Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media debate -
Tuesday, 11 Jul 2023

Transparency of RTÉ Expenditure of Public Funds and Governance Issues: Discussion (Resumed)

I welcome the witnesses and those in the Public Gallery. Deputy John Brady will attend in substitution for Deputy Andrews and Senator Marie Sherlock will attend in substitution for Senator Annie Hoey. The following Members have also requested permission to attend: Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett and Senators Timmy Dooley and Eugene Murphy.

I advise non-committee members attending that I do not intend to extend the meeting any longer than the three hours that have been scheduled and I will only provide non-committee members with speaking time after committee members have finished. Last week, the meeting went for maybe five hours. Our witnesses today have spent three hours before a committee this morning and have come in here voluntarily and, therefore, I will stick to the three hours allocated to us.

The committee is meeting with Mr. Ryan Tubridy and his agent, Mr. Noel Kelly, to consider matters relating to the ongoing examination of transparency of RTÉ's expenditure of public funds and governance following the RTÉ board's statement of 22 June 2023. The committee has agreed that Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly will be accompanied by their legal representatives.

I wish to explain some limitations regarding parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references made by witnesses to other persons in their evidence. We have a bit of housekeeping to go through so I hope the witnesses can bear with us while we do that. 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. Witnesses are again reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not 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 that person or entity.

Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, witnesses will be directed to discontinue their remarks.

Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect 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. I also remind members again of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of Leinster House to participate in the public meetings. I will not permit a member to attend where he or she is not adhering to that constitutional requirement and where a member is attending remotely. As such, members should please confirm that they are attending from Leinster House before making a contribution via Microsoft Teams. I do not think that impacts on any of my colleagues here today, however.

I also emphasise to members and witnesses alike again that it is imperative that today's meeting is conducted in a fair and respectful manner at all times. It is important, in the interest of natural justice, that members and witnesses act responsibly on utterances concerning those present today and particularly those who are not present. I will intervene in exchanges where I deem this not to be the case. I also seek members' agreement that we suspend at 4.30 p.m. to give our guests and witnesses and members' themselves a ten-minute break. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The agenda for today's meeting is matters relating to the ongoing examination of transparency in RTÉ's expenditure of public funds and governance following RTÉ's board's statement on 22 June 2023. The committee welcomes that fact that Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly wish to fully co-operate and assist with examination of these matters. It is timely and certainly in the public interest that they set out their position. Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly have been advised of areas of focus for today's meeting, which we will try to stick to, which has been convened to consider matters relating to the committee's ongoing examination of transparency in RTÉ's expenditure of public funds and governance around the statement RTÉ made on 22 June.

We note that the opening statements have been supplied. I appreciate that the witnesses have already gone through them, but I understand they want to do that again because, obviously, they are mindful of the fact that they are not just speaking to the committee but to the public. As witnesses know, we have curtailed time. Is there any way their opening statements could be condensed into three minutes or would they prefer to speak freely about them? What way would they like to do that?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

First of all, it is very nice to be here. I thank all our Senators and Deputies for their time today. We read the opening statements into the record before the Committee of Public Accounts earlier. That is not to disrespect this committee, however. If the Cathaoirleach wishes, we will happily read our statements again. They are lengthy, but it is entirely up to her.

That is not necessary. I do not think my colleagues need that because they listened to the earlier meeting.

It is a reasonable proposal not to read them again. I think everybody watched the meeting this morning.

I will take it that the statements have been read. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Is the Cathaoirleach sure? I am happy to do it.

No, I think everybody was watching the earlier meeting. On that basis, we will move to questions from the members. As colleagues know, they have ten minutes each for their questions and answers. The should be mindful of how they want to use those ten minutes. I thank both witnesses for coming today. As I said at the beginning, this is voluntary and we do appreciate that. I am sure the witnesses, as well as everybody in this room, realise the importance of all this around our public service broadcaster, RTÉ, and its continuation into the future. I thank them very much.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I would also like to reiterate something I said earlier, which is that we both want to say how much we respect the Oireachtas as an institution, but also the work of the committee. We are very happy to be here.

I thank Mr. Tubridy very much. Without further ado, I will turn to my colleagues. I ask Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan to take the floor.

I thank our witnesses for attending a gruelling three-hour meeting. It cannot be easy. I certainly would not like to be in their shoes at this point. Fair play to them for offering to come in to try to clarify many of the issues that have arisen over the past three weeks. That is commendable.

That said, the Committee of Public Accounts session has posed further questions. I particularly want to focus on the raising of those two €75,000 invoices.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sure.

The fact is that they were clearly raised with the description "consultancy fees". It is fair to say that I doubt anybody watching the previous session believed it when they saw that they were raised for consultancy fees, which they clearly were not for. We heard that these particular invoices were raised under CMS Marketing as opposed to NK Management, which would be usual. People are incredibly sceptical and very questioning. They have serious doubts as to whether Mr. Kelly did not knowingly conceal these payments and that he did not work with RTÉ in knowingly concealing the fact that these payments were coming from RTÉ. Can Mr. Kelly respond to that? That is the mood out there.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sure. I thank members for having us here. Were there deceptive practices on behalf of RTÉ? There were, and we were deceived as well, as we said earlier. We had no knowledge whatsoever of the arrangement and no part of it.

Mr. Kelly knew they were described as being for consultancy fees and they were not for consultancy. That is the doubt everybody has.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We were instructed by RTÉ to make the second and third invoices for the Renault roadshow out to Astus for consultancy services and send them to RTÉ and it would look after them from there.

Okay, we have heard-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am sorry; at the time, we did not know what Astus was, but we presumed it was a subdivision of Renault.

Can Mr. Kelly understand why people are sceptical? Can he understand why people have concerns around the fact that "consultancy fees" was the description?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I can, but they are the facts.

Mr. Kelly said earlier that he was just following a process. Is he aware of any process either in corporate governance or accounting that allows for an invoice to be raised with a description it is not actually for?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Again, it was what we were asked to do. As I said, we are small company. RTÉ is a €350 million massive organisation.

That is a serious mismatch.

Mr. Noel Kelly

The Deputy has to appreciate that is the process if somebody asks whether we can invoice for something. Again, we were acting under instructions at all times.

Okay. On the same issue, and I am not being facetious here, but how would Mr. Tubridy describe his profession?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Broadcasting or broadcaster.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Not necessarily, no. I do not know how anyone else chooses to describe my job but I know what I do.

Mr. Tubridy has never partaken in consultancy. He does not do consultancy as his profession. He is a broadcaster.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I do not know what the dictionary definition of "consultancy" is. I am not being smart, but I suspect the answer is "No".

That comes back to Mr. Kelly's part in this and the raising of the invoices. He knowingly raised the invoices with the term "consultancy fees". Mr. Tubridy knows he is not a consultant. I am sure Mr. Kelly knows that Mr. Tubridy is not providing consultancy-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

-----in any way, shape or form. What I am trying to get at here is whether Mr. Tubridy still has full trust and faith in Mr. Kelly-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, I do.

-----considering that it seems to be clear to everybody that there was some form of deception with RTÉ and Mr. Kelly using the term "consultancy fees", and also using a separate company that had never been used before. Does Mr. Tubridy still have full faith?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, I do have full faith in Noel. He was doing his job and in the course of his job, he was given instructions and he carried them out.

Mr. Tubridy is happy that those instructions were to raise the invoices for "consultancy fees" and he just did that without asking any questions.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

We would never have discussed that. If I were to-----

However, now that Mr. Tubridy knows-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

The Deputy is asking after the event. It is a bit late now but I think that if I were to look at so many of the things I have been hearing at the various Oireachtas hearings over the last two weeks, there is a lot of room for better practice around the place. I suspect that as of Monday, with a new director general, that is going to happen.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

In some ways, this is cathartic for RTÉ.

-----quite the question. The way the Committee of Public Accounts meeting played out this morning over three hours is that many questions were put to Mr. Kelly about the description of the invoices as "consultancy fees" and the fact that they came from CMS Marketing, which was different to where they would usually come from. There are many doubts among the public. With Mr. Tubridy knowing that now and all of this being brought up at today's Committee of Public Accounts meeting, can he still honestly say, despite the public sentiment out there, that he still has full faith and that he will continue to let Mr. Kelly represent him?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, I will.

We heard the new director general, Mr. Kevin Bakhurst, on RTÉ radio yesterday when a question was put to him specifically with regard to Mr. Kelly. He was asked whether he would work with agents like Mr. Kelly again and was asked to give a "Yes" or "No" answer. He said he could not give a definite "Yes" or "No" but, to paraphrase, he said that in all likelihood, it is a "No". Does that not put Mr. Tubridy's future at RTÉ in serious jeopardy?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, it does not. I can still work with Mr. Kelly and negotiate an agreement with RTÉ.

They are different jobs. RTÉ is one element of what I do for a living.

Potentially, any future arrangement Mr. Tubridy has with RTÉ would exclude Mr. Kelly's services.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

What would Mr. Kelly say to that?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Not necessarily. If I could add to that, we manage a number of people. Most of them are not full-time broadcasters. They do bits and pieces of work. I represent them. I am their shop steward. I am their union. I am the only thing between them and absolutely nothing.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am sorry; we have to get this right. Is the Deputy saying to me that the director general would say that these people-----

Did Mr. Kelly hear the director general's comments yesterday?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I read them. Is the Deputy saying these people cannot have representation? They are not all the top three.

What I got from those comments was that, in all likelihood, he would not be willing to work with Mr. Kelly again.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It was not a flat "No" but we will have to see.

Regarding the €150,000, I am just trying to get the bottom of things here and establish facts. When did the €150,000 for those two latter invoices, the two €75,000 invoices, go to the witnesses? I presume they would have gone to Mr. Kelly's account first.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We would have invoiced them. We would have invoiced Astus and then they were paid. The first invoice was paid by Renault and the second two invoices were paid-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

-----by Astus. The first three events have happened so those two invoices are for the next six events that are still contracted.

I just want a direct answer to the actual questions. When did the €150,000 for those latter two invoices go into the account? Was it the CMS account?

Mr. Noel Kelly

It was 2022.

Either Mr. Tubridy or Mr. Kelly might be able to answer this. When did they go into the Tuttle Productions account? I presume the payment of €150,000 would have then gone from Mr. Kelly into the Tuttle account.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I do not have that information. I do not know when that was.

Could Mr. Kelly find out that information?

Mr. Noel Kelly

It will be in the 2022 accounts.

It would have been prior to the publication of RTÉ's top earners on 15 February 2023. What I am trying to get at here is that Mr. Tubridy would have seen this €150,000 come into his account. He would have then seen that it was not represented in the payments as published in February 2023. I know he has apologised for it before but-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry, RTÉ's 2023 publication is only for 2020-21 earnings. Generally they are three years behind. As I said this morning, we get ten minutes' notice that these are going out.

Which years did the invoices relate to?

Mr. Noel Kelly

The invoices related to 2021-22.

Part of the earnings that were published in February 2023 would have been related to 2021 as well.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Those are still to be done.

I have one minute left so I will move on. In July 2020, Mr. Tubridy got a letter addressed to him from the then director general, Dee Forbes, stating, "The purpose of this correspondence is to record in writing our guarantee and undertaking that the fees set out in this Agreement will be paid by RTÉ without any reductions and RTÉ shall not make any request or enquiry from you in relation to a reduction in the agreed fees during the currency of the Agreement save as to those that might be imposed by changes to legislation". Essentially, it is a letter saying that Mr. Tubridy will get no further reduction in fees or earnings. How does that sit with him, knowing that colleagues around him were taking pay cuts left, right and centre but he got what was essentially special treatment? If I was to receive a letter saying I would not receive any further pay cuts but Deputy Dillon did not get the same letter, that would be special treatment for me. How does that sit with Mr. Tubridy?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

It is important to mention the 40% pay cut I have taken. That would be a relevant figure in these conversations. Some numbers have been isolated somewhat unfairly and the truth of the matter is that I did take pay cuts. Since 2012 or more-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

For the six years between 2012 and 2020.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

From 2012 to 2020 it was a total sum of approximately 40%.

Mr. Tubridy received a letter from the director general that no other member of staff or employee, to my knowledge, would have received. Does that not scream special treatment?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Can I answer that? That was a request that was in the contract negotiations. It was because there was €120,000 of the €345,000 that was never invoiced for and never taken. Mr. Tubridy had never invoiced it so he decided not to take that payment. In the 2020 contract, which was for 2020 to 2024, he reduced his earnings voluntarily by €105,000 so that was €525,000 plus the €120,000 he did not take. Overall from 2012-----

That is not really what I am asking.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I know but-----

Deputy O'Sullivan, I am going to have to draw this to an end.

That is fair. My last question is to Mr. Tubridy. In his opening statement he said he took a 20% pay cut. I thought Deputy McAuliffe's questioning earlier very clearly outlined that in fact, this was not a 20% pay cut because those €75,000 invoices were coming from RTÉ. They were underwritten by RTÉ, coming from the licence fee holder and the taxpayer and going into Mr. Tubridy's account. Does he accept now that it was not a 20% pay cut?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Unfortunately not. This is one of the great fog of war situations. The money that came in - an enormous amount of money; I do not deny that for a moment - came, as we understood it, from Renault. We thought it was a side agreement. It was a totally different agreement entirely. It was an independent contractor agreement that Renault was paying for. That was the understanding. That is what I was told and I had to accept that for what it is. I cannot operate in a sort of never-never land.

Now Mr. Tubridy knows how it worked. It was an underwriting. Those two €75,000 invoices were underwritten by RTÉ, paid for by RTÉ, the taxpayers and TV licenceholders to Mr. Tubridy's account. Does he not accept that he actually has not taken a 20% pay cut because it represents much less than that?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Again-----

I am sorry Deputy O'Sullivan but I will have to conclude. I call Deputy Dillon.

I thank our guests for the earlier session.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

We meet again.

It was very constructive. I will follow on from Deputy O'Sullivan's line of questioning. RTÉ previously stated that it never made cash transactions to the barter system for presenters and that this situation was particularly unusual. It outlined that the primary use was for media companies in exchange for goods and services. Has Mr. Kelly ever made any cash payments through the bartering system?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. We had no knowledge of the arrangements. We had no part in suggesting it or setting it up. We were not consulted about it.

Why were you-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

We were not told at any stage about the nature of it.

I want to get as much information from the witnesses as possible. Members only have ten minutes so I ask Mr. Kelly to allow the Deputy to ask his question.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry.

Why would Mr. Kelly not make a cash transaction through a barter system?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I had never come across a barter system before this. This was the first.

We know from earlier this morning that in 2018, Mr. Kelly used Astus for a transaction for his charity.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, we did not.

That was clarified this morning, was it not?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. RTÉ took a table last year and it put that through Astus.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Not at all.

I will retract that statement. As I previously examined this morning, RTÉ raised an invoice with Mr. Kelly's company, CMS, for payment by a third-party company, Astus, which Mr. Kelly did not know and which RTÉ had never previously dealt with. Mr. Kelly was under the instructions of the commercial manager, Geraldine O'Leary, not to put Mr. Tubridy's name on the invoices. Is that correct?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes. As I said, we did not know who Astus was and we presumed it was related to Renault.

Does that not sound bizarre to Mr. Kelly? A note on the invoice sent to Geraldine O'Leary clearly stated "Do not put any person's name on the Invoice". Did Mr. Kelly ask the commercial manager to do that?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I can only reiterate-----

We have seen the email that went to Geraldine O'Leary with a note that said not to put any person's name on the invoice. Did Mr. Kelly instruct that?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. They sent that to us.

This was sent to Geraldine O'Leary.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, Geraldine O'Leary's person sent it to us.

Did Mr. Kelly instruct that person to not put a name on the invoice?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. We were, again, acting under instructions from RTÉ.

Who instructed Mr. Kelly?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Geraldine O'Leary.

This email did not come from Geraldine O'Leary. It went to Geraldine O'Leary.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It said that if it was sent back she would sort everything out. We took comfort from this. What was done was as per RTÉ's request and instructions.

It just does not add up why RTÉ went to such lengths. It did itself, the taxpayer and its own reputation so much damage to protect Mr. Tubridy's name.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Mr. Tubridy was doing events for Renault, not for RTÉ. Renault is the sponsor. He was doing events for Renault. We were paid by Renault. We understood this money would be paid by Renault, and there are still two years of events owed for Renault.

Did Renault reduce its overall advertising bill with RTÉ, to cover this separate contract?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Again, we have no relationship with Renault. That is between Renault and RTÉ. I have no knowledge of their advertising or sponsorship. We would not be party to any of that.

Mr. Kelly is not aware if Renault was going to divert the existing advertising budgets for RTÉ to cover a new contract, or a separate contract he was negotiating on behalf of Mr. Tubridy.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. Completely not.

Okay. Mr. Kelly is completely washing his hands of the deal, of which he and Mr. Tubridy were going to be sole beneficiaries.

Mr. Noel Kelly

This deal was constructed by RTÉ with Renault, for Renault. We were-----

It is very difficult to accept that.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It was a completely separate contract for services. Mr. Tubridy's contract is for 205 radio shows and 38 two hour-plus television shows. This is completely separate, as would be his publishing and other work.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Mr. Kelly was the sole beneficiary and was going to get a commission fee for it. Mr. Tubridy was going to get an extra top-up payment on top of this salary. However, Mr. Kelly is telling me he was following instructions from RTÉ.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes, and this is a separate contract for services.

RTÉ made you do it.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We acted under its instruction, as the Deputy can see. That is why we have come here and provided all of this documentation.

The alleged method suggests that Mr. Kelly collaborated with RTÉ, as I said at the previous committee, to engage in secret payments through the barter system.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am not RTÉ. That is a question for RTÉ.

Mr. Kelly was the beneficiary of this, with the intention of hiding the payment for your client. Is that correct, or can he provide clarification to address the accusation?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am sorry, will the Deputy repeat that one more time?

RTÉ would normally never do cash transactions. By putting this payment through the bartering system, was there an intention to hide the payment made to your client, Mr. Tubridy?

Mr. Noel Kelly

We were instructed by RTÉ that all invoices for the Renault roadshow were to be sent to Astus, for the services as they had stated.

During an online meeting in May 2020 between Mr. Kelly, the former DG, RTÉ's solicitor and a colleague of Mr. Kelly's, a verbal guarantee was given by RTÉ to underwrite the Renault commercial agreement. Is that correct?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes, but previous to that Breda O'Keefe had-----

No, no. I am talking about this, which was in May 2020.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It had been agreed by RTÉ.

Mr. Kelly must have been aware it was the taxpayers' money from RTÉ, and not Renault's payment, that would be supporting these invoices.

Mr. Noel Kelly

At every juncture we expected this was Renault. Renault is still-----

Renault was not in a position to renew the contract for "The Late Late Show" in 2020.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Why were they not?

Was it not a case that-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, Renault is still the sponsor.

It is still the sponsor, but what about the tripartite agreement to underwrite payments?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. I say again, that anything to do with sponsorship and advertising is between RTÉ and Renault. That is completely a relationship between RTÉ and Renault. It is nothing to do with us at all.

Mr. Kelly must accept he played a pivotal role as the conduit to these under-disclosed payments. Blaming it on RTÉ now seems difficult or for us to accept as credible.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Okay. I say to the Deputy that in organisation that turns over 350-----

That is not the question.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Will the Deputy let me answer, please?

That is not the question. Mr. Kelly will answer the question

Mr. Kelly will answer the question.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I know, but-----

He played a pivotal role in this through the barter system-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

RTÉ, under instruction, asked us to do this at the time.

-----for a cash transaction, which did not have Mr. Tubridy's name on it.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We did not know what a barter system was until all of this happened.

Mr. Kelly is washing his hands of it.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Completely. It is an RTÉ issue.

I have some final questions for Mr. Tubridy, relating to the discrepancy between what he was paid and what was published.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

Why did he not ask questions at the time?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Is the Deputy referring to the years 2017, 2018 and 2019?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

This is about the reporting of my remuneration and why I did not object to it at the time. Am I right in saying that?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I need to begin with the 2015 contract, which ran until 2020, just to be sure. It states clearly how much I was to be paid every year of the five year contract, for hosting "The Late Late Show" and the radio show. In addition to these sums, the contract states that I was to be paid a further €120,000 in what has been variously called an exit fee or loyalty bonus.

In reality, Mr. Tubridy was not aware of what he was being paid.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

In reality, this was a fee to be paid at the end of the contract where I would make myself available at any stage during the contract to do additional, optional work for RTÉ. As it turned out, when that contract concluded in 2020 I was not called upon to deliver any of these additional pieces of work. Although I was entitled to payment for making myself available, I waived this entitlement. I did not issue any invoice on the basis that I did not want to be paid for work I did not do.

This question is for Mr. Kelly. That is even though two invoices for €150,000 still have not been-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

There are still six events due.

The invoices are still sitting there.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We are contracted to do another six.

Where is that money now? Whose account is it in?

Mr. Noel Kelly

That is in the Tuttle account.

Even though he is not "The Late Late Show" presenter.

Mr. Noel Kelly

That is only now.

Is that money, which should go back to-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Absolutely. The reality with that is there----

Has Mr. Tubridy started on that-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

There has been no contact on that issue. However, that is referring to six outstanding appearances that were to be made for Renault. As the Deputy knows, I made the decision to leave "The Late Late Show" last summer. The stories are conflating a little, but we can get to that later. That work is still outstanding. If I am not called upon to do that work, the money will of course go back.

Is Mr. Tubridy still being paid by RTÉ?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, I am.

What are the terms of the verbal agreement in place?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Does the Deputy mean as presenter of the radio programme?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I could be out of a job by Friday.

I thank the witnesses.

I welcome the witnesses, arís.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

It is good to see the Deputy again.

I want to start by saying that I would much prefer to be focusing on the abysmal lack of corporate governance in RTÉ. However, the witnesses asked to come here to put their side on the record, and answer questions. I will start with Mr. Tubridy. He sat through three hours this morning, followed by a one hour break. On reflection, does he accept, as another Deputy suggested, that he did not take the 20% pay cut, when the tripartite agreement that paid him €75,000 is taken into account?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I understand why that perception is out there, but we have tried hard to explain the difference between being paid separately by Renault versus being paid by RTÉ, and the pay cut involved. There is also a need to explain the accumulation of pay cuts that take it to a 40% pay cut since 2012. I have tried to reflect on that. However, the Deputy's question is a fair one and I will try to answer it. I of course understand why there is confusion, and why there is a perception issue, but it is not right.

That is fair enough, but in reality, which is why I said that, RTÉ footed that bill through the public purse. It had no business underwriting a separate commercial deal. They actually paid the €375,000 payments.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, no. I am sorry. I say this really respectfully. This is why I am in such a terrible state at the moment.

It is because there has been so much misunderstanding and misreporting about this and about these figures. The figure the Deputy just mentioned is not a real figure at all. It is not a fair figure.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

It just gets thrown at your head. That is why we are here today: to try and right that because, unfortunately, like that story, "Doubt", when a feather leaves the pillow, it is very hard to get that back. So unfortunately, with my good name, the feather has left the pillow and I am here trying to put the feather back in the pillow.

I hope that Mr. Tubridy can put the feather back in the pillow.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I appreciate that. I thank Deputy Munster.

The payments of €75,000 for the second and third year were paid by RTÉ.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Again, they were paid by Astus.

Yes, but RTÉ made those payments to Astus.

Mr. Noel Kelly

The payments to us were from Astus.

Yes, but they came from RTÉ.

Mr. Noel Kelly

But we did not know that.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That is it.

Yes, but that is what I am saying.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That was the misunderstanding.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We did not know that.

The witnesses know now in hindsight.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

Whether Mr. Kelly knew at the time is another question, but he knows now that RTÉ paid those payments. That was my question to Mr. Tubridy initially about the tripartite agreement making up for the 20%. Even if he disputes that, which is fair enough-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

What I would say to Deputy Munster is that it was for work outstanding, separate to what I had done previously in RTÉ. It was meant to be a separate contract but the whole thing got muddled.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

In fairness to Deputy Dillon, who asked the question about what happens the money if I do not do the work for Renault; the money goes back. I do not want money for nothing, for goodness' sake. Of course. I totally understand. I hope that answers Deputy Munster's question a bit better than earlier.

Yes. Just in relation to that, now that Mr. Tubridy knows that RTÉ paid for those payments, does he accept that it was wrong of RTÉ to use the public purse to pay that?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

What I would say to the Deputy is that I am not here to be critical of RTÉ. I have been working there since I was 12 years old. It is a very important place to me, but I have to defend myself. The new director general of RTÉ has asked for maximum transparency. That is what he said in the last 48 hours. That is why I am here.

Okay. So Mr. Tubridy accepts that it was wrong for RTÉ to pay those top-ups out of the public purse.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

It strikes me as being unorthodox.

Okay. That is fair enough.

I want to ask Mr. Kelly a question. I find it very hard to believe or I just do not find it credible that he said earlier this morning that RTÉ initiated this whole deal – that RTÉ was the instigator of this tripartite deal. I cannot figure out why, if his client was the only one to benefit from such a deal, RTÉ would be the one to initiate a deal and to develop it, even though it would cost it money by underwriting it? It is clear that Mr. Kelly wanted a commercial deal - otherwise, he would not have entered into it in the first instance - and a guaranteed and underwritten payment by RTÉ. At the same time, we were watching Covid spread from the east. In February, while the emails were going back and forth on this deal, Italy had already gone into lockdown. Was it not the case that Mr. Kelly saw a way for income to be guaranteed by RTÉ and that he locked RTÉ into that agreement that it would have to forfeit? As it transpires, that is exactly what happened.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I did the contract before Covid. The contract was done at the start of 2020 and Covid happened in March 2020.

I have just told Mr. Kelly that Italy had already gone into lockdown in February. These emails were going back and forth in February, and Mr. Kelly had requested that RTÉ would underwrite the agreement. He told us that this morning. He had requested that RTÉ would lock the agreement and that it would be the fall guy if any sponsor pulled out or in the event of a lack of any other sponsor. He knew Covid was there. He knew the lockdown had already started, and the likelihood was that it was going to come across, and that was his way of locking in RTÉ. As I have said from the beginning, the one who is ultimately responsible for all of this is the executive board of RTÉ. It is the one that underwrote a commercial deal, which it had no business doing. It is the one that raised false invoices. The response Mr. Kelly gave to that is not credible either. It also put those payments through the barter account. Is it not true that the only person who benefited from this deal was Mr. Kelly's client?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. On the question of who would benefit from this deal, obviously Renault was a major sponsor – I assume probably the biggest sponsor in RTÉ's portfolio. RTÉ obviously wanted to keep it on board. Who would benefit by having Ryan Tubridy doing roadshows for five years? Renault would, because the association would obviously continue for that five years and then I assume that RTÉ would keep Renault on as a sponsor. The relationship of RTÉ is with Renault, it is not with us. In relation to the actual contract, this started long before Covid really hit, which was 13 March 2020, when people had to work from home. This was well before that. On what I asked it to do, I never wanted RTÉ to underwrite this. This was always the relationship, with a separate agreement for Renault. What I wanted RTÉ to do applied in the event that there was a change of sponsor. There still is not a change of sponsor. Renault was always going to pay for this. If there was a change of sponsor, we would be a part of the agreement so that it would not be a case of "You have to do this" or "You have to do that".

But Renault did just have a one-year agreement.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, it was a five-year agreement. Renault is still the sponsor, but the first two years, 2020 and 2021, were pushed out because of Covid. The first lot of events happened in 2022 and then the other six are owed. As Mr. Tubridy said, if they want them to be honoured and we are still in contract, he will honour them, and if they do not, he will hand the money back.

But RTÉ had underwritten that agreement at Mr. Kelly's request.

Mr. Noel Kelly

What RTÉ was underwriting with me was that it would interact with whatever new sponsor was there. Again, it was all under instruction from RTÉ.

Does it not sound more plausible, given that Mr. Kelly's client was the only one to benefit and we were coming into Covid, that he sought, asked and negotiated that RTÉ would underwrite the agreement? It is responsible for underwriting it and all the shenanigans we have seen since, but at the end of the day Mr. Kelly had asked it.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, it was pre-Covid.

I have only a couple of seconds left so I will ask one final question of Mr. Kelly. When RTÉ published the salaries, in particular his client's salary, he knew that it was not correct, as such.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes.

He would have checked the published figures. Even for the sake of his own client, optically, why did he not raise the fact that he was being misrepresented? What did he do about that?

Mr. Noel Kelly

We had asked before. We get ten or 15 minutes notice that the top salaries are being published and then they are out. This generally happens on a Friday. We put in the contract that we wanted at least 48 hours notification. If we had had notification of all of this, we would have been able to say "this is wrong". They were wrong.

But Mr. Kelly did not call it out after it was published.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We did. We put it in the contract negotiations that we wanted to be informed-----

But not publicly. It would have saved Mr. Kelly's client a lot of hassle, and having to explain. Mr. Kelly did not-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

In the document on page 6, Deputy Munster will see:

Please note that these matters are private and confidential. Any PR [as in figures of fees going out] set to be released by RTE needs to be discussed in advance of any publication, this includes both salaries and pay cuts.

Of course we want to see them, but they are out before-----

Mr. Kelly could have set the record straight, but he chose not to.

Mr. Noel Kelly

That is exactly what we did there on page 6 of the document. That is exactly what we were doing.

Yes, in this document, but I am talking about publicly. Mr. Kelly would have saved Mr. Tubridy a lot of questions and hassle had he called it out publicly at the time.

Mr. Noel Kelly

But as the Deputy can see, the figures relating to under-declaration and overdeclaration were put out by RTÉ, not us. Also, they were stated-----

It just seems to be – I am not denying that RTÉ is in the thick of it – that everything today is RTÉ's fault. This is a simple enough question that Mr. Kelly, as his client's agent, could have publicly rectified. It is not the biggest issue, but he could have publicly rectified it and he chose not to.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We informed RTÉ and we also tried to put it in as part of the contract. RTÉ is the one that keeps on sending the figures out, not us.

Mr. Kelly did not correct them.

I call Deputy Fitzpatrick.

I welcome the witnesses. I hope we can get the truth. My first few questions will be for Mr. Tubridy. RTÉ engaged in deceptive practices: hiding payments, the misrepresentation of financial reporting and hiding information.

RTÉ was responsible, but Mr. Tubridy did not take action to resolve these errors. That is an act of deception. Does he agree?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, of course I do not agree with that assertion. We are here today to counter that and that is why members have a document full of answers to the questions that have been put to me in the Deputy's question.

Mr. Tubridy is saying he did not hide payments-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

-----he did not misrepresent the financial reporting-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

-----and he is hiding no information.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Correct.

Does Mr. Tubridy realise people look up to him and feel really let down by him? I do not know who all these people are who are rubbing his shoulders and shaking his hand, because if he came to County Louth, it would be the opposite. On 3 March, he shut down talk of his leaving "The Late Late Show". He had a cushy number and was well liked. Nobody would give him a wink. A week later, questions started to be asked and his retirement announcement came merely nine days later. He repeatedly stated at this morning’s committee meeting that his leaving "The Late Late Show" had nothing to do with this, as he put it, "fiasco". He stated that the timing was entirely a coincidence and that he first became aware of the Grant Thornton review in May. Is this true?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Deputy-----

I am only asking a question.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

And I am only answering. Let me tell you-----

Just answer the question please.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes. The Deputy's dismissal of the good people of Ireland who have the courtesy and kindness to approach me in the street is not something I appreciate, on their behalf.

Second-----

They have approached me too.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Second, I wish I had brought with me, in some ways, the countless cards and letters I have received from people around the country, speaking words of kindness and, indeed, wisdom. I would not like to dismiss their decency either.

Third, no.

If Mr. Tubridy had been made aware, would he have stayed in his position until the end of his term or would he have resigned?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That is a hypothetical that is unbecoming, I think, of this committee-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I get the sense the Deputy chooses not to believe my reason for leaving "The Late Late Show"-----

I am only asking the questions I am being asked by other people.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Please. I am only answering the Deputy's questions.

Mr. Tubridy is not answering them.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I have answered the Deputy quite clearly with the word "No" and, equally, with my answer in response to him regarding "The Late Late Show". If he chooses not to believe me, that is a terrible pity because-----

I am only asking questions.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

-----he lives with a lack of truth in that case.

Given RTÉ was understating the level of money it was paying Mr. Tubridy, where is the balance of the money? In the public service, any recipient of overpayment, in this case Mr. Tubridy, is obliged to return that overpayment. Would Mr. Tubridy be willing to return that overpayment to the public funds? This is taxpayer's money - his audience.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

The Deputy needs to refer to the document-----

I am only asking. Will Mr. Tubridy please answer the question?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes. There have been no overpayments of any sort. There was an understatement of payments by RTÉ because of its unfortunate accountancy errors.

As I said, RTÉ was understating the level of money and Mr. Tubridy knew it was doing so. In the public service, any recipient of overpayments is obliged to return them. Would Mr. Tubridy be willing to return this overpayment to the public funds?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

The difficulty here is understatements.

Did Mr. Tubridy have any other undisclosed commercial involvement with a third party?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No.

Did Mr. Tubridy really think people would not think he was trying to avoid a pay cut? People know about the Renault payment. Does he honestly think people do not know one and one is two?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I think the nature of an independent contractor signing a deal with a different company is pretty complicated. To be honest, I am not a smart man when it comes to these things. That is why I pay a smart man to do that for me. The Deputy will have to forgive me for not having a great grasp of the detail here, but I never set out to cause any confusion to anyone at any time. I never underestimate the intelligence and decency of the Irish people.

It is difficult for the Irish people to reconcile that the Renault deal was an entirely separate arrangement when it formed part of the 2020 contract negotiations. What gave rise to Dee Forbes issuing a wee side note of 9 December? Did Mr. Tubridy threaten to walk from his job? At the time, through his weekly radio shows and as presenter of the flagship programme "The Late Late Show", he brought in a significant proportion of the commercial revenue to RTÉ when it was under severe financial pressure. Did he leverage this fact and pressure the then director general to keep him happy?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I did not negotiate with the director general. I gave back money to RTÉ, as it happens. Noel will fill in the Deputy on that if he wishes to hear about it.

Mr. Kelly is putting the sole blame on RTÉ regarding this fiasco. Why did he ask RTÉ, a public body, to guarantee payments due from Renault, a substantial private company, to have Mr. Tubridy's commercial obligations underwritten with taxpayers' money? Mr. Tubridy always said on "The Late Late Show" that we were all in it together, but this money was public money. Does Mr. Kelly think that is acceptable?

Mr. Noel Kelly

First, the agreement with Renault is with RTÉ. In respect of public money we were paid by Renault, our understanding-----

Sorry, but the witnesses were paid by RTÉ.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, we were paid by Renault and then we were paid by Astus, and we understood Astus was involved with Renault. At all times we were acting under instruction from RTÉ. The relationship with Renault is with RTÉ, not with us.

RTÉ rejects the claim that incorrect versions of events were presented to the Oireachtas last week regarding the RTÉ agreement to underwrite payments. In Mr. Kelly's pack, however, he provides email evidence to prove his point. An email is not a contract, as I am sure he knows.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sure.

The position of either party could easily have changed in minutes or days. Can Mr. Kelly show us the actual contract?

Mr. Noel Kelly

The contract-----

Does Mr. Kelly have an actual contract?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Exactly what contract-----

Mr. Kelly is saying he had agreement by email. I am asking whether he has an actual contract. It is "Yes" or "No".

Mr. Noel Kelly

We are dealing with a €350 million operation at RTÉ, which is huge. At any time, I would assume it knew what it was doing. We have a contract. The email from the then CFO confirms that this was RTÉ's position and, again, there was no secret. Dee Forbes then verbally said it would honour the contract. We never thought RTÉ would ever pay this. All we wanted was that if the sponsor changed, we would be able to have an interaction with the sponsor because the relationship was between the sponsor and RTÉ. If the sponsor changed, therefore, we needed to be able to renegotiate and rework what it wanted to do. That was all.

In respect of the consultancy fee invoices, Mr. Kelly simply followed instructions.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes.

Mr. Kelly is a very successful negotiator and works for three members of the top talent at RTÉ. Why was this instruction not questioned? Neither of the witnesses are consultancies. If RTÉ told Mr. Kelly to invoice a company he had never heard of, why did he not question it? It makes no sense.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I suppose it is obvious now, but at the time we were just acting under instruction. We had been working with RTÉ for 23 years. I never saw any reason RTÉ would do anything deceptive. Why would I? It is the national broadcaster. I listen and watch and pay my licence fee like everybody else. Honestly, why would I have doubted it?

Does Mr. Kelly have a relationship with the new director general, Mr. Kevin Bakhurst, given he previously served as deputy director general?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I have met him a couple of times, similar to how I have met Dee Forbes six or seven times. I do not have relationships with these people. We meet them with their lawyers and accountants in their board rooms. I have not had a cup of tea or lunch or dinner with them. These are people you meet in the main tower at RTÉ when you are negotiating contracts, but I do not know these people. They are not my friends. I do not know them.

The tripartite contract, which was provided last week on behalf of Ryan Tubridy, was signed on 21 April of this year. It is almost as though someone found out that the authors had discovered the unreported payments to Mr. Tubridy, and Mr. Tubridy and Ms Forbes were told and both decided to jump ship before the scandal became public.

When is a contract not a contract? This is the question I am being asked by the public. Two people seem to have jumped ship at the same time. Is that a coincidence as well? Everything seems to be a coincidence.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry, who is jumping ship? Who has jumped ship?

I am sorry. Last week people jumped ship.

Mr. Noel Kelly

From RTÉ?

Yes. I feel that Mr. Tubridy and Dee Forbes seemed to jump ship at the same time. Is that a coincidence as well?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I was not jumping ship.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Mr. Tubridy is still under contract.

He is not under contract. Mr. Tubridy''s contract is up. He has been paid. When is the contract up?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

In 2025.

Mr. Noel Kelly

In 2025.

Was Mr. Tubridy not told on the 31st that it was up and he is renegotiating his contract at the moment. Is that right?

Mr. Noel Kelly

The contract is being renegotiated for radio-only services but the contract still stands. The contract is standing

Is the money Mr. Tubridy receiving at the moment just for the radio station?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That is my understanding of it.

Does Mr. Tubridy not know what he is getting paid?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

It has been a long three weeks. The Deputy knows what I am getting paid. It is written in my contract. I am here today to tell the committee that. As Mr. Kelly will tell the Deputy, they suspended the negotiation. This is why we are in a bit of abeyance at the moment until I am told. As I said to the committee a minute ago, I could be out of a job on Friday or I could be back to work next Monday.

Is there still a possibility that Mr. Tubridy could be getting paid for "The Late Late Show"?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No. Not in the slightest.

Okay, so for the moment all that Mr. Tubridy is being paid is for the radio station work?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes. That is my understanding.

Mr. Noel Kelly

TV services are finished. They finished at the last "The Late Late Show", which would have been in May.

The Deputy is past time.

I am asking the questions for the people who put me in the job here. People are very disappointed with Mr. Tubridy. I will put my hand up and say fair play to the witnesses for coming in today. They did not have to come in here today but they did come in to answer questions. People just want to know the truth about what happened over this. Last week and the week before we seem to have been told lies. I am hoping the information we received today from both the witnesses is the truth. If it is the truth then we would all put our hands up. The public-----

I must ask the Deputy to conclude.

It is public money. People are really sad over this. Mr. Tubridy is the one who kept mentioning the cost of living. He was in the programmes-----

We must move on Deputy.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I have not changed how I felt. I love the Deputy's county very much, by the way.

Mr. Tubridy has said how he feels. There are millions of people in Ireland who feel worse

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, I understand.

I thank Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly for volunteering to come in. It is important that is stressed because Mr. Tubridy's appearance in particular is forming a part of trying to rebuild confidence in the national broadcaster. For many people Mr. Tubridy personifies RTÉ. When Mr. Tubridy was finishing up on "The Late Late Show" there was a massive outpouring of appreciation for the job that he did over the past 14 years. He would have received hundreds or thousands of messages and correspondence. I was one of the people to drop him a note at the time to wish him well for the future. For the people looking in now their confidence has been rattled. Today's hearing is very important to establish the facts. This is what we are trying to do here. Nobody is out to get anyone. We want to establish the true facts for the people of this country.

To get a little bit further down the road, I want to know more about the type of relationship that Mr. Kelly has, and has had, with RTÉ executives over the past number of years. How would Mr. Kelly describe it? Would it be healthy?

Mr. Noel Kelly

It would always be healthy and it would always be frank. It is RTÉ's job to get the best deal they can. It is my job to get the best deal that I can.

Would there be executives afraid of Mr Kelly?

Mr. Noel Kelly

How would they be afraid of me - honestly - all five foot six of me? Over the last two weeks all sorts of pictures have been painted but I am here to work on behalf of my clients.

Did Mr. Kelly ever threaten to sue RTÉ in the past?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sue them? No.

Were there ever any discussions surrounding "Operation Transformation"?

Mr. Noel Kelly

"Operation Transformation" was an independent production company. It was not RTÉ.

Did Mr. Kelly pitch the idea to RTÉ first?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes.

And did Mr. Kelly subsequently threaten them with legal action?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. We worked with Mr. Gerry Ryan, Lord rest him. The measure for radio show listenership figures, including for Gerry Ryan's show, is the JNLR. When they go down, people in radio say "Oh they are down and what can we do?" If the figures go down two or three times over a 12 month period the person's job is under threat, literally. The person is an independent contractor-----

Did Mr. Kelly not threaten to sue them?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. We had come up with the idea of "Operation Transformation" for Gerry and an independent production company tried to say it was ITS idea.

How did Mr. Kelly settle the issue with RTÉ? How did it finish?

Mr. Noel Kelly

We settled with the production company.

With the production company.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes. It is a wonderful programme and I wanted it to be out on RTÉ-----

What was the figure?

Mr. Noel Kelly

It was not very much.

Are we talking five figures or six figures?

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is not relevant.

I believe it is. I want to establish what the feeling was around RTÉ when they were dealing with Mr. Kelly, and that these were the types of things that could happen.

Mr. Noel Kelly

There was a confidentially agreement with it.

Okay. It is relevant though.

Mr. Kelly referred earlier to the tripartite deal saying it had nothing to do with Mr. Tubridy's new contract for television and radio services, and that Renault were paying it. That is a coincidence of timing, is that right?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes. Again, it was instigated by RTÉ.

Mr. Kelly might understand why people might find that hard to believe-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sure but-----

-----but coincidences happen. On page 5 of the document pack supplied today it is clear that the €75,000 of guaranteed commercial income was baked in from the very start, was it not?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Again, from RTÉ.

So Mr. Kelly is saying to me that they came up with this completely on their side only-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes.

-----and that Mr. Kelly never solicited anything of the sort.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. Mr. Tubridy had been doing the show for quite a while and I am assuming that RTÉ wanted to do it. I can only assume that they wanted to keep the sponsor locked in for the next five years and that this could be a way they could actually do that.

Pre-2020 was Mr. Tubridy doing gigs for Renault at that stage?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No.

Nothing ever before?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No.

So there was nothing as part of his contract for RTÉ or anything like that?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, I do not think so.

On the VAT rate Mr. Kelly received for the services, was this a 0% VAT rate or was it 23%? The 0% could be applicable to the UK whereas the 23% would be the rate if it was paid by RTÉ.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Whatever the applicable rate was, we were told what to put on it by RTÉ.

So was it 0% or 23%?

Mr. Noel Kelly

It was 0%.

When Ms Geraldine O'Leary was before us two weeks ago she told the committee:

In year two, I had no involvement. There was no payment. In year three, I was advised by the director general that there was pressure to pay. There were outstanding amounts. I did not understand at the time that they were underwritten by RTÉ. I was asked to liaise with Noel Kelly Management, NKM, to raise the invoices to the barter account-----

The RTÉ statement also refers to the Grant Thornton review that mentions communications from 13 to 29 March 2022 "between agent and RTÉ chasing payment on foot of the underwriting of the commercial agreement. (notwithstanding the ceasing of the ‘Tri-partite Agreement’ RTÉ had a contractual obligation to make two payments of €75,000 to agent (on behalf of Ryan Tubridy) for 2021 and 2022". Who is telling the truth here? Those versions of events are at odds with each other.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am sorry. I do not understand.

What we are being told here is that there were communications between Noel Kelly and RTÉ about chasing up the €150,000. Mr. Kelly must have obviously known it was coming from RTÉ at that stage.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. Exactly the opposite. We were-----

Does Mr. Kelly not think that is funny, and why would he go to RTÉ when Renault were the people who were supposed to be paying?

Mr. Noel Kelly

We were asked to send the invoices to RTÉ. Again, this was RTÉ.

Did Mr. Kelly ever have any contact with anyone in Renault about the deal?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, apart from the actual activation itself around what the set-up would be like.

Did anyone in Renault tell Mr. Kelly that they would no longer be paying the money?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No.

Nobody at all from Renault informed Mr. Kelly of that?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No.

Or Mr. Tubridy? No one. When are these six more Renault event gigs going to happen?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

When they are called upon.

They will be interesting events. I would say there will be a big turnout.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

If they are not called upon then I would see that money gets handed back.

Will Mr. Kelly or Mr. Tubridy provide copies of correspondence in that period January to March 2022? This was correspondence they had on chasing up those invoices. It is referred to in section 2.17 of the Grant Thornton review. The correspondence referred to their records. Will the witnesses provide the committee with those details?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Page 25 refers to the email where they ask us to raise it and send it to them.

If RTÉ never knew or had not dealt with CMS previously, how did they know to instruct Mr. Kelly to send invoices though it at that stage?

Mr. Noel Kelly

That is because my email is at CMS.

We are CMS and NK so they just asked us to raise it that way and we were acting under instruction.

Is it not strange, given everything else previously would have been through NK, and the next thing they went with CMS?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I think there are a lot of things that seem strange now.

Did Mr. Kelly ask them?

Mr. Noel Kelly

At the time, no.

Did he suggest it?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Did we suggest-----

Did he suggest that it would go through CMS?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No.

To a lot of people looking in, this looks like another layer to try to cover up.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am sorry, Deputy, we came here today to tell everything we know and that is what I am trying to do.

I am trying to ask you-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

There is absolutely no deception on our part. Everything is factual. We have had our legal people working along with us and with RTÉ on all contracts so-----

So Mr. Kelly is saying that he did not suggest it would go through CMS at any stage.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Not at all.

You or nobody working with you or on your behalf?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No.

You are confident of that.

Mr. Noel Kelly

100%.

I want to ask Mr. Tubridy in regard to the toy show live event. Was there one pitched by-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, it was never pitched as an idea. Sorry, was it pitched?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry, it was.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

My apologies.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Regarding the toy show live, years ago, when the toy show was running, and the toy show is such an institution, there were some deals done with RTÉ commercial – I am not sure who the clothing manufacturer was, but it was sort of jumpers and pyjamas and stuff like that around the toy show. We said to them, as an idea, what you should do is take the actual physical set, and take it to somewhere like the RDS so people can see it and enjoy it because, obviously, on the night-----

This was to help Mr. Tubridy as presenter.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, this had nothing to do with Ryan. This was to actually take the set and show the set off. If they were going to do something with the toy show, do not put it on jumpers and pyjamas but actually take it out there and let people see it and what it was. That is all.

When did you learn that Jane Murphy and Katherine Drohan were planning Toy Show The Musical?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Probably at the early stages, they would have told me that they were planning this.

Did Mr. Tubridy have a dispute with them about this because of the toy show live event?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, toy show live never came to anything. This is the whole point. The musical was a totally separate entity. They came up with a very ambitious thing to do and given the nature of my job, there was no way I was going to be in a position to get involved, so I wished them well.

Mr. Tubridy did not have any dispute with them about it. Was there friction?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, I would have thought that this was a big, ambitious project and another way to maybe-----

I listen to RTÉ radio. I do not recall a massive promotion on Mr. Tubridy's part of Toy Show The Musical.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That is because the ads did the talking. There were plenty of them.

Mr. Tubridy did not have any guests on, talking about it on the show at any stage.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

There were multiple mentions, if I am not mistaken, on "The Late Late Show".

And on the radio show?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I cannot recall but it was not done out of any badness.

Was Mr. Tubridy asked at any point to promote it and did he refuse?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, I do not think I would be that-----

Reluctant. I can understand why Mr. Tubridy might be reluctant to get involved with the brand because it would look like it was-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, at any time I was asked about the musical, I always wished them well. I had no ill will towards it.

I want to ask Mr. Kelly about “The Late Late Show”. It has hundreds of thousands of viewers and can be a very lucrative slot if you get an appearance there for someone who is launching a book, a film or whatever. What is Mr. Kelly's role in terms of influencing guest appearances on “The Late Late Show”?

Mr. Noel Kelly

None.

None whatsoever.

Mr. Noel Kelly

None. That is all editorial.

Does Mr. Kelly have influence on that? Has he ever in the past asked to get someone on “The Late Late Show”?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. Apart from Ryan.

Apart from Ryan, has there been anyone else, any of Mr. Kelly's clients? Has he ever-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, it is editorial.

Can Mr. Kelly see how he would be conflicted with one of his clients being the presenter and there are other clients he represents, some of whom have appeared on “The Late Late Show”?

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is guests. Everything else is purely RTÉ editorial. I would have nothing to do with that.

How would Mr. Kelly see his role in the future in a changing culture in RTÉ? Would he see his position being under threat in terms of where he would slot in there?

Mr. Noel Kelly

We work with Netflix, we work with streamers, we work with all of the new media out there. We have people working in the UK and people working in the United States. What I love doing is nurturing young talent, finding young talent and getting them book deals or maybe getting them a TV show. That is what I love doing, so that is where I would see myself. That is always where I have seen myself.

We had two lengthy hearings last week at the media committee and the Committee of Public Accounts has also held hearings. There is a long summer ahead. It would be helpful, with regard to any other mistruths that Mr. Kelly alleges the RTÉ executives or board members may have conveyed to the committees in the last number of weeks, if he would bring those to our attention. It would be important to the committee that that would happen.

Mr. Noel Kelly

In relation to mistruths, I am not here in relation to what other people felt, see or saw. We are just here in relation to what we knew, what was contracted and what we had agreed. All I can talk about is all that I know, not what other people said or do or think. Certainly, after the last few weeks, if I was asked-----

Is there anything else you are aware of-----

Deputy Griffin will have to conclude so he should ask his last question.

There is nothing else that was said last week that Mr. Kelly was aware was untrue that he has not told us about today.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, not that I am aware of.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

If I may say so, thank you for the letter you sent, albeit after the event, and I hope that I can regain the trust of your family and the people around your constituency because that is my job.

It is a key part of the remit of RTÉ that the personalities would be-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I know that. I just want to say thank you.

The Deputy will conclude because I have to move on to give everyone an opportunity.

-----because the licence fee and the income base are seriously in jeopardy.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

This I understand.

I welcome the witnesses. What did Mr. Kelly think when RTÉ asked for an invoice to be made out for consultancy fees?

Mr. Noel Kelly

When they asked for that, again, it was under instruction from RTÉ. It is RTÉ. It is this institution. It is 100 years old. Why would you question it? It is easy to say now but at the time, why would you? It was their instruction. We are just a little company.

RTÉ is a company with a terrible employment record in many respects. It has been investigated by the Department of Social Protection, with 500 workers potentially classed as self-employed when they should be employees. Some 60% of investigations have led to self-employed people being reclassified as employees. It is an organisation with a tarnished employment record in many respects, but still, you would not for a moment have any doubt about RTÉ and how it might behave around staff.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am 60. I have been brought up with RTÉ, listening to RTÉ radio and watching RTÉ. Mr. Tubridy did a good bit of work with the BBC. We went to BBC and I was expecting to be blown away by “Oh my God, this company is incredible”, but it was not that. RTÉ is a fantastic organisation with great people, great producers, directors, floor managers and people on reception. It is an amazing organisation with fabulous people. I want RTÉ to win. There is also a fantastic commercial sector here in Ireland, with Newstalk, Today FM and midlands radio, and they survive purely on commercial revenue.

I will ask about the sector as a whole. Mr. Kelly represents a number of high-profile RTÉ personalities but he also represents personalities in rival media organisations.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes.

He knows what a lot of people are earning in the media sector so he can go to RTÉ and say one of his clients wants a pay rise. RTÉ might say “No” and he might go to a commercial radio station or TV station. Mr. Kelly has a wealth of knowledge and a significant amount of power to go down to that commercial TV station or radio station, knowing full well what presenters are earning, because some of them are his clients as well. Is it good for the media sector in Ireland to have someone with such a dominant role in setting remuneration across the sector?

Mr. Noel Kelly

To that end, there are more people being paid more money in the commercial sector than in RTÉ - higher salaries - purely because everything is based on commercial, on JLNR, on the right figures, so if you are hitting the right figures, then they are getting the right advertising. RTÉ is a hybrid. RTÉ has-----

Does Mr. Kelly have a monopoly as an agent?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Not at all. A monopoly is not commercial. Commercial is fantastic. People are paid more in commercial because they know what the true value is.

What happens if two of Mr. Kelly’s clients are going for the same job?

Mr. Noel Kelly

The best one gets it.

Surely you have to back-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

No.

For want of a better word, and I do not want to describe anyone, Mr. Kelly has to back someone.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. If you think about it, when Pat Kenny gave up “The Late Late Show”, Gerry Ryan went for it and Ryan Tubridy went for it. I do not give the jobs so my assumption is that they wanted a younger demographic and they needed somebody to bring in a younger audience. At the end of the day, it is the executive and the board that decide who gets the job. It is like any job. A number of people can interview but they decide in the end who actually gets the job. From that end, at the time, was Mr. Tubridy only 35 when he got “The Late Late Show”?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, I think so. About 35 or 36.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It was all about a younger demographic. RTÉ wanted to try to bring younger people to RTÉ One, which would traditionally have had an older audience demographic.

If Mr. Tubridy does not mind my asking, why is he an independent contractor?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That was the advice I was given. The Senator has got to understand my skill set does not belong in the world of finance and negotiation. That is why Mr. Kelly is there. Did the advice about becoming an independent contractor come from RTÉ?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes. Originally the independent contractor status came from RTÉ when Gay Byrne was there and subsequently it was set up as a vehicle because of the commercial revenue they brought in. Again, on the commercial revenue versus the licence fee, the licence fee is 55% and commercial revenue, 45%. In 2001, licence fee revenue was €190 million and commercial revenue was €148 million, so there is only a 5% difference in it. As a result, that muddies the market for all the other local radio stations, national radio stations and TV stations.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

As Mr. Kelly said, it is a hybrid.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is a hybrid.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That makes it complicated.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is petrol and electricity. It is very complicated.

Mr. Tubridy says under the terms of his contract he is allowed do additional work outside RTÉ.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

Is that the reason he is satisfied to be an independent contractor? It allows him to do additional work.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

You could say that. It helps if I want to write a book about John F. Kennedy or a multicoloured sheep, both of which I have written about for different reasons. I can do that as an independent contractor.

Mr. Tubridy says there is nothing morally, ethically or legally wrong with that. Is it fair for me to say that in any additional work he does the benefit comes from his connection with RTÉ?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I would like to think that it is broad, that the appeal is not just - I say the appeal-----

Mr. Tubridy has been there since the age of 12.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I have, but if HarperCollins asks me to write a history book, does it matter that I work in RTÉ? I do not know. That is for that company to answer. I do not want to overstate my value to somewhere.

In his opening statement and a number of times at the Committee of Public Accounts, Mr. Tubridy said he took a pay cut. To most people out there, a pay cut is when a person works the same hours with the same conditions for less pay.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

That is not the case here. In the contract negotiations, Mr. Kelly's email states a "reduced fee has to reflect a reduced level of services". In simple terms, that means a person would get paid less but there would be less work. Can Mr. Kelly reasonably call that a pay cut?

Mr. Noel Kelly

On reductions, Mr. Tubridy took a 40% pay cut from 2012. "The Late Late Show" is supposed to be 9.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. Mr. Tubridy did 38 two-hour shows. I believe the new late late is 30 shows of an hour and a half. Mr. Tubridy did 38 shows of two to two and a half hours. Every 15 or 20 minutes is an extra ad slot, which means more ads. In the new world, if it finishes at 11 p.m., it is a different value to the commercial organisation as such. Over the period of those six years, there was a 40% pay cut, the contract went from €545,000 to €440,000 and over those six years, the commercial revenue to RTÉ between "The Late Late Show" advertising and sponsorship, texting 12345 for the viewers' prize and the radio show was €100 million.

It is a very demanding schedule. You have 38 weeks and you cannot take any time. There is radio and then the show, with a little time off during the summer. I know it is a lot of money and it is not about the amount. Mr. Tubridy said after Covid he left himself on the floor. He was turning 50 and it was time to do other stuff. As an independent contractor, he will be paid less than half to do radio, but he can do a famine documentary and he can write another book. He just wants to change his life. It is time for him to change. It is also time, as it was after Gay Byrne and Pat Kenny, for somebody else to do it.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, that is true.

My own time is almost up.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I am sorry. I was about to elucidate on the joys of leaving "The Late Late Show", but I will not do that now, obviously.

On the issue of "The Late Late Show", throughout the documentation the witnesses sent us, the terms "The Late Late Toy Show Live" and "The Late Late Toy Show" appear interchangeably, but at no point was the musical being talked about.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. We never had any talks about the musical at all. It was never something that-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

And the live thing came to nothing.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, and again that was an RTÉ initiative.

Is there a separate commercial agreement relating to the toy show?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, that is part of my contract.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is part of the contract.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

May I suggest something to the Senator in the last four seconds he has of his time? Maybe this is to the committee and all its members. In the event I keep my job - and it is touch and go from my understanding of it at the moment - I am happy to suggest that in the future we would have a situation where my contract is published on an annual basis with a few obvious redactions for personnel or what have you, with the money, the salary and the earnings would be there, straight up. If RTÉ is going through a cathartic week, let this be part of it. I will offer that. I have nothing to hide. Put the contract out, put it online, tell everyone how much I earn. Do not wait for three years and then have this codology that can happen all this time later, despite us saying it at the time. I hope that is of use to the committee. I am happy to offer that today.

Senator Warfield is finished. I am mindful we are at the halfway mark of the meeting but not the halfway mark of contributions. Senator Malcolm Byrne is next. Are Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly able to go on for one more contributor or do they want a break now?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I am delighted to talk to the Senator.

Is that okay with everyone in the room? It is. When Senator Byrne is finished, we will recess for ten minutes and come back again.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I appreciate that. Thank you.

I thank the Chair and the witnesses. It is fair to say Mr. Tubridy and I know each other a long time. We were in UCD together and we were friendly at the time. I know how committed he is to radio. Even back then he was deeply committed to broadcasting. There is a passion there and everybody recognises his talents. This is obviously having a big personal impact on him.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, it is.

However, it is important for us and for him that we get the full picture here. As colleagues have said, this is not about a witch-hunt but about getting a full picture.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I understand that.

What is emerging is a culture that exists in RTÉ that is going to have to change.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

My first question to Mr. Tubridy is simple. Does he believe that in all of this, he has done anything wrong?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

The only way I can answer that that is reasonable and fair is to say I should have called out the figures when they were released all in one day on 20 January 2021. They were wrong. We had requested RTÉ change them before in dispatches, but that day we did not so, yes, I am not without blame in that regard.

After RTÉ released its initial statement, both Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly released a first statement on the Thursday and that was followed by a second statement on the Friday, which was quite different and acknowledged the problem.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes. I can explain that if the Senator wishes. We were given approximately 30 minutes' warning from RTÉ that this bomb was about to be let off. We looked at it and said RTÉ could not proceed because it would be putting out all this information, so much of which we could counter and clarify for it. We said the Grant Thornton report is saying Ryan Tubridy did nothing wrong and all of this and we said RTÉ had to include that. They said "No" and "We are releasing the statement". We asked what was the rush. Our first statement, which the Senator referred to, went out saying we cannot not shed any light on it because we could not. Then that night was an all-nighter, as we looked through everything. I said I wanted to apologise to people because I should have called that out there as soon as I had the chance to, and I did. Then there was the media maul. The media are brilliant. They are my colleagues and some of them are my friends, so I am not having a go because they are doing their job and I get that. I am just saying there was a mauling of sorts for three weeks.

That is why we get to today where we have put this together with a view to be transparent.

Let me come back to the question. Why does Mr. Tubridy think his salary was understated? Most people know what their salaries are, you know what your salary is. Why do you think those figures were understated?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Again, it was a mistake on RTÉ's part. We had written to them and said "this is wrong".

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Not only that, but also there was an assumption. We had said before----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Just to finish, I will be very brief, there was this assumption that here is an organisation that has a CFO, internal auditors etc. but not only that, the figures had been externally audited and so on. There was an assumption, naive as it may be, that they had no reason to do that.

Who do our guests think is responsible, therefore, for the incorrect figures being issued?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Without question, RTÉ.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Noel will tell the Senator that----

Who in RTÉ does Mr. Kelly believe is responsible for misstating his client's salary figures?

Mr. Noel Kelly

We had done the contract and, again, always in the main----

Who did Mr. Kelly complain to? He said he complained.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

The letter to explain to them that you were uncomfortable with the way they were showing the numbers----

These figures are discussed widely.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

The documents are here.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is page 14 in the document----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That should clarify that for you.

Mr. Noel Kelly

----essentially making changes to the side letter. Then on the side letter, we asked them to take out all of this. They were trying to offset a payment that Ryan did not take or invoice. This is the €120,000. Ryan never took it and never invoiced for it and they said they were going to offset it. It is an accountancy thing. What I thought was if it is not there, how can it be there? They were trying to - that €120,000 then was offset against 2017, 2018 and 2019 by RTÉ. We wrote to them.

And you never received that €120,000.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No.

Am I correct? The declared figures that were published at the time were for 2017, €491,667; for 2018, €495,000; and for 2019, €495,000.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sure.

Those are the correct total figures that were paid by RTÉ to Tuttle.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. That should have been €495,000----

So that is €511,000; €545,000----

Mr. Noel Kelly

€495,000; €545,000; €545,000. What happened was that they put a figure that we have an invoice taken or given against those figures. It was an underpayment.

I appreciate that but I am looking at it the way a normal person looks at their annual salary.

Mr. Noel Kelly

So am I.

This is a challenge. There is a question that is here that people are looking and they are saying, hang on, we talked about it. Everyone talks about the salaries when they are published. Even just to take one year, in 2019, it was declared all over the media and declared before the Oireachtas here, €495,000. Yet Mr. Kelly knew, Tuttle was the company that was paid €545,000, correct?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes.

Okay, so you knew. I am just conscious of time. Mr. Tubridy mentioned that----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Can I just say, on that final page there, on page 17, they accepted that it was wrong.

I know, but for us and for the wider public, we did not know and this is the problem.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I know, sure.

Mr. Tubridy has said that if the Renault gigs do not happen he is going to pay the money back.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

To whom is he going to pay it back?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

To Renault or whoever paid it.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Astus paid it. Renault paid it first and then Astus paid the last two.

Does the cheque or the bank transfer go to pay Astus Limited., Renault or RTÉ?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

It is a good question. If it is Astus----

Who does Mr. Tubridy think he is paying it to?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I think the answer is Astus which, to me, as a result of the discoveries in the last week or two, is RTÉ.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We know now it is RTÉ.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

So it goes back to RTÉ then, through this bizarre route.

I want to come to Mr. Kelly. He is a very experienced negotiator and we know this in terms of those he represents. I asked the questions when the executive were in here about who was in the room with you. Mr. Kelly kindly outlined to some our colleagues earlier today who he had been dealing with. One of the key people who very clearly knew about some of the deals was Jim Jennings. Is it fair to say that Jim Jennings would have been the individual who pulled the deal together with RTÉ, or rather with Renault?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, the commercial would have been done initially with the lawyers, when we were informed that they wanted to do it, and then it is handed over to commercial.

I appreciate that the lawyers would have done it but lawyers do not go out and cut the deal. Lawyers are the ones who will sign off the deal.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I got this email on 10 March 2020, it is in page 14: "I attach for your attention the draft contract and the two side letters discussed and agreed in relation to this matter. The sponsorship agreement will be handled by our Commercial team and will be agreed separately to these documents."

So you were negotiating at the time of the 2020 contract.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes.

At the time everyone in RTÉ was accepting there were going to be cuts.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sure.

We know how difficult the situation was. Mr. Kelly is asking us to believe that while Mr. Tubridy could go off and negotiate his book deal or his documentary separately as a contractor, in this instance, while all of these salary cuts were happening in RTÉ, somebody in RTÉ just came to him and said, "Noel, listen, we are going to offer a deal now with Renault, here is the deal." Who was it that sort of said we are going to sort this out with Renault?

Mr. Noel Kelly

The initial email came from Breda O'Keeffe. Again----

Was it Breda who struck the deal?

Mr. Noel Kelly

The deal with Renault and RTÉ is completely between them.

I appreciate it, but Mr. Kelly knew who this deal was on behalf of.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sure, Renault and RTÉ.

RTÉ was coming to Mr. Tubridy who was facing a pay cut. Why, for instance, did Mr. Kelly not go off and----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry, it was not that Ryan was facing a pay cut. Ryan had given back €525,000 and he did not take the €120,000. It was not about pay cuts, it was a separate commercial arrangement.

Why would Mr. Kelly not have gone and negotiated directly with Renault?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Because we have no relationship with Renault. The relationship with the sponsor and RTÉ is their relationship; it is nothing to do with us, we have nothing to do with it. It is minded, obviously, because it is such a big----

Did you not find it odd that we were in this period and colleagues have already talked about it, coming into Covid, when there were pay cuts going on in RTÉ, that suddenly RTÉ was able to come with a deal and offer to mitigate some of this loss by Mr. Kelly agreeing to do these gigs with Renault?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, they came to us to say that Renault wanted Ryan to do "The Late Late Show roadshows" outside of his radio and TV contract. I can only assume it was going to lock in that sponsorship for another five years. They are still sponsoring the show.

At the same time, Mr. Kelly made sure, and it was he who made sure, that RTÉ underwrote the deal.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yeah but underwriting - RTÉ were never going to pay for this, this was always a Renault deal, Renault were going to pay for extra services for Ryan. That is what it was, never for RTÉ.

It was originally to be a one-year deal.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, it was a five-year deal.

So your hope was that Renault over five years----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Absolutely.

---were going to keep doing this.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sure. Why I asked RTÉ to underwrite it was that if there was a change of sponsor, that it is again through RTÉ.

What if Renault pulled out? Was it always Mr. Kelly's understanding that if Renault pulled out it did not matter, his client was still going to get his sum of money every year?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. If Renault pulled out and the new sponsor was not right or suitable or it was not working----

Or if there was not a new----

Mr. Noel Kelly

----the whole thing would just stop then.

Okay. So then why was it that RTÉ are continuing to make payments?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Astus paid us, not RTÉ. Renault paid us the first year and then Astus paid the next two years. It was never RTÉ.

Did you not ask then who Astus were?

Mr. Noel Kelly

RTÉ instruct us. Honestly, at this stage everybody is so wise. We were just working under instruction. It is their relationship. It is a huge contract for them. We were just working under instruction.

Would it not have struck Mr. Kelly? If I was getting €75,000 from a company like Astus I would surely ask who Astus are.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I never asked who RTÉ are.

We know who RTÉ are. We know who Renault are.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I know but again----

I do not think anybody here knew who Astus was.

I have to conclude. We can continue the conversation. I am sure everybody needs a break. We will suspend and resume with Senator Carrigy.

Sitting suspended at 4.40 p.m. and resumed at 4.57 p.m.

I welcome our witnesses. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the good work done by Mr. Tubridy down through the years and, as a parent of young children, the joy that the toy show provides on an annual basis in our house.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I appreciate that. I thank the Senator.

I will begin with Mr. Kelly and I will focus on the deal. If I go to a car dealer and buy a car, I get an invoice for a car. If I ask for an invoice for a lorry, I will not get it. When Mr. Kelly invoiced RTÉ, why did he use the term he did on the invoice that was put forward by RTÉ even though he knew it was factually incorrect?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Because that is what it asked us to do.

Even though he knew it was factually incorrect.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Just bear with me for a second. The Senator can see what RTÉ asked us to do on page 25 of the pack, regarding instructions for invoicing from RTÉ. I had no reason not to trust it.

As Mr. Kelly knows, it was factually incorrect. He is a company director with many years of experience. It is surprising that he did not question the fact that it was to a company based in the UK not as in the first year, when it was to Renault, which was for €75,000 plus VAT of €17,250. The two invoices in 2022 for 2021 and 2022 were to the UK at 0% VAT. Would that not have raised questions in Mr. Kelly's mind about the fact that this was an invoice for services that were not provided? It was not even VAT rated, or it was 0% VAT rated, and it was through a company in the UK.

Mr. Noel Kelly

My antenna was not up. I trusted RTÉ, where the instructions came from.

I find that hard to believe of someone with Mr. Kelly's experience as a company director or that a flag would not be raised by somebody auditing within his company.

What percentage did Mr. Kelly get of the Renault deal in year one, which totalled €92,250? Did Mr. Kelly get a cut of that deal or was it solely for Mr. Tubridy?

Mr. Noel Kelly

To be honest, we have come to talk about the issues that are here. I do not feel that the percentage I received is relevant.

I want to know whether there was a percentage for Mr. Kelly in the arrangement that was put together for RTÉ. Mr. Kelly is saying it was with RTÉ so I want to know whether there was a percentage for NKM. Did Mr. Kelly benefit financially from this arrangement over the three-year term or was it solely for the benefit of Tuttle Productions?

Mr. Noel Kelly

As I said, we came to talk about the issues at hand, but that is not one of them.

This is core to the issue at hand. That is why I am asking the question.

Mr. Noel Kelly

These were the questions that were put by the committee to us, and that is what we have been working on.

Cathaoirleach, do I not have a right to ask the question? I think it is relevant to what we are discussing.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is not relevant.

I think it is. It is completely relevant.

Through the Chair, if that €75,000 in payments were made with taxpayers' money, I think Mr. Kelly has-----

Okay. Bear with me for one wee minute-----

-----an obligation to answer that question.

-----so that I can take some advice.

Senator Carrigy, I have been told that this question is not within remit. If Mr. Kelly does want to answer he may, although I take it from it his comments he does not want to answer that question at this moment in time.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No.

Okay. Next question.

That is disappointing. As we said at the beginning, we are trying to get all the facts and answers to all the questions. It is disappointing that Mr. Kelly would not answer that question, which is core to the whole situation.

Staying on that topic, why did Mr. Kelly invoice a different company, CMS Marketing, in the second two years, rather than NK Management, which he invoiced in the first year? Also, I am looking at the documents that are before us and certain email addresses have been redacted. Some email addresses are there. I refer particularly to Geraldine O'Leary's email, which is listed in correspondence over and back. Yet, others at RTÉ have been redacted. Whose email addresses have been redacted? Who is "J", who was listed on page 11? I presume that is Jim-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Could I read out a letter we got from Arthur Cox? It reads: Your clients, Ryan Tubridy and NK Management, and our client, RTÉ. Dear colleagues, we understand that Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly have agreed to attend the Dáil Committee of Public Accounts and the Oireachtas Joint Committee of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media on 11 July. To that extent, your clients have been requested to provide documentation to committees. Our client requests that they ensure that they do so in accordance with their obligations pursuant to the general data protection regulation, GDPR. Our client also requests that it is provided with copies of all documents that your clients intend to provide to the committees in advance of your clients' attendance at the Dáil Committee of Public Accounts at 11.30 a.m. and at 3.30 p.m., 11 July 2023.

We tried to provide the committee with absolutely everything. This is Arthur Cox, on behalf of RTÉ, asking us to redact some information.

Arthur Cox has therefore said to redact certain email addresses but not other email addresses listed in the correspondence that went over and back.

Mr. Noel Kelly

That is necessary to comply with GDPR.

Why provide some and not others? If it was a matter of GDPR then they would all be redacted.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I honestly do not know.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry, yes. It was a matter of proportionality. We can redact junior people. They had no problem with the executives being listed, but they did not want the names of any junior staff to be there, from a GDPR perspective.

That therefore tells us that there is other staff and other people who have knowledge of these agreements and we do not know about them. We have only been informed of the executives. It would be pertinent for us as a committee to know who these people were.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am sure that would be a question for RTÉ and Arthur Cox and not for us.

Maybe that is a question that we could ask as a committee to RTÉ so that we can have this information and names shown to us.

Deputy Griffin mentioned earlier the email threads between the witnesses and RTÉ in that January to March period. Would it be possible to get sight of those email threads? Deputy Griffin asked for it earlier and did not get an answer. Would it be possible to get those?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am not sure what the Senator is talking about, because we have given everything we have.

The only emails we have are really pertinent to April-ish time 2022. I am referring to January to March, leading up to these invoices being raised. What was the discussion from NK Management to RTÉ looking for these invoices to be fulfilled or looking for the contract to be fulfilled? I would like to know who initiated that conversation. I would like to see the conversation over and back which form disagreement being put together with regard to invoices and ASTUS. We do not have that information on the weeks leading up to it.

Mr. Noel Kelly

That is on page 25 of the document.

No, those documents are dated 29 April. It states "Hi Geraldine" and is from "J". I presume that is Jim Jennings. It states that "ASTUS" is to be used. Yet, in previous testimony, we had been told in previous weeks that there was a bit of pressure coming for these amounts to be paid. I would like to see any correspondence that went over and back to see how that conversation happened that got us to this point.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We do not think there is any.

Is it the case, therefore, that out of the blue, RTÉ or Jim Jennings decided to email Geraldine O'Leary to tell her they needed to invoice ASTUS? It was stated - although I cannot recall who said it - in one of the previous meetings, that there was pressure put on for these two amounts to be paid. I would like to see correspondence in order that I can see who elicited that pressure and where that pressure came from for these invoices to be raised. I will be asking for the same from RTÉ, for its documentation. I will ask both witnesses to provide that to the committee, because it would be beneficial to show how the conversation started.

Mr. Noel Kelly

This document shows that RTÉ made the request.

Is it therefore the case that Mr. Kelly did not contact RTÉ at any stage looking for these two amounts to be paid? Is it the case that RTÉ came to him looking to put this deal in place?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes.

All right. We will be asking RTÉ for its correspondence to see if it is of a similar view. What RTÉ has said to us as a committee does not tally with what Mr. Kelly has said. It stated they were under pressure from NK Management to fulfil the contract. We will get all that information. We will elicit it.

Senator Carrigy, to conclude.

I apologise. I was held up for a couple of minutes, so I went over.

That is okay. I am just reminding you.

I am delighted that Mr. Tubridy clarified that the money will be refunded if the six shows do not take place.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Absolutely. I stand by that.

It would have helped if that information had come out earlier, to be honest.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

Today was the first I heard about it. I felt very strongly that that money needs to be paid back. No taxes have been paid on it.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

We have had these three weeks to put together as comprehensive and transparent as possible a series of a documents so the Senators and Deputies who, I suspect, have a lot more serious things to be dealing with, can hopefully get through this fog and come out the other side.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I am not trying to diminish this. I am just saying that in a country where there is a lot going on-----

It is licence payers' money and it is taxpayers' money-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I appreciate that too.

-----so it is serious.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

There are many serious issues.

I apologise because I will be caught on time. How much advertising of products does Mr. Kelly bring into RTÉ? He carries a lot of clout. I would say that he would be able to get a better deal for his clients because of what he brings to the table from other areas. What does he bring to RTÉ from other organisations or companies?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Very little, apart from negotiating contracts. Then, if there are some younger people we are working with, we try to get sponsorship for some of their shows, but that is with an independent production company. Then, we try to put that on Virgin Media, RTÉ or streaming services. The whole media model is changing. It is hard to look at anybody now and be able to say who he or she might be listening to or what he or she is watching. In my own house, my own kids are watching everything on all sorts of devices, so it is a changing market.

So you have no other agreements with any other client-----

Senator Carrigy, I really have to move on.

Just a couple of minutes. I apologise.

We are way over time.

In relation to being notified, Mr. Kelly was here last week and he mentioned other information with regard to the notification of RTÉ and the announcement. I think the dates Mr. Kelly gave to me were that RTÉ was notified on 13 March and it was announced on 16 March.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes, 13 March was a Monday and 16 March was a Thursday.

He stated he would come back to the committee with emails. He stated that emails had been sent previously that month putting together potential replacement names for the role of "The Late Late Show" host.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry, who is the Senator referring to?

Mr. Noel Kelly

So he was putting together a list.

There are emails with a list and he is going to provide us with those emails.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Allow me-----

We have to move on, Senator Carrigy.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I will address the point. You will hear 10,000 stories about how the "The Late Late Show" decision came to pass. There is only one I believe, and that is mine. I presented that show, I loved working with those people, I loved the audience and I loved the job. I did it for 14 years. I ran out of gas and I chose to leave. There is no conspiracy. People will choose to create one to muddy the waters but that is the greatest definitive I can offer the committee today.

Can I have one minute? I apologise but I got held up with the train of thought in my questioning.

I know, but I have given you a lot of latitude. I will give you 30 seconds.

On Toy Show The Musical, page 11 of the document pack mentions "The Late Late Show" live. The possibility of a live show was discussed. We met with people with regard to the musical. We thought it was a fantastic idea to create a musical here in Ireland, but the fact that Mr. Tubridy was not involved meant it was a loser from the beginning.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That was not my intention. It was just because of time.

Why did Mr. Tubridy not want to get involved? The fact is that the two producers of that show, which lost €2.2 million, have been promoted since. My understanding is that one of them is a producer of "The Late Late Show".

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That is RTÉ's question to answer. I can tell the Senator that the two producers in question worked on "The Late Late Show" with me. They were superb people to work with, but the question on the musical is one for RTÉ.

In relation to "The Late Late Toy Show" fund-----

Really, Senator.

-----questions have been asked. Do 100% of the moneys raised in the "The Late Late Toy Show" appeal go to charities? Does none of it go to RTÉ?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

It is one of the greatest legacies I will have. Even if I am given the royal order of the boot from RTÉ on Friday, I will be able to walk out of those gates with my head held high, knowing what Irish people, year in and year out in the last three years, offered €6 million in year 1, €6 million in year 2, and €4 million in year 3 out of their back pockets when things were not going pretty well. That has gone to children's charities on the 32 counties on this island.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

It is a beautiful thing and I thank the Irish people.

I am moving on. I call Deputy Mattie McGrath who has ten minutes.

I was delighted to meet Mr. Tubridy upstairs having a cuppa. He asked me about the badge I am wearing. His late granddad was with Liam Lynch on that-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

As was the Deputy's father, obviously.

Indeed. If Mr. Tubridy is out of a job on Friday, which he seems to think he might be, he is welcome down to retrace his footsteps and maybe make a film.

Deputy, use your time wisely. You have ten minutes.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I am taking the opportunity but sure look, we are here now.

Can I not exchange pleasantries and welcome our guests?

You can, of course.

I welcome our guests and thank them for coming in. Regarding the invoices made out to Astus, is it really legitimate to expect us to have an understanding of the reasons Mr. Kelly was advised to make false invoices out to Astus? Did he find being asked to submit an invoice to Astus unusual?

Mr. Noel Kelly

As I said, with antennae up now, you would certainly question it. At the time, we did not question anything. It was an instruction from RTÉ.

Has Mr. Kelly ever had dealings with Astus in the past? Has Mr. Tubridy been paid through Astus accounts in the past?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, never.

How many companies does Mr. Kelly use to invoice RTÉ for Mr. Tubridy's salary?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I have two companies. Mr. Tubridy's accountants invoice RTÉ for Tuttle Productions.

Do Mr. Kelly now accept that he created false invoices, even if RTÉ asked him to do so, and that this amounts to complicity in a potential financial fraud crime, and aiding and abetting?

Mr. Noel Kelly

We did not raise any false invoices. We just raised exactly what was asked of us by RTÉ.

We now know they were not legitimate. They were-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

At all times, we thought Renault was paying the invoices. Renault paid the first one and our assumption was that it was paying the other ones. Again, it was always under instruction.

Why were the invoices being made out by a sister company, CMS, instead of NK Management, and addressed to a UK company, Astus? In which company's accounts are these payments reflected?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Both companies could invoice each other, as in NK or CMS. Astus, again, was under instruction from RTÉ.

So Mr. Kelly just took his instructions loyally. Who exactly in RTÉ requested the false invoices be switched to another Noel Kelly company?

Mr. Noel Kelly

As shown on page 25 of the pack, that was from commercial.

Why was another Noel Kelly company so willing to create false invoices? Has Mr. Tubridy ever been paid by CMS in the past?

Mr. Noel Kelly

He could have been. It could have been a CMS event or an NK event. It would depend.

He could have been.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Those invoices would go to his company.

Why was it necessary for false invoices to be switched to a newly-created company of Mr. Kelly's?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Again, it was under instruction from RTÉ to send the invoice as stated.

Is Mr. Kelly fully tax-compliant now?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Completely. We always have been.

Has he ever had arrangements through offshore companies to deal with his tax?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Not at all. We are a small company. We are not RTÉ with revenue of €350 million. We are just a small company.

Okay, that is Mr. Kelly's answer. Does Mr. Tubridy now have full faith and confidence in Mr. Kelly to continue to be his agent after all that has come out at this stage?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, I do. I think he has explained himself. I think he has at all times produced a paper trail where necessary. Yes, he has always had my back in the 20 years we have worked together, so I have no reason to say anything other than that.

We are trying to get everything out in the open and start anew with respect to all the employees in RTÉ and all the listeners. It is very hard for people out there to understand Mr. Tubridy endorsing Mr. Kelly after false invoices, albeit that he was asked to give them but did ask why or what.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes. I would hope that after today, people will look differently at the story. I would also say that to call them false invoices probably is muddying the pitch a little bit in the sense that-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

They were never false invoices; they are not false invoices.

They were made out for things they were not supposed to be. What would Mr. Kelly call that?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Under instruction from RTÉ.

As I said, that is aiding and abetting in deception. It is false. Please, we have some level of intelligence. Over the last decade, was Mr. Tubridy ever an employee of RTÉ?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, I think I am a sole trader, so I am an operating contractor.

Why does he work for RTÉ as a sole trader?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That is a fair question. As I recall it, along the way RTÉ decided that people like me, whatever that means, working at a certain level within the organisation should go sole trader. It does not make you better than anyone else; it just makes you better paid, for sure. I think they wanted us to go sole trader, is that right?

Mr. Noel Kelly

To independent contractors.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I am sorry to say that this is not my wheelhouse in terms of detail, but that is what they said. They told me to go sole trader, and I did. I am in a position where my tool in life is words. I have never been good with numbers and so forth. I have an accountant and I pay him and I have an agent, and I pay him. I hope they pull it all together for me and they have so far.

We all have private businesses and accountants. We sit down and have to answer all the questions and be sure in answering them.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I know. That is why I am here. I asked to be here.

I know, but we have to do it when we are returning our accounts annually.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

As-----

We do not get the chance to go before any committee to address the nation.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No. I appreciate that.

Anyway, Mr. Tubridy is here. What are the typical tax benefits of working for RTÉ via a production company, as Mr. Tubridy does, as a sole trader?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Does Mr. Kelly know the answer to that question or is that an accountant's question?

Mr. Noel Kelly

All the independent contractors sell hours of service. As Mr. Tubridy said, he sold 205 hours of radio and 38 two-hour plus shows on "The Late Late Show". That is what they are selling - their time. They are independent contractors. They have no union and no pension.

Mr. Noel Kelly

They have me.

Superman. Good man.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry. Can I just say that I have a duty of care to my clients?

I 100% have and I am absolutely-----

I accept that but it stretches the credibility that Mr. Tubridy does not understand any of the dealings that are going on.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I am sorry to stretch the credibility but it is a matter of fact. With regard to what Mr. Kelly said about duty of care, he actually cares about my head and how I am feeling about the world, despite everything, in a way that-----

I appreciate that. So do we all.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Okay.

This is not an lynch mob here. That is true. We all do.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I know that. I would not invite myself before a lynch mob. I fully respect what is happening here but I feel sometimes there is an issue with people's health.

When a company's accounts are signed off people must take responsibility for those accounts, notwithstanding what their accountant tells them. One must know that everything is right and is proper, before oneself and one's maker.

I do value it and my children and grandchildren love the toy show. I did have one issue during Covid with the whole Pfizer element and of the children being used in that way. I thought it was horrific to promote Pfizer. Was there any benefit, financial or otherwise from Pfizer?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Not in the slightest. Actually, that was all done in a way that was not meant to be political or scientific. It was meant to be satirical, frankly and of its day. No, I never got a benefit from Pfizer.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Never.

RTÉ just got all the benefits.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

The Deputy can ask them that on Thursday.

We will ask but it is very hard to get answers off them, in fairness. They are not forthcoming.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I appreciate that.

In all that has gone on since with regard to the fiduciary duties of the board, and many of them are gone now-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

-----all was not well there. How does that sit with Mr. Tubridy now? I am aware that he has been getting a lot of criticism and all of that. I am delighted that so he is getting so may cards of goodwill, and we do wish him goodwill-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I appreciate that. It has been a very difficult three weeks. I know that life is hard for a lot of people in Ireland. I am not trying to be any more special than anybody else., but when one has been publicly cancelled, in the way that I have been, it has not been easy.

I can appreciate that, and for Mr. Tubridy's family also. We would also send our good wishes to them. There were people out there, however, who during that time were suffering due to cuts in their incomes and there were small businesses in particular that were wiped out-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I totally understand that.

-----despite their hard work and due to the fact they were not getting the proper help. Is Mr. Tubridy sorry now that he did not correct the figures when they were published?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

From the get-go. From the very day. I am sorry about that. The day after the statement came out I should have said something. It is a mea culpa.

I appreciate that Mr. Tubridy is putting his hands up, absolutely. Does Mr. Tubridy still have full confidence in Mr. Kelly?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes I do. He is my friend.

I appreciate that, and I do not expect his friendships to be upset, but on a human level I would very find it very hard to accept false invoices, and that they were not invoices for the purposes they were created by different companies and changed in a separate company again. That is not standard practice for anybody. I would not buy a truck like that if somebody said that I needed to get a different invoice than for a truck, that it would need to be for a dumping cart or something like that. It has to be an invoice for a truck.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It was all on instruction.

Mr. Kelly cannot use "instruction". Is it a case of ask no questions, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil? One has to have some idea-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

One has to trust-----

We know now about trust. What of the licence payers and their trust?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I know and it is easy to know now.

But in business one cannot take everybody at their own say so. One must make sure one can stand it up and that invoices are legitimate.

I thank Deputy McGrath, I appreciate the clarity of the questions. The Deputy has run out of time and I have given him some latitude. Has he concluded?

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

I welcome the witnesses. I will start with the raising of the two invoices in 2022 by Mr. Kelly to the barter company, and the report by Grant Thornton. The document states that Mr. Kelly said he had spoken to the commercial director about year two of the five-year contract but she said it was not her problem. Mr. Kelly said it was not his either and that he should not have to come up with solutions. Why was Mr. Kelly chasing money for six appearances for which the agent had not yet completed the work?

Mr. Noel Kelly

The appearances and "The Late Late Shows" that were to be held in dealerships, were supposed to have happened in 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024. As I have said, with the Covid the first lot only happened-----

I know that is referred to on page 5, but the reality is that there was €150,000 in transactions credited eventually to Tuttle Productions for work that was not done.

Mr. Noel Kelly

There are six events owed. As Mr. Tubridy has said, we are still in contract and I do not want to-----

I grew up in a world where one only paid money for things that were actually received. From Mr. Tubridy's perspective, did he not feel that this did not sit well that he was paid €150,000 into his account for work that was not yet done?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

What sat with me, and the reason I can make this clear today and the reason I wanted to be here today, is that I can say there were six appearances outstanding, and I am still ready, willing and prepared to make those appearances and come good on the invoice.

I listened to the evidence this morning. Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly have sought to separate the two items of the contract with RTÉ for "The Late Late Show" and the morning radio show as a contract for those earnings, and then the tripartite deal, which both Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly are saying was a contract for Mr. Tubridy's services, and that this is not linked to the basic pay. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

Mr. Tubridy has said that the difference is the perception of that income for the other job.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

In reality-----

This goes to the heart of the matter. Earlier, Mr. Kelly stated that the motivation was one where RTÉ was attempting to keep the primary sponsor, Renault, on board and locked in. RTÉ's take on this is much different. In his evidence to this committee on 28 June, Mr. Adrian Lynch said: "... there was a negotiation going on in the autumn of 2019. The negotiation was obviously not going that well or whatever, and then this idea [the commercial deal] was obviously generated that there would be some brand extensions and there would be events." From RTÉ's perspective the negotiations on Mr. Tubridy's pay were not going well. Mr. Adrian Lynch said they were not going well and that there was a problem. Was Mr. Tubridy refusing to sign that deal until the commercial aspect was introduced into the negotiation?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I would immediately put that to the person doing all the negotiating.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. At the end of the 2019 deal, again if this was about trying to strong-arm somebody, Mr. Tubridy had taken a pay cut of €520,000 for the next contract, so it was not like that. This initiative came from RTÉ.

That is part of what Mr. Kelly said earlier. Mr. Kelly keeps referring to this as Mr. Tubridy having waived €120,000 and that he had taken a cut of €500,000. My perception is that Mr. Tubridy had said enough was enough and that he had taken enough pay cuts. As Mr. Lynch said, there were issues there but they could not get the deal over the line. This deal was stalled until that element was introduced. This is clear from the negotiations.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is not true.

But it is clear from the negotiations. It is a reality. Mr. Lynch said the negotiations were stalled in autumn 2019 and that six days before Christmas there was a situation where things were moving again because of the creation of the deal.

Mr. Noel Kelly

This was an RTÉ initiative.

I am not buying that. Everything today has been about it being an RTÉ initiative.

Let us move on to the emails from Ms Breda O'Keeffe to Mr. Kelly where she talks about meeting Mr. Kelly half way, the fees and so forth. This is point one in the contract discussions. Point two is quite clearly the €75,000 from a commercial relationship, where she said: "We have progressed discussions with a 3rd party and look forward to discussing this with you in more detail next Tuesday." The commercial deal is central to everything. It was not going anywhere until this was on the page.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Let me just go to the page-----

It is on page No. 7, contract discussions, item No. 2.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Contract discussions. The email on page No. 5 came from Ms O'Keeffe.

Mr. Noel Kelly

So they are setting out-----

The point is that Mr. Lynch had said that negotiations were stalled. Ms O'Keeffe sets out the key components for agreeing this deal. She uses the phrase "We too are very keen" to retain "Ryan for his services". This offer of the €75,000 was a key point for negotiations. Mr. Kelly keeps referring to the basic pay. The basic pay is one thing but the deal was not happening without the €75,000. Mr. Tubridy referred to perception. We are dancing on the head of a pin here.

It was still cumulatively paid to Mr. Tubridy, no matter what way it was then allocated into his accounts. It was part of the negotiation deal for him to sign the contract. Does he accept that?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That is not what I am-----

Hang on a second. It is in the document. In terms of them trying to negotiate and progress the negotiations, it states in point 2: "We are progressing the discussions with a third party. We are offering the €75,000 to you." Is Mr. Tubridy accepting that was a key component of making sure he signed the contract? He signed the contract.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

Was the €75,000 a key component in making sure that this deal got over the line?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, that is not my understanding at all.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. The deal with RTÉ was for radio and TV services - for 38 “The Late Late Show” shows of two-hours each and 205 radio shows. That is what the contract with RTÉ was. RTÉ then - I am assuming to keep the sponsor - wanted Mr. Tubridy to do the other services.

No, that is not what RTÉ is saying. RTÉ is saying that the negotiations were stalled and that when this emanated and when they brought this on, this helped the negotiation process. Mr. Kelly is arguing--

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is a totally separate agreement.

Mr. Kelly says it is a totally separate agreement but it is always part of the discussion.

Mr. Noel Kelly

If I could bring the Senator to page 14, please. From the solicitors' office:

I attach for your attention the draft contract and the two side letters discussed and agreed in relation to this matter. The sponsorship agreement will be handled by our Commercial team and will be agreed separately to these documents.

It is a separate agreement.

Mr. Kelly is categorising it as a separate agreement but, ultimately, it is cumulative pay-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

That is from RTÉ's. That is from their lawyers.

-----and it was put on the table to make sure that there was a signature on the table. What other deals were on the table at Christmas 2019? Were there offers from Newstalk, Virgin or BBC that Mr. Tubridy's agent said were possible to look at as well?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I never negotiate. The Senator can ask Mr. Kelly the question - he negotiates. The Senator has to ask the man who negotiates.

That is fine. My experience regarding agents in the past as a sports journalist is that football players have agents that negotiate with clubs. Do not tell me that they do not know what is being put into their contract or what club they would go to. Similarly, the same applies to Mr. Tubridy in terms of whether stations were vying for him. The man was not not talking to him

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

Was there a scenario where, in Christmas 2019, Newstalk, Virgin or BBC was looking for Mr. Tubridy? Mr. Kelly would have told Mr. Tubridy. Did he?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry. I am the one who negotiates the deal.

I know. And Mr. Tubridy is the man who would eventually be put on the show, so it is a fair question.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Exactly but-----

Excuse me. It is fair to put it to Mr. Tubridy. Had his agent informed him of any potential offers from other parties in the media sphere?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Not that I am aware of at this point.

Were there, Mr. Kelly?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No.

So Mr. Kelly was not throwing that into the equation.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry. I am not a sports agent. I can understand why a football player would be going with Manchester United or Aston Villa. I completely understand that.

We take the point, Senator Cassells.

Okay. We will move on.

-----Mr. Tubridy of the details of the contract.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. Mr. Tubridy loves RTÉ and wants to stay in RTÉ. If he wanted to leave RTÉ, that would be a completely separate thing.

I am just finding it hard because Mr. Tubridy said this morning at the Committee of Public Accounts that he does his job and Mr. Kelly does his job. I am just still figuring that you still read the agreement when you sign it. Looking at this, over the time Mr. Tubridy has worked for "The Late Late Show", I have worked it out roughly that he earned €8 million from that. Why in God's name then were they chasing these speaking gigs for €75,000 as part of the deal to get it over the line?

Mr. Noel Kelly

We were not. This was an initiative from RTÉ.

Yes but why? Why was there a need for RTÉ to throw it on the table? Why?

Mr. Noel Kelly

The Senator will have to ask RTÉ that. I assume it is to keep the sponsor on board.

Was Mr. Kelly sitting there going "Ryan, look. They are coming with €75,000 extra"? Mr. Kelly keeps saying that it was RTÉ coming with this and that he was not looking for it. However, I am struggling hard to believe that when Adrian Lynch said that negotiations were stalled, they came with a bounty.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Can I answer the question?

Allow Mr. Kelly to answer the question.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is very simple. RTÉ came to us with this initiative. I can only assume that it wanted to keep one of its biggest sponsors on board.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am sorry. Can I please finish answering?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Keeping Mr. Tubridy on board for another five years would equate to keeping the sponsor on. Now Mr. Tubridy has finished "The Late Late Show". Maybe it will be the same sponsor or maybe it will be another sponsor. But that is all. I am not a sports agent. We do not have-----

That is fine. That is Mr. Kelly's narrative and he has held the line.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I would only look to move if somebody was unhappy in the scenario that they were in. That is all.

That is fine. Mr. Kelly has held that narrative and line all day. Adrian Lynch said the negotiations were stalled and when this was put on the table, it progressed things on. I will put this to Mr. Tubridy. In here, Ministers blaming officials and turning to their officials does not wash because the buck stops with them and they resign if there is a cock up. In The Irish Times last week, Finton O'Toole described Mr. Kelly not as Mr. Tubridy's Father Confessor but as his attack dog, and it was the conscience of the client as to whether the dog was called off. When he was being paid a basic salary of €440,000, why did Mr. Tubridy look for that last pound of flesh and these add-ons to make sure that the contract was signed?

Mr. Noel Kelly

We are not responsible for Fintan O'Toole's commentary.

I am asking why it was necessary for the add-ons. Was the basic pay of €440,000 not enough?

Mr. Noel Kelly

We have already explained that.

I am asking Mr. Tubridy directly and I am entitled to ask the man himself.

This is the last and-final question.

With the height of respect, there has been much latitude, Chair. I ask Mr. Tubridy, respectfully. Was €440,000 not enough? Did he not say to Mr. Kelly, "I don't need the extra €75,000"? The licence fee is €160.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

To use the Senator's own analogy-----

That is 469 licences. That is three housing estates to be throwing it.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

To use the Senator's own analogy, would a footballer expect a decent fee for playing for his club? Would the footballer have his agent negotiate a decent fee to play for his club? As somebody who was a sports journalist, as the Senator claimed and I presume is true, that has to be taken into consideration. With that in mind, this man negotiates my salary situation and my contract situation. As he said before, he minds my business and he minds me too. He is a good person.

He struck Mr. Tubridy a good deal. What I am struggling with today-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That is what I am trying to say. The Senator spoke about our narrative and their narrative. This is not our story; this is our truth.

Senator Cassells has 30 seconds to wrap up.

Quite frankly, it is a narrative because it is putting forward one scenario. I am putting a contention to Mr. Tubridy that there was a stalling in the contract and this was the sweetener to make sure that the contract was signed, and it got it over the line. Mr. Tubridy, in his second statement, going back to 23 June, apologised and said he should have asked questions. If there is a scenario that he believes the money was still coming from Renault and not RTÉ, what was he apologising for?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I was apologising for-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

For figures that were printed incorrectly.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

From 2017, 2018 and 2019.

Mr. Noel Kelly

For not noticing them.

We will have to conclude there. I call Deputy Cannon.

Why did Mr. Kelly agree to process a false invoice from RTÉ, which falsely described the service as rendered to a company that he had never heard of and not to the company he was seeking to provide the services to, namely, Renault? Why did he process that invoice, him being, one would assume, a responsible director of a long-standing company? In processing that false invoice, did he ever consider for a moment the huge reputational damage that might arise from such processing to a broadcaster that is held in admiration and, I would argue, a degree of fondness by the Irish people? Did he consider for a moment what the reputational damage to Mr. Tubridy might be if details of that false invoicing might emerge in the future?

Mr. Noel Kelly

First, it was not false invoicing. It was not a false invoice.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It was as per instructed by RTÉ.

Okay. Can we stop there? Mr. Kelly has been touting that line all day long.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Because that is-----

I lost my dad a long time ago but there is one line that I will never forget. When I would come home from school when I had been misbehaving with an excuse, for example, “Johnny next to me told me to do it”, his question always was “If Johnny told you to put your hand in the fire, would you put it in?” Mr. Kelly cannot suggest for a moment that a credible answer to that question is, "RTÉ told me to do it". It was a false invoice for services that were never provided to a company he supposedly had never heard of. Did he consider for a moment, in processing that invoice, the damage he was going to do to Mr. Tubridy if it was ever found out?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Again, it was not a false invoice. We invoiced Renault first of all and then, under instruction, we invoiced the other company. We assumed it was Renault paying. We all know now. However-----

No, Mr. Kelly knew then.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We always assumed it was Renault paying. Again, we were acting under instruction.

Did Mr. Kelly see the invoice before it was issued from his company?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Did I see it? No.

Mr. Kelly did not see it.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry.

I refer to the invoice that was issued by CMS to RTÉ for consultancy service. Did Mr. Kelly personally see that invoice before it issued?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry. Brian sent it.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Brian is our accountant.

Okay. Mr. Kelly did not see the invoice.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, I said that Brian had sent it.

Did Mr. Kelly see it?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes. Obviously, I am aware of it now but I would not necessarily have been aware of it at the time.

So Mr. Kelly is saying in regard to this invoice that issued to RTÉ on behalf of CMS for consultancy services that he had no sight of that invoice before it issued to RTÉ.

Mr. Noel Kelly

The instructions would have gone to our accountant.

The instructions from who?

Mr. Noel Kelly

From RTÉ.

I am asking the question a third time. With regard to the invoice that issued to RTÉ on behalf of CMS for consultancy services, did Mr. Kelly personally see it?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I honestly cannot remember.

Mr. Kelly cannot remember. How many years has the company Noel Kelly Management been issuing invoices to RTÉ for services rendered across all of its roster of clients?

Mr. Noel Kelly

CMS is our original company, which would be 26 years old. NK was formed in 2006 as a separate company just to work on talent books, so it was separated out as a separate company.

So CMS would have invoiced RTÉ in previous times for other services rendered.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes.

In the Grant Thornton report, the reporter or the person who compiled that audit says the following: “I met with the Talent’s Agent in relation to this Review.” Does Mr. Kelly recall that meeting?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes.

The report states that Mr. Kelly advised that: “The Talent’s Agent understood from this, that in a situation where the Commercial Brand relationship with RTÉ no longer existed or the Commercial Brand did not pay the €75,000 to the Talent that RTÉ would be obliged to step in and pay the Talent this sum.” Is that Mr. Kelly's recollection of the engagement and the discussion with the auditors?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am sorry, where exactly is that in the report?

It is from the report that was submitted by Grant Thornton on the audit in respect of RTÉ.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Where in the report is it? I am sorry, I am trying to find it.

It is point 2.3, paragraph (g). It is a direct quote. I am reading directly from the auditor's report.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Paragraph (d) states: “He believed that these personal appearance events would endorse and embellish the Commercial Brand separate to their (Commercial Brand’s) tv sponsorship.”

Does Mr. Kelly see paragraph (g)?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am sorry, I thought the Deputy said paragraph (d).

It states: “The Talent’s Agent understood from this, that in a situation where the Commercial Brand relationship with RTÉ no longer existed or the Commercial Brand did not pay the €75,000 to the Talent that RTÉ would be obliged to step in and pay the Talent this sum.”

Mr. Noel Kelly

But at any time, we never expected RTÉ to pay this – ever, ever, ever.

But you required that RTÉ would.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. The relationship with RTÉ is with the sponsor, pure and simple. RTÉ manages it so closely - of course it does. It wants to mind it because it brings in a lot of money over that period.

The bottom line is that Mr. Kelly, who was acting in his client's interests, in order to ensure that this €75,000 would be made for the whole period of the five-year term-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes, by Renault.

No, it is not by Renault. You explicitly asked RTÉ-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am sorry, that was my point. Excuse me, I am just getting tired. When the agreement was made, as far as I was concerned, it was not for RTÉ to pay - it never was for RTÉ to pay. It was obviously the sponsor of the show because it is extra activities; it is a separate contract for shows that are still owed. We never expected that RTÉ was going to be paying that, yet the agreement was with RTÉ.

Why then did you require-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

I will tell the Deputy why. Let us say a new sponsor came in, and I do not want to name a brand in case it is-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Let us say it is Fluffy Pillows Limited.

Can I stop Mr. Kelly there? He has been mentioning the new sponsor opportunity all day long.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Let us call it Fluffy Pillows or whatever it may be. Once it is a new brand there, we would then be able to-----

We were in the middle of a pandemic so Fluffy Pillows were-----

One voice, please.

Fluffy Pillows etc. were not exactly queueing up in the middle of a pandemic to fork out €75,000 per annum for whatever services might be offered. The bottom line is that Mr. Kelly was aware, entering into a really difficult period for the country and for business financially, that there was a possibility that no sponsor might exist for the remaining years of the contract, and he asked RTÉ to ensure that it would underwrite. In the event that there was nobody coming on stream in terms of sponsorship, RTÉ, and the taxpayer and the licence payer, would be left on the hook for that €75,000.

Mr. Noel Kelly

In relation to all of that, all we ever wanted to know was that if there was another sponsor on board, we would be informed. We asked to be informed in relation to pay-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

I ask the Deputy to hear me out. We asked to be informed in relation to pay increases and pay top ten, and that did not happen either. This is a commercial agreement-----

No one is disagreeing with that.

Mr. Noel Kelly

-----a separate commercial agreement with Renault, always to be paid by Renault, and we never, ever understood that anyone else would be paying it. In those six years, as I have said, from 2017 to 2022, Ryan Tubridy’s shows brought in €100 million - that is €100 million. You could say “I could bring in €100 million” and maybe you could, but at the end of the day, this was a commercial agreement. Renault wanted Ryan Tubridy to do the events. From RTÉ's perspective, it was great to embellish and extend the sponsorship. We were working at all times under instruction from RTÉ.

Why did Mr. Kelly insist that RTÉ put in an underwriting aspect to the contract?

Mr. Noel Kelly

In case the sponsor changed.

What if there were no sponsors?

Mr. Noel Kelly

If there are no sponsors, then you would not be doing events. That was to embellish the sponsorship. As Mr. Tubridy said, literally, there should have been nine done at this stage. There were three done and there are six owed. If they are not called on, that money will be given back. It cannot be any clearer than that.

Regarding any agreement that Mr. Kelly had with RTÉ, in the account that he gave to the auditors, he said that if “the Commercial Brand did not pay the €75,000 to the Talent” - there was no mention of any services being rendered or additional services being provided - “that RTÉ would be obliged to step in and pay the Talent this sum.” That is the simple account, the honest account, the accurate account of the arrangement that was in place.

Mr. Noel Kelly

The assumption being that the original sponsor, or if it was a new sponsor, would actually pay that. If there was no sponsor-----

Or RTÉ would pay it in the event of there being no sponsor.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. It was never for RTÉ to pay this. If there was no sponsor, then there would be no events and there would be no-----

RTÉ did end up paying it - that is the whole point.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We know that now. We did not know it at the time.

Mr. Kelly requested it. He specifically requested it.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. I asked RTÉ to underwrite the sponsor agreement so we could actually talk to the sponsor.

I am going to finish on this point. We have had three weeks of this and six hours of questioning today. I appreciate that both witnesses came in here to try to restore, and I think it is exceptionally important that we should collectively try to restore, the reputation of our national broadcaster and one of its most gifted broadcasters.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes, completely.

Six hours later, in my opinion, we are no further on. I genuinely mean that, with my hand on my heart, in terms of what we are trying to set out to do here. Regarding the whole issue of the arrangement that was put in place with RTÉ, the deliberate falsifying of an invoice to channel money deceitfully from RTÉ through Astus back to Mr. Tubridy - all of that - those questions are now left hanging in the air and, six hours later, we are no further on with regard to restoring the reputation. That, to me, is a sad reflection of the engagement we have had today.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I hear the Deputy 100%, but that is a question for RTÉ.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is. We have answered everything that we know.

We will move on. I call Deputy Brady.

Good afternoon again to the witnesses and I thank them for staying with us. I want to start off with the tripartite agreement between Renault Ireland Limited, RTÉ and Ryan Tubridy. Was Mr. Kelly involved in the negotiations around the content of this agreement?

Mr. Noel Kelly

This agreement was put together by RTÉ.

Was Mr. Kelly involved in the negotiations on it?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, it was put together by RTÉ and Renault - what they wanted, where it would happen, how it would happen and so on.

There is very specific detail here in terms of dates. We know that, because of Covid, those dates were not honoured and then, subsequently, they were. Those dates were put in without any consultation with Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Noel Kelly

On the dates, it was that it suited the dealership and that Mr. Tubridy was free. Obviously, we are talking about hundreds and hundreds of people.

So it is part of the overall-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes, it is all the logistics of it.

Hence, there was a requirement for a signature on the back, and we know that signature was not forthcoming until April of this year.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, but the contract is from RTÉ.

This contract was for one year and it was dated October 2020 to 31 December 2021.

Am I right in saying that? It is on the front of it here. It is a tripartite agreement.

Mr. Noel Kelly

The contract is for five years.

I am talking specifically about this contract here.

Mr. Noel Kelly

That is for year one.

At the end of year one, was there renewed communication or renewed negotiations with regard to the continuation of years two, three, four and five?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Years two, three, four and five would have just been other venues and other events. Again, they were all to be discussed with regard to what Renault wanted and how that would happen with RTÉ.

There was no comprehensive negotiation with a view to extending this particular one-year contract.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is a five-year contract.

Sorry, I am talking specifically about the tripartite agreement.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Mr. Tubridy's contract is a five-year contract-----

Mr. Tubridy's contract is a five-year contract but in that contract there is not any reference to Renault. It does not make any reference to engagements or anything like that. I am talking specifically about the legal contract which was entered into by Mr. Kelly for Mr. Tubridy.

Mr. Noel Kelly

On his behalf.

Was there any renegotiation of this after year one?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No.

Mr. Noel Kelly

This was year one of a five-year agreement where each year the-----

That is not contained anywhere in this document.

Mr. Noel Kelly

That was year one.

There is no mention of any commercial agreement or anything like that contained in this five-year contract. Is there?

Mr. Noel Kelly

The invoice was to Renault.

No, I am asking about the five-year contract that Mr. Kelly referred to. Can he point out specifically where there is mention of a commercial arrangement or commercial agreement in the five-year contract?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Again, the commercial agreement was with RTÉ and Renault.

I think Mr. Kelly is missing the point. We will move on.

Mr. Noel Kelly

They are separate agreements.

I know they are separate agreements but Mr. Kelly is saying that this one-year agreement was contained within a five-year agreement and I am asking if he can point out specifically where there is mention of a commercial element.

Mr. Noel Kelly

They are separate.

We will move on. I refer to the six outstanding gigs that Mr. Kelly has referenced. When questioned about the two payments of €75,000, RTÉ said it was legally obliged to make those payments. Mr. Kelly is saying that with regard to the six gigs, that element has not been honoured at this stage. Is RTÉ wrong in saying it was legally obliged to make those two payments, if the contract was not fully adhered to?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Those events could not happen in 2021 due to Covid. The first three happened in 2022 and the next three in 2023. The next three will be in 2024.

We have established that after year one, Renault was no longer paying. It is out of the picture. It was RTÉ that was paying the two €75,000 payments, through some mechanism that was contrived to hide them. Where is the legal obligation on RTÉ to pay those two payments if Mr. Kelly is saying the six gigs that have not been honoured cannot be honoured because there is no contract there with Renault now?

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is not that they have not been honoured-----

On that basis, will those two payments, that €150,000, be repaid to RTÉ?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

If I may come in, I have said this before and I would like to clarify it again. I have six jobs or gigs, whatever word you wish to use, that are outstanding. They were paid for, as the Deputy rightly says, in advance. The point being, if those gigs are not called upon and if my services are not called upon, the money will go straight back.

But Renault is no longer part of the equation so Mr. Tubridy cannot do gigs for it.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

No, the events are outstanding. For example, if Renault turned around and said it actually wanted me now-----

We will move on. Mr. Kelly said he did not really have a personal relationship with the director general. What about his relationship with the director of commercial, Geraldine O'Leary? What kind of relationship would he say he had with her?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I have met her maybe once or twice. I would not even say I met her but I bumped into her. I would not have a relationship with her. She was on the commercial side and this is the only commercial thing we have done there. I would be dealing more with the managing director of TV or of radio.

Mr. Kelly had no real relationship with Geraldine O'Leary.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No.

A lot has come to light about the barter accounts and the misuse of the barter accounts, the slush fund, the trips abroad and everything else that went with it. Did Mr. Kelly avail of any of those things from RTÉ, such as trips abroad, golf events, wining and dining or anything like that?

Mr. Noel Kelly

To be honest, I do not go out a whole lot.

Yes or no – did Mr. Kelly avail of any of those?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I have never been entertained by RTÉ and it is not something I am interested in. Regarding the barter accounts, at the time we did not know who Astus was and we presumed-----

I asked did Mr. Kelly personally-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

We assumed the relationship was with Renault.

I am sorry, but I asked a specific question.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I have no friendship or relationship with Geraldine O'Leary.

Mr. Kelly did not receive any benefit from RTÉ in terms of trips abroad, wining and dining, golf outings or anything. Did any of his staff members?

Mr. Noel Kelly

I have no idea of any of that.

Would any of his staff members have received such things?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. Not at all.

In terms of sending gifts from Mr. Kelly's company to anyone in RTÉ, is that something he would do?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. I would send Christmas cards.

Okay. With regard to the issuing of the false invoices, Mr. Kelly would be acutely aware of the responsibilities for company directors to ensure their actions are legal, ethical and in the best interests of the company, and the due diligence that must be applied. There is an onus of responsibility on Mr. Kelly in that regard. He has stated from the outset, and has held the line on this, that he was acting under the instruction of RTÉ and it is on that basis those invoices were issued. Ignorance is no defence in law. Does Mr. Kelly still stand over the assertion that he was doing his job appropriately while not providing any due diligence and no legal oversight? Does he still stand over saying that those invoices were correct and that he did his job appropriately?

Mr. Noel Kelly

As per page 25 of the document pack, we were acting under instructions from RTÉ.

Ignorance is no defence. I am asking Mr. Kelly, in hindsight, if he thinks he did his job in issuing those invoices. I am not asking whose instructions he was acting under.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Hindsight is an incredible thing but we are here today.

I know that and I am trying to get an answer.

Mr. Noel Kelly

At any time, we act with total transparency. That is what we do. As I said, we came here today. Within this email that came to me, it says "If he sends It back to me I will then sort everything else out". These are RTÉ's instructions.

I am asking Mr. Kelly, in hindsight, about the issuing of those two invoices for consultancy fees when it has been established that no consultancy was provided by Mr. Kelly or Mr. Tubridy. Does Mr. Kelly stand over the assertion that those invoices were issued correctly and in accordance with the law?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Those were issued correctly and in accordance with RTÉ's instructions and its legal advice.

The Deputy needs to wrap up.

I have one final question. I just want to establish a clear timeline in terms of the engagement with Deloitte and who knew what when. I tried to establish that earlier. Mr. Tubridy said earlier that he found out about the Deloitte review on which date?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Is this the Grant Thornton report?

Sorry, it is Grant Thornton.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I think it was sometime around May, from my recollection. It was May or June. I am sorry; I do not know the detail of that.

Mr. Tubridy said earlier that it was around 22 June or something like that.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I am happy to go with June.

Would that be right?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That is good enough for me.

When did Mr. Kelly first engage with Grant Thornton?

Mr. Noel Kelly

On 3 May, RTÉ legal emailed NK Management about invoice queries and on 26 May wrote to us saying that Grant Thornton would be doing an investigation. On 31 May we met with Grant Thornton. On 23 June, which was the day after Mr. Tubridy heard about this, RTÉ released its first statement.

That is a whole month in the difference between Mr. Kelly first finding out and engaging with Grant Thornton and Mr. Tubridy first becoming aware. Therefore, there was no engagement between Mr. Kelly and Mr. Tubridy in that intervening month.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We would not have had a conversation about it.

It seems a bit strange and bizarre that something like this would not generate some communication between the two of them given the seriousness of the charge and the issue. Mr. Kelly is saying it was 3 May and Mr. Tubridy is saying he was not aware until 8 June.

This is to conclude, Deputy.

Mr. Noel Kelly

If I can answer that, the Deputy mentioned the seriousness of the charge. Is that the question? We willingly met with Grant Thornton-----

I am not questioning that.

Mr. Noel Kelly

-----and Grant Thornton said there is absolutely nothing-----

I am talking about the month-long difference between Mr. Kelly engaging with Grant Thornton and Mr. Tubridy finding out and the lack of communication.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That is not something we would discuss. I know that sounds odd, but Mr. Kelly would not be talking to me about that stuff until-----

I find that strange given-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I know; I appreciate that.

-----the seriousness of the situation that there would be no communication there-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I understand.

Deputy Brady , I am going to move on

-----and the personal implications. I find that very strange.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I appreciate that.

I thank Deputy Brady. I call Senator Sherlock. The floor is hers.

I thank Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly very much for appearing before us today. We have a situation where many people out there are very sorely disappointed that we have a much-loved broadcaster embroiled in such controversy, and now, we have the national broadcaster in a deadly serious situation. I thank the witnesses for the paperwork they gave to us today.

I want to ask a series of questions about the pay cuts. What Mr. Tubridy said in his statement about the depiction of the 20% cut does not stack up. He depicts the Renault contract as being entirely separate. That "The Late Late Show" set was to be used for the Renault gigs does not reflect that this is a separate arrangement. In fact, Mr. Tubridy was using the RTÉ brand for this commercial arrangement. Similarly, we are not comparing like with like because of the reduction in hours or the increase in the pre-records between the 2015 to 2020 contract and the 2020 to 2025 contract. That is important, certainly, in my interpretation of looking at it.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

We probably have to disagree on that.

In Mr. Kelly's letters of correspondence back and forth, he talks about a 41% reduction over the past five years.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, since 2012.

Senator . Marie Sherlock

He actually said over the past five years. He wrote the emails in 2020, so we have to take it that it is in the period 2015 to 2020. I can quote back to him exactly what he said.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am sorry; it was 20%.

I am going to have to find it, but Mr. Kelly said 41% over the last five years.

Mr. Noel Kelly

That was from 2012-----

He said, "This represents a 41% reduction over the past five years" in an email dated February 2020. When I look at the figures of what Mr. Kelly set out in 2017, 2018 and 2019, and we expect that what was published was actually what Mr. Tubridy was paid in 2015 and 2016, it is approximately €2.5 million. Therefore, if he was to be taking a 41% reduction between the 2015 to 2020 period relative to the 2020 to 2025 period, we are looking at pay of more than €4.5 million or close to €4.5 million.

Can Mr. Kelly explain whether there are additional payments in 2015 and 2016 that he has not set out here? Are there additional payments that were on top of the published payments for 2015 and 2016 that would add up to the 41% reduction he talks about in the correspondence?

Mr. Noel Kelly

The years that are in question are from 2012 to 2020.

I am sorry; I need to read this back: "This represents a 41% reduction over the past five years." Mr. Kelly said that in 2020. I do not think I am going to get an answer if Mr. Kelly can say it is from 2012.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am trying to give the Senator the answer. That was from 2012 at a height of €720,000 to €440,000.

I am sorry; Mr. Kelly's own words here do not relate to 2012. They relate to "the past five years", and he wrote this email in 2020. I asked Mr. Kelly whether there were additional payments for the years he has not given us details for today, that is, 2015 and 2016. Perhaps he may wish to come back and furnish the committee-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes.

-----but certainly, he has written this a number of times in the correspondence-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sure.

-----and it is very clear that 2015 to 2020 is the period about which he is talking.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, the period I am talking about is from 2012 to 2020.

Okay, so, what he wrote is factually incorrect in the correspondence. It had to have been. He talked about five years and wrote the email in 2020.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I am sorry; can the Senator tell me where that is exactly?

Yes, it is on page 10 of the briefing document provided to the committee.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Page 10.

Yes. Anyway, Mr. Kelly will need to go back and review because he does not really refer to 2012. He said "the past five years" and that email was written in 2020.

I want to ask Mr. Kelly about the Renault deal because I am conscious that time is pressing on. We have two documents here. We have the contract for fees of €440,000 for 2020 to 2025. We have a one-year deal between Renault and Mr. Tubridy. There are no fees addressed in this document. Is there a separate document detailing the fees associated with this work?

Mr. Noel Kelly

That is a separate contract, again, for specialist services.

I asked Mr. Kelly a question. Is there a separate document setting out the fees associated with this one-year contract?

Mr. Noel Kelly

RTÉ drafted that document but the fees are recorded in the emails for commercial activity.

We do not have the emails to show the final agreement. We only have the emails leading up to the agreement-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

The Senator might bear with me for one moment, please.

-----and Mr. Kelly said this is a five-year agreement. Where is the agreement for the final four years? We only have year 1 here.

Mr. Noel Kelly

On page 12, the February emails all confirm the €75,000.

I do not believe that is final. Is Mr. Kelly saying that on 28 February, he concluded negotiations between RTÉ and his company for the entirety of the Mr. Tubridy's package?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No.

My understanding is that it was concluded in the summer in July.

Mr. Noel Kelly

No, it was later than that. This was where it was outlined, however.

Basically, therefore, we just have one or two lines with an agreement of €75,000 per year every five years, but there is no detail as to the services that would be provided after year 1. We only have the year 1 detail of service.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I also have on page 22 of the briefing document the email invoice request from July 2020. Again, this is the relationship between RTÉ and Renault. It was nothing to do with us. It asks, "Can NK Management please send an invoice for €75k to Renault Ireland, for the attention of [redacted]. Wording as follows:"

I am sorry; what page is Mr. Kelly on?

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is on page 22.

The page I am looking at is the final page of the contract. Mr. Kelly is saying the email is all we have with regard to the contract.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I apologise; it is on page 23.

Okay. Mr. Kelly is saying that all we have for the contract between Renault and Mr. Tubridy for the final four years is just based on an invoice and an email.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is not based on an invoice. It is based on RTÉ and Renault.

I do not see a contract, though. I just see an email and an invoice. There is a piece missing in the middle.

Mr. Noel Kelly

The email states that it is a "Bespoke Partnership between Renault Ireland ... to include personal appearances ... Activity [programme] to be agreed between Renault Ireland, RTÉ and NK ..."

Okay. Where is that?

Mr. Noel Kelly

It is on page 23 of the briefing document.

I appreciate that, but where is the bespoke partnership document for the four years? Mr. Kelly chased up payments. We understand there was a transfer and a payment made for the first year-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

From Renault.

-----of the agreement. Then, Mr. Kelly chased up two subsequent payments-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes.

-----for which services were not provided.

Mr. Noel Kelly

However, services are outstanding.

I appreciate that, but Mr. Kelly was chasing payments for services that were not provided.

Mr. Noel Kelly

They are services that are outstanding.

Okay. Where is the documentation detailing those services to be provided? We have never seen that documentation.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I do not know what documentation ... I am sorry; what documentation is the Senator referring to?

The bespoke partnership. Why did Mr. Kelly have a detailed contract for year one and not for the following years? A series of questions need to be-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

I want to try to explain everything we can. The contract was rolled over from 2020 to 2021 to 2022, with Covid-19. Each year there were different requirements, different events, different set-ups. Each one that was done was different. There might have been 400 of one and 200 of another. Everything was bespoke to when everyone could do it.

We have no paperwork for the services.

I need to move on. I have three questions I need to ask Mr. Tubridy.

He had a phrase in the middle of pandemic which was, if I am quoting correctly, "Mind yourself, mind each other". Approximately seven months after the conclusion of this package for him in 2020, pay cuts for RTÉ staff were back on the table. Mr. Tubridy is one person and is part of a team for both his radio programme and his television programme. How did Mr. Tubridy feel about those pay cuts, knowing he had a guarantee that he would not be asked for any pay cuts for a five-year period?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I believed I had taken cuts and that I was part of the pay cut process. I see the Senator is trying to equate my response to Covid-19 and my feeling-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

It seems she is doing so a little because it is just that I would hate-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

It upsets me to think that people would think I did not mean that. That came from a very important part of my heart. It really did. Please allow me to speak while I am here.

For example, presenting "The Late Late Toy Show" is part of my essence.

I appreciate that. All that strikes me is-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

All this talk------

One voice please. I will give Mr. Tubridy a chance to speak but ask him to give the Senator a chance to finish her line of questioning.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I apologise.

Researchers must work on the television show for 12 years before they will earn €53,945.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I know and they are all extremely good at their jobs.

On one side we have a guarantee of no pay cut and yet people earning that little money, which is a modest income, were going through pay cuts. How did Mr. Tubridy feel about those pay cuts?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I felt I was operating under the belief that I was also undergoing pay cuts, obviously at an outrageously different level. I get that, but I do a different job and everyone brings different things to the table. I understand what the Senator is saying. I thank her.

I have two final questions, which are important.

Mr. Tubridy said a few times today that his job is in front of the microphone, with words and not with the accounts and that he leaves the process to others. As a contractor, Mr. Tubridy is a company director. Every year, he and another director have to sign a legal document as company directors. Mr. Tubridy has to verify and sign off that he is taking responsibility for-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That I have paid my taxes and-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Well, that is important.

Actually, it is much more detailed than that. He signs off on the veracity of the accounts. When he signs off, does he not take an interest in where some of those payments originated?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I always trust my agent who trusts the process and gets the deal done. I believe in it. I trust.

The thing is-----

Please conclude, Senator.

Throughout his time as a broadcaster, Mr. Tubridy has interviewed taoisigh, politicians and people from all walks of life. Integrity is integral to being a broadcaster.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes.

Mr. Tubridy has made it clear that he wants to get back on air.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, I do.

Lots of people want to see him back on air. Does he think that his integrity is damaged, given that he admitted earlier that he should have put up his hand? He received payments that none of us are happy with as regards them being ultimately for Mr. Tubridy's benefit, but were anonymised. Does he think his integrity is damaged?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I do not think I am a different person from the one who in the past six months or 14 years promoted The Society of Saint Vincent de Paul or told children not to bully each other or child-----

I am not asking about charitable work, but about his ability to ask questions.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

This is my answer to the Senator's question.

I promoted child literacy and did many important things that matter not only to me but to my fellow citizens, such as kids reading. They are important things.

Yes, the salary is enormous. I understand that but that does not affect my soul. It cannot.

We will conclude the Senator's slot there.

I will explain to our witnesses where we are. I know they are exhausted. We are near the end of the day. We are at the three-hour point now because we were a little late starting and a little late back from the break. They will be happy to know that I am the last person who has any latitude to ask questions. I will keep them to four minutes instead of ten. Three Oireachtas Members have sat through all the deliberations in the past few days. With the permission of the witnesses, I would like to give them two minutes each. They are Senator Dooley, Deputy Boyd-Barrett and Senator Eugene Murphy. Will the witnesses agree to sit through another ten minutes beyond the time allocated?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

There is no question. Two minutes is not a heap of time for people. I used to work in radio and I know what two minutes feels like. I understand. We are in for a penny. Let us do what the committee needs to do. We respect the process.

I thank them. We will not detain them if they are not willing.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Please ask the questions. We are here now. Two minutes is fine. Members should take their time, but please understand we are now into our sixth or seventh hour.

They are getting latitude so Mr. Tubridy should not worry.

My slot is next. I will not take ten minutes. I will cut to the chase. Everything Deputy Cannon said is where I am coming from. I concur with all the points he made. He represents and reflects everything that is going on in my head. With my four minutes, I will ask a couple of questions. How many personalities who currently work in RTÉ- we are refraining from calling them top talent - does Mr. Kelly represent?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Seven in total but only three have a contract for TV and radio. The rest just have small contracts.

Mr. Kelly has been at pains today to remind my colleagues and the public that he has worked with RTÉ for the past 23 years. Am I right?

Mr. Noel Kelly

Yes, 23 years.

During those 23 years representing various personalities, has Mr. Kelly ever been instructed, as he said earlier, by RTÉ to raise invoices that did not accurately reflect the service he or the personalities he represents were providing? Is this the first and only time he recalls?

Mr. Noel Kelly

This is the first and only time.

Why did Mr. Kelly go along with it? Why did he not disagree?

Mr. Noel Kelly

We had been working with RTÉ for 23 years. I trusted the process.

Mr. Tubridy stated that he has worked with or been around the corridors of RTÉ since he was 12.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, since 1986. God help us.

Was he ever employed directly by RTÉ?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, I was for a while. It was when I was probably approximately 26 or 27 for a few years. Then it became apparent that my career was going in a different direction than I had realised. I did not know. At that stage, someone I trust told me that I would be moving into a different level and with that I should have someone minding my business as I was completely incompetent at this. They were correct.

At what point in his career was Mr. Tubridy advised by someone in RTÉ to not be a direct employee and to go solo, as he said, and get himself an external contract.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I could not give the exact year - not to be evasive. It is a simple matter of memory, but it was probably around the time "Tubridy Tonight" was on air, which was about 20 years ago or perhaps more, 25 years ago.

Who in RTÉ gave him that advice?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I have no idea. I cannot say. It is not that I am trying to protect anyone. It was 25 years ago.

That concludes my questions.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

It was a fellow presenter at the time. Mr. Kelly has reminded me that it was Gerry Ryan who was not a member of staff, if you like.

That concludes my questions because, as I said, I concur with everything Deputy Cannon said. I will move on.

I ask the non-members of the committee to be respectful of the fact that the witnesses are staying and keep to their three minutes.

I thank the witnesses and recognise that they are here of their own free will. I am here to try to hold RTÉ to account. I welcome them as witnesses. I am not here to hold them to account. They are separate to what the committee is trying to do. The big issue for us about RTÉ in recent weeks is the view expressed eventually by the chair of the RTÉ board that there was an effort to conceal the payments to Mr. Tubridy.

Mr. Kelly has identified that and it is in the Grant Thornton report that Mr. Kelly had no hand, act or part in that. People generally accept that but there is an issue within RTÉ. Management within RTÉ, in the early stages, seemed to suggest that only one person knew the entirety of that. The Taoiseach and various Government Ministers have said that is not credible and I do not think it is credible. I would like to know what Mr. Kelly thinks, having been involved in the negotiations and discussions. Was Dee Forbes the only person who knew?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. Not at all.

Could Mr. Kelly identify for us, recognising the privilege that applies here-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Any meeting I ever had with Ms Forbes - and we had six or seven meetings I think - was always held with her chief financial officers or their people, or her legal team or other parts of the legal team. She was never on her own; she could not do that. Nobody can make that decision alone - no director general and no chair. It would have to be discussed by too many people. That is the bizarreness, that one person could actually-----

I want to move it on. I am sorry to rush Mr. Kelly but I do not want to upset the Chair. Mr. Kelly has heard this from others but last week Ms O'Keeffe said that things were stalled, RTÉ had to try to get a deal and this notion of a commercial deal was added in. Mr. Kelly was doing the best he could for his client, which is understandable. I do not want to be critical and I want to be respectful to everyone but it stretches things a little bit to suggest that the two were separate. It appears that this commercial deal with Renault is stitched into all the emails. It does not make its way into the contract but it is stitched in along the chronology of the emails. It is part of the remuneration and I accept that Mr. Kelly did not think it would be paid by RTÉ. I also accept what Mr. Tubridy has said in that he did not expect RTÉ to pay for it. That is fine. Ms O'Keeffe indicated that when things stalled the head of content started to discuss and negotiate with Mr. Kelly. Can Mr. Kelly talk to us a little bit about what transpired in those discussions? That was with Jim Jennings. Mr. Jennings and Mr. Kelly began a conversation.

Mr. Noel Kelly

We are talking about a standard contract.

If I could get Mr. Kelly-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

I will be as quick as I can.

Just on this issue-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

This is the background to the issue. We would meet the managing director of radio and the managing director of TV and collectively they would say they want Mr. X to do this and Ms Y to do that. Then we would work out all of the permutations around it and what happens then is it goes up to accounts and legal. That is traditionally how it works.

Is that where the commercial thing came in? It was not a side deal but a commercial deal. Did that emanate from discussions between Mr. Kelly and Jim Jennings?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No.

Geraldine O'Leary was clear last week. She was the commercial director and somebody came to her and asked her to find somebody to make this possible. She indicated afterwards that, notwithstanding her efforts, it became cost neutral to Renault. I want to go back to this. Did that idea come from the discussion between Mr. Kelly and Jim Jennings?

Mr. Noel Kelly

No. Mr. Jennings would own content from end to end.

Where does Mr. Kelly think it came from? He said earlier that it kind of came from RTÉ.

Mr. Noel Kelly

It came through Ms O'Keeffe's office, the legal office, that they wanted to do these events with Renault as a separate thing. I can only assume that it was between legal and commercial to try to get more value out of the sponsorship and keep the sponsor on for the period of five years.

I get that but it stretches things given everything we have heard. It goes back to the point that Deputy Cannon raised which is that point 2.3(g) in the Grant Thornton report makes it clear. I have listened intently to what Mr. Kelly has said. He has talked about underwriting and explained that. In regard to all the emails Mr. Kelly sent to RTÉ, if I was looking for an agent I would be looking for someone like Mr. Kelly on my side.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I would be looking for the fella who has the top seven who I do not have.

You would be looking for somebody who could generate more money than I might. Mr. Kelly also stitches in the word "guarantee". Mr. Kelly talks about underwriting and guaranteeing and when he goes into the Grant Thornton report, at 2.3(g), it also talks about Mr. Kelly's understanding of what would happen in the event of the sponsor going away or moving somewhere. It states: "The Talent’s Agent understood from this, that in a situation where the Commercial Brand relationship with RTÉ no longer existed or the Commercial Brand did not pay the €75,000 to the Talent that RTÉ would be obliged to step in and pay the Talent this sum." I have to read that as it is. It is hard to see why that would be the case if RTÉ was the one that came up with this idea. Does Mr. Kelly know what I am saying? It is hard to figure that.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Again, the relationship with the sponsors is with RTÉ. What I was trying to protect against was that if the sponsor changed - the sponsor was still there in 2021 to 2022 and this was four years later - we would be able to have a conversation with the sponsor on what they would need because we do not have that relationship. That is a relationship between RTÉ and the sponsor.

Much of this has been intense for everybody and I understand that seven hours of this is difficult. Our job is to recognise that the people who are the biggest victims are the TV licence payers and the other RTÉ staff who have been affected by this and were required to take substantial pay cuts. It is our job to ask these questions. I just want to make that clear.

At the heart of this is that it was stated publicly that everybody, including Mr. Tubridy, would be taking pay cuts at the time. Then we discovered that these payments were being made which were kept secret and which RTÉ executives have acknowledged were an organised deception. We also discovered that these payments were mislabelled as consultancy fees by somebody. Mr. Kelly has said it was nothing to do with NK Management and that it was done under RTÉ instructions, which is a little bit difficult to credit.

The other bit of Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly's narrative, the one I want to concentrate on and which follows on from what Senator Dooley said, is that the commercial arrangement and the pay reduction that was publicly stated as having happened were somehow two separate things. To put this honestly to the witnesses, that does not look credible from the emails that are exchanged between Mr. Kelly and RTÉ during that early period in 2020. I have not seen all of the correspondence but the first mention in the emails of the €75,000 from a commercial relationship is put forward by Mr. Kelly. That is the first mention of it that I see. That first email on 16 January also states: "Terms and conditions of this: Underwritten and guaranteed by RTÉ". It goes on to say: "The fees above include the €120,000 owed to Ryan" and it suggests there should be "four less" shows and a "Reduction of radio shows". In other words, the negotiating position that Mr. Kelly was adopting on behalf of Mr. Tubridy was linked to the overall pay cut but then seemed to be insisting on things that would effectually mean the pay cut would not happen in real terms. Is that not a reasonable reading of what we are seeing here? In the negotiation then, there was a pushback from RTÉ over a lot of the conditions that Mr. Kelly seemed to be insisting on.

I might put this other matter to Mr. Kelly. The email of 19 February also refers to Mr. Kelly saying, as part of this negotiating process, "we had a meeting with our client", who is Mr. Tubridy, in the process of the negotiations. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Tubridy were discussing the details, according to these emails, of this back and forward of negotiations. This is in the emails that Mr. Kelly has provided us. I have not even had a chance to read them all but, on the face of it, that is what it looks like. I am genuinely trying to be objective and I heard what Mr. Kelly said but that looks like Mr. Kelly is pushing for everything to mitigate the pay cut.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Page 5 of the information pack is an email from the CFO.

Point 4 refers to "Commercial sponsorship with 3rd party facilitated by RTE". We did not go looking for that or start that. It was completely facilitated by RTÉ. In relation to the contract, of course-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sorry, if I could just answer-----

Mr. Noel Kelly

In relation to the contract, there is always back and forth. RTÉ's job, as with BBC and ITV, is to give as little as possible to get the greatest commercial return. It is all based on advertising and commercial revenue.

I have to say that the first mention of a commercial arrangement in the emails, back and forward, is in Mr. Kelly's correspondence where he set down the conditions of accepting the overall pay reduction. It is clear from the responses from RTÉ that it only subsequently identified who that commercial entity might be.

Mr. Noel Kelly

Sure. The email referenced by the Deputy was in response to point 4, on page 5: "Commercial sponsorship with 3rd party facilitated by RTE". I was responding to that. No emails originated. All along, it was an RTÉ and a Renault sponsorship and they guard it jealously. Of course they would. Commercial organisations mind their advertisers and sponsors. That is what you have to do to make sure they come back again. That is all that was.

From looking at this, it does not look that way. I am just being honest.

I ask the Deputy to conclude.

Absolutely. Could Mr. Kelly explain why the tripartite agreement for October 2021 was not signed by Niamh McCormack on behalf of Ryan Tubridy until 21 April 2023?

I will put my last question now because I will not get another chance. When Mr. Tubridy, on reflection, looks at what happened and at the public feeling about this, does he think it is fair that people who look at the huge gap between the pay received by top presenters such as himself and that received by the production team at the back, which is a fraction of that, are justifiably questioning the gap between the two?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, I would agree with-----

Mr. Tubridy, can I just ask you to pause for a second? I have a clerk beside me who is meticulous about time and she is conscious that we have run well over time. Before Mr. Tubridy responds, would he mind if I ask Senator Murphy whether he has a quick question or comment? If so, he could come in with that and then Mr. Tubridy can respond.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I am not trying to avoid the question.

You are fine. I call Senator Murphy.

I commend the Chair on managing to get everybody in. I appreciate that Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly have offered to come here, in their own capacity, and have had six gruelling hours. I also know that this takes a toll on families. We as politicians know-----

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I am glad the Senator mentioned that. I thank him for saying that.

-----that when something happens, we see how our families are affected.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

There is a lot of collateral damage.

I bring this up because it happens to politicians all the time.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

True.

Unfortunately we have a social media element that, on numerous occasions, has had total disrespect for people.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I hope that I can come back here some day in another capacity to talk to a committee about mental health and online media, and traditional media. That is another day's work.

We live in a country where people present themselves to come here and we can question them.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

That is democracy in action.

Does Senator Murphy have a question?

I have some very quick questions. I thank Mr. Kelly for coming as well. Do Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly accept that this looks to the public like a three-card trick? Do they accept that it looks to be a shady deal? They said here that much of it is down to RTÉ. On that basis, do they accept that this looks like a shady deal?

Final question.

Is Mr. Tubridy sorry now that he did not stay on as an employee at RTÉ rather than go down the road of contracts? I have many more questions to ask, but I thank the witnesses for coming in.

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

I appreciate that.

We will give the closing remarks to our witnesses. Who wants to go first?

Mr. Noel Kelly

As Mr. Tubridy said earlier, I do not do interviews. That is not what I do; it is not my job. That is what Mr. Tubridy does. That is what his job is, and it is the job of the fantastic people with whom we work and their great teams. The last two and a half weeks have been absolutely horrendous, as Senator Murphy said, on family, on my children, on my business and on my name. We came here today to put everything that we had and that is exactly what we have done. As Mr. Tubridy said, he left everything he had on the floor. We have put everything we had into this. We have gone through everything, everything, everything. When the statement came out from RTÉ on 22 June, intentionally or unintentionally, we asked them - we had to get our lawyers to do so - to please inform us when they are sending stuff out. That is why I kept it putting into correspondence. The answer was "No, no, no". It is David and Goliath. It is just going into a vacuum. Hopefully that will change. What happened was that we had half an hour's notice. We asked whether we could see it. When we eventually saw it, we asked whether they would put in the correction but they did not do so. The interesting thing about being an agent is that I am the only person that the people we represent have. I am the shop steward. Where was the duty of care to Mr. Tubridy over the past three weeks? Who reached out to see how he was, and how his family was? This is not a pity party - we are big boys - but it has been pretty horrendous. I would not wish it on anybody. I thank the committee because we believe in the House. That is why we have come here. We have not spoken to anybody other than the committee. That is why we have come here. We believe in the House and we believe in the process. We thank the committee for giving us the opportunity. It is really appreciated.

I thank Mr. Kelly. Has Mr. Tubridy any final remarks?

Mr. Ryan Tubridy

Yes, briefly because, my goodness, it is time to wrap, as they say.

I will answer Deputy Boyd Barrett's question about the salary situation. Yes, of course it is all changed now and rightly so. If I go back to RTÉ, which I hope to do, it will be in a whole new world order. That is why I said today that I would love to be part of that catharsis for the place because it is a great old place. That is why I offered today that if I was to sign another contract I would like to release it and put it out in public straight away with no messing and no three-year carry-on. I would be part and parcel of the new process to build trust with my colleagues and the listeners - no viewers anymore but listeners - so that is what I say now. There is much talk today about the talent in RTÉ. I hate being referred to as the "talent". I think it is an obscene, outdated word. The talent in RTÉ work in the reception, in security, in make-up and hair, in sound and camera and in production. That is the talent. They are the people who make the programmes that people listen to as they drive to work every day and the TV shows that people watch at 6 p.m. and beyond - "Nationwide" and what have you. That is the talent. If we do anything to change the language around RTÉ, I ask that we take that silly word off the contracts going forward. They are colleagues. No one is better than anyone else.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for her chairing of this, and the members for their robust but respectful questions, their time, and the courtesy extended to us. I particularly want to thank the Captain of the Guard in Leinster House and his team who were exceptionally decent and generous, and the catering staff who for some weird reason I always get on really well with. You would not think it to look at me, but I do. Thank you for everything. I thank my family for their ongoing loyalty and the good people of Ireland who have been kind to me in the past three weeks. I will never forget that kindness.

Mr. Noel Kelly

I would like to thank my family as well. They have been incredible.

We appreciate Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly and their colleagues who have been here today. We appreciate it has been a difficult day but we value the fact they came forward of their own volition to the Committee of Public Accounts and our committee to help us with our deliberations. It is much appreciated.

At tomorrow's meeting, we will consider the future of sports broadcasting in Ireland. Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.39 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 July 2023.
Top
Share