10 Amendments of Nils TORVALDS related to 2015/2284(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. BelievNotes that the objective of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a valuable instrument through which the EU expresses its solidarity with workers and whichto 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 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
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)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Is of the opinion that the co-funding rate of 60% should not be increased;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
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 effectivelyeffectively without compromising appropriate and transparent use of funds and compliance with the rules;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the fact that nearly 50% of workers who received financial assistance under applicatiNotes that the re-employment rate at the end of the EGF assistance varies cons idealt with in 2013- 2014 are now back in employmentrably from 4% to 86%; emphasises, however, that the EGF should provide funding for sectors likely to face problems in the futurbe aimed strictly for active labour market measures to help and empower redundant people;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. StressesIs 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 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that more widespread use of the existing derogation from the eligibility thresholds, particularly to benefit SMEs, extension of thas laid down in Article 4 of the EGF Regulation 1309/2013, would make for more reference periods and the possibility of classifying workers who provide related services and who are made redundant as workers made redficient use of the EGF budget; is against any derogation that would undermine the nature of the EGF as an emergency fund ant by the company claiming assistance would make for more efficient use of the EGF budgetd is therefore critical of further extensions of reference periods;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view that the derogation relating toCalls 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 2017have benefited from the EGF;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
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;