Results 2,961-2,980 of 15,555 for speaker:Eoghan Murphy
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: Rehab did not respond to it.
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: Perhaps the Department wants to respond on this. Ms Kerins responded to it in a letter. Is the response Ms Kerins talks about the response in question? The Department stated, in respect of the audit report, that it should be noted that it was not possible to fully conclude the internal audit process as the management response to the audit findings and recommendations sought from Rehab as a...
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: Yes.
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: May I ask the Department of Justice and Equality about that?
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: The question of why the meeting that Ms Kerins sought was not facilitated.
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: There was no dispute on the findings from the internal audit report between the Department of Justice and Equality and Rehab?
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: Does Ms Kerins agree?
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: I find it interesting because when one looks at the letter Rehab wrote to the Department of Justice and Equality on 23 August 2012, Ms Kerins makes that point very forcibly. It is a scheme of compensation that Rehab receives because competition in the market has been altered by Government legislation. However, when one looks at something like the document from the Department of Finance in...
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: They talk about its being provided in accordance with the terms of the scheme. In Ms Kerins's letter to the Department of Justice and Equality, she says there is not an Exchequer grant to organisations to provide services but according to the Department of Finance it is a grant scheme. Ms Kerins says it is not appropriate for the Department of Justice and Equality to seek to influence the...
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: It was not a completely free environment, however. I accept that it is a compensatory scheme, but it is a grant given by the Department with conditions. Does Ms Kerins accept that?
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: Too broad?
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: According to the Department of Finance document from 2004 that Ms Kerins brought in to us, the conditions of the scheme stipulate that any funding provided under the scheme must be spent on the charitable activities of the organisation and cannot be used for administrative purposes. Ms Kerins said it was a very broad interpretation of the administrative purpose definition because it was not...
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: By the Department of Finance previously.
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: Ms Kerins's view was that the money was being spent appropriately even within the terms of what constitutes administrative costs. The first time that was flagged with her was in the internal audit report in 2012 from the Department of Justice and Equality, following which she wrote back to that Department saying, in effect, "We have a different view of what you're saying, and we'd like to...
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: I want to go back to the Department of Justice and Equality on this point. Was it Mr. Purcell's view that because the scheme was being wound down it was pointless to complete the audit process?
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: When did the litigation commence?
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: The request for a meeting came in a letter from Rehab in August 2012.
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: Is it the case that once litigation was initiated, the Department felt it could not sit down and meet Rehab?
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: However, the Department did not communicate this to Rehab.
- Public Accounts Committee: Payments to Section 39 Companies: Discussion (27 Feb 2014)
Eoghan Murphy: The October letter prompted the litigation. When Rehab was informed the scheme was being wound down, it decided it needed to fight it.