Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-227"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061213.27.3-227"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I have just voted against the Globalisation Fund. While its approach is the right one, in that it is intended to help, by means of measures to retrain and reintegrate them, those workers who have lost their jobs as a result of international business relocations, the manner in which it is to be implemented leaves a certain amount to be desired.
The fund goes about things the wrong way, in that it addresses the symptoms rather than the causes of the lay-offs; the approval procedures are too complex, and the extensive bureaucracy results in considerable expense.
Above all, though, the refusal to reduce the threshold from 1 000 layoffs to 500 means that it is no use to SMEs, and, moreover, when fewer than 1 000 workers are laid off, only 15% of the funds may be paid out as against the 20% that we seek. Access to the Fund is meant to be permitted when a given Member State reports 1 000 layoffs from its SMEs over a period of nine months, whereas the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs had demanded a period of twelve.
The people on the receiving end are bound to be bitterly disappointed when the money – which amounts to a maximum of EUR 500 million per annum – runs out; if the EU awakens great hopes, but fails to do as it has promised, the result will be frustration among the public. My position is shared by my colleagues in the CDU/CSU group in this House."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples