Activities of Richard ASHWORTH related to 2015/2284(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the activities, impact and added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund between 2007 and 2014
Amendments (14)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Recalls that responsibility for employment and social policy primarily lies with Member States; notes, nevertheless, that EU funding can be used to support or compliment Member States’ actions in this field;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. Underlines that the Member States should aim to have Public Employment Services that are capable of dealing with redundancies and that the EGF does not absolve Member States of their responsibilities;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. BRecalls commitments by the European Parliament to ensure that the EU budget focuses on European added value, delivers value for money for citizens and the renewed focus on outcomes based budgeting; believes that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) iscould be a valuable instrument through which the EU could expresses its solidarity with workers and which should continue to operate outside the MFFhelp unemployed persons get back to work; suggests, however, that there is considerable room for improvement with the EGF; considers, in particular, that the EGF could deliver better value for money and be better focused on outcomes;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that, between 2007 and 2014, 1341 funding applications for a total amount of EUR 561.142.4 million were submitted by 20 Member States to provide support to 122 1211 380 workers;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that the EGF is a supposed to be a mechanism that delivers short term assistance where a quick response is needed; regrets that the average approval period for EGF assistance between 2007 and 2013 was 303 days; welcomes efforts by the Commission to streamline the application process; suggests that reducing the number of official languages a draft decision needs to be translated into could save at least two weeks in time; underlines that should further translations be requested that the Commission could do these at a later date;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Questions how a mechanism designed to deliver short term assistance to prevent long-term unemployment allows for measures to last up to 30 months for some training courses; suggests that this could exacerbate long-term unemployment by keeping workers out of work for so long;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the scope for implementing the EGF budget more flexibly, and therefore more effectively; notes that EGF expenditure in some Member States consistently performs better than others; suggests that the Commission provides guidance and enables Member States to share best practice in the application of EGF funds and their use in order to ensure the maximum re-employment rate per euro spent;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that, according to the European Parliamentary Research Service, the EGF delivers the best EU Added Value when used to co-finance services for redundant workers not ordinarily existing under Member States Public Employment Services, and, when these are focused on training and re-training activities and not allowances;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the fact that nearly 50% of workers who received financial assistance under applications dealt with in 2013-2014 are now back in employment; emphasises, however,suggests that the EGF should provide fundfocus more on re- integration and ensure that any re- training effor sectors likely to face problems in the futurets actually help people to re- integrate rather than delay re-integration;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the need for greater coordination with the ESF and the ERDF, and proposes that applications for EGF funding should be submitted by the authorities that manage the Structural Funds in each Member State;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recalls the Commission’s commitment to outcomes based-budgeting; suggests that following the adoption of the Communication on outcomes based budgeting that the Commission examine the EGF to improve its focus on outcomes; believes that in order to do this the Commission should compare the EGF with cases where the EGF has not been used and where the ESF/ERDF has been used but where the EGF criteria were met; highlights the need for greater availability of data for the Commission to do this; highlights in particular the need for an informed analysis of the efficient use of EGF funds, the monitoring of national costs for the activities supported by the EGF and the need for a breakdown of eligible actions;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Believes there is further scope for improvement on the use of the EGF for projects to support entrepreneurship and start-up activity; calls on the Commission to examine this further;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Notes the European Parliamentary Research Service’s concerns with regards the methodology for calculating the benefit of the EGF; underlines the need for additional requirements on performance indicators;