Activities of Laura AGEA related to 2015/2284(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the activities, impact and added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund between 2007 and 2014 PDF (530 KB) DOC (212 KB)
Amendments (27)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was set up to provide support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the EGF was set up to address short-term emergencies, unlike the European Social Fund (ESF), which also provides support for workers made redundant but is intended to address long- term structural imbalances, in particular by means of lifelong learning programmes;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas to date the economic crisis has hit small businesses, with fewer than 500 workers, hardest;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the ex-post evaluation of the EGF and the first biennial report; notes that the Commission complies with its reporting obligation; considers that these and other reports contribute toare not enough to ensure the transparency and efficiency of the EGF;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the functioning of the EGF has been improved by reforms to the regulation, but that more still needs to be done; notes that the improvements made have simplified procedures for Member State access to the EGF and that this should result in greater use being made of the fund by Member States; points out, nonetheless, that the Commission should have made provision for all documents relating to EGF funding operations to be made public, in order to enhance transparency and democratic accountability;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the reduced appropriations earmarked for the EGF in the annual budget have been sufficient to provide the necessary assistance to date on the basis of the access limits laid down in the rules governing the fund; emphasises however that in the eventview of athe significant increase in applications the appropriations should continuewill not be enough to ensure the effective functioning of the EGF;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Observes theConsiders it regrettable that there was a significant increase in the number of applications during the derogative period 2009-2011, which allowed applications on the basis of crisis- related criteria; stresses that the adverse effects of the economic crisis are still far from behind us, and that, as a result, the number of applications will increase still further;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. SupportUrges the Commission’s work on to developing standardised procedures for EGF applications and management using the functionalities of the electronic data exchange system (SFC), which allows for the simplification of applications for Member States and speeds up the processing of applications; calls on the Commission to ensure that the system also allows for better and improved reportingso that funding can be provided swiftly and thus have the greatest possible impact; points out that, according to the Court of Auditors report, the average length of EGF approval proceedings is 41 weeks; acknowledges, nonetheless, the efforts made by the Commission to cut waiting times and the fact that, under the current rules, the duration of some parts of those proceedings cannot be shortened;
Amendment 59 #
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, for example the TTIP, the TiSA, the CETA, and MES; maintains that granting market economy status to non-EU countries which do not satisfy the Commission’s five criteria could have a disastrous effect on European industry’s ability to remain competitive on the market;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Points out that some Member States have not set quantitative reintegration targets and that in some cases public or private employment services have not systematically differentiated between the EGF and the ESF and other national measures; calls on the Commission to provide, annually, a full assessment of the results achieved for each EGF operation and also to supply data on rejected EGF applications and the reasons for the rejections;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes the conclusion of the Court of Auditors with regard to the lengthy EGF approval procedure; expects that the more timely procedure introduced in the current regulation has improved the situation; strongly recommends that all Member States start implementing the measures as soon as their applications are sent to the Commission, and is pleased that many Member States already do so;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on the Commission to equip itself with appropriate means of gathering exact information about the effects of the EGF and beneficiaries’ perceptions of their quality, thus enabling it, at a later stage, to take such corrective action as might be necessary;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Points out, however, that a high percentage of beneficiaries consider their new employment to be inferior to their previous employment and that, as the Court of Auditors has noted, the extent to which aims have been achieved cannot be gauged in overall terms, as there are no systematic data on which to base the assessment; recommends, therefore, that the Commission employ every appropriate means in order to gather exact information about the effects of the EGF and their quality with a view, at a later stage, to taking such corrective action as might prove necessary;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Points to the need for searching assessment of the abuse of the EGF by companies which transfer their operations, resulting in unfair competition and with it social dumping; considers that in such cases every necessary step should be taken to prevent practices of this kind by imposing effective rules whereby, for example, relocating firms would be obliged to redeploy workers;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. WelcomNotes the fact that just 6% of EGF funds were spent on administrative and management costs;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that the most significant aspect of cost effectiveness as identified in the stakeholder consultations wasshould be the number of re-employed workers who are nowable to paying taxes and social security contributions instead of drawing on unemployment or other social benefitcontributions;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes the proposal in the ex-post evaluation that a counterfactual impact evaluation is an important element in understanding the added value of the EGF; noteregrets that such an evaluation is not yet in place;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. WelcomNotes the conclusion from the Court of Auditors that the EGF delivered EU added value when used to co-finance services for redundant workers or allowances not ordinarily existing under Member States’ unemployment benefit systems; stresses that certain Member States have no social protection provisions, such as a minimum income, sufficient to meet the needs of workers who have lost their jobs;
Amendment 123 #
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; notes that income support measures were identified in all cases examined in the Court’s report, and that these measures represented 33 % of the total amounts refunded under the EGF; points out that the new EGF regulation limits the costs of special provisional measures, such as job-search allowances and recruitment incentives for employers, to 35 % of the total cost of the coordinated package and that EGF- backed initiatives are not a substitute for passive social protection measures by Member States under their national systems.
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Is satisfied withNotes the conclusion that, generally, Member States effectively coordinated the EGF with ESF and national labour market measures and that no instances of overlap or double-funding of individuals was detected during the Court of Auditors audit; points out that the Member States generally did not set quantitative reintegration objectives, and that in certain cases public or private employment services did not systematically differentiate between the EGF, the ESF and other national measures when collecting reintegration data; asks the Commission to provide, annually, a full assessment of the results achieved for each EGF intervention, and to provide data regarding EGF requests not approved at Commission level and the reasons for this;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Believes that, in the context of a number of complicating factors such as potential data omissions, regional and national specificities, different macro- and micro-economic circumstances, small sample sizes and certain necessary assumptions, the Commission’s methodological approach is largelyshould be rigorous and transparent, taking measures to remedy the shortcomings that complicate such an approach;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Is concernedStresses that the Court of Auditors report concludes that no quantitative re- integration objectives were set and that existing data is not adequate to assess the effectiveness of the measures in re- integrating workers into employment; recommends therefore that the Member States set quantitative re-integration objectives and systematically differentiate between EGF, ESF and other national measures specifically designed for workers affected by mass redundancies; the Member States should furthermore distinguish between the two main types of EGF measures, i.e. active labour market measures and income support paid to workers, as well as providing more detailed information on the measures accessed by individual participants in order to allow a more accurate cost-benefit analysis of different measures;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Recommends that more regular peer reviews, cross-national exchanges or partnering of new EGF cases with previous EGF cases, where possible, be implemented in order to exchange good practices and implementing experiences;