Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Transport and Communications debate -
Wednesday, 22 May 2013

Budgetary Position and Editorial Policy: Discussion with RTE

We are now in public session. I welcome Mr. Noel Curran, director general of RTE, and his colleagues, Mr. Kevin Bakhurst, managing director of RTE news and current affairs, Ms Breda O'Keeffe, acting chief financial officer and Mr. Brian Dalton, managing director, corporate development. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the procedures put in place at RTE in light of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland findings and the Horgan report following the recent controversies. We would also like to hear from witnesses how they propose to address RTE's current budgetary position including the matter of salary levels and contractors' pay.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome the witnesses. I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If witnesses are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also advise them that any submissions or opening statements submitted to the committee will be published on the committee's website after this meeting. 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 House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I now call upon Mr. Curran to make his opening statement.

Mr. Noel Curran

I thank the Chairman and members for inviting me here today to discuss the issues outlined by the Chairman. The Chairman has already introduced the people with me - Mr. Brian Dalton, Ms Breda O'Keeffe and Mr. Kevin Bakhurst. I hope that between us, we can answer any questions that members may have.

In the past year, RTE has overcome considerable challenges, some of which have, understandably, been explored in detail at this committee. Recovering from and implementing important changes in response to the very significant editorial mistakes made in the "Mission to Prey" and "Frontline" presidential debate programmes in 2011 was a key priority for RTE throughout last year. Informed by the findings and recommendations from external investigations and reports, we completely restructured RTE television current affairs. The changes were made to ensure greater clarity in the editorial management chain and to allow for an increased focus on journalism and editorial decision making at the programme level.

As part of the restructuring, we announced we were changing our approach to investigative journalism through the establishment of a new RTE investigations unit. The new unit will now be responsible for managing and producing RTE's key investigative journalism output for television, radio and online. RTE also made key appointments to the most senior positions within the restructured RTE news and current affairs division at the levels of managing director, managing editor, programme editor and head of the new RTE investigations unit.

At a group wide level, we created a new role of head of editorial standards and set up an editorial standards board to support and challenge programme makers, particularly those involved in high-risk programming. In addition, we completely updated RTE's journalism guidelines during early 2012. We have also included new guidelines for social media and rolled out training for all editorial staff across the year. Many of the changes we have made have become apparent to our audience with a refreshed multi-format "Prime Time" running three nights a week and a new morning news programme, "Morning Edition", both beginning earlier this year.

The first long-form documentaries, "Riches from Rags" and "Bethany: the Home the State Forgot", produced by the new investigations unit, were broadcast in just the last few weeks. There are more investigative reports from the unit coming shortly.

There will always be risks and, as I have always said to this committee, we will, of course, make mistakes; such is the nature of journalism. Having learned difficult lessons, all of the actions we have taken were designed to minimise the risk of serious editorial mistakes happening again while at the same time supporting and nurturing challenging and important current affairs journalism in RTE. Over the course of time our audience will ultimately be the best judge of how we are doing. Mr. Kevin Bakhurst will be able to give more detail on the specific changes and initiatives. Of course we have more work to do. Nobody is getting complacent here. However, given where we were, I am pleased to say where we have now got to.

Over the past five years, like many organisations and businesses in Ireland, particularly in the media sector, RTE has had to adjust to a new financial reality. RTE’s commercial revenues first began to decline in 2008 as a direct result of the economic slowdown. Over the next four years our commercial revenues fell by €84 million, that is, 35%. In addition, public funding allocated to RTE from the licence fee was reduced by €20 million during that period. In total, RTE has experienced a decline of €104 million in revenues between 2008 and 2012.

RTE has responded decisively to this severe contraction in revenues. We implemented substantial cost reductions across all areas of our activities between 2008 and 2011. We reduced our operating cost base by €86 million. The cost reduction initiatives included a voluntary pay cut taken by staff, suspension of increments, cancellation of bonuses or performance pay, reductions in headcount levels, reductions in programme costs, renegotiation of supplier and service contracts and reduction in all overhead and discretionary costs.

In 2012, in response to further declines in both commercial income and licence fee revenues and a very difficult commercial market for all media companies, RTE undertook a major organisational restructuring. A key element of the restructuring programme was the voluntary exit schemes under which 350 people left RTE during 2011 and 2012. At the end of 2012, RTE's headcount had reduced by almost 500, a reduction of 21% compared with 2008 levels. The benefit of this restructuring began to take effect in 2012. RTE’s 2012 operating cost base was some €104 million less than 2008 levels. This helped generate a small but positive operating profit last year despite further declines in revenues.

As I have already publicly indicated, RTE will report a net deficit for 2012 in excess of €60 million, after a large once-off restructuring charge. The cost of restructuring is considerable but will deliver annual ongoing savings, which reduces RTE's 2013 operating cost base to almost 30% lower than 2008 levels. As reported in a recently published report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, PwC, the scale of the operating cost reduction that RTE has achieved is almost unique across the Irish semi-State sector and it underlines our strong commitment to our stated aim of returning to financial stability this year.

By the end of this year, staff costs in RTE will have reduced by more than €42 million since 2008. In July 2009, RTE was the first public body to agree and implement reductions in basic salary for all staff. The pay reductions were fair, ranging from 2.35% to 12.5%, with those staff members on higher incomes taking the largest reductions. Salary increments in RTE were suspended for a period of time by agreement. They have been reintroduced but on condition that their reintroduction was offset by other personnel related cuts. In respect of management and all other grades, no bonuses have been paid and managers are no longer placed on incremental salary scales.

Average basic pay for RTE staff serving at December 2012 was €55,500. This places RTE’s salaries, compared with both public and private sector organisations, in the median or mid-range for comparable organisations and companies. Alongside our staff, RTE has always contracted a wide range of personnel and companies to deliver services, including on-air presenting talent. For many years, the earnings of RTE’s top presenting talent has been a subject of considerable public debate and criticism. It is the issue more than any other that I am asked about, not just by the media and politicians but also by the public, for whom it is an area of concern.

RTE, like the public, values enormously the work of all our on-air talent and those working behind the scenes. However during the boom, the remuneration of RTE's top presenters became over-inflated and we paid our presenters too much. In 2011, I publicly committed to reducing substantially the amounts we pay to our top presenters by a minimum of 30% on average, both to make very necessary savings but also to correct levels of remuneration that were clearly out of step with the economic times. Our latest figures show that substantial reductions have been achieved as contracts have been renewed. These range from 21% to 68%. The average across the top ten is well in excess of the 30% reduction we committed to achieving. When we have concluded the negotiations, I am confident we will have achieved an average aggregate reduction of closer to 40%.

This process is not over. As contracts expire, we will, of course, review the fee levels and make the best assessment we can at the time. I do not pretend to say that we make perfect judgments on every occasion. However, it is fair to say we realise this is, and has been, an area of concern, we have made very important strides in the right direction in the last 18 months, and the process is ongoing.

Notwithstanding these difficult issues and the very tough market that still continues for Irish media companies and which we have faced particularly over recent years, as director general I am very proud of the service RTE continues to deliver for our audience every day. Last year, RTE television broadcast close to 5,000 hours of high quality, home produced programming, and 19 of the top 20 programmes broadcast on any channel available to Irish viewers in 2012 were on RTE television. RTE television drama has registered its highest ratings and critical success in years, with the third series of "Love/Hate" proving to be the television talking point of last year. From Katie Taylor’s extraordinary gold medal fight in London, to Kilkenny and Donegal in the Gaelic football and hurling championships, to Ireland’s difficult European football championships and to the most recent rugby Six Nations, RTE continues to deliver comprehensive coverage of all the key Irish sporting moments across all our services.

RTE radio continues to be recognised as providing an exceptional service winning awards both at home and abroad, competing against the best resourced public service and commercial broadcasters in the world. These are an important recognition of the breadth and variety of programming produced every day for multiple audiences, big and small, across RTE’s radio services. RTE’s digital services have also continued to grow. RTE digital has been restructured and is very focused on keeping the national broadcaster relevant to and in touch with all its audiences.

Analogue switch off last October was an important moment in the evolution of Irish television. In addition to RTENL building the necessary infrastructure, RTE successfully launched the Saorview service and led and funded a comprehensive public information campaign informing people about the new service and how to access it. The two year campaign ensured that Ireland experienced one of the smoothest digital switchover transitions of any European country.

The success of digital has yielded more than €874 million to the Exchequer while, at the same time, for now, ensuring open and free access to Ireland’s public service and commercial television channels. By the end of 2012, 36% of Irish households were accessing the Saorview service.

As I have said previously, RTE is far from perfect but it is an organisation that makes a unique contribution to Irish life in a period of profound change. At a time when so much is changing, public service broadcasting ensures we have somewhere to go that reflects those changes, explains them, discusses them and gives us a platform on which to find the collective way forward. Like all organisations during this recession, RTE has had to adapt to a new commercial reality. Like all organisations, we face the challenge of new technologies, changing audience consumption patterns and market shifts. We have downsized and reinvented ourselves to meet these challenges.

This year is an important one for public service broadcasting as a whole. The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland will shortly conclude its review of the adequacy or otherwise of public funding to enable RTE and TG4 meet their public service obligations. The authority will present its conclusions and recommendations to the Minister and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Clearly, this review is happening at a time of extraordinary change and challenge for the media sector in Ireland. The temptation during such a difficult and complex set of challenges is to try to solve today’s problems while ignoring tomorrow. RTE is looking to the future. We have set out a clear plan as to what we would like to achieve in the next five years, how we would like to improve our services and invest to best meet the changing needs of our audience.

I thank Mr. Curran for that overview. He gave us a detailed explanation of his efforts to run a better organisation. Before members ask questions, I do not want to get bogged down on the salary issue. Mr. Curran stated repeatedly during his presentation that he has made efforts to reduce salaries. What is the average salary in RTE? Are the payments to contractors included in the calculation of the average salary? Could he elaborate on his comments?

Mr. Noel Curran

Ms O'Keeffe can come in on this but the average basic salary is €55,500, and that does not include contractors who make up the vast bulk of the higher earning on air time.

What is the average per contractor?

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

We contract with a wide range of contractors in the provision of our services. For 2012, we contracted more than 1,300. They vary from short-term contracts and provision of journalistic services to ongoing talent. They span a wide range of activities and a wide value of services.

Specifically, I am referring to high earners. Will Ms O'Keeffe clarify their average salary? That is a question people have been asking. For the benefit of the committee, before we get into more detail, we should establish this.

Mr. Noel Curran

With regard to the number of contractors we have, some of them work a day a month, some work three days a year while others work every day. That is why we do not take an average figure for all contractors, given the wide range of numbers. When the current round of negotiations is completed, we will be happy to provide the average for the top presenters. Those discussions are ongoing. We do not do average figures for contractors. In comparing staff, one is comparing like with like but if one is comparing contractors, one is comparing hundreds of people who may come for a few hours with people who are much higher earners.

What is the average salary for the top ten earners?

Mr. Noel Curran

We can do a calculation. When we have completed the top ten negotiations, we will be happy to give the committee the average figure.

I apologise on behalf of Deputy Michael Moynihan, the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on communications, who is unable to be present. I have no intention of getting into people's salaries. That issue is often thrown at politicians and we rail against it. I am more interested in examining the overall financial position of RTE. I thank Mr. Curran for his comprehensive presentation, which set out many of the issues we discussed the last time he appeared before the committee. He stated the deficit this year would run to approximately €60 million. Does that put the company under significant pressure? Is it funded to the end of the year without making additional cuts to wages or staff reductions over and above what has been identified? Does RTE have to make further payroll savings next year by way of wage or staff reductions?

With regard to the modernisation of the organisation, Mr. Curran has identified a state of flux on the news and current affairs side. Has a strategic review been conducted of its structure, recognising the development in technology, etc.? We regularly meet representatives of independent broadcasters and RTE's competitors in television and they have much leaner operations in place. I do not take from the work RTE does as a public service provider. That programming requires additional staff and so on. Has the authority examined the overall tapestry of the organisation from a modernisation perspective to consider right sizing it from a cost saving point of view?

The position of chief financial officer is still vacant after ten or 11 months. What action is being taken to fill that position? What kind of recruitment process will be put in place? Will the position be publicly advertised and dealt with in the normal way?

With regard to news and current affairs, when Mr. Bakhurst last appeared before the committee, he was new in the position. Mr. Curran clearly outlined the background to the issues that had arisen. I recall terms like "groupthink" and references to a haphazard approach to the delineation of responsibility, particularly in the context of Tweetgate. There was a conflict at the time between who was in charge. What structures has Mr. Bakhurst put in place to ensure such issues do not arise again? Mr. Curran referred to the editorial board, which will be helpful. What ongoing monitoring will be in place to ensure this does not happen again?

Mr. Noel Curran

The commercial market remains difficult. Anyone who has seen recent statements from UTV and our other commercial competitors regarding the first quarter will know the market remains difficult. We are still targeting break-even this year. It all depends on where the market goes in the second half of the year. This was referred to in UTV's announcement. The indications are that the second half of the year may be better than the first, but like every other media company, we found the first half of the year unpredictable and difficult. We are hoping the signs for the second half are more encouraging, but we have looked at remedial cost reduction action.

It is not possible to wait until the third or fourth quarter in some sense of hope and then find the market has not come back. I assure members that we are very much aware of the market situation and are taking remedial action in terms of a suite of further cost reductions this year. We are also looking ahead. As I believe the chief executive of any media company or any other private company would say, the most difficult thing is forecasting because people make late decisions. They are waiting to see what head office thinks, what their sales are, etc. because there is uncertainty in many areas. Long-term forecasting is difficult, but we will factor in whatever adjustments we need to make in whatever forecasts we have for commercial income. It is possible to talk oneself down in some of these situations. The indications from much of the market is that for a particular set of factors in the first half of the year it was difficult for media companies. As the chief executive of UTV indicated in recent days, there are indications that the second half will be better, but we cannot guarantee it. RTE has always reduced costs in terms of commercial decline. We forecast, project and run scenarios.

In terms of the modernisation of the structure, we have completely restructured RTE. We have completely restructured digital. We have 500 people fewer and have made 30% reductions in costs. This is an ongoing process. We have not sat back and said: "We've done all that. That's great. Let's take a break." Even by the end of this year our costs will be €39 million less than two years ago, which shows prudent financial management on behalf of RTE. I am not looking for a pat on the back for it. It is what companies have to do in these unpredictable days. We have restructured and reduced workforce. On the point that we need to look at today and forget the future, part of our problem is that we are spending more money on some areas because we are trying to think ahead as to where we will be in two or three years, while at the same time cutting back substantially in others. Those are the choices we have to make. This is a technologically driven industry and it is not standing still.

In terms of the CFO position, the acting CFO is here today. She has run television, our biggest revenue generator and cost area for the past eight years. We will be making an announcement about that shortly. It has not been 11 months or anything like that.

Was it publicly advertised?

Mr. Noel Curran

The position has already been advertised internally in RTE and we will make an announcement shortly.

However, it was not advertised publicly.

Mr. Noel Curran

It was not advertised externally.

What is the justification for that?

Mr. Noel Curran

We are in the middle of a mammoth restructuring and other things. We made an absolute judgment. It should be remembered that we have more external people on the RTE executive board than ever in the history of the organisation. We made a decision that the talent was within RTE to carry this forward. We must also remember that the previous person left under a retirement scheme which has another influence in terms of that. We made that decision, with which we are very happy and which we will complete very shortly.

Mr. Brian Dalton

I am working in the area of restructuring and had spent all my life in private industry until I joined RTE. One needs to consider RTE as a not-for-profit organisation. Clearly we all have to exploit commercial opportunity from our public services. However, we need to consider the range and depth of the output, including Raidió na Gaeltachta and the performing groups. Clearly we need to achieve very high standards in efficiency and value for money. I have been involved in very significant restructuring of a very large scale in the private sector. To achieve 30% over the period the director general mentioned through partnership with the trade union group is very significant. That change has been achieved because of the not-for-profit ethos and the full range and quality of the services to which our staff are absolutely committed.

When it comes to modernisation of the structure, we look at the very best practice across Europe. We are living in a converged media world and we are adopting best work practices in terms of multimedia, multi-skills and flexibility to ensure we provide the best possible services to our audience. It is important that a symphony orchestra or a concert orchestra has a particular size. An Irish language radio station must have a core to ensure it produces quality services. Many of the activities in which we are engaged are not commercial. We are highly regulated. On average we are limited to six minutes advertising per hour on television. It is important that we look at the totality of what we do and the breadth of our services. At the same time, the scale of adjustment, with more than 500 people leaving the organisation, the adjustment to payroll and the productivity agreements that have been negotiated, are very significant.

I want to come back on appointments generally within RTE.

It needs to be a question.

It is a very direct question. Mr. Dalton rightly spoke about best practice. However, a very senior position became available in the organisation. I am not in any way questioning the talent that is within. I am sure anybody within is more than capable of taking on any position within the company. Just to give the public the reassurance that it is not just an accession within an organisation, it is important that there is open competition for positions particularly a senior level. I am sure the witnesses will accept, particularly when RTE is going through a period of financial restructuring, that the position should be advertised publicly. I am not questioning anybody within but it would be naive to suggest there would not be talent out there that could possibly surpass what is already there, and if it does not then RTE should appoint from within. From the point of view of transparency and showing the taxpayer and the television licence holder that RTE is serious about ensuring transparency, positions like that at a certain management level should be advertised publicly.

Mr. Noel Curran

I completely understand the Deputy's point. We have four people on the RTE executive board who are new to the RTE executive board and came from the outside. We have two other people who have joined RTE in the past four years. We have never had the range of both in-house and external experience that we currently have across all senior positions. Some positions have particular circumstances around them. On a general point, that absolutely is the approach we take and we would not enter into any position if we were not confident that we had the range of people available to fulfil that position.

I thank Mr. Curran for his presentation on the two issues of the structures introduced to ensure editorial standards and the budgetary situation in RTE. Obviously we all welcome the editorial standards in the aftermath of "The Frontline" presidential debate and the Fr. Kevin Reynolds programme.

It is linked to the budgetary issue. How many legal claims is RTE facing and what has been the cost to RTE of legal claims in 2011, 2012 and 2013?

I will not go into any great detail on salaries, but the arguments in the past for paying high salaries to top presenters were that they brought in advertising and RTE did not want to lose them to other Irish broadcasters. There are not as many places for them to go as there were in the past and advertising revenue has been decreasing. I presume the salaries of the top presenters will continue to fall. When Ireland's top presenter over many decades, Gay Byrne, retired it was widely reported he had been paid £200,000 a year not to go anywhere else. I presume such payments are no longer made by RTE.

I have a particular interest in sport, and it is a cornerstone of RTE. Is the budgetary situation impacting on broadcasting main sporting events on terrestrial television in Ireland, including GAA coverage? The cost of broadcasting soccer, rugby and GAA includes the cost of pundits and I note some of the top earners in RTE are pundits. The only time soccer pundits appear is with regard to the Champions League. How does the rate of pay for pundits on RTE compare between soccer, rugby and GAA?

The chairman of the Independent Broadcasters of Ireland, IBI, recently suggested collaboration between independent broadcasters and RTE. Some time ago RTE announced it would close regional studios. Could there be collaboration between local radio stations on overlapping the use of facilities in the regions? It is a different market and rather than being rivals they could combine resources. I am interested to hear the comments of the witnesses on this suggestion. Several years ago RTE announced it would close regional studios and go into institutes of technology. How is this progressing? It did not seem to make sense when I heard it.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

I have been very involved in the regional question and it is a core part of what we do in news. The partnership with the institutes of technology is progressing very well. It is complicated and we are considering five particular regional offices with regard to partnership. They are progressing at different speeds because we must consider each location individually with regard to lease arrangements and how quickly we can move out of premises and into the institutes of technology. The first we hope to deliver will be Dundalk IT and we hope this will happen in the coming months. The partnership there is progressing extremely well. An aspect of the partnership in Dundalk in which we are particularly interested is its unique set of premises with regard to conferences. In recent days we have managed to deliver a major European conference to Dundalk in 2015 which will bring 300 delegates from 37 broadcasters throughout Europe. This is what we will deliver as part of the arrangement. The plans to move in are progressing quickly. The next two after Dundalk will be Waterford and Athlone. We must sort out the details and we hope to be in all three by the end of the year. For different reasons Sligo and Galway are trickier in terms of physically moving but we are still pursuing other elements of partnership because all of the institutes of technology are interested in working with us on various projects. They are keen to be involved with RTE in various partnership arrangements. It is moving ahead. Overall restructuring in the regions is saving us a substantial amount of money each year in running costs. The partnership has enabled us to maintain our presence in the regions. Before I came into this job one of the options on the table was to pull out of the regions and we have managed to ensure we can keep our correspondents and teams there which I felt was crucial for our credibility as an organisation.

Mr. Noel Curran

To answer Deputy O'Mahony's questions on the radio stations, I would love to see us co-operate more with the IBI and commercial radio stations. I met John Purcell for an initial meeting on the matter. We both articulated that we are open to the idea. Previously the relationship between RTE and the commercial stations was not that communicative and open. We are trying to open the lines of communication. We will continue to differ and have disagreements, particularly on issues of public funding, but I spoke at its most recent conference and we all realise there may be opportunities. We are all in a very difficult market and looking at resources. I hope that while differences of opinion on funding and other issues remain there are areas in which we can co-operate more.

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

To answer the question on sports rights, between 2002 and 2007 there was huge inflation in the sports rights market. There was such competition that RTE lost some sporting rights and the GAA packages were split between two broadcasters. Deputy O'Mahony asked whether financial pressures cause a change in strategy. We have stated our strategy is to reduce the cost of sports rights by 25% between now and 2015. This is a challenge and there may be further losses in sports rights, which will be very unfortunate but we will just have to bear with it.

As with all talent fees, a number of criteria are considered when the fees paid to pundits in soccer and rugby are set. These include the number of events covered and the pundits' experience. Only one sports pundit was in the top talent list and the latest salaries and fees negotiated show significant reductions. It depends on the level of services and the importance of the sport itself. No one shoe fits all.

Mr. Noel Curran

It is getting increasingly difficult because we faced a bubble in the sports rights market.

We were in the middle of the boom, there was a dedicated, Irish-based international sports channel and our domestic competitor, TV3, acquired a new owner, a private equity company, and targeted sports rights. We need to get those rights down, but the sports market is difficult. In the UK, BT Vision has entered the sports rights market and is effectively offering sport as a free add-on to a paid broadband package. This is an entirely different business model. For the past decade, Sky has told customers that they must buy the premium package because it does not unbundle by match online. Three or four months ago there was a complete reversal, and Sky is now unbundling individual matches, for which customers pay.

Relevant to the public funding argument, the danger for us is that not only are sports rights being driven by large companies, but other large companies view it as a free add-on to their core business. This has implications for RTE. Anything that happens in the UK market almost inevitably comes to Ireland.

I thank the witnesses. In case no one else says it, RTE does a good job and it is right to be proud of it. This democracy needs a well-functioning public service in television and radio. RTE has learned from the well-publicised hiccups and is working on them.

First, the main issue is the challenging financial situation for RTE and all media and broadcasters. Did I pick the witnesses up correctly about a net deficit in 2012 of €60 million, largely due to restructuring? That restructuring has been impressive and, in respect of the highest earners in particular, necessary. People use the term "low-hanging fruit". As I suspect that fruit is gone, any future reduction in financial support will have a proportionately greater impact on RTE's ability to produce programmes. Assuming that advertising revenue will not increase in the next two to three years, does RTE anticipate an increase in public funding when the proposed broadcasting charge is introduced? Is RTE in the same position as hospitals, local government and so on, in that there will be reductions in the public service element of its budget in the next three to five years? As opposed to the sustainability plan, what is the survivability plan?

Second, RTE possesses detailed guidelines on impartiality and fairness in the coverage of news, politics and current affairs, but I am unsure how adherence to them is monitored or implemented. I have in mind the coverage of politicians' statements and the Joint Committee on Health and Children's current hearings. Every time certain politicians appear on a news or current affairs programme, the ensuing discussion is not on their policies, but on their backgrounds. Some politicians in senior Government positions have equally interesting backgrounds, yet these are never mentioned. How are the guidelines on impartiality and fairness in news and current affairs monitored and implemented?

Much of my third question on regional studios has already been answered. Dundalk has been discussed in detail. To be parochial, what is the situation in Sligo?

Fourth, it has been mentioned that RTE has proposed projects to support the 20-year strategy for the Irish language. Will our guests provide further detail on those projects?

The Deputy has asked many questions.

Mr. Noel Curran

I will ask Ms O'Keeffe to kick off on the question on low-hanging fruit and restructuring.

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

I thank Deputy Colreavy for stating that RTE is doing a good job. It is welcome to have that recognised.

In terms of low-hanging fruit, the orchard is definitely bare. We will report a deficit in excess of €60 million for 2012, the majority of which has to do with a one-off, large restructuring charge. That charge was necessary to downsize RTE yet again. In 2013, our cost base will be in the order of €314 million, almost 30% lower than it was in 2008. This is significant. We have tried to make cuts strategically so that they do not affect the audience. Obviously, the audience sees the effect, but it is a question of minimising that effect.

It is important to note that, in making the cuts, one of the metrics we used related to the first-run hours of transmission of indigenous-made programmes. We have worked on maintaining those hours. Although there has been a reduction, it has amounted only to approximately 6% on RTE 1 and RTE 2. We have focused the cuts on other areas where, as far as is possible, programme output is not affected. However, making cuts of this level eats into the programmes and the types of programme we make.

RTE's restructuring in 2011 and 2012 has reduced our headcount by 20%, lowering our operating cost base to a sustainable level for 2013 and beyond. As to whether we need to do more, we must watch the income landscape and how we perform in that respect. The restructuring has assisted us in our target of breaking even in 2013.

Mr. Noel Curran

I thank Deputy Colreavy for his comments. The question of public funding is critical. In the next number of days, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, will make recommendations as a result of its review. Subsequently, it will become a political decision for the Minister and the Department. I am not party to that decision, but I gather it is imminent.

It is important that we lay out some of the issues. The Minister has stated there will be a new media charge because people are accessing programmes, radio and other content in a range of ways other than through television. Other countries are moving to reflect this fact. There is a danger that the media charge will be seen as a panacea for every ill in the broadcasting industry, something that can solve the commercial sector's problems and whatever problems RTE has. It will not be a panacea. The Department has estimated that it will generate an increase of €20 million in public funding. This estimate is based on reducing evasion by half to 8% and reducing collection costs from 7.5% to 5%. One could claim that if evasion rates fell further, the collection costs arrived at through a tendering process could decrease. There will not be an extra €50 million, €60 million or €70 million in public funding, but there will be more overall.

The case I have been trying to make is that for all the flaws and criticism received by RTE, it is a unique organisation. I understand that competitors see RTE as the biggest problem in the market. RTE has 25% of the radio advertising and there are over 30 channels in Ireland selling advertising to Irish advertisers on Sky. That number is growing. We have reached a critical point, particularly in debating public funding, and we are competing against Sky, which has an income of €7.6 billion; the BBC with an income of €5.6 billion; and the likes of Google. That is the competitive landscape and they all operate in Ireland. Good luck to them, as they are very good companies and very good at what they do.

Where does the Irish media stand in this respect? I came across an interesting and important statistic recently indicating that in the UK, the top three television channels are British-owned and concentrate largely on British content. They are BBC, ITV and Channel 4 and they have 70% of the audience. In Ireland, only the top two companies concentrate and invest in Irish content, and we are 53%. We are reaching a point where because of the prevalence of satellite programming in this country, in particular, we will lose the position of broadcaster of scale that can invest in Irish drama, news and current affairs, and which will make those kinds of decisions. I make the case strongly that RTE should be that type of broadcaster, competing against companies of the scale that we are currently competing against internationally and which operate in this market. We need that scale.

I have stated recently that we are not looking for a free lunch and we all realise how difficult times are, so we have outlined a range of actions and new commitments. We have also talked about commercial footprints. We have tried to respond to the issue but the market is changing so fundamentally that in five or ten years, if we do not have a strong national broadcaster of scale that is required to invest heavily in Irish content, the independent production sector and areas like drama, young people's programming - we have no problem with that - culturally, as a society and politically we will be at a significant loss. That is the context in which I put the debate on RTE's position with regard to the public funding review.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

I will answer the comment about Sligo. RTE owns the building from which it operates in that location so to make it financially viable to move from the premises, we would need to find another tenant to move to the building. I am not sure that is imminent; if we can deliver that, it would be great and we could move to the institute of technology but in the mean time we will pursue - as we are doing in Galway - the other elements of the partnership with the institute of technology. I am going to Sligo in a couple of weeks to try to put a bit more flesh on the bones in that respect.

Does RTE own or lease the building in Finisklin in Sligo?

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

As I understand it, we own the building there.

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

We own the building.

That is extraordinary.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

It is an historical issue and it is unusual as we tend to lease other premises. Some of the leases are quite complicated across the different regions so the Sligo property is unique in these five as we own the building. That is a complication in considering moving to the institute of technology but we are in active talks about other elements of the partnership and we are very keen to get involved in a range of different schemes.

Perhaps the institute of technology might use some of the facilities in Finisklin.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

We are open to offers.

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

There is also advanced engagement on development of e-learning projects with Sligo Institute of Technology, with possible internships within our digital division.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

Where we have facilities in regional premises and we are not moving out, we are open to discussions on whether they are any use to students in the institute of technology.

Do we have an assurance that there will continue to be a regional facility in Sligo?

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

Yes, the plan is about maintaining our presence in the regions.

There are difficulties but they can be overcome. What about impartiality?

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

Impartiality is core to what we do and there are a number of ways we measure it across news and current affairs output. There are reviews within the programme teams and weekly reviews of output. We have a new political assignments editor, Ms Deirdre McCarthy, who is doing a very good job of taking a view across RTE's political output and whether various party and individual views are getting a fair airing. I have frequent discussions with her about that. For example, on "Prime Time" there is a very detailed log of who is interviewed and about what they have been interviewed, and I review this every couple of months to ensure the parties are getting a fair and proportionate amount of air time.

There was a comment about backgrounds and policy. It is important that across the piece people and parties get a fair crack of the whip in terms of air time to put policies across and discuss them. There are areas of background and historical issues that are unresolved and we should look into them. That may concern what happened to banks, the outcome of the Moriarty tribunal or the Troubles in the North from the perspective of both sides. There are many questions still to be answered by individuals and it is part of our job to keep examining matters and asking questions.

To clarify the point about parties getting a fair crack at the whip, do individuals get such a fair crack of the whip? There are more Independents now and backbenchers represent constituencies but they do not seem to come into the public domain as much.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

I do not know about every individual.

To be fair to the political system and process, people represent constituencies and every Member is sent here by such a constituency. Is there fairness in the media in that respect? I believe there is not fairness in the way views are expressed for specific issues. I could use coverage of the septic tank charge as an example as there was bias on one side. Reporters went to constituencies like my own and picked people on one side to interview but they did not go to the other side. What is the way of managing such a process as RTE should be more balanced with it. The process can be very questionable. That is one example but I have no doubt there are many more.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

I am sure the Chairman is correct as there can be instances where individuals do not feel they get a fair crack at the whip. If people come to me or Ms McCarthy with a complaint, issue or question about fairness, we will always consider it. Sometimes there are issues off the radar and we may not even consider them unless a Deputy or somebody-----

What checks and balances exist when reporters are sent to an area? How are people picked for interviews?

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

It is the job of the journalist and we monitor how it is done. The report must be fair, impartial and accurate and the judgment will be done by the person and team.

It is left to the individual.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

No, as we monitor it when the report comes in, particularly when there are ongoing or running stories about major issues. The abortion issue is a current example, as it is highly sensitive.

We will closely monitor it to ensure we have a fair range of voices that is as representative as possible. Sometimes there are individuals who we might not have considered. Sometimes they will say, "Have you considered this viewpoint or that viewpoint?" and we have to admit we have not, so we have to include that somewhere along the way. Obviously, there is a huge output at RTE news and current affairs ranging from "Prime Time", the Six One News and the nine o'clock news through to the "Late Debate" and the "Morning Edition". There are many different outlets and we must try to take a view across the piece that there is a fair representation of views and of individuals. I am always happy to consider an issue, or Deirdre is if people go to her about it.

Mr. Noel Curran

Managing individual and political perspectives on local issues in terms of whom one talks to can be difficult, first, because of the sheer numbers of people. When I was editor of current affairs, one of the major complaints I received from political parties was that we might have picked an individual who did not necessarily represent the party view and they would have felt that we deliberately did this to undermine and to put it forward. This area is complicated.

It is something to bear in mind.

On the question I asked about legal costs, and to relate it to Deputy Colreavy's question about Sligo, how can one save money by moving the studio from Finisklin to the regional college if RTE owns the building? It does not make sense. However, perhaps the witnesses would answer the question on legal costs.

Mr. Noel Curran

The question was about how many outstanding legal cases there are as a result of the recent controversial programmes. We are aware of two outstanding legal cases related to those programmes. I do not have the figures on the cost, but I will be happy to get them for the Deputy.

Perhaps the witness could provide the overall cost of legal issues for RTE.

Mr. Noel Curran

I will do that.

Five members have questions so I will take them in two groups. First, Deputies Patrick O'Donovan and Tom Fleming, and then Deputies Noel Harrington, Dessie Ellis and Ann Phelan.

I thank the RTE representatives. I hope the other semi-State companies under the remit of this committee are watching, because they should be subject to the same level of scrutiny. I will be proposing that in the near future, particularly in view of the fact that one semi-State company recently made a €40 million loss but it pays its chief executive officer €400,000 per annum.

It would be remiss of us not to talk about the celebrity salaries. That is what interests people. Certainly that is what preoccupies the people in my constituency with regard to RTE, and I do not think I am representing a constituency that is completely different from all the others. I looked at the BBC's annual report recently. I am open to correction but that report states that the BBC has 19 staff who are paid more than £500,000. Britain's population is roughly 15 times greater than Ireland's and based on what I have read in the media recently about some of the celebrity salaries being paid here I would have thought that well over 100 people in the BBC would be paid more than £500,000. Mr. Curran said that RTE had paid its presenters too much. That is refreshing honesty, but does he think they are still being paid too much? The baseline is definitely too high. When one reduces something by 20% or 30%, it sounds like a huge percentage but the baseline was far too high. Deputy O'Mahony is correct that there was a fear they would leave if their salaries were cut. Realistically, however, where would they go and who would have them? To be honest, who could afford them? Certainly nobody in Ireland could.

With regard to editorial changes, particularly after the "Twittergate" incident, there was a move to re-brand and refresh "The Frontline" and call it "Prime Time" with an audience. However, when I watch it, it is still the same. RTE essentially just changed the logo. Somebody mentioned balance earlier. As I have often said previously, including to this committee, when one looks at the audience on "The Frontline" or "Prime Time", there are so many plants in it, it looks like a garden centre. Contrast the audience for "Prime Time" with the audience for BBC's "Question Time". There is a really impartial audience on the BBC programme, but it is not an impartial audience on "Prime Time". It is a hand-picked bunch of repeat performers. If one watches every week, one sees the same people appearing time and again. They are planted with loaded questions, invariably to try to land a punch on the unfortunate Government representative. That is anything but fair. Some people think that just because RTE re-brands and relaunches it, it will be better in some way but, to be honest, it is the very same. It is "The Frontline" with two presenters rather than one, as far as I am concerned.

This follows through in the radio programmes. If one is unfortunate enough to be in a car as often as politicians are and one is listening to talk radio, one might hear Anne from Kilkenny, for example, ring in and lacerate her local representative or the Government representative. There does not appear to be any clearance or checking to ensure that Anne from Kilkenny is a real person and not Mary from the press office of the main Opposition party, who is sitting in an office in Dublin texting, tweeting and ringing with loaded comments that are then broadcast and taken as fact.

Do they do that?

Some people, the more unscrupulous politicians, might do it, Chairman. We saw what this has the potential to do in the presidential election, when a planted, loaded grenade went off in the middle of a "Prime Time" programme and did huge damage. I was never going to vote for the man, but I believe it did huge damage to him. There should be some type of clearance, whether the programmes are hosted by Marian Finucane, Pat Kenny, Joe Duffy or whoever, because obviously commentary is being planted to do damage to a person politically. People tend to say, "There is no smoke without fire. I heard it on the radio so it must be true". Perhaps Mr. Curran will comment on that as well.

Ms O'Keeffe referred to contractors. To be fair to the committee, we are not talking about people who are painting and decorating or rewiring the place. The contractors we are referring to are the contractors whose names appear in the newspapers every year. In view of their salaries, one would be better off getting one of those positions than winning the lotto. If one wins the lottery, one will win it only once whereas if one gets one of those positions, one will be paid every year. The low hanging fruit was mentioned. People from RTE have contacted me, as a member of the committee, in a private capacity. I have been surprised by how many. They feel aggrieved because they believe it is the workers in the organisation, particularly the low paid workers, who have taken the hits. The witnesses have said that staff numbers have been reduced, but they have been reduced primarily where salaries are at the lower end of the scale. The witnesses can correct me on that if I am mistaken. Certainly, as Deputy Colreavy said, the public perception is that the low hanging fruit is the employees, while the rich pickings are in a different orchard. Mr Curran said negotiations will be concluded. How long are the negotiations with these celebrities under way? With whom is RTE negotiating? Is it negotiating with them as individuals or as a group or do they have a trade union? When does RTE expect the negotiations to conclude and will it publish the conclusion?

Deputy Ann Phelan has to do a radio programme and has a specific question, so I will let her ask it before Deputy Tom Fleming.

Ann from Kilkenny.

Yes, but not on RTE. I think we will have to start a campaign, perhaps it will start here, because we will definitely have to re-run the presidential election to satisfy everybody.

What is the status of the London office? I believe the London office had to be closed due to cost restructuring. Is RTE still delivering a service there? Was the offer from the BBC to share an office taken up?

In the aftermath of "A Mission to Prey", has RTE consulted other national broadcasting organisations to learn what safety measures and protocols they implement? Is RTE happy with current reforms to ensure that there is no repeat? Will a vetting system be put in place? It was a humiliating, terrible and extraordinary ordeal for the person concerned, his family and community. The programme was diabolical in the first place.

Noel Curran is the director general, chief executive and editor in chief but the news editor got the bullet. Was the wrong person sacked? Did Mr. Curran consider tendering his resignation? What action did the board and its chairman take? How did the news editor lose his job? I presume he no longer has a job. His firing will be detrimental to his chance of progressing in life and securing jobs that carry responsibilities. I believe that the buck stops at the manager's desk. Somebody is responsible for the gross negligence and total lack of protocol and safety measures. Normally it is the person in charge, the executive who is in control, who is fired.

The licensing fee of €176 million, and I can be corrected about the figure, allows RTE to fund a public broadcasting service. It is my firm belief that RTE does not give that amount of service to the community and the general public.

I am amazed that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, proposes to increase the €160 television licence fee. I have made my views on the matter known through the committee and at Dáil level. It is unacceptable to maintain the current fee, it should be reduced. People can no longer afford such exorbitant fees being paid to one broadcasting station. RTE should fund itself by operating in the commercial sector.

I wish to follow-up on comments made by other speakers. Deputy Patrick O'Donovan made relevant points and I commend him on stating comparative figures from the BBC. The RTE presenters and managers do not live in the real world when it comes to finance. They live on a different planet. The salaries have been allowed to continue. Ireland would be the laughing stock of Europe if the salaries were known. We are a small island nation and that is why the matter is not being broadcast publicly. The salaries are excessive when compared with the size of the population.

We have reduced wages. Let us compare salaries with the salary paid to the President of the United States, the person who wields the most power in the world. A television and radio presenter here earns three times his salary, another television and radio broadcaster earns over three times and one radio person earns twice the amount. That gives us food for thought.

I wish to extend a belated welcome to the delegation. I should have said it at the start of my presentation. I wish them the best.

Mr. Noel Curran

I shall respond to the questions as will some of my colleagues.

First, I shall respond to Deputy O'Donovan's question. We know the public are concerned and that is why we have taken ongoing action. He gave comparative figures for the BBC, specifically 19 people earning over £500,000. When the process is over nobody will earn over £500,000.

Does that include contractors?

Mr. Noel Curran

That will include contractors. Please remember that England has 17 times our population. Historically, only one or two of our people earned that amount. When the process is done no one will earn that amount.

A balanced approach is necessary when comparing RTE with the UK. When I have talked about salaries I have been upfront in stating that the fees being paid were too high and that it was RTE's fault. Without justifying the fees in any way, one does need to recognise the value of RTE presenters. RTE is dual-funded and relies on commercial income. The public respond incredibly positively to the presenters. Let us make UK comparisons. The weekend reach by the "Marian Finucane Show" is two and half times the comparative reach on BBC's Radio Four. BBC's "Newsnight" gets about 9% share in the UK, "Channel 4 News" gets about 3% but "Prime Time" gets over 30% and RTE news bulletins get about 40%. Since Marian Finucane moved to her Saturday show her audience has increased by 51% and her Sunday audience has increased by 47%. Even given the latest reductions, Joe Duffy's audience has increased by 53% since he moved to his new time slot. Miriam O'Callaghan presents a current affairs show, a top ten radio show and one of our largest home produced television shows in the summer. I needed to say all that otherwise one ends up in a confrontational situation, particularly when driving down salaries. It would be easy for me to grandstand, to say how much we have reduced the salaries and say that we are great. That is not what I mean. We realised that the public had a concern and took action which is ongoing. We will review salaries when contracts end. Value exists, particularly with comparisons. The value is determined by the person out front and his or her team. Many people who are not in the top ten list deliver an equal amount of value. There must be some recognition of public value.

In answer to the Deputy's question, we realised that the public were concerned and took action. I am not seeking a pat on the back. I do not know of any other area of the economy where salaries or fees have been reduced to this level and we are not finished the process.

One could get into all sorts of questions on who can afford the salaries. We consider a range of factors when deciding fees such as audience share, whether the presenter is replaceable, the schedule, the position on the schedule, the commercial revenue and all of that. RTE's competitors do not publish fees. Interestingly, several newspapers recently published estimations of fees.

According to our market intelligence, our fees are at a level where, if we amalgamated RTE and the commercial sector, four of the top ten would be from commercial radio. This is due to the reductions we have made. This is certainly not a criticism and they deserve whatever money they are going to get from their employers. I cannot confirm that completely because we do not have the figures, but these are indications. We have made inroads and we are pulling these figures down while valuing the contribution people make.

I ask Mr. Kevin Bakhurst to respond to questions on the "The Frontline" and "Prime Time".

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

There have been significant changes. We try to maintain the very best of "The Frontline", which includes elements of audience interaction. Much of the audience consists of people who phone in and join the audience. We deliberately mix it up from week to week. Some weeks it is primarily members of the public and other weeks we make sure there is a range of views. It is more interesting for the viewers of the general discussion if people in the audience have first-hand experience of what they are talking about. We are aware that there should be a range of views. People are not given loaded questions. They are entitled to ask the questions they want to ask. We bring in people who have an informed insight into the topic.

The "Prime Time" revamp has been very successful in terms of audience appreciation and has allowed us flexibility in terms of using the three programmes across the week. It gives us a vehicle if we have an investigative film ready to run. We can put it into one of those slots. We use the audience in different ways. Sometimes there will be a big studio audience and sometimes a smaller panel. We are trying to provide a range of experience with the audience, using the "Prime Time" slots in different ways.

The question related to editorial fairness and having a selected audience, as the witnesses have acknowledged-----

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

Some of them.

The vast majority will be picked for a particular night and a particular topic. Was anything learned from the experience of the presidential election, when the format spectacularly blew up in the face of RTE? There was unfairness to the people expecting to go on to represent a particular view, whether political, spiritual, religious or economic. A certain degree of fairness is lost in the fact that RTE selects the audience.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

Fairness is at the heart of picking some of the audience. We learned many lessons from the presidential debate. We have had one or two subsequent debates, including on the children's referendum, where we implemented the new guidelines and clear criteria for selecting the studio audience. The weekly "Prime Time" is on individual topics and is a little bit different. No party feels it gets a fair crack of the whip, whether in opposition or in government. There should be a range of voices to provide a range of perspectives on the debate.

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

Much of the questioning concerned the top talent. I apologise if it seemed I was oblique about contractors, because that was certainly not the intention. To clarify, Deputy O'Donovan mentioned the BBC figures, in which 19 stars were paid over £22 million. Deputy O'Donovan cited a figure of £500,000, but in some cases the salaries are well in excess of £2 million. I accept there is more competition in the UK and the audiences are bigger, but we can put that to one side. Before RTE adopted the strategy of reducing its top talent, the average of the top ten in 2008 was under €500,000. It was €444,000. Before any reductions were taken, that was the figure. That clarifies the point about contractors. It refers to a combination of contractors and a couple of employees. We are not yet finished because negotiations are continuing but, projecting the figure forward, the average in 2013 will be under €300,000, closer to €280,000. That is a significant reduction in our top talent. No one is saying that is not a large figure, but it is a substantial reduction. The reductions were disclosed in March and range from 21% to 68%. They have been significant, although they pale to insignificance next to the BBC figures.

Deputy O'Donovan mentioned that the pay cuts at RTE involved the lower-paid staff. The pay cut was taken in 2009. It was taken very quickly by our staff in response to the economic downturn in 2008. It was a graduated pay cut from 2.35% for lower earners up to 12.5% for higher earners. We implemented what was a fair pay scale reduction so people who earned more took more of a cut and those who earned less did not take as much of a cut.

With regard to exits, we mentioned a figure of 20% of staff leaving between 2008 and 2011. Over 16% of those were managers, so the exits were not all from the staff element. They have also been from the higher-paid managerial grades, so we hope balance applied to the cuts in pay and the staff numbers leaving the organisation.

Mr. Noel Curran

Deputy Ann Phelan has left, so we will hold her question.

With regard to the comments made by Deputy Tom Fleming, we have consulted other broadcasters and the person responsible for the guidelines at the BBC. We undertook consultation in terms of best practice. Sometimes, as we saw at the BBC, other companies get into difficulties with regard to editorial issues. We should not necessarily look at everyone as ideal. We should try to get a range of views and inputs so that it is not narrow.

It is important to clarify the issue concerning resignation. I assume the Deputy meant the previous managing director of news, who was not sacked and has had that clarified in newspapers; he took early retirement. He is one of the people I respect most out of all of the people I have ever worked with. He will not be in some wilderness where he will find it hard to find employment. He is incredibly busy, as one would expect of someone with his range of talents. With regard to the specific question about me, I have answered it on the previous two occasions I was here. It is common knowledge that I was prepared to take accountability. In a leadership position, one must take accountability and show responsibility and leadership. It is not an issue in terms of how we handle this; it is more a question of how the organisation has come through it. Has the organisation come through the most difficult editorial crisis in its history? It is a credit to the organisation that it has. That is not to say we will not make mistakes again; we will. We cannot get into the territory of investigative journalism and not make mistakes. We are trying to minimise the mistakes.

The Minister has made it clear that he does not see the licence fee increasing and, ultimately, it is his call. We have been arguing that a whole range of money is lost to the licence fee through evasion, the sound and vision fund, collection fees, the funding of RTE, the funding of TG4, the programming we provide for TG4 and a range of other items. What we have said is that there is an opportunity to look at overall funding levels if there will be an increase in public funding through some mechanism.

I disagree with the point that RTE needs to operate more as a commercial concern. If we are receiving public funding, people must see what is different about us. That does not mean we do not need to maximise commercial revenues.

Moving RTE more into the sphere of being a commercial broadcaster separates its identity from the other commercial broadcasters. It undermines the case for public funding and means that RTE will no longer be able to afford the range of programmes. RTE invests in drama and young people's programming and does 60 hours of live news and current affairs every week. We invest in a whole range of programmes in which our competitors do not, including Irish language, performing groups, etc. If we abandon that and chase a commercial revenue, then why do we have RTE? Why do we have public funding of a broadcaster? We are still dual funded and we need, particularly now, to maximise the commercial revenues but RTE needs to have a separate public service identity.

The Deputy's final point is always a difficult one. President Obama earns $400,000 per year, or $500,000 when other allowances are included. I do not know that any of our people are earning three times that. This question surfaces all the time. Many people in the Irish semi-State sector earn more than that. In the UK, 9,000 people in the public sector earn more than the British Prime Minister - 320 work in local councils and hundreds of them work in the NHS. These comparisons are difficult and they are not necessarily comparing apples with apples but I understand that people have looked at the fees we were paying and have had a concern. I say again that we have tried to address that. I believe we have addressed it a more wide-ranging way than other areas where people have concerns. The process is not complete yet.

Mr. Brian Dalton

The questions should be asked of us. We are stewards on behalf of our audience. We receive €181 million and, in turn, we generate approximately 50% more in terms of commercial income. That is what we are mandated to do. Our contribution to the Irish economy in 2011 was €384 million overall. RTE supports 3,550 people in the Irish economy. In terms of indigenous programming, what we spend and the wider creative economy, it is €249 million. What Sky takes out of the Irish economy - it runs to several hundred million euro - compared to what is ploughed back into it in terms of employment and the spend on indigenous programming is very marked.

Independently, a survey of the Irish adult population found that 75% said they were proud of RTE and of its content. There are important considerations. Of course, we have to demonstrate clear value and what we do with that €181 million. Allowing for our broad remit and what we are as a public service provider, we work hard to serve our audience.

I thank Mr. Curran and his management team for appearing before the committee. With the imminent change from the television licence to whatever broadcasting charge will be implemented, the nature of the relationship of the public will change with that. There was some cover for those who chose not to pay the €160. They could kick the television out the window and say they would not watch it anymore. That is fine but that will not happen anymore. It becomes a kind of consumer base to a taxpayer. That is a different relationship and requires different scrutiny.

With that in mind, there is much focus on salaries and so on. I would prefer to look at value for money, where the money goes and how it is spent. Does the consumer-taxpayer, or something similar to a taxpayer, get value for money and what they require from RTE?

We have listened to the testimony about many of the reductions which have taken place and they are quite severe. That is accepted. In terms of the reduction in staff numbers, how many staff were full-time, part-time and on contract? Were there any compulsory redundancies? If there was not, are compulsory redundancies an option for management? On the payroll costs, relative to total costs, the presentation mentioned €153 million out of €353 million. How does that compare with similar broadcasters in terms of the ratio of payroll to other costs?

The witnesses said they were working in a very challenging commercial environment in regard to advertising. Has RTE reduced advertising rates? I am not sure how it charges for advertising, whether it is per minute or per second.

I have some concerns about the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. When people come up with a report and say it is broadly positive, people say: "Well they would say that". RTE has spent quite a lot of time advertising RTE in respect of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. Has there been a cost evaluation of that element of advertising? I do not want to get into a debate on whether that is good or bad. If it was a corporate decision taken by RTE, what is the value of that?

The witnesses said there were 5,000 hours of home produced broadcasting, which is a huge amount and which is what we are talking about here in terms of what RTE does. Has there been any assessment carried out on the price per hour that cost? If there has been, how do we compare internationally, if there are comparisons? I accept the point made about figures from other commercial stations but do we have figures for international comparisons?

To touch on the top ten salaries, I note there have been significant reductions in many of the contracts of some of the employees who are in this top ten. Have there been variations in their responsibilities? Are they doing more for less, less for less or significantly more for less? As public representatives, we spend a lot of time in our cars and we listen to RTE radio, in particular current affairs programmes. Some of the presenters or personalities who do not appear in the top ten are extremely capable and are very entertaining and competent. I would suggest that, in many cases, they are better ambassadors for RTE. It would not be the worst thing in the world to take a greater punt on those personalities who do not feature in the top ten. They are quite effective when it comes to incisive broadcasting or entertaining broadcasting, in particular.

I get exasperated when I see chat show hosts interviewing chat show hosts. It is a bit of a merry-go-round between organisations. One of the best interviews was done with a young man from Blennerville, Mr. Donal Walsh, who sadly passed away. That was a particularly challenging piece of work and I thought it was public service at its best. I would like to see more of that type of work, the launch of RTE junior and the work with the RTE archives rather than who is in Dublin with the next book deal or the next film, although I know that needs to be done. Challenging the audience is broadcasting at its very best and it is what RTE does best.

If I was asked, I would like to see much more of this rather than Michael Parkinson or Graham Norton again on RTE. Perhaps I am cynical about it, but what RTE does best is the type of interview Mr. O'Connor did with Mr. Donal Walsh. Work like that is what it does best and that should be the focus.

I thank Mr. Curran and his staff for their presentation. I have always given great praise to RTE, but I have never been able to understand the obscene wage structure for those at the top. In the past we were told advertising paid for many of the top earners, but their earnings should have been related to the size of population or audience as much as anything else. Ireland is a small country of 4.5 million people, compared to a population of 60 million in Britain and it is beyond belief there is a mindset that we can have broadcasters with the same wage structures as those in Britain. How many of the top earners have different wages for working on radio and television? Is this right? Ms O'Keeffe has said the average salary was €300,000, but if people are double jobbing, is this taken into account in the calculation? Are their taxes paid directly by RTE or do they use companies to avail of tax breaks? I do not know whether that is true, but I keep hearing it is the case. I am not even sure whether I should ask the question, but it has been said many times that they do not pay the same taxes as everyone else while taking home massive earnings.

RTE's revenue is down by more than €100 million. Is there a critical mass of staff? Is there a cut-off point for staff reductions? I acknowledge the organisation has reduced staff numbers substantially during the years, but is the point approaching at which no more can be cut?

With regard to advertising, there is an ongoing debate about whether alcohol advertisements should be permitted. Does Mr. Curran have a view on this? Does he believe that in an ideal world such advertisements should not be broadcast? Would this cost the station substantially?

I enjoy many of the home produced programmes. Are they much cheaper to make than buying programmes on the open market or do they cost a great deal more?

How many legal actions are lodged against RTE annually? How much do they cost every year?

Mr. Curran has stated the average staff salary is €55,000, which excludes contractors. Is that correct? I hear the average salary at TV3 is in excess of €30,000, but I do not know whether that is correct. Can RTE learn lessons from the way that station manages its budget without a subvention of any description?

Mr. Curran has stated that, as the staff and wage reductions kick in, RTE will begin to generate a profit and that the deficit of €60 million will reduce. How long will it take to return to profitability?

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

Deputy Noel Harrington asked many questions and I hope I will address most of them. He is correct that it is not a question of cuts alone. One should assess value for money in terms of how effective they are and one way to do this is to look at the transmitted hour cost or the cost of programming. While it is difficult to compare programmes, as one programme is not the same as another, we have shown significant reductions in our per transmitted hour cost. For example, the average cost per transmitted hour for RTE One decreased by 29% between 2008 and 2012, while the figure for RTE Two decreased by 21%. The number of transmitted hours has not decreased hugely. Similarly, in the case of radio, the average cost per transmitted hour across all services has decreased significantly - for Raidió na Gaeltachta by18%; Lyric FM, 20%; 2FM, 24%; and Radio 1, 24%. As well as maintaining output, we have tried to consistently reduce year on year the transmitted hour cost.

Deputies Noel Harrington and Dessie Ellis referred to the cost of indigenous programming which is significantly higher than that of acquired programming because of the level of production involved. When we buy something in, we acquire a licence, but when one makes a programme, whether in RTE or the independent sector, significant research, production, etc, is required, which means that the cost of an indigenous programme is significantly higher than that of an acquired programme.

Does Ms O'Keeffe have figures for the cost of home produced programming?

Mr. Noel Curran

Compared to acquired programming.

How does the cost of home produced programming compare with, for example, that in the BBC?

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

It is difficult to compare the type of programme unless it is exactly the same. We have tried to do this. We have engaged with European broadcasters in benchmarking costs per hour. We have had a number of those and always get into difficulties in terms of how somebody accounts for something, the different methods of costing, etc. It can, therefore, be difficult to compare with our European counterparts. Drama is one area in which costs are similar. One might argue about the quality of drama and which is better or worse, but we have compared ourselves with the BBC. For example, "Eastenders" costs more than double what it costs to produce "Fair City", while "Casualty", another well known drama in the United Kingdom, costs between four and five times more. While they have different audiences, they are similar soap dramas. That is not necessarily a consistent factor across the board, but it is one comparison at which we have looked.

We have also benchmarked the resources we put into our programmes against those put in by our European counterparts, including the number of hours of research involved, editing and so on. Both RTE and the independent sector compare favourably with them. We show levels of efficiency that compare well. Another comparison in the context of value for money and efficiency involves head count. Is a 21% reduction enough? For example, the head count in Danmarks Radio and YLE in Finland is considerably higher than that for RTE. YLE had more than 3,000 staff at the end of 2011 and provides a similar level of service.

NRK, the Norwegian state broadcaster, had a headcount of over 3,500. When we look at our European broadcaster counterparts and the level of services they produce, as a public service broadcaster we compare favourably.

We were asked whether the 500 people who have left were mostly part- or full-time. While I do not have the figures to hand, the majority were full-time staff. Contractors are outside of that number, so the 500 were RTE staff. I do not have the numbers for the reduction in contractors but we reduced the cost of contract resources and supplementary resources by more than 25% in that period. Through rate cuts, in the same way that staff took pay cuts, our contractors took a similar level of cut and the use of our contract resources has been reduced.

Were the full-time staff all let go through voluntary redundancies?

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

There were no compulsory redundancies in RTE.

Deputy Ellis asked about taxes and companies. When we contract with individuals for services, we contract with them on the basis on which they operate. If they have a limited company or are a sole trader, that is the basis upon which we contract with them. The obligation to return taxes appropriately to the Revenue Commissioners is their responsibility, not the responsibility of RTE. Their tax affairs are their own affair and they often engage agents and accountants to organise such matters on their behalf. It is their responsibility but we insist contractors have tax clearance certificates. Ultimately, it is a contractor's responsibility to deal with the Revenue Commissioners appropriately.

People are saying they can write off so much money in those companies. I know it is not for RTE to comment on but people say these people are escaping paying taxes in the same way as everyone else because they are doing it through companies.

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

That is an issue for the Revenue Commissioners.

I appreciate that.

Why are they not on a salary and paying income tax like everyone else? This is what seems to be unfair.

Mr. Noel Curran

In terms of talent and in view of what has happened with broadcasters around the world, we want the ability to end a contract. It happens a lot with presenters and RTE is not the only broadcaster that does this.

Is it fair that a public service broadcaster is facilitating people in not paying the same level of taxation as others?

Mr. Noel Curran

That is an issue for the Revenue Commissioners. Whatever arrangements under the law people have with the Revenue Commissioners is an issue for that body. That is a legal issue.

It is RTE's decision to take people on under a contract instead of as PAYE employees.

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

We contract with people based on the nature of the service. Also, when we contract with them, they have the ability to enter into contracts with other people to earn revenue. A lot of our top talent provide services to other organisations as well in terms of marketing and acting as MCs at events. There should not, however, be any suggestion that contractors do not pay their taxes.

We are not saying that; we are saying it facilitates a different level of taxation. They are not paying like everyone else in the public service, as PAYE workers.

The issue is wider. Of course they are paying PAYE through the company paying them. The issue is whether RTE should enter into a contract with a personality through a company or whether it should be done by entering a contract with the individual as a sole trader. That is a difficult issue to solve.

Mr. Brian Dalton

There are important points and I understand that when people look at the fees being paid to these people, they feel they have a different legal relationship. That is copper-fastened when it comes to security but also with regard to pensions. If we look at the cost of providing a 40-year pension, it is significant, and actuarially, we should look at what it would cost to have 50% of income at a point in time that is indexed and compare it to contracts of three years' duration with companies or sole traders. We take on no liability at all for these other benefits that last for a long time, particularly defined benefit pensions. We must take into account a number of factors.

If we have regard to the requirement for us to exploit commercial opportunity, it is important that we take into account how a particular programme performs and the audience it attracts. At a point in time, if something is not working out, we maintain the right to terminate the contract.

Mr. Noel Curran

We have minimised and we have had a 6% reduction in indigenous hours, but we have done much of that differently. We had to drop output. If we did an audit of the 20 or 30 people who appeared regularly on RTE in 2007 compared to now, we would see a lot of movement, as is always the case in these areas.

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

Going back to the question of dual contracts, with separate contracts for television and radio, under the current renegotiations, we have ensured in all cases that there is a single contract to cover all services. If a presenter or top talent is providing both radio and television services, we encompass them in one contract. That was not always the case in the past, but in the earnings we disclosed in March both services are covered for presenters who provide services across both.

So if a top earner is making €400,000, he is not getting €200,000 for the radio show as well; this is the total?

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

For someone who appears on both television and radio, such as Ryan Tubridy, the fee that was disclosed covers both services - the total fee paid for television and radio. We have single contracts now for the combination of services provided by contractors.

Mr. Noel Curran

We are constantly looking at commercial rates and assessing price. This is unfortunately becoming a bigger issue in the market, as happens in a recession. We must constantly look at where we are placed with our competitors. We publish our prices, which can put us at a disadvantage, but that is part of our transparency. Price is something we constantly look at in commercial terms.

The PwC report was the first time we have done such a report. We felt it was important that the information was public.

Mr. Brian Dalton

We spent a modest amount on it.

Mr. Noel Curran

It was a modest amount. We used some existing promotion time and put it in at a low level. We had a very good response, with people saying they did not realise what we were doing. Other organisations have done this sort of report, but we had not done it before.

Deputy Ellis asked if home-produced programmes are cheaper than those we acquire. The average price of a home production is €40,000, while the average price of an acquired programme is €2,700. Home productions costs are one of the reasons a public service broadcaster, with a higher commitment to home production, must be properly funded.

Deputy O'Mahony asked about legal costs and we will get that information for him. He also asked about profit. We are still targeting financial stability this year. It is a difficult market and I cannot say where it will go in the second half. Some of the indications are that it will not be as volatile as the first half, but I defy anyone to give an accurate month-by-month prediction for anything more than three months.

In almost every segment RTE advertises an RTE programme, either coming next or the following night or week.

Is there an assessment of what that costs? Does RTE bill itself or assess how much time is used in advertising RTE content?

I call Deputy Ellis for a brief question.

In terms of the contracts drawn up with RTE, can the top earners enter into a separate contract with another radio station or must they have an RTE contract?

When the broadcasters appeared before the committee they suggested that 80% of the sound and vision pool of money goes back to RTE. Will the witnesses please comment?

Mr. Noel Curran

I will take the first question on promotion time. We do monitor promotion time. Every broadcaster allocates promotion time and it is hugely effective. We also allocate time to supporting the arts and a whole range of different things. We monitor how that increases, where it is spent and how it is allocated. In terms of contracts, some of our contractors work for others. That is part of the reason they have a contract and that is reflected. One will see broadcasters on television who work for other rival radio stations. Deputy John O'Mahony asked about the sound and vision pool of money. The figure is 36%.

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

In the last round, round 14 of the BAI, there were about 114 projects across television and radio. Either directly or via an independent producer who was going to transmit the programming on RTE, 14 of the 114 submissions were RTE or RTE-supported submissions across television and radio. That is less than 15%.

Is the witness saying the figure from the independent broadcaster-----

Ms Breda O'Keeffe

There was mention of 80%. It is nothing like that.

Mr. Noel Curran

We certainly do not get that. In terms of radio allocation, community radio would receive 48%, local commercial radio 26%. In total the allocation since February 2006 is Newstalk, 8.6%, Today FM ,1%, independent commercial radio, 36% and in radio, RTE, 15%. I can give those to the committee.

Sorry Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan.

I thank the Chairman. What was the purpose of the PricewaterhouseCoppers involvement because at this stage it crops up virtually every time we switch on the radio or television. There was reference to how it benefits the economy. I presume that means that the money people gave to RTE benefited the economy and that it includes the licence fee. It is rather like a Deputy commissioning a report on what amount of money he or she contributes to the local economy from his or her wages and expenses and putting it up as a plus as to why people should vote for him or her. That would be ridiculous. It is actually the people's money that is being used to tell to us how great is RTE. Would it not have made more sense to leave the slots free for health promotion or getting people into sport? What is so important about this that RTE has to tell us all it is contributing to the economy with our money?

In regard to the pay of some of its presenters, a Deputy said that people are very good at having a go at us in regard to our pay. By God, they are right because we get paid far too much. That does not exclude us from asking why, say, Marian Finucane, according to the latest figures available to me for 2011, receives €492,000 per year for bringing her friends around on a Saturday and Sunday morning on national radio. The witnesses mentioned how important these people are from an advertising point of view and where would RTE be without them. Where would Marian Finucane and Pat Kenny be without RTE? It is a kind of symbiotic relationship. Nobody would know who they are were it not for RTE. When RTE decides their value, how does it come to conclusions? Does it look at what people are paid in Radio Manchester? I doubt if anybody is paid €0.5 million for four hours work in Radio Manchester and, if so, I do not know how it could remain open for business. How is the pay calculated for these people?

An excellent point was made by the Deputy on my left about the fact that RTE has new presenters who do not appear in the top ten. It is refreshing to hear new people on RTE Radio because it is like groundhog day at this stage. For how many decades do we need to hear these people who bring their own personal opinions to the airwaves? It is time they were moved on and that RTE used some of its talent that does not seem to cost a fortune. If it did, they would appear in the top ten.

RTE does a good job in certain ways. It would want to as it gets enough money. It would want to do something good. It is inevitable that it does something good. I admit RTE has improved from the days when it started in the evening with "Upstairs Downstairs" and closed at 11 p.m. That is an improvement but many more improvements could be made. From the point of view of value for money for presenters, if in the morning RTE was to say to Marianne Finucane that it would give her €100,000-----

Excuse me, Deputy I would prefer if you did not mention names.

Fair enough. Has RTE offered any of these wonderful people who present radio and televisions shows €100,000 per year? Has it asked if they would work for that amount and, if not, that it would look for somebody else? Where would they go? Who would take them on board? I cannot see anybody taking them on board and if somebody did, so be it.

With regard to how RTE employs these people through companies, is that its way of getting them at a cheaper rate as it does not have to pay them pensions and so on? Is it a case that the tax system, while it is outside the control of RTE, actually facilitates RTE in getting them? Is that how RTE views it?

Will Mr. Curran comment on the PwC report?

Mr. Brian Dalton

I will clarify that and other reports that a large company like us would do. There are times where we would not have the resources to look at comparisons and where one is tapping into expertise one asks a consultancy that has a reputation or an expertise in certain areas to look at how we are performing, either in terms of costs or how we compare against other international television stations. That expertise is drawn into the organisation to help with planning and around our performance. As I said, a modest amount was allocated to that report, both in terms of the air space we have given to it and also what we spent on it.

Mr. Noel Curran

In terms of the issue around pay, the figure quoted for the individual is the old figure and there has been a substantial reduction in that. In terms of the new presenters, we fully agree with what has been said. Any broadcaster needs refreshing. I said it earlier and I will say it again. When we are asked about this aspect, much of the discussion is around the highest paid earners but we have a host of people who are not in the top ten who offer amazing value and to whom the public respond incredibly positively. They do an amazing job. I accept the point the Deputy made and I am glad he made it, namely, it is noticeable that we are bringing more of those people through. It is noticeable in radio and in news, in terms of initiatives Mr. Bakhurst has undertaken, and in television. Any broadcaster needs that balance between experience and others.

That answer would have been included in terms of what Ms O'Keeffe and Mr. Dalton said. There is a range of issues around pension, flexibility, ability to replace, and also the earlier question in terms of people working for others, that has led all broadcasters to have a proportion of on-air talent who are paid through companies.

I am paraphrasing but Mr. Curran has said the cuts the senior presenters have taken are big cuts. However, the only reason they are big cuts is because they were on huge money in the first place. If they were on €100,000 then a 30% cut would be a large cut. Although 30% of €400,000, €500,000, €600,000 or €700,000 is, in percentage terms, a big cut, it still leaves them on ridiculous salaries. It cannot be justified in a country with this population. The idea that they are geniuses that cannot be replaced does not hold. That is simply not the case. Why does RTE have them on short-term contracts when they have been there for decades? We are sick of looking at them at this stage. Can RTE change them?

We have been over this ground before. Deputy Colreavy, do you wish to make a point before we conclude?

I did not get an answer to the question on the initiatives in support of the Irish language. Perhaps a response could be sent on to the committee.

Mr. Noel Curran

We have a new Irish policy group. We are determining a new policy across the entire organisation on the Irish language and we are pulling together the various areas. That work is ongoing. I expect a report from the group by the end of the summer and we will make the report public. We have sought submissions from individuals and external bodies. We have received more than 100 submissions and we are going through them now. We will come out with the report and we intend to publish the document. I trust the committee will not hold me exactly to this but it should be at the end of the summer or in the early autumn.

Deputy Tom Fleming is next. When you are replying, Mr. Curran, you might remember that Deputy Ann Phelan asked a question about London.

The director general, Mr. Curran, made some comments in reply to a question on the "Prime Time Investigates: Mission to Prey" programme and the editor of news. Mr. Curran has provided an explanation today but I said it was a sacking issue. Effectively, it was a sacking by another name. I will leave it to the public to decide but that is the perception everyone had. I believe the wrong person eventually fell on his own sword. That is all I have to say.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst

Deputy Phelan asked a question about the London bureau. This was ongoing when I came to the job and the decision had been taken. I spoke to the director general and my predecessor about it. I have no doubt that at the time it was the right decision. We had an expensive premises and we were operating in a decidedly expensive part of London, and unnecessarily so. We were operating in a particular way there as well. We had to save substantial amounts of money across the news department. Had we not shut the London bureau we would probably have been unable to maintain a presence in the region. These are the types of trade-off we have had to make.

Deputy Phelan remarked that there was an offer from the BBC. To my knowledge, that is not correct. In fact, the director general and I are keeping the London bureau and the coverage from London and the United Kingdom under review to see how we are doing, in particular with the events coming up in the UK, including the general election and, potentially, a referendum on the UK's future in Europe and a referendum on Scottish independence. Among other things that story is not going away. We are keeping it under review. As part of the process we have spoken to the BBC and other broadcasters about the potential of sharing premises. Even with my background, the response from the BBC has not been very positive whereas other broadcasters have been more positive. We are still exploring options and if at some point we have the resources we may do something. The London operation is high on the list of areas we might revisit, but if we did something we would do it in a very different way.

I thank the members and I thank the delegation from RTE for coming before us and for explaining the RTE approach to reducing costs and better management. You are running a very big organisation and I wish you well. It is important that you have come before us today to explain to the public what is happening. We wish you well.

If there is no other business we will adjourn the committee until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m when officials from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport will be here. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.05 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 23 May 2013.
Top
Share