Results 401-420 of 506 for speaker:Joe Neville

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: When we meet with them, we will be able to go through a job description. When somebody keeps the same salary as the CEO, it would indicate that it should be a very senior role. If it is not, it obviously creates more questions. It is important that Mr. McCarthy has raised it because, as he has said, when it is somebody in a very senior position, it has to be called out and questioned....

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: Was the €250,000 loss and the inability to claim it due to failure in process?

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: The contractor one there was very interesting, I think it was the pre-hospital emergency-----

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: There would be employer's PRSI. Did it pay any other taxes on behalf of the people?

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: That would be the individual liabilities for those contractors. Those contractors were paid a certain way, and because they were redesignated as employees, there were additional costs which obviously would have gone to the contractors but instead the State had to pay them. Is that correct?

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: So the State had to pay an additional bill. If it had been done correctly, it would have paid them correctly and would not have been in that situation. There was obviously a major significant error.

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: I do not want to bury the lead. The most material number there is probably the €107 million for the national paediatric hospital. We can talk about the €250,000 and the €800,000, but that is the number that jumps off the page.

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: Will we be able to go through those individual circumstances?

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: That will provide us with an opportunity to go through that in detail.

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: Yes. I have been in business and we have had a lot of contracts. I have never made the mistake where we have contractors who turn out to be employees and were treated in one way. That would also indicate a large failure in process, procedure and how things are dealt with. It is one thing to have to pay the extra tax. Is that PRSI?

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: I ask for clarity on that. Are we just moving on?

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: Sorry, I thought we were moving on to No. 91. Apologies. Just mark me down.

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: I have a follow-up question to Deputy Geoghehan’s point. On the impairment, in fairness to Deputy Geoghehan's point, in 2010, the value of that property would have been far less than it was in 2006. I completely get it and I completely agree, as I know what has happened in the property market, from a business perspective, since Covid. At the same time, however, it seems like an...

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: They would have fallen much quicker with regard to 2006, let us be honest.

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: I know, but in 2010, it was also extraordinary.

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: I just want to raise-----

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: That is no problem.

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: On the Arts Council, one thing that shocked me as well - Deputy Geoghegan alluded to this - was the constant review of the project. Ultimately, the annual report states why the council scrapped it in the end, which is a fascinating few lines: "Rationale for the decision included lower implementation cost being €1.5m as distinct from a further €5.3m required for the...

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: My apologies, I will get used to it. On Sport Ireland, as Deputy Farrelly alluded to, was it simply the case that money was put aside but the issue was the mechanism for distributing the funding? Was it to reduce energy prices when the energy prices were really high? Was the funding there but the delivery mechanism to get it back out to the clubs was not effective and ultimately the...

Written Answers — Department of Housing, Planning, and Local Government: Urban Development (15 May 2025)

Joe Neville: 24. To ask the Minister for Housing, Planning, and Local Government when the next tranche of funding will be released in order to facilitate the necessary second bridge in Celbridge under the NDP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16235/25]