Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2016-09-15-Speech-4-087-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20160915.7.4-087-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all, I want to genuinely thank colleagues for the really good and constructive cooperation in this report, and also all the shadows and all the committees who contributed excellent opinions. I just might mention, in particular, our colleague Jean-Paul Denanot from the Committee on Budgets.
I suppose our role here was to assess the activities, the impact and the added-value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) and, of course, to look to the future, to indicate what our proposals are for a more effective and more efficient EGF. I am grateful to colleagues for the engagement. The EGF is small fund compared to the ESF, for example; it is also a new fund. I think that gives us a sense that we can help to shape it in a positive way. In this report we look to see: how we can help to make it more effective; what partnership models will deliver better outcomes for redundant workers who have lost their jobs due to globalisation; how we can organise the process so that it responds in a more timely way to the needs of workers; how we can ensure better value for money for both the workers and for EU taxpayers; and how we can spend that money in a more efficient way; how can we ensure we have relevant data that allows us to assess the outcomes from the funds without placing undue requirements on Member States; and, of course, crucially, how we can help ensure personalised, well-coordinated measures that are tailored to the individual needs of the redundant workers. In that way we do two things: we express our solidarity with them at a difficult time and, secondly, we assist them in the transition to sustainable employment.
So what makes the EGF different to the ESF? Well, the EGF is meant to deal with emergencies, more short-term in its approach, while the ESF is more structural. Both have their advantages, and indeed it has been very positive to see how Member States use the ESF as a complementary tool to the EGF. We also propose that Member States need to achieve synergies between EGF and ESI funds. We emphasize that ESI funds can act as follow-up measures in EGF areas of support by stimulating investment and overall job creation. So what are the positives? Well, timelines have improved considerably due to efforts by all actors: the Commission, Member States, Parliament, etc. The self-employed are now included. NEETs can benefit from EGF support in numbers equal to the numbers of targeted beneficiaries. The EGF is now part of the shared fund management system, and I commend the Commission on this. Co-funding has been increased to 60%, more Member States are using EGF and spending, under personalised measures, has been lowered to 35%. Indeed, in many recent applications that spending is considerably less.
The Court of Auditors tells us that nearly all EGF beneficiaries were able to benefit from personalised and well-coordinated measures. The re-employment rate is around 50%, and as Member States become more used to the fund, their applications are more timely. But there are still negatives: Member States don’t use the EGF often enough and, crucially, do not often use the derogation. Funding has been cut from 500 million to 150 million, budget implementation is only 55% but improving. There is a concentration of applications in the manufacturing, automotive construction and aviation sectors. We need to take a different approach to NEETs and to redundant workers. So it is important to design the EGF in such a way that it can respond to their needs. The Member States need to make publicly available all relevant information in regard to EGF cases, and they need to set quantitive reintegration objectives so that we can measure the success.
Finally, the most important point is that the EGF must guarantee EU added-value for redundant workers and taxpayers. Then we can strongly call for its continuation and expansion."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples