Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 786: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his proposals on the risk that the information and support unit in Mount Sion could face closure by the end of 2008 despite being the only stand alone full-time information support service for migrants in the south east (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26631/08]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 796: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the information and support unit in Mount Sion, Waterford faces closure due to a decision by Pobal not to grant European Refugee Fund nor European Integration Fund support to the ISU; if his further attention has been drawn to the work of the ISU; his views on whether the closure of this unit will negatively impact on asylum seekers and refugees; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26640/08]

Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 786 and 796 together.

The project to which the questions refer was the subject of applications for assistance from the European Refugee Fund (ERF) and the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals (EIF). Pobal is the delegated authority administering these Funds for the purpose of the Decisions establishing them. In that capacity, Pobal sought applications for proposals for funding, through an open call for proposals, from the voluntary/NGO sector and partnership companies and evaluated and took decisions on the applications received. Pobal assessed the applications according to a number of published criteria which had been made available to applicants during the application process. The project in question was unsuccessful in the applications to both Funds.

The decision on the ERF application, but not the EIF application, was appealed by the promoters of the project. The appeals process involves a new assessment by a reviewer in Pobal who was not involved in the original decision and did not have access to the original appraisal prior to completion of the review. The applicant was unsuccessful in the review.

It is likely there will be further calls for proposals in respect of these Funds in the coming months. This will allow this applicant and other unsuccessful groups an opportunity to re-evaluate their proposals and submit new applications if they wish.

I am satisfied that Pobal has followed a fair and transparent process in the management of these Funds. It would not be appropriate for me to seek to change their decision on individual applications and this would be inequitable both to the successful and unsuccessful applicants.