Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It must be a long time since the governance of a public body has been called into question for such a period of time and that so many questions have come to be asked and have yet to be answered. One of the main questions I have is what drove the derogation of trust and the need to conceal the spending of public moneys. Why did RTÉ management deceive the public and the Oireachtas for five years in a row regarding the public salary of one of its best-paid employees? I also want to ask the Minister why the Grant Thornton report has not yet been published. Will the Minister give a commitment to publish it in full? Will Government also give a commitment to publish the two further reviews that it has announced today, including any reports emanating from the work of the proposed forensic accountant to be appointed?

There are many questions on the current pay structures in RTÉ and I understand that RTÉ managers have a powerful management association made up of more than 300 personnel in RTÉ. This helps this grouping to negotiate and conclude pay deals for their grade structures. What efforts will the Government be making to look into these dealings in the overall reviews it has announced? This debacle has been framed as a result of the culture of a small group within the leadership who decided to act in breach of corporate fiduciary governance in a deliberate attempt to deceive. To what purpose? I want to remind the Minister of the Latin phrase "Cui bono". Who benefits? Was the purpose solely to retain the services of Ryan Tubridy or could it also have been about concealing the spending of State moneys to provide freebies, junkets and entitlements to cosseted staff? Was there an entitlement culture within the senior leadership in RTÉ? Perhaps there was also an accommodative financial oversight perspective that was happy not to look too deeply or intently.

I will begin with the talent question. How do we estimate the talent and the value of talent in RTÉ and who should decide how much senior talented people are to be paid and how much cost should be attributed to that? We know who it appears the final decision-maker was in the last round of negotiations, or so we are told but we have not heard from that person as yet. Is it only the people who contribute and cut their teeth in children's entertainment on RTÉ that can somehow come to prominence later on in adult programming? Is it all those who are on "Bosco" and "The Den" who have a free path into the higher echelons of RTÉ presentation? What are all of our students who are studying media and communication doing? Are they wasting their time looking for senior positions in this academy if they do not come through the RTÉ school?

We need to benchmark ourselves against and the best in the business but not at the highest cost in the business. I point the Minister to the fragmentation that is taking place in media, television and digital streaming services. With respect to Mr. Tubridy or Noel Kelly's negotiations with the chair of RTÉ, why did she not look to the UK and the loss of Angus Deayton to one of the flagship BBC programmes, "Have I Got News for You"? When Deayton had to leave the producers took the decision to offer host spots every week to celebrity people to come in and underpin that show, and that strategy continues to this day. Did such an idea not cross the mind of the director general when being pressed to provide additional moneys to retain the services of Mr. Tubridy? Is it only in the private sector where companies make strategic financial decisions based on cost and value metrics?

RTÉ has had a mission promulgated on the dedication to truth, yet it is only those with money who can afford to advertise with RTÉ. How are their narratives in advertising and promotion balanced against the public interest? RTÉ radio and television have recently been to the vanguard of criticising agricultural sector emissions and promoting activity cuts in that sector. Is this stance purely based on science or could it have much to do with NGO advertisers and those promoting alternative foods seeking a reduction in the availability of Irish-grown meat and milk that delivered this attitude? Given the new climate sensitivity, did RTÉ not agonise in recent weeks over its appointment of Patrick Kielty, understanding the significant carbon emissions he would be contributing to in commuting in and out of Ireland by air every week? Are aviation emissions different to bovine emissions in the eyes of RTÉ when seen in the light of RTÉ advertising revenue coming from air travel as opposed to coming from the agricultural sector? The Minister's review also needs to question the degree to which public attitudes as conveyed by RTÉ are influenced by the advertising revenues they receive. In terms of supporting RTÉ's commercial activity, this is a serious question that needs to be asked in the public interest. We cannot have a public organisation which is dependent on a commercial footing from private sector operators that may be changing the attitudes of the public at large purely by the advertising revenue that is being generated.

I welcome the reviews the Minister has announced and the benefits of a forensic accountant looking at the wider financial activities in RTÉ.

However, we need an interim report as quickly as possible to ensure that what needs addressing is actually being acted upon.

Finally, we must look at the question of who is to blame. I am not sure it is right to blame Noel Kelly or Ryan Tubridy, because it does not appear that any law has actually been broken. That point must be made. Maybe that is also true in the case of Dee Forbes. What is plain to see is that we have a semi-State organisation that had, and maybe still has, a distant and opaque management and communications style. What the reviews will show is that the people within that organisation decided to play fast and loose with public moneys for their own benefit and that of their own careers. Ultimately, I believe that is what the review will find. Then the question will be what this House will demand in the future in terms of introducing safeguards to prevent a future reoccurrence.

See this speech in context