16 Amendments of Giovanni LA VIA related to 2010/2072(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital 1
Recital 1
A. whereas, with a view to countering the adverse impact of globalisation on workers affected by collective redundancies and to showing its solidarity towards such workers, as well as helping them to find work again, the European Union set up a European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (hereinafter 'EGF') to provide financial support for personalised programmes to re- integrate redundant workers into the labour market; whereas the EGF has a maximum annual amount of EUR 500 million, drawn either from any margin existing under the global expenditure ceiling of the previous year or from cancelled commitment appropriations for the two previous years, excluding those relating to heading 1b of the financial framework,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas an analysis of the funds mobilised under the EGF between 2007 and the end of the first half of 2009 highlights the shortcomings of the original regulmodest use of the appropriations, with only EUR 80 million having being mobilised, out of a total of EUR 1.5 billion theoretically available, for 18 applications submitted on behalf of 24 431 workers by eight Member States; whereas those shortcomings are also reflected in the huge disparity, accompanied by differences between the amounts initially allocated and those finally implemented, with EUR 24.8 million (39.4% of the appropriations mobilised) having subsequently been paid back in the case of the first 11 applications,
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 10 #
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 and 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 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the 27 decisions taken between 2007 and April 2010 were all favourable and the amounts authorised were the same as those proposed by the Commission, even in cases where Parliament had expressed doubts as to their appropriateness,
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 28 #
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 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 40 #
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 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; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to assess experience of the efficiency and effectiveness of the resources used and to use information on the subject to formulate proposals for revision of the EGF Regulation with the aim of reducing the time required to implement assistance from the fund;
Amendment 45 #
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 or 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 in the regulation establishing the EGF;
Amendment 51 #
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 removmaintained, 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 ESFt 65%;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses the importance of the ESF as an instrument for supporting employment and increasing social cohesion; considers it vital, therefore, to improve the present discipline of the ESF and identify ways of rendering more effective the implementation of the measures for which it provides, focusing inter alia on personalised retraining of redundant workers;
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;