Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

My first question is on the issue of State funding for the OCI. The OCI used to rely on Sport Ireland for approximately 30% of its funding. This was taxpayers' money and is currently being withheld, and rightly so. It begs the question, however, of what precisely needs to be done to restart the flow of State funding, not so much for the OCI as for the athletes. There is a possible ambiguity in some of the conditions set down by the Minister today. Yesterday, I understood the Minister to say that the contract with THG for Olympic ticketing up to 2026, which the OCI states is legally watertight, must become history and be sorted out before State funding can come back onto the agenda. Today, however, the Minister has been a bit more general and said the reforms need to be implemented before State funding can recommence. There is not necessarily a contradiction between the two positions but there may be one so can the Minister clarify precisely what conditions the OCI must satisfy before State funding can resume?

My second question is on a detail, although not an unimportant one. Deputy O'Keeffe raised the question of the London games and the Minister said he was not prepared to comment on innuendo, rumour or gossip. However, there are facts in the Moran report about the London games. It states there was a payment of $60,000 - I think it was in US dollars - into the OCI accounts.

The report indicates the board felt this was what was described as a reconciliation payment, or some kind of settling up of accounts between THG and the OCI in the aftermath of the London games regarding tickets. The judge seems to raise a question mark over the figure of $60,000 in that it is a round figure rather than $60,000.05 or $60,000.50, for example. It is exactly €60,000. This poses a question. More significantly, perhaps, it seems from the report that members of the board are unclear as to whether it was a matter of reconciliation after the London games or some kind of downpayment vis-à-visthe deal for Rio 2016. That seems to indicate there are far-from-insignificant sums of money potentially at issue regarding the London games, let alone the Rio games. I would like the Minister to comment on these points.

On the substantive issue being debated, the Minister states the emails are the X factor and that they reveal a lot. I agree with him in significant measure. The emails are very significant. Is it the case, however, that we would not have got the emails if the inquiry had not been put in place? Had the inquiry not been put in place in the fashion it was, would the OCI have handed over the emails in any case? Was it necessary to spend €312,000 to get those emails, which I agree are significant? If the answer is "Yes", which implies we would have got the emails in any case, the report is a damp squib. Five of the six key actors refused to be interviewed and a report that was due to be on the table after 12 weeks practically took a full year to produce. As has been mentioned, the inquiry cost more than €300,000 in taxpayers' money. I would like the Minister to clarify and give his opinion on whether we would or could have got the emails without the inquiry, as established.

I have three other brief points. Could the Minister give his opinion on the idea that the judge should be asked to look into the detail of the arrangement entered into with THG for Olympic ticketing up to 2026 and produce a report on it? We have some details on it. We hope to get more when the OCI representatives come in at 11 a.m. Unless our information on this is greatly enhanced today, there will still be many questions about the arrangement.

I will add my voice to the voices heard at this meeting to indicate I believe there is a serious case for examining the idea of this committee attempting to compel witnesses to attend, although perhaps not the Rio organising committee and the representatives of the IOC. I have an open mind on that but I accept the Minister’s point that it is difficult to get witnesses in from abroad. There is, however, a case for compelling Mr. Pat Hickey to come in here and answer questions. It is outrageous that he has not had to answer questions other than through interviews he has granted in this country. There are important questions to be asked and valuable information to be gleaned if Mr. Hickey can be compelled to appear before this committee.

It is not an easy process. Deputy Munster raised the question of a Part 2 inquiry. There is a possibility or even the likelihood of court action before we would get the man in here. Is it impossible? It is far from impossible and is something that should be seriously explored. I will leave that point aside. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that. I know he has already commented but I would like him to comment on the question of the Houses of the Oireachtas taking that step.

Mr. Justice Moran said that the honorarium was €60,000 a year from 2010 to 2015 so it is a period of six years. The report indicates that the moneys were drawn down in full. That would be €360,000. It was taxed. I think the tax deducted was €184,000, which would leave a lump sum of €176,000. In his statement yesterday, the Minister was quite hard-hitting on this issue. He said that the circumstances of the honorarium to the president also raised serious concerns and that the amount paid to Mr Hickey - €60,000 per annum - was far in excess of what might reasonably have been considered an honorarium, a statement with which I agree. The Minister also said that "indeed, Mr. Justice Moran notes that the payment may have been in breach of the Olympic Council of Ireland's memorandum and articles of association." More light needs to be shone on the question of this honorarium and a few more questions about it need to be asked. Has the Minister any further comments to make about it?