Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media debate -
Tuesday, 27 Feb 2024

Oversight of RTÉ's Expenditure of Public Funds and Governance Issues and Plans for Longer-term Support and Funding for Public Service Media: Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media

We will begin our deliberations. I advise members of the following formal substitutions for today's meeting. Deputy Thomas Gould will attend in substitution for Deputy Imelda Munster, Senator Marie Sherlock will attend in substitution for Senator Annie Hoey and Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú will attend in substitution for Deputy Chris Andrews. This meeting has been convened with the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media and her officials to discuss oversight of RTÉ's expenditure of public funds and governance issues and plans for longer-term support and funding for public service media. I welcome the Minister and her officials to the meeting. As the Minister is present, it is not expected that any officials will speak in public session. I will invite the Minister to deliver an opening statement that will be limited to five minutes. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee. The committee may publish the Minister's opening statement on its website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Members are 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 of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of Leinster House in order to participate in our public meetings. I invite the Minister to make her opening statement.

Tá mé buíoch as an deis seo cur síos a dhéanamh ar chúrsaí a bhaineann le rialachas agus maoiniú do RTÉ agus le todhchaí na heagraíochta. Táim tiomanta mar Aire na meán athbhreithniú agus athnuachan a dhéanamh ar chóras an cheadúnais teilifíse.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee today regarding a number of matters relating to the governance of RTÉ and the future funding of public service media. While it has been said before, I believe any discussion on public service media must acknowledge the very important place the media holds in our society. This is evidenced by the significant public debate and discourse around RTÉ and indeed the detailed investigations this committee has undertaken over the past eight months.

As Minister with responsibility for media, I will not be deflected from the priority of delivering reform. I am determined that this will be the Government that decides on a sustainable funding model for public service media. In an increasingly turbulent world, public service broadcasting is an essential pillar of our democracy. It is a trusted source of objective fact-checked news as well as a crucial forum for celebrating and promoting our distinct culture, sports and way of life. It must, and it will be, supported.

I will first address the question of the reform of RTÉ. While there have been a number of reports published into a variety of specific issues related to RTÉ since last June, what was ultimately required was a wider and higher level review of the organisation. This needed to encompass the governance framework which was in place, the organisational culture or cultures that prevailed, how contractors were engaged and wider HR and employment policies. It was also important that any such reviews were completely impartial and independent. It was for this reason that the Government established the two expert advisory committees.

In order to bring about meaningful change, these committees were tasked not only with reviewing what had happened and why but also with bringing forward recommendations to chart a new way forward. While I had hoped to have the reports by the end of this month, I have now been advised that some final review processes need to be completed before the committees are in a position to submit their reports to me. The review of governance and culture will shortly undergo the necessary fact-checking processes to ensure fair procedures have been followed. It is expected that these processes will take at least three weeks. The review of contractor fees, HR and other matters will be finalised earlier.

On that basis, and in light of their complementary nature, I expect that both reviews will be submitted to me during March. I have consistently stated that while the Government is continuing to discuss the most appropriate basis on which to support public service media into the future, a final decision on this cannot be taken until the two expert advisory committees' reviews have been considered by Government and published.

Let me reiterate that I am fully committed to bringing forward reform of the TV licence so that the necessary funding support for public service media can be put on a sustainable footing. While funding for RTÉ is a significant element of the public funding model, this will also continue to support valuable schemes such as Sound and Vision. More importantly, it will enable a widening of the scope of supports so that public service content produced by a range of media platforms and outlets, including local newspapers, can be supported through new media fund schemes.

I am committed to supporting the objectives of a reformed transformed RTÉ as set out in the organisation’s strategic vision. Ultimately, a new funding model will not just safeguard a necessary pillar of our democratic society, that of public service media, it will also provide for greater stability for RTÉ and its staff and for the many other valued workers in other media and in the independent sector who provide public service content. This is the core principle that underpins my work. Allied to that is the need for maximum transparency and openness in all operations but particularly as regards funding.

This brings me to the events of last week. Following the publication of the report by McCann Fitzgerald into previous voluntary exit schemes in RTÉ, the director general, DG, appeared before this committee and referred to more recent exits of other senior members of staff during his tenure. As the committee will be aware, the DG had stated that it was not possible to provide the detailed information sought due to legal constraints. Having consistently called for maximum transparency on these issues, I asked the DG to seek updated legal advice on the disclosure of key details with regard to the most recent severance payments to a number of senior executives from RTÉ. While the legal advice is clear that neither data protection law nor confidentiality clauses could be breached, I still believe that maximum possible transparency is required into these matters so that we can continue the process of rebuilding trust in RTÉ as one of our public service broadcasters.

I met with the former RTÉ chair and DG on Monday of last week to seek an update on this matter. During the course of that meeting, I raised media reports that referred to possible board and chair involvement in the approval of severance packages to key senior executives last year. It was of the utmost importance to me to ascertain accurate information regarding this as I was not aware of the board’s role, specifically the approval of the package in question by its remuneration committee, and I had not received any formal correspondence relating to such an important matter. I was told by the then chair that there was no formal approval role for the board in these two specific recent exit packages. Later that day, I outlined this position to the media at a press event in Government Buildings. Ahead of a subsequent meeting with the former chair and DG on Wednesday of last week, I received a letter from RTÉ outlining the updated legal advice it had received around whether it could disclose the full details of the recent severance packages.

One paragraph referenced board involvement, where relevant, in termination payments. In light of this, I again sought confirmation on this issue from the former chair, and again received confirmation that there was no board involvement whatsoever in respect of the severance packages agreed for Richard Collins or Rory Coveney. The then chair also pointed out that a new process requiring board approval would apply going forward.

Subsequently, on Thursday, the former chair contacted departmental officials to say she had inadvertently given me incorrect information and that the severance package for the former CFO of RTÉ had in fact been approved on 10 October by the RTÉ board’s remuneration committee, of which she was also chair. The failure to provide accurate and timely information gave me considerable cause for concern. Regrettably, this was not the first time that the then chair had failed to give me a clear account of her and the board’s work at RTÉ. My relationship with RTÉ, as Minister with responsibility for media, is through the chair. This relationship is fundamental to the development of a positive and productive future for the organisation. Confidence in the reliability of communications between both is absolutely critical, particularly at such a sensitive time in the broadcaster’s history.

As I viewed this as an important matter, I believed it merited a formal and direct approach. I sought to meet her on Friday last to address the issues directly and openly, to seek clarification on the matter and to ensure this would not reoccur. I am willing to elaborate further on the events of last Thursday at this committee.

I know there has been much discussion about my appearance on "Prime Time" last Thursday night. I would like to point out that I had agreed to this interview two days earlier. It was a good opportunity to give my views on the updated legal advice on exit payments, and to discuss the future funding of public service media. Clearly, I would have much preferred if I could have had that meeting with Siún Ní Raghallaigh on Friday and I do regret that she chose to resign rather than have that discussion.

I would like to put on the record again the significant contribution Ms Ní Raghallaigh has made over the past 15 months. Her commitment to transforming RTÉ was obvious and I want to offer genuine thanks for her hard work. My focus turns now to the appointment of a new chair who can continue the important work of reform and rebuilding trust. I will be progressing this matter with Government colleagues as soon as possible. I will also be meeting the RTÉ board in the coming days. I look forward to engaging positively and constructively with them to ensure our collective objective is progressed and we ensure a vibrant, stable, sustainable national broadcaster that future generations of Irish people need and deserve.

Go raibh míle maith agat as éisteacht liom agus cuirfidh mé fáilte roimh aon cheisteanna uaibh anois.

Thank you, Minister, for your opening statement. We will now proceed to questions and answers with members. Colleagues, the speaking slots have been circulated so you know where your time slots are. The time is ten minutes for each speaker and I ask you to stick to this, if at all possible. We want to give everyone the opportunity to say what they need to say. I call on Senator Fintan Warfield.

I welcome the Minister and her team to the Oireachtas committee. I have to put it to the Minister that instead of being in a television studio last Thursday night, she should have been sitting across the table from Siún Ní Raghallaigh, the former chairperson of RTÉ. Why did the Minister decide to prioritise a media interview above a meeting with the chairperson of the national broadcaster, whom she appointed? Why did the Minister not dedicate herself to Siún Ní Raghallaigh that night?

As I said in my statement, it was a pre-arranged interview. These issues emerged on Thursday and we were dealing with a number of phone calls through the officials. I felt it was worthy of a direct, face-to-face meeting with all of the officials who had been involved in the meetings on Wednesday and Monday. That is why I requested that meeting. I thought it would be wrong for me to simply pull out of an interview that was pre-arranged. Rather than a rushed meeting on a Thursday night, I felt that a detailed meeting on Friday morning was required to clarify a number of errors from the meetings on Monday and Wednesday.

Speaking as one politician to another, media interviews are rearranged all the time and press interviews are cancelled all the time. This was a moving situation, with circumstances changing all of the time. Is the Minister saying that a press interview was more important than her relationship with the chairperson of RTÉ?

In fairness, there had been a number of meetings that week. There was one on Monday and two on Wednesday. This issue was in constant flow on Thursday, so it was too late, by the time I had the full facts on Thursday evening, to pull out of a media engagement. I wanted to have the proper time on Friday morning because I felt it might be a very detailed discussion.

I do not think that the first job of the Minister is to go on the television. I am trying to understand what the Minister's thoughts were on the drive out to the RTÉ studios. Surely she knew she was going to be asked if she had confidence in Siún Ní Raghallaigh. Surely she also knew the consequences of not expressing confidence in the chair. Surely she knew that would mean that the chair, Siún Ní Raghallaigh, would have to resign.

As I said in my statement, when I had arranged the "Prime Time" interview, it was to talk about the advice that was issued and the future funding model. When I was on my way to the RTÉ studios I hoped that would be the focus of the interview.

Did the Minister not expect to be asked if she had confidence in Siún Ní Raghallaigh?

It is hard to answer that question because I could not predict what was going to happen in an interview. When I had arranged the interview, it was to do with the future funding model and the legal advice.

It is ridiculous that the Minister would not think she would be asked whether she had confidence in Siún Ní Raghallaigh. If that did not cross the Minister's mind, I suppose she did not think about texting Siún Ní Raghallaigh or having the decency to tell her what she was going to say on "Prime Time". Certainly, that is the question I would expect if I were the Minister going out to RTÉ, with everything that was going on. Whether I had confidence in the chairperson of RTÉ is the one question I would expect to be asked. The Minister did not anticipate that question. I think that is slightly ridiculous. It fails to give a level of decency to Siún Ní Raghallaigh, who has been an incredible public servant. Many people I have spoken to think she was steadying the ship. She has given incredible public service to her country both in TG4 and RTÉ. The Minister did not think to pick up the phone to her before addressing the nation on "Prime Time".

I was not keen to have a phone call with the then chair because I thought it required a face-to-face meeting, with the officials in the room who had attended when I was given the incorrect information on Monday and Wednesday. I wanted people there who had witnessed and heard the previous discussions on Monday and Wednesday. I really was not expecting any question on confidence. I hoped that we could meet on Friday. The former chair was aware that I was going to appear on "Prime Time" and that the issues which arose during the week on the legal advice on those two severance packages and the future funding model would be discussed.

Anyone watching "Prime Time" would have said that Siún Ní Raghallaigh had no choice but to go. Who would not do so after hearing the Minister's interview? Was it a decision or was it a mistake to effectively let the chairperson go on "Prime Time"?

As the Minister demanding transparency, I cannot switch being honest on and off when I want to. I was asked questions in relation to the board. The board and the chairperson of the board is the direct relationship, so I had to be transparent on the programme.

It was a case of I just could not express confidence in someone but I was doing everything I could under repeated questioning to not say, "I have no confidence", because I wanted to afford the opportunity to speak to her on the Friday morning. As I said, part of having absolute confidence in a chair is to be able to rely on accurate communications. That is of paramount importance. In this entire crisis, the establishment of facts and the transparency around facts is what will lead to the reform. I had-----

What are the prospects now of reform? Given everything that has happened, what are the prospects of direct-Exchequer funding? Given the error of judgment that I believe the Minister has made and the unfairness shown to the former chairperson of RTÉ, what are the chances now of reform taking place in RTÉ?

To reiterate-----

The Minister has been the consistent figure here. From Ms Dee Forbes through to the new director general, Mr. Kevin Bakhurst, the Minister has always been in place.

To reiterate, I believe a Minister has to be truthful. To not share information that had emerged that day would be me withholding information and I would be facing a very different committee. I would probably be here before the committee for other reasons, if I had done that.

On reform, I have said I am absolutely focused, where consecutive Governments have failed, on delivering the reform of the funding model for public service broadcasting and this Government is absolutely committee to that. That hinges on the recommendations of the expert advisory committees. We are awaiting those recommendations and they will arrive in March.

The Minister summoned the director general and the chair to a meeting last Monday. I would have thought that the Minister would have been prepared for that meeting, that she would have asked her officials what the Department had on the Collins package and she would have been checking her stuff before going into that meeting. Did the Minister not ask her officials? Did that conversation not take place? If the conversation took place and no one told the Minister that Siún Ní Raghallaigh rang the Secretary General, why is Ms Ní Raghallaigh being hung out to dry on that?

The first question I asked at that meeting was in relation to the reports to do with the Rory Coveney exit package that I read at the weekend, that the chair had an approval in that. I found that a little bit astonishing because I would have been absolutely confident that that happened in July. It had been conveyed to me as a resignation. I asked at that meeting, "Why have you not clarified this error in the report?" - a statement from RTÉ saying the former chair, with the DG, had approved that package. I could not understand how it was still there 24 hours later and had not been clarified. They said it was inaccurate and they had had no role. I directed the question to the chair and I asked the chair if she knew it was not a resignation and did not tell me. I was told she did know, she should have told me, she was sorry and she forgot. That was the first thing that happened on the Monday. That led to the next question on whether she had any role whatsoever in the other package, and she said, "No. I did not have any role in that." That is why I went out to correct the record publicly that Monday evening, to say that I just wanted to correct what was reported wrongly on Sunday that the chair and the board had no role whatsoever in approving either of these packages.

In conclusion, I will finish with a comment. I fear, at worst, that this was a planned effort to get rid of a capable chairperson, a capable woman who, I believe, was steading the ship, who always struck me as a genuine public servant and who was clearly on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week for €35,000. On this occasion, with respect to the Minister, she has not only crashed the car here but has driven it as fast as possible into the wall. We are in possibly a worse place than we have been since the start of this crisis.

I thank Senator Warfield.

At no stage have I said it was intentional, but the problem is that if the chair is being pressed on numerous occasions for clarification in relation to her role in approving, for example, the packages, and in relation to her knowledge of another exit package, if I am not getting the correct information, how can I act properly as a Minister? How can I be a Minister in charge of the facts if the facts are not being given to me?

I will conclude and move on because we have so many people to get through. I call Senator Cassells.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and welcome the Minister and her team. The Minister's statement to us tonight in respect of the events of last week sets out that on two separate occasions last week the Minister asked the chair if there a formal approval role for the board and on two occasions Siún Ní Raghallaigh said quite clearly to the Minister, "No". When the RTÉ chair corrected her version of these events last Thursday, did the Minister feel she had been lied to by the chair?

It was on two days but, I would say, on several occasions in those two meetings. As I said to Senator Warfield, the former chair has done incredible work in-----

But did she lie to the Minister last week?

I do not believe it was intentional, but what we have is a situation where I now cannot rely on accurate information.

Does the Minister feel that Ms Ní Raghallaigh purposely misled her on those occasions before correcting it?

I have never said that.

I know the Minister did not. I am just asking the Minister in the context of trying to understand it. Did the Minister feel that she had been either lied to or purposely misled, given, as she said, she asked on numerous occasions very direct questions on a very direct exit package?

I do not believe it was intentional, but that does not take away from the fact that, in getting inaccurate information on several occasions, there is an issue there. How can I be in charge of the facts even if it is unintentional? I had comments not recollecting that they had chaired the meeting that approved------

The Minister cited in her statement tonight that this was not the first time that the chair had, in fact, failed to give her clear accounts of her work or the work of the board. What were the other occasions?

The first occasion was in relation to a committee hearing where it was revealed that she had sought the resignation of Dee Forbes and she rang me the next day to apologise because she forgot to tell me that she had sought the resignation of Ms Forbes. As I outlined to Senator Warfield, on the Monday there was a question about the knowledge of the Rory Coveney exit package and whether she, in fact, knew it was not a straightforward resignation and not tell me. She admitted that she did know and she should have told me, and she was sorry. That led on to the Monday and the two meetings on Wednesday.

Clearly, in her mind, the Minister had now been fed a series of inaccurate or misleading pieces of information. Given that the Minister has used such a line in her opening statement that this was not the first time she had been given wrong information from Ms Ní Raghallaigh, is it the case, from her perspective, that her blood was up going up to RTÉ that night to do "Prime Time" and she was going to show, not only RTÉ but Ms Ní Raghallaigh, who was boss, and that is why the Minister ended up throwing her under the bus on television last Thursday night?

Certainly not. Anyone who knows me knows I am not someone who would anger like that or would act like that.

It is purely from knowing my responsibility in a crisis that I need to be in full possession of all facts at all times and learning that suddenly there is a recollection of something, even though the former chair had been pressed on several occasions-----

Okay, but, given the seriousness of that situation, the Minister could have backed out of "Prime Time". This is politics. Given that the Minister had sought a meeting with the chair on Friday morning, at which she knew she could have cleared the air - the meeting she said in her statement she wishes she had - and given that her statement tonight shows that she felt the relationship had completely broken down, did she plan to seek Ms Ní Raghallaigh's resignation in her office on Friday morning?

Absolutely not but it did-----

It is clear that you came to the end of the road. You said you had reached the end of the road with your relationship with the chair on the basis you felt you could not trust her anymore.

I think the Senator is putting words into my mouth. I did not use that language. I said I wanted to meet her the next day, and I had asked and written to her to meet her the next day. On "Prime Time", I suppose I had an opportunity to correct the record since the press conference on Monday, where I said there was no board approval whatsoever. I really believe that, as the focus over the last eight months has been about the need for facts, transparency and openness, I have to show leadership on that too. What was the alternative? Was it for me to conceal the facts on "Prime Time"?

Did the Minister or any of her political advisers discuss with the "Prime Time" team the issue of whether she had confidence in Siún Ní Raghallaigh and to ask for that question to be planted in that discussion?

As the Senator would know, as with any interview, you go through the topics. As I pulled up to "Prime Time", I became aware that the news was about to break that I had been given the incorrect information that day. It was flagged that I was willing to speak to the issue of the-----

The Minister's advisers had flagged with the research team or the presenters that she was willing to answer a question in respect of having confidence in the-----

No, absolutely not.

That was not planted with the team, no?

No. An issue had emerged and I was willing to speak to it.

Last Monday night, at 6.30 p.m., all of us received an email from Kevin Bakhurst, the director general. There is a lovely picture of him there. He told us about your meeting last Monday and he described it as a "positive and constructive meeting", and that he highlighted to the Minister "RTÉ's commitment to transparency and the process and procedures". The DG knew these processes and approvals, and he sat in that room with the Minister and the chair last Monday and said nothing either. He said nada. Does the Minister have confidence in the director general, given that he sat in that room and said nothing on the role of the board in the exist packages process at that meeting last week?

As I have always said, my direct role was with the chair. With regard to my questions, whenever I meet the two of them together, it is quite clear who I am directing my questions to.

That is fine but we are now at the centre of a storm around the national broadcaster. This man has been brought in to clean it up. He sat in the room with you and the chair and he said nothing on your direct questions about the process that was involved for that exit package, and whether the board approved it. How can the Minister have confidence in the director general and not in the chair?

I have confidence in the job of work that the director general has undertaken, and-----

So you do have confidence in the director general?

Yes. I have stated that before.

Okay. They were a team, as was evident in his statement last week, and the huge regard he had for Siún Ní Raghallaigh. However, if Ms Ní Raghallaigh misled the Minister in that room last week, which is clear - we have extrapolated here that she did, as far as the Minister is concerned - then so did Kevin Bakhurst. The Minister summoned them last Monday to discuss the process involved in the exit package for the top executives, such as Richard Collins. If the Minister was misled by the chair, she was misled by the director general. How can she express confidence in him, given that he was complicit as well?

The direct line of communication between a Minister for media and RTÉ is the chair of the board.

That is amazing.

The chair provided me with inaccurate information. The DG-----

He sat in the room and listened to that inaccurate information being given to the Minister. He knowingly sat there, and let that misinformation be given to the Minister. Either that, or nobody knows what is going on in RTÉ whatsoever.

The DG's role is very distinct. Again, I am saying that my connection is with the chair of the board. That is who I have responsibility-----

That is an amazing admission. Why bother summoning him at all? Was he there to make the tea? That is amazing, and it is not consistent to say that you have confidence in him and no confidence in the chair because your relationship was with the chair. He is actually running the ship. He is the paid executive on hundreds of thousands of euro, appointed to run the ship, and you say that you have confidence in him while he sat there and allowed the misinformation be spoken to you.

The issue being addressed and which emerged was in the role of the chair, and it is for the chair to clarify that.

That is amazing. Either they should both be gone or they should both be in their jobs. Was this personal against the chair because you felt that she had misled you too many times, and this was the end of the road?

Absolutely not. I think the Senator has asked that in a number of different ways. I had a lot of respect for and a good working relationship with the former chair. Unfortunately, even though I had that good relationship, it emerged that I just could not, as a Minister, depend on accurate information.

I cannot believe that you can differentiate between two people sitting in the room who were complicit in the same misinformation being given to you but you can have confidence in one, and no confidence in the other. That does not tally whatsoever.

To conclude, Senator-----

The Minister said that she has not received any formal correspondence relating to the role of the board in the exit package but the Business Post detailed on Sunday that her three senior officials, Catherine Licken, Tríona Quill and Stephen Ryan, were informed at the Committee of Public Accounts on 12 October with regard to the terms of reference on the board's remuneration. Did nobody inform the Minister of the situation as that emerged?

I read that report, and I think it was said that they were explicitly told. My reading of what transpired at that meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts was that Ms Mullooly had outlined the changes that would apply in the future. The language she used was it "will now present a report" and that it "will now" report to the board. At this point, we were aware that Mr. Collins had left RTÉ, and there was no reason to believe anything other than that the DG had made that decision without board approval.

In respect of-----

The Senator has to conclude.

I am sorry, Chair. On the report that Siún Ó Raghallaigh called Ms Licken on 10 October and told her that there had been an agreement with Richard Collins, you said Ms Licken has no recollection of being told that the package was "approved". That does not mean it did not happen. Just because she said she has no recollection does not mean it did not happen. Has the Minister checked again with Ms Licken as to whether recollection has changed this week, similar to the way that Ms Ní Raghallaigh's memory changed last Thursday?

One word, Minister. "Yes" or "No".

I checked with the Secretary General twice, on Thursday and Friday.

Ms Licken's recollection is still that she has no memory of being told that it was agreed.

She had been told that the independent mediation process had concluded but not that it had received board approval.

We will move on to Senator Micheál Carrigy. The floor is his and he has ten minutes.

I thank the Chair and welcome the Minister. In the Minister's introductory piece, she mentioned asking the question on Monday, and then asking it on Wednesday again. Could she elaborate on why she asked the question a second time? In her opening statement, she said she was willing to elaborate further on the events of last Thursday. What are the events she wants to elaborate on?

With regard to "Prime Time" - it has been raised previously by other members - to be quite honest, it is difficult to accept that the Minister would not expect to have been asked a question around having confidence in the RTÉ chair, especially given that, as she said only a number of minutes ago, she had been informed prior to 9 o'clock that news was going to break on the events of the Thursday. Naturally enough, I would imagine that a professional like Miriam O'Callaghan was going to ask a question like that. I think the Minister's adviser, or whoever, should have warned or forewarned her that the question would be put. Could the Minister elaborate on the events she has mentioned in her opening statement?

With regard to the last part, I would say that it is impossible for me to predict what questions I would be asked. I am always prepared for any questions, and on Thursday night, I was pushed on a number of occasions. I was trying to do my best not to say I had no confidence. I was trying to keep the door open as much as possible to that meeting on Friday.

I have outlined clearly what transpired on the Monday. The questions were on the role of the chair of the board, as I had read. The reason I had to ask again is that on the Wednesday I received a copy of the legal advice in advance of it being published. I was meeting with the chair and the DG to discuss that. There was a cover letter to me outlining the findings of the legal advice. What very much jumped out at me was a paragraph on the second page which referred to board involvement, where relevant, in termination payments. I circled the letter on the day and it was the first question I led with in that meeting, even though the full purpose of that meeting was to discuss the legal advice that had just landed. There was something about that paragraph that just did not sit right with me. In light of that, I again sought confirmation on the issue from the former chair. My approach was along the lines of "I do not understand this paragraph; why does it state that?". In light of the indication that there may have been some role, I again asked the former chair if she was 100% sure - absolutely sure - that there was no role whatsoever in any of these legal packages for the board or for herself. Again, I was told nothing by the former chair. In fact, the chair then pointed out "But in future, Minister, we will have a role in severance payments". I was told that in future, the remuneration committee will have to approve them, but not on these occasions. The line of questioning was very clear on that, as were the answers I was receiving.

While that was being said, Kevin Bakhurst was sitting there in the same room and made no comment at all to contradict the comments the chairperson had made with regard to it.

I do not have confidence in Kevin Bakhurst after hearing that. I think he is compromised in his role and in his position because he made no comment on that despite the fact that he knew that was not correct. He should have given that information to the Minister who was acting on behalf of the Government. I feel that he is compromised in his position on that basis. Who was going to break the news at 9 o’clock? Where did that word come from that this story was going to break?

There were a number of press crews in relation to me being misinformed during the week. I have no idea how that happened. I was shocked that those questions were being asked.

We have been having meetings over the past nine months. One person, in particular, has not been here. I would like the Minister’s view. Should the former director general, Dee Forbes, come before this committee?

Would the Minister hold a similar view on the former Secretary General, Katherine Licken, coming to a meeting of this committee?

If a formal invitation is issued to the former Secretary General, yes, I think that would be helpful but no formal invitation, to my understanding, has been issued by this committee. If that was to happen, I think the former Secretary General would give it consideration.

Indeed, would that also be the case for Siún Ní Raghallaigh, even though she has left that role?

We need to get clarity.

On a point of order, I have proposed in writing that an open standing invitation would issue to Siún Ní Raghallaigh in the event of her choosing to accept an opportunity to address this committee with any relevant information. Could we get the agreement of the committee that such an invitation would issue to the chair in the interest of fairness? It would allow her to have an opportunity to have her voice heard in this discussion.

Is that agreed?

Such an invitation should issue to both Siún Ní Raghallaigh and Katherine Licken.

The clerk wants me to remind the members of the committee that as a former Secretary General, Katherine Licken does not have to attend but on foot of the fact that she may want to, as may the former chair, we-----

In view of the fact that the Minister is attending, I am sure they would not-----

Is there agreement across the committee that standing invitations will be issued to both the former chair and the former Secretary General. Is that okay? I thank the members. I ask Senator Carrigy to continue.

The former chair rang the Secretary General, Feargal Ó Coigligh, to inform him that she had misinformed the Minister twice last week in relation to the CFO payment coming before the committee. Is there a note of that conversation in the Department?

Yes, we have a note of all of the conversations from last Thursday.

Could that be provided to the committee?

Yes, of course, for transparency.

In light of the question that was asked about Kevin Bakhurst, does the Minister have confidence in her officials in the Department?

Yes, I have confidence in my officials in the Department. Since this issue emerged, they have been working 24-7. I have absolute confidence in them.

I would like to ask about the packages. The Minister has been in this role for a number of years. We are going back to Breda O’Keeffe. Would the Minister have been informed at any stage of any of these package deals, exit deals or payments? Have the Minister's officials ever made these known to her in her role as Minister?

Is the Senator asking about the actual amount of the-----

No. I addressed this last week. The same rules apply to the officials as to me and to everyone else. The law applies to us as to everyone else. The legal advice last week was clear that it still stands. No, we do not have that information.

None of the Minister’s officials would have had that information.

Would the Minister be in favour of a court order in the public interest to get that information?

The legal advice was clear that the confidentiality clauses cannot be breached. I think there is a GDPR problem there as well. I have always said in my conversations with the DG that if there is a way, such a way should be found. I suggested speaking to the people in question to see if they would waive their confidentiality. Whatever can bring transparency to those payments is welcome. I believe, as outlined in the legal advice, that the confidentiality cannot be breached. I also believe that there are GDPR issues.

It was my understanding that a court order could be taken to get that information, but perhaps I am incorrect. The Minister would be supportive of any mechanism that needs to happen to get that information out into the public domain. As she has said, none of the officials here or other officials in the Department have knowledge of these figures.

Nobody in the Department has knowledge of those figures. I remain, as I always have, committed to maximum transparency.

The Minister, therefore, would be supportive of whatever mechanism - a court order or whatever - being put in place to get that information.

I have always said that I am in favour of maximum transparency to explore this. That is why I asked the DG to get the legal advice. I am not a lawyer so I do not know about the legalities or the processes around the Senator’s suggestion. I have always spoken of maximum transparency.

I thank the Minister. Looking to the future, the Minister mentioned the two expert reports and the need for reforms in public sector broadcasting. The reality is that now we are in a situation where we have no chair. We need a chair. We need someone who is very strong in that role. It could be said that it might be difficult to get somebody to take on that role after what has happened over the past week. Has the Minister approached anybody? What experience are we looking for now in the person who will have to take this role on? It is probably one of the most important appointments in recent years in government to ensure we save what is turning into a sinking ship now, to be quite honest.

We are considering a number of people currently. I will be discussing that with the leaders. I hope we will be in a position to appoint a chair as soon as possible. Hopefully, it will happen within a week if we can do that. Under the Act, I will have to bring a nomination for approval by the Government. We are currently looking at that. I believe a range of experience will be necessary in areas like governance. There is a lot of experience out there. This could suit someone with experience of chairing, governance or accounting. It is a wide range of skills. That is why we are approaching people with different skill sets.

I thank the Minister very much.

Okay. I thank the Senator. I call Deputy Mattie McGrath. The floor is his and he has ten minutes.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach agus fáiltím roimh an Aire agus roimh na daoine eile. Who appointed the board of RTÉ?

Through the PAS process, we make appointments. The committee also has responsibility for making some of the appointments by making recommendations to me which I then bring to the Government.

The Minister has the final responsibility.

The Government signs off on it.

Through you, obviously. You are in government. You have not addressed the issue decisively and have allowed it to erode public trust. Does the Minister accept that?

You have not addressed this situation properly as the Minister in charge. You are allowing the public’s confidence in RTÉ to be further eroded. Would you accept that?

I have been working very hard on this. I think the key piece is the expert advisory committees I set up very early on - one on HR and staff and another on governance and culture. I set up those investigations. They will shortly report to us. I think they are key because they are the only reports that will have recommendations in them. Most recently, I pushed with the DG to seek clarity on the severances and going forward to look at capping those severances. I have asked for the strategic vision in RTÉ-----

There is no such thing, I would imagine.

Does the DG talk to you or does he sit dumb like when you spoke to the chair? Does he respond to you or do you use sign language-----

He responds to questions I address to him, obviously, but I would point out that the DG is responsible to the board and the chair is responsible to me.

But he sits idly by when the chair is misinforming you.

The direct line of questions was to the chair.

No matter; he was in the room. He is the DG. You just said he is responsible to the board.

The issue here is that the chair could not give me accurate information on numerous occasions.

I put it to you that you have failed to put the right questions to the RTÉ board through the chair, who is the only person you can talk to, as you say. You also failed to ask the right questions of the chair or, indeed, of the DG who comes along just as a mute person to accompany the chair or, as somebody said, to make the tea. I do not want to insult the man but he must know, if he is trying to clean up the mess in there. It is a mess; an unholy mess. The Minister might be aware of my comments at the very start of this last July. I believed the Committee of Public Accounts or ourselves were not equipped to investigate this and it should have been the fraud squad or even CAB because a sizable sum of money, in the region of €20 million, that has been put aside to deal with possible irregularities in bogus employment. No other company in the country has that opportunity afforded to them. Why is it afforded to RTÉ?

The Deputy said I do not ask direct questions. I could not have been more direct than I was last week in asking the chair, on numerous occasions, about the role of the chair in approving those packages and any role whatsoever of the board. Under the Broadcasting Act, my direct relationship with RTÉ is with the chair of the board and there is an obligation under the code of practice for governance of State bodies. It refers to areas where there is an obligation on the chairperson to keep the Minister informed and to advise the Minister and making sure I am kept advised of all matters.

Thank you. At what point did you lose confidence in the former chair of the board, Ms Ní Raghallaigh?

I was hoping to have the conversation on Friday morning with her but, obviously, I felt I could not rely on accurate information having pressed the issue on Monday and again on numerous occasions on Wednesday in relation to whether she had a role whatsoever. It was pointedly said to me, “But we will have in future. We did not on this occasion but going forward, we will”. Then on Thursday I could not understand the first phone call to say, “That was wrong. I actually chaired the committee that approved it”.

Was your effective public dismissal of the chair on RTÉ appropriate, or professional, by a Cabinet Minister?

That was not my intention whatsoever. I wanted to meet her. I wanted to outline what had arisen that day. It was the first opportunity to correct the record, where I had said publicly on foot of the information supplied to me and reports at the weekend that there was absolutely no board approval. I felt compelled when asked to share the information that I had rather than conceal it. I had no choice. It was a very difficult situation.

You could have waited. You could have cancelled the programme, as others have said. You could have easily pulled out. We know now that you briefed the presenter or the research team that you were prepared to answer this question, so it was a leading question to dismiss her publicly or throw her under the bus, as has been said.

Going forward, how can you feel confident or what confidence can you give us or the public, who I think have switched off from watching this anyway because they are disgusted with it, as they are disgusted with much of the content on RTÉ? I reiterate that I have sympathy for the vast majority of employees in RTÉ. On the cabal at the top, what confidence can you give me and the committee that you will be able to deal with this cabal? You have failed miserably since last July to do so. You seem to be weak at all junctures. Successive Governments have also. What confidence can you give us that you are able to deal with this cabal because that is what it is?

I think Mr. Bakhurst’s position is untenable as well. I find it hard to think that you could say he sat there and did not advise or nudge Ms Ní Raghallaigh and say, “Look, you are misinforming the Minister there”, and that you still have confidence in him but not in the other. Where is this leading? What confidence can you give us that you will be able to deal with this cabal?

I have confidence in meeting with the board on Friday. I have confidence that we can find a path forward. It is a very future-looking meeting that we intend to have. I have confidence in the reforms that are taking place and I have confidence that when we receive the expert advisory committee recommendations they will be implemented.

Well, nobody else has.

I do not think that is fair to say that as a sweeping statement.

Nobody else has.

Again, I do not think that is fair.

I do not believe you have either, to be fair, if you were being honest.

I have absolute confidence.

I do not believe you have, through the Chair. I do not believe you have. How could you when the DG sat there throughout a meeting when you were being misinformed by Ms Ní Raghallaigh, as you have stated yourself?

I have confidence-----

He never opened his mouth. Béal dúnta.

I have confidence in the reforms that are under way and the reforms that need to happen but, more importantly, in the absolute value that we all have here in public service broadcasting-----

It is being eroded very fast, Minister, and you have not helped.

---and I am getting the future funding model in place.

I have been involved in local authorities where officials were appointed when local authorities collaborated with groups to achieve a sports complex or whatever and the county council took a part in it. It was small money; small investments. It was tens of thousands of euro, maybe, rather than these millions of euro. The county council, as a body, would always appoint an official or two in a board of eight or ten. I have sat beside them. They were excellent officials and they were the watch dogs for the public purse, for the county council and for the public investment. Why have you not appointed dedicated officials to watch over the public purse? Where are they? Where is your duty of care to the State and to taxpayers' money?

That is why I set up expert advisory committees to look at the staff and HR issues-----

-----and to look at the culture and governance.

I am talking about the board-----

There are regular meetings between-----

I am talking about the board when you set it up first. This is after the fact, when millions and millions of euro have been paid out in payments to people who will not come back and answer questions. Your ability here has to be seriously questioned as has the Department’s and those who advise you. Why have you not got specific members on that board who were watching out and telling you the truth? They are furiously passing you notes now, I see, but why was someone not passing you notes before or informing you? Why was this left to fester and to become this appalling vista? What a mess. We will continue with meetings and more meetings. It will be a case of round the house and mind the dresser and do not answer any questions. The sooner the fraud squad are brought in the better. Why is RTÉ being protected by you, as Minister, and by the Government from facing up to its tax liabilities and to be honest with its employees who want to earn money for their families? How is that allowed to continue? How is this charade carrying on?

That is why I am telling the Deputy that these reports are key as I pointed out to the committee on the last occasion. A number of members raised the issue of staff, equality and fairness. That is why a separate committee is dealing with the staff and HR issues and the other one is on governance and culture.

Obviously, as I have stated many times, what was there was dysfunctional.

It still is very dysfunctional.

I would say as well it is not appropriate to put Department officials on a board like that but there are-----

That is the note you got now. How come-----

Sorry, Deputy, it is not. I think anyone would know-----

-----you could not put county council officials on boards to protect the taxpayers on a small scale? I said the last day that this is a case of mind the chickens in the henhouse, keep the door closed, and do not let in the fox. The Government does not want to see any fox. You want to carry on your merry-go-round with public service broadcasting that is beholden to the Government and certain committee members here as well. We hear them morning, noon and night in interviews, but anyone with an alternative view is forgotten about. It is not fair or right and you are not able to control it. You have no intention of trying to control it. It suits the Government narrative to let this cabal carry on.

Deputy McGrath, will you give the Minister an opportunity to respond and we will move on?

Absolutely determined. Part of the problem here is being consecutive governments not grasping the nettle of putting RTÉ on a sustainable footing.

And you have clubs.

More important, it is not just about RTÉ. As many members here have raised, it is about the wider broadcasting and print sector. That is why we have to move quickly and make this decision.

They get crumbs.

Key to that, and you mentioned looking for the fox-----

You do not see any fox.

-----is the expert advisory committees.

Keep setting up committees, yes.

We are going to have that report.

Jobs for the boys, and the same big corporate companies that give advice that is tainted are hired again. The people can see through this. A blind person could see through what is going on - a cabal.

Deputy, we have to get the recommendations of these two expert groups-----

Are you the Minister?

-----and see them implemented.

You make decisions and let them deal with the fallout. I rest my case, Chair, because we are getting nowhere here.

We will move on. Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan has ten minutes.

I thank the Minister and her team for coming in today. Coming back to the "Prime Time" interview on Thursday night, if that is okay, I watched it back before coming in here to remind myself of how it went down and what was said. It did seem to me that the Minister was very forthcoming with the answer when Miriam O'Callaghan put it to her about the role of the board in terms of oversight of exit packages and the fact she had been misinformed by Ms Ní Raghallaigh. The Minister was very forthcoming; she came straight out with it. In other words, it did not have to be dragged out of her. Would that be fair?

I was trying to be as open and as transparent as possible in relation to this.

In terms of the conversation that was had with the researcher prior to going on air and going live, did you agree a wording that Miriam would put to you in terms of the question about the knowledge of the board and the oversight? Was it teed up in a certain way that you felt comfortable with?

Actually, I think I was in getting makeup on. I believe it was in relation to flagging that an issue about the board was probably about to break and that I was willing to address that if needs be.

Okay, it was not teed up, there was not an agreed wording such that if they asked you in a particular way, you would respond in a certain way. It was just that it was flagged with you that it was going to be-----

It was flagged that there was an issue with the board and whether I would be willing to address it.

Do you regret now being so open and honest about it and being so forthcoming with the information live on air, considering what has happened since?

I think the other side is, if I had not been, then I would have been accused of the opposite. It was a very difficult situation. If I am trying seek that openness and transparency and I do not reveal what I know has just emerged in the past few hours, how does that work for someone who is seeking openness?

I know, but all politicians are accused of being experts at evading questions. That accusation is given to us quite often, which is fair enough.

Maybe that is a problem, that we should not be evading those questions all the time. I was trying in this particular issue, when the entire crisis has been about covering things up, to be open.

Perhaps, and that is potentially a different debate.

I cannot choose when I want to be-----

Let me put it this way. Would it have been better, when the question was put to you to give detail about conversations with Ms Ní Raghallaigh and the fact that you were misinformed, to have said that very important information was emerging which necessitated a meeting with the chair of the board, who was then Siún Ní Raghallaigh, that the meeting was happening the next day and that there would be a full statement on matters after that meeting? Would that have been a better way to progress? I know it is not the transparency and openness you say is so important in politics, but would there have been less of a consequence if you had gone down that line and said, "Something has emerged, it is concerning, we need to get clarification on it, there is a meeting set up for tomorrow and I will be making a full statement after that."? Would that have been preferable?

There were other ways my confidence had been rocked, in that the former chair had indicated during the day that they felt they should not meet me. They felt actually that I should not even write a letter, never mind request a meeting. That shook my confidence too.

So after you had found out she had been misinformed on both Coveney's and Collins's exit packages, you requested this meeting with Siún Ní Raghallaigh prior to the "Prime Time" interview and she declined that meeting or said it should not happen.

It was indicated to the former chair that my most likely action would be that I would write a letter or an email-----

At that stage it was just indicated a letter would be written because I felt it was significant. When the official came back to me I said this is not good, that I have received inaccurate information on a number of occasions. It was indicated that I would write a letter. The former chair was not willing to receive a letter.

How did that communication happen?

Through an official.

Phone calls? Okay. She was not willing to receive a letter or she felt that-----

Okay, that is extraordinary.

That is quite problematic from a confidence point of view if the chair is unwilling to receive a letter from the Minister.

Do you think she would have been unwilling to meet, or had she actually agreed to the meeting on the Friday at the point you went on "Prime Time"?

Later on, as phone calls progressed in the day, I had indicated to her that not only would I write a letter but I wanted to meet. She indicated she felt she would not come to a meeting but I was still hoping she would.

Had she changed her mind? Had she agreed to the meeting?

She had not actually agreed to the meeting.

The email was sent out that evening.

Okay. You felt you had been misinformed three times: when she did not inform you about the resignation of Dee Forbes, or that she sought the resignation, there was the instance in terms of the Coveney exit package, and the instance in terms of Mr. Collins's exit package. Sport is within your Department. Baseball is not very widely played in Ireland but is it a case of three strikes and you are out?

You need as Minister, as I have said, to be able to rely on accurate information and it was getting to a stage where I was not able to rely on accurate information. As I said, on the Monday there was a question but on the Wednesday I really led with the question because of the letter I had received on the Wednesday.

After the Monday, in terms of the Coveney exit package and the misinformation and she corrected that, had you given her prior warning that it was the second time you felt she had misinformed you and that, if it happened again, there would have to be a serious conversation?

I did say I had to be in possession of the facts and that she had to keep me informed.

You were asked to express confidence in her. Was there any other way you could have got out of that question? It was a tricky question; there was this big shadow hanging over the whole situation. You just shared information that she was not willing to receive a letter. Do you feel you could not have said you had full confidence at that point?

You have said you looked back on it. I do not know how many times I was asked that question but it was really a case of me trying in every possible way not to say I had no confidence.

Did you genuinely not foresee the resignation?

She was indicating she might resign if I sent a letter but I was just hopeful she would reflect and think about having a meeting with me.

Okay, so that potential resignation was there. You were informed that if you were going to send a letter, there could potentially be a resignation coming. That is interesting.

I have to make a judgment call on whether I should send a letter. I cannot change my mind because someone is saying they do not want a letter.

Even after what has transpired and the number of times you have felt Ms Ní Raghallaigh has misinformed you, do you regret that she is gone? Would you like if she was still in place?

I wish I had not been given the inaccurate information. I wish I was in a position to be able to say to the committee that I am fully confident, not only of her hard work and her commitment to the reform in RTÉ but that I am fully confident I will always be in position of the full facts when I ask questions. Unfortunately, I could not say the last piece and as I said-----

Do you think the right outcome is that she is gone or would you prefer she was still chair of the board?

Obviously, I thought she was a great chair but the crucial piece is I have to be in possession of the facts. There was a question mark over that, but I would have-----

It sounds to me like you think it is the right outcome.

-----preferred if we had had the opportunity on Friday to talk it through.

Okay. Regarding the knowledge of the Department, I am very uncertain about this given that in Ms Ní Raghallaigh's statement she says "I informed the Department about the process which led to Richard’s departure from RTÉ, on October 10th, the day after it was approved". Is that accurate?

On the first phone call on Thursday last week, the official was told early in the morning that I had been given incorrect information and the former chair said she had made an error and she now recalled that while she had said the board had no role whatsoever, actually she had chaired the remuneration committee that had approved it. The official came back to me and told me this. I found it hard to believe given the extent of the questioning I had done earlier that week, so I asked the official to go back and say that surely it was not approved because it was said on so many occasions, and I think it was flagged that I was considering writing to her at that stage. She again expressed regret at the error and then said she had phoned the former Secretary General last October to say that a deal had been done with the legal team and she said she imagined that she would also have referred to the role of the remuneration committee in that conversation. The language used was that she imagined she would have referred to the role of the remuneration committee in that conversation.

Is there any documentation with any of the Department officials which informed of the oversight role the board had in Mr. Collins's departure?

Not at the time of Mr. Collins's departure. The only documentation - and again, I would expect to receive this in a formal way from the chair - was on 5 September when we received a letter updating us of reforms under way and planned. With that letter was an annex and it did not mention the role of approval.

Will Deputy O'Sullivan conclude?

There is further delving to be done then into the knowledge in the Department, but I will make one closing comment. This entire mess since June right through to now is certainly not of the Minister's making but it is still a mess. RTÉ, unfortunately, is in bits. It is in pieces and badly needs to be thrown a lifeline. The staff deserve it and the people of Ireland deserve a proper functioning public broadcasting service, and the sooner we draw a line under all of this, the better, so that we can move on. People are tired of it and it is high time this process of rebuilding, which is supposed to be well under way, finally starts.

To respond to that, I am absolutely focused on that and on working with the board, the director general and with the committee members. Key to that is the Government making a decision once and for all on a future funding model that will be sustainable for all public service media.

I thank the Minister for attending along with her officials. Certainly, the past few days have been nothing short of extraordinary, and for the wrong reasons. Once again, we have the RTÉ drama escalating into another fiasco. At what point did the Minister begin to doubt the capacity of the former chair to lead the board and to initiate the much-needed change and reforms within RTÉ?

It is only in the past week, to be honest. I know there was an error in the early days of this, in a committee hearing, but I felt I would give the benefit of the doubt for stability reasons regarding not being informed of, or seeking, the resignation of Dee Forbes. It was just in the past week because the line of questioning had been so direct. Again I am saying I do not believe it was intentional in any shape of form.

Do you not think she was worth persisting with?

It gets to a stage where if you are asking direct questions on many occasions in a week and you are not getting the accurate information-----

She was a woman of integrity and of vast experience. She had presided over the RTÉ debacle for the past 15 months. Was the writing on the wall for her before the "Prime Time" interview?

I do not disagree with you regarding her being a woman of integrity and on the sheer commitment and dedication she gave in the past 15 months. I am not disputing that in any shape or form. I absolutely agree with you. However, as the Minister for media, I must be able to rely and feel absolutely confident that I am getting all the facts, especially when I am probing for these facts on numerous occasions. If I am not receiving them, I do not know how you expect the Minister for media to be able to operate when you cannot rely on accurate information.

You said you were shocked that RTÉ "Prime Time" was aware of the information that was withheld by the chair. Have you initiated any inquiry into how it got that information?

No, I did not say that. I said that on my approach to "Prime Time", I became aware of other journalists having this information and I do not understand how they got it. It is not something that I wanted out there. I wanted to definitely have the opportunity to talk to the then chair without that.

Are conversations with the Minister, the director general, and the chair held in a private capacity?

No, my officials are with me.

How many people were in the room during the two meetings last week?

There were six of us and the director general and the chair.

Do you feel there was a complete failure in the duties of all parties who attended that meeting to protect the information in it and the questions that were asked?

What emerged to journalists was what happened on the Thursday, when the record was corrected, that I had been given incorrect information on Monday and Wednesday.

On Monday and Wednesday.

Yes, that emerged on the Thursday. Everything was protected on the Monday and Wednesday because, as far as we were concerned, at the end of Wednesday we had all the correct information.

Have you asked the question how they actually obtained that information? Certainly, in your statement, you say you were scheduled for "Prime Time" to discuss the legal advice and the public funding model, but something significantly changed.

No. What I said was not that “Prime Time” journalists were telling me that the news was going to break, but that other journalists, outside RTÉ, were telling me the news was about to break.

So why did the Minister even speak about the chair of RTÉ during the interview?

I felt, to be transparent, that it needed to be flagged that there was an issue about to break and I was willing to speak to it.

But the Minister did not have all the factual accurate information at that time.

In relation to what, Deputy?

In relation to the press statements that were released on Friday from the board, from the chair in her resignation letter and from the DG. Subsequently, on the Friday, we had multiple press releases clarifying the situation and the discrepancy around what the Minister's Department knew, what the actual chair knew, what the DG knew and what the board knew.

I knew what had happened on the Monday and Wednesday. I knew that in those meetings the chair had said she had no role whatsoever. I knew that in those meetings she had actually spoken in the future tense. She said the reforms meant that they will, in future, have a role in approvals. She actually clarified the fact. Not only was she giving the information that they certainly did not have any role in this in any shape or form but also that, in future, the remuneration committee will have a role.

The Minister said in her opening statement that she did receive "any formal" communication. When previously did she receive formal communication on any issues in respect of the changes or reforms that were being implemented in RTÉ?

On 5 September. I have mentioned a letter I received from the chair in relation to reforms that were under way or planned. There was an annexe with that. It did not include a reference to severance packages.

Was that in the form of an email or a phone call? Was it written?

It was an email directly to me.

In respect of the Minister's officials, in September 2023 the Department received the new terms of reference introduced for the RTÉ remuneration committee. Is that correct?

So that was never received.

No. It was received on 30 November or 1 December.

Were they questions that should have been asked by the Minister or her officials in respect of the Committee of Public Accounts hearing in September which discussed the provisions around terms, pay and conditions that must be approved by the committee? These measures were a broader set of actions aimed at strengthening controls and fully restoring public trust in RTÉ's corporate governance? I ask because the Minister was presiding over a massive bailout for RTÉ at that time.

Is the Deputy referring to the Committee of Public Accounts meeting in October?

As I said earlier, that was very much rooted in the future tense, as in "it will now present a report" or "it will report", so it was the future tense. At the point of the Committee of Public Accounts meeting, it was two days after Mr. Collins had left, or that it was announced that he had left RTÉ. There was no reason to believe anything other than that the DG had made that decision.

Before the Minister issued a bailout in the October budget, did she check to see what checks and balances RTÉ had in place? Did she look for any clarification on the conditions of issuing a massive bailout to the tune of €40 million to RTÉ?

It is NewERA that does that work. As the Deputy will know, they have been brought under NewERA. That was one of the recommendations of the Future of Media Commission. NewERA made the recommendation to us on the amount to give to RTÉ.

In terms of the current lie of the land within RTÉ, did the Minister look for any of the actual reforms to see what the remuneration committee was doing about restructuring?

It is NewERA that will do that. What we have said in respect of the €40 million, none of which has been given out yet, is that none of it will be given out until we see what has taken place in respect of the checks and balances and the reforms.

When did the Minister become aware that Rory Coveney's resignation deal involved an exit package?

At the committee hearing on 14 February. Then I read that weekend that there was-----

Why does the Minister think that RTÉ did not inform her that there was an exit package assigned to the resignation?

That is why I asked on that. I would have been aware from a meeting on 6 July, I think it was, that the DG had indicated he was intending to restructure the team. Then I was informed that Rory Coveney had resigned. It was my understanding that he had resigned. Then, in the committee hearing on 14 February, it emerged that it was a package.

Did the Minister ask at the time?

That was one of the questions I asked the chair because I was looking for transparency. In that meeting, in relation to transparency, I asked if she had any knowledge that it was an exit package. I presumed she had not, as I would have been told. She admitted then that she forgot to tell me. It was a pretty hectic time and she forgot to tell me.

Would the Minister say that the non-disclosure of this deal has led to a suspicion of mistrust?

No. As I have said, again it is about me receiving the accurate information. That was again a case where I did not receive-----

A big issue here - RTÉ is guilty of it as well - is that if you do not ask the right questions, you do not get the information.

Again, the understanding, in July, is certainly that it was an operational matter for the DG and that it was a straightforward resignation. That is what I was told - that it was an operational matter for the DG. That is the line I do not cross, which I have been very consistent on all through these eight months.

To ensure maximum transparency, and the Minister has referenced it a few times, will she expedite the publication of the aggregate exit packages to be published by RTÉ, which will be included in its annual audit?

I have asked for that. Even last Thursday, that was one of the conversations that was had. I asked the officials to follow up on the Monday and Wednesday meetings, and asked for them to pursue that.

Is it forthcoming?

I am waiting for them to get back. I think they were checking with their auditors. We want to get it ahead, if possible. Definitely ahead. Instead of having to wait to see it, and we will all see it in the summer, I think it would be very helpful to get that as soon as possible.

I thank the Minister.

I am conscious that we are approaching half-time. I will bring in Deputy Fitzpatrick first. If the Minister needs a short break afterwards, we will allow her and her officials to do that. In the meantime, I call Deputy Fitzpatrick and he has ten minutes.

I thank the Minister and her officials for coming in this evening.

First, regarding “Prime Time” last Thursday night, I do not believe you should have called it off. I think you did the right thing by going to “Prime Time” because you said the agenda was basically to do with future funding and legal advice. Then you said that you received information on your way to “Prime Time”. What information did you receive?

That there were press queries coming in. Somehow people had found out that I had been misinformed during the week and it was going to be revealed.

Was it specifically to do with Siún Ní Raghallaigh and nothing else?

That I had been misinformed during the week-----

Yes. Did you ring the DG before or after “Prime Time” or did you not ring the DG at all?

I did not ring the DG.

I think that what happened on “Prime Time” should never happen on “Prime Time”. I am a former employer and I have read your statement. If I were going to employ someone, I would consider the reference you gave in your statement to be unbelievable, because you said:

I would like to put on the record again the significant contribution Ms Ní Raghallaigh has made over the past 15 months. Her commitment to transforming RTÉ was obvious and I want to offer genuine thanks for her hard work.

First, you mentioned the phrases "genuine", "hard work" and "commitment to transforming". To me, that is someone for whom you have a lot of respect. Ms Ní Raghallaigh had been there for the last 15 months. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like you have thrown her under the bus or made her a scapegoat. Ms Ní Raghallaigh has worked for you for the last 15 months. Do you honestly believe that by not giving a vote of confidence to Ms Ní Raghallaigh last Thursday night, she was not going to do what she did? Let us say “Prime Time” was on this Thursday night and you had to go for the same meeting, would you say the same thing about your chairperson?

I think it is important to tell the truth. I put all that on record in the statement because I absolutely believe it - in being genuine, hardworking and dedicated. There is no dispute over that. As I said earlier so many times, I do not believe this was intentional but if a chair is asked a question on many occasions by a Minister and they cannot be certain of the answer, and again they are asked to double check and triple check and you get inaccurate information, then unfortunately no matter how genuine, hardworking and committed that individual is - and with absolute certainty the former chair was - the problem is that, as Minister, I am not getting the accurate information. If a Minister is not getting the accurate information, and that is the direct line, then that is an issue. I must have full confidence that I am getting reliable information. I must be absolutely sure I am getting accuracy of information and communications. That is of paramount importance, and even more so when dealing with a crisis.

Does the director general have confidence in her? Did you ever ask him if had he confidence in her?

I believe they worked very well-----

Sorry, I am asking a question. Did the DG ever tell you he had full confidence in her?

I am not sure if that exact question was ever asked but he definitely came across to me as someone who had confidence in her but there is a difference in the connection between the DG and the chair and the chair and the Government, through the Minister for media.

Have you got a good relationship with the DG?

Yes, and I would have said I had a good relationship with the chair.

No, I am coming to that. You had a good relationship with the DG. When you were heading to “Prime Time”, could you not have lifted your phone to the person you had a good relationship with and asked them the question? There is something seriously wrong here. We have been going around in circles all night. You have given the lady a fantastic reference. You said the DG had confidence in her. There is something wrong here. I just cannot put my finger on it. For example, how much was she getting paid?

Basically, it was a part-time job. A big job in RTÉ and a part-time job for €31,000. The DG is getting hundreds of thousands of euro, as I said earlier. If I was in your position, and I had a good relationship with my DG, I would lift the phone up and say, “Listen, I am going on “Prime Time” this evening. I have this information. What do you think?” You are his boss. Bosses do ring their employees to find out information.

I am not his boss. That is the point. I am not the DG’s boss. My direct line to RTÉ is via the chair. I am not the boss of the director general of RTÉ. There is no direct line there. That is the point.

Sorry. You are the boss of RTÉ. Who is your first port of call?

A part-time worker is your first port of call.

Yes. That is under the Broadcasting Act.

Okay. Let us go another way. She is your first port of call. Why did you not ring her?

Because I felt the issue was of significance-----

Were you trying to cover yourself?

No. I really feel if something like this emerges it needs a face-to-face meeting with the officials who were in the meeting with me when I was given the incorrect information. I certainly did not want a phone call where you would be relying on who said what to whom. In this particular circumstance, I felt it was really important that the people who had been in the room with me on all the occasions last week when I asked these questions were again in the room with me when I asked the question again, “What went wrong?”

Had you no time between going to “Prime Time” and ringing the chairperson? Had you no time to ring her?

As I said to you, I did not think it should be a phone call.

No, but you could have rung her and asked if she could have met you.

There was not the time. I was arriving. I was actually nearly late for “Prime Time” as the clock was ticking down.

Do you think it is a mistake that your No. 1 contact in RTÉ is the chairperson?

That is how it is defined under the Act.

No, I am asking a question. I will be honest, I have very good time for you but I am asking a simple question. Do you think it should be a part-time person who is getting €31,000 a year for doing a job? Someone is being paid over €200,000 - the director general - and the lady is being paid €31,000. I will be dead straight, and I will not use the word that I could use about being paid €31,000 to get all the flack. To me, she was the scapegoat. She was the lady who was thrown under the bus. The person who should be taking responsibility is the director general. Have you any plans to change the organisation around? Maybe I am wrong in saying it but you should not be going to a part-time worker and asking a part-time worker. I have had my own business for nearly 20 years. I would not ask someone coming in part time. It would be the person who is running the ship, doing all the business and everything else. There is something seriously wrong that the No. 1 person in RTÉ is part-time and being paid what I will not say is peanuts but they are being paid €31,000. There is something seriously wrong here at the moment.

It is not just the case for RTÉ. That is the case for State boards. That is how they operate.

I am not being smart. This is going on a long time. This is going on months and months. Every time you think you are finished, something else happens. I will be honest; I do not know anything about the lady at all and I am sure she is very good. If you gave me a copy of your statement this evening, I would give her a job because the reference you gave her was very good but she has been made a scapegoat here. She is gone. There were meetings. There is nothing written down. It is all by phone and everything else. Have you any way of following up any statements that were made over the last number of days and so on? There do not seem to be any records of anything there at the moment. Everything is hearsay or by phone. I think the Minister made a major mistake. As I said, there was no problem going on “Prime Time” because you had your agenda but given the way it was handled, I think the chair was made a scapegoat and thrown under the bus. I do not think what happened was very fair. You told me you had confidence in her and the director general had confidence in her but how come she is gone? What you said last week was you had no confidence in her. Your boss is the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan. Is your boss or is there a different chain of command? If he said in the Dáil that he had no confidence in you, I am sure you would be the first person to leave the party and so on. What happened the chairperson of RTÉ was absolutely and utterly wrong. I am not calling you a liar as I have too much respect for you, but I do believe the statement you made on “Prime Time”, by showing no confidence left the chair no option but to leave. I think it is very unfair on someone being paid €31,000 a year to be chairperson of RTÉ. The director general has confidence in her, you have confidence in her and everyone has confidence in her. I just cannot understand why she was thrown under the bus.

I never stated I had no confidence. I was trying in every possible way not to say that.

Sorry. You were asked a question the same way we are asking you questions. You do not have any problem giving her a reference. Everyone has confidence in her and you were asked a question on whether you had confidence in her. I cannot understand why, even before the conversation started, you did not turn around and say, “I have had a bit of news here this evening. I have to talk to my chairperson tomorrow morning and I will be making a statement after I meet my chairperson.” To me, that would have been the best way out of it instead of throwing her under the bus. In fairness, you did throw her under the bus. It would be the same if the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, the leader of your party, said he had no confidence in you. I guarantee you would be the first one to leave the Green Party. Imagine then if the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, gave you the reference you gave the former chair, and you have given her a fantastic reference. I do not know how you will fill the role of chairperson because you have said everything nice about the last chair and the next thing she was gone. On the job for the next chairperson, will that part-time job or will it be a full-time job? What kind of reform will you do?

Thank you, Deputy.

Can you just answer that question, please?

Is there anything the Minister wants to say to that or is she happy?

As I said before, it was a very difficult situation but I felt I had information from that day.

As I said, I would be here for other reasons if I had concealed what I had known. I did not say I had no confidence. I tried in every way to not say that when I was being pressed but, as Minister, I have to promote, protect and practise transparency. If a pattern is developing where I cannot rely on information and it looks like someone does not even want to receive a letter from a Minister, that is problematic.

Minister, we are halfway through. Do you or your officials need a break or are you happy to continue? You are happy to continue. Is everybody happy to continue? Yes. Thank you very much. We will do our best to keep it moving.

I thank the Minister and her officials for coming before us. We would all rather be here under different circumstances. We are spending three hours discussing a "Prime Time" programme and the fallout from it. I would much rather be talking about the broader issue of the future of media and public service funding or even other areas in the Minister's brief. Minister, I have been a strong supporter of yours in other areas in terms of your record on inclusion in sport and your support for the arts. You have been proactive in this area with regard to ensuring there were inquiries into RTÉ on the issues of governance and culture. I think you know I do not believe you should have done the "Prime Time" interview and I do think what happened was unfortunate. We know how much time our committee is spending on this. You have a pretty large brief. Roughly what proportion of your time do you spend on RTÉ?

In recent months?

In the past nine months.

It is hard to quantify.

As a proportion, roughly. You have a pretty large brief.

As certain issues emerge, it can absolutely dominate.

Would it be fair to say that a quarter of your----

For example, this week it is absolutely dominating.

How often would you have had contact with the chair since last July? Would it have been weekly? Would these be just occasional phone calls or regular meetings?

I have monthly meetings and then there would be ongoing contact with the officials. If there is anything of real significance, then it would be an email directly to me or a phone call directly to me.

Would it be fair to say you would have had monthly engagements, a formal sit-down meeting, and then your officials would have been in contact regularly? It is probably fair to say that, during certain weeks, you were probably talking to the chair three, four or five times a week.

You can see last week, just in relation to the legal advice, there were three meetings with the chair and then phone calls on top of that.

You have indicated that you had a pretty good working relationship with the chair and the team there. We have seen the catastrophe in RTÉ that was in many ways inherited by the former chair and the current director general. Are you and were you broadly happy with the direction in which the director general and the chair had been bringing the organisation? I totally acknowledge they made missteps and our committee would be as critical of them, but broadly speaking, are you happy with the direction in which they are taking RTÉ?

Okay. I have to say and I am disagreeing with some colleagues here, I have confidence in Kevin Bakhurst. I do not agree with everything necessarily. I think he has made some missteps, but it is important from this committee to say, in the interests of the staff who are there and in the interests of the independent production sector, but indeed for public service broadcasting, at the end of all of this we need an RTÉ that functions. I want Kevin Bakhurst to be able to do his job well. You will be aware, Minister, that the relationship between the chair and director general is also crucial, as indeed is the relationship between the chair and Minister. That is important. Looking back on last week, do you consider it to have been a breakdown in communications or a breakdown in trust?

It is hard to explain it. It is purely that I reached a place where I just felt I could not depend on the information I was receiving. Again, I say I do not believe that was intentional. I do not know why it was happening, but I was getting inaccurate information, but I do not believe it was intentional.

It was getting to a pretty difficult situation. I cannot accept, Minister, that you would go on "Prime Time" not expecting the question as to whether you have confidence in the chair. I am pretty certain that whoever would have advised you would have said to you in advance if you were prepared for this question.

I cannot predict the questioning and, as I said, I really did not want this to happen on air. That is why I was trying not to go there in relation to confidence. This was really about not getting accurate information.

I want to come back to questions my colleague, Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan was asking earlier. It seems to be that where your confidence was broken was around this issue where you had serious concerns about the information that was made available. You had said to Siún Ní Raghallaigh as chair that you were going to put those concerns in a letter to her, and Siún Ní Raghallaigh effectively threatened to resign if you sent that letter. Am I correct in that interpretation?

Yes, and there was no indication even of a meeting at that stage. That is what was conveyed to me. That was a phone call.

Is that not effectively the case then, that the chair had basically said she was going to resign?

I was hoping that was just a rash comment because I could not understand how someone would try to tell the Minister how to manage their work. I was flabbergasted.

I appreciate that, Minister, but if the chair was to say to you she was going to resign if you sent her that letter, surely at that stage you knew that was it.

I really thought it was just maybe a rash comment, because it did not make sense. It was just to send a letter to say there are issues emerging from, unfortunately, you giving inaccurate information.

Your chair came back to you and said, "If you send that letter I am going to resign." What is the point of having a meeting on the Friday morning if the chair had already indicated she was going to resign?

It was so astounding a comment that I could not believe anyone would just refuse to meet and be afforded the opportunity to talk. I was hoping the former chair would not do that.

I appreciate you saying it was so astounding, but ultimately the chair is your link and reports to you. If it is so astounding, would you not just say this is it, this is the end of the relationship?

I wanted to afford an opportunity because, as I stated in the statement, she was so genuine, hard working and committed. I wanted to afford her an opportunity. How could you have got this so wrong?

This is where I come to the question of a breakdown in communication and trust. Essentially what you are telling us is there was a breakdown in trust. If there was a breakdown in communication, that happens quite often and there can be clarity. Here you are saying there was something astounding said to you by the chair. The chair was saying, "You send a letter and I am going to resign." I just wonder then what was the point of the Friday morning meeting if, effectively, it was either a case that the chair had more or less said she was resigning or, in a sense, it was constructive dismissal, which is what a lot of us would argue happened on the "Prime Time" programme.

I was still remaining hopeful that maybe that was just something that was said in the heat of the moment and that she would take time to think about it and would come in. I did not think that was typical of the behaviour of the chair I had dealt with for the past eight months. Likewise, I felt I could depend on the information I was being given in recent months, I could not understand what had happened last week, and I just wanted to talk it through.

You said earlier, however, there were a number of instances where you did not feel you were getting accurate information. To suddenly come to this conclusion I just find difficult.

Given the close relationship between the director general and the chair and the support she enjoyed from the board which is now evident, did it occur to the Minister that there was a serious risk of the director general and the board resigning on foot of the "Prime Time" interview?

I am delighted that the members of the board have stayed in place and that we are going to meet this week. I have to act in a way where if I do not have the accurate information and there are problems, I have to query things. I had to correct the public record too. On foot of being given the incorrect information on Monday, I clarified it for the chair because she had not done so. That is why I went out on Monday. There seemed to be confusion as to why it had not been clarified. I said I would do it, given that I then had the correct information.

The Minister has indicated that she has full confidence in the director general of RTÉ and the direction in which he is taking the organisation. Does the Minister have full confidence in the board of RTÉ as well?

I have two questions on future issues. One is the intention to appoint a new chair. Are discussions going on about this? Will he or she be an interim chair? Is there a decision to have a full-time or part-time chair in place? When will that appointment be made?

My second point is on the bigger-picture issue. When does the Minister intend to bring a paper to the Cabinet regarding the future funding model?

On the question of the chair, I would like to move to appoint a full-time chair. The board met last week and the members agreed to have a rotating chair until we have a full-time chair in place. I would like to move on that, if I can, within the week. In relation to the-----

Is it correct to say that the Minister is sounding out individuals out at the moment?

Yes, we are active on this, in consultation with senior members of the Cabinet.

Regarding the future funding model, I am waiting for the reports from the expert advisory committees. I have always said that. They are due in March. I want to move as soon as possible. I have always said that I feel it should be done before the summer. The sooner, the better.

We certainly share that view. Will we see movement on this by April or May?

Yes, that is what I would wish to happen.

I thank Senator Byrne. Deputy Griffin has ten minutes.

In the past, has the Minister ever picked up the phone to call Siún Ní Raghallaigh?

To ring her in the last eight months? Yes.

Whenever there were real issues of concern, or key moments in the development of the story.

Did it happen a few times a week or a few times a month?

No, it would not have been a few times a week. The officials would talk a few times a week and I would try to meet her once a month.

The Minister would feel at liberty to pick up the phone and call her if issues arose. Is that correct?

If there was an issue, I would feel that I should pick up the phone to call her.

Would the Minister use text or WhatsApp messages?

No, I do not use text or WhatsApp messages.

Okay, so no text or WhatsApp messages. When it emerged that this-----

On one occasion I used the automatic "text me I'm busy" function, but that was about it.

On this occasion, it was becoming clear that this was a very serious situation, yet the Minister did not feel it warranted her picking up the phone and speaking to the chair.

No, I felt it required a face-to-face meeting, as I said, because these conversations had happened in front of my officials. There was now a question mark over what had been said repeatedly to me, so I thought it warranted having the officials there. During the course of Thursday, the language that was used was that she "imagined" she had told the former Secretary General. That made me even more cautious about phone calls.

Was the letter that was talked about drafted?

Does the Minister have a copy of this letter she can furnish to the committee?

In the letter did the Minister call for Ms Ní Raghallaigh's resignation?

No, I asked to meet her on the Friday morning at 10 a.m., either virtually or in person.

Earlier, the Minister said that the story was about to break. It is hard to imagine how anyone else could have known about it because it was such a small circle of people. Will the Minister investigate how that could have been known?

Yes, it was with ourselves. Of course I had informed the chiefs of staff as well.

Earlier, the Minister claimed that RTÉ and "Prime Time" were not aware that this story was about to break.

Then why did the Minister give them the scoop on the air?

Because as I was approaching Montrose, I was aware that the story was about to break. I felt I had to be open on it, so I said-----

Given the sensitivity of the situation, the Minister did not have to tell this story live on air. The Minister did not tell us about the letter or the threatened resignation. Why did the Minister tell us about this particular aspect of the information?

As I said earlier, if I had not, then I would be here before the committee for not telling the truth.

The Minister did not tell us lots of things that night that we have just found out tonight, but she did tell us that particular thing.

I did not want to reveal those things because I was trying to protect her. I was hoping, in that case, that she would change her mind.

Surely the Minister knew that by going ahead with the interview, taking this line and revealing what she revealed, and given that the chair was in such a position leading into the interview, there was no way back after it. Surely the Minister must have known that. It is not credible that she would not have deciphered that that would have been the outcome.

As I said many times on that interview, I was really trying to afford her the opportunity to come in on the Friday. On the Monday, I had gone on public record on foot of the information given to me. It is important to correct the public record when one is in possession of new information.

Earlier, the Minister told us that it was important that she would give the full picture. However, the Minister did not give the full picture at all. She did not tell us about the letter, the resignation or other issues. The Minister did give us some information. That is not a credible position, as there is no consistency. Is that not the case?

Regarding getting incorrect information, I felt that needed to be told. I did reveal that I had sent a letter.

Prior to last Thursday, how many times has the Minister appeared on "Prime Time" since taking office?

Not very many, but I had agreed to do it this time. I had declined to appear twice in the last two months. On the Tuesday, we had decided that I should come forward, because I had been calling for transparency. I was conscious in relation to RTÉ that I was trying to leave key moments that had to do with the DG, or with reports, for the DG to speak on them. I had signalled to the DG and the former chair that as they were doing media, I would do media at the end of the day.

I can only see two "Prime Time" appearances for the Minister in almost four years, prior to last Thursday. Given that the Minister was on the verge of something really huge, did she not think that it was not the time to go ahead? By the way, there was plenty to fill the programme. There was the Kerry drugs bust and the Console issue, among others. The makers of "Prime Time" were not stuck for material. The Minister had only appeared on the programme twice in almost four years. Why did the Minister think it was necessary to go on last Thursday night?

Because I had given the commitment earlier and because I was not able to do the programme in the previous month. I felt that I should go on.

A large tranche of documents was sent by RTÉ to the Minister's Department in late November last year. I presume the Minister has seen them.

Among those documents were the new terms of reference for the remuneration committee. Did the Minister see those?

Have I seen them? Yes.

The Department informed her and furnished her with them. Is that correct?

We were furnished with them along with 16 other documents.

When? Was it at the time they were received?

No, not at that time, because they were not even signalled. It was in relation to a question-and-answer governance document.

It should not have been any surprise to the Minister or the Department that the exit packages would be subject to oversight by the directors, arising from those documents.

Arising from those documents? They were received two months after Mr. Collins's package.

Prior to ten days ago, when the Minister read in the media about the exit packages and the involvement of the board, the Minister would have known before that that the terms of reference would have set this out. Is that correct?

It had not been clear because we only received them two months after the package.

Yes, but the Minister had them since last November.

That is exactly why I had to ask the questions last week, because it was not clear.

Why did it take until last week to ask these questions if the Department had these documents since last November?

It was from the end of November. It was not clear at all.

Our understanding was that when the deal with Mr. Collins was done in early October that the old terms of reference applied and the board had no approval because the only official formal notification we got of changes was from the chair to me. The chair would email all those key moments and key pieces of reform to me.

RTÉ had given it to the Minister in writing literally what the procedure was.

Will the Minister furnish the committee with those documents?

Because she has had them since 30 November.

Why at a meeting of this committee on 28 November did the Minister tell me that her Department had no input into the question of the advertising of the licence fee being stopped when it had and it had been informed?

We had no role in that. We have no active role. That is an information-sharing forum.

Why when I asked the Minister the question did she just surmise that the decision was based on it maybe going down poorly with the public at the time?

I clearly said that day that there is no role for the Department in this. This is a decision for RTÉ. Obviously, my officials meet regularly with RTÉ and An Post concerning the TV licence but it is not a decision-----

Why did her parliamentary replies to me on this issue not refer to that? Why did it take until a parliamentary reply from her last Friday - there was a reply from RTÉ yesterday - for her to correct the answer she gave me that her Department had been advised of this?

I think we said we were not involved in deciding on it. My officials are not involved in the decision-making process. That meeting is an information-sharing forum. We cannot influence that.

An operational forum is operating and none of the Minister's replies ever referred to that even though I was asking specific questions and the Minister would have said that it was not something that would have been discussed with her Department. I am pointing out that there seems to be a dysfunctional miscommunication problem within the Department. I accept that in a committee meeting, the Minister might not have that information to hand but in a number of written responses, none of this was referred to until last Friday. It had to be dragged out of the Minister and only because Mr. Bakhurst's information here on 14 February was inconsistent with the information the Minister gave me verbally and in written form. Why is that? Is this not indicative of a significant communication problem in the Department and is this not part of the reason we have the debacle that arose last Thursday?

No. That is an information-sharing forum. We have no role whatsoever, and that is what I said in that committee, in influencing those decisions.

During that committee meeting, I asked the Minister whether she was aware.

What I said was that there were no discussions on it. What we said to the Deputy that it was conveyed. At the meeting, I said that this is an editorial decision for RTÉ, which it is, and we cannot influence that in any shape or form.

The Minister could only surmise. She was not aware of the rationale behind this even though we are talking about €20 million lost since July. This is not small. It is big. The Minister told me she could only surmise, so was she unaware at this forum. Did her officials not inform her of it, is it something that just recently came to her attention or did she know about it and convey false information here?

No. What I am saying is that the Deputy had various opinions on why it might happen.

I had specific questions. They were very simple black and white questions.

I was saying it may have been tone deaf to have your ads on Kerry FM and LMFM with regard to the TV licence.

Was the Minister aware of this forum?

Of course, I know there is a forum that meets monthly but it is information-----

When did the Minister find out about the forum?

I know there is a forum.

When did she find out about it?

It has always been there.

When did she find out? Did she know before she told me what she told me on 28 November?

Of course, I know there is a forum but it is an information-sharing forum.

The Minister knew before 28 November that this forum existed.

But she neglected to inform me about this forum in numerous parliamentary replies and before this committee. That was a lengthy discussion and the officials around the Minister were there yet she did not think it important to tell me this.

Because I was pointing to the fact that it was an editorial decision for RTÉ and that is what I said in the committee. I said that we have no role in it and I still stand by the argument that we have no role in it because we cannot influence that.

Would the Minister at least accept that she was economical with the truth in terms of telling us what was going on?

That was not my intention. I was merely pointing to the fact that we have no role whatsoever in that. That was my presumption of what the Deputy was trying to get to in his questions. It certainly was not my intention in any shape or form to mislead.

Could the Minister tell me whether she has had any subsequent contact with Siún Ní Raghallaigh since last Thursday?

Will the Minister be in contact with her?

I do not imagine so.

When was the last time the Minister was in contact with her?

It was the third meeting on Wednesday.

With regard to the interview on "Prime Time" on Thursday night, did the Minister inform the interviewer in advance that she would be disclosing that information?

As often happens in interviews, the topics that would be discussed were signalled. I believe my adviser signalled that there was an issue about to break regarding the board and that I was-----

Did the Minister convey to the interviewer that she would be raising it?

Who conveyed it?

Yes. As is often the case, you discuss these topics before and we felt it was the right thing to do to flag that something was emerging and that I would be willing to speak to it.

I thank the Minister and her officials for coming before us this evening. Can the Minister tell us how many staff she has working personally for her as Minister and how many staff are working in the news and broadcast unit of her Department?

I can get the exact figures for the Senator. As the Senator can imagine, the number is quite vast as it is a huge Department that is not just based here but in other places across the country but I can supply her with those figures.

Given RTÉ is in receipt of bailout money from the Government predating this crisis, again had to get a bailout at the end of last year and is awaiting further money this year, how many Department officials are working solely on RTÉ at this point in time?

I will have to come back on that. I think the number is four because we have the secretariat of the expert advisory committee and our assistant secretary and principal officer are the main people who deal with it.

What questions did the Minister ask them? What did she ask them about the approval process for the exits to prepare herself in advance of the meeting that took place last Monday?

We always have briefings ahead of meetings. I would have even flagged with them that weekend that there was a question over what I was reading in the papers and how that could possibly be true because that one was referring to July and we teased out the questions we would ask not only on the severance packages but how it now arose with regard to the role of the board.

The Minister's staff would have been aware. Her officials were aware of the new terms of reference of the remuneration committee and the process with regard to the approval of exits and they would have informed the Minister of that before the meeting last Monday.

The key point was not that they were in place for Mr. Collins's package. We were not aware of that because we never received a formal communication.

But the Minister's officials sat in a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts last September and heard Paula Mullooly set out exactly what the changes were. That is correct.

That was in October two days after the agreement had been reached.

I understood it was September. Perhaps it was October. Regarding the meeting that took place last Monday, who was with the Minister when she asked that specific question about board approval?

The principal officer, the assistant secretary, the Secretary General, my adviser, the chair and the DG were with me.

Nobody piped up when the chair said what she had to say. Nobody said anything to try to correct or clarify the record at that meeting.

Is there something further to be added?

Surely it says a lot about the culture and the relationship between those attending the meeting that nobody else would clarify what had actually happened with regard to the approval process even if the chair did not remember. This is telling in itself.

On Wednesday, the chair volunteered the information that the new approval procedures would take place in the future.

Not only was she saying they have not taken place on these two, but she pointed to the fact that we have new terms and they will govern any future severance packages. We will now have a role in the future, going forward.

No official at that meeting asked, "We were told the remuneration committee had the new terms of reference as of late last year, why has it not taken effect before now?"

That is exactly why we were just double-checking with the former chair in that meeting. That was the full point, because we could not understand why it was reported in the paper and I was asking, "Why have you not clarified this because you did not have a role?" This was even in relation to July.

With regard to the exit package of Richard Collins, did you ask at any time prior to last Monday about the details of the exit package for him? You knew there was a process, you knew there was mediation. Did you ever ask what the outcome of that process was?

I knew that it had been a long, independent mediation process. I suppose the exact point is because it was a matter for the DG, that is why I would not ask the question.

Sorry Minister----

If I had known that the chair had had a role, then I would ask a question.

RTÉ is in receipt of State moneys that your Department is overseeing. Surely the question would have been asked about what the outcome of that process was. Are you telling me that no official in your Department had knowledge as to the outcome of that process?

On the total sum, absolutely not, no. That is an operational matter for the DG and, as we have learned in the last week, bound by a confidentiality clause that cannot be breached. It is not for me, as Minister, or my officials to ask the DG to break a legal agreement.

You expressed surprise at the sum of Breda O'Keeffe's exit package. Why did you or your officials not ask questions as to what that package was when it became apparent late last year that she had gone out on a voluntary exit package that was not in accordance with the rules of the scheme?

Again that is an operational matter for the DG and that is the line that a Minister should not cross. It took the DG to be under the privilege of the committee to reveal that.

I would like, Minister, and if it is okay, Cathaoirleach, the committee to request all correspondence between officials and RTÉ with regard to all these exit packages. I find it astounding that RTÉ is in receipt of a State bailout and no questions would be asked about the value of these exit packages.

You will see the full quantum of those in the annual accounts.

That the Department would choose not to apprise itself of the value of the packages----

We have asked for it to be brought forward, that aggregate sum. We cannot cross over a legal line. We cannot cross over the line between the DG and myself. It was a very drawn-out legal process.

I think there are questions to be asked another day. You talked about a vast number of staff working on RTÉ; what are they doing? Anyway, I have other questions.

If you had 100,000 people working in RTÉ, you cannot break the law. You cannot ask for something that simply cannot be given.

I think that to have State money, a bailout, going to RTÉ, and not to ask the very basic questions, for you to be finding out through the media about what people are getting by way of exit packages is frankly astounding. With regard to last Thursday night, you informed the nation that you felt you were misled. Why did you not clarify that Siún Ní Raghallaigh had provided clarification that morning on the issues on which you were misled that week?

Because I thought it was pertinent, it was information that I now had.

But you said you were misled. You did not offer that a clarification had come that morning to clear up the misleading information you had gotten on Monday and Wednesday.

I think that was what I was saying in the interview, that it had now come to my attention that it was incorrect information.

No, but she had corrected the information and you did not make that clear. The second question is that you informed the nation through that interview that a meeting was to take place on Friday, yet we learn this evening that Siún Ní Raghallaigh had indicated, according to yourself, that she was not going to attend that meeting. Was the meeting to take place or not? It seemed fairly clear on Thursday night that a meeting was to take place but we hear now that a meeting was not likely to take place if the former chair was not going to attend.

It remained my hope that she would. I would find it an incredible situation if a chair would not come in to a meeting. I had sent the letter at least two hours earlier and had not received a refusal to it.

On the new chair, what kind of working relationship do you intend to have when a new chair is appointed? I think a new chair looking at this would have a concern that if there is a problem, there will be a risk that you would air your grievances on the public airwaves as opposed to dealing with it through a meeting. What relationship do you intend to have? What assurances can you give to the incoming chair that business will be done within a meeting and not over the airwaves?

The same that I will speak to the board on this week, that the focus is absolutely on moving forward, putting RTÉ and public service media on a sure footing, on making sure the reforms are implemented. With any new chair, the only issue for me is that I must be in possession of all facts at all times.

Do you accept that you damaged RTÉ last week and that you have also caused enormous difficulties for those in the independent production sector? I understand from freelance crews that no projects have been approved for March and April. These are people's jobs, their schedules, their productions. Any project over €1 million has to go through the board yet we do not have a functioning board because there is no chair. Do you accept that you have caused damage to the independent production sector because of the decisions you made last Thursday and the result now that we have no chair and no functioning board of RTÉ?

The board is continuing to meet and has decided on a rotating chair until we put a chair in place. That is my absolute priority now. It is not correct to say there is not a functioning board.

Are you aware that effectively no decisions have been made by the board, or certainly that there are issues within RTÉ regarding approving external commissions? This is having a very serious impact on the independent production sector and there is a stalemate within RTÉ now which is being exacerbated by your actions last Thursday night.

The board is continuing to meet and I am going to meet with the board this week.

Are you concerned that effectively no decisions have been made and all commissioning has been paused for March and April? Projects have been put on hold and deferred to the end of the year. Are you concerned about that?

Obviously the board made a decision to continue meeting and I will meet them on Monday. My concern and focus is on getting the future funding model absolutely on a sure footing for RTÉ. On the issues the Senator is raising now regarding productions, I was not aware it had just been frozen in the last few days, that these decisions were made just in the last four or five days.

I think it is the past few weeks, to be honest. These issues have been there for the past few weeks and they have become exacerbated by what has happened over the last few days.

I thought you were saying it was just on foot of the chair stepping down.

There is a general stalemate within RTÉ that has now become worse. I am asking if that is a cause of concern for you.

Obviously that is why my focus has been on those expert advisory committees, getting the recommendations and moving. I think what the sector actually needs to put them on a sure footing is that future funding model, that certainty. Also, once we have the expert advisory committees, the first tranche of the €40 million will be released.

My last question is on bogus self-employment. We understand that RTÉ has made a provision regarding those who have been found to be legitimate employees as opposed to self-employed. We also have concerns that the €20 million as I understand it makes no provision for entitlements. What actions have you taken as Minister to ensure that RTÉ has proper provision for misclassifying workers as self-employed when in fact they were employees? The bill will be much greater than €20 million.

That matter is ongoing with the Department of Social Protection and it is not for me to interfere in that. I hope that all staff are treated properly, equally and fairly and I have always said that. In relation to the broader picture, it is my hope that we can reach a decision on the funding model as soon as possible.

Have you taken steps to ensure that RTÉ has proper provisions in place to meet the bill that will be associated with the misclassification of workers as self-employed?

We will have to establish what that figure is. That is unknown. As I said, the Department of Social Protection is continuing the scoping investigation into that classification and potential reclassification. Even RTÉ does not know the final figure yet because the Department of Social Protection is still making its-----

I will have to conclude there, Senator Sherlock. I will move on to Deputy Ó Murchú. The floor is his and he has ten minutes.

I thank the Minister and her officials for coming before the committee. I hope I will not repeat a huge amount, and we have obviously been through a fair amount already. Can I get some clarity about the times we are talking about on Thursday? Who exactly did Siún Ní Raghallaigh contact? Can the Minister give an outline of what happened throughout the day until “Prime Time”?

I have a timeline here. There was a call with the assistant secretary at 10 a.m. I was asked already to release this, and we are happy to do so if needed. The chair rang the assistant secretary at approximately 10 a.m. to say that she had inadvertently given me incorrect information.

Did she did not say how she had done that? Was she not asked how she gave incorrect information?

She said that she made an error and gave me incorrect information in the meetings that week, which were on Monday and Wednesday. She told me about the incorrect information; she said she had forgotten that she had actually did approve that package.

The assistant secretary thanked her for the clarification and said she would report back and let me know. Then she came back and said that to me. I was in Leinster House, and I think it was an hour later that I came back from Leinster House. I do not remember the exact time.

Did your assistant secretary tell you at approximately 11 a.m.?

Obviously, there was a conversation between those of us who had been in the meetings on the Monday and the Wednesday. I was quite taken aback, because the line of questioning had been quite detailed, especially on the Wednesday morning, as I have said. I had received the cover letter that was-----

I get that. We have a limited amount of time, so could we go through this quickly?

Yes. Then, I made the decision. I said that I would have to write to the chair about this because it is a significant error. The assistant secretary then rang the former chair at approximately 2 p.m. to advise her that I had been concerned about the incorrect information, that I had gone out in public to clarify the record for her and that I would write to state that-----

What exactly were you going to write to state?

At that stage, she had just said that the Minister would write to a letter to state that she is disappointed. I feel like I am speaking in the third person about myself, and I do not mean to do that.

I would write a letter to say that I was disappointed. I indicated that a letter was coming. The chair said that she regretted the error. She then stated that she believed she phoned the former Secretary General last October to say that the independent process had concluded and that he would be leaving the organisation. In that phone call she said - this is the language she used - that she “imagined” she would have also referred to the role of the board in approving this.

She stated that she believed that she may have told the Secretary General at that stage exactly how this process was going to work. Did this conversation occur at approximately 2.15 p.m.?

It probably did, yes.

You were told about this at 2.15 p.m. At that stage, as far as you know, if Siún Ní Raghallaigh is sent a letter that speaks of your disappointment - which is basically a telling-off - she will be resigning. Is that the case?

Not yet. Not at that stage. The new information in that phone call was that she imagined that she had told the former Secretary General of the role of the remuneration committee.

There was a call after that. I think the Secretary General might have been before a committee. When the Secretary General came back, we spoke to him about this. The chair rang the Secretary General at approximately 2.30 p.m. and-----

The chair rang the Secretary General at approximately 2.30 p.m.

Yes, and she expressed to him her unhappiness at the prospect of receiving a letter from me which would reflect my disappointment.

Right. At approximately 2.30 p.m. you became aware that if the letter was sent, as far as she is concerned-----

She stated that she felt that if I wrote a letter saying I was disappointed, she would see that as a lack of confidence and she would have to consider her position.

A lack of confidence and disappointment. Also, this information is likely to come out in a freedom of information request at a later stage anyway. You are aware of that. After 2.30 p.m. was there any further correspondence between your Department or anyone else with Siún Ní Raghallaigh?

There was a call with the assistant secretary at 4.30 p.m. The chair phoned the assistant secretary.

What happened in that phone conversation?

The chair told the assistant secretary that RTÉ had just received a press query about the approval of exit packages and the role of the remuneration committee.

Right. At that stage, all the information is with all the main players. Is that the case?

I think RTÉ had received a press query from one person or organisation.

Either way, at 4.30 p.m. all the information was already in play, but you were still going to go ahead with “Prime Time” at 9.30 p.m. Can we take it that after 4.30 p.m., no other communication happened?

No. The assistant secretary called the former Secretary General because Siún Ní Raghallaigh had indicated that she had imagined that she had spoken to her. She said she was just checking with the former Secretary General. She said she had recalled being told by the chair that the settlement had been reached through independent mediation and that he would be leaving. However, the Secretary General had no recollection of being told that it was approved by the remuneration committee of the board. I think it was around that time that I spoke with the Secretary General too.

At that stage it was 4.30 p.m. and, to a degree, the checks and balances had happened in relation to checking the stories in your statement in front of us today.

Yes, and I was in the process of deciding whether I would send a letter to the former chair.

When did you send the letter?

I think it was approximately 7 p.m. or 7.30 p.m.

Between 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m., you sent a letter that states-----

Sorry, there was another call. There was a call with the Secretary General at approximately 6.45 p.m. At this stage he rang the chair to say I had made the decision to issue the letter and to seek a meeting the following morning. He reminded her that I was in a prearranged interview with "Prime Time". She would have been aware of that from the day before. He indicated to the chair that if I were asked, it was not a thing I could conceal, if I had been given the wrong information. The chair stated she was not happy at the idea of being called to another meeting that week, because she had been at a few meetings. We were offering virtual as well as in person, but the chair said at that stage she was unhappy at the idea of another meeting.

She is unhappy with a meeting. She is unhappy with a letter stating that the Minister is disappointed in her, and we all know the threat of her resigning is on the table. The letter is sent at 7.30 p.m.

The Secretary General rang again, because he came back to me with the information that she was not happy about having to meet. However, I felt that if I had made the decision, I needed to send the letter. I was not going to change my mind. I obviously felt it was worthy of a meeting to discuss it. The Secretary General then rang the chair at approximately 7.10 p.m. to say exactly that, that I really felt it was still important. I could not change my mind on that when I had made the decision in discussion with the officials that we would be writing the letter and offering to meet in person or online.

At 7.30 p.m. the letter is sent.

Yes, another phone call.

Everybody is aware of what exactly is in play. You are sending a letter to a chair who you said you thought was really diligent and showed huge commitment. You know that if you are sending her a letter of censure that she has already stated she is going to resign. We are a couple of hours away from you going on "Prime Time". Are you happy with the questions and your commentary on "Prime Time", where you repeat the fact you were given inaccurate information but also that you were disappointed? We know that was obviously the issue the chair had, that you were sending a letter of disappointment. If I had more time I would ask you if you are happy you went on "Prime Time", are you reasonably happy you were asked the question, are you happy with the answer you gave, and are you happy that Siún Ní Raghallaigh resigned? Based on what happened that day and the questions you have asked, I cannot see any other way this was going to work out. You gave her no way out, and we had a forced resignation live on "Prime Time".

That was certainly not my intention at all. I had information going into "Prime Time" and I explained the background in my statement. It is not that I expressed no confidence. I kept the door open.

You knew the issue she had with the word "disappointment", that you were disappointed. You knew that she was willing to resign over a letter. It has already been said, and most reasonable people would say, that if there were a fear with regard to miscommunication or relying on third parties, you would just lift the phone, have the conversation and get beyond that. There was plenty of time not to go on "Prime Time". As a final question, do you believe-----

Deputy Ó Murchú, come on. You are way over.

-----you are happy with the commentary and language you used when asked the question?

Yes or no, Minister, to try to move along.

It is not a yes or no answer, as I have said many times today. I tried every way not to say I had no confidence. It is only to be expected that a Minister would expect a State board chair to meet her if requested. Those are some of the basics in it. I would have thought she would give consideration to it, and that is why I tried in every possible way not to say I had no confidence. I kept repeating that I wanted to afford her the opportunity.

Thank you, Minister, and your staff. I know it has been a long evening and I appreciate your honesty. I also put on the record Siún Ní Raghallaigh's commitment and what she has given to RTÉ in 15 months. I do not know her personally, but listening to people talk about the lady she seems a person of great integrity and honesty who did her very best to bring transparency to RTÉ. I may come back to some of Deputy Ó Murchú's points, but first on transparency and openness in RTÉ, will you now support Sinn Féin's motion to bring RTÉ under the Comptroller and Auditor General and the public accounts committee, knowing what you know now about the lack of transparency and openness in the organisation? I ask for a yes or no on that, please.

I have always said, and I think only recently with yourself, Deputy, that is certainly worthy of consideration. I am waiting to see if that is a recommendation from the expert advisory committees.

On the expert advisory committee, you said you hope to have their reports in March. Will there be a commitment given, following those reports in March, that we will finally get a decision on the TV licence and funding and having RTÉ under the public accounts committee? Will that be given in March and not kicked down the road? As you have said, previous governments have kicked this down the road. You are the Minister now. Can we have that commitment?

On the C and AG, I have to see what the recommendation is from the expert advisory committees. However, as I said to you only recently in the Dáil, Deputy, I am determined that we make that decision at the earliest possible time.

If you have the reports in March, how long will it take? There is a large number of reports now. We have the Future of Media Commission report, which recommends the abolition of the TV licence. It also recommends that RTÉ would come under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the public accounts committee. Will you give that commitment, or are you going to let Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael kick it down the road until after the next local or general elections?

No, as I said to you as well, Deputy, only two weeks ago, the local and European elections were not my focus on this. It was about focusing on getting the decision made, and that certainly would not stop me.

Okay. Deputy Ó Murchú went through the timeline. Between 7.30 p.m. and 9.30 p.m., was there any more communication or anything else happening before you went on "Prime Time".

With the chair? I accept that I would have communicated with my chief of staff to communicate with the other chiefs of staff that this issue had emerged and I was sending a letter.

I listened to the way Deputy Ó Murchú forensically went through the timeline. I have never heard the amount of phone calls and contacts between chairpersons, former chairpersons, assistant secretaries general and former Secretaries General. Last Thursday was crazy. For you then to make a decision to go on national television knowing everything that was happening, why did you not press pause? If you thought the chair had made mistakes, surely out of respect for the lady you would have given her an opportunity to come in front of you. Why did you not pick up the phone yourself? You said all along that your communication was not with the director general but with the chair, so why did you not communicate with the chair?

I wanted an in-person meeting with the chair for the reason that I wanted all those who had been in the room with me on Monday and Wednesday, and that is why there were so many phone calls. All of us who had been there in the meetings on the Monday and Wednesday could not understand, given how I had asked this question quite often on the Monday and especially on the Wednesday, it was suddenly emerging there was a lapse of memory.

By the time the Minister went on "Prime Time" on Thursday night, had the Minister discussed what had happened on Thursday with any of the party leaders? Had she told them that she was going on national television and obviously this was going to come up? Did she not discuss that with the party leaders?

I had contacted the chiefs of staff, through the Green Party chief of staff, to say that this issue had emerged and that I was sending a letter. I signalled that I had a prearranged agreement to go on "Prime Time". That is all that the-----

The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Transport all knew this was breaking and that the Minister was going on-----

They would not have known it was breaking because I only got that word as I was coming into Montrose, but they would have known I had sent a letter.

I do not mean to put the Minister under pressure, but I am going through the timeline. She said earlier that on the 7.30 p.m. call, RTÉ had been contacted to say that revelations were breaking at another media organisation. Is that true? What time did that happen?

I think it was around 4.30 p.m. We can release the-----

My point is if that happened at 4.30 p.m. and the Minister was going on "Prime Time" at 9.30 p.m., that was five hours later. There were a number of calls before and after that and the leaders were not notified that this was happening. I just-----

They knew I had issued a letter to the chair seeking to meet her the following day. They knew it was issued because she had now remembered that she had chaired the remuneration committee that cleared the exit package. They knew that I had asked that question several times and that the answer was different that Thursday. They also knew I had a prearranged interview with "Prime Time".

I watched "Prime Time" on Thursday night and then I turned over to "The Tonight Show" because for political people it was gripping viewing. I sincerely felt sorry for the chairperson, Siún Ní Raghallaigh, because I knew the first time the Minister was asked whether she had confidence that that lady was gone. I have only been a TD for four years, but I knew that. Surely the Minister, her staff who were with her and the officials in her Department knew that once the Minister was asked that question that Ms Ní Raghallaigh was gone.

The question was asked earlier whether this was a conscious decision. There was nothing for the chair to do but to fall on her sword. What was the hurry about doing "Prime Time"? I do not mean any disrespect, but I was available last Thursday and I would have done it if the producers were looking for someone to interview. The Minister did not need to be there. I imagine Ms Ní Raghallaigh was at home last Thursday evening with phone call after phone call coming in to tell her that the Minister was going to write to say that she was disappointed in her for not revealing all the information.

I was at the media committee meeting last Thursday. I am new to this committee. I asked the director general whether Rory Coveney resigned and I was told he did. I asked whether he got a payout and I was told he did. Then I asked why he got a payout, given that he resigned. The Minister still has confidence - I am not saying she should not - in the director general, but it seems there is one rule for the chair and another for the director general. From what I can see in the timeline, the Minister knew what would happen at 11 a.m. last Thursday.

No, I did not. I was still hopeful that she would agree to meet me on the Friday, no matter what she was saying, because I felt it was a rash decision. It is quite unprecedented for a chair of a State body to refuse to meet a Minister so I was still hopeful it would happen. I said it on several occasions on "Prime Time". I was trying to keep the door open by not saying I had no confidence and by saying I wanted to afford her an opportunity to speak to me.

We are playing around with words. The Minister knew last Thursday evening. Ms Ní Raghallaigh had let the Minister know that if she sent a letter, she would probably resign, or that she was considering doing so, and the Minister still sent a letter at 7.30 p.m., two hours before going live. I do not think there was a need for the letter to be sent at 7.30 p.m. If it was going to be sent, it should have been sent during the day. All these phone calls happened. Why was the letter sent at 7.30 p.m.?

The Deputy has to understand that we were trying to establish the facts. We were almost in shock that the story had changed that Thursday, such was the extent of the questioning, especially the previous day at the Wednesday meeting. I simply could not understand so I was going back, asking whether she was certain and explaining that I could not understand this because only the day before she had said "under no circumstances" and "in future". I could not understand that, so there was a lot of not understanding how everything could have changed and then I had to decide how best to approach it.

From what I can see, the Minister did not have confidence in the chair on Thursday. She wrote to the chair looking for a meeting. At that meeting on Friday, if she had turned up, the Minister was going to tell her she was disappointed. From what I can see and from listening to the Minister's comments, she did not have confidence in the chair. Surely the Minister should have given her the respect of not doing the "Prime Time" interview. This woman has put in a tremendous amount of work over 15 months. Did the Minister's officials not think of advising her? I know they are not being questioned tonight. Did someone not say it to her? The whole place knew this.

Who alerted the media to this happening because it is like a set-up?

Okay. The Minister to conclude.

I have no idea. We started getting text messages on the way to Montrose at around 9 p.m. It is certainly not something I would ever want to happen as I am going into "Prime Time". I have no idea whatsoever who alerted the media, but it was not only one media outlet that had the story or that came to my attention around 9 p.m. on Thursday.

I will ask one more small question. Last week I asked the director general, Kevin Bakhurst-----

Deputy Gould.

Everyone has got fair-----

I know, but we have ten minutes left.

I have one last question.

Very quickly.

It is a tiny one. Last week I asked the director general, Kevin Bakhurst, whether a person who resigns gets a payment. With all the officials the Minister has and all the comings and goings in RTÉ in recent months, did no one think of asking that question?

If a person resigns, do they get a payout?

The operation-----

It would not happen in the private sector.

Operational matters such as that are matters for the DG. It was my understanding that it was a straightforward resignation, but unfortunately last week the chair admitted to me that she forgot to tell me it was not a straightforward resignation.

We will move on. We have received apologies from Deputy Ciarán Cannon. I omitted to say so at the beginning so I am noting it now. Senator Dooley, the floor is yours. You have ten minutes.

I welcome the Minister and thank her for being with us for so long.

I will pay tribute to Siún Ní Raghallaigh. I have had the benefit of meeting her here on numerous occasions. I found her to be beyond reproach, as someone who took on a difficult job and put an immense effort into trying to resolve this issue. One can only imagine the challenges she faced, the kind of detail she was trying to work through on a daily basis and the multiplicity of angles that were emerging, all for what is a non-executive role. I doubt she realised the breadth and depth of work that was involved, but she seemed to take it on. It is a huge loss to the organisation and to the State that she is gone. I just wanted to put that on record. I have full confidence in her notwithstanding the issues that have arisen and I share the position of others in having confidence in Kevin Bakhurst and the work he is trying to do.

I want to try to understand how we got to where we are. I will not go over the issues in detail. Based on everything you have said, the core of it is that inaccurate information was provided to you. You were misinformed by the former chair, but you accept that this was inadvertent. You have said that.

I do not feel it was intentional.

It was inadvertent, yes.

I have a lot of respect for the former chair.

It was unintentional. There was no board approval for the exit packages of two individuals. That was really the core issue. That is your big issue - that there was no board approval for these, although there was a promise that it would happen in the future.

Yes, that I had been told there had been no board approval and that I had been told in the same week that the chair forgot to tell me about-----

That happened on Monday and it happened on Wednesday. Then you got clarification. I do not mean to be facetious, but that sounds a bit like a child and a teacher or a parent having a conversation where the child says, "I do not have my homework done", and the question is, "Do you have your homework done?". The answer is, "No, I do not have my homework done", and then, a little later, it is a case of "Ah, I have my homework done. I did actually get it done." In truth, Siún Ní Raghallaigh has been pilloried for doing what she intended to do. Granted, she misinformed the Minister - I think she accepts that, from what I have read - that it would happen in future. It has actually happened in the past, however. There was board oversight and it did get board approval. I get that there was a little bit of misinformation, but who among us has not forgotten something? When you put that in the overall context and the detail through which she was working with the various different investigations, I think she could be forgiven for it. Would you accept that is a fair characterisation?

I agree with the Senator on all the positives he is saying about the chair. There is no denying it. As I said on many occasions here, she is genuine, committed, hard-working and dedicated to the good of public service broadcasting. Unintentional or not, however - I am saying I believe it was unintentional - it is not as simple as having no homework done. The direct line of communication with the Minister for media is the chair of the board of RTÉ, and I, or any other Minister, must have full confidence in the accuracy of information and the reliability of communications.

I get both that and point on the accuracy of the information, but the probity of the work that was done was there. There was a miscommunication, and we accept that, but the probity and governance are what is really important. Fair enough, she got a bit of information wrong. The Minister referred to numerous occasions, but it was numerous occasions relating to the same issue. It was repetitive. You were misinformed about that single issue. With respect, she should have been given the benefit of the doubt. I understand where you are coming from, but the benefit of the doubt should have been given because the core of the issue is whether she was driving change and putting in place a structure that had appropriate governance. The answer to that is "Yes". She was right on the fundamentals but she forgot something, and she is hung out to dry. Would the Minister accept that?

The Senator may remember that I did give the benefit of the doubt to the chair in July. I did that for the sake of stability within the organisation. I was asking about two specific packages on the Monday and again on the Wednesday, however, on several occasions, plus the fact that I discovered on the Monday that information was not provided to me in relation to Rory Coveney. The knowledge she had about that was not provided to me, and there was another apology on the Monday in that regard. I queried why it had not been clarified by her, that she had been named in print media, that she had approved the packages. I am paraphrasing here, but in the meeting she said she did not understand why her name was in there because she had no role whatsoever. It was quite a detailed question on the Wednesday because of the letter I received on the Wednesday, but on that Monday I said I would go out and clarify it for her. That was the agreement. The former chair knew that I would go out to the media and clarify that she had no role whatsoever in this. It was quite significant because some journalists said, "Hold on, are you telling us now that was an incorrect report?"

I know, but, in religious parlance, it is a venial sin in comparison with the actual governance issues. Obviously, that is my view; the Minister has explained her view.

The Minister stated that she got the calls going out in the car. I am a bit confused about that. When more than one person knows information, it will get out. Why did the Minister think she had a duty to leak the information to RTÉ? Some other journalists had a scoop; it was for RTÉ to pick up on it up at some point. There is a kind of expectation in journalistic circles that if somebody asks you a question, you do not run to another media organisation or journalist and provide them with the information. That is an ethic that exists in journalistic circles. I ask the Minister to comment on that.

That was not the motivation in any shape or form. It was merely flagged with them that we were aware this issue had emerged in relation to the board and I would speak-----

On the one hand, Minister, you said earlier that you flagged to the former chair that if you were asked, you would address the issue on "Prime Time". You flagged that at 4 p.m. or 4.30 p.m. Then you went out to RTÉ and flagged it yourself in order that you were going to be asked the question. Maybe RTÉ had the information, but you seem to suggest that you flagged it to them. Do you think that ethically that was the right thing to do?

At that stage, when it was said to the chair that if I was asked, I would, it was not known in most media-----

Why did you not say to her, "I am going to leak this information to 'Prime Time', they will ask me about it and this is what I will say"?

It was not a case of leaking at all. It was a case that we had flagged that if I was asked, I would. It emerged a few hours later that somehow it had been leaked by others.

To somebody else.

Yes. That was out there. It was becoming-----

You talked at the beginning of the meeting about setting the record straight and about transparency and openness. You were only going to offer transparency and openness if somebody else heard about it.

No, I felt it was important to put factual information on the record and, as I said-----

You indicated that-----

I said I would always answer honestly.

You would always answer honestly, but you actually gave the question to RTÉ to ask you, to say there is something coming. They do not seem to have known about it. Why did you not issue a press release, rather than giving it in the back door to RTÉ when you got out there?

It was not like that at all. As I said on Friday and today, it is not what I would like to have happened at all, but I was just putting factual information on the record.

Okay. We will move to the last point. Do you have confidence in the members of the board who sat through the Toy Show The Musical debacle?

I have said I have confidence in the board as it is working now.

You have confidence in a group of people who, on the basis of their own admission and their apology before us here, admitted they did not really do their job to the best of their ability, ask appropriate questions or tease it through. It was a bit like they thought, expected and assumed but did not ask the questions and were not told. Some of these people were appointed at the discretion of the Minister. She can sit here and have confidence in them but Siún Ní Raghallaigh, the former chairperson, made what can only be described as a relatively minor mistake, albeit important at the time, that did not relate to governance, the loss of money or any serious or fundamental issue. The Minister, however, is not able to equivocate on whether she has confidence in a number of people who were responsible not just the for loss of several million euro but also for the loss of confidence in the national broadcaster among consumers, the general public and politicians across the board. With respect, you said at the outset that you want to be transparent and open. I do not doubt that because I have known you a long time and I know you are somebody who wants to get information out there and be clear, concise and transparent, but I cannot understand how you could have confidence in elements of the board that sat around when that went on and recognising the consequence of it. You talk about the consequence of the misinformation that you got. I accept that it put you in a difficult position, and that is not good, but, by God, the organisation and the State have been put in one hell of a bad position because of the failures or inaction of others.

As I have said all through this evening, the statutory line of communication between RTÉ and the Government is really the chair to the Minister. That line of communication is absolutely vital. It is wholly reliant on proper and correct information, on receiving-----

I accept that and the Minister is very clear on that. The Minister's position with regard to other executives stands true in that but not with respect to members of the board because the committees recommend and the Government appoints, but it is on the advice of the Minister, in the same way that the chair is appointed by the Government on the advice of the Minister. If there are failures or questions over members of the board, then the Minister has a responsibility to say whether or not she has confidence in individuals who were there at the time when all of this happened. Is it the Minister’s evidence that she has confidence in those people?

As I said, when that report came out, my words were that I had confidence in the board as it is working now, but I will await the reports of the expert advisory committees.

Finally, Senator Dooley, please.

Does the Minister have confidence in their actions as they sat on the board because it was within their tenure, albeit some of it was perhaps outside the tenure of the Minister? They are now the responsibility of the Minister so my final question is to ask the Minister whether she has confidence in the members of the board who were there at the time and upon whose watch this happened.

As I said at the time, and to repeat myself because I have just said it to the Senator too, when that report came out I said I had confidence in the board as it is working now and I await the recommendations of the expert advisory committee. It is very important, however, for the stability of this organisation that I am very much looking forward to meeting the board this week. We need to appoint a new chair as soon as possible and to work with that board with a new chair and with the DG, to get RTÉ on a stable footing and, most importantly, to make the decision once and for all on a funding model not only for RTÉ but for public service media.

I thank the Minister very much for her answers and for taking my questions.

I thank the Senator. I know that it has been a long evening for the Minister and her officials, which I very much appreciate. We are at the three-hour mark and it comes to me with my final few questions. I will not rehash what has been discussed earlier because everybody has done a stellar job in interrogating those points.

I will make a few small points. We are at this point because of the deep concern around exit packages within RTÉ. As the Minister said, this arose over the exit package for Mr. Collins. The Minister did not believe or understand it to be the case that the board had approved this package but we now know that the board had approved it. We do not know the figure for that yet.

We now know that Mr. Coveney, who we understood had resigned, also received a package. Has the Minister asked the question whether Dee Forbes, who also resigned, received a package at any point?

Her term would have come to an end when she resigned. It was coming to an end in anyway.

Did she receive a package? She resigned and we know that there has been a precedent set with Mr. Coveney. We did not know he had received a package. We thought he had resigned. Then we discovered that he had received a package. I am asking the same question around the former DG. Has the Minister asked the question as to whether Dee Forbes, even though she resigned, received an exit package?

Yes and I have been told that she has not.

The Minister has asked the question but Dee Forbes has not received a package.

That is what I have been told by the DG.

I, like the Minister and my colleagues, learn a great deal from the media and we have to read it there rather than perhaps our first choice which would be that we get this information at the committee. On exit packages again, we know Ms O’Keeffe, where this started off, got a package of €450,000. We read at the weekend that a former head of current affairs in RTÉ received a package. Was the Minister across this, was she aware of it or did she, like the rest of us, read about it in the media, specifically about Mr. Nally?

No, it was something that was not notified to the Department.

Has the Minister made any inquiries into it?

I have been told that he is not a member of the former executive or, indeed, the new interim leadership team. He was not. I was told that it is a matter for the DG, so it cannot be revealed.

Am I right in saying that package and agreement was agreed to during the reign of our new DG and the former chair of the board?

I believe so, yes.

We are talking specifically about Mr. Nally, and again I am not revealing anything that is not in the public domain. My understanding is that Mr. Nally was over current affairs and that a complaint had been made against him by staff. The Minister will know I have said it in here that I have heard from speaking with staff about real life accounts of intimidation and bullying. I am not putting that on him but I am - it is in the public domain - saying there was a specific complaint made about him. Does the Minister know, has she been informed of, or has she asked, the cost in terms of the interrogation or investigation into him around complaints made by other staff members within RTÉ? Was there a cost to the organisation?

That investigation would have been before the term of the current DG was put in place. That would be a matter for the former DG.

Is the Minister aware of the cost to RTÉ to see through an investigation on that gentleman within RTÉ?

I would not have knowledge of that because that is an operational matter.

Would the Minister be shocked if I told her that there was a cost to RTÉ and that would be a six figure sum?

Again, if the Cathaoirleach has that knowledge, it is not something that I can ask because, as I have said, as with every other exit passage, these are matters for the DG and if there are confidentiality clauses then I have no-----

That information has not been brought to me.

What if I were to say to the Minister that the complaints made against this individual were upheld and there was a general problem there? What would her expectations be of somebody in that position where a complaint had been upheld against them? What would the Minister expect might happen to a very high ranking official in RTÉ around whom complaints were made, which were upheld? Would the Minister expect disciplinary action, a P45, or what would she expect?

I would expect that all legal processes and due process to happen in those cases.

What if I were to tell the Minister - again, this information is in the public domain - that a new job, a new position, was created for that individual against whom complaints were made and where those complaints were upheld? Rather than in the normal course of action, where disciplinary actions should have been taken, we find a situation a new position is created for that individual. This has happened in recent times and not 20 years ago.

I will give the Minister time to filter this because she may not be aware of it. What if I were to tell her that not only was a new position created for that person, but that after a short or brief enough stint in that new position of less than even two years, that gentleman left the position and was afforded an exit package? Would the Minister be concerned about the operation of that organisation? This is somebody who has had complaints made against him, those complaints were investigated at a very handsome cost to RTÉ and no disciplinary action was taken. A new position was created for that person - in other words, this person was moved sideways but was still in harm’s way of the staff if a complaint has been upheld. Not only that but this person continues on this path on a very handsome salary and, within less than two years, the person exits the organisation with a package. Would that concern the Minister?

I think whatever happened there is another reason we need the former DG to come before the committee, to communicate and to shed light on what exactly happened there. I cannot comment upon-----

I am going to ask the Minister about the-----

-----that if I do not have any knowledge of it.

That is the answer to my question. The current DG, the former chair and the board have not informed the Minister or given her any information around this particular matter. That is of great public interest.

I had no knowledge. It was something that was not notified to my Department.

I asked last week about it, and I was told that, for legal reasons, I could not get details on anything.

Sorry, you asked who what last week?

In the meetings with the director general and the chair. I was told that for legal reasons I-----

About this case with Mr. Nally?

About that case, yes.

You were given no information because of legal reasons.

Is that acceptable, Minister?

Again, we all want the maximum transparency and-----

Does it provide transparency?

It does not but this is the case. The legal advice is clear.

Can you imagine how infuriated staff in RTÉ must be?

Absolutely, yes. So, as I have said, it is not-----

This is where you are hamstrung all the time. They always find a way of circumventing the actual truth. You are being told that because of confidentiality clauses, you can neither find out what happened, the job that was created, the job that was exited or the package that was exited on.

That is why I have asked, going forward, and I said it in public and at that meeting, that with this sort of confidentiality clause being the norm rather than the exception, and with it being stated in the code of governance for these State bodies that it should be exception rather than the norm, that is why I have asked for that going forward.

I accept that. Let us just go back over the past eight months. Are you aware, do you know of or have you figures for the number of exit packages which the current director general and the former chair agreed to and approved, including a confidentiality clause? I know you are being told the same as I am being told, that it is the normal run of things, but these are not normal things where you and the Government are trying to bring maximum transparency. Is it really acceptable, in this current climate for RTÉ, to have this notion of confidentiality which effectively protects people? In this case it has arguably protected somebody who has wreaked havoc in the organisation and who had a huge price tag for RTÉ, if my information is correct with regard to the investigation of the actual complaint that was made against them. They were moved sideways, put into a new role - a role that did not exist before - and not only that, they exited after 18 months on a package. It is la-la land stuff.

Yes, but employment rights are employment rights, and we have very strong laws governing employees.

It is the same whether it is the public sector or the private sector. We all wanted maximum transparency but the legal advice is clear.

Is it not fair that you, as Minister, can expect from your director general and former chair that they would not enter into agreements like this?

That is why I have said that capping any such confidentiality agreements need to be considered, if they need to take place, but they should absolutely be the exception.

Arguably, people who are going into these positions should know from the very start that they are working for an organisation that is State-funded and funded by the taxpayers and that there is no such thing, or should be no such thing from here on, as confidentiality clauses. People going into these positions should expect that.

Employment rights are so strong in this country to protect employees, and they are the same whether you are in public or private.

Arguably, the staff were not protected in RTÉ on this occasion, and certainly not the taxpayer.

Absolutely. That is why I have asked him, and he has agreed, to give serious consideration to how these are being used. I said it must be the exception rather than the norm.

Do you intend to probe that particular instance any further, where somebody had a complaint made against them and it was upheld? Do you intend to investigate that any further? Is that satisfactory to you?

Unfortunately, the legal advice is clear and I am bound by that just as much as you are, or any person in the public. The legal advice is clear. Of course, that is absolutely frustrating, and I definitely get the frustration, hurt and anxiety of the staff.

It must have been pretty tough and a bitter pill to swallow.

That is why I have said, going forward, that it needs to be given serious consideration as one of the reforms we need to see.

Somebody who had a complaint upheld against them was moved into another position on an equally high salary and exited on a package.

Again, the former director general is answerable for that decision.

Thank you, Minister. I would say I have taken my ten minutes. One final question has been indicated to me by Senator Carrigy. I am sure, gentlemen, you would not mind a bit of latitude. Very quickly, Senator Carrigy.

I just wanted to make a point that was more to do the timelines on the Thursday. I know Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú has gone through it. It was extremely important that we heard that information here today. It led to what happened on Thursday night. With regard to the chain of events, I think the Minister was correct to send her letter under the circumstances. I do not think the chair of any board should refuse to meet a Minister under any circumstances. If the chair had not resigned on Friday morning and had refused to meet the Minister, I think they should have been removed from their position. It was the right course of action. I asked about it earlier on that I would like to get that documentation from the Department with regard to all the timelines on the Thursday and the correspondence over and back. I feel that it was unacceptable for the chair of a State board appointed by Government to refuse to meet the Minister who was representing the Government and the taxpayer. It would be important to put that information into the public domain.

I will get that information to you.

The terms of reference of the remuneration committee were received in the Department on 30 November, and it took until last week, almost three months later, to start asking questions on it. Is that correct?

The terms of reference were never sent in the way they should have been sent, which would be a direct email to me clearly stating these were the new terms of reference, as was sent to me on 5 September-----

When they were received, what did your officials tell you?

It was received along with 19 other documents.

Why did you not clarify if these terms of reference were in effect?

I received them two months after the agreement with Richard Collins. That is exactly why we were querying it last week.

Certainly, that clarification was required at the time they were received back on 30 November, and not last week. Do you agree?

It was not even clear in how they were sent, and the cover letter - I had it earlier - did not refer to the terms of reference being in those 19 documents. That is another weakness in how communication was done.

Did you clarify it with them?

It was in an RTÉ code of practices checklist. The email referred to a new folder being shared containing a sheet responding to the questions, and 19 further attachments cross-referenced in the document, with apologies for the delay. However, there was nothing with regard to flagging that these were the new terms of reference that have now come into effect, or when they came into effect. We were definitely not of the opinion, when we received them two months later, that they were in effect for Mr. Collins. That is why-----

Should your officials have clarified that matter?

The point is that they were never communicated properly to me. That is why I asked these questions last week. They sent it two months after, in a document-type dump regarding a code of practice checklist that we were seeking. That is a problem if new reforms are not communicated formally to the Minister. What was done on 5 September was the correct way of doing things regarding the reforms that were flagged, with the annex.

Minister, your officials were present at the public accounts committee on 12 October, when it was clarified very unequivocally by Paula Mullooly that those terms of reference were ratified by the board on 26 September. Are you telling me that your officials, some of whom are here and some of whom are not, did not inform you that these terms of reference were now in place and ratified?

I saw the reports saying that it was explicitly told to the officials, and then read that it was in a PAC meeting of many hours. Indeed, the Deputy who asked the question did see any significance to it. It was not reported on at the time.

What were your officials doing there? They were told this. They were there. They were actually very close to the person who gave this evidence. They were in very close proximity. How could this not-----

It was actually in passing, and the language was in the future tense - it will now present a report; it will report to the board. It certainly was not clear, and this happened after Mr. Collins's package was agreed.

If you have concluded that you were misinformed by the chair, do you now accept you were misinformed by your own officials on this?

We had not received the terms of reference.

They were with the committee.

We still have not seen a formal notification of the terms of reference.

They were with the committee on 12 October. You received the details in writing. You actually received the documents. We have requested them, and I want to see them as well. You have all of that documentation since before Christmas. Why did it take a public outcry arising from the revelations at this committee on 14 February for you to start asking questions about it? Would you not accept that the information was there within the Department among your officials? They either did not give it to you or you did not see it. That information was there.

What transpired at that PAC meeting was that Ms Mullooly outlined changes. It sounded, as I said, that she did so using the future tense. In other words, that they would apply in the future. It was not obvious that they had taken effect.

How would you have thought that it was not kicking in? How would you have thought that it was ratified; that it was not effective from that time?

Because you would presume that the chair would communicate that in a formal manner to the Minister.

That is not plausible, Minister.

This was only flagged two days after the Mr. Collins package - the fact that I had not been told that it had been approved by the board. Even the chair herself, up until last Wednesday, was saying the terms of reference would come into effect in the future, so the chair of the board was saying to me last week.

Why the three-month delay in asking questions on this? This was obviously something that was very important. Why three months to ask the questions?

Because it was never explicitly advised to us that the terms of reference were in force and applied to the Richard Collins case. It was a process commenced in July. It was an ongoing case for three months.

Do you believe that your officials neglected to inform you and did not do their job?

I believe the officials have been doing an incredible job for the past eight months.

But they did not brief you on this.

I have to move on.

They did not accurately brief you on this, Minister, and you still feel that they were doing a good job.

I call Senator Byrne.

Do you see how there is an inconsistency between how the chair was treated and how officials are treated? There is a total breakdown in communication here, seemingly, and you can accept one and not the other.

Deputy Griffin has made his point. I call Senator Byrne.

I am conscious and appreciative, Minister, that you and your officials have come before us to address this issue. From having listened to it, what is clear is that there was a breakdown in trust between yourself and the chair. When there is a breakdown in trust between a Minister and a chair, with respect, there is only one eventual outcome, namely, that the chair is likely to have to go. At any stage previously in the relationship that you had with her, did Siún Ní Raghallaigh offer to resign or did the Minister seek her resignation?

It still comes then to the fact that the way you told it, Minister, is that Siún Ní Raghallaigh, as chair of RTÉ - your direct link - refused to receive a letter where you would have expressed particular concerns essentially about her performance and basically expressed a view that she was going to resign.

A question, Senator Byrne.

You still went on "Prime Time" knowing all of that in the background. Was it not inevitable, though, knowing all of that, that there was only going to be one outcome? If the chair of any other agency within your wide-ranging remit came to you and either threatened to resign or refused to receive a letter, would you accept it?

One quick question-----

I would like the Minister to answer, if possible.

I will let her answer all together. I will allow one quick question from Deputy Gould.

As I said on Thursday, I was trying to afford every opportunity for that face-to-face meeting.

Deputy Gould, quickly.

Minister, you touched on this earlier. When you were on "Prime Time", did you break it to RTÉ as to what was happening? Was it one your officials who decided o do so or did you ask them to do it? I still cannot get over that ye leaked this to RTÉ just before you went on air. Can you explain the rationale behind that?

Deputy Gould, is there one quick question?

The Minister has covered that.

Will the Minister explain that?

I call Senator Sherlock, for one quick question.

Are there issues that you are concerned about right now with regard to RTÉ that the committee or the public have yet to be made aware of?

So you are fully confident-----

Right now, yes. It has been a roller-coaster-----

Tomorrow is another day.

-----but I am really hoping that we are on the right road now-----

(Interruptions).

Hang on, and give her a chance.

-----and we are moving in the right direction. I am really hoping that is it.

Will the Minister speak to Deputy Gould's and Senator Byrne's questions? I will take a final short question from Deputy Ó Murchú. The Minister can respond to them all together.

Minister, are you happy with everything that you did on Thursday? I will agree with what was said earlier, namely, that there was only one way this was ending and that was with Siún Ní Raghallaigh's resignation. I cannot see it any other way.

Minister, you have the last word - responding to everybody.

It was never my intention for this to emerge on air. I was always hoping and, as I said on many occasions, I was trying to afford her the opportunity to come in and meet me face to face. To be indicating you would not meet the Minister as a chair of a State body, I just could not believe that that would happen. That is why I was trying to afford the opportunity for Friday and hoping that that meeting would happen.

On everything that transpired the next week, as I said, it was not my intention to do it in the way it happened. I certainly do not believe that the former chair was intentionally giving me inaccurate information. If I was to end on anything, it is to put on record my genuine thanks for the chair in respect of the work that she did and her commitment.

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that you said that.

We need to move forward. I am determined to do that, as Minister, with the DG, with the board and, of course, the crucial role of Government in taking its decision on increased funding before the summer.

I thank you, Minister, and your officials for being with us here this evening.

Is it agreed that the clerk to the committee seek any follow-up information and carry out any agreed actions arising from today's meeting, including letters and invitations? Agreed. That concludes our business for this evening. The committee stands adjourned until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 March 2024.

The joint committee adjourned at 10.28 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 March 2024.
Top
Share