England, the hopes that the use of EU structural funds would be a major element of achieving “Roma integration” appear to be misplaced. 29. The European Commission concluded its 2015 assessments of member states’ progress in achieving “Roma integration” by recommending that, Member States take the following actions in order to achieve tangible and sustainable results towards the integration of Roma across the EU: 

Make full use of the new tools and funds available under the European Structural and Investment Funds13

30. It seems that the policies of the UK government to allocate ESIF resources will not be used as widely as it could be to support Gypsy, Roma, Traveller inclusion.

Andy Shallice Roma Support Group February 2016

12

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461596/ESF_Operational_Programme_2014__2020_V.01.pdf (p148-9) 13

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/roma_communication2015_en.pdf (p15)

6