Skip to main content
Normal View

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 29 Jun 2023

Appropriation and Expenditure of Public Moneys by RTÉ: Discussion

I welcome the witnesses to the meeting this afternoon. I remind all those in attendance to make sure their mobile phones are on silent or switched off. 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.

A number of witnesses today are giving their evidence remotely from a place outside the parliamentary precincts. As such, they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings. Those witnesses have been advised of this and may think it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter.

Witnesses participating in this committee session from a jurisdiction outside the State will have already been advised that they should be mindful of their domestic law and how it may apply to the evidence they give. Their decision on whether they take legal advice on the evidence they propose to give should also be informed by this.

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, her or it identifiable or otherwise 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.

This afternoon we are joined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee. He is accompanied by Mr. Andrew Harkness, director of audit at the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

This afternoon we are engaging with RTÉ and the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media to examine matters relating to the appropriation of public moneys to RTÉ and the expenditure by RTÉ of such public moneys. Additionally the committee wishes to discuss commercial arrangements entered into by RTÉ and its presenters, including those underwritten by RTÉ which have impacted on and relate to the expenditure of public moneys. These matters for discussion have arisen in the context of recent and ongoing revelations regarding RTÉ's payment of presenters and how this was previously presented to the Oireachtas.

The terms of reference of the Committee of Public Accounts have been extended to give us increased powers to examine these issues. We have also been given powers of compellability to invite people who are not here today. I want to put members and witnesses on notice that the committee has agreed to ask Ms Dee Forbes to attend when it is medically appropriate for her to do so. In the near future we will seek the go-ahead for this through the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight of the Houses of the Oireachtas. We wish Ms Forbes well and we wish her a speedy recovery.

RTÉ and the Department have been advised of the areas of focus for the committee. These are the appropriation of public moneys by the Department to RTÉ and the oversight of same by the Department; payment to RTÉ presenters, specifically from 2017 to date, and how these payments were accounted for in the RTÉ accounts; the oversight mechanisms for such payments, in particular but not limited to payments to Ryan Tubridy; the process relating to the cost-neutral nature of the Renault agreement, including the persons responsible for signing off on it; the specifics of what led to the agreement to underwrite the commercial arrangement with Renault and Ryan Tubridy, and the details of the RTÉ policy relating to such underwriting of these agreements, RTÉ's policy regarding the operation of barter accounts, why they are used and what oversight there is in RTÉ regarding such accounts; and the discrepancies between previous assurances given to the Committee of Public Accounts by RTÉ on matters which are now in the public domain.

We have a long list of witnesses. We are joined by Mr. Adrian Lynch, interim deputy director general; Ms Geraldine O'Leary, director of commercial; Ms Paula Mullooly, director of legal affairs; Mr. Rory Coveney, director of strategy; Mr. Richard Collins, chief financial officer; Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh, chairperson of the board; Ms Anne O'Leary, chair of the audit and risk committee; and Mr. Robert Shortt, member of the audit and risk committee and RTÉ staff representative on the board.

We are also joined by Dr. PJ Matthews, RTÉ board member, via Microsoft Teams. I understand that Dr. Matthews would have been on the board over the past five or six years. We are also joined by the following individuals from RTÉ: Ms Moya Doherty, the former chairperson of the RTÉ board; and Mr. Willie O'Reilly, former director of commercial at RTÉ, who is joining us via Microsoft Teams. We are joined by the following representatives from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media: Ms Katherine Licken, Secretary General; and Ms Tríona Quill, assistant secretary, broadcasting and media. We are ready to start so I ask Ms Ní Raghallaigh to make her opening statement.

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach agus leis na baill as an deis labhairt leo. At the outset, I reiterate our profound regret regarding what has emerged in recent days. We know that RTÉ fell far short of the standards expected of us as an organisation. We know this represents an egregious breach of trust with the public, for which we apologise.

I am particularly aware of the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts in ensuring accountability and transparency in how public bodies like RTÉ allocate, spend and manage their finances. The committee is charged with ensuring that the taxpayer receives value for money for every euro spent by such bodies. Given the committee's mission of guardianship of the public purse, the failures that have come to light on RTÉ's part must be truly shocking to it, as they are to me. That was a breach of trust with the elected members of the Committee of Public Accounts, which has a central role in Irish public life, and this is something for which we sincerely apologise. We are completely committed to rebuilding trust with the committee and with other public representatives. This is the least we can do.

We also welcome the role that the Committee of Public Accounts has been afforded to examine expenditure by RTÉ and we will work closely with the committee in this regard. As a trained accountant and a former financial controller, I am appalled as to how payments were recorded and presented in the RTÉ accounts. What was the motivation here? It appears to me that this was an act designed to deceive. The forthcoming external Government review will look at matters of culture and governance, and this is welcome, but in the short term that is not enough. Every day that passes further erodes confidence in an institution that is a cornerstone of this State. The RTÉ board is the governing authority of RTÉ and the role of the board is to guide the corporate direction and strategy of RTÉ and represent the interests of viewers, listeners and staff, ensuring that RTÉ fulfils its statutory responsibilities in an efficient and effective manner.

We work independently of the executive board. As such the board of RTÉ is taking a lead in driving the following five objectives, supported by outside expertise as required. First is establishing the facts. From the moment the board was informed of a potential problem, we have worked to establish the facts. Within days of receiving the first Grant Thornton report, we published the details. We have since published the first Grant Thornton report and we commit to publishing the second Grant Thornton report as soon as possible. Accountants from Grant Thornton are currently on site in RTÉ. The board and I would also urge Dee Forbes to appear before this committee when she is able to do so.

Second is cultural transformation. Yesterday at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media, I stated that in an organisation culture comes from the top down. The culture of an organisation permeates its leadership and decision-making processes. RTÉ produces excellent journalism and creative content but specific cultural issues around information silos and domineering hierarchies that shun transparency and foster bureaucracy are all too evident. The board will lead on addressing this.

Third is internal controls. This series of events has revealed grave failings in internal controls at RTÉ. Nothing less than an overhaul of such controls and work practices will suffice, and the board will oversee this process. Fourth is examining how RTÉ spends its money. We need to stand back and examine how RTÉ manages its money. This should start with a review of the highest-paid in the organisation. We will also look at those areas in which expenditure can be strengthened in pursuit of public service broadcasting, such as RTÉ’s digital capabilities. Fifth is the future strategy. The crisis has placed RTÉ in a dangerous place. The board, working with the organisation, will map out a future strategy to bring this organisation to a safer haven, an organisation that delivers the best in public service broadcasting, trusted by the public and employees alike. We need to strike that careful balance in achieving an organisation that can blend the agility needed to provide a public broadcasting service in an ever-changing market, while also having the controls and governance standards of an entity funded by the taxpayer.

I want to say something about the use of the word "talent". Words matter and the term, as it is currently used, reinforces a "them and us" culture in RTÉ. It implies some have greater worth than others. The first step in cultural change is to consign this term to the dustbin. I wish to restate the fact that more than 1,800 people work for RTÉ and I apologise to each and every one of them for the distress they are experiencing. Together we have a job of work to do to restore their confidence.

I understand that Mr. Lynch wishes to make a brief statement.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

As interim deputy director general of RTÉ I concede that as an executive we failed in our collective responsibility around the events leading to the misstatement of payments to Ryan Tubridy. I wish to state again our deep regret for what has emerged in recent days. For this serious breach of trust with the public, we apologise. It is a fact that the application of Government procedures at an executive board level allowed for the partial and incomplete sharing of information so that individual members of the executive either did not have access to information or had information withheld from them. It is true that the executive board failed in its collective responsibility to act as a collective and failed to ensure good governance in this matter. Collectively, owing to the silent style of the procedures at the executive and an over-reliance on the prerogative asserted by the director general, we did not receive a comprehensive evaluation of Ryan Tubridy’s contract in full, including the way in which the payments were to be treated. We acknowledge and accept this failure, specifically by those members of the executive who were aware of the contract. I spoke to Kevin Bakhurst last night and I understand from him that his first task when he begins on 10 July will be a complete reconstitution of the executive board of RTÉ.

Ms Katherine Licken

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach agus le comhaltaí an choiste as an deis a thabhairt dom an ráiteas seo a dhéanamh. Public service broadcasting, as has been reiterated on numerous occasions in the last week, plays a critical role in informing, educating and entertaining the public. Critically also, it holds to account those in positions of responsibility and power. It is also frequently at the forefront in tackling misinformation. That is why, as the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, and her colleagues in government have repeatedly emphasised over the past week, there is a need for RTÉ to show appropriate leadership and give a full account of all of the circumstances that led to the making of these payments and the understatement of earnings.

The Department is working intensively to support the Minister in ensuring that the governance structures and culture that enabled this issue to arise are comprehensively addressed. In that regard, the Department and the Minister are engaging with RTÉ on the steps it is taking to deal with the matter in order to provide full clarification on all aspects of these transactions, including the timely completion of the Grant Thornton review into the payments between 2017 and 2019.

The Department is also working intensively with the Minister on the development of the terms of reference of the external review into governance and culture at RTÉ, which the Minister announced in recent days. This review will focus on whether RTÉ's governance framework is fit for purpose and in line with best governance practice in commercial State bodies, taking account of broadcasting legislation, the requirements of the code of practice for the governance of State bodies and the findings from the various Grant Thornton reviews commissioned by RTÉ. The review will also consider RTÉ's organisational culture, the impact that culture has had on levels of trust, governance, transparency and communications, and what changes should be made. As part of this process, the Department is supporting the Minister in her engagement with key stakeholders, including representatives from the National Union of Journalists and Screen Producers Ireland, with whom we met yesterday. The details of the terms of reference are currently being finalised and will be published once they are approved by the Government.

As I have said, public service broadcasting is critical to the proper functioning of our society. RTÉ plays a central role in that regard. It is in the interests of us all that the issues at RTÉ are addressed in a comprehensive and effective manner. As the Minister has stated, the organisation has been badly damaged by the revelations over the past week. It is vital that public confidence in RTÉ is restored. I thank the committee for allowing me to make this statement. I am happy to answer any questions members have.

I thank Ms Licken. I will now take questions from members, starting with Deputy O'Connor. He has 15 minutes, with all other speakers having ten minutes each.

We all stand in solidarity with the ordinary workers in RTÉ, recognising how disappointed and let down they all are. That has been acknowledged here today but, ultimately, this is about responsibility and accountability. That is what we need to get to the bottom of today.

There are a number of points in the opening statement by the chairperson that contradict what has gone on within the organisation over the past number of years. The chairperson is not alone in that. She is joined by the former chairperson. It is an inescapable fact that the issues have been going on for some years. We need to speak to the former director general when she is in a state to speak to us. We acknowledge that she is unwell and wish her well in her recovery. It is imperative that such engagement happens. In the engagement at yesterday's meeting of the joint committee, significant blame was laid at that particular door. We are unable at this time to get answers to the questions that have been raised but we will do so when the opportunity arises.

In terms of rebuilding public confidence, the first question I have for Ms Ní Raghallaigh relates to the pay of the executive board of RTÉ. Is that something she will look at? Can she furnish the committee with details of the earnings of each member of the board in time for next week's meeting?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

As I said, one of the first things we are looking at is the salaries of, and payments to, the top earners in RTÉ, which would include members of the executive board. In terms of publishing those figures, it certainly is something we are considering to be done. It was discussed yesterday at the Oireachtas joint committee.

It is not enough to consider doing it. The figures need to be published in full. Nothing else, frankly, is going to rebuild the public's trust in Ms Ní Raghallaigh's organisation. We need to know precisely how much money each member of the board has earned. In addition, details of the top 100 earners within the organisation should be made public. That is absolutely imperative.

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

I undertake to do that.

Ms Ní Raghallaigh intends to do that.

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

Yes.

Does she have a timeline for the implementation of such a decision and when the public and this committee will be made aware of it?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

It will be done as soon as practically possible in terms of being able to extract the information and make it available to the committee.

We welcome that decision. We have arrived at this position as a consequence of the €350,000 in additional non-declared payment made to Mr. Tubridy between 2017 and 2022. We need to get to the bottom of how those arrangements were negotiated. Who were the participants in those negotiations? I understand these decisions were taken by the director general. Are there other members of the executive committee who participated in such negotiations who are present here today?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

That is correct.

Will Ms Ní Raghallaigh identify them?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

They would not necessarily have all the information. Mr. Lynch would have had some of the information. There are people who are not here who would have had the information. The director of content would have had some of the information. The chief financial officer, Mr. Collins, would have had some of the information. Ms O'Leary-----

Does Ms Ní Raghallaigh not see even from her reply to my question, which is quite a simple question, just how much of a mess has been created from a governance perspective?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

I agree. That is why we are here. It is because there is that mess.

Is it correct that the Renault deal first came into being in 1998?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

I defer to Ms O'Leary on that question.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Renault had an ongoing sponsorship arrangement with RTÉ's commercial division. The first connection with RTÉ and any talent contract or any commercial client with a talent contract was at the end of February 2020, when I was advised by the then CFO that the contract negotiations with Ryan Tubridy were finishing and were being put in place for the following four to five years - it changed but it was four at the time - and that there was going to be a commercial element and that they would talk to me about it. I was not brought in when the contract was being done. I subsequently was advised by the director general that the idea behind the commercial deal was that I would talk to the sponsor about including some personal appearances by Ryan Tubridy as part of the overall Renault relationship with RTÉ.

Is Mr. Tubridy the only presenter within RTÉ that was receiving money as a consequence of Renault's deals with the organisation?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes.

He was the only person?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes.

No previous presenters involved in any RTÉ shows were benefactors of that?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

To repeat, I have been in RTÉ since 1997 and I have never before been across any element of a talent contract.

Let us proceed to the decision, when that deal come to a conclusion, whereby RTÉ subsequently stepped forward to supplement Mr. Tubridy's salary by way of a very confidential arrangement. That is probably the most politically correct phrase I could use. Does Ms O'Leary believe that was appropriate?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Just to be correct, I spoke to Renault about year one only. There is some suggestion that Renault did not renew. We only spoke to Renault about year one. In year two, there was-----

For the public's knowledge, what was the amount of money in year one?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

The amount of money in year one was €75,000 paid for three appearances by Ryan Tubridy, which subsequently happened in 2022 because of Covid.

I am going to ask Ms O'Leary again the question I already asked. Does she think what happened following on from that, whereby RTÉ stepped in with a confidential arrangement involving figures that were not made public, was appropriate?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I was not aware that the figures were not going to be made public.

To be fair, I am not asking Ms O'Leary whether she was aware of that. I am asking whether she thinks this was an appropriate arrangement.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

In hindsight, no.

It is good to know that. Going back to Ms Ní Raghallaigh, who was aware of the figures? She said there are people in this room who would have had some knowledge of what went on.

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

Yes, that is what I said.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

I can answer that. Typically, how talent contracts are negotiated is that they are led by the CFO, with input from legal. Then, regarding the hours and services provided, I would input into that. In terms of talent choices, the director of content would input into that. In terms of Ryan Tubridy's deal and who was aware of it, regarding the terms of the deal and how much he would be paid, the director of content, the CFO, legal, the director general and I would be the people who would be aware.

Does Mr. Lynch feel he has misled the public in a very underhand way that has had massive repercussions for the reputation of the organisation and the individuals involved, including the fact the director general is now gone? What does he think of what has been achieved?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

The information I was provided with was that there was going to be a sponsorship arrangement whereby Ryan Tubridy would be paid if it was enacted and then there was his standard contract. Things progressed and then, obviously, there was a further commercial undertaking given that if the sponsorship contract was not enacted, RTÉ would underwrite the contract. If the Deputy remembers, that was during the Covid period and it was very difficult to enact the sponsorships.

Half the country's employment positions were potentially impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. I do not need to lecture anybody here about how difficult that was for everybody, no matter what role in Irish society they occupied from an employment perspective. RTÉ saw fit, in the middle of a pandemic, to contrive some type of scheme in order to maintain the pay - privately, in unpublished figures - of someone who was already one of the biggest earners in the organisation.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

At the point at which RTÉ paid Ryan Tubridy, that should have been declared.

It is all well and good to say that now, but why did RTÉ not do that originally?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

What occurred in this instance was that the sponsorship agreement involved three events, which would happen publicly, so there was nothing-----

Obviously, they could not proceed on account of Covid-19. Is that correct?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Correct, so at that point in time-----

So RTÉ came in with the public purse and filled in the gap. That is what happened.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Correct.

That is appalling.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

It is absolutely appalling. I totally agree. I had no knowledge that RTÉ had directly paid Ryan Tubridy.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

I have looked at the correspondence and spoken to each individual executive board member over the past seven days, since this blew up. From what I can see, there was a commercial decision made on 7 May 2020 between the director general and NK Management that this contract would be underwritten. That is the only evidence I can see of a commitment. That was given then, and that commitment-----

I will ask the witnesses the question again. Who among the organisation and the employees of RTÉ was aware?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

From everything I have seen, the director general was aware because she had given this undertaking to NK Management that if the sponsorship deal did not happen, RTÉ would pay the bill.

Does Mr. Coveney sit in on meetings with the director general when there are negotiations in relation to the pay of RTÉ's top stars?

Mr. Rory Coveney

No, I do not. I have no role to play at all in the negotiation of top talent contracts and never did. They are not part of my role.

In terms of the commercial activity relating to RTÉ, Mr. Coveney would have had a significant lead on a number of projects undertaken by the organisation. Is that not correct?

Mr. Rory Coveney

That is true.

Questions were put to RTÉ yesterday by the Chairperson of the Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media, Deputy Niamh Smyth, about the figures around the profitability of a commercial undertaking by RTÉ, namely "Toy Show The Musical". Can the witnesses give us the figures as to how profitable that undertaking was?

Mr. Rory Coveney

We have already shared substantial information with the committee about the problems of the project, the rationale for the project-----

I watched yesterday's proceedings. The witnesses did not share such information.

Mr. Rory Coveney

We have made a substantial submission to this committee about the project, the rationale for it, the gestation, the research that went into it-----

What was the outcome of that?

Mr. Rory Coveney

Not great, to be honest, but I-----

Are you in a position to inform us what the losses were?

Mr. Rory Coveney

Not at the moment. We-----

When will you be able to do so?

Mr. Rory Coveney

We entered into a whole series of commercial relationships in relation to this project which are sensitive, with third parties involved. We are happy to look again to see what we can share and come back to the committee in due course.

My understanding is that it was an unmitigated disaster. Is that accurate?

Mr. Rory Coveney

It was not successful, but it was always envisaged to be a multi-annual project. We have decided not to proceed with it this year. We are looking at other options for it into the future and we do not want to compromise our capacity to negotiate with third parties in relation to those arrangements in the future.

When it comes to accountability for money that is squandered within RTÉ, do the witnesses accept, on foot of the information that has come to light, that the structures of payment within the organisation are nowhere near fit for purpose? Look at the number of agency staff being employed, the key stars, the highest earners and the power Mr. Kelly had over RTÉ as an organisation. What stopped RTÉ from saying to the individuals involved that this was probably not tenable to continue with and that it wanted to fill its prime slots with people who have full-time roles and are hired within RTÉ's structure itself rather than allowing these agents to have such bartering power?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

I do not disagree with the Deputy there. I think - I know - that is the way we have to go.

Did the board of RTÉ never have this conversation? How did we get to this position where, ultimately, a PR catastrophe is the cause of our now having this conversation? Did the executive board of RTÉ not recognise before now that one individual had pretty much godlike power when it came to the presenters who were being allowed airtime on our most significant broadcaster?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

Correct, and that is what we are looking at as to whether we continue to deal with agents.

What is RTÉ going to do going forward from here?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

That is what I am talking about. I called out the five pillars: reviewing the internal controls; establishing the facts, which we have done, and the audit and risk committee has a role in that regard; cultural transformation; examining how the money is spent, and under that one would be looking at items such as those that have been raised here today, and-----

I must ask about the Grant Thornton report currently being prepared by the RTÉ board for the audit and risk committee. This is an ongoing mess, and more information is coming to light with each day that goes by. Does RTÉ have the scope to allow for the extension of that report to include information that may come to light in the coming weeks?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

Just to clarify, is the Deputy talking about the report that is currently under way?

Yes. The second report.

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

I will let Ms O'Leary take that, but just to point out this-----

That is fine. The time is limited.

Ms Anne O'Leary

Just in order that members are all aware, they have to remember that this was all initiated when the auditor, Deloitte, came to me and said there was a problem. We had a look at the problem and came back. The auditor said he was unhappy and he advised me to get forensic accountants in. As a result we immediately went to Grant Thornton and started this process and then gave the report. This is an example of the board and the audit and risk committee actually doing their job. We have now extended the terms of reference, and when they finish this one we have another job of work for them to do. So the answer to the Deputy's question is "Yes". We will extend the terms of reference of the Grant Thornton team.

In conclusion, I think that on foot of the-----

Very briefly.

Yes, very briefly, and it is a conclusion. On foot of what that Taoiseach has said this afternoon and what the Chairperson of the media committee, Deputy Niamh Smyth, said yesterday, it is important now, given all this information and the lack of information the witnesses are able to provide in answer to the questions, that Ryan Tubridy be invited to appear before this committee as well as Mr. Kelly.

I call Deputy Munster.

My first question is for Mr. Collins. He was asked yesterday if he was aware of the problem with the invoices and he said no. About an hour later into the meeting the committee got the truth from him that he was actually aware of the issue in early March. He had previously said he was not aware of it before 17 March. He said that Deloitte had spoken to him, had flagged up concerns and was seeking an explanation, and that he spoke to the director general following that and then was to get back to Deloitte. Can he tell us what the conversation with the director general was and what she actually told him about the invoices? What explanation did she give?

Mr. Richard Collins

Sure. On 7 March Deloitte approached me, which would be normal. I would not be involved in the detail of the audit, but at the end of the audit if there were issues outstanding, they would approach me. They raised the issue of these invoices there and they asked me what they were for. I undertook then to speak to the director general about them. I asked the director general what they were for. She told me they were consultancy invoices relating to Noel Kelly Management and I relayed that back to Deloitte.

When she said they were consultancy invoices relating to Noel Kelly-----

Mr. Richard Collins

Consultancy invoices relating to services during Covid that Noel Kelly had provided.

Mr. Collins asked what those services were.

Mr. Richard Collins

I did, at a high level.

What did she say?

Mr. Richard Collins

The services related to how RTÉ restructured its operations-----

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes, to help with-----

-----was giving RTÉ advice.

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes, he was.

In what capacity?

Mr. Richard Collins

He was giving advice to RTÉ as to how we dealt with sponsors.

Mr. Collins is being a bit vague.

Mr. Richard Collins

To be honest, I got a high-level response from the director general. Deloitte was not happy with the response I was given, and I cannot and will not go there because-----

I just want Mr. Collins to explain that because Noel Kelly was advising RTÉ on how to deal with agents during Covid-----

Mr. Richard Collins

During Covid.

And he was getting a €75,000 fee for that. What advice did he give?

Mr. Richard Collins

I do not know exactly what advice-----

Oh, right, so Mr. Collins did not ask-----

Mr. Richard Collins

I did ask-----

Mr. Richard Collins

If the Deputy just lets me finish-----

It is not Mr. Collins but I who am confused.

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes, if the Deputy would just let me-----

No, it is myself who is confused. Mr. Collins is the chief finance officer and there are two payments of €75,000. Deloitte flagged concerns about these with him. He spoke to the director general and she said the payments related to Noel Kelly giving advice about agents during Covid. We will hear the detail on what exactly that entailed. Mr. Collins thought, "Okay, that is worth €150,000."

Mr. Richard Collins

I did not think, "That is worth €150,000."

So, what was the advice? What did Mr. Collins learn from the €150,000-worth that he thought-----

Mr. Richard Collins

I cannot remember exactly how she explained it.

It was not value for money, then, if he cannot remember it.

Mr. Richard Collins

I cannot remember and I am not going to speculate on what that was. I can come back to the Deputy. I probably have notes from then on what it was-----

How did Mr. Collins relay that to Deloitte?

Mr. Richard Collins

I relayed it back to Deloitte-----

By email or-----

Mr. Richard Collins

No, verbally.

Verbally, right.

Mr. Richard Collins

Deloitte was not happy with the response I gave to it.

Mr. Richard Collins

It followed up.

I would imagine so. Mr. Collins is saying that, at the beginning of March, he knew nothing about the fact that these were top-up payments. He knew Noel Kelly was involved in some way but did not question it enough. He took the story that the director general told him, namely that there were consultancy fees to Noel Kelly because he was giving RTÉ advice on how to manage agents during Covid. Am I correct?

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes. Not agents-----

What was it, then?

Mr. Richard Collins

It was not agents. I cannot remember exactly what-----

Ah, come on. Mr. Collins gave the nod for €150,000 and he cannot remember it.

Mr. Richard Collins

I did not give the nod. Sorry, let me clarify that. I never gave the nod; finance was not-----

But he did not ask questions as finance officer about value for money or oversight. If it was not about agents, what was it about?

Mr. Richard Collins

It was to do with how RTÉ was structured during Covid.

Could Mr. Collins give just one sentence about what that entails? Was it that the executive board did not have the knowledge or expertise about-----

Mr. Richard Collins

It was advice that the director general had received on how RTÉ structured itself and presented itself during Covid. I cannot say any more than that because I would have to consult my notes and see exactly what explanation was given but I relayed back exactly what I was told to Deloitte.

And then, obviously-----

Mr. Richard Collins

I was not involved in approving the transaction at that stage; the transaction had happened. I was relaying back an explanation-----

But the auditors had flagged up a concern about the payments.

Mr. Richard Collins

They had flagged up a concern on-----

Mr. Collins raised it with the director general. He did not question her pretty much; he took on board what she said.

Mr. Richard Collins

I took her explanation.

Yes. As chief financial officer, Mr. Collins thought it was grand and that he would tell Deloitte what the story was and go from there. That is what he is saying.

Mr. Richard Collins

That is what it was, yes.

Yes. Would Mr. Collins say he is not effectively doing his job?

Mr. Richard Collins

I think that, at that stage, she gave what appeared to be a plausible explanation-----

That Mr. Collins cannot remember.

Mr. Richard Collins

I cannot remember the exact details of it.

It is just so ridiculous I am going to move on.

The commercial director, Ms Geraldine O'Leary, told me yesterday that she could not remember the precise detail on the headings of the invoices she raised. She could not remember whether it related to consultancy fees. I imagine she is extremely diligent. Did she check between then and now? She could not remember the exact detail.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I did not say I did not remember the term "consultancy fees". What I said was that I did not remember who had advised to put the term "consultancy fees" on the invoices, which is very different.

But she checked that out.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I know. I knew yesterday that the term "consultancy fees" was on the invoices, which were also given to me once the issue arose.

So, who advised?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

What I said yesterday and what I will repeat today is that I had a number of conversations with both the director general and Noel Kelly about the raising of these invoices. I cannot remember whether it was Noel Kelly who suggested it or whether it was the director general. Rather than make an incorrect statement, I have consistently said that I do not remember because it is the truth.

Knowing she was coming in here today, Ms O'Leary did not check between yesterday and today to have the answer for us whether it was Noel Kelly or the director general. She knew she was coming in here. Has she notes? She had a meeting with Ryan Tubridy's agent. She had a conference call with him in March 2022 or prior to that when the raising of the invoices was suggested or discussed. Is she suggesting that, at that stage, the director general did not say why they wanted to raise the invoices and that it was a guarantee?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

There are a couple of things here, and terminology. I repeat that it was either Noel Kelly or the director general but I am not sure which one. In the absence of being 100% certain, I believe it is correct to say that I do not remember because I do not. It was-----

But Ms O'Leary did not seek to find the information between yesterday and today.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I have been trying to find that information since March of this year. I have been through the Grant Thornton forensic accountant material and I have been 100% honest all the way through. I told Grant Thornton that I would not make a statement that I could not be 100% certain of, and that remains the case.

However, Ms O'Leary had that meeting with Noel Kelly.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I had a number of calls.

A conference call.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes.

Ms O'Leary knows what I mean. A conference call is a meeting. She had that. She reckons it was either Noel Kelly or the director general who advised her to put "consultancy fees" down but she did not question that or say they were not consultancy fees. During the conversation with Noel Kelly, he would have said to Ms O'Leary what the invoices were for.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes.

And what did he say they were for?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I was taking my instruction from the director general, who said-----

In the conversation Ms O'Leary had with Noel Kelly when he was seeking to have the invoices raised, what did he tell her the invoices were for?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Em-----

Now, come on, be truthful.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I am-----

What did he tell Ms O'Leary the invoices were for?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Just to be clear, I spoke to him about raising the invoices to send to the barter company, and in that-----

Ms O'Leary was having a conversation with Noel Kelly about raising invoices but she did not know what the invoices were for.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I knew the invoices-----

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I knew the invoices were related to the €75,000 payment per year, which I had been across from year one-----

So Ms O'Leary knew-----

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

-----and I was not across in years two and three, but was asked to use the barter account to pay. I knew what they were for.

She knew they were for top-up payments for Ryan Tubridy.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes.

But she still went ahead with them. She did not question anything. She was raising the invoices and putting them through accounts under the heading "consultancy fees", knowing full well they were top-up payments for Ryan Tubridy.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I had no idea whether there was a separate agreement. I knew in year one that Ryan Tubridy did a legitimate deal with Renault in respect of which three events happened. They happened in 2022. I knew there was nothing done through a commercial partner for these invoices but I did not know what other things Ryan Tubridy might be doing for RTÉ for that payment. That was not discussed with me.

Could I ask just one very short question?

Very briefly.

It is for Ms Mullooly in legal services. Does she have a view on any legal concerns raised owing to the creation of false invoices?

Ms Paula Mullooly

Yes.

Is it something that could be presented as a criminal offence?

Ms Paula Mullooly

No. We took specific advice on that.

Could there be company law or tax law breaches?

Ms Paula Mullooly

I am not familiar with the specifics of that, but I would agree that it is highly inappropriate.

Could I ask Mr. Collins for clarification? He was aware that the €75,000 was for NK, Noel Kelly, in respect of consultancy.

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes.

And he said it was it related to services for consultancy. In a vague way, he mentioned how RTÉ dealt with agents.

Mr. Richard Collins

No, how RTÉ structured itself during Covid.

No, he said it related to agents. Mr. Kelly is an agent.

Mr. Richard Collins

Sorry. If I said "agents", I wish to correct that.

Just so we are clear before we move on, was Noel Kelly getting payments of €75,000, supposedly under the heading of consultancy, as an agent to help RTÉ to understand how it should deal with agents? That is the picture that is being presented.

Mr. Richard Collins

No, it was not explained that this was to help Noel Kelly to-----

Mr. Collins wrote the cheque and allowed the credit-----

Mr. Richard Collins

No, I did not allow the credit. I did not approve it and I did not write any cheque. I did not know who CMS Marketing were before this matter was queried by Deloitte. The explanation I was given by the director general was that the payment related to consultancy services that Noel Kelly had provided during Covid.

When Mr. Collins heard the name Noel Kelly and saw the reference to consultancy services to RTÉ, did alarm bells not ring in his head as the chief financial officer?

I fail to understand why. Did he not question that one bit?

Mr. Richard Collins

I was concerned but I knew the director general had a close relationship with Noel Kelly.

Is it okay because of that?

Mr. Richard Collins

It was not okay. The transaction had occurred at this stage. I was providing an explanation as part of the audit to Deloitte.

Your explanation here is ridiculous.

It is an appalling vista we are facing. We have to acknowledge there has been huge damage done to public trust in a public broadcaster at a time when high-quality public broadcasting has arguably never been more important for countering the misinformation and disinformation that social media, in particular, tends to be awash with. There is huge damage done to the working relationships of people within RTÉ and to the morale of the many excellent people who are working within that organisation. That has all been acknowledged already.

I want to return briefly to Ms O'Leary on a detail she gave us. She said she only spoke to Renault about year one engagements, no hint at all of arrangements into year two. How many years was the original contract for? Was it a five- or three-year contract?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

The Ryan Tubridy contract?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

My concern was the sponsored contract. We were coming to the end of year two of a three-year contract. This was in March 2020. We still had two months of that season to go and then there was a third year in the contract. The contract was due to end in May 2021.

You only spoke about year one arrangements.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes. I did talk to the client about a potential extension of the contract beyond 2021 but obviously that was not pragmatic because he still had 15 months to run in his contract.

My question then, and it may not be to Ms Geraldine O'Leary, is whether Renault was aware of the underwriting agreement.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

No.

Was Renault aware that if it removed itself from this contract, RTÉ was left on the hook for the remainder of the payments?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Not only was Renault not aware of it, neither was I.

Was there anybody who would demur from that position, who would suggest that Renault was aware of the underwriting? No. Were there any exit penalties for Renault, which was asked to enter into this contract? It would be fairly standard practice and procedure that if somebody exited a contract before end of time, there would be exit penalties attached.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Sorry, I am a bit confused.

It entered into a contract over a number of years.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

A broadcast sponsorship contract for "The Late Late Show" is what I am referring to, which is what my business is. It was in year two of a three-year broadcast sponsorship contract of "The Late Late Show".

And decided to end the relationship.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

No, it did not. It was coming to the end of year two, season two, of a three-year broadcast sponsorship contract, which is standard practice in our business. I was asked to ask them if they would like to have an addendum to their contract which involved appearances by Ryan Tubridy. The broadcast sponsorship contract was up and running and in fact they renewed for the following year. The broadcast sponsorship contract was up and running. It was within the context of this contract I asked them if they were interested in three appearances by Ryan Tubridy, because it was connected to their sponsorship of "The Late Late Show", which he presented. Broadcast sponsorship ran its course and was renewed.

Okay, but without the additional element. It does not seem there was a great deal of protection for public funding on it. I want to take a look at the suspension of Ms Dee Forbes. The request for resignation happened first - we only found this out yesterday. It happened on Friday, 16 June, if I am correct. Can Ms Anne O'Leary tell me whether I am correct in saying the recommendation that Ms Forbes be asked to resign came from the audit and risk committee?

Ms Anne O'Leary

That is correct. As a result of the Grant Thornton report, I thought that what had occurred was significantly serious enough to ask her for her resignation. Subsequent to that, she decided not to reply to our letter on that so we then put her on suspension following a HR disciplinary approach.

Was the recommendation to suspend also a recommendation that you brought?

Ms Anne O'Leary

It was a recommendation that the committee and I brought to the board and then the board approved that recommendation.

Then it became a board decision both to ask for the resignation but also to initiate the suspension. Is that correct?

Ms Anne O'Leary

That is correct and then directly after that, the board created a smaller committee that was going to handle the HR and disciplinary issue.

Ms Paula Mullooly

I might be able to help with that as company secretary, just to set out the timeline. There was an audit and risk meeting on the Friday. There were a number of recommendations out of that, including the request to ask the director general to resign. I think the chair spoke to her in relation to that. There was a response by letter either on the Sunday or the Monday, I cannot recall. There was a board meeting on the Monday where the chair of the audit and risk committee brought the recommendations to the board of the audit and risk committee. The board agreed to set up a disciplinary sub-committee to look at the disciplinary matters surrounding the director general.

This is a decision with very significant implications. As a board member, when this was brought to the board, what was the rationale given for initiating these proceedings? The board must have been told, "We are recommending that we ask for her resignation and we are asking for that on these grounds." What were the grounds given?

Ms Anne O'Leary

The grounds were given of the Grant Thornton report that the members all have a copy of. I thought it was significantly serious.

That was it, it was as baldly stated as that, based on the findings of the Grant Thornton report.

Ms Anne O'Leary

One hundred per cent.

Very good. Thank you. I want to ask about the barter account, which has been much discussed. The value of transactions in and out is given to us in some of the details we have here. How many trading partners are represented within that barter account?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

How many clients?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

In 2022 it was 56 campaigns, so probably about ten to 15 clients approximately.

Would there be any credit or debit cards attached to the barter account?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Not that I am aware of.

Not that you are aware of.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Not that I am aware of. It is something I would need to check but not that I am aware of.

In terms of the type of expenditure that-----

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Sorry, can I ask the Deputy to ask me that question again? When he says a credit or debit card-----

It is about how it operates, whether there are credit cards. It is about transparency and having a good insight on how exactly this is being used. Is it also being used to fund things like travel? Is it being used to fund things like entertainment? What is the mechanism? What is the oversight mechanism in terms of making sure, if it is funding travel, for instance, or accommodation or entertainment, that those have a legitimate business purpose within the organisation?

Mr. Richard Collins

There were no credit or debit cards attached to it. Payments were made out of the barter account by giving an instruction to the barter company.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I want to be 100% clear that the barter company may use a credit card when paying for something, if that is what the Deputy is asking me. There is no credit card at our end but the barter company may use a credit card.

Just in terms of bare figures, €150,000 is what ends up being paid to Tuttle Productions Limited, which is the two tranches of €75,000. The transfer from the barter account, however, is €231,000. Correct me if I am wrong.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Correct.

Where is the €81,000?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

The way the barter account works is that when the campaigns come through, 50% is cash and 50% is credits. Those credits are accumulated and reconciled monthly. We can use those credits for travel. Anything we have used them for has been client related up to now. At the end of the year, if there is money in the account we cash it out and the cash-out rate is 0.65. If there is €100,000 left in the account at the end of the year, it is cashed out at €65,000 and that is put into our revenue. The cash-out rate for the barter companies is 0.65.

This is all very opaque. In the end of the story here, has €150,000 in fact cost us €231,000?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

It has cost us €150,000 in cash.

I am not sure I fully accept that answer.

I want to pick up on a statement by Mr. Lynch. At the very end of his opening statement, he said:

I spoke to Kevin Bakhurst last night and I understand from him that his first task when he begins on 10 July will be a complete reconstitution of the executive board of RTÉ.

That is a very significant statement. I want to give Mr. Lynch an opportunity to expand on it.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Thank you. I have been talking to Kevin over the last two weeks since I stepped up to be interim deputy director general.

We spoke this morning, particularly coming out of yesterday's meeting, about the register of interests. We are looking at immediately drawing up terms of reference for a register of interests for all senior editorial staff. In terms of the line here, though, it is up to the incoming director general to make all the necessary changes given what has happened.

On that issue of a register of interests, will it be extended to presenters?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Absolutely.

I call Deputy Colm Burke.

I thank all the officials here today. I will open with the Grant Thornton report. Paragraph 2.2(g) states that "The Director General was not involved in the drafting, signing or implementation of this agreement (being the Tri-partite)". It would be set out and I am asking for a list of everyone involved in the drafting of that agreement and everyone involved in that agreement. It is important. The earlier statement said "No member of the RTÉ Executive Board, other than the Director General, had all the necessary information", yet the Grant Thornton report is stating what I just referred to. Can the witnesses reconcile these two statements?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Just-----

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

If I could possibly clarify that, the tripartite agreement referred to in the Grant Thornton report is the commercial agreement we did in year one between Renault, RTÉ and NK Management in relation to the three events.

Can we have the names of all the people involved in that?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes.

Okay. You might send that on to us in writing.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Certainly.

I will move on to the issue concerning the €75,000. I address this question to Mr. Collins regarding the invoice. If someone is acting as a consultant, are they not obliged to charge VAT on the fees they levy?

Mr. Richard Collins

It depends on where the invoice is invoiced to.

No, the standard invoice would have a VAT component. Am I correct?

Mr. Richard Collins

A standard invoice would have a VAT-----

When the invoice was received in RTÉ's accounts department, how come further clarification was not looked for on this aspect?

Mr. Richard Collins

It was because the invoice was being invoiced to a UK company and not an Irish one.

What is the scenario in relation to VAT in that case?

Mr. Richard Collins

No VAT is charged.

Were you aware of the detail of the invoice? These were described as "consultancy fees". Surely any invoice would set that out. I have been involved in business for 30 years. Mr. Collins is a qualified financial adviser. Surely just having "consultancy fees" is not a sufficient description on an invoice? Would Mr. Collins accept this?

Mr. Richard Collins

I would say it is quite a sparse description on an invoice. I would agree with that.

Was there not a duty then on Mr. Collins's part to raise a query regarding what these consultancy fees were for?

Mr. Richard Collins

I think, yes, in hindsight, there was. At the time, though, this invoice-----

Okay. Let us go on.

Mr. Richard Collins

Right. Okay.

How many more invoices went through like this where there were consultancy fees marked down?

Mr. Richard Collins

There were two consultancy fees. I did not see these-----

Have you looked at other accounts where the description "consultancy fees" was used and those invoices went through the system without anyone raising questions?

Mr. Richard Collins

We have not done a detailed analysis of that yet.

Is it not time to do such a detailed analysis if this is the-----

Mr. Richard Collins

I think it is and this was discussed yesterday. I believe the audit and risk committee, ARC, is going to look at this.

Every other business in this country has its invoices robustly checked. I refer to any organisation. In a large organisation that is also a public service broadcaster, there is even more of an onus to cross-check everything that comes in.

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes. If I can just explain what happened here, the barter account sat outside the normal system of controls in RTÉ.

Yes. It is a slush fund. If we look at the definition of "slush fund", and I got this from Black's Law Dictionary, it is "A reserve of money held secretly by a company that [had] no accountability for its use". This is exactly what we are talking about. This is a slush fund, so let us stop talking about it being a barter account.

Mr. Richard Collins

Okay.

There was very little accountability about the money going into it.

Mr. Richard Collins

There was. Had it sat within the internal controls system, for an expenditure of €75,000, there would probably have been-----

You are in charge of the internal controls system. This is money going from RTÉ to a barter account where you do not even know what the money is for. Am I correct?

Mr. Richard Collins

The invoice was labelled "consultancy services". It was approved by the director general. From a control point of view-----

You are the financial director. You have the opportunity to raise queries. You did not raise a query about this invoice. Have you raised queries concerning other invoices that were coming in during the last two to three years?

Mr. Richard Collins

I have not seen other invoices coming in just labelled "consultancy services".

Is that not more reason for asking the question, if you have not?

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes, it is a reason now why we should go back and look at this.

When you became aware of the query raised by the auditors, and they obviously were concerned, you still do not appear to have had the same concern, even after the explanation from the then director general.

Mr. Richard Collins

Look, the explanation that was given to me, again, was not a detailed one. I relayed this back to Deloitte and then it was in its hands to move with it. Things moved very quickly after that. It was not as though it was sat on.

Did Deloitte raise queries in respect of any other item in the accounts at the time?

Mr. Richard Collins

On the accounts in general?

Mr. Richard Collins

No.

This was the only issue?

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes, this was the only issue Deloitte raised.

Was there not, therefore, an obligation on you to make sure the issue the company had raised was fully investigated?

Mr. Richard Collins

It was and that was what happened. When I spoke to Deloitte and gave the company the explanation, we concluded, Deloitte and I, that this was not a very detailed explanation. I suggested that Deloitte should speak directly to the director general, which representatives of the company then did.

Turning to the barter account, we are talking about €115,380 being paid annually. This is an extra €40,380. Is this technically what we are talking about as a handling fee for the €75,000 or can we get a better explanation than what is being furnished to us?

Mr. Richard Collins

It is, effectively, as the Deputy said, a handling fee for the barter company.

In other words, let us imagine a situation where I am in a legal practice and someone comes to me with a cheque for €75,000. That person says they do not want to send it on, asks me if I will put it through my account and says I will be given €40,380 for doing that.

Mr. Richard Collins

It is a fee to the barter company. It is accepting-----

It is €40,380 for handling a cheque for €75,000.

Mr. Richard Collins

It is not for handling a cheque. Goods and services are received, and then it must find someone to sell those on. It is a transaction-----

In this case, it was €75,000 that was forwarded to the agent for Ryan Tubridy and there was a charge of €40,380.

Mr. Richard Collins

The fee was-----

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes.

Is a handling fee of 35% being charged by any other organisation in the country? I have never heard of any other company charging a fee of 35% for one payment, and 35% each time. Would you not accept that you should have raised queries in relation to that barter account?

Mr. Richard Collins

Look, regarding the barter account, I brought it into the accounts, so everything was transparent there at the end of the year.

Mr. Richard Collins

In hindsight, yes, I should have gone a step further in early 2020. I should have just shut it down or brought it totally under finance's control. It was at that stage-----

Is it under finance control now?

Mr. Richard Collins

It is under total control of finance now.

Every item that goes through it can be clearly identified and, as a result, there is full accountability.

Mr. Richard Collins

Every item going through it will be budgeted first and then go through the internal controls system.

In the last ten years, how much money has gone through the barter account?

Mr. Richard Collins

I will tell the Deputy now. I will do my maths on it. I would say it was probably between €1 million and €1,250,000.

This was in ten years.

Mr. Richard Collins

In ten years.

Why not use a normal payments system, rather than going through the barter account in this particular case? Why was there all the secrecy on this?

Mr. Richard Collins

I am not here to justify the barter account. I was not happy with it when I saw it first. I cannot speculate on why it was used. It looked like it was where expenses came up relating to the commercial division that had not been budgeted for. It was a way of absorbing those expenses without causing an overrun in the accounts.

Having spoken about the commercial sector, regarding the raising of credit notes, who has the authority to do this?

Mr. Richard Collins

Divisional directors can raise credit notes.

Any divisional director, therefore, can raise a credit note. Do they have to consult with the finance department?

Mr. Richard Collins

They would instruct the finance department.

Would they set out the detail as to why a credit note is being issued?

Mr. Richard Collins

If the Deputy is asking if there is a form that is filled in, then the answer is "No", there is not.

We are talking about a credit note here of €75,000.

Surely there must be a system in place. If giving a credit note to somebody for €75,000, surely Mr. Collins as the financial controller should understand what that credit note is for.

Mr. Richard Collins

Well, the-----

Any other organisation in the country: €75,000, no problem, just sign on the dotted line and we will give you the credit note.

Mr. Richard Collins

The credit note was approved by the director general. From a control point of view, I was happy that the director general had signed it off. That gave me comfort.

I welcome the witnesses to Leinster House again today. On the opening statements, I welcome the change in tone from RTÉ today and the emphasis, obviously, on the deceptive nature of the transaction. I hope it is a company with greater transparency, not only here today but in the forthcoming weeks and months. The impact of this, as we have seen ourselves with journalists and other staff members who have been out protesting highlighting their concerns, is that morale in RTÉ is through the floor. For me, all of the staff and the tax-paying public, the trust has also been eroded. The mission statement of RTÉ says: "To enrich [which may be a poor choice of words given the discussion today] Irish life with content that challenges, educates and entertains". I suggest we would also look at that mission statement in the next little while.

I can also say it is unsatisfactory with regard to the director general, whatever her status. Yesterday at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media, there was uncertainty about contracts. As I look at all the witnesses here, I wonder if all of their contracts are in order because there was really head scratching as to who had a contract, what was in order and what was not. It is unsatisfactory that we have an acting interim deputy director general who does not have the knowledge that we need. We also have other board members who are new and who cannot give us satisfactory answers. I know that an independent report is happening in the next couple of weeks, and hopefully within four weeks it will be reporting and we as a committee can engage with the witnesses on that.

I will start off with Mr. Collins. How long has he worked with RTÉ?

Mr. Richard Collins

I joined RTÉ in January 2020.

From that point, Mr. Collins has said that he was concerned with the barter account. Yet he proceeded with it. Are there any other invoices or accounts that Mr. Collins has made payments to, substantial payments such as the €75,000, about which he has had concerns but that have been paid out, and which to this day he is not certain as to the origin or the necessity of those payments?

Mr. Richard Collins

No, there is nothing else.

Is Mr. Collins certain, as the CFO for the organisation, that there are no other similar payments, or payments to contractors, to employees, payments to subordinates within RTÉ or to those who supply services to RTÉ? Are there any such similar payments being made or arrangements having been made? Obviously, payments are being made in all sorts of other ways.

Mr. Richard Collins

You can never be 100% certain.

You are not 100% certain.

Mr. Richard Collins

You can never be 100% certain. All I can say is-----

Mr. Richard Collins

If I could just answer that. We have very good control systems within RTÉ, outside of this-----

Mr. Richard Collins

Aside from this barter account, the control systems are generally good in RTÉ. There is a requisitioning system and credit notes have to be done, there are levels of approval-----

But for credit notes it was just signed off, right? It is not a great system, as one can appreciate.

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes but the commercial department is a fluid department and things happen in there where they need to give credits. They manage the revenue-----

It comes back to finance, though, does it not?

Mr. Richard Collins

Ultimately, yes.

With regard to the auditors, how long have they served as auditors for the organisation? How often would the organisation change auditors?

Mr. Richard Collins

They were changed and they took over with the 2018 audit.

Ms Anne O'Leary

That is correct. It was KPMG prior to that.

How long had they served?

Ms Anne O'Leary

Much longer. It was 11 years.

I welcome Ms O'Leary. I will ask Ms O'Leary about the information we gained yesterday on when people found out about what, when and who. Ms O'Leary is head of the audit and risk committee. The revelation yesterday was that the information was found on 16 March. Is that right?

Ms Anne O'Leary

That is correct. I spoke to the partner of Deloitte on 17 March. Originally he spoke to Mr. Richard Collins on 7 March and 9 March. I think that Richard spoke to Dee sometime on 8 March. He had reported that there was an issue he was unhappy with.

When did it come before the audit and risk committee?

Ms Anne O'Leary

On 17 March when he called me.

So you had a meeting on St. Patrick's Day, did you?

Ms Anne O'Leary

I had a call with him. I work full time. I work Saturdays and Sundays to do my RTÉ-----

I understand. How come it took those three months for the Grant Thornton report to be completed?

Ms Anne O'Leary

I got on to Grant Thornton on the 21st, and on the 23rd, we had a board meeting. I explained to them the issues that had been highlighted. On the 29th, I got additional information-----

Ms Anne O'Leary

Sorry, yes, 29 March. Then we started on the terms of reference for Arthur Cox and for Grant Thornton, which were issued to them on 4 April. I was on with them, almost on a weekly basis, to try to see how they were doing. They had an awful lot of work to do. As they called it, it was their forensic accounting department, and they had a number of emails to go through to find out what kinds of conversation and so on people had.

That is why it took the three months.

Ms Anne O'Leary

Absolutely.

How often had the audit and risk committee been meeting then, up to this issue?

Ms Anne O'Leary

We were meeting every second week.

Was that ordinarily every second week?

Ms Anne O'Leary

No. We would usually meet once a month but because of this, we-----

Because of this there were these meetings. I understand.

Ms Anne O'Leary

Yes.

Has Ms O'Leary been on the board since 2014? Is that right?

Ms Anne O'Leary

November 2014.

Has Ms O'Leary always been the head of the audit and risk committee?

Ms Anne O'Leary

I have.

Ms O'Leary got the short straw then. With regard to the change in culture, which was referred to in the opening statements, given the length of time she served on the board, in Ms O'Leary's time has she seen a change in culture in RTÉ in that period?

Ms Anne O'Leary

I am afraid, Deputy, that I probably concentrated on the job that I was given by Moya Doherty, which was to look after audit and risk. Within audit and risk one has audit, finance-----

I know what is in it.

Ms Anne O'Leary

-----business continuity planning; they did not have a risk register. I got all of those things in place, including very much strengthening the internal audit. Procurement had some difficulties and even security had difficulties, and I made sure we made huge changes in that.

From 2014, and Ms O'Leary's time on the board, up to 2016, 2017, 2018, was there a change in culture? Obviously, Ms O'Leary was having meetings every couple of weeks on the audit and risk committee. Were there things that were being flagged more often or more regularly or had things changed?

Ms Anne O'Leary

I thought the internal audit procedure had really improved things. We were getting information that we did not have before and we were able to make changes. Peadar Faherty is the lead internal auditor and he is extraordinary. He is really good and he made sure that new procedures were put in place and that people were trained. I thought there was a much better feeling that we were all working together.

So this has come as a complete shock to Ms O'Leary.

Ms Anne O'Leary

Completely.

Okay and I thank Ms O'Leary for that.

At yesterday's Oireachtas Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media, evidence was given that some RTÉ staff were given cars as brand ambassadors. Can Mr. Lynch speak to that?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

RTÉ staff were given cars, so-----

How many staff are we talking about?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

My understanding is I think they are contractors.

You think or you know?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

I know of one.

Is that one staff member?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Correct.

How does a contractor, who does not have the same terms and conditions, get the bonus of a car?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

That would be a contractor. It would be a contractor who does some work for RTÉ and who then would have a set of other commercial relationships themselves.

It is a pretty lucrative contract, would Mr. Lynch not think?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Absolutely but they might be doing a short-term contract in terms of presenting and so on. They would also have a set of other things they do for income.

What were the criteria by which a car was given to a contractor?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

With the criteria, anything like that needs to be approved by the line manager.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

In this case it would be director of content.

Would they then relay to the director general, DG, or is there a head of human resources? How is that done or is it all done through the DG's office?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

In terms of that process, I am not sure what happens after that, whether it is just approved locally or not.

On the condition for a car to be given as part of the contract, is that organised by RTÉ?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

No, that is not part. I am saying the RTÉ contract has nothing to do with the car. That could be presented-----

As a bonus, is it?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

No. I am just saying there are some people who may have an arrangement with a car company but that has nothing to do with our contract. That is just to be totally transparent about it. I made inquiries inside and I believe there is one person who has been given a car.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

It is a staff member in RTÉ. That was disclosed to me last night.

Okay. I presume that person is not here today.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Correct.

Deputy, very briefly now.

On the risk register and what was said earlier, which was very welcome, does Mr. Lynch or Mr. Collins know whether RTÉ routinely pays appearance fees for guests?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Yes, it would.

What is the criterion?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Typically, a programme like "The Late Late Show” would not pay for guests. Then, maybe a comedy panel show would pay for guests.

Is there control around that?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Yes.

Who is in charge of that control?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

In terms of commission programming, there is the IPU, the independent production unit. Within that, there is a finance function which does all the contracting with independent companies that are commissioned to make programming for RTÉ. All those fees would be agreed. There is a fees committee that would look at all the fees comparatively, look at the hours and the cost.

In the opening statement of the chair of the RTÉ board, Ms Ní Raghallaigh stated it appeared to her that this was an act designed to deceive. That is the core point. Is that view shared by the entire board?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

Yes.

Is that view shared by the executive?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

In the evidence I have seen, yes. Payments were concealed to Ryan Tubridy.

That view is shared by the executive.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Yes.

The crux of the matter is who set out to deceive and whether it was an individual, as some would like to portray it, or whether it was a number of people who came together to deceive. I am not sure if we will get to the bottom of that at this meeting but it is the crux of the question.

Returning to a point that was raised when the director of finance was asked when he was first approached by Deloitte, am I right in saying it was 7 March? At that stage Deloitte expressed concern about two of the invoices, each for €75,000. At that point, the finance director approached Dee Forbes and set out a narrative in which Dee Forbes stated that these consultancy invoices were for NK Management and related to how RTÉ restructured itself during Covid. Am I right in saying that?

Mr. Richard Collins

Broadly, yes. I cannot remember the exact detail but broadly that is what it was.

Was that in writing?

Mr. Richard Collins

No, verbally, and I communicated with Deloitte pretty much immediately afterwards, verbally.

At that point, Mr. Collins expressed that he did not have any concerns around Noel Kelly being given this type of consultancy work. That did not set off any alarm bells or raise any flags of concern for Mr. Collins.

Mr. Richard Collins

At that stage, the expenditure had been committed so I was relaying what happened at that stage. The purpose of speaking to the director general was to find out what the background was to this. The payments were to a company controlled by Noel Kelly so it is obvious that they went to Noel Kelly.

If he does not mind, for the record, how much is Mr. Collins paid as chief finance officer?

Mr. Richard Collins

I think that is a private matter. I think if we are going to disclose our earnings-----

The chair of the board said all those figures were to be published. Given that Mr. Collins is working for a public organisation, I would expect to hear that answer here today. The Deputy has asked Mr. Collins what his salary is. I would expect him to answer that question.

Mr. Richard Collins

I do not know what my exact salary is off the top of my head but I can give-----

This is absolutely outrageous. The chief financial officer of RTÉ cannot tell us what he is paid. Are we supposed to buy that?

The chief financial officer has been asked a question by Deputy Brady, who has the floor. Mr. Collins, what is your salary?

This is extraordinary. It has taken over a minute to get a very basic answer.

We have senior staff from public bodies before the committee every week and we can get the figures for their salaries. RTÉ is supposed to be about truth, transparency and trust.

Mr. Richard Collins

I have no problem being transparent.

It is a very basic question and I expect the answer to it for the members.

Mr. Richard Collins

I believe my salary is around €200,000 base salary, plus a car allowance of €25,000. It is in or around that.

I thank Mr. Collins for that. He has wound down a lot of my time and I hope the Chair will note that. Mr. Collins is paid an extraordinary amount of money. Essentially he became a message boy for Dee Forbes, the director general. Rather than doing his specific role, he took a message directly from the director general, did not question it and brought it back to Deloitte. Is that what Mr. Collins is telling us?

Mr. Richard Collins

I was asked to get an explanation. What more could I have done at that stage? I was asked to get an explanation - a more detailed explanation - of what these invoices related to.

Is it not Mr. Collins's role to discover untruths and get proper, truthful answers in relation to all financial matters?

Mr. Richard Collins

If the issue had come on my radar earlier, then absolutely, yes. That is when it came on my radar. Deloitte was looking for an answer quickly on that because we had an audit and risk meeting shortly afterwards.

On the meeting on 7 March, Mr. Collins went back to Deloitte and Deloitte went back to the director general at that point with his understanding and Deloitte was unhappy with the response given at that point. Yesterday, Adrian Lynch, when asked a specific question about Ryan Tubridy's announcement on 16 March that he was stepping down from his role presenting "The Late Late Show", said there was absolutely no way he would have known this was going on in the background when that decision was taken. Does he stand over those comments?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

To give context, because I knew it would come up, what I had actually done was I was trying to work out the day the director of content told me Ryan Tubridy had come into his office to tell him he was stepping down, so I went back and checked my email because I had sent him an email with a list of potential presenters. That was on 13 March. In my mind, I did not realise that the CFO had had contact from the auditors on 10 March or whatever. That is to clarify that.

Ryan Tubridy could well have been informed by somebody that these concerns had been raised.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Based on the information from yesterday, it is possible.

Did Mr. Collins have any conversations with Noel Kelly or Mr. Tubridy about this process?

Mr. Richard Collins

I had no conversations.

Is anyone aware of any conversations or discussions that the director general may have had with the agent representing Mr. Tubridy or Mr. Tubridy himself?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

The only conversations I was aware of were between the director of content and Ryan Tubridy.

Okay. It would be reasonable to say that the process of uncovering these payments could well have influenced Ryan Tubridy’s decision to step down from his role presenting “The Late Late Show”.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

I would say it is possible, looking at the information.

It is possible. I want to focus on the first year of the tripartite deal and the payments. Ms O’Leary already stated that she negotiated and was responsible for that part.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes, I was asked to represent that proposal to Renault in March 2020.

On the credit note issued by Renault, who issued-----

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

To Renault.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

My initial meeting with the client, Renault, was on 9 March. The client said he would consider it and he would run it through his finance department. The week afterwards, Covid broke out so it was not a priority for him. By the time we reconnected on it and got to see how we could work through it, it was July 2020.

Had they sought that credit note?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

The client was very clear from the beginning that it would have to be cost neutral and that he did not have any incremental money. By the time it came to July, when we were raising the credit note, a large part of the value of what Renault should have gotten through its "Late Late Show" sponsorship had not happened because a key part of its broadcast sponsorship, which is the three-year contract I referred to earlier, included 20 tickets per week and hospitality at RTÉ. That value did not happen from 20 March through to September because of Covid.

Where did the request for the credit note go from there?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I sent the request for the credit note to my finance manager in commercial and the CFO.

Did Mr. Collins see that request at that stage?

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes.

What was the nature of the request? What was explicitly stated on it that the credit note was for?

Mr. Richard Collins

It was for a credit note to Renault in relation to the sponsorship. I was not aware of the terms of this tripartite or commercial agreement. I was not involved in negotiating that. To be honest, I did not cop what this was related to.

Did not cop? Did Mr. Collins ask?

Mr. Richard Collins

I did not ask because I was not aware of the terms of the Renault relationship or the commercial relationship.

Mr. Collins was asked to sign off on-----

Mr. Richard Collins

No, I was not asked to sign off on it. It was processed and I was copied on an email then-----

Mr. Collins was copied on an email.

Mr. Richard Collins

I was aware that-----

Was Mr. Collins asleep at the wheel?

Mr. Richard Collins

No, I was not. I was aware-----

It appears Mr. Collins was asleep at the wheel on several fronts.

Mr. Richard Collins

The director general was involved in this. I took comfort, from a control point of view, that the director general was looking at this. At the time, the Deputy must remember, I was dealing with a number of major issues in the organisation. It was early on in Covid, it looked like RTÉ could run out of cash, we had an accounting system implementation that was not going well and could have caused major problems for the business and we had two big tax audits which we were under pressure on. My focus-----

A final point.

It is very clear that the guarantee kicked in from year one of the contract, not, as we were told, only in years two and three. In year one, RTÉ paid €75,000. RTÉ was propping up; essentially the guarantee was there from year one, contrary to what was stated by Ms O'Leary, that she was not aware of any guarantee to underpin-----

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I reiterate that I was not aware it was underwritten because I did not have sight of Ryan Tubridy's contract.

I am going to suspend the meeting for five minutes. The next speaker will be Deputy Verona Murphy.

Sitting suspended at 3.04 p.m. and resumed at 3.12 p.m.

I thank the witnesses for their appearance. At a time when we have the greatest housing catastrophe in the history of our State, we have overspending in our Department of Health and there are no checks and balances, billions have been wasted annually. We have a Government that displays complete incompetence in the management of the public finances. This story comes out of a clear blue sky – manna from heaven to distract from the issues that really impact ordinary daily lives. The Government is delighted with this story because it has taken the spotlight from it on the run-up to the Dáil recess.

I have watched the rolling media brawl for nearly the last week and a half. I must admit that I have some experience with media brawl. It is clear that this media circus can be reduced to the following facts. Certain people within RTÉ conceived a scheme of deceit for a number of reasons: first, to retain the services of Ryan Tubridy; and second, to portray to the general public and to the staff of RTÉ that Tubridy had taken a pay cut. The public, certain staff at RTÉ and this committee were lied to.

No checks and balances in any system will prevent deceit and that is just a fact of life. With a large organisation such as RTÉ, people run for cover and they immediately look for a scapegoat, or scapegoats, as the case may be. In what would appear to me generally is the case, those who identified the scapegoats were quite often themselves the cause of the controversy. The act of deceit is only surpassed by the more despicable act of scapegoating. Never have I seen more obvious scapegoating than in this debacle. RTÉ conceived the scheme of the deceit and induced Ryan Tubridy, whom I do not know personally, nor do I know his family nor any of the other people who have been mentioned in relation to Ryan Tubridy, with a pay package to stay. A number of members have confirmed this week that there was no wrongdoing on Ryan Tubridy's part. The people in front of us effectively dismissed Dee Forbes and then issued a lengthy press release scapegoating her. The quality of management should be judged by the way they deal with the situations they find themselves in. I can assure those present that what I have heard today and yesterday and for the last week would indicate to me that this management does not have the skill set to deal with what is before them. All they have done is look for scapegoats.

While RTÉ says Ryan Tubridy did nothing wrong, its actions do not support that position. Tubridy no longer presents his programme. In my view, the act of taking Ryan Tubridy off air was wrong. It has compounded the controversy, while at the same time it destroyed his reputation, in the scapegoating. It was ill advised and should only have been done with the approval of the board. It is as plain as a pikestaff to any person with a modicum of common sense that this act will cost RTÉ, and of course the taxpayer, far more in compensation to Tubridy than the €150,000 we are talking about that was legally due anyway. The bill for the action will have to be delivered at some point in the future.

I have one question for this delegation. Who made the decision to take Ryan Tubridy off air, bearing in mind the continuous statements that he did nothing wrong? I assume that one of two people can answer that question, because it certainly was not anyone who is not here.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

That is ultimately my decision as editor-in-chief because I am the interim deputy director general. Why he is off air is because RTÉ has an obligation to be independent and impartial-----

I am sorry but I cannot hear Mr. Lynch for some reason.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

As deputy director general it is my decision to take Ryan Tubridy off air, in consultation with the director of content.

And the director of content is not here.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Correct.

Was that decision put before the board?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

No.

Is Mr. Lynch telling me that in his capacity with someone who is not here – the director of content – he made a decision that in effect has exposed RTÉ and the taxpayer to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of euro in compensation? That is the decision made by him.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

I am the editor-in-chief. Yes.

So Mr. Lynch made that decision. What was his rationale? He made the statement also that he has done nothing wrong.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

As I understand it, from legal advice-----

Is Mr. Lynch saying now that he did something wrong?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

No.

So Mr. Lynch continues with the statement that Ryan Tubridy has done nothing wrong.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

It is not wrong. He has done nothing illegal. The contract that Ryan Tubridy engaged with is legal.

Is there a difference? Is Mr. Lynch inferring a difference?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

There is a difference between the editorial-----

Does Mr. Lynch think when it comes to compensation there will be a difference? Because they will only be interested in the legal element of it. We are back with the question I put to Mr. Lynch. Will he resign over the compensation that will be paid to Ryan Tubridy?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

As I said in my opening statement-----

That is a binary question. The answer would be "Yes" or "No". Will he resign and make himself accountable for a decision that he can be sure has ruined Ryan Tubridy? He has been taken off the air under the assertion by RTÉ that he has done nothing wrong. Mr. Lynch did not say that he did not do anything illegal. He said he had done nothing wrong. I am sure that will be brought up a number of times to Mr. Lynch. Will he resign: "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

That would be a matter for the incoming director general.

The decision was made by Mr. Lynch with just one other. I will turn to Ms Ní Raghallaigh. Is she happy that, without a shadow of a doubt, she has been exposed now, as the chair of RTÉ, to compensation?

We are all of a frame of mind here commercially that we know the realm of these types of things will run into hundreds of thousands, if not millions. He is not the only person who has been mentioned. It has been the assertion of RTÉ, from both Ms Ní Raghallaigh and Mr. Lynch, that he did nothing wrong yet we are faced with a big bill. How does Ms Ní Raghallaigh feel about that decision being made, in which she seemingly had no act or part?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

To clarify-----

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

This pertains to the Deputy's question. It is not the role of the board to get involved in editorial decision-making.

Excuse me for one second-----

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

The role that the editor-in-chief-----

This refers to editorial decision-making. Who is the editorial decision made by? Are we back to Mr. Lynch?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

The editor-in-chief.

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

Mr. Lynch.

It is Mr. Lynch at this point in time. Therefore, really, all the bluster that Ms Ní Raghallaigh has come in here with about what she is going to do is only bluster, is it not? The witnesses have exposed RTÉ among them with a massive bill for compensation to someone they assert as having done nothing wrong. They have not just thrown them all under the bus, they have backed over them and reversed at speed. Can Mr. Lynch tell me whether he is going to be accountable in the future for when the compensation is paid? If Ryan Tubridy did nothing wrong, what was the basis and rationale for taking him off the air and paying him while he is off the air and paying another presenter to do his radio programme? Is Mr. Lynch going to be accountable?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Yes, I will be completely accountable for it.

So, Mr. Lynch will resign. He is going to confirm today that he will resign when that happens because as sure as night follows day, that is going to happen.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

No, I am just saying I am taking full responsibility for the decision for Ryan Tubridy not to be on air.

The Deputy is over time.

I am sorry, Chair, we need to clarify that. Is Mr. Lynch saying he will resign and be accountable?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

For that decision, no.

I thank Deputy Murphy.

Well, then, talk is cheap.

I call Deputy Dillon.

We accept the witnesses' appearance here before us today and appreciate their co-operation. Back in September 2020, RTÉ campaigned on "Truth Matters". I have to assume today that all of the witnesses in front of us at the Committee of Public Accounts are here to tell the truth. However, I still cannot find where the truth is or how we can determine the real sequence of events that occurred. Certainly, that reminds me of a famous line from Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, who said that looking for the truth is like nailing jelly to the wall.

After yesterday's committee meeting and what we have heard again today - we have been in public session for nearly two hours - many facts are still unknown. We want even further detail with regard to the sequence of events. I will direct this question to the CFO, Mr. Collins. With regard to RTÉ's payment to Mr. Noel Kelly for services provided during Covid-19, these were really payments for Ryan Tubridy and Renault. Is that correct, yes or no?

Mr. Richard Collins

According to the Grant Thornton report, yes.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I will clarify that they had nothing to do with Renault.

I am sorry, Ms O'Leary. My questions are directed to the CFO. Mr. Collins said earlier that he needed to consult his notes. What is contained within his notes that would have led him to previously state that?

Mr. Richard Collins

I am sorry; I did not get the Deputy's question.

Mr. Collins said previously that he needed to consult his notes in relation to the questions that we asked previously.

Mr. Richard Collins

In relation to the explanation I gave-----

Mr. Richard Collins

-----to Deloitte.

Would Mr. Collins determine these types of payments in a serious manner with regard to their intent, as Deputy Burke discussed, around consultancy fees and the obligations around VAT exemptions that were put through a barter?

Mr. Richard Collins

RTÉ was not making the payment there so VAT was not an issue for RTÉ. It was the barter company. The invoice was to the barter company, not to RTÉ.

The chair of the board outlined in her initial statement that there were deceitful practices in play here. Would Mr. Collins agree with that?

Mr. Richard Collins

I would, yes.

Would "Prime Time Investigates" call it fraud? Would Mr. Collins agree?

Mr. Richard Collins

We have had legal advice to say that it is not fraud.

In what context?

Mr. Richard Collins

It has been looked at as part of the Grant Thornton review. Arthur Cox has looked at this and given advice, or given an opinion, and there is not fraud involved here.

Raising invoices for something knowing that it is not what it is-----

Mr. Richard Collins

It is concealment and deception.

Would Mr. Collins not determine that - wrongfully knowing - to be fraud?

Mr. Richard Collins

It depends on who the fraud is against and whether anyone has lost out. My own opinion is that maybe the taxpayer was defrauded, but-----

What other external contractors did RTÉ pay for advice during Covid-19?

Mr. Richard Collins

Off the top of my head, I am not aware of any other contractors that were paid for advice. On the IT side, we would have taken advice on setting up and structuring ourselves to work remotely and that, but-----

Would RTÉ have issued any credit notes during Covid similar to this?

Mr. Richard Collins

Not similar to this, no.

This is, therefore, a once-off.

Mr. Richard Collins

It looks like it, yes.

Was Ms O'Leary consulted around 7 March, or before 17 March, about the Deloitte query?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

No.

No one communicated to her that these issues were being flagged.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

No, I was advised by the head of legal and the head of HR that I was going to be contacted by Grant Thornton to engage in a process.

Why did the CFO, Mr. Collins, not raise that with the person who was in a position to authorise these invoices?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Raise which?

Mr. Richard Collins

I am sorry; is that question to me? I had raised the issue with the person who had approved the invoices and Deloitte was then put in contact with them to get an explanation.

Did RTÉ pay for the three Renault events? How much did that cost?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes. I will clarify before I say that and go straight back to it. It is very important to say that Renault was not involved in years two and three. When the Deputy referred to the invoices that went through the barter company, they had no connection with Renault. I want to be very clear about that. In year one, yes, Renault paid Noel Kelly Management for the three events but, ultimately, it got a credit note, so it was cost-neutral.

How much was the credit note?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

It was €75,000.

How much were the events that RTÉ subsequently paid for?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

They were €25,000 each for the appearances.

How much was it to actually host the events?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Hosting the event was €30,586.

Are these events accounted for in RTÉ's annual audited accounts?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

The transactions are certainly recorded in the barter account, which is now completed and final, so yes.

Mr. Richard Collins

They are recorded, yes, I can clarify that.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes.

With regard to other events that RTÉ would host, be it hospitality or events through the barter account, can Ms O'Leary give us some recent events that RTÉ would have paid for through a barter account and the types of events?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

For example, there was an agency event in a venue in town.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

In Dublin; sorry, apologies. That was approved on 28 January.

Mr. Collins referenced €1.25 million over the last ten years through barter accounts.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes, I-----

Can Ms O'Leary give us the top three?

Mr. Richard Collins

Maybe I can do that because I have the details here in front of me.

Mr. Richard Collins

Is the Deputy looking back historically now?

I am looking at the period 2017 to 2020.

Mr. Richard Collins

In 2019, there was €111,000 for travel and hotels to bring clients to the Rugby World Cup.

Can the witness identify those clients?

Mr. Richard Collins

No, I cannot.

Mr. Richard Collins

They are not on this report I have here.

Can Ms O'Leary do so?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I can but I would have to get their permission, but of course I know who they were.

This was taxpayers' money.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I will get their permission.

Can you give us one more example from the top range?

Mr. Richard Collins

Ten-year IRFU tickets were bought. They cost €138,000 through the barter account.

A sum of €138,000 of taxpayers' money through a barter account. Can Mr. Collins give me one more example?

Mr. Richard Collins

For the Champions League Final in 2019, €26,000 was spent.

What does the chair of the board make of what we are being told here today in relation to the transactions in the barter account?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

It is outrageous. Expenditure like that should go through the procurement system. I believe that has now been put in place. It would be up to department heads to validate and request through the procurement system if they are going to do entertainment or sporting events on that scale in order to entertain advertising agencies.

I want to bring Ms Ní Raghallaigh back to her request to the director general for her resignation. Why did Ms Ní Raghallaigh not call the Minister at the time?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

As I explained to the Minister this morning, when she asked me on Saturday when I met her what Ms Forbes's status was, I told her that Ms Forbes was suspended and that she was in a disciplinary process.

Did Ms Ní Raghallaigh not think this was really important information to present to the Minister at the time?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

Yes, I do now. However, at the time, it was a part of a chain of events. I apologised to the Minister for not giving her that information at the time.

Why did Ms Ní Raghallaigh go on the RTÉ "Six One News" and not indicate that she had actually requested the resignation of the director general?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

I do not think I was asked that question.

You mentioned disciplinary processes.

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

Yes, because that was part-----

Ms Ní Raghallaigh did not establish the full facts of what was happening. Was that not a huge mistake?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

She was in a disciplinary process at that point. I could not start discussing publicly what was in process.

If there was a process in place, why did Ms Ní Raghallaigh agree to go on RTÉ news when she knew that she would not give a current picture at the time?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

I agreed to go on RTÉ news to be able to give the information that I had. I did so under legal advice, particularly pertaining to employees and their rights. That is the legal advice I took.

Thank you. The public position at that point was that she was actually on holidays. Is that correct?

I have the benefit of having sat through two nearly full sessions now. There has been a lot of discussion about the barter account and about invoices and so on. I want to come back to the issue of the tripartite agreement. In what was an excellent piece of public service broadcasting on "Prime Time", Mark Coughlan gave a great summation of what has happened here. He described the tripartite agreement as involving the three parties - Mr. Ryan Tubridy, RTÉ and Renault. The Grant Thornton report consistently says that this was a cost-neutral agreement for the sponsor. I want to know about the knowledge of the tripartite agreement prior to March of this year, and knowledge of it being cost-neutral. I will ask each of the witnesses this question. Was Ms O'Leary aware of a tripartite agreement and if so, was she aware of it being cost-neutral?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes, I was responsible for that agreement with NKM-----

Was Mr. Collins aware of a tripartite agreement and was he aware of it being cost-neutral?

Mr. Richard Collins

I was aware that RTÉ was trying to put arrangements in place to give Mr. Ryan Tubridy the opportunity to earn additional income. I was not aware of the details of the tripartite-----

To my question about knowing about the agreement being cost-neutral, Mr. Collins said he did not know. I will ask Mr. Coveney the same question. Was he aware of it being cost-neutral?

Mr. Rory Coveney

I had no knowledge of any of these arrangements.

And Mr. Coveney had no knowledge of a tripartite agreement. Was Ms Doherty aware of a tripartite agreement and its cost-neutral nature?

Ms Moya Doherty

Absolutely not. As chair of the organisation for eight years, I was not aware of a slush fund. I was not aware of clandestine payments, and I was not aware of a tripartite agreement.

Was Ms Mullooly aware of the cost-neutral nature of a tripartite agreement?

Ms Paula Mullooly

I was not aware of the cost-neutral nature of it. I was aware when the tripartite agreement came in from Noel Kelly Management in, I think, March 2021. I was copied on that email.

Since March 2021 Ms Mullooly has been aware of the tripartite agreement and the terms of it. Is that correct?

Ms Paula Mullooly

Yes.

Okay. I will not ask the other witnesses the same questions. I am assuming that either by the evidence they have given already or their distance or time served in the organisation they would not be aware. Am I correct in saying that nobody else was aware of a tripartite agreement or its cost-neutral nature?

Let me come back then to the second part of what Mark Coughlan described to us on 27 June. He said it seemed surprising that RTÉ did a deal which saw its income from sponsorship reduced in exchange for guaranteeing Mr. Tubridy's income. He said that RTÉ agreed to give Renault a discount of €75,000. Renault agreed to pay €75,000 to Mr. Tubridy. Through his agent, Mr. Tubridy agreed to attend certain events. We all know that people make arrangements outside of their employment or their contract. We often use the phrase "nixer" for this arrangement. However, in this situation, the nixer was actually initiated by RTÉ. The organisation initiated the concept of a tripartite agreement where it voluntarily reduced its income. Is that correct, Ms O'Leary?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I met the client and discussed it with him. He was very clear that it was contrary to his wishes. I communicated this to the director general. My priority as commercial director is client relationships. I said that the client was very clear that he would not add an additional €75,000 to his existing contract.

I want to be clear on this. The €75,000 would not be paid to RTÉ, and it would be paid to Mr. Tubridy.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

The clarification to the director general was that it had to be cost-neutral.

As the commercial director, is Ms O'Leary usually in the business of voluntarily giving away €75,000 of revenue?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Absolutely not.

In that case, why did she do so?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I was advised by the director general that this was what I was to do.

Ms O'Leary was instructed by the director general to forgo €75,000. At that point, the witness was aware that the €75,000 would not be included in payments made directly from RTÉ to Mr. Ryan Tubridy. Is that correct?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I was not aware of anything to do with declarations. What I was aware of, which was critical, was that we were reducing our sponsored forecast income for that year.

Surely Ms O'Leary had to have been aware of the arrangement? The deal was structured in order to keep €75,000 of RTÉ's income off the books, and that it would be paid directly from the sponsor to Mr. Tubridy. That is what the deal did. It took €75,000 of income that otherwise would have come to RTÉ and paid it directly to Mr. Tubridy.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Correct.

How could Ms O'Leary not have known that the money would never be included in declared payments for RTÉ?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I apologise if this is a frustrating answer for the Deputy, but I have nothing to do with the release of top tens. I had no idea about what that €75,000 represented as part of the overall contract. If there was a motive, which there appears to have been, to conceal, that was not clear to me because I did not have-----

Ms O'Leary's answer is simply not credible. It is like if she was working in advertising in a bus company, and we said to the advertisers, "Do not pay the bus company directly, pay the bus driver instead and then nobody in the garage will know that the bus driver is on more money than everybody else."

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

What I did know was about how the payment was happening; I did not know that it was designed to conceal Ryan Tubridy's earnings. I did not know that.

Does Ms O'Leary know that RTÉ forwent €75,000 worth of income that it would otherwise have received?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes.

Does Ms O'Leary know that that income was going to Ryan Tubridy?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes.

So RTÉ was paying €75,000 to Ryan Tubridy through a vehicle called the tripartite agreement.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

The additional element is that by the time we came to discuss the credit note, we already had a value deficit with Renault, so we would have had to give it a credit note anyway.

I will return to the credit note. I have to ask Mr. Collins the same question. Does he accept that the tripartite agreement was essentially a vehicle to keep €75,000 of revenue that would have otherwise come to RTÉ off the books so it would go directly to Ryan Tubridy?

Mr. Richard Collins

I know now. Yes.

Mr. Collins's evidence is that he had no involvement in the negotiation of the tripartite agreement, no involvement in its working out and no knowledge of it being cost neutral. I am sure he is aware of the RTÉ statement that was issued this week. In the statement, under the second point, it says:

Once it has been agreed in principle by the relevant editorial lead the process of negotiating the contracts of RTÉ's top 10 most highly paid on-air presenters is conducted by the CFO, with advice from the legal department.

That was either Mr. Collins or Ms Breda O'Keeffe, the previous CFO. Is that correct?

Mr. Richard Collins

This contract would have started with the previous CFO and I-----

Mr. Collins worked from January up to March, but there are also further dealings up to June. So between January and June, when the RTÉ statement says Mr. Collins should have been taking the lead on the contract, he had no involvement.

Mr. Richard Collins

No. The Ryan Tubridy contract was made up of two parts. There is the so-called five-year contract and then there is the commercial. I took over the five-year contract-----

Mr. Collins had no knowledge of the tripartite agreement.

Mr. Richard Collins

I was not involved at all in the tripartite agreement.

That was not my question. My question is whether Mr. Collins had any knowledge of the tripartite agreement.

Mr. Richard Collins

The only knowledge I had is that there was an attempt to generate earnings for Ryan Tubridy, that RTÉ would facilitate that-----

Why would RTÉ be-----

Mr. Richard Collins

But I was not aware - I am sorry, just to answer Deputy McAuliffe's question-----

Why would RTÉ be party to an agreement to generate earnings for Ryan Tubridy?

Mr. Richard Collins

I do not know. That is what was agreed as part of this deal.

RTÉ could only have been party to a tripartite agreement if it had an involvement in it. The only involvement it could have had is either to make the payment directly to Ryan Tubridy or to forgo income coming from Renault. When Mr. Collins was aware of a tripartite agreement, he must have been aware that RTÉ-----

Mr. Richard Collins

No, I was not aware of a tripartite agreement.

Mr. Collins was not aware of any tripartite agreement.

Mr. Richard Collins

No. I was aware that RTÉ was trying to broker or facilitate additional income for Ryan Tubridy, but that could have been just putting Ryan Tubridy in contact with clients.

The Grant Thornton report puts it more bluntly. It also refers to the legal department. I think Ms O'Leary has already said she was aware of it. In 2.8(b) of the auditor's report, it says: "The Commercial Brand were prepared to engage but their engagement would have to be [on a] cost neutral [basis]." Mr. Collins has stated that. It says in 2.5:

The RTÉ Legal Team's understanding of the contractual obligations in relation to the phrase €75,000 from commercial relationship is:

(a) That €75,000 of the RTÉ sponsorship income from the third party commercial sponsor would be paid directly to the Talent by the third party commercial sponsor.

Ms Mullooly said she was not aware of the cost-neutral nature of the payment, but she was aware that money would be paid directly to Ryan Tubridy from the commercial agent.

Ms Paula Mullooly

Just to be clear, I was not the person negotiating the particular contract, but I have-----

When the phrase "RTÉ legal team" was used-----

Ms Paula Mullooly

There was a solicitor providing legal advice in respect of this.

So the RTÉ solicitor was aware of the cost-neutral nature of the agreement.

Ms Paula Mullooly

No. As is stated in the Grant Thornton report, the RTÉ solicitor was of the view and was told that the €75,000 would be paid by the commercial partner directly to Ryan Tubridy.

Knowing that it was reducing the fee that would otherwise normally have come to RTÉ.

Ms Paula Mullooly

No, the solicitor would not be aware of credit notes.

Surely a solicitor would query why RTÉ would be party to a negotiation that had nothing to do with it.

Ms Paula Mullooly

No, the-----

Unless it was reducing its income or in some other way being involved in the activity, why would RTÉ be involved in raising money separately for Ryan Tubridy?

Ms Paula Mullooly

The contractual arrangement comprised the first part. There were a couple of side letters and then this commercial arrangement. The commercial arrangement was initially to be brokered by RTÉ, but the agent was insisting that RTÉ be a part of it and that the agreement for that would be that €75,000 would be paid directly from the commercial partner to the presenter.

I have just one last question.

Very briefly.

I am conscious of the exit fee of €120,000 that was referred to. I am also conscious that it is the subject of a Grant Thornton report. For anybody looking in at that, most people are familiar with the term "balloon payment" where you have a payment at the very end and that reduces your payments in the immediate term. If there was a balloon payment at the end of a contract, that would substantially reduce the declared income each year for Mr. Tubridy. If the €120,000 had to have been paid, would the declared income of Mr. Tubridy have increased by €120,000? Can Mr. Lynch see how that would be a significant issue when RTÉ was looking for a 15% reduction from everybody else? Not only am I suggesting that this is an orchestrated instrument to reduce his payments, I am also suggesting that putting the exit payment, or the balloon payment, at the end also sought to reduce his annual declared income over several years.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

First, I was not aware of the cost-neutral element within this. Second, what Grant Thornton will tell us – there has been a lot of confusion about the €120,000 – is how it has actually been treated in the accounts. Was it used to reduce Ryan Tubridy's overall earnings in that period of time, as a kind of retrospective credit? Grant Thornton is investigating that.

But it could have been used to reduce his declared income.

I welcome the witnesses. I have been knocking around here for a good while and this is the most extraordinary meeting I have had in the Committee of Public Accounts, and I have been to a lot of them. I have so many questions I could be here all day. I know I will have two rounds. I want to make a series of points first and then I will get to the questions.

First, I hope Dee Forbes does come in. If she does, I reckon it will help with a range of the issues that have been raised here. I do not think it would necessarily be good for a number of members of the executive.

Second, by next Thursday, I want the witnesses to provide the following: a copy of all bank accounts for RTÉ, where they are located and how often they are reconciled; and a copy of all barter accounts. On the latter, I include ones in TG4 or anywhere else, going back for the past 20 years. That is how far we have to go back. I remember the scenarios whereby a bike was brought on to the show for a former host of "The Late Late Show" or the golf clubs that were given to Ryan Tubridy. We have to go back a long way. I want the barter accounts for the past 20 years. If there are more of them, so be it.

The witnesses have already agreed to provide details of their salaries to us next week, but I also want to know if there are any pension top-ups or if there are any other benefits.

In the context of brand ambassadors and car payments, when did car payments come in or any other form of payment to supplement people's incomes? A former colleague, Tommy Broughan, raised the issue of cars for RTÉ stars in the Dáil in 2005. That tells us how far back we are looking. When did they come in?

I also want a full audit over the past five years of appearances by the top 20 stars in RTÉ on shows that they were not involved in. This cross-fertilisation is also valuable. We need to find out what was going on, if this was part of any deal, etc.

Can we get a full list of all talent agents that have done contracts with RTÉ? Do any of the talent agents have any shares or ownership of any shows that have been contracted by RTÉ? I ask the witnesses to provide a full audited list.

On the barter accounts, RTÉ listed out some of the issues regarding tickets etc., including Champions League finals and rugby. I note the former head of RTÉ news and current affairs was at the Champions League final in 2019. It is up publicly; that is the only reason I can say it. Can we get a full list of all payments, all tickets and where they were divulged to?

I will get into some core questions and would appreciate short, sharp answers. I am not trying to be rude, rather it is just that I do not have much time. I think I am the only person in this committee who is a former Minister. I want to say this to the chair, and I do not know you. If you went to a meeting with me and did not tell me what you did not tell the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, in relation to asking for the resignation of the director general, you would not be in the position now. I do not think any Minister would put up with that and I do not expect this Minister to put up with it. That is information you have to tell the Minister. I went through some of the most difficult things as a Minister during my period and that is something you would have to tell the Minister. I ask the previous chair whether, in her opinion, she would have told the Minister.

Ms Moya Doherty

Yes, and I-----

Thank you. That is all.

I wish to ask a question of the Department official who was here last week and who, by the way, neglected to tell any of us anything about this. I want to know the following. Would she have expected that her Minister would have been told in that meeting?

Ms Katherine Licken

As the chair said, there was a process ongoing and that culminated in suspension. That is what she told the Minister.

No, but she asked for her resignation and she did not tell the Minister. Would Ms Licken have expected that she would have told her?

Ms Katherine Licken

I would have expected her to tell her that there was a disciplinary process.

But not that she had asked for her resignation.

Ms Katherine Licken

I would be conscious that there is a disciplinary process and that she has to take legal advice on what she has to say.

Can I ask Ms Licken the following questions as a representative of the Department? We need to focus in on the Department much more than we have. When was the Department or any official aware of a barter account or barter accounts?

Ms Katherine Licken

We were not aware of the barter account or this issue until Thursday, when it was divulged.

Nobody in the Department was aware until Thursday about the payments to Renault - that whole saga - or the issues in respect of Ryan Tubridy's salary until that Thursday.

Ms Katherine Licken

No. We were aware there was an issue pending. Obviously the-----

When did you become aware and in what context?

Ms Katherine Licken

We were aware back in March. We had been informed that an issue had arisen-----

Ms Katherine Licken

At the end of March, that an issue had arisen in the context of the audit and that the audit and risk committee had commissioned an independent external review. We were aware-----

Okay. That is fine. I think the rest of it is on the record.

I want to get through two more questions and possibly a third. Can we get a copy of this famous Teams call that took place – the tripartite?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

That would be for the director of legal.

Presumably, that is recorded.

Ms Paula Mullooly

No, it was not recorded. It is not recorded.

Is that not standard practice for calls like that?

Ms Paula Mullooly

I do not believe so, no.

There are no minutes.

Ms Paula Mullooly

There is a note of the call taken by the lawyer who was present at the meeting.

Who was the lawyer?

Ms Paula Mullooly

I do not want to name the lawyer in question. It is not fair. She has acted appropriately throughout this.

No problem. That is fine. Will you provide a copy of the note to us, please, by next Thursday?

Ms Paula Mullooly

Sorry, can I intervene? The note forms part of the legal advice in the context of this file. It is covered by legal professional privilege. I have an issue in the context of this matter where there is a number of active and threatened litigation and I need to protect the legal professional privilege in respect of this matter.

Chair, we will take advice on that legally as well. We will then come back to Ms Mullooly. I suspect-----

Ms Paula Mullooly

I am happy to engage on that point.

I suspect that we are entitled to it. I will move on for time purposes. I wish to go through the timeline of what happened in March. Regarding this issue with Deloitte, the dates of 16 March and 17 March and Mr. Tubridy's resignation, the whole country is talking about this. The coincidence is incredible. I wish to ask everybody in the room the following question: Is anybody aware of anyone who may have spoken to Mr. Tubridy, his agent or anyone belonging to him about what was coming down the line prior to 16 March, when he announced he was finishing up at "The Late Late Show"? Is anybody in the room aware of anything like that? No. Okay. That is fine.

Mr. Collins became aware on 7 March; he informed the director general on 8 March. Mr. Tubridy said he was finishing up on 16 March and then, on St. Patrick's Day - no issue with Deloitte - this meeting was called. In the statement by the RTÉ board on 23 June, the second paragraph states: "Later in the same week, members of the Audit and Risk Committee ... of the RTÉ board were contacted by the auditors to alert them about concerns they had about a number of issues." In Mr. Collins's previous evidence, he said there was "an issue". This is stating there were a number of issues. What are the other issues?

Ms Anne O'Leary

There were two invoices. All they said to me is that there were two invoices they were looking into, so I went directly. Another member of the audit and risk committee had a call with the people in Deloitte on 18 March, and then, on 21 March, we had a wider meeting of the entire ARC group. That is what started off the procedure of me getting the terms and reference ready for Grant Thornton, which went out on-----

It was only really the one multiple issue of two invoices.

Ms Anne O'Leary

Yes, that was-----

Are you saying that is what is meant by "a number of issues" in the RTÉ board's statement?

Ms Anne O'Leary

I was only aware of them saying to me that there were two invoices.

Mr. Collins? Same?

Mr. Richard Collins

Same. Certainly after the audit, there was only one issue.

Okay. Only one issue. I have another question. I refer to a statement made this week that Mr. Tubridy's contract has come to an end. I am no genius and I am not legally qualified but looking at precedent in respect of other people in RTÉ, I found that an extraordinary statement and I thought it was going to be a big problem straight away. Precedent would show that loads of people step down from TV programmes - I think Deputy Murphy went through this earlier - but they continued on. In fairness, the likes of Claire Byrne gave up. Who signed off on saying that, considering the absolute obvious risk involved?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Regarding that, yesterday I told the Oireachtas joint committee that his television and radio contract came to an end at the end of May. There were negotiations around a radio-only contract and those negotiations have been suspended. That was it. It seems to have got a bit confused with the termination of the contract that was negotiated between 2020 and 2025.

I think RTÉ has serious issues. I have one final question. In relation to the new presenter's salary - in fairness, he asked for it to be public - were there any changes made to the remuneration that was agreed with him versus what was announced in the past 24 hours? Were any changes made in the past week or so in respect of that and if so, what were they?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Patrick Kielty's announcement was €250,000 and I think €20,000 for pilots. In the original contract that the chair would have seen, that would have been provided by the CFO, there was €50,000, I think, of expenses. Is that right?

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes, just under €50,000.

So the drop is €30,000.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

It is €50,000, actually. Patrick Kielty waived the €50,000.

Just to be clear, it is €250,000 and he is getting €20,000 for pre-production, I presume, and all that sort of stuff.

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Exactly.

He waived €50,000 of what?

Mr. Adrian Lynch

Fees and other expenses.

Mr. Richard Collins

Travel expenses.

On the legal privilege mentioned, could we ask RTÉ to consider waiving that in relation to that document?

Ms Paula Mullooly

I do not think I am in a position to do that. I am happy to be here and answer questions as best I can within the confines of dealing with that legal privilege. There are very significant legal issues around that. In fairness, I anticipated that this question would arise and sought external legal advice on it last night. I got strong legal advice on the point.

I did not think there would be any questions left but clearly there are. I wish to address my first questions to Ms Geraldine O’Leary. I picked up on what she said yesterday about the invoice. She stated:

I am not normally somebody who raises invoices. That is not part of what I do. This was an unusual situation where I was asked by the director ...

That is directly what she said.

If this was something that was not unusual or that was routine, I would not expect her to remember it but this was unusual. This was really unusual. One does not normally do this. Ms O'Leary was asked to make out an invoice for "consultancy" services. Did she know there was a problem with this last year - not this year - when people internally started raising concerns with her? Did she believe there was a need to keep this under wraps at that stage?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I did not deliberately keep anything under wraps. As I have said from the beginning, this was unusual because I had never been involved in any element of a contract with the presenter. We have gone through year one already. In year two, in 2021, the director general asked me if there were any commercial partnership possibilities and I said "No". I did not go back to Renault because we already owed it for the previous year-----

I do not want a big, long response.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I think the question the Deputy is asking is whether anything happened in 2021. Is that what she is asking me?

I am asking about last year. Did she know there was a problem, when people internally raised this with her, with this invoice?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

When I was asked to go to Grant Thornton? Yes-----

I am talking about last year. Was this raised with her last year?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

No, the issue came up in March of this year, in 2023.

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.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes.

What did she tell her staff to do when they asked her what the consultancy services were for?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I did not have that discussion with my staff. As I have said before, while it is unsatisfactory, the question is who came up with the term "consultancy" fees? Was it the director general or was it Noel Kelly? Does the Deputy mean the person who was raising the invoice?

I have worked in offices over the years. When one is asked to raise an invoice, one will put on the invoice what it is for so that the person on the other side will know what he or she is paying for. Ms O'Leary is raising an invoice for consultancy fees and this goes to the heart of "an act designed to deceive" that we talked about earlier. We have an invoice that Ms O'Leary is raising. She has been instructed to raise it. She does not normally do this. She cannot recall some aspects of it. It does not name Ryan Tubridy or his company but in this whole arrangement, he would have been the beneficial interest. What did the person who raised this invoice in Ms O'Leary's office, on her behalf, say to her? What did the person say in terms of what to put on the invoice?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

I asked my assistant to raise the invoice. She looks after the administration of the barter account with our finance manager. I asked her to raise the invoice and to talk to Noel Kelly as to the details around the invoice.

So Noel Kelly was saying what should go on the invoice. Is that correct?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Well, I have repeatedly said that I do not remember whether it was the director general or Noel Kelly. My personal assistant and I have discussed it at length and neither of us is certain. My assistant was asked to raise the invoice and to do that, she had to consult with or talk to Noel Kelly, give him the billing details etc., so that was done.

Ms O'Leary would have led the week-long trip to Japan for the Rugby World Cup. Is that correct?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes.

She would have benefited from that. Has she had an involvement with anything else involving the barter account?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

Yes, I have. It is important to say that barter accounts exist in most media companies and are used frequently for client entertainment. So yes, we will provide the list-----

In what kinds of things would Ms O'Leary have been personally involved?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

In certain cases we may have taken a table at a sponsorship awards event or we may have taken a table at a marketing event, but always with clients-----

Is there anything like the Rugby World Cup trip?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

If the Deputy is asking if there was anything that I personally benefited from, on my own without clients or agencies, the answer is "Absolutely not".

I want to move on to ask about the remuneration and development subcommittee, headed by Ms Doherty. According to the records, that subcommittee met 16 times between 2012 and 2016. It met six times between 2017 and 2021 but it did not meet at all in 2020. Again, according to the records, other permanent subcommittees met regularly in 2020 and 2021. The significant issues that we are talking about here today would have been under the purview of this particular committee, including the so-called balloon payment at the end of a contract. Why was this so? Who causes this committee to meet?

Ms Moya Doherty

The committee meetings are normally set by the system within RTÉ. I would accept responsibility. There was a meeting scheduled for March 2020 of the remuneration committee. That was the cataclysmic, end of the world and-----

I have very little time so-----

Ms Moya Doherty

Then I had a personal illness and betwixt and between, these fell through the gaps. How and ever, in my role as chair of the board, together with the chair of the auditing committee, I kept in regular communication with the director general on the issues under the remuneration committee, which were essentially consulting on top ten talent and also consulting on executive pay.

I am glad to hear that the top ten talent thing is being consigned to the bin but obviously the top of the top ten is Ryan Tubridy.

Ms Moya Doherty

Yes, and I would-----

We are going around in a circle here. Would Ms Doherty say that Ms Forbes encouraged her not to have a meeting?

Ms Moya Doherty

Absolutely not. In all of my dealings with Ms Forbes I find her to be a woman of integrity. What has happened here is that there has been a major, disastrous slip.

Had there been a meeting of this committee, would these issues have been discussed?

Ms Moya Doherty

I did discuss with Ms Forbes regularly the negotiation with Ryan Tubridy that was taking place.

It just seems that all these silos were in place. If everybody did their job properly and interacted, these things would not have been possible. People would have asked questions.

I want to move on to Mr. Collins and the response he gave us earlier in relation to Deloitte asking him the question and then him asking Ms Forbes, who gave him a very convoluted answer. Does he feel that she was not being truthful with him in the response that she gave to him at that point?

Mr. Richard Collins

I could not say that she was not being truthful. She gave me an answer. It is not for me to second-guess her. She gave me an answer. The answer-----

From what Mr. Collins knows now-----

Mr. Richard Collins

Obviously now, yes, she was not truthful.

My next question is for legal. Do barter accounts have the potential to breach state aid rules?

Ms Paula Mullooly

I am not aware of anything about a barter account or have any knowledge of what a barter account is.

What would happen if RTÉ was paying salaries by issuing invoices describing consultancy that did not happen? What if, in fact, it was for the remuneration of somebody who would otherwise be paid directly by RTÉ?

Ms Paula Mullooly

I think it is absolutely wrong but whether it is a breach of competition or state aid rules is something I would have to investigate. I do not know.

I ask that Ms Mullooly come back to us with that answer.

Ms Paula Mullooly

I will.

Could Mr. Collins give us the list of barter accounts? Does he have that list in front of him?

Mr. Richard Collins

Is the Deputy asking for the list of the transactions that went through the barter account?

Is there a list of barter accounts?

Mr. Richard Collins

No, there is only one barter account.

What is the extent of the transactions?

Mr. Richard Collins

There are hundreds of transactions.

Thank you, Deputy Murphy. You have time for one more very brief question.

I will come back in again in the next round.

Mr. Collins, in relation to contractors providing services to RTÉ, obviously there would be a lot of them, including IT experts, stars and so on. Contractors would come in many different guises.

Does RTÉ always request a tax clearance certificate for contractors?

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes.

Can Mr. Collins guarantee this committee and the public that no contractors work for RTÉ without tax clearance certificates?

Mr. Richard Collins

We endeavour to ensure that tax clearance certificates are got from everybody.

The code, however, for a semi-State company would endeavour-----

Mr. Richard Collins

We are very conscious of that.

-----to ensure that, for any payments that are made.

Mr. Richard Collins

We are very conscious of that. If a contractor does not have a tax clearance cert, we would immediately chase them for that. You may have a situation-----

Before you engage the contractor-----

Mr. Richard Collins

Do we-----

-----would RTÉ ensure it is tax compliant?

Mr. Richard Collins

We would ensure they are tax compliant, yes.

Okay. Is Mr. Collins 100% confident that there are not any loose ends here?

Mr. Richard Collins

I would have to make inquiries before I gave a 100% commitment. A contractor we are using may have had an issue and Revenue may have come back and asked queries on that. That can happen, but it is generally sorted out very quickly. We are conscious of our requirement-----

Would there be any over a number of years?

Mr. Richard Collins

No. Absolutely no. Things are sorted out very quickly.

Okay. Mr. Collins stated that the previous CFO did not brief him on the tripartite agreement in 2020, when Mr. Collins came in. I question the credibility of this. Mr. Collins stated that the person, as the former CFO, should have briefed him. That did not happen, according to what Mr. Collins said.

Mr. Richard Collins

No. I think what I said was I was briefed on the fact that there was a commercial arrangement that RTÉ was trying to put in place, or assist to put in place. The tripartite agreement happened further on down the line. The five-year contract-----

It is in relation to the actual salary piece. Can we just deal with the salary piece? Mr. Collins is saying that he was across that deal. I am reflecting on the answers he gave on that. He said that he concluded the standard part. I am trying to picture the scenario where Mr. Collins is concluding the standard part of Ryan Tubridy's salary, who had €440,000 or €495,000, whichever it was, in different years. Surely, before Mr. Collins could do that, he would have to know the basics around what kind of income Mr. Tubridy was already in receipt of, be it from the diversionary route or, as we now know, the concealment route, in addition to knowing the details of the regular, main payment.

Mr. Richard Collins

No, the-----

Surely, he was briefed on that.

Mr. Richard Collins

-----fee for the five-year contract was pretty much agreed in that. That was pretty much done.

Did Mr. Collins ask whether there were any top-ups, side deals or diversionary routes?

Mr. Richard Collins

I did not ask if there were top-ups or diversionary routes. I knew the intention was to try to get an additional income and RTÉ would broker something there.

Okay. I will ask about the end-of-year bonuses from 2017 to 2019 and the €120,000. As I understand it, Mr. Collins stated that was never paid and never accrued, yet the recipient actually finished up with it.

Mr. Richard Collins

No, that is not correct.

Okay. It was deducted from his published earnings.

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes. They are two separate matters. He was due a €120,000 bonus at the end of his contract. It was never paid and never accrued. That is one matter. A separate matter is that €120,000 was deducted from his actual earnings when the published earnings were being calculated from 2017 to 2019.

Mr. Richard Collins

Grant Thornton is investigating if there is a link between the two.

I will take Mr. Collins back to the consultancy and the agent, Noel Kelly, providing services to RTÉ. How much was the figure for that?

Mr. Richard Collins

The figure for-----

The consultancy. The invoice came with "consultancy" written on it.

Mr. Richard Collins

Yes.

How much was the invoice for?

Mr. Richard Collins

The invoice was for €75,000. There were two invoices for €75,000.

Are there any others?

Mr. Richard Collins

No.

Grant Thornton found that there was no evidence of consultancy. Is that correct?

Mr. Richard Collins

On the balance of probabilities, that is what they have concluded.

There is no evidence of it.

Mr. Richard Collins

No.

Okay. On consultancy, if somebody came in to advise you who had been negotiating on behalf of agents and negotiating on behalf of a number of agents in RTÉ, does Mr. Collins think it is appropriate that they would be hired to do some consultancy work and to advise RTÉ, its team here, and Ms Dee Forbes etc. on strategy and how to deal with all of that? Is that appropriate?

Mr. Richard Collins

On reflection now, I do not think it is appropriate.

On reflection. This man had the whole thing in the palm of his hand. According to the Grant Thornton report, he wrote the letter demanding the final settlement. He sent a letter for the board and the director general to sign. He had the power of God, by the look of that and according to the Grant Thornton report. Surely, the minute you saw the letter, not just a red light would start flashing but you would press the "on" button on the shredder and put the letter into it, at that point.

Mr. Richard Collins

The first thing is I was not aware that CMS was a company associated with Noel Kelly.

Would Mr. Collins not ask who the directors of the company were?

Mr. Richard Collins

Again, in hindsight, yes. Looking back at all this now, I should have asked more questions on this.

Okay. I will move on to Ms Forbes's resignation being asked for. Ms Licken was before the committee last week. When she came to the committee, how much awareness had she of what was happening in RTÉ and what was unfolding, in a general way?

Ms Katherine Licken

We did not have the detail of it. We did not have the detail until after the appearance here last week. We knew that an issue was unfolding. We knew it was with the board, that it was in process and that that process had not concluded. We expected it to conclude at some point at the end of the week, working towards possibly Thursday afternoon or Friday.

Did Ms Licken know what it related to?

Ms Katherine Licken

I knew it related to a serious corporate governance issue.

Did Ms Licken know that it related to false figures regarding pay levels for what is described as talent?

Ms Katherine Licken

No.

Did any officials attend the meeting on Saturday, 24 June?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes. Ms Quill and I attended.

Ms Quill attended as well. On the issue around Ms Forbes, the fact is that on Thursday the public position was that she was on holidays, and on Friday it was said she was suspended. Was there any discussion of that at the meeting? Did that come up?

Ms Katherine Licken

Not around the annual leave statement, but I think the chair-----

I am asking about that inconsistency.

Ms Katherine Licken

That did not arise, that I can recall.

Ms Tríona Quill

No. We knew on Thursday that the director general had been suspended the previous day so it did not arise for discussion.

The officials knew on Thursday.

Ms Tríona Quill

That is correct.

The officials knew that the public statement put out by RTÉ that Ms Forbes was on holidays that Thursday was not correct.

Ms Tríona Quill

We were advised on Thursday that the director general had been suspended on Wednesday.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

Right. The officials knew the statement put out by RTÉ was incorrect.

Ms Katherine Licken

Maybe the chair can comment on this, but I am not aware that RTÉ put out a statement on Thursday that Ms Forbes was on leave.

It was reported that she was on holidays. Is that correct?

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

There may have been a press inquiry to RTÉ. I am not aware of that.

That was what was being reported.

Mr. Rory Coveney

My understanding of this is there was a press query on the Monday as to where Dee Forbes was. The accurate position, at that stage, was that she was on leave. That subsequently got reported on Wednesday, when things had changed.

I will ask about Mr. Coveney's role in RTÉ. Is his role strategy?

Mr. Rory Coveney

Yes.

Mr. Coveney worked hand in glove with the director general-----

Mr. Rory Coveney

Yes.

-----advising her.

Mr. Rory Coveney

I worked very closely with Dee Forbes, yes.

How many years has Mr. Coveney been in that role?

Mr. Rory Coveney

I was appointed to the role initially by Noel Curran and then the role evolved into director of strategy a year or two after Dee Forbes started.

You have been director of strategy for five years.

Mr. Rory Coveney

A little bit less than that, yes.

You would have had a very close working relationship with Ms Forbes.

Mr. Rory Coveney

I did.

Did she ever discuss with you matters in relation to the retention of the top stars?

Mr. Rory Coveney

No. We never had a conversation about this. I know that might sound strange because we were very close, and I hope we will be at some stage again when this has all passed, but we never had a conversation about this. I have never had a role in top talent negotiations or discussions. I do not have responsibility for it. So "No" is the answer.

Let me put this to you. On numerous occasions, members of this committee have asked RTÉ management about the high levels of remuneration for the top talent, so to speak. The justification always was that they would walk. They said they had to try to retain them and there was a competitive market out there. You will have observed those meetings here. I cannot recall whether you were present at any of them. Were you at some of those meetings?

Mr. Rory Coveney

I think so, yes. I am not sure.

I am sure you would have observed some of them as well. You would have heard reports back from those meetings and you would have been involved in preparations for them, along with Dee Forbes and other senior staff, as the head of strategy. Much play was made by the senior people at the top of RTÉ of the importance of retaining that talent. If that is the case, and you were head of strategy for five years and you have a close relationship with the director general, you are asking me to believe the area around these issues was never discussed with the director general.

Mr. Rory Coveney

You asked me whether I was specifically aware of any of the arrangements pertaining to the discussion today and the answer is "Not at all". I never had a conversation with Dee Forbes about that.

Mr. Rory Coveney

Sorry, on the broader issue of the reduction of top talent fees, for want of a better expression, that process had started. When I started working with Noel Curran there was a very substantial discussion early in his term. Since then, they have dropped by close to 40%.

I have seen the grid.

Mr. Rory Coveney

This is a topical issue in RTÉ as much as it is everywhere else.

I will ask a very specific question about it. Have you ever discussed with Ms Forbes or other senior executives in RTÉ that whole area of having to pay significant salaries - what would be counted as very high salaries - or payments or fees, as they are sometimes referred to because they are contractors, to retain that talent? Was that necessary? Was there ever a discussion around the necessity of that?

Mr. Rory Coveney

As I said-----

As the head of strategy-----

Mr. Rory Coveney

Of course there is a discussion about top talent fees. As the Cathaoirleach says, it is an issue of public concern and political interest.

Just to keep it short, the necessity of payment would be discussed. It had to have been over the past five years. What else would you be doing?

Mr. Rory Coveney

Absolutely.

Mr. Rory Coveney

The issue-----

When those discussions were taking place did anybody in the room ever ask where they would walk to? Was that question ever asked?

Mr. Rory Coveney

There was one very specific case, not in Dee Forbes's time but in Noel Curran's time, when one of our top stars did leave to go to Newstalk. I was not party to the discussions but-----

Is the market that big out there in this country?

Mr. Rory Coveney

It certainly is timely to reflect on that, absolutely. Any of these events have certainly brought that-----

I am glad you agree with me that it is time to reflect on that.

Mr. Rory Coveney

Absolutely.

There is also the back question to that. If somebody did walk, I think we could be fairly confident that we would fill those positions for €445,000 or €495,000 a year. I am absolutely confident that if those jobs were advertised, RTÉ would get enough applications and that there would be a long list. I am sure it would have to make a short-list for interviews. It would not be a case of having only one or two applications. Most people involved in recruitment would say it is a very attractive position in a very attractive company and it is a highly rated position. Anybody working in a recruitment agency would tell you that. I thank Mr. Coveney.

I will bring members in for a second round of questioning. We are trying to get finished up so I will set some ground rules. We could take a second break but I propose that we take four minutes each and that we try to wrap up at around 5.15 p.m. It would save us from having another break. Is everyone happy with that? Agreed.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. This meeting has taken a very dark turn from what we started out with today and what we saw yesterday. This is because a number of things have been said in the room. There have been denials and a change in vocabulary and tone. Something that really struck home to me was related to the barter fund. To have the former chair of RTÉ describe it as a "slush fund" is enormously significant. I want to give Ms Doherty an opportunity to expand on what she said. To me it has very deep ramifications. Ms Doherty was leading the organisation while much of this was going on, in terms of her capacity on the board. I would like to know what she means when she says "slush fund".

Ms Moya Doherty

My colleague behind me, and because he is behind me I cannot see him, went to the dictionary and looked up the definition of a "barter fund". That struck me as quite an horrific definition. From my perspective, and that of my colleagues Dr. P.J. Matthews, Anne O'Leary and Robert Shortt, who were on the board with me, none of us knew of the existence of this barter fund. It was outside of the financial department and, therefore, not reported to us as a board during our monthly meetings and did not exist in the monthly management accounts. For me, as chair, and for my colleagues on the board, that is staggering and absolutely shocking. We did not even pick up in the corridors of RTÉ the existence of the barter fund. I appreciate, from my education about the barter fund of late, that it is something that is common in commercial. How and ever, it raises the bigger issue now about the tension between commercial and public service. That is a debate-----

I will have to stop Ms Doherty because my time is very limited. She has been very generous in that answer.

My next question is for Mr. Shortt. I am sorry to put him on the spot but we know the significance of his presence here on behalf of his organisation and the team he represents on the board. Was there widespread knowledge in the broadcasting team and were the lesser public figures on RTÉ - by which I mean those involved in TV broadcasting in Ireland with whom we would not be as familiar - aware of the significant amount of finances involved in the barter funds, yes or no?

Mr. Robert Shortt

No. Does the Deputy want me to elaborate?

Yes, and please keep the answer as short as possible as my time is quite limited.

Mr. Robert Shortt

The first time I heard about the existence of the barter fund was when I sat at the audit and risk committee meeting on 21 March.

How did Mr. Shortt feel about it?

Mr. Robert Shortt

I was shocked. It took me a while even to try to understand that. Having said that, it obviously exists in the commercial world, and I fully accept that, but it was not widely known. It is very important to state, with regard to people working in news and current affairs and other parts of the organisation, there is a very clear distinction between the activities in the commercial section and what we do. We would not have known about a barter account. It would not have been appropriate for us to know about a barter account and what went on in a barter account.

Were ordinary staff in RTÉ as familiar as we here have now become with the amount of perks there were with this job? We have heard about Champions League final tickets and IRFU ten-year tickets. There seems to be a Las Vegas-style culture and a Celtic tiger culture that has persisted in RTÉ. Is that something the staff are familiar with?

Mr. Robert Shortt

I do not mean to make a joke here but in RTÉ the joke is that the RTÉ Guide is the perk. You might get a free RTÉ Guide every week but that is about it and, I might add, you might not get the Christmas RTÉ Guide. Staff generally do not have any sight of what has been described here today. Having listened, I know a lot more about a barter account now than I did back in March, and I can see why such an account works in the commercial world, but it was something I had no knowledge of prior to this.

I ask the chair of the board, from what she has heard and seen so far and from what she knows, whether she has any fear that any of this amounts to criminality or fraud.

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

I am advised not at this point but I cannot fully answer that question. The barter account is standard. None of this-----

There does not seem to be much that is standard about this particular barter account.

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

I agree.

It seems to be incredibly complex. Considering the amount of public money involved in the transactions with this barter account, we are going to need to see an awful lot more detail. I fully support the point made by Deputy Kelly. We need everything on this, from top to bottom. This is not going to go away. As a matter of fact, because of today's meeting the situation is going to get worse. I am out of time. It is imperative that the board furnishes this committee and the public with that information in a matter of days, let alone for next week's meeting. It needs to be done urgently.

Ms Siún Ní Raghallaigh

Yes, and we are undertaking to do that.

My question is to the commercial director. I want to take her back to year one of the tripartite agreement. She had negotiated with Renault to pay Ryan Tubridy €75,000. Is that right?

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

That is correct.

RTÉ then issued a credit note to Renault for €75,000.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

That is correct.

I am curious as to the logic in asking Renault to pay and then RTÉ to pay it back.

Ms Geraldine O'Leary

To repeat, once the deal had been done, I was asked to represent this to Renault, which I did. Ideally, I am sure the hope was that Renault would have extra money to pay Ryan Tubridy separately but it had not. From my perspective, this is a loyal and supportive client. Once the cost-neutrality principle was accepted by the director general, the client was getting three high-profile events for its business.

Imelda Munster

<