Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I raised a point at the previous meeting regarding the number of top earners represented by the same agent. The correspondence indicates that three of the top ten earners are represented by the same agent, NK Management, which would appear to be a very successful rate if an agency delivers 30% of the high earners.

The fundamental issue that arises is that RTÉ, even in comparison with other semi-State bodies, is unique, in that every household in the country is obliged to pay a charge for the running of that company and that company is also then charged with revealing information that is clearly in the public interest. It is clearly in the public interest when a semi-State body has to make a voluntary contribution to the Revenue Commissioners because its policies were in breach of the law. That is when a contribution and a payment have to be made to Revenue.

The difficulty is that the very people who would normally expose and investigate this work for the company involved and, therefore, there is an impetus and an obligation on RTÉ to be more upfront than any other body in disclosing the exact nature of the payment. The question we put was: how much has it already paid to Revenue? That does not impede ongoing discussions RTÉ is having with either Revenue or with the Department of Social Protection. It is to outline how much has already been expended. As Deputy Munster said, it took quite a number of different questions - and it was the Chair who eventually put the wording in such a way that RTÉ had to respond - to find out that this payment had actually been made. When I further pressed RTÉ on how much that payment was, the response was that the information was not to hand. The piece of paper with the figure on it was not available during that hearing. It now transpires RTÉ had no intention of divulging that information if it could avoid it.

The correspondence states that RTÉ made a voluntary qualifying disclosure to Revenue in respect of the engagement of contractors and that under the terms of this disclosure, the details are not made publicly available. We know that. If the details were made publicly available, we would not have to ask for them. In my view, it is unacceptable that RTÉ would hide behind a disclosure provision that information not be made publicly available. I agree with Deputy Munster's proposal that the committee correspond with Revenue on the general position. Anybody who is knowledgeable in this area knows that if somebody makes a payment to Revenue, it will not publish the details in that regard, but it will not object to somebody else publishing them. That is the course these matters take.

To maintain its integrity and reputation and its ability to investigate and challenge others, RTÉ has an obligation to publish this information as a matter of urgency and without undue delay. I suggest that the committee, in its correspondence with RTÉ, outline in the strongest possible terms the committee's dissatisfaction that this figure has not been outlined as of yet and to ask for a timeframe as to when it will be disclosed.