Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Thursday, 12 October 2023
Public Accounts Committee
Appropriation and Expenditure of Public Moneys by RTÉ (Resumed): Discussion
9:30 am
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome the witnesses. I remind all those in attendance to make sure their mobile phones are switched off or on silent mode. Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. This means that the witnesses have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure it is not abused. Therefore, if the witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.
Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable, or otherwise to engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply.
Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 218 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government, or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policies. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Furthermore, it is not the role of this committee to make findings of fact about a person who is not a member of the Oireachtas that could impinge their good name or reputation. I ask committee members to be mindful of this in their examination of the issues, and in their questions this morning.
We are joined from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General by Ms Colette Drinan, secretary and director of audit. Ms Drinan is deputising for the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee but who is unavoidably absent. This morning, we will once more engage with Raidió Teilifís Éireann and officials from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media to examine the following: matters relating to the appropriation of public moneys to RT and the expenditure by RT of such public moneys; and the commercial arrangements entered into by RT and its presenters, including those underwritten by RT that have impacted on and relate to the expenditure of public moneys. The committee intends to seek clarification on relevant matters including but not limited to: matters arising from the meetings with RT on 29 June 2023 and 13 July 2023; matters arising from documentation received from RT; and matters arising from the committee's meeting with Mr. Ryan Tubridy and Mr. Noel Kelly on 11 July 2023.
We are joined from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media by Ms Katherine Licken, Secretary General; Ms Triona Quill, assistant secretary; and Mr. Stephen Ryan, principal officer; and from RT by Mr. Kevin Bakhurst, director general; Mr. Adrian Lynch, director of audience, channels and marketing; Mr. Conor Mullen, head of strategy and commercial compliance; Ms Eimear Cusack, director of human resources; Mr. Mike Fives, group financial controller; and Ms Paula Mullooly, director of legal affairs.
Before we move to the opening statements, I note that several other individuals were invited to attend today's meeting but either declined or are unable to attend. The committee has received responses from Ms Breda O'Keeffe, the former chief financial officer, and Ms Geraldine O'Leary, the former director of commercial, declining the committee's invitation to attend today's meeting. Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh, chair of the board of RT, and Ms Anne O’Leary, a member of the board, have informed us that they are out of the country at the moment and are unable to attend. The committee has also been informed by Ms Dee Forbes that she is unable to attend today's meeting.
I call the RT director general, Mr. Bakhurst, to make his opening statement.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
I thank the committee for the invitation to attend today. It has been a number of weeks since we last met and a lot has happened in that time. I hope the significant number of documents that we have provided to the committee have been helpful.
Recent events have marked a turning point in RT with regard to our standards of governance. We have seen how easily trust can be shaken and we understand the urgency of the job to restore that trust. Since I took office in mid-July, both I and the new leadership team, working with staff across the organisation, have been working to do all we can to expedite the urgent reforms required to restore confidence in RT.
I am pleased to share with the committee some of the reforms that are already in hand. We are working at pace to deliver RT's strategic framework plan to Government by the end of the month. That outline plan will form the basis for consultation with the public, public representatives and staff. It will set out the stall for a better RT, one that is better for audiences and better for Ireland. As we move towards delivery of that outline strategy, the committee should know that the focus on immediate and long-lasting reform remains sharp. As the committee knows, I have appointed the new interim leadership team. Key decisions now come to that full leadership team, not least decisions regarding top presenter contracts. We are now operating with full transparency with the board and we are in the late stages of consultation on the new register of interests and register of external activities, both of which will be key to maintaining perceptions of integrity and impartiality. We have completed one staff survey and have just launched another seeking views and suggestions as to how we can improve our overall governance standards.
We are managing our finances carefully and working to cut costs in the face of declining revenue from the TV licence. Recent initiatives, such as the freeze on recruitment of staff and stopping discretionary spending, alongside deferring some investment in digital and capital projects, have saved several million euro. RT's commercial performance has been good. While cash reserves are solid for the short term, clearly, long-lasting reform of the broken funding system is urgently needed.
RT is fully committed to the many reviews in place. As supplied to the committee, the two Grant Thornton reports regarding the misstatement of earnings to Ryan Tubridy are now concluded. A further two investigations intoToy Show The Musical and the voluntary exit schemes conducted by RT in 2019 and 2021 are nearing completion, and it is hoped to conclude these reports by the end of this month. It is also hoped that the Mazars inquiry into the usage of the barter account within RT and other related matters will be finished by early November. Finally, the work of the other two Government-appointed expert advisory committees on governance and culture and on HR and contractors have commenced, and I have instructed all divisions that their work is to be given full and swift co-operation.
The committee will also have noted that Richard Collins has resigned as chief financial officer, CFO. Due to various legal restrictions, I am not in a position to comment further on that matter but I can assure the committee that I will be moving to advertise for the role of CFO as soon as possible. This will be a priority appointment for the permanent leadership team, alongside the appointment of a new commercial director.
We are grateful that it has been confirmed that RT will receive €16 million from budget 2424. This follows on from the recommendation made by the Future of Media Commission that interim funding would be required pending a proper reform of the licence fee, and we extend thanks to the various Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who have publicly supported the importance of public service media being properly supported and funded. It is critical that the funding of public service media in Ireland is put on a more stable footing. This not only affects RT but also the independent sector, which RT plays a very important role in sustaining and showcasing.
I commend staff across RT on continuing to deliver high-quality programmes and content to very large audiences, including news coverage, investigative journalism, live sport, such as the Rugby World Cup, the record numbers using RT Player and the highly successful new season of “The Late Late Show” with Patrick Kielty. I am determined that RT will be transformed so the public, the Government and our partners can have full confidence in RT and its management. We understand that in order to achieve that, we need to share a compelling and credible plan as to how the organisation must and will change.
As I said, I confirm that RT hopes to provide an outline framework for strategic reform around the end of this month, with a commitment to delivering a more detailed and costed statement of strategy by early next year. A strategic change of this scale requires considerable levels of financial modelling and deliberation. Among the elements being explored is the sale of more of the campus, which is an issue several members expressed an interest in. We are awaiting more up-to-date valuations but early indications are that a complete sale of the Donnybrook campus is unlikely and the repurposing of the current site will not be without challenges and significant cost.
We must rebuild an RT that is trusted and enjoyed, one that is relevant and loved, and one that brings the country together for important national moments and events. Public service content, value for money and trust will be at the heart of a transformed RT. My team and I are committed to the work that is required to deliver that.
Ms Katherine Licken:
Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach agus le comhaltaí an choiste as an deis a thabhairt dom an ráiteas seo a dhéanamh inniu. I thank members for the invitation to this meeting and for the opportunity to make this opening statement.
The Department previously attended a meeting of this committee on 29 June that considered the serious governance issues arising in RT. Shortly after that meeting on 4 July, with the agreement of Government colleagues, the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, commissioned an independent examination of RT. This examination includes two separate and parallel reviews of governance and culture and of contractor fees, human resources and other matters, as well as an investigation by a forensic accountant, namely, Mazars.
The review of governance and culture is being overseen by a three-person expert advisory committee chaired by Professor Niamh Brennan. Its purpose is to assess whether RT’s governance framework and organisational culture is fit for purpose and is in line with best practice. Similarly, the review of contractor fees, HR and other matters is overseen by a three-person expert advisory committee chaired by Brendan McGinty. This review is examining the oversight and mechanisms by which RT engages presenters and contractors, issues arising from the use of short-term employment contract at all levels and employment terms and conditions. The expert advisory committees are being assisted by a consultancy firm procured by the Department, namely, Crowe Advisory Ireland, and a secretariat composed of officials from the Department. I understand that both expert advisory committees have been making good progress and that RT has been co-operating with information requests made to date. The board of RT has established two sub-committees of the board to facilitate the work of the expert advisory committees.
Following a procurement competition, on the 12 July the Minister invoked her powers under section 109(7)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 2009 to appoint a forensic accountant, Mazars, to undertake an examination of the barter and any other off-balance sheet accounts in RT. The terms of reference of the examination specifically require the identification and examination of all transactions made through the RT barter account during the period 2017 to 2022. An interim report from Mazars was shared with this committee and was published by the Minister on the 25 August. This report set out a factual overview of the accounting practices, financial processes and related records in respect of RT’s management of the barter account. The report identified a number of practices and procedures regarding the governance and management of the barter account that were wholly inadequate for a public body.
A second Mazars report is expected to be submitted to the Minister at the end of the November. This report will take account of the detailed examination of all transactions made through the barter account for the period 2017 to 2022 and will also identify and set out the purpose and governance of any other off-balance sheet accounts held by RT.
Last week, the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, announced, on foot of a request from the expert advisory committee on governance and culture, that the terms of reference of Mazars' review would be expanded to include an examination of the origins of the barter account and the role of the then executive board and RT’s board in the governance of the barter account. It will also examine the roles of the internal audit function, the audit and risk committee of the RT board and RT’s external auditor as regards the barter account.
The third Mazars report covering these matters will inform the deliberations of the expert advisory committee on governance and culture and will be published alongside the report of that committee early next year.
The independent reviews commissioned by the Minister are intended to provide an external assessment and set of recommendations that will address the serious issues that have arisen in RT. In so doing, they will be critical to restoring public faith and trust in RT, alongside the measures being undertaken by RT as we speak.
As the Minister stated last week, public service broadcasting is too important for our society not to take this opportunity to ensure that it is fit for purpose. I thank members again for the time given to me to make this statement. I am happy to answer any questions.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Before we move on to committee questions, we acknowledge we received a lot of documentation from Mr. Bakhurst. Some changes are taking place and that is welcome. One important piece of documentation we have not received is the note from the meeting of 7 May 2020. We received a response on that. The first response we got verbally from Ms Paula Mullooly at a previous meeting was that it was legally privileged. I note that has changed since; it comes under client confidentially, in other words, legal advice from a solicitor. The committee feels this is important, particularly in the absence of Ms Dee Forbes’s attendance, because she was at that meeting with Noel Kelly, another person from NK Management and an RT solicitor. In the absence of Dee Forbes, Mr. Kelly gave his version of what happened at that meeting. That was referred to and I have it here in an email from 19 April to RT, with a short reply from RT saying “Thanks very much”. In that, he confirmed that at the meeting, Dee Forbes, on behalf of RT in consideration of the new agreement, said RT guarantees its payments required to be made by Renault under the tripartite agreement and indemnifies Tuttle Productions - that is Ryan Tubridy’s company - in relation to these payments for the duration of the contract. That is simply what we got.
The answers we are getting on this are not satisfactory. We discussed this and the committee is not happy with it. There is obviously more to it than that. Mr. Bakhurst has been open with all of the documentation we have received so far. We are puzzled about this one. I mentioned to Ms Mullooly - as did another member - at a previous meeting that where RT is claiming legal privilege, RT executives have the right to waive that legal privilege. However, we now know it was not legal privilege rather it is client confidentiality. In other words, a solicitor - in this case, an in-house solicitor – was giving advice to a client, staff of RT. However, that cannot be; client confidentiality does not exist here because there were two other people at that meeting who were with RT. We know that now. I ask Mr. Bakhurst to respond to that.
In any case, even if Mr. Bakhurst still claims client confidentiality in regard to legal advice - that is what the notes are about - RT has the right to waive it. Mr. Bakhurst said that recent events marked a turning point and he is operating with full transparency to the board, which I welcome and have raised with him a number of times, as have members. However, we are talking about restoring public confidence. That is the meeting where the deal for the extra €225,000 for the second three-year period was nailed down, if you like. We do not have the notes on that meeting. I ask Mr. Bakhurst to respond to that.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
I heard the Chair raise that this morning as well. First, this has been carefully considered and the Chair will appreciate that RT has taken external legal advice on this over the course of the summer and I have discussed this with Paula Mullooly, who is here. We do want to provide maximum transparency. As seen from the hundreds of documents we provided, we provided the committee with almost everything, bar a couple of documents. This is an important issue, so we have discussed it over the summer.
First, we would also like to hear from Dee Forbes and look forward to her appearing in this committee. If she does not appear here, perhaps she could answer a question in writing to the committee – that is what I suggest. Second, on this document specifically, there is an important issue at play. I am not trying to hide behind legal advice but the Chair will appreciate that as a responsible organisation, if we have taken legal advice about what we can, cannot and should disclose, it would be remiss of us to act against that.
I refer to the principle on this.
I have considered it because, as the committee knows I have said, and I mean it, that I want to provide maximum transparency, except where there are legal constraints. For any organisation in this country to function successfully, it has to be able to take confidential legal advice and have client confidentiality with the legal advice given from a solicitor within the organisation. I know this myself from my previous background at RT when I worked in news and current affairs. We took legal advice on many issues, in particular high-profile investigations when there were other people in the room, not just RT people. My understanding was that did not change the procedure.
RT has always had a position whereby legal advice needs to remain within the organisation and confidential across the piece. It would set a unique precedent if we moved away from that. It is a an important principle for us. I totally understand why the committee is looking for that information. I hope the significant timetable we spent time over the summer setting out for the committee helps to improve understanding, along with the hundreds of extra emails included in that which we provided to the committee. From my point of view, I am afraid this is a really important principle for RT. We have taken our legal advice.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In terms of the legal question, confidentiality only binds the solicitor. The client is in a position to waive that. We have established that about legal privilege. You are saying it is legal advice and that it is covered under client confidentiality. The client is in a position to waive that client confidentiality. There are conflicting versions of what went on. RT claimed that there was no prior agreement regarding the underwriting of the tripartite agreement at board level or among the executives and that Ms Forbes essentially went on a solo run in agreeing to underwrite the tripartite agreement. However, Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly furnished emails to this committee which demonstrate that there was prior agreement in RT to underwrite the tripartite agreement on 28 February and that this underwriting was discussed internally.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The only conclusion we can come to is that there is more in that note than legal advice. It is a record of the meeting.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
It is not a question for me of what is in that legal note. The documents we furnished to the committee give a very clear narrative as to what led to the single meeting where a decision was taken. I come back to the principle that, as an organisation, for me it is extremely important that the advice we get from our solicitors internally remains confidential. I am sorry. That is an important principle for me.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Just to inform you, we have taken legal advice on it as well.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The committee members have taken legal advice and we are of the mind that we will be moving to compel that document-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----as well as all of other information that was provided.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome everybody back after the summer recess. It is the first time the witnesses have been back before the committee. As an opening remark, I am here as an elected representative to represent the public and how public moneys are spent. In that regard, the questions I will ask will require "Yes" or "No" answers or very concise answers. I ask the witnesses to bear in mind that I have 15 minutes on the clock and that they respect that and we co-operate with one another.
Yesterday, we got the news that Mr. Richard Collins has resigned. I wish him well. I had a question, but Mr. Bakhurst confirmed it. Mr. Collins did resign.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In that case, there would not have been any voluntary package, severance or anything being paid to Mr. Collins. Is that correct?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
At the same time, the question is that if it was a resignation there would not be any form of gratuity or voluntary package. It is a resignation. Is that not normal?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. I am not asking Mr. Bakhurst for details. Will Mr. Collins be receiving moneys from RT other than his salary?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I think the public will probably draw their own conclusion and-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Well-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I asked Mr. Bakhurst not to run down the clock. The reality is-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Stop the clock, please.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Allow Mr. Bakhurst to make a brief answer.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Well it does in this case. I asked whether Mr. Collins will receive moneys other than his salary. It is a "Yes" or "No" answer.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
RT is coming to the Government cap in hand, looking for interim funding. I am here as an elected representative - I have already stated this - in order to ascertain whether RT is mending its hand as to what we have seen for the past four months. That is why the question is relevant. It is not personal, even to Mr. Collins. Rather, it is about how RT will spend the money it will receive.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The public can draw their own conclusion, Chair. Mr. Bakhurst will have heard in the budget that RT is getting €16 million. When he appeared before the Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media last month, he said a sum of €34.5 million in interim funding would be required. How much cash does RT have on reserve?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Bakhurst have a figure?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A sum of €68 million at the end of August. How long does RT expect that money to last?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Into when, though?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Can Mr. Fives tell the committee what capital is required monthly to run RT?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If we break that down monthly-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The expenses vary over income.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. At the outset, RT has done an analysis of how long that money should last if it does not get any more money.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are there monthly losses? Are there months where losses are recorded over-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would they be more frequent than profit?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has RT recorded losses up to September?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How much?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That really is not a satisfactory answer. This is the Committee of Public Accounts. Does Mr. Bakhurst know the current loss figure to September 2023? It does not have to be to the euro.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A rough figure, within a million.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The €10 million to €12 million range. Is it correct to say from reports that the overdraft facility or borrowing capacity is €100 million?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How much of that has RT used?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So €65 million. If we add the €12 million to the €65 million, it becomes €77 million. That means that if RT does not make huge profits by the end of the year-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
RT does not have that. It has €68 million, and if we add the €12 million Mr. Fives is talking about in terms of borrowing-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We could go into it whether or not the €65 million that RT has borrowed can be covered, but what I am trying to ascertain is whether have a deficit paying the licence fee since this whole debacle started. The usual annual recorded figure for evasion or non-payment of the licence fee is €65 million. Is that not correct?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
According to the reports and the accounts, it is €65 million annually. I want to know if the €21 million that has been recorded since this started has to be added to that or is part of that.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is not year to date. So now it is really non-payment that equates to €86 million annually.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is going to grow. I heard Mr. Bakhurst say that he does not believe that RT is insolvent.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does he believe it will be insolvent this time next year?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Well, if this trend continues.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When is the cut-off point for receiving that funding? When is the deadline?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Early spring next year.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If you do not get it, do you believe RT will be insolvent?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Pardon?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Did you say "Yes", that you do believe if you do not get the funding-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. That is worrying. It is needed by spring next year.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is, yes. I am going to move on. You discussed documents with the Chair earlier. I have one more question that really requires binary and concise answers. The issue of the €150,000 was discussed at this committee with Mr. Tubridy. Has RT received that money back?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Does RT intend to recoup that money?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, there is a moral imperative. That is what brings me to the initial discussion. You believe that Ryan Tubridy has a moral imperative to return the €150,000. We requested extensive documentation, and I do not discount that. There were hundreds pages in the request. Of the 61 documents that were requested, 24 pieces were partially responded to. As the Chair mentioned earlier, legal privilege was claimed over some of them. You are standing by the fact that RT received legal advice which really has nothing to do with the fact that the documents were not supplied. There is no legal privilege over the documentation, as far as the committee is concerned. We have heard about the spending in RT for the last four months, and it definitely raises issues around the moral compass as far as the public are concerned. Do you believe there is a moral imperative to provide those documents to the committee in order for us to ascertain and make recommendations so that we can retain the public broadcaster?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
I believe I have a moral imperative to do the right thing. I have considered it carefully and I think our position is the right decision. I am afraid that my moral imperative is sometimes not to do what is being demanded by some politicians; it is to take the right decision to maintain the integrity and independence of RT, and that is what I will do.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I think that is kind of contradictory.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Let me tell you what you said. It is taken from a report that was published after you appeared in front of the media committee. You said: "We will continue to explore how we can cut costs and maximise funding of our public services through commercial revenue, whilst also working hard to restore trust in RT." I put it to you that there cannot be any restoration of trust where you are asserting a privilege that the man on the street knows does not exist. It is not relevant to what you are asserting.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If I could finish.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If I could just finish. It indicates, and the perception is, that you have something to hide and something is awry. The very statement that you made referenced restoring trust in RT. There is nothing I would like more than that, but your actions do not reflect your words. That is understood and the public's perception is that you have something to hide. Is it not-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it not better to waive privilege and give confidence to the words that you utter day in, day out - not just here but in the media, and I am reading them every day - by releasing the documents? Your moral compass or obligation to the public would be fulfilled in releasing those documents. We can compel RT to provide them.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
Respectfully, Deputy, we have released thousands of documents. We have been co-operating in every way that is possible with this committee and with other inquiries into RT, but there comes a moment where my responsibility is to the integrity and the editorial integrity of the organisation. I have tried to explain this. We are not hiding anything, but it is important for long-term confidence in RT that we are seen to be independent. Part of that is that we can take confidential legal advice internally on key issues. I apologise if that is the Deputy's interpretation of it.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
You do not need to apologise. I think when you look back at this committee, even you will find that those words are really empty and meaningless. I think everybody else understands that. It is just-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Well, the public-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The thing is, Mr. Bakhurst, you are making a choice. It seems to be one rule for RT and another for Ryan Tubridy. I do not disagree with your pronouncement that he has a moral obligation. I just do not understand how that same moral obligation does not pertain to RT.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not finished-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yet you come in, telling the Government and this committee that if you do not receive interim funding to the tune of €34.5 million, and receive it by next spring, RT will be insolvent. I think the reality is that that is primarily your doing.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Your doing.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Because every public representative believes that it is imperative that as elected representatives they ensure that the moneys are spent properly. RT is hiding documentation. I am not sure who it is that you are trying to protect or what it is that you are trying to protect, but we need the documentation. We are going to compel RT to provide it. All you are actually doing is delaying the committee from carrying out its functions and also bestowing an obligation on, and taking the moral high ground over, Ryan Tubridy by saying he has a moral obligation. It is not the case. I am afraid you cannot really pick and choose, Mr. Bakhurst. I think the public will decipher that for themselves. The same will happen when it comes to seeing the voluntary exit packages.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will let Mr. Bakhurst respond before I bring in Deputy Dillon.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is no response.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
There is a response, because you made a sweeping final statement, Deputy. I am driven by trying to restore trust in RT and make the right decisions for the organisation. We are delivering maximum transparency where we are able to do so without compromising the independence and integrity of the organisation. I am perfectly happy for the court of public opinion to look at the thousands of documents that we have put into the public domain.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I call Deputy Dillon.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Bakhurst, Ryan Tubridy waived privilege over that said meeting. We heard contrary evidence in relation to-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----the voluntary exit-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sorry, Mr. Bakhurst. The voluntary exit package information is required. I understand there is an investigation ongoing, but that information should be before this committee. It is public moneys, no matter how you wish to see it.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Thank you. I call Deputy Dillon.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We said at the initial stages of these hearings that truth matters.
Again, we have always respectfully sought the co-operation of the executives within RT. However, I am concerned after hearing RT's stance today on the release of these important documents. We appreciate everything that has come into the committee but we had concerns about the delay in the publication of documents and also concerns when hundreds of documents were delivered 24 hours before a meeting. To echo what Deputy Verona Murphy and the Chair said, we will compel the production of this document. Currently, the reputation of RT is on the ground and we want to restore public confidence in the organisation. The work of the Oireachtas is central to doing that. We want to support RT. We believe in public service broadcasting, which is rightly so for our democracy and everything that goes with it. It is very important that we establish the facts today, subsequent to further meetings.
In regard to the resignation of the former CFO, Richard Collins, who has been very honourable to this committee, and has come before it, not like others, did RT seek his resignation?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We heard previously revelations about a former CFO and her exit and voluntary package, which certainly gave us grave concern over executive management responsibility in approving such a deal. These are straightforward questions that the public watching today want answers to. Again, did RT seek the resignation of Richard Collins?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Was an exit package agreed with Mr. Collins?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
I am not able to give the details on individuals. Because I want to be able to give maximum transparency, committee members will be aware that we asked for independent external legal advice from Arthur Cox about what we could and could not say about individuals. Committee members will have seen the letter and the comprehensive advice to us about what we can say about individuals. Hopefully, that letter is in the public domain so that others can see it as well. I think that answers the point. It would be remiss of me to go against very clear legal advice.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Could I ask Mr. Bakhurst about the report commissioned for the external review on the voluntary exit package? When can we expect the publication of that report?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
McCann Fitzgerald is carrying out that report. I asked for it by the end of September. They came back to me a couple of weeks before that and said that they had more paperwork to go through than they had expected and they also had some interviews with individuals to carry out and they asked for an extension of several weeks to do that. I said that was disappointing but I wanted the report to be comprehensive and properly done. I am expecting it by the end of October.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
By the end of October.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Without pre-empting the report, has Mr. Bakhurst had any visibility in regard to the facts that have been established?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will move on to the current financial situation within RT. How much borrowing does RT have on its books at present?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What is the statutory limit?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Given the current financial situation whereby RT has €68 million in cash reserves, has Mr. Fives established that this will run out in early 2024?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How does Mr. Bakhurst intend to find the €21 million over the next eight months to make up for the licence shortfall?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
We have already started work. We are looking at the options of how we will try to close that gap. There are going to be some tough decisions about that. We will have to stop investment on some significant projects, digital and other projects, and stop some capital investment. We will have to keep a careful lid on the amount of recruitment we can do. We will also have to keep a careful lid on discretionary spend. There will inevitably cuts to some content areas.
One of the things that concerns me is our ability to carry on investing in independent productions because that is one of the few tools we have at our disposal, among other things. That is an area I do not want to cut back. I will try to manage that as carefully as possible because that is really important to the whole of the creative sector in Ireland.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When will Mr. Bakhurst deliver the strategic vision?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will that provide options to the Government in regard to funding?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
We are not looking at the funding, what we are looking at it is the future direction and strategic vision for RT, and putting a clear financial framework around that but we are not looking to provide options. The Minister has made it clear that she is not expecting options; she is expecting us to give a clear vision.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
But she is also expecting that RT will have genuine cost-saving measures and cost efficiencies.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
Yes, and the objective of this is that we drive costs out from within RT. We make it a leaner and more effective organisation. Therefore, we can spend more on the independent sector and on the content we are delivering to audiences, but at the heart of it is that we drive out costs from within the organisation.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Could I ask the Secretary General of the Department how concerned she is in regard to the financial situation facing RT?
Ms Katherine Licken:
Naturally we are very concerned about the financial situation facing RT. There has been a dramatic decline in licence fee income since this whole issue emerged. Having said that, there was a decline in licence fee income even before this matter emerged, and that is why the Minister set up the Future of Media Commission to look at the future of media generally but also particularly public service broadcasting. It made 50 recommendations in that regard. We are very concerned and that is why we asked NewERA to look at the financial situation.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How closely does the Department work with RT on financial management and budgetary management?
Ms Katherine Licken:
We work very closely with RT but we do not look at individual transactions. That is not our role. NewERA is formally assigned to the Department as an adviser to it on RT's finances but it has been working with us for several years. We meet RT regularly. We look at its cashflows and its profit and loss account. NewERA does an analysis of that. NewERA did an analysis last year, for example, on the interim funding request and did it again.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms Licken has listened to Mr. Bakhurst speak on the strategic vision. What does she want to see in it?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms Licken is the Accounting Officer. Ultimately, it will be her decision along with the Minister on the Revised Estimates.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
But Ms Licken will sign off on the financial accounts in regard to this. What does she want to see within the strategic vision to give her and the Minister confidence?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
But RT is coming to Ms Licken, cap in hand, in regard to a bailout.
Ms Katherine Licken:
We expect RT to show cost savings and we expect it to follow those cost savings if additional funding is required, but we will not dictate what the cost savings will be. The Minister has made it clear that she will not dictate either what the strategy will be. It is up to RT to come up with a strategy, show the cost savings and, critically, also show the governance reform that is needed. RT has done a lot to date on governance reform. They are all the elements that we want to see in order to be able to stand over the strategic review. We will advise the Minister in conjunction with NewERA on any recommendation in regard to additional funding.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What percentage of the annual financial budget goes on salary and wages?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Mr. Bakhurst staring down the barrel of compulsory redundancies if he is really looking for cost-saving measures?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
No, we are not. I think I have made it clear. I was asked about this at a staff meeting yesterday and I said we are not looking at compulsory redundancies. Even if we wanted to go down that route, which I do not, we would need political sign-off from the Department. I think the Taoiseach and the Minister have both made it clear that there is no appetite for that.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for being here. Many people might be asking if we are going over old ground and if we do not know this already. I have said previously that the Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media has a separate remit and function to us. We have a specific remit from the Dáil to draft a report, document what happened and make recommendations on procedures.
It is procedures that I want to focus on because either of two things happened. Either procedures were absent or they were overridden. Going forward with the operation of RT, it is important that this is documented and recommendations are made, and that RT responds to that. That is why the note of May 2020 is so crucial. RT is relying on a defence that Dee Forbes alone was the person who knew all of the pieces of the picture. The evidence that RT has given before the committee is that: the CFO knew of the tripartite agreement but not of the details; Ms O'Leary knew of the credit note but not that this formed part of salary negotiations; and Ms Mullooly said she did not know of the indemnity issue until 2021. The evidence reflects the argument that only one person knew all of these details and without that person coming here, it is quite difficult for us to put a report together. The note of that meeting should support RT's argument that Dee Forbes was the only person who knew, or it would prove otherwise. The absence of that note is important from our perspective because it backs up RT's case or it does not. The absence of providing that note appears to undermine RT's assertion.
RT has been forthcoming with documentation but this document goes to the credibility of the case of RT that only one person had all of the pieces of information. Was the indemnity, which RT has relied on as a key component, known much earlier? That is important for the committee to know. I ask RT to reflect again on the reasons we want the document and on it RT will not provide it. While there are other risks to RT providing that document, including litigation risks and so on, there is also a risk to RT's credibility and the credibility of the answers of its representatives before this committee. That is why we want it and I will not restate the case that other members have made.
I want to come back to procedures and so on. On the raising of credit notes, were there procedures at the time that approved the raising of credit notes and who was responsible for raising credit notes?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Solely responsible?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Given that we have discovered that the raising of the credit note created the cost-neutral element of it, does Mr. Fives accept that a single person signing off on a credit note is not a robust procedure?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has RT made any changes to those procedures?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How many people sign off on it and how is that done?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That was my next question.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Let me get to that. The first issue is the raising of the credit note. The second question is the issue of RT providing indemnity, and I imagine that providing an indemnity always comes with a cost. Who signs off on an indemnity within RT? Was there a procedure for doing that at the time?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The business division is, therefore, empowered to provide an indemnity on behalf of RT.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Ms Mullooly believe that is a robust enough procedure, given that in this case the business division provided the indemnity and other people should have known about what happened?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Surely the failure here was that the broader management team was not aware of all of the pieces? That is RT's argument. When RT provides an indemnity, at the moment that could be provided by the business division and it may be escalated. Are there any procedures for this? An indemnity of €1 million or €2 million could be provided on that basis.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Ms Mullooly accept that as part of procedures and so on, provision of an indemnity was the key reason the additional two payments had to be made, which is RT's case? If that is-----
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is also provision because if it is not given then you do not need to know about it.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My question is as follows: have there been any changes in procedures for the provision of indemnities? I am not hearing that there have been.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Again I think RT should reflect on that.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
The indemnity was around the employment contract of a presenter in this case. There are completely new procedures in place for contracts for presenters, namely, they have to come to the full leadership team now and not be decided by one or two members or by the director general on his or her own. Second, there is oversight from the board remuneration committee on any new contracts for presenters. If this was part of a contract for a presenter-----
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will correct Mr. Bakhurst. It was not in the form of an employment contract; that is the whole problem. It was in the form of a separate commercial agreement that was underwritten.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That brings me to my third question. In the provision of side letters to commercial contracts, surely they would form part of a single file and all of those would be brought to the senior management team. Is that procedure now in place? Are all commercial contracts brought to the senior management team, where previously it was the executive committee?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, that is not the question. The question was about all commercial agreements. Do not forget that the tripartite agreement was a commercial agreement.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If, in the morning, RT facilitated tripartite agreements for all of its top ten presenters-----
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No. If, in the morning, individuals in RT created tripartite agreements for every one of its top ten presenters, that document and any side letters would not necessarily be brought to the senior management team.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My question is if all side letters and the legal contracts should be treated as one bundle. Is that the case now?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The next point relates to the signature and the finalisation of contracts. There were wholly unacceptable practices here where contracts were agreed and then signatures were only applied much later. Were procedures in place that related to following up on signatures of contracts or completion of contractual arrangements? Who within RT would have been responsible for that?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My question was as follows: was that a breach of existing procedures or an absence of procedure?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I take it that RT has put in place measures relating to the barter account such that more than one person or division must sign off on spending and so on and that there will not be-----
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am running out of time so I want to rush on to the following issue. There has been a genuine attempt to protect more junior members of staff from having their names released and so on, yet there are times and occasions when more junior members of staff were aware of key facts and that information may not have been scaled up and so on. The legal note and the preparation of same at that meeting were an example of a situation where key discussions took place, yet that information was not scaled up. Because the director general was present, it was felt that if the director general knew, then all of the senior management team should have known. Where the director general can act in a solo manner, are there procedures in place so that junior staff members will report to their line managers about commitments that are made when they are at meetings? Again that seems to be one of the key failures. If the director general wanted to go rogue - and I am not suggesting that she did - surely there were checks in place where other departmental members, albeit not the senior people, were present at meetings?
Ms Paula Mullooly:
The giving of the indemnity was within capacity of the director general. There is no question of her having done something outside of her remit in giving the indemnity. The Deputy might agree or disagree with that approach but it was entirely within her remit in the office of the director general.
On the issue of junior members of staff, there are plenty of procedures in place where people behave wrongly. They can bring that information to the appropriate person
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I previously asked Mr. Kelly about his knowledge of the assets account. He consistently said in his evidence that he was not aware of the assets account at the time. The witnesses have provided us with evidence about an additional invoice from CMS for the Chernobyl lunch. It should be noted that the invoice was made in January 2023, whereas the "at the time" reference of Mr. Kelly was in 2022. Do the witnesses concur with that assessment of the timeline? In his evidence Mr. Kelly said that at that time he did not know who assets were, or that is in no way diluted by the knowledge of assets in 2023. Is that a fair assessment?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a list of questions that I do not want answered now. Please note them and respond by next week. Please do not respond at 11 o'clock the night before. I would appreciate answers in a reasonably time.
People have been in touch with me from RT and I have concerns about what they told me. The first set of questions is for the Department. I want to know the following by next Wednesday: on 21 June, the director general was suspended. When was the Department notified of that, by whom and in what manner? When was the Minister informed, by whom and in what manner? Please do not provide a generic answer. I want the questions answered specifically in the order I ask.
The director general resigned on 29 June. Who in the Department was told about that, by whom in RT and in what manner? When was the Minister told this, by whom and in what manner?
Regarding the Tubridy payments, I ask the same question. When was the Department first told about this, by whom and in what manner? When was the Minister first told this, by whom and in what manner?
My colleagues outlined the issues relating to Mr. Collins resigning pretty well and we can all draw our own conclusions. They are pretty obvious.
My next question is about the minutes of the executive board for the past five years. I asked for these but they have not been provided. You said you had to redact them. You have had four and half months to do so. Can we have them all by next Wednesday, please?
You said there was no gifts register since 2017, which I find absolutely amazing. Will you please write to all employees of RT asking them about gifts from 2017 to now, because the claim that there is no gifts register in RT is beyond comprehension?
I asked the question myself regarding flagship shows in the past five years and how many times RT presenters, or people working for, or paid by, RT, appeared on such shows. You said that it was too difficult to provide that information, which is complete rubbish. The question applies to Friday and Saturday night, more or less. Can that information be provided please because I want it audited? The public wants it audited to see how this cosy relationship has manifested itself and how it is going to change and if it is changing. This is a big issue for the public.
A freeze on employment been announced. Are there two freelancers working on "The Late Late Show" corresponding with other people doing the same jobs? This may or may not be accurate. Please answer if it is and, if so, why
On the subject of Toy Show The Musical, there is a review into this. I respect that. I do not blame RT for trying things. However, the amount put into this was absolutely ridiculous. What are the producers of the show doing now?
I want to address the issue of the MS Teams meeting and the famous tripartite document. I have taken a different angle and I agree with all my colleagues. This is a really serious moment for Mr. Bakhurst. Does Ms Licken believe that RT should provide the Committee of Public Accounts with that document?
Ms Katherine Licken:
The Minister has encouraged RT to be as open as possible with both committees. It has done so and has provided a plethora of documents, as everybody has acknowledged. I think RT has to make decisions, having regard to all factors, financial, legal and operational. I cannot second-guess it on that.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms Licken is proposing that the Minister believes the organisation should be as open as possible.
I came to this meeting with an open mind. To be fair, up to now, Mr. Bakhurst has done a reasonably good job. However, this is a pivotal moment for him. In the past hour, I have changed my stance on the basis of the response Mr. Bakhurst gave this morning to the Chair at the very end of the contribution. The Chair said he would compel this document and we have articulated why it is so important. Mr. Bakhurst said, "We will stand ready for that." That is too confrontational. The second thing Mr. Bakhurst said is that he would like to see our legal advice. This is not a two-way relationship. It is a two-way relationship in that we should be courteous, respect and support each other. However, it is not a two-way relationship in the sense that Mr. Bakhurst gets to see our legal advice. He does not because this is the Oireachtas. We are the elected representatives. We are the people who vote to decide whether we give you money. The taxpayers are watching this so Mr. Bakhurst does not get to see our legal advice. He should withdraw that comment. This is a pivotal moment for him. There is a moral issue here, which my colleagues have articulated better than I can. If we end up in a scenario whereby we have to compel this and it could end up in the courts, Mr. Bakhurst's position will not be tenable. I am sorry; I actually think he had been doing a good job up until now. We are taking a break soon. We are taking a break soon; he needs to reflect during the break. I do not believe in a scenario where he should be in and out of this committee every couple of months. I actually wanted it to end today, but it cannot end until this note is provided. The worries and concerns of this committee and the people watching are so serious that if Mr. Bakhurst does not provide this note, he, Mr Lynch and others will have serious issues into the future
Mr. Bakhurst can respond to that and the next question. I want a breakdown of the roles where people were given voluntary redundancy. Even with the legal advice that he has been given, I believe he can do that for us. I read the legal advice last night and I find it ridiculous. We are all paid by the taxpayer. The people of County Tipperary elect me and they are my bosses but I am paid by the Oireachtas. Can I go to my Oireachtas and ask that what I am paid not be made public? That does not wash
On 29 June, the chairperson said she would provide the salaries of the top 100 earners in RT. I have bad news for Mr. Bakhurst. He reports to the chairperson. She is the most senior person in the organisation. She made a commitment to the committee that she would provide that information. Nothing outranks that. Mr. Bakhurst does not outrank it and any information he gives us subsequently does not outrank that, and she has not withdrawn that. That information has to be provided.
I would like Mr. Bakhurst to respond to the very serious issues regarding the tripartite agreement, the salaries and the pensions.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
On the document, I have heard what the Deputy has to say. I have full respect for this committee and for the Oireachtas. I also have a responsibility to lead this organisation and to maintain its integrity and independence going forward.
That is ultimately my responsibility and I am answerable to the board for that. I fully respect the committee. We have spent a significant amount of the summer furnishing thousands of documents to this and other committees. We are not being obstructive but as co-operative as we can. We have discussed this at length. It is a point of principle. I do not think I have anything more to say on that.
On the top 100 salaries, we have published them without names, following legal advice, which members will have seen in the Arthur Cox letter. We published the salaries and types of jobs of those people. I am happy to talk to the chair about it again but-----
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is the chair’s position. Sorry, but she outranks you. She committed to it and it has not been provided.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
She made the commitment. That has not been overridden.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As it stands four months later, the information from the chair has not been provided.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
You know what I am saying.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I did not make the commitment; the chair made it.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The committee’s record is what it is.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There was the third one on pensions.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Bakhurst told us the volume of people who got voluntary redundancies under the two packages but he never provided the roles, names or anything.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We asked previously, so can you at least provide the roles?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
We will go away and look for what is asked for. Can I ask one thing about the list of information sought? Some of it is very significant and goes back many years, particularly if we are to ask staff for details going back to 2017. I am happy to do it but maybe we can discuss the exact timetable because it involves-----
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The only one of significance, going back, is the executive minutes, which RT has had four and a half months to provide.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The committee is trying to put a picture together. There are people unable to attend and some are refusing to attend. That is part of the reason that document is so central. We are united on that in the committee.
Between the Department and RT, quite a lot of money is being spent on outside agencies to inquire into what happened. The Grant Thornton report of 16 June says that on 9 May and 16 July, "the Talent’s Agent raised invoices of €75,000 each with the Barter Company" and that “On the balance of probabilities, the description on the invoices, 'Consultancy Fees' did not reflect the substance of the transactions”. It went on to say: “On the balance of probabilities these two invoices [referred to] 'Consultancy Fees' related to Year 2 and Year 3 of the Talents contract...”.
We subsequently got documents from Ryan Tubridy and his agent and saw the instructions given by Geraldine O’Leary to the agent:
Do not put any person's name on the Invoice. If he sends It back to me I will then sort everything else out.
It said the company name to be put on the invoice was Astus, the address to be put on the invoice and so on. I asked one of the people who has refused to attend today, Geraldine O’Leary, when she was in before if anything had been raised with her about these invoices in 2022. She said: “No, the issue [only] came up in March of this year, in 2023.” I said:
So Ms O'Leary is saying, categorically, that nothing was raised with her last year in relation to this invoice. She is absolutely categoric about that.
She said, “Yes.” Then I asked what she told the staff to do when they asked her what the consultancy services were for, and it goes on. The transcript is available. Before Geraldine O’Leary departed RT, did Mr. Bakhurst interview her about her exact role in all this? Has she co-operated with the various inquiries taking place?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
I can answer part of that. It was just after I arrived that she left. Mr. Lynch can possibly answer about what she was asked at the time. She made it clear in her letter to this committee - I am not sure if it has been published or not – when she said she was not coming today. She has said she will answer any questions in writing. She continues to be happy to answer questions in writing despite having left the organisation and retired. My experience has been she has co-operated fully throughout and is-----
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The information we were subsequently given is completely at odds with what she told me. We will have to reflect that in our report. We may well have further contact with her.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is no doubt but this was raised with her.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Geraldine O'Leary was invited to attend today and chose not to attend.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
She refused to attend.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When you come in here, people expect people to be truthful. They expect candour. I asked a specific question and got a categoric answer. We see from the documentation provided that that did not transpire to be true.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Breda O’Keeffe did not attend when invited to a previous Committee of Public Accounts session. She has never attended and has refused to attend this committee. She is a central figure. There are no two ways about it. All of the documentation shows that. We are trying to find out who knew what and when. I am using the documents sent to us by Mr. Kelly and Mr. Tubridy, which state:
To our surprise, Ms O’Keeffe told the committee last week that when she left RT in March there was no support to provide that type of guarantee and no such guarantee was on offer. [But] she had written to us making exactly that offer one month earlier.
That is the 20 February document we have, which goes through it in great detail. Then we have the side letter from Dee Forbes on the agreement between Tuttle Productions Limited and RT. That is March 2020. She did not turn up at the committee. Mr. Kelly's written statement notes it was not challenged by people and that he was surprised because:
on the 30th of June, 4 days before they appeared at the Media Committee - we wrote to RTE and highlighted the significance of Ms. O’Keeffe’s email.
Nobody disputed that.
Her email also cast new light on the contribution of Adrian Lynch, Deputy Director General... Mr. Lynch told the Committee agreement to ... underwrite the contract was given verbally on ...Zoom...
There are a lot of documents before that. Has Mr. Lynch reviewed those documents since they were provided by Mr. Tubridy and his agent?
Is Mr. Lynch's recollection now different to what it was then?
Mr. Adrian Lynch:
We provided a very detailed chronology to this committee, with hundreds of emails in addition to the emails that were supplied by Noel Kelly. There are a few important things to say here, one of which relates specifically to the question of the documents and notes from 7 May. If one looks at them and at the emails we provided to the committee, it is quite obvious that in this negotiation there was some backwards and forwards around the guarantee. A guarantee is not provided, so-----
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have very little time and have been interrupted-----
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Lynch-----
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Lynch is just winding my time down.
Mr. Adrian Lynch:
I am not. I am trying to clarify something that is really important in the context of what this House is seeking. Mr. Kelly was seeking a commitment that the contract would be underwritten but that was not given until 7 May. Deputy Murphy is looking for clarity around what happened at that meeting. If one looks at the facts, we know what happened at that meeting.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry but I have to stop Mr. Lynch there-----
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I really have to stop him there-----
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I really have to stop him there.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am looking at the document of 20 February. Breda O'Keeffe was the chief financial officer. She was in negotiations with the agent for Ryan Tubridy, who very clearly says that he needs a side letter agreement from RT to guarantee and underwrite this fee for the duration of the contract and beyond, into the next contract. The document says that "good progress" was made on what the commercial agreement would be, with one appearance in Dublin and two outside Dublin. At the very end, it says that RT will provide a side letter to underwrite this fee for the duration of the contract. That document is dated 20 February.
Mr. Adrian Lynch:
That is correct and what we do know is that it was not agreed until 7 May. If one looks at the tripartite agreement, one sees that there is no reference to €75,000 in it and there is no underwriting in it. In fact, there is reference to a fee of €500 in it. The agent had looked for the underwriting through that entire period but that was not provided until that meeting. Three payments were made on the basis of that meeting. When the agent was written to and asked, he did not refer to 20 February but to 7 May.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Did Breda O'Keeffe have the authority to put that in writing to Mr. Tubridy or his agent on 20 February?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Her words are very categoric.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
She either had or did not have the authority to do that. That is pretty convincing. Finally-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy, you are well over time. The chief financial officer was leading the negotiations at that point.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can I just ask one final question on the NewERA report? Obviously that is a critical report but we do not have sight of it. Can the Department provide us with the elements of that report that would give us some indication of how the calculations in relation to the licence fee were made and what the shortfall is likely to be, as well as the recommendations made in the report in relation to how RT should be funded?
Ms Katherine Licken:
The report is not published. It is part of a deliberative process involving the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery, and Reform, Deputy Donohoe and the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Deputy Catherine Martin. The report suggests a licence fee shortfall between this year and next year of €60 million. It suggests interim funding of €16 million, which aligns with what the Future of Media Commission recommended. In the first instance, that would be what would have been required if none of this had happened. The report then estimates that another €40 million would be required. The balance of €20 million would be made up by RT through cost savings and through its cash reserves. That is what the report recommends.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does it say anything more?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can we have a redacted version of it?
Ms Katherine Licken:
It is not the norm to publish NewERA reports. Obviously, we would have to consult on that because it is not just a matter for the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media but is also a matter for the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery, and Reform. NewERA comes under the remit of the latter Department.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Could Ms Licken make that request?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Munster is next.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will start with the McCann Fitzgerald report and the correspondence the committee was furnished with. The severance package schemes date from 2017 to 2021. What amounts are we talking about and what sort of positions, primarily, were the focus?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How many, sorry?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That would cover not just voluntary packages but also exit packages-----
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In relation to the former chief financial officer, Breda O'Keeffe, and her exit package, this committee was told that it was not approved by the board or even seen by the board. That package would contravene existing RT rules. I am right in saying that?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If an exit package was issued but the position was not redundant, that would contradict RT's existing rules.
Ms Eimear Cusack:
In the 2021 scheme, it was absolutely clear in the documentation that roles had to be suppressed in full. In 2017, because the organisation was undergoing a restructure, a small number of people were released where other roles were suppressed. In the main, however, they were suppressed.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Let us just focus on this one particular case so we can get clarity. The former chief financial officer got an exit package. Her position was not made redundant. The norm is that exit packages are not given unless the position is made redundant. The chief financial officer who resigned yesterday had replaced Ms O'Keeffe, so the position was still there. In that context, did that break RT's own rules?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Should she or should she not have gotten an exit package, given that the position was still there and someone else was going to be appointed to it?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is fair enough and I understand that. The report will go into these issues in detail but if it is a fact that an exit package was given to somebody who did not qualify for it, Mr. Bakhurst does not need a review to tell him that. I am talking about a very recent case involving the former chief financial officer. In order to regain public confidence, when people constantly see that nobody is ever held to account and that people simply walk away, is Mr. Bakhurst going to consider recouping the moneys that were paid by way of exit package to which that person was not entitled? Is he going to recoup those public moneys?
It would be a way to show RT is holding people to account. Earlier, Mr. Bakhurst said Ryan Tubridy had a moral imperative to pay back that money. This package was paid and agreed by the executive board, although perhaps not by the director general. The former CEO swanned off with the exit package and someone was appointed to the position. Will RT recoup moneys paid in circumstances such as this? Will the review state clearly that RT will recoup these public moneys?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would the former CEO have been on 80% more than the CFO who resigned yesterday?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In terms of what you said earlier, yes.
Paul Donnelly (Dublin West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
To achieve a cost saving.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
One questioner at a time, please.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is with regard to the 80% cost saving.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In the statement Ms Cusack made a few moments ago she said that where there is an 80% saving, there can be an exit package.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My question is specifically on this.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I want to touch on another issue that has to be resolved if there is ever to be public trust or confidence, not only among the general public and TV licence payers but in particular the workers at RT. I am speaking about those who were misclassified in bogus self-employment. We have been told that money had been set aside. We know that €1.2 million was paid to Revenue for PRSI in a certain number of cases. We know there are more than 500 people involved. We know that 137 people were dealt with even though some of these cases are being appealed. How much has been set aside to cover what is owed to Revenue because of bogus employment contracts?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will Mr. Fives give us a rough amount? Is it €10 million, €20 million or €30 million?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has money been set aside for workers as compensation for the entitlements they lost, including PRSI, pensions, holiday pay and sick leave? Has money been set aside for this?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There was an RT staff meeting yesterday. Was it not said at the meeting that correcting the wrong with financial compensation for the workers who were misclassified will not happen? Perhaps Mr. Bakhurst can clarify that.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Did you say it would bankrupt RT?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
As Deputy Munster knows, there was a process with Eversheds which addressed approximately 80 of these cases. It was an agreed process with the unions. The vast majority of people signed up to it and have received some compensation. What I said at the staff meeting yesterday when I was asked about it was about a number of individuals who have not agreed to the outcome of the process. It is a small number of fewer than ten people. I have met several of them individually or in a small group on whether we can reopen their cases after the Eversheds process.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are speaking about 500 workers over a long period of time.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does RT intend to compensate those workers who lost out on holiday pay and all of their entitlements due to this misclassification, or bogus self-employment in real terms. Does RT intend to compensate these workers?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
That will take a significant amount of time. Where people are due extra PRSI payments obviously RT is making those payments.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is paying Revenue because it has to pay Revenue. It is looking at €20 million of public money for this payment. I am speaking about the workers specifically.
Ms Eimear Cusack:
I started in RT in 2017. One of the issues brought to my attention first was that of contractors. A commitment was made to look at this. We began the Eversheds process is 2018. As part of that, we established a set of governing principles with the trade union group. There were 12 in all and 11 applied to how contracts would be issued and what would be considered. Contracts were issued to 82 individuals, 79 of whom accepted. As part of this acceptance, there were intense discussions with the individuals and their trade union representatives. Clause 12 provided that, without prejudice at the end of the process, a discussion would take place between the trade union group and RT on outstanding matters including retrospection.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Ms Cusack.
Ms Eimear Cusack:
We then engaged in that process. RT and the trade union group agreed that it would probably be more effective and we would make more progress more quickly if it was facilitated. Both sides nominated a party to facilitate the process. RT had an independent nominee and the trade union group nominated Sheila Noonan. We then engaged in the process. The result of that was a settlement and a number of other issues. The majority signed up to that. There is a small number who did not. In this context the scope unit began its investigations in September 2020, looking into PRSI insurability. It has looked at a number of cases. It has looked at 149 out of 695 cases since September 2020.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
RT is appealing some of those cases. It is taking workers to-----
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
RT is spending more taxpayers' money fighting workers for moneys to which they are entitled.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When RT is arguing these cases at the WRC it brings Arthur Cox in with it. Could we be furnished with the amount it has cost so far to fight these cases?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The question still has not been answered. Every committee member has said this morning that public trust and confidence are at zero. I have said previously that RT has a mountain to climb. Any of the responses we have received this morning would certainly not add confidence or trust.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Deputy Munster.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Bakhurst said he would furnish an outline framework of the report in October, with a more detailed and costed statement of strategy by early next year. This has to include everything we have raised today and the responses. Nobody would back interim funding as it stands at present.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Thank you, Deputy.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If RT is going to fight workers who have spent years looking for-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Munster has gone over time.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----their basic entitlements, it will go down the chute.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On a point of clarity, Mr. Fives said that less than €20 million had been set aside to resolve the issues. Is that €20 million, or whatever the figure is, part of RT's cash reserve of €68 million or is it in addition to that?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is part of it.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is clear and I thank Mr. Fives. It is a valid question.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Thank you.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That leaves €48 million.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is really €48 million.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is in the region of €50 million that RT might have.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Just to be transparent for the public.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Did Mr. Bakhurst want to reconsider the position he took this morning in refusing to provide that note?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
We just discussed it. One thing I would like to highlight is, as I understand it, Noel Kelly has given an account of what happened at that meeting. Dee Forbes was asked about that in the Grant Thornton one, which did not dispute Noel Kelly's account. We do not dispute either account of what happened at that meeting from those two people who were there. Those are in the public domain. However, the core principle on the note remains I am afraid.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. I wanted to clarify that for the committee.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That was the first question I was going to ask. The Cathaoirleach took the words out of my mouth there.
I will return to the metaphor to which Deputy Murphy was alluding, in that we are trying to build a picture here. We have key pieces of the jigsaw that were hidden down the back of the couch for a while but we are still missing central pieces. We have Breda O'Keeffe who has never appeared before this committee, Geraldine O'Leary who refused an invite today, and Dee Forbes and Jim Jennings who are not in a position to attend. Then we are left with this frustrating impasse around a note of the meeting of 7 May 2020. There has been a moving of goalposts regarding the privilege attached to that document. That has been resolved and now it is a case of client confidentiality. Does Mr. Bakhurst accept in principle that RT could waive this client confidentiality if it chose to do so?
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a decision not to waive that confidentiality.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand that.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr Lynch has doubled down on the fact that this was the key moment where the tripartite agreement is finally underwritten. This is the point at which, indirectly to some extent, the taxpayer is put on the hook for €225,000. It happens in this meeting and we are blind to what happened in that meeting, notwithstanding Mr. Bakhurst saying we have one side of the account.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How long was the meeting? Was it a ten-minute meeting or a three-hour meeting? Did we have multiple-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms Mullooly may be able to shed some light on this.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I find that difficult to comprehend.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am gobsmacked by that, if I am honest. The frustration is that the minuting of the meeting has not been separated out from the legal advice part of it. Whatever legal sidebars have happened in terms of RT getting legal advice within that meeting, I am not sure if the committee has an interest in that or not, but I certainly have an interest in is the timeline of the over and back between the people who were in that meeting. I am assuming Mr. Bakhurst has read the note.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What I wanted to know was whether it was possible to separate out whatever those legal sidebars were from the blow by blow - what I would expect to see minuted in a regular meeting. Even to meet us halfway in that regard, we could be provided with a redacted version that would give us a blow-by-blow account. However, Mr. Bakhurst is saying he has not read the note. We cannot tell a start and stop time so-----
Ms Paula Mullooly:
I can help somewhat with that. At the last meeting, I gave a commitment to this committee that I would get the entire legal file reviewed by external lawyers in relation to what could and could not be shared. Following that review, a very significant amount of information was subsequently shared with this committee and the Deputy will have received it. We tried to put it in an order that would make sense to committee members. However, there is a small amount of documentation that has not been shared, which is either covered by legal advice privilege or by client confidentiality. For RT as an organisation and for the functioning of the independent solicitor's office within RT, it is important that those lines are maintained because it fundamentally affects how this solicitor's office and how RT function.
In respect of the specific note, the committee has the two emails from Noel Kelly which set out what took place in that meeting and the Grant Thornton report which sets out the former director general's version of what took place in that meeting. We do not dispute either of those versions of events. The committee has all of the information. The only thing it does not have is the physical note.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is a continued frustration on the part of this committee. As I said, we are looking for the pieces of the jigsaw, some of which are getting stuffed down the back of the couch, for us to build a picture on behalf of the taxpayer, which is what we are interested in doing here. There is an element of the return of the circus here this morning. I know other committee members share my frustration that we do not have that McCann FitzGerald report, which was going to be a substantial piece of work that we could have used in interrogating this decision.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This committee deliberately gave breathing space at the start of this Dáil term because we had anticipated that report in particular being completed, which would have allowed us to interrogate, in a meaningful way, that corporate culture we are looking to get to.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a couple of places I still want to go and time is against me.
Mr. Bakhurst identified that 51% of the organisation's costs are related to "people costs", as he termed it, that is, salary and wages. We know there have been findings made against RT regarding freelancers and what is essentially bogus self-employment. We know there is still some work under way in that regard. I am assuming this is part of the work the expert advisory group is looking at. Have we any sense of all of future liabilities, either to Revenue or the Department of Social Protection, that may be outstanding for RT? I understand there is an element of crystal ball-gazing in this but as we are modelling our future funding forecasts, and Mr. Fives has spoken about when we expect the money might run out unless other things come into play, do we know what is coming down the tracks here? Have we any sort of modelling and is that factored in?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
We have done it as best we can and that is why the level of the provision is there in the accounts that Mr. Fives described earlier on. That is our best estimate of what the liability could be. We are working through this closely. I have had a meeting with the scope section of the Department to look at and discuss the process because it is a very significant-----
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Exposure.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
One of the key frustrations for me is this. It was not that there was a lack of corporate governance structures but that the structures that were there did not work. This is particularly true of the reporting between the executive board and the board. While I do not want to draw this analogy, I used to serve on my school board. You would think a school board would be much more of a Mickey Mouse affair in comparison to RT and the size of the cash flows. However, on a school board level, the principal has to make a child protection oversight report every single time the board of management comes together. More often than not - and what one hopes for - is that the board members will say there is nothing to report. There is, however, a formalised process where, every single month, the question is asked whether there is anything happening in terms of the child protection oversight report.
I want to focus on the remuneration committee. It met patchily at best.
It was poorly attended and the minuting was not up the job. Mr. Bakhurst stated the oversight of new contracts is being taken up by the remuneration committee. How many people are being put on that committee? How often is it meeting? What are its obligations to report to the executive board or to the board proper, which is the real oversight on behalf of the taxpayer? Have those issues been rectified and proper functioning set in stone?
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has that been shared with the committee? I do not remember reading it.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A blizzard of documentation has been received and I may not have seen that document.
Ms Paula Mullooly:
I can share it with the committee. It is designed to cover not only executive pay and presenters' pay but also things like exit packages or voluntary exit programmes, VEPs, for executive members. It is more thorough. The remuneration committee has met five times since April this year. It will report to the board at every meeting. All subcommittees will now present a report to the board at every board meeting.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a quick question for the Department. The taxpayer is funding RT out of Vote 33 to the tune of €200 million or whatever it is every year. Does the Department have oversight of this review of those reporting mechanisms in order that it can be satisfied on behalf of the taxpayer that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated? What proactive steps has the Department taken in that regard?
Ms Katherine Licken:
When this issue first emerged on 22 July, the Minister moved quickly to appoint an expert advisory committee in respect of governance and culture at RT for precisely that reason, that is, to dig in to see whether the corporate governance is fit for purpose, whether it is delivering and how we can learn from the mistakes that happened and ensure they do not happen again. She also met with the staff and unions and set up a separate expert advisory committee relating to HR and other matters. Those reports are ongoing. Crowe Advisory has been appointed as adviser to the two expert committees and obviously we have the Mazars report, all looking at the barter account. All of that is designed to inform us. They are independent reports to inform us as to what are the next steps in terms of governance. In the meantime, RT is taking its own steps, as Ms Mullooly pointed out, in terms of the board and the structures, that it needs to do. We did not expect RT just to wait until these reports are concluded. We expect it to get on with the job in the meantime and we will see what comes out of those reports early in the new year.
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Bakhurst, Ms Licken and their staff for coming in this morning. I know the witnesses have gone over the issue of legal privilege repeatedly, but my understanding is that it is normally claimed where there is a risk of creating further claims against the particular authority or board. Is it true there is no risk from releasing these documents? Why is RT being so protective in claiming that privilege?
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My question is clear. There is no risk of additional legal proceedings occurring as a result of agreeing to release the document; is that correct?
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms Mullooly is saying that if this document were to be released, it could create a platform for further legal proceedings to be issued.
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How is there a risk if there is no likelihood of any claim being made as a result of the document being released?
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The other part of the scenario is that RT is trying to regain the confidence of the general public. If the general public - the people who pay the licence fee - believe that not all the cards are on the table, is that not putting RT more at risk than anything else?
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The general public have stopped paying licence fees-----
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----because they do not have confidence as not all the documents are being released.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The point the Deputy is making is legitimate.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
For clarity, the point the Deputy is making is that Ms Mullooly said it is for the operation of the legal-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The clock should be stopped.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I ask for the clock to be stopped. Ms Mullooly stated that this relates to the operation of legal services within RT. The Deputy is asking a clear question, namely, where is the risk in releasing this information?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What risk?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can Ms Mullooly just-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I want to allow the Deputy to continue his questioning.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms Mullooly is talking about a different issue.
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The issue here does not relate to any investigation RT is doing. This relates to the functioning of the board as regards the management. The risk here to RT is far greater. The general public have a lack of confidence in it and that confidence can only be restored where there is full disclosure. It is, therefore, to the benefit of RT to make that disclosure. That is the question I asked.
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will move on to the issue of the barter account and the audit committee. There are a number of aspects to the barter account. There was the issue where advertising was provided as a result of people going through the account. Surely the management team within RT was aware of the use of the barter account and that once a person was contracted through the account, RT could not claim back anything at any stage. Mr. Bakhurst made the point that the money given to Ryan Tubridy through the barter account is not legally reclaimable. One or two people have clearly been identified in the context of the barter account but there must have been many other people who were also aware of the barter account. From a legal point of view, was the legal department aware of the existence of the barter account? Did it give advice at any stage about the risk to RT and the fact that any moneys paid through the account could not be reclaimed?
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is not the question I am asking. I am asking whether the legal department was aware of the existence of the barter account.
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Senior management were aware of it. There was also advertising made available through the barter account at knockdown prices. Surely more than a handful of people knew about it. Far more people knew about this barter account. Surely someone must have gone to the legal department at some stage and said: "We are doing this with a company. What is your advice?"
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms Mullooly is saying there was a whole lot of transactions going on within RT but nobody sought legal advice regarding the fairly substantial amounts involved.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
One of the things Mazars has been asked to look at is how the barter account was set up and the beginning of the barter account in 2012. I assume there was advice given at that point, but that will be part of what Mazars reports on. It is accepted by us, however, and that is why we changed it.
There was complete lack of oversight of the barter account, and that is why it is being brought in over finance and that is why it now only trades in air time and that is it.
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can I move on----
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I accept that but what I am saying is that quite a number of people knew of its existence; what I am surprised at is that no one within the legal department was aware that if something went through this, it could not be claimed back. Can I just move on----
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, but RT has no right now to claim back any of that money that was paid out through that barter account. It is outside the jurisdiction.
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is outside the jurisdiction. Even though all the parties were within the jurisdiction involved in the payment, the payment was made by a company outside the jurisdiction.
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will move on to the Secretary General of the Department. When did the Department become aware that there was an issue in the 2022 accounts?
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Was the Minister informed at that stage?
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What action was taken? RT is getting substantial funding from the Department. It is also reliant on funding from licence fees. What action was then taken and what questions were put to the board its the checks and balances? Were they put immediately or was it a case of waiting to see what developed?
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Did the Department write to the board?
Ms Katherine Licken:
No, we did not. The chair was very clear and I think she was very clear at this committee and at the Oireachtas joint committee that she did not have the detail and that the purpose of contracting Grant Thornton to do a review was to undertake a fact-finding mission to get the facts.
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In relation to the Department and the checks and balances relating to State companies, surely when the Department gets a set of accounts, is there not a series of questions it would ask? For instance, the audit and risk committee was just non-functioning in real terms. It did not do its homework.
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This issue was going on for a number of years before the committee members found it. Is an audit and risk committee not there to make sure everything is done above board and is fully transparent? This was going on for a number of years, which they were not aware of. Surely they are falling down in their job there.
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Surely because the Department was paying so much money to RT, there must have been some level of scrutiny going on within the Department as well, such that it is not relying solely on the auditors every year. Surely there were questions the Department was asking, or why were they not asked over the past three to four years prior to this breaking?
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
However, the Department is accountable to the taxpayers in the sense of the money going from the State into RT and, therefore, there must be a level of scrutiny by the Department to make sure there is full accountability.
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Ms Licken saying this scrutiny fell down 12 months ago?
Ms Katherine Licken:
What we are saying is that the scrutiny that is normal for Departments and their agencies is that we look at the governance arrangements, we rely on the assurances of the board that the governance is in place and we look at the cash flows but we do not get into individual transactions. We could not have seen this----
Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
With regard to the board, does Ms Licken accept that there were failures by the board in dealing with this issue down through the years as well?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome our witnesses. My first question is for Mr. Bakhurst. Many questions have been asked about the agreement and indeed the McCann FitzGerald report. Can I just get clarity? As far as I am aware there are reports by Mazars, Grant Thornton and McCann FitzGerald. Are all the big firms employed now by RT for reviews? How many are under way?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Just those?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The expert overview, okay.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Were the Mazars, Grant Thornton and McCann FitzGerald reviews initiated by RT directly or did the Department initiate them?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Bakhurst have an estimate of how much these are going to cost RT?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A month?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that each?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is great value.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
RT's financial position was discussed earlier. Going on the questioning from Deputy Colm Burke regarding the lack of oversight of the organisation and this whole mess, this is costing RT thousands of euro per day just to investigate the problem. It will make findings, maybe, but it is still not getting RT any closer to the reforms Mr. Bakhurst spoke to staff about yesterday as I understand. Is that right?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
No, that is not entirely right. We are making reforms as we go. For example, when we had the interim report from Mazars, we immediately addressed the main conclusions and made the changes we needed to make straightaway. We have made significant changes at board level, at leadership team level and across the organisation in terms of where we have identified weaknesses we have either closed the gaps or tightened them up as far as we can.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Other issues will be identified in the reports which RT will take action on.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can I just ask about the McCann FitzGerald report? We scheduled this meeting in advance of the summer hoping we would have it by now. I understand it is out of Mr. Bakhurst's hands but it is expected. Does he have an estimated time of when it is due to be complete?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In terms of the exit packages themselves, I think it was Ms Cusack who responded earlier. Is it correct that the packages were in 2017 and 2021?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There were obviously others that predate that but that is not within the scope of the review. Is that correct?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not looking for specific details on those particular two but in terms of the packages themselves, who would have signed off on them?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sorry, the which?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
It was intended that the executive at that stage should sign off on the exit packages once they had been agreed by the individual departments. One of the things I have asked the inquiry to look at is the procedure for signing off those packages and if that happened as a matter of course. I do not believe necessarily it did.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The sign-off is one issue. On the creation of the packages, did the person who was leaving have an input into those packages? I mean any person generally, not one person in particular.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would the individual leaving have been involved?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the 2021 package, was the individual involved in as well?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Primarily but possibly.
Ms Eimear Cusack:
The individual left the organisation in April 2020. We got approval from the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform for the 2021 scheme much later in that year. The terms of the scheme were the very same as 2017 with the exception that we drew out that all roles had to be suppressed because 2017 was undergoing a restructure.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
They kept them open. It was a cultural thing that an individual who was leaving RT on a very good salary had probably quite a good degree of influence in terms of their exit package and the shape of that package.
Would that be fair to say?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It could be any individual, not one in particular.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We were too, as we have discussed before. I have a question regarding those who have exited the organisation. It is not necessarily about those who exited most recently because there was more of an exodus yesterday. Was it yesterday? Did Mr. Collins resign formally yesterday or was that previous to yesterday?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. With regard to the others who have exited the organisation, we are waiting to hear from some and others who we would like to come before the committee have just point-blank refused. Has Mr. Bakhurst, as the new director general, had contact from Ms Forbes, Ms Moran, Ms O'Leary or any of those?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has he had any contact over the summer months?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What about the others?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Was that after she resigned?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What about Ms Moran?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Breda Moran.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry; Ms Breda O'Keeffe.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I raise the ongoing issue of the licence fee. When Mr. Bakhurst was here before the summer, I inquired about it at that stage and he said there was not such a great impact at that point. Obviously things are drastically different now. RT is bringing reforms forward and Mr. Bakhurst spoke to the staff at the town hall-style meeting. What is the collection rate as of today? Maybe that is a question for the Department more than for RT but I am sure Mr. Bakhurst is keenly watching that amount.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does the Department have an up-to-date figure as to where it stands in terms of collections?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that year on year, comparatively?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a question for Ms Mullooly. Earlier she made reference to the independent solicitor's office within RT. How is it independent?
Ms Paula Mullooly:
The solicitors are independent from the organisation in that the advice they give is independent. RT is the client. We regard ourselves as being independent from the organisation in the context of the advice we give. We are a stand-alone solicitor's office and regulated that way by the Law Society.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Who is the employer?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Who is the answerable line manager within RT?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How is an office independent if it is employed by an organisation and answerable to the head of the organisation? It is giving advice to the organisation but it is a bit of a stretch to call it completely independent. I would say an independent office is something that has no connection to RT and may be hired or contracted by RT for independent advice. A sub-department of an organisation is not independent of the organisation if it has the same boss and the pay is all done through the organisation that it is answerable to.
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
From our perspective as the Committee of Public Accounts when we hear "independent office" it sounds like it is coming from a third party when in actual fact, the advice Ms Mullooly is giving, and it is nothing personal to her or to her colleagues, is coming from RT, paid by RT and for RT. It is all RT. Is that right?
Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The culture within the organisation obviously needs change too, because that is not independent. To my mind, independence is complete separation. It is a department of RT, however it is described internally. From our perspective as a committee, when we invited RT here, in came the director of legal affairs and there was advice from RT's own department. It is the legal department of RT. Is that correct?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
I totally accept, as Ms Mullooly does, the financing of it. It is important to say that the legal advice we receive from the solicitors in that office is independent and not influenced by RT. That is their job as professionals. They are all members of the Law Society and that is what I expect from them.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will start by saying that the way things are done in RT around the culture is why we are here today. To my mind, lessons have not been learned if that is still the line that is being peddled here today around this so-called independent advice, that is, that is the way it has always been done and that is the culture within RT. Lessons clearly have not been learned.
The document from May 2020 is a key piece of information that we have not been furnished with. I think I know why it is been withheld. The public will make up their own minds. This is certainly doing absolutely nothing to restore public confidence in RT. Mr. Bakhurst said the TV licence renewals are down 39%. On foot of this meeting, I think that will further decrease, instead of confidence being restored. This is a critical piece of information. Has the Department seen that key piece of evidence, namely, the document from that Teams meeting? Has the Secretary General requested it?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has the Minister seen it?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has the Minister requested it or seen it?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I find that fascinating. RT has essentially come in here and over the last number of weeks has put the begging bowl out asking for a bailout from the taxpayer and from the Government, without this key piece of information. To my mind, without that key piece of information not a penny should be given over to RT because that is the keystone in the evidence that we as the Committee of Public Accounts need.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Bakhurst has said that.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. If that is the case, that information should be furnished from that Teams meeting. I find it extraordinary that neither the Department nor the Minister have asked for or received that information either.
Ms Katherine Licken:
To restate what I said earlier, by law RT is independent in the operation of its objects as set out in the Broadcasting Act. We do not get involved in the day-to-day operation of RT and nor can we. That is why we do not seek to direct them. The Minister is very clearly on record on multiple occasions saying she expects RT to co-operate as fully as possible and she expects that to continue.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This is about governance, however. It is about oversight. It is about restoring trust within RT, showing that lessons have been learned and we have moved on. Without that openness and transparency coming from RT as regards that critical piece of information, I do not think we are anywhere close to starting that process.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will move on.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry Mr. Bakhurst-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Hold on. Mr. Bakhurst, very briefly.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Key information.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In fairness, that is Mr. Bakhurst's interpretation of it that it is not key. Unfortunately, we do not have the privilege to make that determination because it has been withheld from us. That is the problem.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I ask the Deputy to move on to the next question.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will move on to Richard Collins. I heard what Mr. Bakhurst said earlier about him resigning from the organisation. Was that an amicable separation?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It was professional. Have legal papers been served on RT by Mr. Collins?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay, there was an agreement reached and his legal team were present.
We got the most up-to-date figures on TV licence renewals last week. They were down 39%. What is the net loss? What does that equate to?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is €21 million, all right. How does the commercial revenue for the year to date compare with last year?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How much is it down?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry, what was that?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay, so it is just below 10%, which is not an insignificant amount. What does that equate to in cash terms?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
All right, but are we talking about €10 million or €20 million? I am not looking for a specific-----
Mr. Conor Mullen:
A year-on-year comparison is very difficult to do because we have significant events, and last year was a significant event, at this time of year with the FIFA World Cup and there was significant revenue in that regard. In a market worth about €1.2 billion, 70% of that goes online to global operators and multinationals. In television alone RT competes with over 50 TV stations for advertising.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. I am conscious of the time, so-----
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----does Mr. Mullen envisage that trend continuing for the remainder of the-----
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
All right.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
If I can add to that, really importantly, we re-forecast earlier in the year because there had been a fall in the commercial revenue. I would say the commercial revenue has been performing strongly over the past few months, so we are ahead of the re-forecast. It is down year on year, but we are in a better position than we were a few months ago.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay, and do the officials think the controversy that has unfolded within RT over the last number of months has any impact on commercial activity?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I ask Mr. Bakhurst to be brief, if he can.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
All right. I return to the €150,000 payment Ryan Tubridy said at this committee he would furnish back. The former chief financial officer, Richard Collins, described it as a potentially fraudulent payment in that invoices were furnished and - we have it in the Grant Thornton report - that the invoices had the description "Consultancy Fees". It is evidenced there that: "'Consultancy Fees did not reflect the substance of the transactions [...] the Talent Agent did not provide consultancy; and ... the Talent did not provide consultancy." That was described as potentially fraudulent by the former chief financial officer, Richard Collins. At this point, as Ryan Tubridy is probably refusing to pay that money back because the renegotiated contract has fallen through, what outside actions has RT taken to recoup that? Has it got further independent legal advice outside the cultural legal advice that is within RT? Has it gone to the Garda about that potential fraud?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
I could bring in Ms Mullooly here. It is important to say one of the first questions I asked about this whole issue and transaction was whether we thought it was legally fraud or not. The advice I got quite firmly was that it was not. The second thing is it is really important to say in this regard that RT bears a significant amount of responsibility for this and how it was designed and so on, so whether we can pursue someone externally for it when in the end they had a legal contract to give it to them, putting aside the inaccuracy of the invoices-----
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay, so at this stage RT is willing to allow that €150,000 to just sail off into the sunset.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will move on in the last few moments I have.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Be very brief, Deputy.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the bogus self-employment, RT has put some of the figures pertaining to settlements with the Revenue on public record. I think €1.2 million was stated. How many employees does that relate to?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Fives does not have that.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can RT provide that to the committee?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is a further scope exercise being carried out by the Department of Social Protection. How many employees, or former employees, does that scope exercise cover?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is 695.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay, and the €20 million that has been set aside-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Thank you Deputy, you are over time.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----or is earmarked is there to potentially cover some of those 600-odd that are-----
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is RT's estimate.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Thank you, Deputy.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How much has been set aside?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Deputy has gone over time.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will conclude on this, Chair. We know a number of workers have been given a month to decide on whether they will accept a payment of €2,500 up to €17,500. I think that is about-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry, Deputy. I will allow you in for a second round of questioning. One member of the committee has not got in for the first time yet and neither have I. I will allow a second round.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay, but may I just get a response to that?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No. I will ask Mr. Bakhurst to respond when we have a second round of questioning. Is that all right?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No problem, Chair.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Moving on to the changes in RT over the past four months, it is recognised there is a big task there. What are the three most significant and tangible changes that have been made in that period?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Briefly.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
Yes. Number 1 is we have a new leadership team, which is driving change. Number 2 is we have a much better working relationship with the board and complete transparency between the leadership team and the board. Number 3 is we have commissioned, and are far advanced on, the register of interests, gifts and so on. It should be in place by the end of the year. Number 4 is we have brought in a risk consultant who sits on the leadership team who is advising us on best practice so we can be best in class on things like risk assessment, which will drive improvement.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the register of interests, one document we have mentions it is in the final stages.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When does Mr. Bakhurst expect that to be completed?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. The officials have heard me say a number of times that I feel it is very important in terms of-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----public credibility.
On funding, Mr. Bakhurst told the media committee a month ago that "... all of these reforms will be undermined if the question mark over the funding of public service media in this country is not properly resolved". The funding issue is obviously key for this. Mr. Bakhurst mentioned slimming down. Many members of the committee are concerned that there not be compulsory redundancies. I am aware this is a work in progress, but will Mr. Bakhurst briefly explain what funding model he thinks is required, going forward?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
I know the funding model is under active consideration by the Department. I think I have said to it, and also to members of the Chair's party, that as far as we are concerned we need a degree of certainty.
We need the right level of funding to deliver our statutory remit. Ease of collection and fairness are the underlying principles I would look for.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is there potential to turnaround the declining commercial revenue? At committee meetings over the past three years, this issue of commercial and other potential sources has been raised with RT. I understand it operates in a competitive situation. Are other sources of commercial revenue being examined actively?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is anything being done in regard to online platforms?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. In regard to pay, conditions and entitlements for executives, we discovered a situation a number of weeks ago where executives were paid a 10% increase last year. Was that notified to the Minister?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would it normally be? It would be expected that it would be.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It should have been.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am mindful of the fact that this happened in a previous period. That seems like a complete breakdown in terms of reporting. Can anyone tell me whether it reported to the board? Will Mr. Lynch be able to tell me?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It went to the appointed board. Has any benchmarking been done in terms of executive pay at RT over the past four months? I am mindful there is a good deal of catching up to be done. However, has that crucial issue been looked at?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
We intend to do that before I establish a permanent leadership team in the organisation. We want to benchmark against other semi-State bodies here. We want to get benchmarked against other media organisations and against public service media organisations throughout Europe. We will do that but we have not had the capacity to do it yet. However, that is the intention.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Obviously, there will be a big ask for money. That is key along with the register of interests. I suggest that issue is fleshed out before that point. In regard to the €0.5 million to 46 people and the allowances, could we have a list of positions held by those 46 people? I do not want names, but want to know whether they are senior executives. Who are they? Obviously, there is an entitlement where people legitimately claim allowances or expenses. However, are they people on the shop floor, or are they executives? Will Mr. Bakhurst rank them in terms of where that category is in RT? Can you do that?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The discussions today have confirmed that there are voluntary packages for people who leave RT voluntarily. We can take from this morning's discussions that there have been voluntary exit financial packages for executives who left. Mr. Rory Coveney left RT since Mr. Bakhurst was last here. He was obviously part of the team. Would he have received a voluntary exit package?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can Mr. Bakhurst confirm that there are voluntary exit packages for executives?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If the post is still in existence-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When you ask people to leave, is that when financial packages happen?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand that. There is obviously an element of negotiation or encouragement.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If the person goes voluntarily there would be a financial package.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will go to a second round of questions. There is still one member who could arrive yet. I just got the note that he sent his apologies.
I will allow four minutes for each committee member. We have a fairly full attendance. I call Deputy Verona Murphy. I ask people to keep to time because it is unfair to the people coming behind.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Ms Mullooly a registered legal practice?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it an independent legal practice? Do you represent others?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So, she is registered as a legal practice with the Law Society. Does Ms Mullooly have a professional indemnity?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Then to be honest, if professional indemnity is not required, she is not independent of the organisation and as a lawyer, she should know that.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not want to discuss it, but it is clear-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry but Ms Mullooly is here on our terms. Masquerading as an independent legal practice when she does not have independent clients other than RT, it is fair to say she is not an independent-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Deputy is entitled to ask a question but not to make charges.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I asked the question. Ms Mullooly answered it. She does not-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms Mullooly, it is a simple question. Are you-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Excuse me, Cathaoirleach.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sorry, we are-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Stop the clock if the Cathaoirleach is going to question.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Briefly reply, please. It is wasting time otherwise.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Please respond.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Cathaoirleach had better stop the clock, please. I have had the answer I want.
Ms Paula Mullooly:
An example of the independent legal advice we give would be in terms of this when it first broke. Independent solicitors within RT would have given advice to the newsroom in regard to its coverage of this, in an independent way. That is what I mean when I say we are independent solicitors. We do not act as-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a fudge in regard to what it bears witness to, which is the release of a document where client privilege can be waived by Mr. Bakhurst. Now, I will ask again. I started this morning on the basis of Mr. Bakhurst's assertion that Mr. Tubridy had a moral obligation to repay the money. Everybody on this committee agrees with me. We represent the public. That is a fair percentage of what is being represented here today. There is a fair representation of public opinion here today. Everyone agrees that Mr. Bakhurst and RT, as an organisation, refusing to waive legal privilege goes directly to its credibility when he says that he is trying to be transparent and doing everything he can. Has he reconsidered his position from this morning? Is he prepared to give the document to the committee before we have to compel it?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does that mean Mr. Bakhurst has not changed his mind?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
He has not changed his mind.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not finished, Chair. I have another minute. In that meeting, there were four people, Dee Forbes, Noel Kelly and his colleague, Niamh, and Trish Whelan from the RT legal department. On what basis is Mr. Bakhurst claiming legal privilege? What capacity did Trish Whelan hold? What advice was she giving?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The client no longer-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Going back to his moral obligation, Ryan Tubridy and Noel Kelly came before this committee and waived their privilege. Mr. Bakhurst was the very person who asserted Ryan Tubridy's moral obligation, yet he is failing to assert his own.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the record, he is saying that he does not have a moral obligation.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can the director general confirm that RT will publish information on the top ten presenters on an annual basis?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has RT published the 2022 figures?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When does Mr. Bakhurst expect those figures to be published?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Bakhurst have a timeline?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In regard to the extent of brand deals involving RT presenters, particularly those engaged with valuable assets like cars and others of significant monetary value, what procedures and guidelines has RT put in place? What is the level in terms of those who are engaged in this activity? Has RT done any investigation in this regard?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
We have looked through it as far as we can. The key thing is there will be really clear guidelines around the register of interests and the register of gifts as we go forward. That will all be published and in the public domain. The only way to maintain trust is to make sure that where people working for RT take money from outside RT, that information is put in the public domain.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The policies are currently being reviewed. Have any policies been implemented and has information on the level of deals currently in place with top presenters been accrued?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can Mr. Lynch provide information on that?
Mr. Adrian Lynch:
We did a full review of all the individuals and what was involved. It really demonstrated that there was a consistency across the organisation. That is why the two key things that are now being introduced are a register of interests and a register of external affairs. Our employee handbook applies to both staff members and contractors. They could be people who present a programme that runs for only two to four weeks. It is about communicating to all those individuals to ensure everybody is absolutely clear on the requirements. As the director general said, we will publish that information.
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Have any of those findings created a conflict of interest?
Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In regard to the car deals that were subsequently highlighted, have many top presenters given back those cars as a result of Mr. Lynch's investigation?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The note we have been discussing has become a bigger issue than it should be. In essence, I see RT protecting an internal Chinese wall. It looks like a ring fence or brick wall is being put around RT. That is the difficulty here. I asked how the legal office was advising "Prime Time" about a Government measure that was taken. I can understand why the witnesses would defend editorial independence. I would support them on that in many cases. However, it appears they do not contest anything to do with the facts around this that everybody knows. Our concern is that there are facts we do not know. The only guarantee that there is nothing of concern in this is by way of the witnesses telling us to trust them. The difficulty with that is they are coming to the table having created a trust gap. We are asking for the document and the witnesses are saying there is nothing contentious in it. It seems to me they are creating more of an issue out of this than there needs to be. There is an opportunity to create trust by showing us there is nothing in the document. If there is nothing in the document, show it to us. Doing so does not create a principle on which future committees might interrogate the independence of RT. It would be silly of the witnesses to die on that hill. However, it is a matter for them in terms of their credibility and willingness to build trust. They are saying to us: "Trust us, there is nothing in it." We are here because we cannot trust them. That is a sad situation for everybody involved. I urge the witnesses to make the document available and save the committee, our internal Oireachtas processes, RT, the courts and anybody else who might get involved the possibility of further action. I ask the witnesses to provide the document. If it says what they say it says, there is no issue.
Going back to editorial independence, Deputy Dillon is correct that a register of outside interests is really important. There is also the issue of monetising RT's corporate intellectual property. One of the most worrying elements of the tripartite agreement was that a third party was allowed to monetise the corporate intellectual property of RT, namely, the hugely respected "The Late Late Show" branding and so on. Have any measures been put in place around how employees and contractors might leverage the position they have within RT?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When is that guidance expected?
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As a politician, it might arise that I am asked questions by an RT presenter about vulture funds, REITs and so on and it subsequently turns out that the presenter has a relationship with somebody in that sector. I am not saying anybody has such a relationship but it is a good example of how it is really important for the public to know what is involved in external contracts.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
I totally agree with the Deputy. It is one of the reasons I decided to push ahead with this. The only thing I would say, and it is really important to say it, is that when we looked at practices across the organisation, we found the news and current affairs department already does this to an extremely high level. It is about bringing the rest of the organisation to a similar level.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have no doubt that 99% of people in RT have that integrity.
I would like a response on the issue of foreign travel. The witnesses will have seen the story about Donie O'Sullivan and the decision to cancel his appearance. While that involved a tiny amount of money, it would seem to contest their idea that there are cost savings happening within RT. Will one of the witnesses respond on that point?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
I can answer that. Unfortunately, these things happen on live programmes, with changes in the cast and so on. It is very annoying in the current circumstances that we paid for an airfare and cannot get it back. It should be noted that "The Late Late Show" has its own budget for the series. If money is spent on airfares, savings must be found somewhere else. There are controls around the programme. If this kind of decision is made, the saving must be found somewhere else.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have only four minutes and I have forgotten one of my questions. We have been told that a small number of senior executive posts were not advertised. Will the witnesses indicate which roles were not advertised and the reasons for that?
I have three other points. I accept what the witnesses have said in regard to the McCann FitzGerald report. I know they would prefer it to be done today because there is no way they want to be back here in a month's time.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I accept that and I accept the premise upon which that report must be awaited and that the issues cannot be prejudged.
My second question, before getting to the famous note, relates to bogus self-employment. I do not think €20 million will come within an ass's roar of what is required. Based on the current payments that have been made, the entitlements people have lost, the whole range of other compensations that will be required because of the cumulative nature of what people were entitled to being lost and the number of people we have been told are involved, it will not come anywhere near it. Mr. Fives and his colleagues need to have a plan over a longer period to deal with this.
Turning to the famous note, Mr. Bakhurst has been doing a very good job. I was very disappointed with the initial interaction today. It was too confrontational, reflecting on what I have said about the legal advice and so on. My colleagues, Deputy Burke, who has legal qualifications, and Deputies Devlin, McAuliffe and Verona Murphy have articulated the matter much better than I could.
This issue is getting out of hand. The idea that there is independent legal advice within RT is rubbish. Everyone has proven that. We have legal advice here, but it is not independent of the Oireachtas. We are all part of the Oireachtas. We need to find a way out of this because if this ends up in the courts, imagine a situation where we are trying to explain to the public that we are spending taxpayers' money on both sides to try to get a note which, potentially if you accept all the commentary on it, may not be that big an issue at all. There is a principle from our side: we, on behalf of the public, need to have trust so we need to see it.
There is a precedent. I have twice been a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. I am offering a compromise or a way out. At the end of my suggestion, I will ask Mr. Bakhurst if he will consider it. Rather than jumping in and saying he will not, he might just consider it. We have had precedents in this committee where there has been documentation that we required where we have gone into private session to meet with people and have gone through the documentation without publishing it. That is one option.
Another option is that we leverage it through the Department but we as a committee work with the Department if it is brought in by RT in regard to this. Part of this, which I am very surprised at, is that Mr. Bakhurst has not read it or seen it himself. First, will Mr. Bakhurst please look at it?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Second, will he work with this committee, whether on my two suggestions or the suggestions of others, so that we do not all end up wasting a lot of taxpayers' money potentially for nothing? They are my two questions to Mr. Bakhurst.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will Mr. Bakhurst work with us to find a solution?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I want to ask about the remuneration committee. Does the remit of the new remuneration committee cover the issue of redundancy?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Did the previous one cover the issue of redundancy?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I was going to make some of the same points as Deputy Kelly. Does Mr. Bakhurst accept the findings of the second Grant Thornton report?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. That is straightforward.
In regard to the barter account, we were told previously that the principles of honesty and integrity were central to how that fund was conducted by the particular individuals. Then we found there were no thresholds for gifts and entertainment. There were 1,400 emails and it was quite chaotic. Could Mr. Bakhurst give us a note on that because that is something we will want to deal with it in the context of our report?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Those things. For example, if there are changes in regard to the current situation.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Including things like whether there are thresholds.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay, right. Could Mr. Bakhurst explain in the note how it is constructed now?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I wish to ask about the Department of Social Protection's scope section. I also have concerns about the adequacy of the amount of the contingency. How was that figure arrived at? It looks like a very round figure.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does it relate to every one of the 695?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Fives says that is not the amount. What is the amount?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Right. That is okay. Is Mr. Fives satisfied that that is sufficient?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
If I could say something, because I have been involved a bit in the scope process – not to my pleasure - some of the appeals are pathfinder cases and they will set a precedent so we need to keep this under review. The auditors keep an eye on it. We will adjust it depending on what some of the outcomes are to those cases.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Bakhurst says it is very time heavy for RT.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How many?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that three who are working exclusively on it?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How many cases have they gone through?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Some 149 cases have been dealt with and there are still 695 remaining. Has Ms Cusack calculated how long more this will take?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are there people working in RT since the 1980s?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does RT accept that at least some of these staff were bogusly labelled as self-employed?
Ms Eimear Cusack:
No, I would not. I would be very honest in how I would respond. Since we began the Eversheds process, this is a really complicated process because, in truth, every individual has his or her own unique set of circumstances. I have seen it all now. We are working through it and we are co-operating with the scope section and hopefully we will do the right thing.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I just want to come back on the point about €20 million being set aside for Revenue. Am I correct in saying that?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Who is it for then?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Right. So it will be whatever the Department says RT owes Revenue. RT has already paid €1.2 million.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So RT has not set aside anything for workers.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I refer to compensation for workers who were denied pension entitlements, holiday pay and sick pay. Is there no pot set aside for that?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
RT has set aside just under €20 million for Revenue. By setting that aside, and given the fact that RT has already paid €1.2 million, Mr. Bakhurst accepts that a wrong was done and there is a possibility that RT will have to pay Revenue at least €20 million or upwards of that. That is only going from 2021.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If we go back through the decades the cost will multiply. What annoys me is that money is set aside for Revenue, because legally RT will have to pay it. It is taxpayers' money. Not a cent has been set aside for the workers who have been misclassified, going back decades, who have lost out on entitlements. There was no shortage of money for exit packages paid to some people who were not even entitled to them, yet there is no money set aside for workers who are entitled to it, yet this is the new RT. When one thinks about it, it is hard to credit how unjust that is. We are expected to accept that this is a new RT and that is still the thinking: that it can screw the workers, take them to court, fight them all the way, pay taxpayers' money, go into the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, bring Arthur Cox – it does not matter how much that costs - RT will fight the workers all the way when they are the ones that have been hard done by. I am just going to leave that there as the new RT thinking.
I have two other very brief questions. We spoke before about GAAGO and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, investigating the fact that initially, permission was given to put games outside of Ireland behind a paywall. Now it seems that RT is operating the paywall within the island of Ireland. That is despite the fact that the approval given by the CCPC, states five times that it is for outside of Ireland. The previous time I raised this, Mr. Bakhurst stated that he had received legal advice saying that further clearance was not required. Was that in-house legal advice or legal advice from outside of RT? Could we please be furnished with the legal advice because when I spoke to the CCPC last I was told there is no decision and it is still actually working on it?
We would be interested to see the legal advice that RT was furnished with, whether it was in-house or independent outside advice, where it was stated that clearance was not required for RT to operate a paywall inside the island of Ireland.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know that because I dealt with it. What I asked was whether RT can furnish us with the legal advice that said it was not doing anything wrong and that further clearance was not required.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What we are hearing all of the time is "legal advice privilege". This is something that could be cleared up. If RT got outside legal advice and there is nothing to hide, it should furnish it. Did RT furnish it to the CCPC?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
But did RT furnish it to the CCPC?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know RT has engaged with it on its request, but it did not furnish it-----
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
RT did not furnish the commission with the outside legal advice that said no further clearance was required. RT did not use that as an argument to say “We got outside legal advice that no further clearance is required”. RT did not produce that document to the CCPC.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Did RT mention to the commission that it had it?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Deputy’s time is up.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a final question. Is there anybody among the RT board members who currently holds ownership, directorship or shares in independent production companies?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, the executive board.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would Mr. Bakhurst see a conflict of interest in that?
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Of the executive board, who would have either managing directorship-----
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is there anyone currently who is a director of a particular part of RT who would-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the management team.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Absolutely no one. You are sure of that.
Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. We will come back to that.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not sure we have achieved what I had hoped we would achieve today, which is the staunching of the flow of blood, particularly in terms of the TV licence fee. I do not think anybody wants to see more damage inflicted on an organisation that we have all publicly said is so important in terms of its public service remit.
I have what is perhaps a niche question. I had a question at one of the previous meetings, and I do not know if it was Mr. Lynch or Mr. Collins who replied to me. I asked whether the treatment of the invoices was tax-compliant or not because there was, essentially, funny business around the invoices; they were paid in a different jurisdiction and the reason they were paid out is not what was said on the tin. I was told at the time that that was being looked into to establish whether there was any tax liability arising. Has that work been completed and are we tax-compliant?
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Very good, we have that at least. I will return to the topic that Deputy Dillon was addressing. If you are a top presenter in RT, a lot of your attractiveness to companies derives from the fact you have a profile that comes from RT. I hope it would be relatively straightforward in respect of direct employees to apply things like a register of interests or a gifts register. On product placement, I know RT has strict rules around that and it seems to be content that they are being implemented. Things like brand ambassador roles may be a little more difficult because they exist outside of RT. I want to ask how watertight that is going to be. In particular, how many of the top RT presenters are now freelance presenters and how many are direct employees?
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it more difficult to apply to things like brand ambassador roles?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
Yes, it is. The reality is that, particularly on services like 2FM, we recruit people because they have a profile on, say, social media to bring in that audience. We need to be clear and transparent about what they are allowed or not allowed to do, and we will publish what they do. However, we need to be realistic that we bring them in because they bring a following from social media in some cases.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, and it is a two-way street because RT is the biggest show in town.
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When those arrangements come to be renegotiated, are we establishing guidelines that are going to tighten up all of these areas?
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
At the moment, we have an interim leadership team. I have concerns. The person who cut the most forlorn figure in all of this was actually Siún Ní Raghallaigh. I felt very badly for the board because they were left in the dark for an enormous amount of this and were not properly informed. We have this interim leadership team. My concern is, first, when are we going to move past that and when are we going to reconstitute - I do not know if we are going to call it an executive board, or whether there is going to be a difference in language-----
Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A leadership team. Can Mr. Bakhurst tell me about the communication pathways that he is planning to put in place to make sure this leadership team does not become, essentially, a silo decision-making area, which is what had happened, and reports more directly to the board? An ordinary board member-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We might let Mr. Bakhurst reply to that clear question.
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
It has been really important and has been a priority for me and for Ms Ní Raghallaigh to make sure there is proper communication. The board members who appeared at the other committee confirmed there was a much greater degree of transparency and discussion about key decisions. There are a few things. First, I do a written director general's report to the board for every board meeting, which I do not think was the case before, as it was a verbal update. There is now a full written report of several pages. We have a discussion about the key areas that feature in that, and I try to make sure that the key decisions are in that report and can be fully discussed. The second thing is that we attach to that the minutes of all of the leadership meetings, so for anything I have not mentioned, they can see it is minuted from the leadership meetings.
There is a degree of openness now. The current company secretary, Ms Mullooly, is also the head of legal and sits on the board but also sits on the leadership team, so she is a conduit as well, but there is an absolute move towards greater transparency. The Deputy is certainly right that key to some of the issues that RT has had is that not enough was presented to the board or challenged at the board, or not enough information was made available to them. We have put in place a lot of measures to do that.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It was one of the big failures, and I think we would agree on that. I call Deputy Brady, who I had to stop earlier as he was over time.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I want to return to that issue of bogus self-employment, going right back to the Eversheds review and the 157 who were deemed to be akin to staff of RT. Some 82 of those 157 were offered contracts with RT, although I think only 79 took that up. It has been reported that an offer has been made and this is outside the €1.2 million settlement with Revenue and the Department of Social Protection. A settlement of between €2,500 and €17,500 has been offered to those employees. Is that right?
Ms Eimear Cusack:
At the end of the Eversheds process, we agreed this with the trade union group. One of the last governing principles was that at the end of the process, for those who had been involved in Eversheds, we would sit down to look at any residual issues, including any matters relating to retrospection, and that was the deal.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sorry, I am conscious of time. Of those 79, I think they were given a month to make a decision as to whether they would accept that payment or not. Is that right?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That month is due to expire.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How many of those 79 agreed to that?
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
For the 20% who did not, have they been escalated to the WRC or what is the position?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:
I have met a number of those individuals who did not agree and who felt they were not properly treated, and there may be other cases. I said to them that if they feel they have a case, they are totally at liberty to use the WRC or the courts, obviously, to challenge the outcome of that mediated process.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Returning to the scope review and the 695 cases, it is astonishing and shameful to say that that process is going to take 15 years.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Fifteen years. The cases go back to the 1980s.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is a 40-year timeframe. I imagine a lot of the people who were part of that review have retired. I imagine some have-----
Ms Eimear Cusack:
There is one person who had retired. He had been in employment in the 1970s and he brought his own case for a particular adjudication. In the main, when you look at the contractor pool, these are people who are providing services to RT but not necessarily full time. They could have a contract for a year but they are drawn in for particular projects. They were the groupings that were brought in. The review includes people who are currently employed but who were contractors before, people who have left and people who became employees as part of the Eversheds process. They were brought under the auspices of the Department's scope section. In the main, I think one or two cases date back to the 1980s and there are a number from the 1990s.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
According to the analysis carried out, this review could take 15 years. It is totally unacceptable that we are looking at individuals here who have retired. Some have passed away and I am sure that over the next 15 years a number of those, given the nature of life-----
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----will pass away without having their entitlements or potential entitlements being addressed or properly acknowledged. That 15-year estimate is totally unacceptable.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Let Mr. Bakhurst respond.
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I think it needs to be accelerated dramatically-----
John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----to avoid having staff within RT or, indeed, the Department of Social Protection engaged in a process for 15 years.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is important for us to hear, from Mr. Bakhurst's point of view, that he is anxious for this process to be moved along.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is good to hear that. I have a couple of questions around the issue of agents before we finish. It is fair to say it is an issue that has come up. It has been one of the problematic issues, among a large number of issues, that have arisen at RT. Have new procedures been put in place for dealing with agents?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is fine. Mr. Bakhurst's second point is absolutely clear to me. I want to tease out the first part of his response. He said he is not meeting with some agents. Does that mean that as director general he will meet with some other agents?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Everything has to be signed off and any contract has to be signed off by the leadership team.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will not have a situation where a director general basically rubber-stamps a deal, using their authority. Is that correct? The chief financial officer-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Obviously, Mr. Bakhurst said that he goes through them. To be clear, my point is that he will not be taking that decision alone. It is a shared decision.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Some changes have been noticed. I do not want to personalise this, and I am not referring to any particular contract, but obviously there may be an agent or agents who are handling a number of people, top presenters or significant figures in RT. Has Mr. Bakhurst given thought to or put anything in place in terms of not allowing an agent to have undue influence by virtue of the fact that they represent a significant number of presenters, stars or talent?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Bakhurst see the risk?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
He can see a risk in future.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Mr. Bakhurst actively encouraging the situation where presenters or talent, as they are referred to at times, can negotiate directly with RT?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand that.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Football players and others use agents.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand that RT does not control all the levers, but it is an issue of concern.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. That concludes our questioning. I know there have been some robust exchanges back and forward. Before we conclude, I wish to state that nobody was questioning the professional integrity or the professionalism of the legal services at RT. There is a difference of opinion. At the start of the meeting, I said that I and other members have disagreed with RT's decision not to release the note dated 7 May 2020. I ask the witnesses to reflect on that. I think there is a credibility issue with it. I do not want to reopen an argument over it but for me, there is a big credibility issue in terms of the reasons given for the decision. In one of the last exchanges Ms Mullooly said that it is a point of principle. I am quoting directly what she said. She referred to a point of principle. There is a point of credibility here for RT overall. This should not be allowed in terms of the significant changes that are happening and the further changes to come. I know there is a myriad of examinations and investigations that are yet to conclude. It is daunting, to say the least, looking at it. That one issue should not be allowed to cloud everything else. In the interest of transparency, the legal team and the management should look at that decision again. I am asking them not to close the door on it. I think it would be helpful from RT's point of view and to us in the Oireachtas because the Government will have to sign a cheque here. That should be borne in mind. I say that in a constructive way.
I thank the witnesses and staff at RT and those in the Department under Ms Licken for the work involved in preparing for today's meeting. I also thank Ms Colette Drinan and the staff of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General for attending and assisting the committee today.
Is it agreed that the clerk will seek any follow-up information and carry out any agreed actions arising from today's meeting? Agreed. Is it also agreed that we note and publish the opening statements and briefings for today's meeting? Agreed.
I wish RT well with its work. It is full steam ahead with it. We will resume in public session at 2 p.m. to deal with correspondence and other committee business. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.