asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce why a retraining grant was refused to a firm in County Meath (details supplied) although the firm complied with the regulations laid down by the IDA; and if he is aware that a grant for retraining was paid to a similar type firm at the same time.
Ceisteanna — Questions Oral Answers. - Meath Retraining Grant.
36.
Under the Industrial Development Act, 1969, the making of training grants for industrial undertakings is a statutory function of the Industrial Development Authority. I understand that the application to which the Deputy refers was refused by the authority for reasons which were fully explained to the company concerned and that the exceptional circumstances in which a grant for retraining was approved by the authority in another case, were also explained.
Is the Minister aware that this firm commenced operations in 1921 with 25 employees and now employs about 220 people? On 8th August, 1969, the firm made an application to the IDA for a grant. Is it good enough that the IDA should notify the firm on the 5th November, 1970, that they are not going to get the retraining grant because the authority have now taken a definite decision not to make retraining grants available for clothing projects? The project was before them from August, 1969. In view of the fact that £25,000 was spent by this company on retraining, because they were under the impression from the IDA that they were going to get the grant, is this good enough? Was that not a scandalous way of treating this company or were they treated in this manner because they are an Irish company and have not got any Herrs or Vons in the company?
I have not got details of the date of application. The Deputy mentions that it was some time in 1969.
If I supply the file to the Minister, will he look at it? I am not blaming the Minister for what happened. I think the Minister will agree that these people have been most unfairly treated.
I might explain to the Deputy—irrespective of his bringing the complete file to my attention, I have all the details in my office but not here as to the particular date on which this application was made—that I stated in my reply that this is a statutory function of the IDA. I, as Minister, am not empowered to dictate. This is a statutory function of the IDA.
I do not wish to impose on the House but surely the Minister will agree that this is a blatant case where the IDA have misused their statutory functions—if it, is a statutory function—by giving a similar grant to another company, and almost a year afterwards refusing to pay a company who have spent their money under the impression that they would be getting this grant. Surely this is something that should be investigated?
The IDA have taken a definite decision not to make retraining grants available for such cases.
On the 5th November, 1970, after they have applied for and have been in communication——
It was indicated to this firm before the 5th of November, 1970——
I have the full file here. I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.