Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Friday, 18 August 2017

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport

Report into Ticketing at Rio Olympic Games: Discussion (Resumed)

9:00 am

Photo of Imelda MunsterImelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

When the ticket controversy or scandal first came to light, the Minister flew to Rio de Janeiro to meet the president of the Olympic Council of Ireland, Mr. Pat Hickey. I understand Mr. Hickey refused point-blank a request by the Minister to have an independent figure appointed to the OCI's investigative panel. Did this refusal not cause alarm bells to ring for the Minister? It should be borne in mind that the meeting between Mr. Hickey and the Minister took place prior to the arrests and, as such, self-incrimination was not a factor. Surely Mr. Hickey's refusal to accede to the Minister's request was an indication of the unwillingness, reluctance and perhaps even resistance the Minister would face subsequently.

With this in mind, it should be noted that the Minister opted to establish a non-statutory inquiry and spurned requests from me and others to establish a statutory inquiry. The reasons he cited for establishing a non-statutory inquiry were that it would take 12 weeks to complete and generate less cost for taxpayers. He also expressed confidence that all parties would engage with the inquiry. None of these assumptions proved correct. The 12-week timeframe turned into nine months; only one of the six parties engaged with the inquiry and the investigation cost taxpayers more than €300,000.

I mean no disrespect to Mr. Justice Moran, but his report delivered very little that was additional to what we already knew regarding the events in Rio de Janeiro. The Deloitte report which preceded Mr. Justice Moran's report stated there was serious dysfunction in the Olympic Council of Ireland, including a lack of good governance and ethics. Mr. Justice Moran's report referred to poor record-keeping, particularly of payments. We have two reports, but we are back to square one because no progress has been made and the inquiry did not deliver what we had hoped it would. The main reason, according to Mr. Justice Moran, was the failure of witnesses to engage voluntarily which presented a major impediment to his inquiry. He added that this failure substantially undermined the ability of the inquiry to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the facts. With all of this in mind, does the Minister accept that the report provides a basis for further investigation?

One would expect any organisation in receipt of State funding to be subject to basic oversight. What oversight does the Department have of organisations in receipt of State funding, including the Olympic Council of Ireland?

The events we are discussing took place in 2016. The Minister expressed confidence in the new board of the OCI, which is fair enough, given that we all want the organisation to be completely reformed and overhauled. However, I am cautious in that regard, given that the Minister's confidence that the relevant parties would engage with the inquiry proved to be misplaced.

While the Minister can express confidence, is it not more a case of hope that reform will be delivered? Did the Minister ask the Olympic Council of Ireland for a timeframe for delivering that reform or did the council suggest a timeframe? Has a timeframe been given?

Again, the question comes back to this inquiry. I know the Minister has been scathing in his condemnation of the lack of oversight and accountability within the OCI, and rightly so. It comes back to this inquiry. This inquiry did not even have the means to discover that The Hospitality Group still had the contract to 2026. That in itself shows us just how limited the scope of the inquiry was. Are we back to square one now? If the contract cannot be overturned legally, that culture will still exist. I realise the council is seeking legal advice at the moment. Does the Minister believe it is plausible to say that no one on the executive knew that contract was in place, that no one asked whether a second signature was required and that no one was informed? How it is plausible to say that the only person who knew about it and who engaged in it was Pat Hickey? Does the Minister have any information on that?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.