Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 4 July 2013

Public Accounts Committee

2011 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts
Chapter 17 - European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
FÁS Financial Statements 2012
National Training Fund

12:40 pm

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I refer to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Obviously, coming from Limerick and given what happened with Dell, I have a particular interest in it. In regard to the funding which has been returned to the EU, in Dell's case, 40% was returned. Interestingly, in the case of Waterford Crystal, it was a low as 20% while in the case of SR Technics, it was 60%. In terms of NACE 41, construction of buildings, 35% was returned, in the case of NACE 43, specialised construction activities, it was 39% and in NACE 71, architectural services construction, it was 15%. Why is there such a disparity? It looks as if approximately €23 million of EU funding will be returned, which has to be queried.

In the case of Dell, the reason was the application process. I was able to download the application from the EU website but it did not match the requirements of many of the people. A large amount of it was to do with courses they would not attend. The amount put towards people going down the self-employed route was very small and that is borne out by the fact that in July 2012, of the number of people employed by Dell, only 67 of them, which was fewer than 5%, were self-employed. I know many of the people from Dell and there was a huge entrepreneurial spirit in Dell.

If the application process was right, nothing would be returned to the EU. Some €23 million in funding from the EU should have been spent. How is there such a disparity in the level of refunds between the different groups? Will Mr. O'Toole tell me abut the application process which was grossly deficient in the context of Dell? I studied the application process and it did not match the overall requirements. The people involved in the implementation of the EGAF on the ground - I think at that point they were from FÁS - were very good but they were constrained by what was in the application.

A general approach on the Commission's proposal for a regulation on the EGAF 2014-2020 has been agreed. One of the weaknesses of the original application for those in Dell was that one could not transfer between different categories. One could not switch between the self-employed or the third level categories, for example. Given the way the applications were made, funds were going to be returned because they could not be spent as they did not cater for the needs of people in Dell.

I feel strongly about this issue. I believe the money could have been better used in the area of enterprise and employment. A number of people who worked with Dell could not qualify for assistance because there was no mention of funding for enterprise in the application form.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.