WRITTEN QUESTION P-2247/99 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. The Structural Funds and regional assistance.
8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/77 Apart from the above, the year-to-year development of capital flows does not indicate any marked effects either from the referendum or from the current Community proposal for a proposal for a Council directive to ensure a minimum of effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments within the Community (1). The developments mentioned earlier, as well as more persistent trends, such as the globalisation of financial markets, all contributed to influence the capital flows and appear to dominate their variation. Still, a possible influence from Community efforts to harmonise capital income taxation could materialise eventually, once a new directive concerning capital income taxation is adopted and the public and the market can learn the precise content of the new legislation, implementation date and implications. (1) OJ C 212, 8. 7. 1998. (2000/C 225 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (1 December 1999) Subject: Replacement rates What are the typical replacement rates (benefit payments on unemployment as a percentage of earnings) for each of the Member States and, for comparison, the United States and Japan? Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (11 January 2000) The definition and management of social benefit schemes ü including their relative level of assistance, the replacement rates ü fall within the responsibility and legal competence of the Member States. Policy issues related to tax and benefit systems, and their impact on the labour market, have been given an increasing weight in the employment guidelines (1) and the broad economic policy guidelines in recent years. Some analysis and data on replacement rates for the Community, the United States and Japan have been published in The EU Economy 1999 Reviewí, Part II, Chapter 2 (2), and further analysis based on data from the European Community household panel (ECHP) will be published in the forthcoming Social Protection in Europeí report 1999. These documents deal with some of the conceptual issues involved in defining and measuring replacement rates and provide some examples of the results obtained. (1) OJ C 69, 12. 3. 1999. (2) European Economy series No 69. (2000/C 225 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2247/99 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: The Structural Funds and regional assistance (19 November 1999) 1. Will the Commission confirm that any award to a Member State of structural funding, for example under Objective 1 or Objective 2, is subject to the rule of additionality, that is that the Member State must ensure that expenditure of the funds in question by a local or regional level of government does not replace expenditure from existing budgets but is additional to them? Does this require a dedication of matching funds within locally secured budgets to match expenditure facilitated through the Structural Funds? C 225 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 Does the Commission take steps to ensure that the rule of additionality (in whatever is its proper and 2. relevant sense) is observed by Member States. If so, what is the mechanism by which the Commission does this? If not, why not? If a local or regional authority, or an elected representative in such an authority, or an MEP, has 3. reasonable grounds for suspicion that funds are being misappropriated in the sense of being allocated without due regard to additionality, what does the Commission consider to be the appropriate avenue of complaint? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1999) 1. It is correct that Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993, amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88, as regards co- ordination of the activities of the different structural funds between themselves and with the operations of the European investment bank and the other existing financial instruments (1) provides that spending on the structural funds may not replace structural or comparable expenditure undertaken by the Member State. However, it also provides that additionality is established at the level of the whole of the territory eligible under an objective, rather than at the local or regional level. On condition therefore that the Member State maintains its overall public structural or comparable expenditure at least at the same level as in the previous programming period, additionality is respected. Similar provisions will apply during the next programming period for objective 1 while additionality for objectives 2 and 3 together will be assessed on the basis of national spending on active labour market policy (Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the structural funds (2)). The level of matching funds at the local level is a separate issue from additionality and depends on the structure of the programme or measure in question. The Community support framework or single programming document governing expenditure under 2. the structural funds is not adopted unless it contains provisions to ensure compliance ex ante with the principle of additionality. Subsequently, during the course of the programming period, the Member State provides the Commission with the financial information required to allow the verification of additionality on an ongoing basis. The regulations do not provide for any specific penalties in regard to non-compliance with the ongoing verification of additionality. As it is not possible to draw any conclusion at the local or regional level regarding compliance with 3. the principle of additionality, the question of reporting non-compliance at that level does not arise. (1) OJ L 193, 31. 7. 1993. (2) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 225 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2250/99 by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission (1 December 1999) Subject: Flight delays It is becoming alarmingly and even scandalously common for flight departures from airports all over the European Union to be delayed. Given that all these delays are causing considerable economic prejudice and personal inconvenience to travellers and their families, their business associates, etc. , will the Commission state what the real causes are, and, if appropriate, what measures it intends to adopt to ensure that flight schedules are adhered to?