17 Amendments of Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO related to 2010/2072(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas in response to the increase in unemployment resulting from the economic and financial crisis and to the lessons learned from the experience gained in 2007 and 2008, the European Union amended the rules governing the use of the EGF in June 2009; whereas that amendment consisted in temporarilycerned all applications to be submitted before 31 December 2011 and consisted in broadening the scope of the EGF, relaxing and clarifying the intervention criteria, temporarily raising the co- financing rate and extending the period during which Member States may use the financial contributions provided,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the raising of the co-financing rate from 50% to 65% during the 2009 revision would appear to be one of the factors behind the increase in the number of applications concerning Competitiveness Objective regions; whereas, however, that change has not had a similar multiplier effect in Convergence Objective regions,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the limited use made of the EGF for the EU's poorest regions stems from varying national strategies linked to the co-financing rates available under the ESF and the EGF andstems also from the difficulties involved in establishing the precise status of potential beneficiaries before a decision is taken at European level,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas, according to the Commission's interim report on the functioning of the IAA12, the need for the two arms of the budgetary authority to take a specific decision to mobilise the EGF is one of the factors behind the slowness of the procedure, whereas, however, the Council and the European Parliament are obliged to take a decision for the mobilisation of the EGF within a deadline of six weeks (linked to the deadline for transfers imposed by Article 24 of the Financial Regulation), while the Commission is bound by no deadline for the assessment of each EGF application,
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes the view that the EGF's added value as an EU social policy instrument lies in the fact that it provides specific and targeted financial support for personalised programmes for the reskilling and re- integration into employment of workers affected by collective redundancies in sectors or regions undergoing severe economic and social disruption; stresses that EGF was established as a flexible, one-off support instrument that was meant to respond more quickly and effectively to extraordinary and urgent circumstances when mass-redundancies occur in a Member State;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that the long-term increase in the number of applications for EGF funding and the difficulties experienced in implementing the EGF mobilisation and deployment procedure call for improvements to be made to the fund's procedural and budgetary arrangements at the earliest opportunity; calls, accordingly, on the Commission to bring the submission of its mid-term evaluation forward to 30 June 2011 and to submit at the same time a proposal for the revision of the EGF Regulation, in order to remedy the fund's most obvious shortcomings before the end of the current multiannual financial framework;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the contributions granted with reference to, among other things: the assessment of skills upgrading of workers; the beneficiaries' re- integration into employment; the difference between the number of potential beneficiaries and the number of workers that have received support and possibly other reasons for explaining the large amounts of EGF assistance that were not implemented and, subsequently, paid back by the beneficiary Member States; the disparities between Member States in terms of the funding provided per worker and the reasons for those disparities; compliance with the non- discrimination criterion with reference to the contractual position of the workers made redundant; the procedures for consulting the social partners that were or were not used when preparing applications and the checks carried out on their implementation; the amount and execution rate of possible ESF financing that has been allocated to the same region as the EGF assistance; and the procedures for verifying the implementation of contributions and any repayments Member States are requested to make; calls on the Commission to reflect the findings of that evaluation in its proposal for the revision of the regulation;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that the time required to mobilise the EGF could be halved and that, to this end, applications for mobilisation of the EGF should be drawn up by Member States as soon as a collective redundancy has been announced, and not after it has taken place, so as to reduce the 10-week period Member States have in which to forward their applications once the intervention criteria have been fulfilled; considers that Member States should forward their applications in their own language and one of the European institutions' working languages, so that the Commission department responsible for scrutinising applications may do so without delay, and; believes that the Commission should be bound by a six-month delay for assessing each EGF application and that all means should be made available to ensure a better communication with the Member State concerned in this process; considers that the Commission should assign additional staff to processing applications submitted by Member States and should scrupulously observe the time limit of 15 days between the adoption of a mobilisation decision and the payment of the financial contribution to the Member State;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Requests that the Commission indicate clearly the financing from other community sources (e.g. from the ERDF or the ESF) in the same geographical area where EGF assistance is also provided, in order to ensure more transparency on the complementarity between the different funds;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Undertakes, for its part, to simplify its decision-making process by stipulating that, in the absence of objections by the Committee on Budgets orand the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Commission proposals will be voted on at the first part-session following the month in which they are submitted, where appropriate grouped into batches, as explicitly provided for should examine and vote as soon as possible on the Commission proposals, in order to proceed to a plenary vote without any delay; calls on the Commission, therefore, to take due account of the EP calendar, both with regard to the Budget Committee meetings as well as the part-sessions, when submitting its proposals, in order to speed up the decision-making procedure; stresses that any revision of the EGF should not undermine the regulation establishing the EGFole of the European Parliament, as Budgetary Authority, in the mobilisation of this fund;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Notes the significant disparities in the EGF funding per worker between different Member States; urges the Commission to examine this phenomenon and to recommend possible solutions on how a more equivalent support to all beneficiaries could be achieved; calls, at the same time, on the Commission to improve the knowledge on this Fund among all Member States, so that they can make use of this possibility should the need arise;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Notes the inclusion, for the first time, in the Commission's Draft Budget 2011 of payment appropriations for the EGF and considers this an important element in the overall reflection on the management and visibility of this fund; considers, however, that these payment appropriations might not be sufficient to cover the amounts necessary for EGF applications in 2011; reiterates, therefore, its demand not to finance EGF applications exclusively through transfers from ESF lines and calls on the Commission to identify and use without further delay different budget lines for this purpose;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view that, over and above these improvements to the procedure, the period of validity of the derogation inserted in 2009 with a view to assisting workers who lose their jobs as a result of the economic and financial crisis should be extended until the end of the current multiannual financial framework and that the co-financing rate should be r, therefore, be maintaisned from 50% to 65%, given that the underlying causes on which their approval was based are very far from having been removed, and that ESF Convergence Objective regions should be eligible for 75% co- financing under the EGF, in order to diminish the current bias in favour of the ESF;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Wishes the EGF to be made a pStresses that the future of the EGF will be determainent fund in the next multiannual financial framework,d in the framework of negotiations for the next MFF; considers that for this purpose several options could be examined, such as the creation of an independent fund with its own commitment and payment appropriations, instead of on which depends so that it does not depend solely on the non- utilisation or under-utilisation of appropriations from previous financial years, or the integration of EGF into the future ESF; believes that any future reform of the EGF should maintain its flexibility, which currently represents a comparative advantage to the EU Structural Funds;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Considers that, despite a recent increase in the applications for EGF assistance, the EGF remains largely unknown in many Member States; urges the Commission, therefore, to launch an information campaign and promote success stories and best practices from the operation of EGF assistance on the ground; believes that further action needs to be taken to increase the visibility of the EGF across the Union;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to improve its reporting on the use of the EGF by substantially fleshing out its annual reports and regularly forwarding to Parliament information on Member States' implementation of financial contributions; calls, furthermore, for the Commission's annual report on implementation of the EGF to become a six-monthly report, should the Commission be delegated decision-making powers under the next multiannual financial framework;