Brussels, 04/03/2011 (Agence Europe) - Can the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) exist side by side? The EGF is essential but improvements must be made, for example, in its timeframe, its effectiveness and its scope. That is the main conclusion to come out of the hearing organised in Brussels on Wednesday 2 March on the initiative of Barbara Matera (EPP, Italy), standing rapporteur on the EGF until the end of 2013.
Following the exchange of views among the various players who will have a say in the future of the EGF (ministers, MEPs, high-level Commission representatives, and European and national social partners), Matera and Frédéric Daerden (S&D, Belgium) said they felt the message from Employment Commissioner László Andor was very important: getting rid of the EGF would be a mistake. It is not perfect but there is scope for improvement, its task has not yet been completed and derogations will be extended until 2013. Matera asked for payments to be frontloaded to encourage member states to give thought to what they need, for the threshold for triggering the fund to be lowered from 500 to 200 workers made redundant, and for the EGF to be included in the next financial perspectives. Daerden welcomed the fact that there was consensus that EGF action was useful and on the form the aid for workers should take, with all that it adds through a display of European solidarity in addition to national envelopes. The idea of emergency aid for workers who have fallen victim to relocations, closures or restructuring (“A situation they did not ask for”, Daerden stressed) is essential. Time taken for implementation has to be adapted and the rigidity of the EGF has to be lessened. “We have to work together to ensure that the action taken has a lasting effect with an appropriate specific budget to be included in cohesion policy”, said Daerden.
During the debate, Italian Employment Minister Maurizio Sacconi pointed out that the EGF is directed at the workers who, “no matter what, are the ones who pay the price for production problems”. “Income has to be protected and people kept busy”, Saconi said.
Maxime Cerutti of BusinessEurope suggested that the EU should concentrate on policies which create jobs rather than on help to find jobs. Noting in passing that “Italy is at the top for not using European funds”, Gianfranco Dell'Alba (Confindustria) said it would be useful to see if implementation of the EGF would not be better using ESF criteria. Donald Storrie (Eurofound) said that there had to be an assessment based on convincing factors and, first and foremost, it was necessary to understand broad company restructuring plans. Referring to Pascal Lamy (WTO, for whom social protection and active labour market systems encourage globalisation, Rudi Delarue (ILO) highlighted the “trade” and “greening of the economy” aspects.
Pervenche Berès (S&D, France) stated that, with the EGF, there was an opportunity for social innovation and for support for tailored training. She said that where the EGF works best is where the social partners and local authorities work together. She noted that “the real legal difference between member states lies in how progressive their national legislations are, whether the fund can or cannot come into play”. For rapporteur Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL, Portugal), the EGF is the only instrument that can be used when faced with collective redundancies. Across Europe, situations are different. In Germany, there are signs of recovery while other member states are still deep in economic recession. So, even if the EU returns to growth of more than 2%, it will continue to have collective redundancies and to have to face differences, he argued. “The EGF has to be used as a matter of urgency to deal with any structural problem. And for the fund to be effective, it has to be fast. Slowness is the main issue to be resolved.” After 2013, then, the EGF must become part of the budget, “because that would ensure that it is used immediately”.
Salvador Garriga Polledo (S&D, Spain) highlighted the personalised nature of the EGF, which should be complementary to the ESF rather than being subject to the same rules. Giovanni La Via (S&D, Italy) suggested that the EGF could be a more effective instrument. “It is better to adapt an existing instrument than to bring in a new one”, he stated, preferring “an ESF that can assume these tasks”, in the new financial programming. He urged that the ESF be extended to take in what is covered at the moment by the EGF, so as to avoid any duplication. (G.B./transl.rt)