12 Amendments of Lynn BOYLAN related to 2015/2284(INI)
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
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 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K b (new)
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 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
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 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
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; demands that the Commission put the protection of jobs in the EU at the heart of its trade policy;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
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 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
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 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
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 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Notes the lack of take-up of EGF support by eligible NEETs in many Member States; calls for the community and voluntary sector, and in particular youth organisations, to be directly represented at the implementation stage of each programme to increase access to NEETs at both the Member State and EU levels; believes the EGF unit in each Member State should have more power to go to whatever agencies or organisations it feels appropriate to ensure the maximum participation from NEETs; calls on Member States that have experienced this problem to carry out an independent review of the implementation of the EGF programmes to date with a specific focus on the issue of NEETs' participation in order to identify better practices for improving the overall operation of future programmes and the participation of NEETs in those programmes;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
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 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
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; insists that the EGF cannot be used to substitute for the obligations of Member States, or indeed of employers, to their workers;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
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;