WRITTEN QUESTION No. 813/98 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. North-West of England Programme Monitoring Committee
9. 10. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 310/135 That undertaking, which has offices in Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, presents itself as a consultant in matters connected with national and European subsidies. It charges BEF 20 000 (excluding VAT) for its services, which is refunded to the client if no subsidy is granted within six months. If a subsidy is actually granted, the client must pay 10% thereof to EBS. Claiming a proportion of subsidies granted is in total breach of all Community rules. We have been informed that UCLAF has been notified about these practices. Can the Commission say how the inquiry into this matter is progressing and what measures it is planning to take? Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (28 April 1998) The unit on Coordination of fraud prevention (UCLAF)is currently conducting enquiries in Belgium with regard to subsidies granted by the Community. It is too early at this stage to draw any conclusions, in particular concerning the practices described by the Honourable Member. The Parliament, and more precisely its budgetary control committee, will be kept informed, according to the procedures recently proposed to that committee. (98/C 310/182) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/98 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1998) Subject: North-West of England Programme Monitoring Committee Is the Commission aware of the decision by the North-West of England Programme Monitoring Committee on 15 December to allocate £8. 1 million to the scheme for an Imperial War Museum in the North, which by the date in question had already been turned down for Heritage Lottery Funding, and to place in reserve the Manchester Museums Project requesting £7. 6 million to secure an already existing grant of £36 million from the same Heritage Lottery Fund? Worthy as the Imperial War Museum in the North scheme is, it now has unfortunately almost no chance of funding, and is jeopardizing a scheme with a total value of £51 million involving 135 new jobs and 328 indirectly because of the uncertainties involved. Will the Commission ask the relevant programme committee to justify their decision? Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (14 April 1998) At its meeting on 15 December 1997 the Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire objective 2 programme monitoring committee considered four applications for European regional development fund (ERDF) assistance under measure 19 of the single programming document (SPD) ástrategic tourism investmentí. These applications sought funding totalling about 36 MECU compared with the 19 MECU available from the ERDF for that measure. The projects were assessed on the basis of selection criteria agreed by the monitoring committee at the outset of the programme. These take into account a number of factors, including value for money in terms of attracting new visitors to the region and creating jobs. The monitoring committee agreed to support two projects: Xanadu and the Imperial war museum. It justified its decision on the basis that these projects were best able to meet the goals set out in the SPD. The two projects were given six months to demonstrate their deliverability within the lifetime of the programme. After this time the monitoring committee will either confirm their approval of the projects or consider the other two projects › Union Street cultural quarter and then the Manchester museums project › which have been placed on a reserve list