2015/2284(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the evaluations of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) show that the results of the interventions of this fund are influenced by factors such as the level of education and qualifications of the targeted workers, ~~as well as by~~ the capacity of absorption of the relevant labour markets and the GDP of the recipient countries; emphasises that such factors are mostly influenced by long- term measures which can be ~~effectively~~ supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds);

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Recalls the importance of safeguards that prevent the relocation of enterprises benefitting from EU funding which might lead to triggering the need for additional support schemes due to redundancies;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Points to the importance of drawing up a coordinated package of personalised services for workers, in consultation with the social partners and regional authorities;

Amendment 12 #

Krzysztof HETMAN, Tamás DEUTSCH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Underlines the importance of targeting ESIF resources towards future- oriented sectors of the economy, thus helping to promote sustainable and local resources, innovation based employment and green jobs that are less prone to globalisation impacts; calls on the Commission to ensure in the implementation of the EGF, that future labour market perspectives and required skills are considered in the set-up of measures supported by the EGF and to provide for detailed analysis on the fulfilment of this requirement in its reporting and evaluation;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes that, while the thematic scope and fields of intervention of ESI funds (in particular ESF) and EGF are often similar, the latter has been created to react quickly to situations which may arise, while the structural and investment funds have a multiannual programming cycle; underlines the need to strengthen synergy between them, so that the ESI funds shall act as follow up measures in the EGF areas of support by stimulating investment, overall growth and job creation;

Amendment 14 #

Krzysztof HETMAN, Tamás DEUTSCH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Calls the Commission to consider raising level of maximum support from EGF from 60% to 85% in regions, where the overall level of unemployment is significantly higher than the country average;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that the ESI Funds have been contributing significantly to reversing the economic and social effects of the crisis, mitigating the negative impacts of globalisation and promoting the long-term objectives of sustainable employment and growth; emphasises that integrated approaches based on multi-fund programming should be preferred in order to tackle redundancies and unemployment in a sustainable manner, through an efficient allocation of resources and closer coordination and synergies, in particular between the ESF and the ERDF;

Amendment 16 #

Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Ángela VALLINA, Martina ANDERSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that the ESI Funds have been contributing ~~significantly~~ to reversing the economic and social effects of the crisis and promoting the long-term objectives of sustainable employment and growth; emphasises that integrated approaches based on multi-fund programming should be preferred only when necessary in order to tackle redundancies and unemployment in a sustainable manner, through an efficient allocation of resources and closer coordination and ~~synergi~~balance among the Member States, in particular ~~between~~as regards to the ESF and the ERDF;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that the ESI Funds have been ~~contributing significantly~~making a limited contribution to reversing the economic and social effects of the crisis and promoting the long-term objectives of sustainable employment and growth; emphasises that priority should be given to a change in the model of economic governance and a shift in the economic policies of the EU and the Member States that would put an end to austerity policies; notes the importance of integrated approaches based on multi-fund programming ~~should be preferred~~ in order to tackle redundancies and unemployment in a sustainable manner, through an efficient allocation of resources and closer coordination and synergies, in particular between the ESF and the ERDF;

Amendment 18 #

Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that the ESI Funds have been contributing significantly to reversing the economic and social effects of the crisis and promoting the long-term objectives of sustainable employment and growth; emphasises that integrated approaches based on multi-fund programming should be preferred in order to tackle redundancies and unemployment in a sustainable manner, through an efficient allocation of resources and closer coordination and synergies, in particular between the ESF and the ERDF; believes strongly that an integrated multi-fund programming strategy would reduce the risk of relocation and create favourable conditions for a return of industrial production to the EU;

Amendment 19 #

Andrew LEWER, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Believes that an efficient allocation of resources means respecting the principle of subsidiarity and not duplicating support that could be better provided by Member States; in this regard calls on the Commission to ensure that direct cash payments from the EGF neither replace nor supplement national unemployment benefits and to give further consideration to Recommendation 2 of the European Court of Auditors Special Report No 7 (2013);

Amendment 2 #

Jasenko SELIMOVIC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the evaluations of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) show that the relatively weak results of the interventions of this fund are influenced by factors such as the level of education and qualifications of the targeted workers, as well as by the capacity of absorption of the relevant labour markets; emphasises that such factors are mostly influenced by long- term measures which can be effectively supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds); recalls, however, that the Member States have the main responsibility for labour policy and social policy, and that the EGF therefore might be in conflict with the principle of subsidiarity;

Amendment 20 #

Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Ángela VALLINA, Martina ANDERSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the public have access to all documents related to EGF cases so as to bring greater transparency to the decision-taking and funding process as a whole;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Notes the scant effectiveness of the EGF in mitigating unemployment in the EU caused by globalisation and the crisis, given that in 2013 and 2014 only 30 applications were recorded, covering 28 390 workers, and 28 funding decisions were taken covering 27 610 redundant workers in 13 Member States, representing a very low proportion of the people and sectors affected;

Amendment 22 #

Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Ángela VALLINA, Martina ANDERSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Stresses the need to increase the use made of this fund by promoting demand from the Member States, which will require a substantial increase in its funding and a rise in the rate of EU co- financing; likewise urges the Member States to give the regions a greater role in the process of applying for funding;

Amendment 23 #

Andrew LEWER, Remo SERNAGIOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that innovation and resource- efficiency is key for industrial renewal and economic diversification, which in turn are essential for countering the effects of structural changes in the regions and sectors mostly affected by globalisation or the economic and financial crisis, and recalls the role of smart specialisation strategies in this context;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that innovation is key for industrial renewal and economic diversification, which in turn are essential for countering the effects of structural changes in the regions and sectors mostly affected by globalisation or the economic and financial crisis, and recalls the role of smart specialisation strategies in this context, whilst acknowledging the potential negative effects of over specialisation when demand falls;

Amendment 25 #

Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Ángela VALLINA, Martina ANDERSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Underlines the importance of a flexible approach to be applied in the aid packages for the recipient Member States and calls to further emphasise the synergetic effects and the combination of different EU and national public and private sources providing for job creation and the promotion of entrepreneurship, especially in the regions and sectors already suffering from adverse effects of globalization or restructuring of the economy;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Expresses concern at the very scant rate of budget implementation of the cases wound up in 2013 and 2014, which stood at 49.80 %, with wide variations ranging from zero to full budget absorption, as a result of which 50.20 % was reimbursed to the Commission; urges the Commission, consequently, to take the relevant measures to improve budget forecasting and the implementation of expenditure;

Amendment 27 #

Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Ángela VALLINA, Martina ANDERSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Regrets that the Commission in its EGF evaluations has not provided a regional analysis further to the sectorial analysis of beneficiaries, which might have indicated the use of EGF support directed towards Member States' regions already having significant unemployment rates or high structural unemployment in the supported sector;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Notes that, according to the final reports received in 2013 and 2014, the proportion of workers reintegrated into the labour market at the end of the intervention period stood at 44.90 %; urges the Commission to study the reasons behind this percentage, which varies widely from case to case, and to take the necessary measures to achieve greater effectiveness;

Amendment 29 #

Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Ángela VALLINA, Martina ANDERSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Urges the Commission to provide information in its next report on the type and quality of jobs found by people who have been reintegrated into the labour market and on the medium and long-term trend as regards the rate of reintegration achieved through EGF interventions;

Amendment 3 #

Marc JOULAUD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the evaluations of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) show that the results of the interventions of this fund are influenced by factors such as the level of education and qualifications of the targeted workers, as well as by the capacity of absorption of the relevant labour markets; emphasises that such factors are mostly influenced by long- term measures which can be effectively supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds); points to the need to allow for these factors and for the local labour market situation whenever assistance is to be provided under the EGF, while ensuring that the application for a contribution is followed within as short a time as possible by the fund assistance;

Amendment 30 #

Rosa D'AMATO, Isabella ADINOLFI, Marco ZULLO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes the high level of EGF support returned to the EU budget (50,2%) as well as the low number of applicants (10 Member States in 2013-2014) and applications (30 applications in 2013- 2014) and therefore calls for a thorough assessment of expectations of those Member States applying for EGF support as well as for reflections on the reasons preventing Member States from applying despite existing needs, and on possible options for adapting the eligibility thresholds;

Amendment 31 #

Ivana MALETIĆ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on EU institutions and national and regional/local authorities to simplify and speed up the decision-making process and to ensure timely payments from EGF to the beneficiaries in order to maximize the envisaged impact;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that the average rate of self- employment in all cases of support by the EGF is 5% of the overall re-employment rate; recalls in this regard the need to use, and to programme, support from the ESI Funds in such a way as to enhance the positive perception and the potential of self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation.

Amendment 33 #

Krzysztof HETMAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Note~~Regrets that the average rate of self- employment in all cases of support by the EGF is as low as 5 % of the overall re- employment rate; recalls in this regard the need to use support from the ESI Funds in such a way as to enhance the positive perception and the potential of self- employment, entrepreneurship and business creation.

Amendment 34 #

Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that the average rate of self- employment in all cases of support by the EGF is 5 % of the overall re-employment rate; recalls in this regard the need to use support from the ESI Funds in such a way as to enhance the positive perception and the potential of self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation., focusing on the creation of new services, particularly in rural areas, given that they are currently lagging behind urban areas in this respect;

Amendment 35 #

Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that the average rate of self- employment in all cases of support by the EGF is 5 % of the overall re-employment rate; recalls in this regard the need to use support from the ESI Funds in such a way as to enhance the positive perception and the potential of self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation; calls on the Commission to draw up a report on EGF performance in terms of employment and professional reorientation among beneficiaries.

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Notes that in order to apply for the current EGF funding, 500 workers must be made redundant by a single company but for smaller Member States this marginal rate is more difficult to reach than for bigger Member States, therefore the current minimum threshold should conform to national employment rates and not be restricted to a quota;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Notes that in some EGF cases the number of targeted beneficiaries is too low as compared to the total number of eligible beneficiaries, which leads to suboptimal local or regional positive impact of the invested funds.

Amendment 38 #

Tamás DEUTSCH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. In order to maximise the efficiency of EGF interventions and help the rapid re- integration of redundant workers into the job market, the average EGF application approval period of 303 days, that is 10 months, needs to be urgently shortened; the strengthening of Member States' capacities is indispensable in this respect to allow for a quicker and more efficient compilation of applications.

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Welcomes the measures to promote entrepreneurship, in the form of start-up grants, entrepreneurship incentives, and services for new entrepreneurs; considers that such measures will be more useful if they are provided in combination to participants.

Amendment 4 #

Ivana MALETIĆ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the evaluations of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) show that the results of the interventions of this fund are influenced by factors such as the level of education and qualifications of the targeted workers, as well as by the capacity of absorption of the relevant labour markets; emphasises that such factors are mostly influenced by long- term measures which can be effectively supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds); notes that increased synergies between EGF and ESI Funds are inevitable in order to achieve faster and more effective results;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6а. Notes the success of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in respect of beneficiaries under the age of 25; notes the lack of success in respect of beneficiaries over the age of 55; calls for the methods applied to older beneficiaries under the EGF to be improved and for its use to reintegrate young people into the job market to be encouraged;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Regrets that in some EGF cases actions under Article 7(4) of the EGF Regulation - preparatory activities, management, information and publicity and control and reporting - represent a relatively high share of the total costs, which leads to EU investment being absorbed by administrative procedures, instead of being targeted at more beneficiaries.

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Observes that in a number of implemented EGF measures intervention criteria under Article 4 (1) and (2) of Regulation 1309/2013 may be considered too flexible, which compromises the clear objectives of the funding instrument locally and regionally;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Expresses disappointment that the EGF has been used for twice as few female beneficiaries as male beneficiaries; notes that women achieve better results from EGF interventions; calls for a balanced approach, under the EGF, to gender equality;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Calls for activities under the EGF to be coordinated with the ESI Funds and EU programmes, with a view to helping people find employment and creating jobs; calls for greater coordination with youth employment initiatives;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6d. Points to migration as being one of the serious challenges facing the job market in Europe; calls for the possibility to be considered of using the EGF in cases where the job market in a Member State is under pressure;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)

6e. Recommends that the Commission and Member States compile statistics on potential job losses among men and women in order to ascertain the best way to harness funding;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 f (new)

6f. Calls on the Commission to review the activities financed, bearing in mind the need to ensure that the most vulnerable beneficiaries are not deprived of resources and that resources are used in the most effective manner;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 g (new)

6g. Recommends that the Commission support the Member States in developing innovative measures and programmes with which to help Member States better benefit from the EFG.

Amendment 5 #

Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the evaluations of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) show that the results of the interventions of this fund are influenced by factors such as the level of education and qualifications of the targeted workers, as well as by the capacity of absorption of the relevant labour markets; emphasises that such factors are mostly influenced by long- term measures which can be effectively supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds); regrets the implementing delays and bottlenecks arising from the inflexibility of certain EGF measures and the lack of national legislation and stresses the need for EGF funding to be made more flexible;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Is concerned by the lack of evaluation on the efficiency and effectiveness of the EGF and calls for more thorough overview on funding and the usage of it for specific Member States; justification of the selection of recipient countries and further work on ensuring that all Member States have equal motivation to apply should be done;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes the short-term character of the EGF; underlines that EGF interventions should be complementary to existing EU and national programmes and strategies and seek for synergies and coordination, in particular with ESIF;

Amendment 8 #

Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Ángela VALLINA, Martina ANDERSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission, in future proposals, to give more clear-cut indications regarding the sectors in which workers are likely to find employment and the question whether the training offering is suited to the economic outlook and labour market needs in the regions affected by redundancies;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Takes the view that the loss of jobs as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and the economic and financial crisis is being worsened by the austerity policies promoted by the EU’s economic governance and will become even more serious if the TTIP and TiSA free-trade agreements come into force; considers, therefore, that real recovery in employment in the EU requires a change of economic policies and a new model of world trade;

source: 575.212

2016/03/30 INTA 53 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to conduct thorough impact assessments of all trade agreements and relevant legislative initiatives. Sectors identified as vulnerable should be closely monitored also through regular ex-post impact assessments. Social partners and Member States with sectors at high risk should be duly informed and assisted in the process of application;

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Recital -A (new)

-A. whereas the principles of gender equality and of non-discrimination, which are among the Union's core values and are enshrined in the Europe 2020 strategy, should be ensured and promoted when implementing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF);

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Having regard to the Commission’s Communication of October 2015 entitled ‘Trade for all – Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy’, in which it recognises that trade agreements can involve disruptive impacts for some regions and workers, if new competition proves too intense, but also that the EGF is an essential tool providing significant support to communities facing job losses, as in the case of factory closures in the EU due to international competition;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Calls on the Commission to assess in its reviews to what extent the design of the coordinated package of personalised services anticipated future labour market perspectives and required skills and were compatible with the shift towards a resource-efficient and sustainable economy;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. Whereas the scope of the Regulation establishing the European globalisation and budgetary adjustment fund tends towards supporting workers made redundant owing to a major change in the structure of world trade resulting both from globalisation and from the financial and economic crises which have affected the single market;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Member States to apply the re-employment measures in local communities where massive redundancies have occurred so that moving away and leaving family and/or children would be avoided; notes in this context that this is especially important for female redundant workers who may have less geographical flexibility due to family care obligations and that they should not feel disadvantaged because of their plans for having children;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)

1e. Whereas, also, the emphasis is on helping young people not in employment, education or training in those regions which are eligible under the Youth Employment Initiative;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that the average rate of self- employment for all EGF cases is 5 %~~, and calls on the Commission to establish measures as part of the EGF with a view to promoting and fostering entrepreneurship, and in particular encouraging female and social entrepreneurship;~~.

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)

1f. Is disappointed that the EGF only intervenes on a remedial basis in response to the negative effects of globalisation and economic and global crises. It is vital for the EGF also to be able to take preventive action in order to anticipate market changes by supporting action based on sectoral and regional impact assessment carried out alongside trade agreements concluded by the EU;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that the average rate of self- employment for all EGF cases is 5 %, and calls on the Commission to establish measures as part of the EGF with a view to promoting and fostering entrepreneurship, and in particular encouraging female and social entrepreneurship; Highlights the importance of entrepreneurship education and life-long learning in this context, and particularly of mentorship and peer-to- peer networks; Reiterates the potential of social entrepreneurship, cooperatives, mutuals and alternative business models in economically empowering women, and fostering social inclusion;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Member States to prepare, on the basis of these impact assessments and together with the social partners, strategies to anticipate the projected labour market changes. ~~Applications to the EGF should be based on these strategi~~Sectors identified as vulnerable should be subject to enhanced and continuous monitoring. It is essential for the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States and the social partners, to provide recommendations to Member States affected by these changes;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Recalls that women and girls must be encouraged and facilitated in entering traditionally male-dominated fields, such as ICT, science, mathematics, engineering and technology (STEM), and especially in the fields of the green economy and emerging technologies, and that these must be prioritised in EGF programmes;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Member States to prepare, on the basis of these impact assessments and together with the social partners and enterprises, strategies to anticipate the projected labour market changes. Applications to the EGF should be based on these strategies. Welcomes the fact that access to the EGF has been expanded to new sectors;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Stresses the potential of the arts, design, cultural and creative industries in fostering inclusion of women and girls, and especially the enormous economic and social opportunities of creating synergies between the arts and STEM sectors, making STEM into STEAM; Calls on Member States, the Commission and employers to emphasise the inclusion of young people not in education in EGF STEM and STEAM programmes;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission and Member States, to simplify the decision-making process of the EGF in order to have the full potential of this European Fund.

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines that EGF assistance made a positive contribution to addressing significant social and labour market problems, increasing social cohesion, enabling people to re-enter employment and thereby contribute to family earnings or remain active in the job search and avoid negative unemployment traps; notes, moreover, that re-employment prevents labour drain and forced mobility.deleted

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls for an extension of the EGF’s powers to allow it to provide financial support to Member States’ retraining policies in vulnerable sectors. That will require an appropriate increase in the resources available under the EGF;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Regrets that there is a lack of gender disaggregated data in the evaluation of EGF implementation cases at Member States level and, therefore, calls on the Member States to collect data from a gender perspective;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Regrets the lack of advertising of the scope of the EGF and the eligibility conditions. The EGF must be made more intelligible for its recipients, including the Member States and social partners;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Calls on the Commission to monitor and evaluate the EGF budget in order to be able to assess the longer term impact on EGF beneficiaries, particularly of the gender profile;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Calls on the Commission to strengthen the Information and Consultation Directive.~~ Workers’ representatives ~~and trade unions~~ should be made aware in good time of all plans for restructuring or plant closure arising from the effects of trade, so that negotiations for a suitable social plan can take place in fair conditions with equal access to information. In this way it should be ensured that companies assume their full responsibilities. Calls, therefore, for the Information and Consultation Directive to be strengthened;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Calls on regional and local competent authorities, social partners and civil society organisations to co-ordinate efforts among labour market actors to enable better access to EGF funding support in cases of future redundancies; moreover, calls for a closer participation of social partners to the monitoring and evaluation activities of the Fund and particularly encourage representatives of women stakeholders so to ensure more attention to the gender aspects.

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to conduct thorough impact assessments of all trade agreements to anticipate more effectively their impact on the economy and jobs in the EU. Sectors identified as vulnerable, such as agriculture, should be closely monitored and should benefit from safeguard measures, transitional periods and even exclusion from negotiations. Social partners and Member States with sectors at high risk should be duly informed and assisted in the process of application;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas women have higher re- employment rates than men, but re- employment among women is mostly temporary and unstable, due to obligations to care for family members while looking for new employment and/or participating in retraining, and while encountering the lack of affordable and high-quality ~~childcare~~ facilities for caring for children and the sick;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to ~~strengthen~~ensure that the Information and Consultation Directive~~. Workers’ representatives and trade union~~ is properly implemented. The social partners should be made aware in good time of all plans for restructuring or plant closure arising from the e~~ffects of trade~~conomic and financial crisis or globalisation, so that negotiations for a suitable social plan can take place in fair conditions with equal access to information. In this way ~~it should be ensured that companies assume their full responsibilities~~better support could be provided for job-seeking and retraining;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to ensure effective ex-ante coordination between DG Trade and DG Employment; recommends that DG Employment be adequately involved in all impact assessments, as well as during FTA negotiations; requests that any likely impact of policy decisions led by DG Trade be adequately and systematically reflected in the functioning and the financing of the EGF;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the EGF to be coordinated with other (European, National, Regional and social) Funds and EU programs in order to help more people to find new employments, creating new jobs, promoting entrepreneurship; especially in the sectors and regions which already suffer from the globalisation or economic crisis. Member states should be duly informed and assisted during the whole procedure of the Fund application.

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the Parliament to organise regular joint INTA-EMPL hearings in order to contribute to improving coordination between trade policy and the EGF and the monitoring thereof;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the Commission, to extend the "Young Employment Initiative" derogation further than the end of 2017.

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Calls on the Commission to lower~~Stresses the importance of ensuring that SMEs can also access the EGF. Points out that the threshold for EGF eligibility~~, which~~ currently stands at 500 redundancies~~. This has the effect that in practice only large corporations -which are often globally profitable - are eligible. To make sure that~~ , and stresses that the possibility of using the derogations in Article 4(2) of the current regulation must be maintained, as this allows employees of smaller companies in sectors that are directly hurt by the effects of globalisation arto be assisted~~, the threshold should be lowered to 100 redundancies~~ and supported in their reintegration into the labour market;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to lower the threshold for EGF eligibility, which currently stands at 500 redundancies. This has the effect that in practice only large corporations -which are often globally profitable - are eligible. To make sure that employees of smaller companies in sectors that are directly hurt by the effects of globalisation are assisted, the threshold should be lowered to 150 redundancies; Since it is more difficult for small Member States to reach the actual threshold of 500 redundancies;.

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to lower the threshold for ~~EGF~~ eligibility, which currently stands at 500 redundancies. This has the effect that in practice only large corporations -which are often globally profitable - are eligible. To make sure that employees of smaller companies in sectors that are directly hurt by the effects of globalisation are assisted, the threshold should be lowered to 100 redundancies. Calls on the Commission to support not only employees of companies affected by redundancy plans but all affected sectors, including subcontractors. Calls on the Commission to be more flexible and responsive in using the EGF. Regrets that the amounts earmarked under the fund must too often be advanced by the Member States;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to reorientate the EGF towards SMEs, which are key players in the dynamism of the European economy;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to increase the annual budget accorded to the EGF tool, since the global financial and economic crisis still continue.

Amendment 3 #

Iuliu WINKLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to conduct thorough impact assessments of all trade agreements. Sectors identified as vulnerable should be closely monitored. Impact upon Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) should be carefully evaluated. Social partners and Member States with sectors at high risk should be duly informed and assisted in the process of application;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas women are disproportionately hit by the crises and by austerity policies;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission and the Council to unlock the ~~modernisation of~~regulation to modernise Trade Defence Instruments (TDIs). ~~Updated and strengthened TDIs should be used to ensure that the EGF is not unnecessarily used for redundancies brought on by social, environmental or price dumping by other countrie~~The EU must equip itself with strong and dissuasive Trade Defence Instruments;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Council and the Commission to unlock the modernisation of Trade Defence Instruments (TDIs)~~. Updated and strengthen~~ without weakening them and to make them quicker, more effective and more accessible to SMEs. Effective and reformed TDIs shwould ~~be used to ens~~make it possible to reduce the frequency of recourse t~~hat~~o the EGF i~~s not unnecessarily used for redundancies brought on by~~n cases of social, environmental or price dumping by other countries;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Commission to implement, at the same time, a strategy to support a common industrial and investment policy and to strengthen the EU’s Trade Defence Instruments;

Amendment 33 #

Iuliu WINKLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

~~6. Calls on the Commission only to grant market economy status to trade partners where they meet the five criteria which it has set.~~deleted

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission only to grant market economy status to trade partners where they meet the five criteria which it has set. Points out that any granting of market economy status to third countries could cause significant distortions in the European market and result in frequent use of the EGF. Calls on the Commission, in this regard, to establish a clear and effective strategy on issues relating to the granting of market economy status to third countries, in order to maintain the competitiveness of our enterprises and to pursue our objectives in tackling all forms of unfair competition;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to conduct thorough impact assessments of all trade agreements. ~~Sectors identified as vulnerable should be closely monitored. Social partners and Member States with sectors at high risk should be duly informed and assisted in the process of application~~These ex ante and ex post analyses should be used to highlight the challenges resulting from such agreements in terms of employment and business competitiveness in the EU;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Underlines that EGF assistance made a positive contribution to addressing significant social and labour market problems, increasing social cohesion, enabling people to re-enter employment and thereby contribute to the household income or remain active in the job search and avoid negative unemployment traps; notes, moreover, that re-employment prevents labour drain and forced mobility; stresses, however, that EGF assistance should also contribute to the creation of sustainable and decent jobs; special attention should be paid to young women;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to conduct thorough ex ante and ex post impact assessments of all trade agreements and stresses the importance of anticipating, in those impact assessments, the social consequences of the agreements. Sectors identified as vulnerable should be closely monitored and subject to appropriate specific measures. Social partners, enterprises and Member States with sectors at high risk should be duly informed and assisted in the process of application;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the variation in the gender profile of the beneficiaries of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), where the average share of female beneficiaries is 33 %, and that of males 67 %, depends on the sector and whether it is ~~traditionally~~ male or female dominated1 ; _________________ 1 Ex-post evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) - Final Report, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion - European Commission, August 2015.

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that EGF is a solidarity tool established to provide support to workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Calls on the Commission to take into account women's particular situation, which has even aggravated since the beginning of the crisis, and to ensure therefore, as far as possible, that EGF assistance benefits women and men equally;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses the urgency of setting up a genuine industrial policy for the EU and the need of strong policy coherence between trade and industrial policies;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission and the Council to ~~consider strengthening~~keep the provisions in the current EGF Regulation on allowances for carers in order to allow ~~for bette~~for support for women with care duties2 ; however, these measures must not substitute Member States' obligations; _________________ 2 Article 7, point 1(b) of the Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014- 2020) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855.

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Whereas trade agreements are liable to expose European companies to stronger competition and thus have an adverse impact in some sectors and European regions in terms of employment;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission and the Council to consider strengthening the provisions in the current EGF Regulation on allowances for carers in order to allow for better support for women with care duties2 ; _________________ 2Article 7, point 1(b) of the Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014- 2020) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855.; emphasises that Member States and employers must develop flexible working and training conditions which allow for shared care and parenting responsibilities between genders;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Having regard to the Commission’s Communication of 29 June 2011 entitled ‘A Budget for Europe 2020’, in which it recognises the role of the EGF in acting flexibly to support workers who lose their jobs and help them find another job as rapidly as possible;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to collect data on how much of the EGF support has been allocated in the form of allowances for carers as provided for in Article 7(1)(b) of the current EGF Regulation and on how it affects female beneficiaries’' re- employment rates, as well as LGBTIQ persons and those facing multiple discrimination;

source: 580.502

2016/04/01 BUDG 70 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Recalls that responsibility for employment and social policy primarily lies with Member States; notes, nevertheless, that EU funding can be used to support or compliment Member States’ actions in this field;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Is concerned of the disparity between resources requested from the EGF and amounts reimbursed by Member States when the assistance is concluded, noting that the average budget implementation rate is only 49,8%; calls, therefore, on the Commission to carefully study the reasons for the low implementation rates and to propose measures to enhance the use of the fund to better reflect the real funding needs;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Is of the opinion that the co-funding rate of 60% should not be increased;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that, between 2007 and 2014, 1341 funding applications for a total amount of EUR 5~~61.1~~42.4 million were submitted by 20 Member States to provide support to 12~~2 121~~1 380 workers;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that, between 2007 and 2014, 134 funding applications for a total amount of EUR 561.1 million were submitted by 20 Member States t~~o provide support to~~argeting 122 121 workers;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that, between 2007 and 2014, 134 funding applications for a total amount of EUR 561.1 million were submitted by 20 Member States to provide support to 122 121 workers and that this amount must be added to the mandatory contributions of the Member States, the inclusion of which is governed by national laws;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that, between 2007 and 2014, 134 funding applications for a total amount of EUR 561.1 million were submitted by 20 Member States to provide support to 122 121 workers; takes the view that the valuable and efficient development of the EGF since 2007 is unfortunately also due to massive increased loss of jobs as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns and the economic and financial crisis, worsened by the austerity policies promoted by the EU’s economic governance;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes that the EGF is a supposed to be a mechanism that delivers short term assistance where a quick response is needed; regrets that the average approval period for EGF assistance between 2007 and 2013 was 303 days; welcomes efforts by the Commission to streamline the application process; suggests that reducing the number of official languages a draft decision needs to be translated into could save at least two weeks in time; underlines that should further translations be requested that the Commission could do these at a later date;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes that in the period between 2007 and 2014 8 Member States did not utilise the available EGF support; calls on the Commission to examine all cases where regulatory, administrative capacity or other barriers obstructed EGF participation and to propose action to lift such obstacles;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Questions how a mechanism designed to deliver short term assistance to prevent long-term unemployment allows for measures to last up to 30 months for some training courses; suggests that this could exacerbate long-term unemployment by keeping workers out of work for so long;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the scope for implementing the EGF budget more flexibly, and therefore more effectively, also by making the application procedure faster in order to make the fund more effective for workers who have been made redundant; in spite of its budget reduction for the period 2014-2020, the potential for an optimal use of the EFG remains largely untapped, and 50.2% of contributions have had to be reimbursed by the Member States for 34 cases closed in 2013 and 2014;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)

-1a. Underlines that the Member States should aim to have Public Employment Services that are capable of dealing with redundancies and that the EGF does not absolve Member States of their responsibilities;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the scope for implementing the EGF budget more flexibly, and ~~therefore more effectively~~effectively without compromising appropriate and transparent use of funds and compliance with the rules;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the scope for implementing the EGF budget more flexibly, with clear focus on outcomes, impact, value added and therefore more effectively;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the scope for implementing the EGF budget more flexibly, and therefore more effectively; reminds, however, that these measures must not substitute Member States’ obligations;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the scope for implementing the EGF budget more flexibly, and therefore more effectively, and proposes that consideration be given to making EGF funds available also for the structural transformation of European undertakings;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the scope for implementing the EGF budget more flexibly, and therefore more effectively; notes that EGF expenditure in some Member States consistently performs better than others; suggests that the Commission provides guidance and enables Member States to share best practice in the application of EGF funds and their use in order to ensure the maximum re-employment rate per euro spent;

Amendment 25 #

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Jean ARTHUIS, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Notes that, according to the European Parliamentary Research Service, the EGF delivers the best EU Added Value when used to co-finance services for redundant workers not ordinarily existing under Member States Public Employment Services, and, when these are focused on training and re-training activities and not allowances;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes the fact that nearly 50% of workers who received financial assistance under applicati~~Notes that the re-employment rate at the end of the EGF assistance varies cons ide~~alt with in 2013- 2014 are now back in employment~~rably from 4% to 86%; emphasises~~, however,~~ that the EGF should ~~provide funding for sectors likely to face problems in the futur~~be aimed strictly for active labour market measures to help and empower redundant people;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes the fact that nearly 50% of~~Notes that not enough workers who received financial assistance under applications dealt with in 2013-2014 are now back in employment; emphasises~~, however, that the EGF should provide funding for sectors likely to face problems in the future~~ that funding from the EGF should be the last resort and not a vain attempt to remedy the political failings of the European Union in the political, economic and above all trade sectors, which have led to the closure or relocation of many European businesses;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the fact that nearly 50% of workers who received financial assistance under applications dealt with in 2013-2014 are now back in employment; ~~emphasises, however,~~suggests that the EGF should ~~provide fund~~focus more on re- integration and ensure that any re- training effor ~~sectors likely to face problems in the future~~ts actually help people to re- integrate rather than delay re-integration;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the fact that nearly 50 % of workers who received financial assistance under applications dealt with in 2013-2014 are now back in employment; emphasises, however, that the EGF should provide funding for sectors likely to face problems in the future, in order to ensure that workers concerned, in sectors with future potential, are guaranteed sustainable re- employment;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) ~~is a valuable instrument through which the EU expresses its solidarity with workers and which should co~~has been an instrument which affords support to workers, but that other measures are needed to tackle the phenomenon of unemployment in~~ue to~~ Europer at~~e outside the MFF~~ the root;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the fact that nearly 50% of workers who received financial assistance under applications dealt with in 2013-2014 are now back in employment; emphasises, however, that the EGF should provide funding for sectors likely to face problems in the future; stresses, however, that EGF assistance should also contribute to the creation of sustainable and decent jobs; special attention should be paid to young women; as women are disproportionately hit by the crises and by austerity policies;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that nearly 50% of workers who received financial assistance under applications dealt with in 2013-2014 are now back in employment; emphasises, however, that the EGF should provide funding for sectors likely to face problems in the future; therefore calls on the Commission to give more clear-cut indications regarding the sectors in which workers are likely to find employment and the question whether the training offer is suited to the economic outlook and labour market needs in the regions affected by redundancies as well as to the needs and competences of beneficiaries ; insists on having better evaluation of the type and quality of jobs found and on the medium and long-term trend as regards the rate of reintegration achieved through EGF interventions

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that in many EGF cases there are significant differences between workers targeted and workers helped; calls on the Commission in cooperation with the Member States to improve the actual impact - percentage of workers helped by the EGF contribution;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Regrets the fact that EGF funding has been widely used to compensate national workers’ income support schemes, with no EU added value; calls on the Commission to ensure that under no circumstances the fund could be used to finance measures that would otherwise be financed by Member States;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Stress~~Notes the ~~need for grea~~short-term c~~oordination with~~haracter of the ESGF ~~and the ERDF, and proposes that applications for EGF funding should be submitted by the authorities that manage the Structural Funds in each Member State;~~; underlines that EGF interventions should be complementary to existing EU and national programmes and strategies; stresses the need for greater coordination and synergies in particular with ESIF,

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses the need for greater coordination with the ESF and the ERDF~~, and proposes that applications for EGF funding should be submitted by the authorities that manage the Structural Funds in each Member State~~;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses the need for greater ~~coordination~~synergy and additionality with the ESF ~~and~~, the ERDF, and ~~proposes that applications for EGF funding should be submitted by the authorities that manage the Structural Funds in each Member State~~measures funded by national or regional budgets;

Amendment 37 #

Isabelle THOMAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses the need for greater coordination ~~with the ESF and the ERDF, and~~of EGF measures with regional political authorities and local social partners; points out that better coordination with the ESF and the ERDF would enable more structural measures to be taken in areas affected by redundancy plans; proposes that applications for EGF funding should be submitted by the authorities that manage the Structural Funds in each Member State;

Amendment 38 #

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses the need for greater coordination of the EGF with the ESF and the ERDF at national and regional level, in order to accompany businesses in difficulty through a job-creating transitional phase, and proposes that applications for EGF funding should be submitted by the authorities that manage the Structural Funds in each Member State;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Stresses~~Is concerned of potential overlaps with other EU funds and stresses therefore the need for greater coordination with the ESF and the ERDF, and proposes that applications for EGF funding should be submitted by the authorities that manage the Structural Funds in each Member State;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. BRecalls commitments by the European Parliament to ensure that the EU budget focuses on European added value, delivers value for money for citizens and the renewed focus on outcomes based budgeting; believes that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) iscould be a valuable instrument through which the EU could expresses its solidarity with workers and ~~which should continue to operate outside the MFF~~help unemployed persons get back to work; suggests, however, that there is considerable room for improvement with the EGF; considers, in particular, that the EGF could deliver better value for money and be better focused on outcomes;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses the need for greater coordination with the ESF and the ERDF, and proposes that applications for EGF funding should be submitted by the authorities that manage the Structural Funds in each Member State, provided that regional managing authorities are granted sufficient staff, training and financial support to ensure such an extension of their competencies;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes that implementation of the EGF budget varies greatly between cases and often leads to significant amounts of unspent EGF funding, subject to reimbursement to the Commission; calls on the latter to improve the budget implementation by targeting existing bottlenecks;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recalls the importance of safeguards that prevent the relocation of enterprises benefitting from EU funding which might lead to triggering the need for additional support schemes due to redundancies;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Notes that in a number of EGF cases there are higher costs for actions under Article 7(4) of the EGF Regulation represent which weakens the overall impact of the EGF investment; Calls on the Commission to tackle the issue of such costs through implementation of limits;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Calls on the Commission to lower the threshold for EGF eligibility, which currently stands at 500 redundancies, in order to make sure that employees of smaller companies in sectors that are directly hurt by the effects of globalisation are assisted;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that more widespread use of the existing derogation from the eligibility thresholds, ~~particularly to benefit SMEs, extension of th~~as laid down in Article 4 of the EGF Regulation 1309/2013, would make for more ref~~erence periods and the possibility of classifying workers who provide related services and who are made redundant as workers made red~~ficient use of the EGF budget; is against any derogation that would undermine the nature of the EGF as an emergency fund an~~t by the company claiming assistance would make for more efficient use of the EGF budget~~d is therefore critical of further extensions of reference periods;

Amendment 47 #

Isabelle THOMAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that ~~more widespread use of the derogation from~~the EGF budget could be used more efficiently if the eligibility thresholds were lowered, particularly ~~to benefit SMEs, extension of the reference periods and the possibility of classifying~~for medium-sized businesses generating local growth, if the reference periods were extended and if employees made redundant by businesses dependant on the companies claiming assistance and workers ~~who~~ provideing related services ~~and~~ who are made redundant could be classified as workers made redundant by the company claiming assistance ~~would make for more efficient use of the EGF budget~~;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that more widespread use of the derogation from the eligibility thresholds, particularly to benefit SMEs, extension of the reference periods and the possibility of classifying workers who provide related services and who are made redundant as workers made redundant by the company claiming assistance wshould ~~make for more efficient~~be assessed carefully case by case, seeking in every way to limit distorted and discretional use of the EGF budget;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. BStrongly believes that more widespread use of the derogation from the eligibility thresholds, particularly to benefit SMEs, extension of the reference periods and the possibility of classifying workers who provide related services and who are made redundant as workers made redundant by the company claiming assistance would make for more efficient and valuable use of the EGF budget;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Believ~~Notes that the objective of the European Globalisation ~~Adjustment~~ Fund (EGF) is ~~a valuable instrument through which the EU expresses its solidarity with workers and which~~to contribute to smart, inclusive and sustainable growth and to the promotion of sustainable employment in Europe; believes that the EGF should continue to operate outside the MFF;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that more widespread use of the derogation from the eligibility thresholds, particularly to benefit SMEs, extension of the reference periods and the possibility of classifying workers who provide related services and who are made redundant as workers made redundant by the company claiming assistance would make for more efficient use of the EGF budget; points out to that end that the impact on sectors connected to those affected by redundancies (local impact on trade, cottage industries and social life) should be included among the application criteria for EGF assistance;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to ~~step up communication with~~improve the existing technical assistance to the Member States on the forms of assistance available under the EGF;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to step up communication with the Member States on the forms of assistance available under the EGF and the opportunities to draw on Union funding;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to step up communication with the Member States on the forms of assistance available under the EGF in order to increase the use made of this fund; which will require a substantial increase in its funding and a rise in the rate of EU co-financing considering on the other hand the continued austerity policies developed and recent trade deals that will worsen labour perspective;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to step up communication with the Member States on the forms of assistance available under the EGF, and calls for applications by the Member States for financial support from the EGF, and all the relevant documentation, to be published on the website of the European Commission;

Amendment 55 #

Isabelle THOMAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Takes the view that ex post social intervention, often relating to the repayment of funding provided by Member States, means that the European Union's activity to assist workers who have been made redundant is invisible; calls on the Commission to step up its communication to national and local trade union networks and to the general public in order better to promote the social measures taken by the EU;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

~~8. Takes the view that the derogation relating to persons who are neither in employment nor in education or training (NEET) should be extended beyond 2017;~~deleted

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Takes the view that the derogation relating to persons who are neither in employment nor in education or training (NEET) should be ~~extended beyond 2017;~~ assessed carefully and granted only for specific cases and in the absence of valid alternatives;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Takes the view that the derogation relating to~~Calls on the Commission to include in its mid-term evaluation of the EGF an assessment on to what extend persons who are neither in employment nor in education or training (NEET) ~~should be extended beyond 2017~~have benefited from the EGF;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. TCalls on the Commission to include in its mid-term review a specific analysis of the support given to unemployed young people who have dropped out of school and are not receiving any training; takes the view that the derogation relating to persons who are neither in employment nor in education or training (NEETs) should be extended beyond 2017;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a valuable instrument through which the EU expresses its solidarity with workers and which should ~~continue to operate outside the MFF~~operate within the MFF in order to enhance transparency, unity and coherence of EU budget;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Takes the view that the derogation relating to persons who are neither in employment nor in education or training (NEET) should be extended beyond 2017 after qualitative and quantitative analysis of the EGF support, especially in view of the implementation of the Youth Guarantee and needed synergies between national budgets, the ESF and the YEI;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Takes the view that the derogation relating to persons who are neither in employment nor in education or training (NEET) should be extended beyond 2017; calls therefore for the revision of the EGF Regulation, in the framework of the revision of the MFF, in order to enable the access to NEETs to continue;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Commission to carry out sector-specific studies on the impact of globalisation and, on the basis of the findings, make proposals to ~~encourage~~help and support companies toin anticipateing changes in their industries ~~and to prepare their workers before making them redundant~~, so as to seek to prevent redundancies of workers in advance.

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

Amendment 64 #

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Jean ARTHUIS, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Commission to carry out sector-specific studies on the impact of globalisation and, on the basis of the findings, make proposals to encourage companies to anticipate changes in their industries and to prepare their workers before making them redundant. , by using, inter alia, EGF applications as an early warning sign for a given sector and by establishing a tool to assess global economic developments and a fund for supporting and advising SMEs with a view to anticipating any market changes;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Requests a debate on the outcome of the mid-term evaluation of the EGF, with the aim of assessing whether the EGF is the most appropriate instrument to deal with mass redundancies, as recommended by the Court of Auditors in its Special Report No 7 in 2013;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Commission to assess in its reviews to what extent the design of the coordinated package of personalised services anticipated future labour market perspectives and required skills and were compatible with the shift towards a resource-efficient and sustainable economy

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Recalls the Commission’s commitment to outcomes based-budgeting; suggests that following the adoption of the Communication on outcomes based budgeting that the Commission examine the EGF to improve its focus on outcomes; believes that in order to do this the Commission should compare the EGF with cases where the EGF has not been used and where the ESF/ERDF has been used but where the EGF criteria were met; highlights the need for greater availability of data for the Commission to do this; highlights in particular the need for an informed analysis of the efficient use of EGF funds, the monitoring of national costs for the activities supported by the EGF and the need for a breakdown of eligible actions;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Commission to draw up proposals to introduce genuine social and fiscal harmonisation, the lack of which is currently causing 'European globalisation', in particular in the transport sector;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Believes there is further scope for improvement on the use of the EGF for projects to support entrepreneurship and start-up activity; calls on the Commission to examine this further;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a valuable instrument through which the EU expresses its solidarity with workers and ~~which should continue to operate outside the MFF~~underlines that it is not meant in any way to be an ‘opt-out’ clause for companies to not ensure due diligence to workers’ rights; nor a tool to compensate austerity cuts in domestic labour measures;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)

9c. Notes the European Parliamentary Research Service’s concerns with regards the methodology for calculating the benefit of the EGF; underlines the need for additional requirements on performance indicators;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a valuable instrument through which the EU ~~expresses its solidarity with~~delivers support to workers and which should continue to operate outside the MFF;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a valuable instrument through which the EU expresses its solidarity with workers and which should continue to operate outside the MFF during the next programming period;

source: 580.511

2016/04/06 CONT 6 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Inés AYALA SENDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the total EGF-approved aid from the date of first application until September 2015 amounted to some EUR 545 million from the Union budget and to some EUR 390 million from the Member States’ budgets for a total of 139 approved Member State applications; considers it necessary to step up the use of the EGF in preventing and dealing with relocation, as well as in response to sectoral crises caused by price and global demand fluctuations;

Amendment 2 #

Inés AYALA SENDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the EGF meets the specific needs of self-employed workers; points out that relocations and other consequences of globalisation such as the ‘sharing economy’ and robotics are affecting major sectors of the European economy in which the number of self-employed persons is constantly increasing;

Amendment 3 #

Inés AYALA SENDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to lower the threshold for EGF eligibility, which currently stands at 500 redundancies, 100 redundancies in the case of medium-sized enterprises and 50 redundancies in the case of small enterprises, so as to ensure that the aid reaches workers employed by SMEs, who are generally most affected by the effects of globalisation;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that in a lot of cases there are further difficulties for Member States to provide evidence that mass redundancies comply with EGF intervention criteria and this task is even more challenging when there are a number of SMEs affected; calls therefore for the Commission to address the aforementioned deficiencies in order to make the EGF a working solution for redundant workers;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights the fact that the Member State authorities ~~generally did not~~have not been required to make a distin~~guish~~ction between active labour market measures, such as training and aid for self- employment, and income support for paid workers; notes, in addition, the absence of specific information allowing the identification of ESF co-financed projects that could actually have met the EGF intervention criteria in order to help measure the impact of the EGF; asks the Commission to examine this issue and come up with a report on the number and scope of ESF projects that comply with EGF intervention criteria;

Amendment 6 #

Marco VALLI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that EGF application forms contain no precise information regarding companies whose employees have been concerned by EGF-related measures; asks the Commission to provide more detailed data and to assess whether closures and/or redundancies are being caused by companies relocating production to third countries or to other Member States with aggressive tax policies designed to attract investment; calls on the Commission to consider the introduction of an instrument that would oblige companies relocating production outside the European Union to contribute to the reemployment of workers made redundant;

source: 580.590

2016/04/27 EMPL 163 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)

– having regard to Eurofound ERM 2012 report After restructuring: labour markets, working conditions and life satisfaction

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)

Bc. whereas there is no European legal framework for the involvement of workers and their representatives in restructuring decisions in order to anticipate change and prevent job losses;

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Points to the need for searching assessment of the abuse of the EGF by companies which transfer their operations, resulting in unfair competition and with it social dumping; considers that in such cases every necessary step should be taken to prevent practices of this kind by imposing effective rules whereby, for example, relocating firms would be obliged to redeploy workers;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Calls on the Commission to extend the period in which NEETs in regions eligible under the Youth Employment Initiative are eligible for EGF support to beyond December 2017 to the full life of the EGF programme;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Takes the view that the EGF can deliver the best EU added value when supporting training and re-training schemes for workers, and especially lower-skilled vulnerable groups, that prioritize skills needed by the labour market and entrepreneurship;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Welcomes~~Is concerned by the fact that ~~just~~ 6 % of EGF funds were spent on administrative and management costs;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that just 6% of EGF funds were spent on administrative and management costs;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Welcomes the fact that according to the Commission's ex-post evaluation on average just 6 % of EGF funds were spent on administrative and management costs;

Amendment 106 #

Krzysztof HETMAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Regrets that the level of self- employment among the re-employed workers is low; calls the Commission and Member States to make efforts to promote the potential of entrepreneurship and self- employment to the beneficiaries;

Amendment 107 #

Agnes JONGERIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes that the most significant aspect of cost effectiveness as identified in the stakeholder consultations was the number of re-employed workers who are now paying taxes and social security contributions instead of drawing on unemployment or other social benefits;deleted

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes that the most significant aspect of cost effectiveness ~~as identified in the stakeholder consultations was~~should be the number of re-employed workers ~~who are now~~able to pay~~ing~~ taxes and ~~social security contributions instead of drawing on unemployment or other social benefit~~contributions;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes the proposal in the ex-post evaluation that a counterfactual impact evaluation is an important element in understanding the added value of the EGF; notes that such an evaluation is not yet in place; calls for this evaluation to cover, in addition, corporate social responsibility to ensure that the EGF cannot be used as a tool to absolve companies of their social obligations, but rather helps them to make efforts in this area;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)

Bd. whereas very well developed industrial relations systems which accord workers and their representatives rights in the areas of consultation, information and codetermination are essential;

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes the proposal in the ex-post evaluation that a counterfactual impact evaluation is an important element in understanding the added value of the EGF; ~~note~~regrets that such an evaluation is not yet in place;

Amendment 111 #

Anne SANDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Welcomes the conclusion from the Court of Auditors that the EGF delivered genuine EU added value ~~when used~~since it serves to co-finance services for redundant workers or allowances not ordinarily existing under Member States’ unemployment benefit systems, thus fostering social cohesion in Europe; stresses the need to inform Europe's citizens and public authorities of the existence and effectiveness of this form of direct aid for European workers who have lost their jobs and require assistance;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Welcomes the conclusion from the Court of Auditors that the EGF delivered EU added value when used to co-finance services for redundant workers or allowances not ordinarily existing under Member States’ unemployment benefit systems; calls for European policies for the more effective promotion of these services and benefits based on the results achieved by the EGM, and for an examination of the benefits of action to pre-empt restructurings and job conversions;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Welcom~~Notes the conclusion from the Court of Auditors that the EGF delivered EU added value when used to co-finance services for redundant workers or allowances not ordinarily existing under Member States’ unemployment benefit systems; stresses that certain Member States have no social protection provisions, such as a minimum income, sufficient to meet the needs of workers who have lost their jobs;

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Welcomes the conclusion from the Court of Auditors that the EGF delivered EU added value when used to co-finance services for redundant workers or allowances not ordinarily existing under Member States’' unemployment benefit systems; It deplores the fact that in some cases it is unclear whether EGF measures replaced obligations of Member States, especially with regard to unemployment benefits;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Calls on the Commission to thoroughly assess all cases to ensure that they comply with Article 7.2 of the regulation that excludes that actions supported by the EGF substitute passive social protection measures; Suggests that in a future review, rules are made even clearer by specifying in art 7.2.b that actions which are the responsibility of enterprises and Member States are not eligible for a financial contribution from the EGF;

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Emphasises the benefits of the EGF's personalised measures to help people return to employment; calls, therefore, for the EGF's action to be strengthened by revamping it facilitate investment in the potential of the EU's people by broadening its scope, bringing greater flexibility to its structures and requirements and allocating it sufficient resources to invest in workers who have been laid off;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Regrets the fact that one third of EGF funding compensates national workers’ income support schemes with no EU added value; n~~Notes the restriction in the current regulation where such costs are capped at 35 % and believes that this cap should be lowered;

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B e (new)

Be. whereas, adaptability and pro- activity when moving jobs or occupations may however be hampered by insecurity because transitions bear a potential hazard of unemployment, lower wages and social insecurity; whereas reintegration in employment of beneficiaries of EGF cases will be more successful if done in quality jobs and with security in employment and occupation

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. RStrongly regrets the fact that according to the Court of Auditors "one third of EGF funding compensates national workers’' income support schemes with no EU added value", when replacing national schemes; notes the restriction in the current regulation where ~~such cost~~allowances are capped at 35 % and believes that this cap should be lowered;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Regrets the fact that one third of EGF funding compensates national workers’' income support schemes with no EU added value; notes the restriction in the current regulation where such costs are capped at 35 % and believes that ~~this cap~~such practices should not be allowed in the futured;

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Regrets the fact that one third of EGF funding compensates national workers’ income support schemes with no EU added value; notes the restriction in the current regulation where such costs are capped at 35 % and believes that this cap should be lowered; notes that income support measures were identified in all cases examined in the Court’s report, and that these measures represented 33 % of the total amounts refunded under the EGF; points out that the new EGF regulation limits the costs of special provisional measures, such as job-search allowances and recruitment incentives for employers, to 35 % of the total cost of the coordinated package and that EGF- backed initiatives are not a substitute for passive social protection measures by Member States under their national systems.

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Calls on Member States, in line with Article 7 of the current Regulation, to anticipate future labour market needs and required skills and thereby gear the design of the co-ordinated package of personalised services towards a resource- efficient and sustainable economy;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Regrets the fact that budget implementation rates range from 3 % to 110 %, with an average implementation rate of 55 %; considers that this situation reflects deficiencies either at planning or at implementation phase and should be improved through better designed and better implemented projects;

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Regrets the diminished funding for the EGF; calls on the Commission and Member states additionally support the EGF to ensure that needs are met; calls on the Commission to ensure that there are sufficient staff in relation to the workload and to avoid unnecessary delays;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Is satisfied with~~Notes the conclusion that, generally, Member States effectively coordinated the EGF with ESF and national labour market measures ~~and that no instances of overlap or double-funding of individuals was detected during the Court of Auditors audit~~; points out that the Member States generally did not set quantitative reintegration objectives, and that in certain cases public or private employment services did not systematically differentiate between the EGF, the ESF and other national measures when collecting reintegration data; asks the Commission to provide, annually, a full assessment of the results achieved for each EGF intervention, and to provide data regarding EGF requests not approved at Commission level and the reasons for this;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Is satisfied with~~Notes the conclusion that~~, generally,~~ some Member States effectively coordinated the EGF with ESF and national labour market measures and that no instances of overlap or double-funding of individuals was detected during the Court of Auditors audit;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B f (new)

Bf. whereas cooperatives manage restructuring in a socially responsible manner and their specific cooperative governance model, based on joint ownership, democratic participation and members' control, as well as the ability of cooperatives to rely on their own financial resources and support networks, explain why cooperatives are more flexible and innovative in managing restructuring over time, as well as in creating new business;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Is satisfied with the conclusion that, generally, Member States effectively coordinated the EGF with ESF and ~~national labour market measures and~~ that no instances of overlap or double-funding of individuals was detected during the Court of Auditors audit;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Is of the opinion that EGF and ESF measures should be used to complement each other in order to deliver both specific short-term and more general longer-term solutions; is satisfied with the conclusion that, generally, Member States effectively coordinated the EGF with ESF and national labour market measures and that no instances of overlap or double- funding of individuals was detected during the Court of Auditors audit;

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Is satisfied with the finding from the Commission's report on the EGF's activities in 2013 and 2014 that there were no irregularities reported to the Commission under the EGF Regulations in 2013 and 2014, nor were any EGF- related irregularities closed in 2013 and 2014;

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Notes that SMEs account for 8599 % of ~~all EU~~the total number of enterprises in Europe and, in this context, expresses concern that the EGF has had a very limited impact on SMEs, despite the fact that it clearly provides scope for SMEs to be targeted; stresses that greater account must be taken, in the support given to redundant workers, of proportionality between workers from SMEs and workers from large companies;

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Notes that SMEs account for 85 % of all EU enterprises and, employ the vast majority of EU workers; in this context, expresses concern that the EGF has had a very limited impact on SMEs, despite the fact that it clearly provides scope for SMEs to be targeted; calls for more improvements in this regard, among other means by placing greater emphasis on the provision from article 8, point d) on the need to identify the suppliers or downstream producers of dismissing enterprises.

Amendment 135 #

Agnes JONGERIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Notes that SMEs account for 85 % of all EU enterprises and, in this context, expresses concern that the EGF has had a very limited impact on SMEs, despite the fact that it clearly provides scope for SMEs to be targeted; therefore calls on the Commission to lower the eligibility threshold, currently set at 500 redundancies; stresses that this threshold is that, in practice, only large groups, which record profits globally, may request the intervention of the EGF; notes that the threshold should be lowered to 100 redundancies to ensure that the EGF can help the employees of small businesses in areas directly affected by the consequences of globalization or financial and economic crises; asks the Commission to support, beyond only employees of companies affected by redundancy plans, all affected areas including subcontractors; encourages the Commission to show more flexibility and responsiveness in using the EGF; regrets that the amounts provided by the fund must often be advanced by Member States

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Notes that SMEs account for 85 % of all EU enterprises and, in this context, expresses concern that the EGF has had a very limited impact on SMEs, despite the fact that it ~~clearly~~ provides scope for SMEs to be targeted subject to certain criteria; calls, therefore, on the Commission to further reorient the EGF towards SMEs, which are key players in the dynamism of the European economy;

Amendment 137 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Notes that SMEs account for 85 % of all EU enterprises and, in this context, expresses concern that the EGF has had a very limited impact on SMEs, despite the fact that it clearly provides scope for SMEs to be targeted; calls on the parties concerned to comprehend the reasons for this and make the required amendments to the Regulation in order to increase the impact of the EGF on SMEs;

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Notes that in a lot of cases there are further difficulties for Member States to provide evidence that mass redundancies comply with EGF intervention criteria and this task is even more challenging when there are number of SMEs affected; calls therefore to the Commission to address the aforementioned deficiencies in order to make the EGF a working solution for redundant workers by introducing lower threshold for the workers made redundant in Member States with smaller labour markets;

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Recognises the challenges faced by applications under Article 4(b) of the current regulation for SMEs; strongly recommends that these additional challenges be recognised and accommodated by the Commission and the Member States in the planning and application stages and that adequate resources be allocated to the management and delivery of thesCalls on the Commission to lower the threshold for EGF eligibility from 500 to 100 redundancies, to ensure that employees of smaller companies in sectors that are directly hurt by the effects of globalisation are casesisted;

Amendment 14 #

Francisco de Paula GAMBUS MILLET

Motion for a resolution
Recital B g (new)

Bg. whereas the Commission has delivered disappointing responses to parliamentary resolutions on information, consultation and restructuring that highlight the need for urgent and concrete steps in this area;

Amendment 140 #

Elisabeth MORIN-CHARTIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. ~~Recogni~~Stresses the ~~challenges faced by applications under~~importance of the arrangements laid down in Article 4(b) of the current regulation for SMEs since they enable sectors of the economy to be restructured at the regional level; recognises the challenges faced by applications made under these provisions; strongly recommends that these additional challenges be recognised and accommodated by the Commission and the Member States in the planning and application stages and that adequate resources be allocated to the management and delivery of these cases;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Recognises the challenges faced by applications under Article 4(b) of the current regulation for SMEs; strongly recommends that these additional challenges be recognised and accommodated, and the ‘Think Small First’ principle be taken into account, by the Commission and the Member States in the planning and application stages and that adequate resources be allocated to the management and delivery of these cases;

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Notes the concentration of applications in the manufacturing and construction sectors and in particular in the automotive and aviation industries, with aid mainly provided for large enterprises. Considers that a more even use of the fund across economic sectors would enable a more pronounced support for SMEs.

Amendment 143 #

Francisco de Paula GAMBUS MILLET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Calls on the Commission to follow- up previous cases when the EGF has benefited SMEs, social enterprises and cooperatives; calls on the Commission to propose measures for how the EGF can additionally benefit SMEs, social enterprises and cooperatives;

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Member States, and on regional authorities with exclusive powers, to proactively support redundant workers in SMEs using the flexibility provided for in Article 4(2) of the current regulation;

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Member States to proactively support redundant workers in SMEs, cooperatives and social enterprises using the flexibility provided for in Article 4(2) of the current regulation;

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Member States to proactively support redundant workers in SMEs using the flexibility provided for in Article 4(2) of the current regulation, in particular with regard to collective applications involving SMEs;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Member States to proactively support redundant workers in SMEs using the flexibility provided for in Article 4(2) of the current regulation and to inform SMEs of the opportunities available to them under the EGF via a large-scale communication campaign;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Calls on the Member States to proactively support redundant workers in SMEs using the flexibility provided for in Article 4(2) of the current regulation; urges for other such facilities to be set up to promote wider access to EGF action;

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Is satisfied with the finding in the Commission's ex-post implementation report identifying a positive trend between resources used on promotion of entrepreneurship and the self-employment rate at the end of the measures, indicating a high degree of success with the use of such measures as part of EGF in promoting and fostering entrepreneurship. Considers that such measures should be strengthened in the future.

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B h (new)

Bh. whereas there are currently large differences in national context concerning the responsibilities of employers towards their employees in the process of restructuring; whereas, European social partners have been consulted twice in the previous decade and the Commission has failed to act;

Amendment 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Welcomes the efforts of several Member States to increase the use of measures supporting entrepreneurship and the social economy, in the form of start-up grants and measures aimed towards promoting entrepreneurship and social cooperatives and services for new entrepreneurs;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Believes that, in the context of a number of complicating factors such as potential data omissions, regional and national specificities, different macro- and micro-economic circumstances, small sample sizes and certain necessary assumptions, the Commission’s methodological approach ~~is largely~~should be rigorous and transparent, taking measures to remedy the shortcomings that complicate such an approach;

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Believes that mid-programme reporting to the European Commission and the relevant authorities in the Member State should be mandatory including details of estimated expenditure and additional actions for approval detailing how to avoid emerging underspends; calls on the Commission to ensure full public disclosure of the contents and conclusions of any mid-term review, including of the estimated spend to allow for greater public scrutiny and accountability;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. ~~Is concerned~~Stresses that the Court of Auditors report concludes that no quantitative re- integration objectives were set and that existing data is not adequate to assess the effectiveness of the measures in re- integrating workers into employment; recommends therefore that the Member States set quantitative re-integration objectives and systematically differentiate between EGF, ESF and other national measures specifically designed for workers affected by mass redundancies; the Member States should furthermore distinguish between the two main types of EGF measures, i.e. active labour market measures and income support paid to workers, as well as providing more detailed information on the measures accessed by individual participants in order to allow a more accurate cost-benefit analysis of different measures;

Amendment 154 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. ~~Is concerned~~Notes that the Court of Auditors report concludes that no quantitative re- integration objectives were set and that existing data is not adequate to assess the effectiveness of the measures in re- integrating workers into employment; recommends therefore that the Member States set quantitative re-integration objectives and systematically differentiate between EGF, ESF and other national measures specifically designed for workers affected by mass redundancies; the Member States should furthermore distinguish between the two main types of EGF measures, i.e. active labour market measures and income support paid to workers, as well as providing more detailed information on the measures accessed by individual participants in order to allow a more accurate cost-benefit analysis of different measures;

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Is concerned that the Court of Auditors report concludes that no quantitative re-integration objectives were set and that existing data is not adequate to assess the effectiveness of the measures in re-integrating workers into employment; recommends therefore that the Member States set quantitative and qualitative re- integration objectives and systematically differentiate between EGF, ESF and other national measures specifically designed for workers affected by mass redundancies; the Member States should furthermore distinguish between the two main types of EGF measures, i.e. active labour market measures and income support paid to workers, as well as providing more detailed information on the measures accessed by individual participants in order to allow a more accurate cost-benefit analysis of different measures;

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Reminds the Member States of their obligation to provide data on re-integration rates ~~12 month~~at regular intervals after the implementation of the measures;

Amendment 157 #

Jérôme LAVRILLEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Reminds the Member States of their obligation to provide data on re-integration rates 12 months after the implementation of the measures to provide the necessary follow-up concerning the EGF's effects and efficiency;

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Emphasises the need to streamline audit procedures at national level so as to ensure coherence and efficiency and to avoid unnecessary repetition between bodies operating different levels of control;

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27a. Calls on the Member States who have benefited from the EGF to make all data and evaluations of the cases publically available; calls on the Member States to include a gender impact assessment in the evaluation of cases;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas to date the economic crisis has hit small businesses, with fewer than 500 workers, hardest;

Amendment 160 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)

27b. Calls on the Commission to delegate the evaluation of the EGF cases to Eurofound. Eurofound, not least in its capacity as the host organisation for the European Monitoring Centre for Change (EMCC), has the scientific expertise and the independence to provide credible evaluations. Eurofound should be 1) empowered to develop an improved evaluation methodology, 2) a set of recommendations on what data should be collected and how this could be achieved since the main requirement for better evaluations is a better statistical material and 3) carry out the evaluation of the EGF cases including comprehensive reporting of these evaluations; calls therefore on the European Commission to provide Eurofound with the necessary financial resources, corresponding to current EGF evaluation procurement expenditure and human resource costs. Moreover, as the main impediment to better evaluations is the lack of appropriate data, that the Commission requires the provision by the Member States of such data to Eurofound as a condition of receipt of EGF financial support. The data specification will be provided by Eurofound;

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 c (new)

27c. Calls on the European Commission to provide Eurofound with the necessary financial resources, corresponding to current EGF evaluation procurement expenditure and human resource costs; moreover, as the main impediment to better evaluations is the lack of appropriate data, that the Commission requires the provision by the Member States of such data to Eurofound as a condition of receipt of EGF financial support; the data specification will be provided by Eurofound;

Amendment 162 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Recommends that more regular peer reviews, cross-national exchanges or partnering of new EGF cases with previous EGF cases~~, where possible,~~ be implemented in order to exchange good practices and implementing experiences;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Recommends that more regular peer reviews, cross-national exchanges or partnering of new EGF cases with previous EGF cases, where possible, be implemented in order to exchange good practices and implementing experiences; recommends therefore to create a platform of best practices, which is easily accessible and supports a better exchange, including examples of good combination of different EU funds in view of offering integrated solutions to regions with polluting industries;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas since 1 January 2014 formerly self-employed persons can also be eligible beneficiaries and can receive assistance; whereas, until 31 December 2017, young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs) in regions eligible under the Youth Employment Initiative can benefit from EGF support in numbers equal to the number of targeted beneficiaries;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

~~E. whereas the current EGF aims not only to support redundant workers but also to demonstrate solidarity towards those workers;~~deleted

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas the Court of Auditors recommends the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission consider limiting EU funding to measures likely to provide EU added value, rather than funding already existing national workers' income support schemes;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 b (new)

– having regard to Eurofound case study Added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: A comparison of experiences in Germany and Finland (2009)

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the original EGF budget was EUR 500 million per year; whereas the current budget is EUR 150 million per year, with an average annual spend of EUR approximately 70 million since its inception;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas the very real needs caused by restructuring and job losses as a result of the crisis and globalisation call for an revamped EGF facilitating access to its funds in order to both compensate for job losses and re-skilling measures and pre- empt them;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas the EGF is an emergency fund designed to provide rapid intervention and short-term assistance in response to acute and unforeseen labour market difficulties involving large-scale mass redundancies and remains outside the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF);

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas between 2007 and 2014 there have been 134 applications from 20 Member States, relating to122 121 targeted workers, and whereas a total of EUR 561.1 million has been requested;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. whereas in the 2007-2013 period the budget implementation rate was only 55% and 45% of allocated funds were unused.

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas EGF measures are found to have most value added when used to co- finance services not ordinarily existing under Member State employment benefit systems and in cases where these measures have been personalised and are complementary to mainstream provision, in particular for the most vulnerable groups of workers made redundant;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas EGF measures are found to have most value in cases where these measures have been personalised and are complementary to mainstream provision; in connection with this, the importance of a full assessment of local labour market needs and skills requirements was also seen to be critical, as this should form the basis for planning training and competence building for a quick reintegration of workers into the labour market;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

Ja. whereas between 2007 and 2014 the manufacturing sector accounted for the largest number of applications; in particular the automotive industry, which concerned 29 000 out of 122 121 workers (23% of the total covered by the submitted applications).

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

Ja. whereas measures taken by the EGF have shown that investing in the potential of former employees helps more people to return to work;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)

Ka. whereas the EGF is used to ameliorate the impact of corporate globalisation; whereas the EU's trade policy has directly caused massive job displacement in the EU; whereas austerity policies enforced by the troika and implemented by Member States have also directly contributed to mass redundancies in the EU;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 c (new)

– having regard to Eurofound ERM 2009 report Restructuring in recession

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)

Ka. whereas unemployment rates in the EU, especially among young people and the long-term unemployed, mean that initiatives offering new career prospects are urgently needed;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K b (new)

Kb. whereas the EGF does not resolve the problem of unemployment in the EU; whereas resolving the unemployment crisis in the EU requires putting the protection of jobs at the heart of the EU's trade policy, an end to austerity policies and investment in job creation;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the ex-post evaluation of the EGF and the first biennial report; notes that the Commission complies with its reporting obligation; considers that these and other reports ~~contribute to~~are not enough to ensure the transparency and efficiency of the EGF;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the ex-post evaluation of the EGF and the first biennial report; notes that the Commission complies with its reporting obligation; considers that these and other reports contribute to the transparency and efficiency of the EGF; believes in this regard that the Commission could make public their internal mission reports following monitoring visits to ongoing applications in Member States;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that the 2013 impact assessment of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership commissioned from the Centre for Economic Policy Research by the European Commission has estimated that TTIP may result in the loss of more than one million jobs in the EU under its 'ambitious' scenario and more than 600,000 job losses in the less ambitious scenario; notes that this study is unable to predict the net impact on European employment levels as it uses Computable General Equilibrium modelling which contains the simplistic and false assumption that, after trade liberalisation, all growing sectors of the economy will absorb the job losses of the sectors that shrink due to international competition; notes with concern that an another impact assessment of TTIP carried out by Tufts University in 2014 using the alternative and more reliable United Nations Global Policy Model found that TTIP would lead to a net loss in GDP for the EU; more than 600,000 job losses; losses in net exports; falling labour income and a reduction in the labour share of GDP; insists that the Commission end negotiations for TTIP and other trade liberalisation agreements that will inevitably result in massive job losses in the EU;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Further notes that currently there is no obligation on Member States to make public their applications and final reports under the current Regulation although this can be done voluntarily; strongly encourages all Member States to make these documents publicly available in a timely manner in the interest of greater transparency;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Welcomes the extension of the funding period from one to two years. According to Eurofound research 12 months was not a long enough period to help all redundant workers, especially the most vulnerable groups such as low- skilled workers, older workers, women and particularly single parents;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the functioning of the EGF has been slightly improved by reforms to the regulation;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the functioning of the EGF has been improved by reforms to the regulation, but that more still needs to be done; notes that the improvements made have simplified procedures for Member State access to the EGF and that this should result in greater use being made of the fund by Member States; points out, nonetheless, that the Commission should have made provision for all documents relating to EGF funding operations to be made public, in order to enhance transparency and democratic accountability;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the functioning of the EGF has been improved by reforms to the regulation, but that care must nevertheless be taken to ensure that the Fund does not acquire a macroeconomic stabilisation function as a preliminary stage for a European unemployment insurance scheme;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

~~A. whereas the objective of the EGF is to contribute to smart, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and the promotion of sustainable employment;~~deleted

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the functioning of the EGF has been improved by reforms to the regulation; regrets that it still has not reached all Member States;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that the reduced appropriations earmarked for the EGF in the annual budget have been sufficient to provide the necessary assistance ~~to date; emphasises however that~~for the limited scope of the EGF until 2013; emphasises however that since 2014 the scope of the EGF has been expanded again and in the event of a significant increase in applications, the appropriations ~~should continue~~must be increased to ensure the effective functioning of the EGF; Recalls the significant increase in the number of applications during the derogative period 2009-2011, which allowed applications on the basis of crisis-related criteria;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that the reduced appropriations earmarked for the EGF in the annual budget have been sufficient to provide the necessary assistance to date on the basis of the access limits laid down in the rules governing the fund; emphasises however that in ~~the event~~view of athe significant increase in applications the appropriations ~~should continue~~will not be enough to ensure the effective functioning of the EGF;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that the reduced appropriations earmarked for the EGF in the annual budget have been sufficient to provide the necessary assistance to date; emphasises however that in the event of a significant increase in applications or the addition of new prerogatives, further appropriations should be earmarked to continue to ensure the effective functioning of the EGF;

Amendment 44 #

Jérôme LAVRILLEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that the reduced appropriations earmarked for the EGF in the annual budget have been sufficient to provide the ~~necessary assistance to date~~assistance and support that is both vital and necessary for people who have lost their jobs as a result of structural changes; emphasises however that in the event of a significant increase in applications the appropriations should continue to ensure the effective functioning of the EGF;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Emphasises that one of the main roles of the EGF it to benefit specific sectors in Europe impacted by the effects of globalisation where several companies are affected; stresses that these cases assisting especially SMEs should be regarded as the main added value of the EGF.

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Stresses the relevance of strong social dialogue based on mutual trust and shared responsibility, as the best instrument with which to seek consensual solutions and common outlooks when predicting, preventing and managing restructuring processes; highlights that this would help to prevent job losses and therefore, EGF cases; Calls on the Commission to assess whether it is necessary to take steps at Union level to supervise the activities of companies in order to prevent abuse of any kind with prejudicial effects, particularly on workers; calls on the Commission to ensure that dismissals are seen as a last resort after having considered all possible alternatives, without this diminishing the competitiveness of enterprises;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

~~4. Observes the significant increase in the number of applications during the derogative period 2009-2011, which allowed applications on the basis of crisis- related criteria;~~deleted (This deletion has been submitted because the wording has been added in the previous paragraph)

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Observes the~~Considers it regrettable that there was a significant increase in the number of applications during the derogative period 2009-2011, which allowed applications on the basis of crisis- related criteria; stresses that the adverse effects of the economic crisis are still far from behind us, and that, as a result, the number of applications will increase still further;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Observes the significant increase in the number of applications during the derogative period 2009-2011, which allowed applications on the basis of crisis- related criteria; welcomes the extension of this derogation after 2013 owing to the continuing economic crisis;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was set up to provide support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Observes the significant increase in the number of applications during the derogative period 2009-2011, which allowed applications on the basis of crisis- related criteria; notes that over half of the total number of projects in the 2007-2014 period were crisis-related;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes the extension of the EGF intervention period to two years; calls on the Commission to change the time frame for EGF programmes to be two years from the point of Commission approval rather than two years from the application date; calls on the Commission to ensure that funding for multi-annual training courses should be provided after the programme closes so long as the start date of the course or application date is within the time frame of the programme;

Amendment 52 #

Elisabeth MORIN-CHARTIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that the EGF suffers from a serious lack of awareness on the part of the Member States, the social partners and companies; calls on the Commission to launch an awareness-raising campaign for Member States;

Amendment 53 #

Ole CHRISTENSEN, Jutta STEINRUCK, Agnes JONGERIUS, Marita ULVSKOG, Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Support~~Urges the Commission~~’s work on~~ to develop~~ing~~ standardised procedures for EGF applications and management using the functionalities of the electronic data exchange system (SFC), which allows for the simplification of applications for Member States and speeds up the processing of applications; calls on the Commission to ensure that the system also allows for better and improved reportingso that funding can be provided swiftly and thus have the greatest possible impact; points out that, according to the Court of Auditors report, the average length of EGF approval proceedings is 41 weeks; acknowledges, nonetheless, the efforts made by the Commission to cut waiting times and the fact that, under the current rules, the duration of some parts of those proceedings cannot be shortened;

Amendment 54 #

Marita ULVSKOG, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Javi LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to ~~better~~fully anticipate the effects of trade policy decisions on the EU labour market~~; opposes any initiative t~~, also considering the ~~EGF, in its current form, as an intervention tool for jobs lost in the European Union as a result~~evidence based information of these effects that have been highlighted by the EGF applications; calls ofn t~~rade strategies deci~~he Commission to review the traded a~~t EU level, including future trade agreements or those already in place~~greements in light of this information and to reconsider trade agreements that will have adverse effects on the European labour market;

Amendment 55 #

Agnes JONGERIUS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to better anticipate the effects of trade policy decisions on the EU labour market; opposes any initiative to consider the EGF, in its current form, as an intervention tool for jobs lost in the European Union as a result of trade strategies decided at EU level, including future trade agreements or those already in place;calls on the Commission to conduct thorough regular ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments, involving potential effects on employment, competitiveness, and the economy including small and medium sized enterprises, of all trade agreements and relevant legislative initiatives. Believes that all sectors identified as vulnerable should be closely monitored and that Social Partners and Member States involved in high risk sectors should prepare strategies to anticipate the projected labour market changes

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to better anticipate the effects of trade policy decisions on the EU labour market, particularly by means of social impact assessments of the various free-trade agreements under negotiation; opposes any initiative to consider the EGF, in its current form, as an intervention tool for jobs lost in the European Union as a result of trade strategies decided at EU level, including future trade agreements or those already in place;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to ~~better anticipate the effects of trade policy decisions on the EU labour market~~come together with stakeholders in the relevant sectors well ahead of trade policy decisions in order to assess their impact on the EU labour market; calls on the Commission to suspend existing trade agreements (or, in the case of those yet to be concluded, such as TTIP, to suspend the negotiations) which are resulting in (or will result in) a permanent state of crisis or the disappearance of entire economic sectors; opposes any initiative to consider the EGF, in its current form, as an intervention or compensation tool for jobs lost in the European Union as a result of ~~trade~~ strategies or policies decided at EU level~~, including future trade agreements or those already in place~~;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to better anticipate the effects of trade policy decisions on the EU labour market; opposes any initiative to consider the EGF, in its current form, as an intervention tool for jobs lost in the European Union as a result of trade strategies decided at EU level, including future trade agreements or those already in place, for example the TTIP, the TiSA, the CETA, and MES; maintains that granting market economy status to non-EU countries which do not satisfy the Commission’s five criteria could have a disastrous effect on European industry’s ability to remain competitive on the market;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the EGF was initially established to provide support to workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation; whereas the objective of the Fund is to prepare redundant workers for a new job and to provide them with support; whereas, by way of derogation, the scope of the EGF was expanded to include workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis from 2009 to 2011, and this scope was further expanded to permanently include the crisis criterion and self-employed individuals from 2014 to 2020;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 61 #

Ole CHRISTENSEN, Agnes JONGERIUS, Jutta STEINRUCK, Marita ULVSKOG, Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to better anticipate the effects of trade policy decisions on the EU labour market; strongly opposes any initiative to consider the EGF, in its current form and with its current budget, as an intervention tool for jobs lost in the European Union as a result of mistaken trade strategies decided at EU level, including future trade agreements or those already in place;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Agrees with the Commission that the very essence of the EGF is to help people, who lose their jobs as a result of more open trade; considers it an important task of the EGF to mitigate the consequences of trade disputes and ensure that the burdens stemming from joint political decisions at EU-level are shared between EU member states; therefor calls for a targeted revision of the EGF to add a clause, which will ensure support for employees and companies affected by trade conflicts; underlines in this respect the urgent need for a faster procedure for handling of applications;

Amendment 63 #

Maria ARENA, Marita ULVSKOG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Emphasises that the EGF can under any circumstances replace a serious policy to prevent and pre-empt restructurings; stresses the importance of a true industrial policy at EU level to bring sustainable and inclusive growth;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Opposes any initiative to consider the EGF, in its current form, as an intervention tool for jobs lost in the European Union as a result of trade strategies decided at EU level, including future trade agreements or those already in place;

Amendment 65 #

Maria ARENA, Marita ULVSKOG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Considers that if the EGF has to be used as a tool for communities facing job losses as in the case of closing a business in the EU due to the trade agreements, it is crucial, beforehand, to extend the EGF' competencies to allow it to financially support reconversion policies of the member states in the activities of vulnerable sectors; to achieve this, considers it necessary to increase the funds available within the EGF

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Not~~Underlines that some Member States have preferred to use the ESF rather than the EGF because of higher ESF co- financing rates, swifter implementation of ESF measures, the lack of EGF pre- financing and the lengthy EGF approval procedure; ~~believes however that the increased co-financing rate and the more timely application and approval process contained in the new regulation have helped address some of these concerns~~asks the Commission to examine this issue and come up with a report on the number and scope of ESF projects that comply with EGF intervention criteria; notes that the more timely application and approval process contained in the new regulation address some of these concerns; calls to the Commission to present a proposal for necessary legislative changes to ease and streamline the implementation of the EGF including raising the fund contribution rate as to match the ESF co-financing for the respective Member State and a non- binding but formal preliminary approval by the Commission prior to the decision of the Budgetary Authority;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that some Member States have preferred to use the ESF rather than the EGF because of higher ESF co- financing rates, swifter implementation of ESF measures, the lack of EGF pre- financing and the lengthy EGF approval procedure; believes ~~however~~ that the increased co- financing rate and the more timely application and approval process contained in the new regulation have helped address some of these concerns, but that further efforts are still required; recalls in this connection the EESC opinion that suggested reducing the threshold for applications to 200 redundancies and increasing the rate of EU co-financing to 75%;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that some Member States have preferred to use the ESF rather than the EGF because of higher ESF co- financing rates, swifter implementation of ESF measures, the lack of EGF pre- financing and the lengthy EGF approval procedure; believes however that the increased co-financing rate and the more timely application and approval process contained in the new regulation have helped address some of these concerns; regrets that EGF support still has not reached redundant workers in all Member States and calls on Member States to provide this opportunity in case of mass redundancies;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that some Member States have preferred to use the ESF rather than the EGF because of higher ESF co- financing rates, swifter implementation of ESF measures, the lack of EGF pre- financing and the lengthy EGF approval procedure; believes ~~however~~ that the increased co- financing rate and the more timely application and approval process contained in the new regulation ~~have helped address some of these concern~~are incremental improvements and still not sufficient to meet the needs of citizens affected by the crisis;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the EGF was set up to address short-term emergencies, unlike the European Social Fund (ESF), which also provides support for workers made redundant but is intended to address long- term structural imbalances, in particular by means of lifelong learning programmes;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Points out that some Member States have not set quantitative reintegration targets and that in some cases public or private employment services have not systematically differentiated between the EGF and the ESF and other national measures; calls on the Commission to provide, annually, a full assessment of the results achieved for each EGF operation and also to supply data on rejected EGF applications and the reasons for the rejections;

Amendment 71 #

Krzysztof HETMAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that while the thematic scope and fields of intervention of ESI funds (in particular ESF) and EGF are often similar, and that the latter has been created to react quickly to arisen situation, while the structural and investment funds have a multiannual cycle of planning, underlines in this context the need to strengthen synergy between them and that the ESI funds shall act as a follow up measures in the EGF areas of support;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes the conclusion of the Court of Auditors with regard to the lengthy EGF approval procedure; ~~expect~~calls for no effort to be spared to accelerate procedures, especially for the countries in greatest difficulty, which cannot provide pre- financing for e the measures; hopes that the more timely procedure introduced in the current regulation ~~has~~will improved the situation; strongly recommends that all Member States start implementing the measures as soon as their applications are sent to the Commission, and is pleased that many Member States already do so;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes the conclusion of the Court of Auditors with regard to the lengthy EGF approval procedure; expects that the more timely procedure introduced in the current regulation has improved the situation; strongly recommends that all Member States start implementing the measures as soon as possible after the redundancies or when their applications are sent to the Commission, and is pleased that many Member States already do so;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes the conclusion of the Court of Auditors with regard to the lengthy EGF approval procedure; expects that the more timely procedure introduced in the current regulation has improved the situation; strongly recommends that all Member States start implementing the measures as soon as their applications are sent to the Commission, and is pleased that many Member States already do so; emphasises the vital importance of timely intervention by Member States in order to ensure a maximum beneficiary reach rate;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes the conclusion of the Court of Auditors with regard to the lengthy EGF approval procedure; expects that the more timely procedure introduced in the current regulation has improved the situation; strongly recommends that all Member States start implementing the measures as soon as their applications are sent to the Commission~~, and is pleased that many Member States already do so~~;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Reiterates its request from 2013 that the Commission, pursuant to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to submit as soon as possible and after consulting the social partners, a proposal for a legal act on information and consultation of workers, anticipation and management of restructuring, (following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex to (2012/2061(INL)); stresses that the adoption and implementation of this legal framework should be a prerequisite for Member States and companies to have access to EGF support and that EGF support should be the last resort only after other possibilities for maintaining the company activities and the employment have been tried;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to promote awareness of the EGF to workers and their representatives and to do so in a timely manner in order to ensure that the maximum number of potential beneficiaries can be reached and gain from EGF measures;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Recalls the importance of safeguards that prevent the relocation of enterprises benefitting from EU funding which might lead to triggering the need for additional support schemes due to redundancies;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Welcomes the derogation that allows for exceptions to the threshold of 500 workers; calls on the Commission to reduce the threshold of redundancies from 500 to 200 workers; Note: this amendment should come after the subheading 'Beneficiaries of the EGF'

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas restructuring is not a new phenomenon but a practice which happens more frequently due to economic challenges and whereas, in recent years, it has become more prevalent as well as taking many different forms, intensifying in some sectors and spreading to others, with unforeseeable consequences for the economic and social fabric of the Member States; whereas more and more EGF cases are related with restructuring strategies of big firms and multinational companies which are in the majority of the cases decided without the involvement of workers and their representatives; whereas relocation, delocalisation, closures, mergers, acquisitions, take- overs, reorganisation of production, outsourcing of activities as just the most common forms of restructuring that multinational companies and their workforce are going through.

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes the conclusion in the Court of Auditors report that nearly all EGF-eligible workers were offered personalised and well-coordinated measures; believes that the involvement of the targeted beneficiaries or their representatives, the social partners and other relevant stakeholders in the initial assessment and application is essential in order to ensure positive outcomes for beneficiaries; calls on the Commission to assess in its reviews to what extent the design of the coordinated package of personalised services anticipated future labour market perspectives and required skills and was compatible with the shift towards a resource-efficient and sustainable economy;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Commission to equip itself with appropriate means of gathering exact information about the effects of the EGF and beneficiaries’ perceptions of their quality, thus enabling it, at a later stage, to take such corrective action as might be necessary;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Stresses the importance of national and local employment offices in implementing EGF measures, initiatives to help people return to work and, therefore, the need to maintain the quality of their services, particularly in times of crisis;

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on Member States to make further efforts so that workers receive the opportunity to be trained to future oriented sectors;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

~~10.~~ Notes that the average share of ~~10.~~ beneficiaries aged 55 or over was 15 % and of beneficiaries aged 15-24 was 5 %; welcomes therefore the emphasis in the new regulation on ~~older~~self-employed and younger workers and the inclusion of NEETs in certain applications; regrets that the new regulation doesn't take into account regions and labour markets affected significantly by long-term unemployment;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that out of the 73 projects analysed in the Commission's ex-post evaluation report the average share of beneficiaries aged 55 or over was 15 % and of beneficiaries aged 15-24 was 5 %; welcomes therefore the emphasis in the new regulation on older and younger workers and the inclusion of NEETs in certain applications;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the average share of beneficiaries aged 55 or over was 15 % and of beneficiaries aged 15-24 was 5 %; welcomes therefore the emphasis in the new regulation on older and younger workers and the inclusion of NEETs in certain applications; strongly believes that the derogation for the inclusion of NEETs should be continued to the end of the programming period in December 2020;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the average share of beneficiaries aged 55 or over was 15 % and of beneficiaries aged 15-24 was 5 %; welcomes therefore the emphasis in the new regulation on older and younger workers and the inclusion of NEETs in certain applications; notes that the average share of female beneficiaries was 33%; Calls therefore on the Commission to take into account women's particular situation, which has even aggravated since the beginning of the crisis, and to ensure therefore, as far as possible, that EGF assistance benefits women and men equally;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Considers that the inclusion of NEETs in EGF applications often requires different types of interventions and believes that all actors, including the social partners and local community groups, should be called upon to promote the measures necessary to ensure the inclusion of NEETs; further calls for dedicated and sustained support to ensure NEETs´ completion of the EGF programme;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas companies are responsible for the effects of their restructuring decisions in the communities, societies and economies where they operate; whereas EGF helps to cushion the negative effects of these restructuring decisions; whereas in that sense, not only workers but companies benefit from the EGF support.

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Notes that a lack of timely and effective implementation of EGF programmes in some Member States has resulted in underspend, with millions of euros being returned to the Commission unused, with the effect that redundant workers in need of financial support have missed out on this support; notes that this problem with implementation has affected NEETs in particular;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Notes that according to the figures from the same report EGF beneficiaries tend to have a relatively lower than average educational attainment, thus less transferrable skills, which, in normal circumstances reduces their employment opportunities and makes them more vulnerable on the labour market;

Amendment 92 #

Lynn BOYLAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to have a strong lead agency to deliver the EGF programmes with adequate powers to ensure maximum spend of programme funds and greater accountability to member state parliaments and the Commission.

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes that, according to the ex-post evaluation, the average beneficiary reach rate across all 73 cases examined was 78 %. This includes 20 cases with beneficiary reach rates of 100 % or more; insists however that the maximum reach rate for any case is 100 % and therefore the use of figures greater than 100 % skews the data to suggest a significantly higher reach rate than the actual one; notes that this is also the case of the budget implementation rate; calls on the Commission to adjust its figures to provide a more accurate assessment of beneficiary reach rates and budget implementation rates;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Welcomes the fact that positive outcomes other than re-employment and skills updating were experienced by beneficiaries, including psychological benefits such as improved self-esteem, greater feelings of empowerment and increased motivation;deleted

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 96 #

Anne SANDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Welcomes the fact that ~~positive outcomes other than re-employment and skills updating were experienced by beneficiaries, including psychological benefits such as improved~~beneficiaries were, first and foremost, able to find a new job thanks to the personalised support of the EGF in their job search and saw their skills updated through training programmes and mobility allowances; also welcomes the fact that the EGF enabled certain employees to become entrepreneurs via the provision of aid to start up or take over companies; stresses, therefore, the notable positive effects that the EGF may have on self-esteem, ~~greater~~ feelings of empowerment and ~~increased~~ motivation;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Points out, however, that a high percentage of beneficiaries consider their new employment to be inferior to their previous employment and that, as the Court of Auditors has noted, the extent to which aims have been achieved cannot be gauged in overall terms, as there are no systematic data on which to base the assessment; recommends, therefore, that the Commission employ every appropriate means in order to gather exact information about the effects of the EGF and their quality with a view, at a later stage, to taking such corrective action as might prove necessary;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Notes that information on the characteristics of new employment was difficult to obtain; however, a survey carried out as part of the ex-post evaluation produced mixed results, with 35% stating the quality of new employment was better or far better, 24% stating it was the same and 41% stating it was worse or far worse;deleted

Amendment 99 #