Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

Change 21

AddedBUDGETARY ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS

Addedfor the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs

Addedon the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/691 as regards support to workers affected by imminent job displacement in enterprises undergoing restructuring

Added(COM(2025)0140 – C100060/2025 – 2025/0073(COD))

AddedRapporteur for budgetary assessment: Johan Van Overtveldt

AddedThe Committee on Budgets has carried out a budgetary assessment of the proposal under Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure and has reached the following conclusions:

AddedThe Committee on Budgets,

AddedA. whereas the proposal aims to broaden the scope of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF) to also allow for support to workers affected by imminent job displacement;

AddedB. whereas the proposal does not modify existing budgetary commitments and remains within the limits of the overall allocations for the period 2021-2027 and is therefore budget-neutral; whereas the Commission has not proposed a dedicated successor fund for the period 2028-2034;

AddedC. whereas the proposal includes changes to the EGF mobilisation procedure that put an end to the regular involvement of the budgetary authority and therefore severely undermine its oversight role;

AddedConclusions of the budgetary assessment

Added1. Determines that the proposal is compatible with the MFF Regulation; notes that the proposed enlargement of the scope of support will be covered within the maximum amount set for this special instrument;

Added2. Recalls, however, that in the recent mid-term review of the MFF, the maximum amount available annually for the EGF had been substantially reduced from EUR 186 million to EUR 30 million; considers that the proposed broadening of the intervention criteria now carries a significant risk of exhausting this amount in a given year, potentially leading to a backlog of financing decisions; notes that the average take-up rate was only 63 % between 2021 and 2024; recalls that the total annual amount had not been used so far and therefore it was substantially reduced in the recent mid-term review of the MFF;

Added3. Notes that the proposed tripling of the maximum amount for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission implies a further limitation of funds available for active labour market measures, while acknowledging that the amounts available for technical assistance were drastically reduced as a result of the reduction of the overall envelope in the mid-term review of the MFF; stresses that, rather than expanding administrative resources, focus should be put on simplifying and shortening the internal processes so as to reduce the burden on final beneficiaries and accelerate the delivery of support;

Added4. Notes that the proposal requires additional human resources of EUR 1 431 000 per year in 2025, 2026 and 2027, for six establishment plan posts and three external staff; notes that the additional needs will be covered by redeployment within the DG or other Commission services;

Added5. Notes additionally that, while the change to the mobilisation procedure could reduce the time between the application for assistance from the EGF and the financing decision by the Commission, the eligibility period for co-financed measures would at the same time become shorter in absolute terms; considers that the current six-week deadline for a decision by the budgetary authority is not detrimental to the swift provision of support; notes that, under Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2021/691, the Commission has 50 working days from receipt of the complete application from the Member State to complete its analysis; highlights the fact that, in practice, the Commission frequently requires more than the 50 working days and that it should give priority to simplifying and shortening its internal processes when assessing and deciding on applications under this regulation; opposes any simplification that comes at the expense of institutional balance, in particular of the rights of Parliament as budgetary authority;

Added6. Determines that the proposal is compatible with the letter of the IIA; notes, however, that the aims of the IIA include the improvement of interinstitutional cooperation on budgetary matters; considers that the proposed drastic simplification of the mobilisation procedure runs counter to that goal and would change the nature of the EGF as a stand-alone thematic special instrument that is implemented with the close involvement of the budgetary authority;

Added7. Considers that the proposal is compatible with the budgetary principles laid down in the Financial Regulation; notes, nevertheless, a degree of contradiction, in terms of sound financial management, between the recent decrease of the maximum annual amount available for the EGF and the proposed broadening of the EGF’s scope;

AddedRecommendations

Added8. Rejects the proposed change to the mobilisation procedure, and in particular the introduction of a single request for mobilisation of the maximum annual amount based on estimates by Member States for the support needed until the end of the year; proposes maintaining the practice of case-by-case mobilisation of the EGF on the basis of an assessment of the material conditions for support; stresses that Parliament’s role as budgetary authority must be fully preserved; stresses, furthermore, that any changes to the mobilisation procedure must ensure that Parliament retains its oversight and decision-making powers;

Added9. Considers that the additional reporting requirements related to the estimate of assistance needed in the following year constitute an unnecessary additional administrative burden for the Member States, with limited usefulness in terms of reliable evidence-based decision-making;

Added10. Requests that the Commission take the appropriate coordination measures to ensure that assistance to workers threatened by restructuring events is provided from the most appropriate support instrument, depending on the specific circumstances and the national or regional programme architecture, and to avoid any risk of duplication and overlap, in particular between the EGF and the European Social Fund Plus, and to ensure that the additional nature of the support from the EGF is not undermined in these cases either; regrets that the EGF remains administratively burdensome, which has discouraged some Member States from using it altogether; underlines, in this regard, the Commission’s own mid-term evaluation, which found that 16 Member States consider the EU-level procedure lengthy and complex, and stresses the importance of addressing this, given that in some cases this constitutes the only barrier to applying for EGF support.