Brendan Griffin (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

716. To ask the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the reason a community child care facility capital funding application (details supplied) in County Kerry was unsuccessful in 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32046/15]

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A total of €7 million was made available under the Early Years Capital Programme in 2015. €5 million of the grant funding was made available specifically for community/not for profit childcare services while the other €2 million was made available to both private and community/not for profit childcare facilities to access grants for quality improvement measures, specifically in the area of upgrading IT facilities.

Under the criteria of this Programme, projects must be completed, and grant funds fully reported, by December 2015. As such, the “readiness” of a project to proceed, and be completed within the timeframe, was a major consideration when the applications were being reviewed. Applicants that could best demonstrate “readiness” were those that:

a)had obtained full planning permission, or could demonstrate that planning was not required;

b)had completed an appropriate tendering process where tenders were still in date and valid; and

c)had confirmation that the project could be completed within the timeframe available.

Applications that were successful were those that represented the most complete, coherent, precise and compelling cases for funding. The investment is being directed, to the best extent possible, to making the greatest impact by addressing the most urgent works and supporting the quality of services making the greatest impact for disadvantaged children and communities.

Pobal, who administers the Programme on behalf of my Department has responsibility for evaluating each application against the Programmes criteria. Pobal has informed my Department that while the need for a new service was justified in this case, on an overall basis, the applicants did not demonstrate that this proposal was the best option for addressing the need. The group's application fell below the threshold for the following reasons:-

1. The scale of the project proposed was not justified;

2. Value for money was difficult to assess as there was not a clear rationale for costings provided. In comparison to similar rural type applications, the amount requested was well over other applications where the costings were based on a clear rationale; and

3. It was noted that rock excavation may be required to prepare the site. The vagueness of the costings and the length of time it would take to carry out a full procurement process were matters of concern in terms of the readiness of this proposal as well as value for money

There is provision under the Programme for a service not approved for funding under the Programme to appeal the decision to Pobal but no appeal was lodged in this case.