Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON JOBS, SOCIAL PROTECTION AND EDUCATION díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 May 2012

Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Discussion with Department of Education and Skills

I welcome Mr. Peter Baldwin, assistant secretary, Mr. Vincent Landers, principal officer, and Mr. John McDermott, assistant principal officer, at the Department of Education and Skills.

Before we hear the officials' presentations, 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 the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If witnesses are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I invite Mr. Baldwin to make his presentation.

Mr. Peter Baldwin

I thank the committee for the opportunity to meet to discuss the European Globalisation Fund, EGF, in Ireland to date. We have already forwarded a briefing note to the committee which I hope it found useful.

The EGF is an EU fund which co-finances programmes of active labour market measures in support of workers who are made redundant as a result of the adverse impacts of globalisation. The fund provides specific, once-off, time-limited support to facilitate the reintegration of redundant workers into the labour market. The EGF has a number of strict eligibility criteria governing when and how applications can be made by an EU member state.

In summary, applications can be made when the number of redundancies is at least 500 in a specific company and any of its suppliers or downstream producers within a four month reference period, or at least 500 in a NACE 2, statistical classification, sector in a nine month reference period. There are also strict eligibility criteria regulating what constitutes globalisation. Under the original 2006 regulations these criteria centred on circumstances where there was major structural change in world trade patterns leading to a serious economic disruption, notably a substantial increase of imports into the EU, a rapid decline of the EU market share in a given sector, or a delocalisation to third countries. Under a subsequent amending regulation in mid-2009, a temporary derogation was introduced which provided that another eligibility criteria could be used involving redundancies that were a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. However, this derogation ended on 31 December 2011.

EGF measures may include but are not limited to job search assistance, occupational guidance, training and education, outplacement assistance, entrepreneurship promotion and aid for self-employment. Programmes must be completed within two years of the date of submission of the application. All EGF measures must, in turn, be co-financed from national funding sources. With the end of the so-called crisis derogation at the end of last year, the co-financing rate has reverted from 35% to 50%. Clearly national resources available to co-finance EGF programmes are finite and must compete with demands for funding of other labour market activation programmes across the entirety of the unemployed population as well as with demands for funding of other areas of expenditure. This impinges on both the upfront provision of such resources ahead of EGF approvals by the EU and the complementary or additional nature of such programmes.

Ireland first made an EGF application in 2009 through the then Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which then held national policy responsibility for the EGF. In that year it made three applications in support of up 2,840 workers at the Dell computer manufacturing plant in Raheen, County Limerick, 653 workers at the Waterford Crystal factory in Kilbarry, County Waterford, and 910 workers at the SR Technics aircraft maintenance facility at Dublin Airport.

In 2010 the Department of Education and Skills, to which policy responsibility for the EGF had transferred, made the first Irish sectorial application in support of almost 9,000 redundant construction workers. The European Commission subsequently requested that this application, the largest of its type to that point, be broken down into three separate NACE 2 subsectors. On 29 February this year, the Department submitted an application in support of 592 redundant workers at the TalkTalk call centre in Waterford and a number of ancillary enterprises.

In the Department's written brief prepared for the committee, there is an overview of the number and types of EGF applications submitted and approved across the EU to date and details of the Irish programmes. Total EGF potential expenditure across all approved Irish programmes is €93.2 million, of which €60.6 million is available from the EU.

Under the EGF regulations a member state has up to ten weeks after the reference period to submit its application to the European Commission. Applications require to be approved by the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The full application and approval process is a lengthy and complex one which can take on average between seven to ten months for completion and the actual release of funding to a member state. The Department utilises the statutory collective redundancy notifications issued to the Minster for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation as the primary early warning system. The redundancy payments system is the primary verifiable documentation used to satisfy the EU, including its audit authorities, of the actuality of redundancy numbers.

In preparing EGF applications and implementing EGF programmes, the Department has in the main to date worked through existing structures and service providers. They are on the ground and have local and regional knowledge to engage in the first instance with employers and workers to assemble relevant data and assess the needs of workers in terms of guidance, training, etc.

To date, three of the six approved EGF programmes in Ireland have been completed with in excess of 10,000 guidance, training, education and enterprise interventions having been provided to almost 4,000 individual workers. Final reports have been submitted in respect of the completed Dell programme in December 2011, Waterford Crystal programme in February 2012 and SR Technics programme in April 2012. The European Commission, in turn, has up to six months after the receipt of all relevant information on a programme to formally close that programme. None of the three programmes has yet been formally closed by the Commission. However, we have indications from the Commission of the likely amounts to be approved which are included in the written brief. The three construction sector programmes are due to finish by 9 June 2012 and the TalkTalk application is under consideration by the European Commission.

The Minister of State with responsibility for training and skills, Deputy Cannon, initiated a review of the three completed EGF programmes to date late last year with both written and oral submissions from key stakeholders, notably the representatives of the redundant workers themselves. The point of this is to examine how we build on the strengths of the process while learning of areas where improvements can be made. This will ensure we put our best foot forward in any further applications.

The EGF provides the State with an opportunity to ensure those who lost their jobs have some level of retraining, a measure we support. However, there has been an uneven delivery of the fund. I know one former construction worker in Navan who wanted to become a crane driver, a slight change in career direction. To do so, he took a course and was offered work experience on a crane. All he had to do was cover the cost of the insurance. However, he did not have the money and he could not complete the training. A limit was put on his development.

Is it not the case that €5.9 million has been returned to the fund? Given the difficulties encountered by people trying to reskill, such as the case I just mentioned, the idea that €5.9 million was returned is shocking. What went wrong in the Department that caused this return? Has there been an official investigation into how that was handled? I believe that on a particular date in January, 18 months after the application was made, few if any of those 9,000 workers were contacted to let them know the procedure. I note that at certain times during the process the Government had tens of millions of euro to spend but it was coming close to the closure of one of those programmes. It may have had only 24 weeks to spend all of this particular funding and that would have made it next to impossible.

Will the Vodafone workers who have been displaced have access to the globalisation fund? Will the State make an application to the European Globalisation Fund on behalf of the 10,000 persons who lost their jobs in the banking sector? Will the Government make an application on behalf of the 50,000 persons who lost their jobs in the retail sector in the past four years to see whether it can help them retrain? If it is all right, could we begin with those questions.

Mr. Peter Baldwin

Certainly, it is a valid question. Today's meeting is valuable because it allows us drill down into some of the issues.

In terms of the return of funding, the programme envisages recoupment to the EU, and that is the pan-European experience. In fact, the amount of funding we would have returned from Ireland would be less than the European average. It is the dynamic or the way the regulation is constructed. In other words, one applies and puts one's best foot forward. One tries to assess and we use the staff on the ground because one cannot make an assessment from Marlborough Street. I will come back to the sectoral ones but in terms of an individual company, we use the staff on the ground to assess what might be provided for the workers in this company in terms of engagement by FÁS. In one case, the agency worked through the shift rota of the companies, where they were working at night, etc. The agency makes an assessment and together we try to put together a package.

The first of these three applications, all of which were made in 2009, was our first foray into or effort to use the EGF. When one does that, one is dealing with persons who, understandably, are in a state of uncertainty, not only as to what might be available but as to where they want to go forward. Any of us faced with a career defining moment must ask whether we will invest a year in this particular training and whether that is where we want to go. I only mention that. In trying to assess at that point in time, one must bear in mind there is a ten-week period, between the end of the notifications and submitting the application, to make one's assessment as to what persons might avail of. When it comes to the delivery end where one is trying to roll out one's assessment based on local knowledge of what people might avail of, matters have moved on. By the time the EU has approved, which would be on average seven to ten months later, what people want to avail of might be different from what is in the original application. Inevitably, the take-up on programmes may be less than one originally planned. This has been the pan-European experience.

There is no hazard or downside in putting one's best foot forward or being as positive as possible in one's application because the EU gives the funding and then if one does not use it, one gives it back. However, that is not a failure. Equally, one could call it an over-estimate. There would be valid reasons where one might err on the higher side because one does not want to leave anybody out in terms of expenditure. There is an inevitability and our experience in Ireland has been better than the EU average. At the end of the day, one just does not know. As anyone who has children making college decisions or a family where someone is unemployed will be aware, those who might be clear at one moment who make a decision to go a particular route as a change may switch a few months later and state that it is not what they want to do, and that affects the take-up.

We have tried to build in the lessons from that in how we go forward from the review. For example, we provide guidance at the back end and guidance is part of the programme. If someone is uncertain after the programme starts, at least we can offer him or her guidance. As we have done in the latest application on TalkTalk, which is still under consideration by the Commission and the outcome of which we do not know, we try to build in as much flexibility as possible to the model in order that if people change what they might want to avail of, one has the flexibility to switch further downstream.

It is not like a normal annual Government process where one has a good idea every year what one must spend and suddenly there is a downturn. In this case, one is trying to guess, based on many uncertainties and variables, what people might avail of some months hence and there is almost an inevitability, and certainly a high probability, of one recouping funding to the EU on the basis that there is no downside in getting it but may have to return it one subsequently, and if one did not get enough from the EU and one had the funding to co-finance, one may well have left people out. That is the explanation for that.

Was Deputy Tóibín asking whether some who missed out were among those who could have drawn this down?

Mr. Baldwin mentioned some of the technical elements of it - how one is dependent on the assessment and the differential between the assessment and the delivery. Our benchmark should be that all the funding to which we have access to deliver training would be utilised. The second issue is that if it is necessary for more effort to go in at the assessment end to ensure the assessment is closer to the end result, that needs to be undertaken.

The third issue is there are big waiting gaps. As I stated, 18 months after making applications, none of the 9,000 workers has been contacted. No doubt matters change over 18 months but if individuals could be contacted much sooner, one is more likely to get into dealing with them under the initial assessment. There have been major gaps and time lags in the delivery of this. There also has been limited time for spending the money which, at the other end, creates a difficulty for the Department. Given we are in a more difficult circumstance than the European average on job losses, especially in the construction sector, we need to be spending this funding where it is needed. If it is the case the infrastructure of the European Globalisation Fund is so inflexible that it does not suit the experience of those who are losing their jobs, it is up to us as a member state to go to the Union to seek to make it flexible enough so that it works for the applicants.

Some of the information that was coming out is astonishing. The Department was asked during the process whether it knew the names and addresses of everybody who was on this list and it put its hands up, as it were, and stated it did not know the address of those who had applied for this. It seems the delivery did not suit the need of those who were made unemployed.

The further questions were, what is the Department's view on applications in the case of Vodafone, the banking sector and the retail sector?

Mr. Peter Baldwin

I would agree with much of what Deputy Tóibín identified as being relevant issues. On the assessment in advance, the ten-week period is a big constraining factor where an individual company is concerned.

I will come back on the sectoral one. That is a different animal and is not as amenable. It has been a difficult one. I will come back on the construction one.

On Deputy Tóibín's example of the crane driver, FÁS, now the Department of Social Protection, has a TESG grant, which is a flexible grant for the unemployed that might be the type of support that could have assisted in that case. Often an employment services officer would have a person saying he or she would like to do something which, rather than being a full-time course, would be addressing a need in a certain area, for example, a HGV licence.

Did the person in question apply for the use of this fund?

My understanding is the person applied for it and found the funding was not there when the person sought it.

If the Department signs off on a group of 9,000 people are others allowed to tap into the fund?

Mr. Peter Baldwin

I will clarify with regard to the construction fund. The sector is being monitored to establish how many redundancies arise. Often redundancies are announced in the press but, as we saw recently with regard to Aviva, they do not transpire. Therefore, one must also watch the amount of redundancy payments made and measure the difference. We drill down through this information to see whether the circumstances in which the redundancies arose are suitable for the EGF. After this process was completed with regard to the construction sector an application was lodged and we have the details and addresses of the individuals involved.

One must bear in mind the approval process can take seven to nine months. The construction sector had to be broken down into sectoral codes but our systems were not programmed to provide the information with the NACE code format. This caused a delay as we worked on breaking down the group of 9,000 into sub-categories such as specialised construction, construction and architectural services. A total of 3,000 companies and 9,000 employees were involved and we had to examine under what code each company fell. This took time and caused the delay.

The question of what can be done in advance of approval was raised by workers during the consultation phase. The Deputy referred to the country's economic situation. The amount of money available to the State for upfront payments is very limited. We have had three company and one sectoral applications. What we can deploy quickly in a co-ordinated way to engage and see what can be produced are the existing structures in which the State has invested, such as FÁS employment services which are now under the aegis of the Department of Social Protection, and the VECs, institutes of technology and universities. This is one level of prioritisation whereby resources are concentrated on the company involved.

We must also ask what spend can be incurred in advance of approval, and we do not have a significant pot of resources from which to draw. A potential area is the national training fund which, like any other area of expenditure, is treated like the Department of Finance. The only difference is that we do not need to borrow for it. Initially we did not have an allocation, although some FÁS work has been funded by it, but we now have a small allocation from the fund. The programme required for the construction sector is huge because if 9,000 people were given a grant of €1,000 each it would amount to €9 million. We do not have the resources for this so our capacity to act immediately is limited. All we can do is use existing resources in a concentrated way, which is possible for a company but not a sector spread throughout the country. Therefore, we must wait for approval from the EU. This is how it worked with SR Technics, Dell and Waterford Crystal.

We listened to the outcome of the consultation process and we have examined whether workers can be given additional funding from the beginning. The only company affected since then has been TalkTalk and we have tried to provide this although we do not have approval yet. We have also tried to improve contact with the workers and the Deputy made a valid point on this. This is more difficult with regard to the construction industry and I will return to this point. We are using existing resources, and FÁS and other public sector organisations are trying to do more. A locally based team was assigned in Limerick which has gained experience and additional staff have been contracted to work with it. It is engaging with TalkTalk although the application has only just been made and has not been approved yet. The moment the application was made we began to engage with the workers. Based on a suggestion from workers who had been affected previously we now have a dedicated website. We have learned lessons since the first foray into the EGF by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in 2009.

Dealing with the construction sector is difficult because it involves selecting a period during which the numbers can be optimised. We did this and submitted an application. What do we tell the 9,000 people involved? The normal seven to ten-month period would be bad enough, but a delay occurred because of the NACE codes. If we tell construction workers we may be able to help them because we have made an EGF application the first question they will ask is what we can do for them. The answer is we do not know because the application has not yet been approved. The next question will be when will we know and the answer is that we do not know how long it will take. Notifying people at the time an application is made would be problematic and may cause greater anxiety. As soon as we were made aware it had been approved letters were sent to all 9,000 people.

To answer the Chairman's question the only people involved are those named, and this creates a difficulty. People can fall off the edge if redundancy payments do not go through by the deadline. The number of redundancies in the construction sector within the period means one person may receive something and another may not. An equity issue arises when 450,000 people are on the live register. We want to use the EGF as best we can but this means using national resources to co-finance the EGF. This means pulling these national resources from something else, which is why we are limited to what we can provide upfront. This causes a dilemma because if two factories in the same industrial estate lose workers, the 400 workers lost in one factory could receive the standard amount while the 600 workers lost in the other factory could receive additional funding. These latter workers could argue the additional funding was not sufficient, and we are working on this, but they would have the benefit of the EGF. Using national resources requires prioritising and this raises an issue of equity. I do not mean equality, but issues of equity and fairness do arise.

We monitored the banking sector during 2010 and 2011. Announcements were made and some redundancy payments were made. We had to choose when to drill down through the figures to see whether the criteria were met with regard to financial circumstances and globalisation. The indications were that announcements of greater redundancies in retail banking would be made. As we subsequently found out, 2,500 redundancies were announced in AIB with redundancies in Bank of Ireland also. The problem with the banking sector is the derogation which allowed for financial circumstances was expected to continue because financial circumstances had not changed, but a blocking minority at EU level stopped it.

I want to allow Deputy Ryan to contribute, as he must depart.

They are important questions. The answers do not need to be long. They could be five seconds, for example. Will there be one on banking, retail, etc?

We will take Deputy Ryan's questions and add them all together.

The headline about European money being sent back does not look well. The issue is complicated by the process of matching funding and so on. Have qualifying applications been made to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, EGF, and subsequently turned down on the basis that there were no matching funds from the Department?

Regarding the application process, the time for drawing down funds once an application has been made is limited. It takes a long time to get from application to successful decision. Someone mentioned as many as seven or ten months. The effect of this is to limit the window for individual workers to draw down funding. This has been a factor in the case of former workers at SR Technics, SRT, and so on. I have been dealing with this matter for constituents. Although this issue might be outside the Department's control, could it recommend to Europe as part of a review that the draw down period should start from the point at which the decision is made instead of from the date of the application? It would make sense. I would be interested in our guests' comments in this regard.

Some SRT workers who have received some money under the fund have commenced two-year or three-year degree programmes. However, only the first year of a worker's course was funded because the time had elapsed and the funding for the end of the course was not available. This is unfair. The Department is adhering to the rules, but could this matter be examined in the review?

Mr. Baldwin must leave at 2.45 p.m. He can answer as best he can and submit written answers subsequently.

Mr. Peter Baldwin

I would need to revert to the committee on the question of retail. The circumstance that applies is globalisation. I am not sure whether retail would fit into the globalisation piece.

Regarding banking, prior to the end of the period for considering the financial circumstances criteria at the end of December, we conducted a nine-month evaluation to determine whether we could establish the numbers, but they were not credible. The main numbers came out in January of this year.

I am unsure of the position in respect of the Vodafone announcement, what transactions may have occurred and how the situation meets the criteria.

Maybe we could receive an answer on those three issues.

Mr. Peter Baldwin

Yes. To revert to Deputy Ryan's point, no application has been rejected for lack of funds. Before making an application, our side commits to providing funds to the approved extent, given the limitations that I announced.

Regarding changes at EU level, we have articulated our opinion. The Deputy referred to the draw down, but the length of the programme must be completed within two years from the submission of the application. Ideally, the two-year period should date from the approval. One would want to truncate the process, as people will have moved on with their lives. If one wants to assist them at the most critical moment, everything should be pulled back. The Deputy's point was valid.

I am not fully au fait with the Deputy’s SR Technics example. A concession was made, in that a particular course was made eligible for higher education grants.

The solution was outside the EGF.

Mr. Peter Baldwin

Yes. The EGF is a two-year programme. When it is gone, it is gone, as the phrase goes. Some solutions have been found where there have been legitimate expectations or people have already started, but we are tied to the two-year programme.

The point was well made. It seems unfair that the two-year period starts when one applies, yet one could be waiting for a year to be sanctioned.

Mr. Peter Baldwin

I agree, but the answer might not be to approach the issue through the programme. The answer might be to try to push everything back.

Mr. Peter Baldwin

One could catch up quickly.

I thank our three guests for attending. I am sorry that our time has been short, but we have dealt with most issues. If Mr. Baldwin could reply with answers to the remaining questions, it would be great. We will re-examine this issue. If Deputy Ryan has time to stay on, we will enter private session to deal with a few matters.

The joint committee went into private session at 2.47 p.m. and resumed in public session at 2.54 p.m.

Barr
Roinn