The development of the National Agricultural and Eventing, Exhibition and International Show and Competition Centre at Punchestown was funded to address a need for a facility of international standard for the holding of agricultural shows and displays which could represent the agriculture industry both nationally and internationally and, in addition, attract significant international events here. It was a necessary once-off investment in this country's infrastructure for the promotion of agriculture.
The intention was that the facility should be able to attract significant agricultural events such as those connected with the sport horse eventing competitions as well as cattle breeding shows, machinery shows and other special events. It was felt that the World Equestrian Games, which come around every four years, the European Eventing Championships, which take place every three years, and international congresses on the cattle breeding side could be attracted to Ireland at reasonable intervals if the facilities were available. The ability to host such international events would put Ireland on a par with other EU member states, most of which have at least one centre capable of hosting the significant events envisaged. Such centres are, in the main, publicly funded. The project would not have gone ahead without the degree of subvention it received.
I have reviewed the report of the Committee on Public Accounts on the funding for the Punchestown centre. The report acknowledges that the Department's controls and administrative procedures were thorough. The report criticises the degree of evaluation undertaken and states the Department of Finance's 1994 guidelines for the appraisal and management of capital projects in the public sector should have been applied. I am satisfied my Department applied procedures considered at the time to be appropriate for a project of this type.
The Deputy must remember this was a once-off project which did not easily fit the category of scheme normally administered by the Department. The project was not a normal type of grant proposal and was difficult to evaluate in terms of outputs and outturns. As such, it did not readily lend itself to being evaluated under the 1994 guidelines. However, the project was carefully examined in the Department against a number of criteria including the need for the facility, the suitability of Punchestown as a venue, whether other locations could be used and the likely events that would take place there. Before agreeing to fund the project, the Department was satisfied the proposed investment represented an appropriate and justified use of the funds being provided. The letter of approval contained 17 paragraphs of detailed conditions.
As required by the 1994 guidelines, a post-project review will be undertaken by my Department and, as required by the PAC, it will be presented to that committee by 30 March 2005. I have noted the PAC recommendation that the 1994 guidelines should be applied in all circumstances involving voted funds. This recommendation will of course be implemented by my Department.
