Punchestown project funding criticised

Two Government departments were criticised today in an official report into the funding of an agriculture and event centre in Co Kildare.

The Departments of Finance and Agriculture were both censured for failing to abide by their own guidelines in the controversial funding of the centre at Punchestown Racecourse.

The Dáil’s Public Accounts Committee report found the departments failed to properly evaluate the need for the €15m project.

It said the Department of Finance ignored its own guidelines for public expenditure appraisal on the project.

The report found no business or marketing plan was sought by the Department of Agriculture from the promoters of the centre to assist in its evaluation.

The Public Accounts Committee also said the centre was hardly used in the first year after it was built, while the majority of events held there were not for agriculture or equestrian purposes.

“The Committee is critical of the evaluation process carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Food on this project,” the report said.

“The need for the centre was not properly evaluated.

“The Accounting Officer should have ensured the proper application of the 1994 guidelines.”

The committee heard Punchestown Racecourse submitted its initial proposal to the Agriculture Minister in November 1999 seeking €6.9m in funding for a project called the National Agricultural and Eventing Exhibition and International Show Centre.

The Minister for Agriculture then wrote to the Finance Minister seeking the funding, which was granted within one week.

Before it was informed, Punchestown notified the Department of Agriculture that it was to revise its proposal.

It then sought funding of €12.78m in June 2000, which was granted in the same way the following month.

Punchestown then sought an extra €1.5m in October 2001, which was approved by the Finance Minister the following January despite a public funding cap of €13.3m being placed on the project earlier.

Many campaign groups criticised the speed at which the project was repeatedly given the go-ahead despite slow Government funding procedures for other projects.