An intervener affirms that the ERE grants were given without control until 2011

An intervener affirms that the ERE grants were given without control until 2011

Maria Luisa Raya, comptroller from 2013 Permanent Financial Control Agency for Innovation and Development of Andalusia (IDEA) , former Instituto de Fomento de Andalucía (IFA), said Wednesday that aid granted by the Directorate General of Labor to workers and companies in crisis in the irregular employment regulation files (ERE) were given without prior control and without control until 2011.

As stated Raya in the afternoon session on Wednesday the trial that celebrates the First Section of the Provincial Court of Seville against 22 former officials of the Board for the specific procedure by which the social and labor aid paid to workers and companies in crisis in the ERE.

Specifically, under the framework agreement signed in July 2001 between the Ministry of Employment and the IFA, it would pay the aid granted by the General Labor Directorate under the 31L budget program that the General Directorate brought to the institute through transfers of financing.

In April 2010, the model change was approved, using the management mandate as a tool to finance the aid, whose payment materializes IDEA, instead of the financing transfers. In addition, it had already proceeded to replace the particular agreements for granting aid for payment resolutions.

Raya, to questions of the Public Prosecutor, explained that these investigated aids were granted without prior control and without control until 2011, when “the real change” comes with the Order of April 2011, which approves the regulatory bases of social and labor assistance for workers affected by restructuring files of companies in the community.

In 2011, according to the witness, it was approved “a real regulation of granting subsidies with prior control and oversight, acting IDEA as a collaborating entity”.

Raya, author of definitive reports of Permanent Financial Control of IDEA from the one corresponding to the 2009 exercise, has indicated that an “inadequate” use has been made of the financing transfers to finance the aid.

Thus, it has indicated that the administrative files of the aids were in possession of the Ministry of Employment that did not supervise them, because the expenditure file was made on the financing transfers used to finance the aid. That is, the transfer of money from the General Directorate of Labor to IDEA was controlled for the total amount of aid, not the expense records of each aid itself.

With the management charge, “grants are still being granted without prior inspection, because the expense file was about the management charge and not about the aid.” “IDEA only paid the subsidies granted by Employment”.

It is true that Raya has indicated that the budgetary credit of subsidies used for the commission was the correct one, but the previous control was still carried out on the money sent to IDEA through the management charge and not on the aid granted by the General Directorate of work. “With the management charge, the previous audit was also omitted,” the intervenor insisted.

On the other hand, explained that transfers of funding in the procedure of granting aid investigated in this case “were being misused, because they are instruments to meet operating costs and investments, but own operating costs” not entrusted ” “With the transfers of financing can not be done entrusted actions, yes with the management charge,” he said.

For Raya, the “inappropriate” use of the financing transfers “can not be attributed” to IDEA, but to the Ministry of Employment, although he has specified that “IDEA also collaborated with this use”, while indicating that the Ministry of Innovation paid with own funds aids given by the General Directorate of Labor.

On the other hand, understands that the budget gap in IDEA comes from the difference between the credits received from the Employment Council by the agency for the payment of aid and the commitments made by the General Directorate of Labor with the beneficiaries of the aid. “At the end of 2009 it was 2.7 million,” he assured.

Raya’s statement, after answering the questions of lawyer Alfonso Martínez del Hoyo , who defends former employment counsel Antonio Fernández and whose interrogation has been interrupted several times by the court for making “guesses and hypotheses on some issues, will continue in the next Monday session.

Rosario Lobo, auditor of the Board

Previously to Raya had declared before the court of the ERE the intervenor Rosario Lobo , that assured that it saw in the administrative files to grant the investigated helps in the ERE case “administrative irregularities” and that occurred “without previous control” but could not detect impairment of public funds because the documentation did not include the expense file.

Lobo was Head of the Intervention Audit Service from 2000 to 2012 and the Comptroller General Manuel Gómez -one of the accused- together with the financial controller of IDEA control Ignacio García Revilla entrusted him with analyzing twenty cases of aid granted by Employment for an additional report to the fulfillment of the IDEA 2003 exercise (submitted in 2005).

She did not make the conclusions of the report – which determined that the aid was given regardless of the procedure legally established – but notes with the “administrative irregularities” and “deficiencies” detected in each file.

Among them has cited that there was a delegation of powers to grant aid the Director of Labor instead of the counselor or that there was no request, irregularities “attributable to the Directorate General of Labor.”

Asked by the prosecutor if he detected a risk of undermining public funds, he responded: “In the documentation that I examined, no, it was simply that administrative subsidies were being processed in an irregular manner.”

Subsequently explained that this documentation was limited to the file “until the time of grant” of the aid that in his opinion were exceptional but did not include payment orders or anything related to the fate of the same, so that there is no file of spending, imputing it to a budgetary appropriation (since the expense was done by IDEA when paying), it could not detect the risk of undermining public funds.

“The document in which the award of the grant is formalized can not be deduced that there is an impairment of public funds,” he insisted.

Yes, it has made it clear that they were aid “granted by the General Directorate of Labor and that administrative body is subject to prior inspection and that aid had not been subject to prior inspection.”

He added that the permanent financial control that was done in IDEA “have nothing to do” to be done at a different time “once the economic operations are undertaken”.

The Intervention alerted in different reports that it was “inappropriate” to use IDEA financing transfers to pay for Employment aid and the witness has confirmed that this financial tool “can not have a specific purpose” but that others should be used as allocation transfers nominative or management charge (the latter began to be used in 2010).

By using IDEA to pay the aid, the Employment Auditor could not oversee the expenditure since “the control of the financing transfers does not mean that the subsidies are being controlled” but only the sending of the money to IDEA.