WRITTEN QUESTION P-0352/98 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (6 February 1998)

Subject: Nature of eligible expenditure for training activities financed by ESF contributions

Local development agencies, set up as consortia and/or associations of institutions, SMEs, universities, and professional organizations, are today playing an increasingly important role in promoting or implementing spatial development operations, not least because they can pool applications and identify objectives and are able to bring about synergy by making efficient use of resources.

Among their spatial development operations, pride of place has to be given to training activities.

From the legal and operational point of view, the consortia and/or associations in question are different and separate from their partners and/or members, since they have their own VAT registration numbers, are managed separately and keep separate accounts for their specific purposes, and have their own departments.

The 'datasheet No 4' published in conjunction with Commission Decision 97/322/EC ((OJ L 146, 5.6.1997, p. 11.)) gives 'Details on the principle of real cost'. Circular No 130/95, issued by the Italian Ministry of Labour on 25 October 1995, relates to the concept of 'delegation of training activities'. In the light of the foregoing, and with a view to avoiding excessive red tape and maintaining the standard of project activities, will the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Do local development agencies have to be regarded as the most suitable bodies to implement and manage development operations, including training activities?

2. When an agency intends to implement a training project, should an appropriately qualified partner and/or member be made responsible for one or more stages of the projected activities - so as to achieve the desirable and necessary synergy - rather than assigning the task to bodies not belonging to the consortium and/or association?

3. Given that development agencies intending to carry out a training project must not seek to make a profit, is it considered acceptable, in the case described in point 2, that partners and/or members should charge market prices for their services when they have not exceeded the approved budget or the limits laid down?

4. Are development agencies, and no other bodies, consequently entitled to recover not more than the costs incurred by partners and/or members in rendering the services in question?

5. Is the Commission aiming to support the activities and projects sponsored by local development agencies?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (10 March 1998)

1. The Commission does not give preference to any particular body, since it is not involved ex ante in the selection and evaluation procedure. The Commission confines itself to laying down - in a general manner, and in partnership with the Member State - the criteria and guidelines which the final beneficiaries must observe in implementing actions that are co-funded by the European Social Fund (ESF).

2. When the actions are not directly mounted (partly or totally) by the final beneficiary but are sub-contracted to a lower level, the public or private body that awards the contract remains the final beneficiary and is therefore fully accountable for all expenditure associated with the actions. Moreover, the body to which an action has been subcontracted may under no circumstances subcontract the action in turn (partly or totally).

3. and 4. Under no circumstances may the development bodies mentioned by the Honourable Member or any other training bodies be profit-making associations. Moreover, only expenditure directly linked to preparing and implementing a project is eligible for co-funding, and the expenditure incurred must correspond to the payments made, duly substantiated on the basis of invoices or accounting vouchers of equivalent probative value.

5. Questions concerning the selection, implementation and monitoring of specific projects are a matter for the national authorities.