Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-07-Speech-2-405-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110607.26.2-405-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Question 13 by Frédéric Daerden ()
A number of votes and declarations have proven that there is consensus within the EU on various aspects of this fund.
First of all, it differs from the European Social Fund in both its methodology and its objectives. The two instruments cannot therefore be confused, either formally or in practice.
Secondly, despite a slow start, changes to the implementing regulation in 2009 enabled the EGF to be used more effectively. Indeed, a clear increase in applications to mobilise this tool that brings the Union closer to its workers has been noted. There is therefore no doubt that it needs to be made sustainable.
Lastly, this specific aspect of the EGF calls for it to be regarded as a permanent fund in its own right, with sufficient payment appropriations to ensure that no transfers have to be made in order to mobilise it.
What does the Commission think about establishing a genuine fund that is on a par with the others, to meet all the needs of the EGF without restricting the role of the European Parliament which has been so involved in this issue?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Subject: Future of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples