WRITTEN QUESTION No. 858/99 by Pieter DANKERT ESF - The Netherlands
Date: 1999-04-07
Institutions: DANKERT, European Parliament
Subjects: European Social Fund, Netherlands, advance, tax relief, vocational training

C 370/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.12.1999

(1999/C 370/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0858/99

by Pieter Dankert (PSE) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: ESF (cid:13) The Netherlands

Dijkhuis Advies, which is a beneficiary of ESF Objective 3 training projects, reports that neither the final
account for 1997 nor the second advance for 1998 have been paid and that the ESF coordinator has not
given any reasons for these delays. Dijkhuis Advies also notes a recent tax measure known as the
Supplementary Training Allowance from which projects co-financed by the ESF may not benefit, and
which may even put them at a disadvantage owing to the differing ways in which the measure defines
costs giving rise to an entitlement to subsidy, and to the fact that ESF funds are regarded as the firm’s own
income.

Are there any problems with the payment of the balance of the annual tranche for 1997 and the second
advance for 1998, and if so, what?

Is the Commission aware of this Supplementary Training Allowance? What is its view of this measure
which leads to discriminatory treatment between ESF and non-ESF projects?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 1999)

The request for final payment for 1997 of the Objective 3 programme could not be dealt with by the
Commission in its initial version. The final version, on which the Commission and the Ministry for ‘Sociale
Zaken en Werkgelegenheid’ (SZW) have reached agreement, was sent to the Commission on 30 March
1999. However, the advances already paid exceeded the balance requested. Consequently, the 1997
payments for the Objective 3 programme may be considered as terminated. Payments to the sponsors
are governed by the ‘Arbeidsvoorziening’.

The second advance for 1998, submitted in early October 1998, was paid in two tranches because the
Commission did not have the necessary funds. A first tranche of 38 million euros was paid towards mid-
November 1998. The remaining sum of 26 million euros was paid by the Commission on 15 March
1999.

The Honourable Member does not provide enough information for us to answer the part of the question
concerning the tax measure known as the Supplementary Training Allowance (‘extra scholingsaftrek’).
After examination by the ‘Arbeidsvoorziening’, responsible for the day-to-day management of Objective 3,
it seems that additional information would be needed to identify the project and the measures concerned.
Naturally the Commission will be happy to provide more ample information to the Honourable Member if
these particulars are communicated.

(1999/C 370/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0861/99

by Carlos Coelho (PPE) to the Commission

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Common fisheries policy

The Commission has recently submitted a draft regulation establishing a list of the types of behaviour
which constitute a serious infringement of the rules of the common fisheries policy (CFP).

An analysis of that list shows that no reference is made to failure to comply with the multiannual guidance
programmes for fisheries (MGPs), which lay down objectives for each of the Member States aimed at
adapting the capacity of the fleet to fishery resources. The fact that some Member States (such as Portugal)
have been complying with the programmes and reducing their fleets while others (such as France, the
Netherlands and Italy) are not only failing to reduce their fleets but are in fact expanding them has given
rise to a totally unacceptable distortion of competition, which stems from the absence of penalties against
those countries which are in breach of their obligations.