14 Amendments of Charles GOERENS related to 2010/2072(INI)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas, however, 10 Member States have yet to make use of the EGF, the amounts mobilised remain well below the amountsmaximum annual amount of EUR 500 million available and most applications are for regions in which per capita GDP is above the EU average and where the unemployment rate is relatively low; whereas, in view of this, it may be concluded that, although the improvements made to the original regulation were substantial, they remain limited when set against the increase in the number of collective redundancies recorded over recent years,
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas, according to the Commission's interim report on the functioning of the IAA34, 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 slownesshould not prevent speeding up decisions ofn the procedure, 1 COM(2010)0185 of 27 April 2010. 2 COM(2010)0185 of 27 April 2010. 3 COM(2010)0185 of 27 April 2010. 4 COM(2010)0185 of 27 April 2010.mobilisation of the EGF,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas reliable and consistent data on the implementation of the EGF since its modification after 2009 is not yet available and taking the strong view that transparency and regular reporting duties need to be established,
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas, in addition to having a cyclical dimension resulting fromkeeping in mind the original core task of the EGF of addressing mass redundancies resulting from globalisation, as well as the added task of addressing effects of the economic and financial crisis, the difficulties arising oin the labour market in most Member States are also due to structural factors which European and national recovery plans can only partly address; whereas, therefore, the increase in the number of applications for EGF funding may be said to be a long-term trendcontinue to rise,
Amendment 23 #
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 and temporary 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;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 27 #
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; notes the lack of awareness of the existence of this fund among the employers in Member States (only 17 countries have applied so far) and calls on the Commission to introduce the tools that could improve the visibility of the fund; 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 41 #
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 that the Commission should - respecting the principles of budgetary neutrality - 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 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that these immediate steps to simplify and give added flexibility to the EGF mobilisation procedure could, if warranted in the light of the experience gained by then, be incorporated into the regulation when it is revised; any of these steps should not in any way limit or decrease the power of the Parliament as the one of the arm of the budgetary authority while deciding on the mobilisation of the fund;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that these immediate steps to simplify and give added flexibility to the EGF mobilisation procedure could, if warranted in the light of the experience gained by then, be incorporated into the regulation wheupon it is revisedion;
Amendment 55 #
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 raised 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; also calls on the Commission to revise the criteria for granting EGF funds in order to take into account the size of the working- age population in the region concerned, instead of only an absolute number of redundancies;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Wishes the EGF to be made a permanent fund in the next multiannual financial framework,Upon the revision of the regulation and in the course of the discussions on the next multiannual financial framework, the question of a more permanent solution for the EGF with its own commitment and payment appropriations, instead of on which depends could be examined in light onf the non- utilisation or under-utilisation of appropriations from previous financial yearsEGF ending with the current MFF;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
10. Stresses that the conversion of the EGF into a permanent means of support for active job-seeking measures would show a political will to develop a European social pillar that would be complementary to Member States' social policies and capable of revitalising the European approach to professional training; with this in mind,upon the revision of the regulation and in the course of the discussions on the next multiannual financial framework, the question of a more permanent solution for the EGF and whether the EGF should remain separate from the ESF and the European lifelong learning programmes, given that the fund focuses on enhancing the abilities of each of the workers assisted, rather than on providing a response to the concerns of businesses or on the delivery of across-the- board services to training establishments could be examined; bearing in mind that in the spirit of good financial discipline, the doubling of structures should be avoided at all costs and that the EGF ends with the current MFF;