COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate - Thursday, 14 Apr 2005

Vote 34 — Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

Mr. Seán Gorman (Secretary General, Department of the Enterprise, Trade and Employment) called and examined.

Chairman

There is no relevant correspondence.

Witnesses should be aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege in the evidence they give to the committee. Members' and witnesses' attention is drawn to the fact that as and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997, grants certain rights to persons who are identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. These rights include the right to give evidence, the right to produce or send documents to the committee, the right to appear before the committee, either in person or through a representative, the right to make a written and oral submission, the right to request the committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and the right to cross-examine witnesses. For the most part, these rights may be only exercised with the consent of the committee. Persons being invited before the committee are made aware of these rights and any persons identified in the course of proceedings who are not present may have to be made aware of these rights and provided with a transcript of the relevant part of the committee's proceedings if the committee considers it appropriate in the interests of justice.

Notwithstanding this provision in the legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded of the provisions of Standing Order 156 that the committee shall also refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

Mr. Seán Gorman and his officials are welcome. The Department of Finance officials are also welcome. I invite Mr. Gorman to introduce his officials.

Mr. Gorman

On my right is Mr. Martin Shanagher, assistant secretary with responsibility for corporate services and the economic policy division and on his right is Mr. Ned Costello, assistant secretary with responsibility for the science, technology and intellectual property division. On my left is Mr. Ronnie Sheehan, finance officer, and on his left is Ms Patricia Lynch who works with him in the finance unit.

Chairman

I invite the Department of Finance officials to introduce themselves.

Mr. Pól O’Duibhir

I am in the public expenditure division of the Department of Finance.

Mr. David Hurley

I work in the organisation, management and training division and I deal with the Department's administrative budget.

Chairman

Mr. Gorman is the new Secretary General of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and this is his first appearance before the Committee of Public Accounts. I welcome him and wish him well. Mr. Gorman indicated that he does not wish to make an opening statement. I will ask Mr. Purcell to introduce the Vote and Mr. Gorman may then make some preliminary remarks if he wishes. I will then call Deputy Hayes followed by Deputy McGuinness.

Mr. John Purcell

Vote 34, which we are considering, consumed over €1 billion of State funding in 2003. The bulk of the expenditure was accounted for by two areas of activity with labour force development costing almost €600 million and enterprise promotion, science and technology costing €467 million. The cost of administering the Department for the year was approximately €48 million.

Subhead expenditure was largely in line with the amount estimated except in the case of subhead D2 — Enterprise Ireland — Grant to Industry, where only €49 million out of the €63 million provision was spent.

The committee will note from the extensive notes in the explanation of variations that the significant underspend prompted the Department to request Enterprise Ireland to undertake a review of its forecasting models with respect to future demands of clients.

Turning to the income side, much more was received than expected in terms of appropriations-in-aid and Exchequer extra receipts. On the appropriations-in-aid side, nearly double the amount of the estimated work permits fees and three times the amount of company registration fees were received. That was offset to some extent by a delay and some problem relating to the receipt of European Social Fund moneys.

Exchequer receipts coming under the aegis of the Department which cannot be used to support the Vote — the so-called Exchequer extra receipts — amount to €38 million, as against the €6 million estimated. Windfall receipts from IDA Ireland representing disposals of telecommunications interconnectivity capacity and grant refunds accounted for most of the excess.

That is a quick summary of the financial details of the Vote. There were no issues arising from the 2003 audit which, in my opinion, merited public accountability.

Mr. Gorman

I have a few observations on the Comptroller and Auditor General's remarks. On the Enterprise Ireland side, there is and has been a pattern of recurrent savings under subhead D2. It is something of which we have been conscious and at which we have taken a detailed look in recent times. As the Comptroller and Auditor General said, we have asked Enterprise Ireland to examine its forecasting models to see if it is possible to be more precise in terms of the real need for funds under this subhead. We asked it to do this during 2003 when it began to emerge that there was likely to be a significant underspend. In response to our request, Enterprise Ireland engaged consultants to undertake the review. It has finalised its report and recommendations are being implemented.

The forecasting model was finalised during 2004, the year subsequent to the one under review. The Department examined that model in consultation with Enterprise Ireland and was satisfied it was appropriate. Enterprise Ireland is currently revising the forecasting model with regard to the way it calculates its own resource income as both the resource own income and the client demand determine the level of Exchequer demand needed. It is now also examining, in the context of this forecasting model, the own resource aspect to try to get the estimate of the two sides of the coin as accurate as possible. We expect that further review of the forecasting model will be completed this year.

On work permits receipts, demand for work permits has been extraordinarily buoyant, even though in 2003 general levels of economic activity had settled somewhat, but the labour market remained extraordinarily buoyant nonetheless and the demand for permits was significantly higher than we expected.

The 2003 economic cycle was a flat period in recent years which had an impact on employment. There are changes too in the nature of the companies being developed now. They tend to be more high-tech and specialised and to want to concentrate in large urban areas so there is a serious challenge to the agencies to encourage them to consider locating in small areas. There is a big shift from manufacturing to services, such as financial services. Experience shows that these companies want to locate in large urban areas.

The agencies work hard on this. We continue to be quite successful in attracting foreign direct investment. In 2003 the IDA created 9,182 jobs, 46% in the BMW region, 39% in the other region. Job losses resulted in a net deficit of 3,000 in 2003. IDA Ireland companies are performing very strongly, with sales in 2003 worth €72 billion and exports, €68 billion. They spent €15 billion in the economy and paid €2.5 billion in corporation tax.

Yes, FÁS has already begun to change direction. Traditionally we would have seen it as focusing strongly and primarily on unemployed people or those seeking to join the workforce. The shift in emphasis in FÁS in recent years is not to walk away from those people but to supplement the effort by focusing on the training and development needs of people in work. The changing nature of business means that skills quickly become outdated and people who have worked in traditional industries can quickly find themselves, if such industries downsize or close, not being saleable in the market in terms of their skills. Accordingly there is a new emphasis in FÁS on training and upskilling people in work.

We are working with the social partners on a lifelong learning initiative which grew out of a task force report on lifelong learning a couple of years ago. We have begun putting in place quite significant changes. The Department of Education and Science has led with the establishment of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, along with HETAC and FETAC, in terms of establishing a good model for recognition of qualifications in portable skills.

FÁS is increasingly going into the workplace to train people, providing access to training in the evenings and at more worker-friendly and family-friendly times. With colleges and industry we are currently developing and exploring possibilities for putting in place a formal training process or course for people at work who are low-skilled, from which they will emerge with some kind of qualifications across a range of skills such as business, IT and similar disciplines. We hope employers will come on board in terms of funding and facilitating employees with time off or access to training facilities in premises. In remote or less dense areas, where there are small companies and people might be brought together, we are considering organising clusters.

There is a new emphasis in FÁS on people at work. That does not mean we will walk away from the long-term unemployed. We must watch that situation. We have been enjoying very favourable labour market conditions for some time. The unemployment rate is about 4.5% while the long-term unemployment rate is 1.5%. Competition in the marketplace for the long-term unemployed is increasing, particularly since we opened the labour market to citizens of accession states. The issue of the long-term unemployed is one on which we must continue to work.

In the future, FÁS will also focus more on persons who are disadvantaged in terms of the labour market, particularly persons with disabilities. FÁS is introducing a new scheme this year with additional funding of €5 million from the Department to focus on helping people with disabilities to secure mainstream employment. The money will be used to help support the employment of those people in the workplace.

These are some of the new areas at which FÁS must look. Updating people's skills will be a constant challenge. Sometimes there is a tendency to look to the State to solve all these problems. When it comes to the workforce, to people, skills and training, there is a shared responsibility. Government, industry and individuals have responsibilities. This is the approach we are taking by means of the new initiatives we are exploring with colleges and employers.

Deputy McGuinness

Is there a figure available for the cost of the creation of a job by the IDA, by Enterprise Ireland and by the enterprise boards? I recall reading some time ago about the cost with regard to each. If one reflects on the cost over a two or three year period, how does it compare year on year? Can Mr. Gorman supply us with those figures?

I am concerned about the amount of money, almost €58.5 million, being returned to the Exchequer, particularly when one considers some of the headings under which returns have been made and the efforts made by communities, local interest groups and industry to access funding from Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland or the county enterprise boards. Is it time for FÁS to consider how it struck its budget for the year and what it is asking of Government? It might consider how the money is being spent and refocus.

At the end of each year, or sometimes during the year, the enterprise boards find themselves sanctioning grants for particular projects and not being able to meet them for quite some time into the future. They can also find themselves waiting for sanction from the Department for a particular year when one imagines it should be the other way round, with early sanctions being given so work can proceed to deliver the jobs we are trying to create.

In the technology area, some €3.2 million was returned to the Exchequer by Science Foundation Ireland. Mr. Gorman might comment on the role of his Department or that of IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and the enterprise boards regarding their engagement with primary and second level schools in the context of science. That is the area of the future. There is a new arrangement in that regard with primary and second level schools. There is a lack of funding in the area. Dr. Danny O'Hare drew up the report for the Department of Education and Science regarding our role in preparing the younger generation to be the leaders in the science area in the future. The Irish Science Teachers Association has also commented on the need for investment in this area.

My final question relates to investment in the regions. The Department said it would embark on investment in each of the regions totalling €290 million. It has already invested in the regions. In Carlow the Department has either constructed a hugely expensive farm gate or it intends to put a factory there. In recent years since its construction I have not seen a factory go into that park, whether it is a technology or business park. What are the Department's plans for it?

Mr. Gorman

It is. These are concerns. On the information society, we have a number of projects that are part and parcel of that programme. In the context of the subhead here, they are mostly public sector projects. Various reasons for delays in projects are the underlying explanation as to why some of these funds have not been taken up and used. There is a challenge to deliver on these. It is a challenge we are continually striving to meet. In many cases we estimate what we believe the demand will be, but again, it is dependent on good eligible projects coming forward. Work continues to be done in fostering the development and evolution of those projects, whether from the community or business or from within the public sector.

Deputy McGuinness

On the question of the region, I am not being parochial, and yet I am, as regards that site in Carlow and the one in Kilkenny. My suggestion could possibly be applied to the other regions throughout the country. I am not making little of the Department's effort, in Carlow. It is a genuine and, I am sure, costly effort. However, not much has come of it. In Kilkenny, there is a different scene where back office activity in the whole area of financial services has been attracted into that area. VHI is an example of one set in another of the Department's estates there. It is in essence a private sector decentralisation programme. The same is true of Deutsche Bank and State Street. Surely something can be learned from this. If the Department engages with those companies, which perhaps are having land problems in other centres, and encourages them to move out, not just to Kilkenny, but to the other regions, it is possible to grow an entire sector out of the international sector, possibly at far less cost than €16,000 a job.

Then there is the issue of the regions. Within our region there is an imbalance. Much IDA Ireland activity, for example, is centred in one location. There is little evidence of it being encouraged in other locations. Surely there is a need for the Department to engage with enterprise boards and local partnerships of one type or another to ensure that this happens. I would like Mr. Gorman's views on both examples, and on the question of Carlow.

Mr. Gorman

Mr. Gorman

Yes. In doing so, it would have played into the hands of its competitors. Primarily for this reason, Intel decided it did not want the case to be referred for open investigation and it was subsequently withdrawn. This was a significant issue for us nationally in that Intel is the leading player in this business. It is extremely important that we are able to continue to work with companies such as Intel and attract them to Ireland without such difficulties arising.

Intel, however, is continuing with the project. Following withdrawal of the notification to the Commission, the company issued a statement expressing its disappointment at the outcome but also its commitment to continue on schedule with the Fab 24 investment. It was encouraging that during a recent appearance before a United States commission the chief executive officer of Intel signalled that Ireland remained a leading contender to win new Intel investment. During his presentation he identified the low rate of corporation tax as crucial to competitiveness in the semiconductor sector but did not go into any detail about the position taken by the Commission. The reassurance he gave about Ireland's continued attractiveness and the statements from Intel regarding its commitment to the continuation of the Fab 24 investment were important and encouraging.

Our argument to the Commission was that this project was never going to any other EU state. As the competitors were located elsewhere, there was no issue in that regard. We made technical arguments in attempting to convince the Commission that the project involved genuine innovation. However, we also pointed to the Lisbon Agenda and argued that a negative response from the Commission would challenge not only Ireland's attractiveness as a location for this type of investment but also reflect poorly on Europe as a competitor on the world stage for these major, high-tech and leading edge investments.

We have received no specific indication from companies about to invest or those exploring investment opportunities. We have received no direct signal that the Intel case has turned them off or caused them to look elsewhere.

There is another reality in that the regime regarding State aid is changing. Our capacity in the next round of Structural Funds and ability to maintain the level of State aid will change dramatically. The amount of aid we will be able to give specific projects will be smaller and less of a factor after 2007. We will be competing in other areas such as infrastructure, education, flexible government, a business friendly environment, investment in research and development and the quality and calibre of our universities and researchers. The focus must shift and is shifting in that regard.

Notwithstanding the Intel case, there is a new reality with regard to the State aid regime. We do not yet know the details but less money will be transferred to Ireland and our capacity under the new regime to continue to support projects at the same level as heretofore will change dramatically. This brings into sharp focus the need to continue investing in research and development and infrastructure.

There is also an issue with regard to the regulatory burden but this is an issue for the European Union as well as Ireland. These all present new challenges but so far I am not aware of any project that has signalled an intent or threatened to pull out as a direct result of what happened to Intel.

Chairman

I wish to raise the issue of Shannon Development. There is a factory known as the Burlington plant, the name of the original tenants, in Gillogue across the River Shannon from the University of Limerick. The last company was a packaging company and a liquidator is winding up its affairs.

A local group negotiated with Shannon Development and reached agreement to buy the plant. It arranged to start with 100 jobs and encouraged people to leave their current employment to take up managerial positions. Shannon Development agreed to sell them the property. The local group was ready to proceed and negotiated with the liquidator with regard to machinery which was valuable within the plant but which would lose its value if moved. The deal was done and dusted but then Shannon Development pulled out after a formal exchange of letters indicating agreement on price and conditions.

Between November last year and January this year, the board of Shannon Development changed its mind. This has caused much grief for individuals and it looks like Shannon Development is turning its back on 100 jobs in a sector and location where the jobs would be considered very valuable. While it is entitled to make its own decisions, its refuses to give an explanation of such high-handed behaviour. I wrote to Mr. Gorman in order that he would have the information. Can he explain what happened?

Mr. Gorman

I will share the information I have collected since I received the Chairman's letter. I will place the role of Shannon Development and its relationship with us in context and then deal specifically with what I know and understand regarding the property at Gillogue.

Our relationship with Shannon Development is one of governance and monitoring. With regard to property, we have close contact with Shannon Development and receive annual reports on its property operations, financial tables and other matters. We receive various other documents from the chairman and board on the company's internal financial controls, code of practice and the governance of State bodies.

There is a series of procedures and guidelines in place in respect of the management of Shannon Development's property portfolio. The underlying objective of all these procedures is to ensure compliance with public procurement guidelines. All property transactions are required to be approved at board level. In cases where they are not significant, responsibility is delegated in accordance with authorised levels by the board. A board property sub-committee is in operation and includes two members of the main board, one of whom is chairman. Reports on transactions are forwarded to the board.

The procedures were reviewed in 2004 and a new property procedures manual was issued with the assistance of third party expertise. A new manual was developed with board approval in line with internal audit recommendations. An outside property consultant was brought on board to review the property function of the agency, including a detailed and systematic examination and assessment of the property department within Shannon Development, the details of the overall property portfolio and a full site examination of all the properties in the portfolio. I hope this will be completed within the next few months.

As a general observation, the agency is required to comply with public procurement procedures and guidelines laid down for all State bodies. As the parent Department with a governance role, we communicate the guidelines to the agency as delivered to us by the Department of Finance. In practice, the day-to-day business of management of the property portfolio is a matter for the agency. In executing that role it is required to be responsible in ensuring the assets of the State are properly managed in accordance with procedures.

With regard to the property at Gillogue, I made inquiries following receipt of the Chairman's letter. I understand from the agency that the site in question has had various occupants during the years, the most recent being FitzPak Limited, which relocated its paper box manufacturing business to the site. In 2001 Shannon Development leased part of the Gillogue facility to FitzPak which traded until it went into liquidation in February 2004. A court appointed liquidator is now offering the FitzPak equipment for sale by public tender with a closing date for receipt of tenders of June 2004. The significant piece of equipment is a corrugator which has a particular value in situ.

Shannon Development states it wrote to all parties which had expressed a direct interest in the Gillogue facility setting out the terms under which the property would be made available, one of which was the receipt of a business plan. It received a proposal to purchase the property, together with a business plan, within the timescale laid down from a consortium called MMDS which included members of former FitzPak senior management.

Discussions took place between Shannon Development and MMDS until the end of 2004 on various aspects of the sale but the sale did not proceed. Following a review of the discussions and the entire project, the board of Shannon Development decided in February this year to sell part of the property, the factory and the land within the curtilage, through a new public process. In taking this decision Shannon Development states it took into account its economic development role to promote industry and employment in the region, the use of its property portfolio as a resource in achieving these objectives and its duty as a public agency to preserve and protect State assets.

I have been informed that having considered all the information available and the limitations of dealing with one party alone, the agency believed a successful solution must start with the exposure of the Gillogue facility to a wider set of potential interested parties. For this reason, Shannon Development decided to place the premises and the land within the curtilage of the building, which I gather is relatively small, on the open market to provide all potential interested parties with the time and opportunity to make proposals. Inevitably, this has had an impact on others, not least the former workers who had hoped to take up employment with the new business to be established.

I am informed that the chairman of Shannon Development met MMDS on 3 February to discuss the issue and a group of former workers at the factory on 15 February. I understand the chairman has followed up the latter meeting with a detailed letter to the workers setting out the background to the development at Gillogue, the process followed since the liquidator was appointed in 2004, the factors that contributed to Shannon Development's decision not to proceed with the sale to MMDS and the process the company will now follow in the disposal of the Gillogue facility. Shannon Development has kept the liquidator informed of its position and, on foot of a request from the liquidator, a meeting took place yesterday morning on the issue. I understand the meeting was constructive and that both Shannon Development and the liquidator updated each other on recent developments and that contact will be maintained in the near future.

The current position is that Shannon Development has appointed consultants to make recommendations on the extent of the land curtilage to be included as part of the sale. Work is ongoing on this issue.

There is a desire and need to make all efforts to ensure the workers who became unemployed through the liquidation of FitzPak Limited are assisted in finding new employment in the region. Clearly, Shannon Development has a role in this regard. However, the agency must also observe rules and requirements as regards public procurement regulations and must act in an open and transparent manner in dealing with State assets.

I am aware that the issue of the Gillogue property is the subject of an internal audit review in Shannon Development. It is expected that the internal audit report will be considered by the board in May. I will examine the findings of the report in consultation with Shannon Development.

On 12 April I received a letter from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the context of a draft report on another property issue. In the normal course of events the Comptroller and Auditor General had requested certain information by mid-May and while the Gillogue property was not the primary focus of the report, it was mentioned in an appendix to it. I am examining the issues raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General as well as the questions put to me in the report, to which I will respond.

Yes. The reference to the plant in Gillogue occurs in the context of the operation of the property management function within Shannon Development. We have produced a draft report which in the normal course of events has been sent to the interested State parties, in this case primarily Shannon Development. However, because the agency operates under its aegis, we have also sent the report to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to try to get information on specific policy and governance issues. We have also sent the report to IDA Ireland because it was involved at an earlier stage regarding a particular site. When I receive responses from those parties, by convention by mid-May, I should be in a position to finalise the report which ultimately will come before the committee. That is all I have to say on the issue.

Deputy Dennehy

I join the Chairman in welcoming Mr. Gorman. While I have some questions, I first wish to make an observation on the issue, aspects of which have been raised by the Chairman and Deputy McGuinness.

For a long time the committee has had concerns about the conglomeration of agencies for local and regional development. Apart from the 35 county development boards, there is a plethora of other agencies involved, including the city and county enterprise boards, FÁS, Shannon Development and IDA Ireland, not to mention the Leader programme and partnership schemes. Our fears are twofold and centre on the duplication of mission and the question of bureaucracy in administration. Any funding available should go to the coalface rather than into bureaucracy. That is an observation rather than a question. I would appreciate if this issue could be examined because the situation is ridiculous for those who are trying to get involved.

I think the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement spent approximately €3 million in 2005 on the review. Following the Company Auditing and Accounting Act 2003, the Minister established the Irish Auditing and Accountancy Supervisory Authority on an interim basis. Did either of these organisations play a part in the Gama fiasco in the context of companies keeping accounts and informing State agencies about what was happening?

Mr. Gorman

Is Deputy Dennehy asking me about bureaucracy as we dealt with that issue earlier?

On the duplication of mission, there are many agencies working in this area. In developing these agencies in recent years we closely examined what their mission should be. For example, when Enterprise Ireland was established a few years ago, a decision was made that IDA Ireland should have a single focus of responsibility — to work exclusively on inward investment. It was decided that it should become a dedicated agency with the resources, experience and expertise to carry out that job well which we regarded as a particular piece of work from which we did not want to distract the agency.

We then examined the indigenous sector which is largely looked after by Enterprise Ireland and the county enterprise boards. At the time the export promotions board, An Bord Trachtála, was in existence. We decided there was a continuing need to encourage the development of indigenous industry, as we affirmed in the recent enterprise strategy group report. We examined the best way to foster indigenous industry and decided that the idea of separating exports from general business development was unwise as we were looking to persuade indigenous industries to focus more on exports markets. We thought there must be a direct connection between business development and exporting if we were to continue to develop the sector. An Bord Trachtála was abolished and merged with Forbairt to create Enterprise Ireland.

There are linkages and we have contacts with those bodies. I cannot comment on the company the Deputy has referred to. For example, in the area of work permits the applicant is the employer and is registered with us. We receive assurances from them that they are registered and legitimate before we issue them with permits.

Mr. Gorman

I can give the Deputy some details of the general performance of these offices in terms of their activity levels.

Deputy Dennehy

I am not seeking too much detail but I would like to know if this is the old Revenue approach of chasing compliant companies. Is there an enforcement section for rogue companies? How do they establish their status? We have enforced the taxation legislation in compliant companies for years.

Mr. Gorman

The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement contains a range of expertise, including seven assigned gardaí and arrangements with the Revenue Commissioners, such as memoranda of understanding on the sharing of data. It does respond to complaints. In some senses it is dependent but receives significant intelligence from auditors, who are required to notify the office of various concerns. It is resourced, it has police and solicitors and it has general administrators policing company law compliance. It will take initiatives in its own right or will, in many cases, respond to complaints. The Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority concerns itself with the regulation of auditors and will respond to complaints or issues that arise in terms of the professional performance of auditors' roles.

These agencies exist and are proactive. Their roles will be preventive sometimes but in many cases they deal with keeping abreast of people or situations that are not kosher with regard to the law. This is not about persecuting the compliant. There will be no problems for people who follow the rules and obey the law. This is specifically about addressing problems of companies or directors of companies failing to be compliant. It is not harassment.

Deputy Dennehy

Other areas covered include fire, flood, loss of buildings, loss of information technology facilities, and loss of files. The risk management process is all-embracing. It is now functional and is built into our business planning process for this year. We have a system whereby this item will be on the agenda of divisional level, headed by the assistant secretary grade, and of management board level, which I chair. We will review the risk analysis periodically and take stock of our position.

Deputy Deasy

When I receive feedback from the Commission through Commissioner Wallström, I will contact Mr. Gorman to inform him of the answers. I do not think we should stop here. It is true that by 2007 this may not be as significant as it is now but the precedent this sets worries me. It is a concern that the European Commission can act in this way. If one reads The Economist every month, one would believe that we are the wealthiest country in the world. The fact is, however, that we need to be able to continue to attract industrial investment, particularly from the US. It is not acceptable that the Commission did not make a counter-argument to the one which we put forward concerning European competitiveness. It makes no sense and Europe has shot itself in the foot. I will revert to Mr. Gorman if I receive a reasonable response from the Commission.

Deputy McGuinness

According to figures I have read, aid to industry from Enterprise Ireland has dropped from approximately €70 million to €49 million during the past ten years. France, Germany and other countries are examining their levels of aid. Mr Gorman mentioned 2007 and I am interested to know what decisions will be made at that stage that will lead to a further decrease in State aid and what the final outcome will be.

Some grants already paid to industry should be refunded and I know that Mr. Gorman is pursuing this. Will he inform us, however, of the exact amount involved, the success rate to date and his hopes regarding outstanding amounts. Will all outstanding moneys be collected?

Could Mr. Gorman provide a figure on the total value of IDA Ireland's properties, including those that have been purchased and are being developed at present?

I have some specific questions on Kilkenny. I have already asked a number of parliamentary questions on the disposal of a property in Kilkenny city when Albert Reynolds was Minister. The property in question was disposed of to the Kilkenny Civic Trust. I am interested in ensuring accountability for the State on this matter, which the Department has investigated. The property was sold to the trust for a nominal sum in the public interest and because of the involvement of the local authority. Did the Department, upon its disposal, attach any conditions with regard to the public interest on the management or resale of the property? The property is held in trust with the current and future involvement of the local authority but its accounts are not furnished. It is as if it were a private limited company. I know that inquiries within the Department revealed some information but I would like to know who is responsible for the accounts and the continued existence of the trust. I do not imply that irregularities exist but we have a right to this information because of the significance of this property and in the interest of public accountability.

The local community raised money to purchase the Glassform site at Graignamanagh, County Kilkenny, many years ago and gave it to IDA Ireland, the role of which has since changed. It was intended that the property would attract industry but this did not happen. As IDA Ireland is unable to attract industry and in view of the condition of the site, will it be returned to the local community for more productive use? It is possible for the site to perform alternative functions driven by community initiatives, such as incubation units.

Every time I have asked a parliamentary question on the subject, I have been given an answer to a different question. I want to be specific about the matter, and I want Mr. Gorman to address the issue I have put to him. Will he send us a written note, letting us know the details and the precedents identified regarding other companies? I would like to know why the approaches taken previously have not been applied in this case. Although the closure was some time ago, it continues to be a bone of contention in my constituency, and I do not fully accept the current situation. Legal advice from the Department should be made known to us. Parliamentary questions have been asked but parts of them have not been answered. I suppose that could be for a number of reasons, but I am asking for an answer today in the context of the work of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Mr. Gorman

I will consider that point and come back to the committee.

Chairman

That is fine.

Mr. Gorman

I do not have the details of the case with me, so I am not currently in a position to offer either detailed information or my view on where things might go.

Chairman

Is it agreed to note Vote 34? That is agreed.

The agenda for our next meeting, on Thursday, 21 April 2005, will cover the Comptroller and Auditor General's value for money report No. 48, entitled The Grouped Schools Pilot Partnership Project.

The committee adjourned at 15.15 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 21 April 2005.