Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 Nov 2021

Chapter 7 - Oversight of Funding for the European Capital of Culture 2020

Ms Katherine Licken(Secretary General, Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media) called and examined.

I will pop out in 20 minutes so the Vice Chairman, Deputy Catherine Murphy, will take over. The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, is a permanent witness to the committee. I ask that members and all those in attendance to exercise personal responsibility in protecting themselves and others from the risk of Covid-19, particularly during the current surge. They are strongly advised to leave at least one vacant seat between them and others attending and to use the sanitisers provided. They should always maintain appropriate social distance before, during and after the meeting and wear masks at all times, except when speaking. Members participating remotely must continue to do so from within the precincts of Leinster House. This is due to the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit.

This morning, we will engage with officials from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media to examine the 2020 appropriation account, Vote 33 - Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media; and, from the 2020 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the accounts of the public services, chapter 7 - oversight of funding for the European Capital of Culture 2020 or Galway 2020, as it is referred to. We are joined remotely from outside the precincts of Leinster House by a number of officials from the Department, which reflects the scope of the its responsibility. In attendance are Ms Katherine Licken, Secretary General; Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin, assistant secretary, tourism and sport division; Mr. Conor Falvey, assistant secretary, culture division; Ms. Patricia Murphy, assistant secretary, corporate affairs; Ms Tríona Quill, assistant secretary, broadcasting and media division; Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic, Stiúrthóir na Gaeilge; Ms Tania Banotti, director of Creative Ireland; and Mr. Joe Healy, principal officer, head of finance and IT. We are also joined by remotely from outside the precincts of Leinster House by Mr. Brian O'Malley, principal officer in the relevant Vote section at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

I ask members and witnesses to mute themselves when not contributing so that we do not pick up background noise or feedback. I remind all those attending to ensure their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off. Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege, and the practice of the Houses as regards references speakers may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses who are physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precinct is protected pursuant to the constitutional statute by absolute privilege. However, today's witnesses are giving their evidence remotely from a place outside the precincts and as such, may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness who is present. Such witnesses have already been advised that they may think it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter.

Members are reminded of the provisions under Standing Order 218 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government, or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policies. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. To assist the broadcasting unit and the Debates Office, I ask members to direct their questions to a specific witness. If the question is not being directed to a specific witness, I ask that each witness to state his or her name the first time he or she contributes.

I call on the Comptroller and Auditor General to make his opening statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Vote 33 is effectively a new Vote developed in 2020 to reflect significant changes in the allocation of functions between Departments. As a result, comparisons with 2019 are of limited value. The 2020 appropriation account for Vote 33 discloses total gross expenditure of €972 million. This was distributed across five expenditure programmes and included funding for a wide range of "downstream" agencies tasked with distributing grant assistance for activities and development in their respective areas.

Spending on the broadcasting programme amounted to €271 million in 2020. The majority of this, or €237 million, was expended on grants to RTÉ and TG4 to carry out their public service broadcasting commitments. The Department spent more than €242 million on the arts and culture programme in 2020. This included €105 million to support the operations of the Arts Council, contributions towards the expenses of a wide range of national and regional cultural bodies and €7.1 million in funding for the European Capital of Culture 2020. Expenditure on the sports and recreation services programme in 2020 was €203 million. This included €163 million in funding for Sport Ireland. The Department spent almost €190 million under the tourism services programme. Expenditure on the Gaeltacht programme was €66 million in 2020.

On the receipts side, appropriations-in-aid amounted to €234 million in 2020, comprised mainly of €223 million in broadcasting licence fee receipts. The surplus on the Vote remaining at the year-end was just under €50 million. The Department carried over €17 million to 2021 and the balance of €33 million was due for surrender to the central fund of the Exchequer. My audit report draws attention to a disclosure by the Accounting Officer in the statement on internal financial control that the Department incurred significant expenditure relating to goods and services where the procurement arrangements did not comply with procurement guidelines.

Turning to chapter 7 of my report on the accounts of the public services for 2020, in July 2016, Galway was designated under an EU-supported scheme as the European Capital of Culture for 2020. In support of the application for designation, the Department committed in principle to provide funding of €15 million to the project. The examination found that the programme delivery model was different from that previously used for similar events for other Irish cities. An independent company trading under the name Galway 2020 was established to deliver the capital of culture programme of activities. There was significant turnover in the membership of the company's board of directors together with significant changes early on in the executive leadership of the company. The examination found that while initial financial reporting by the company was limited to what was required under the Companies Act, this was largely addressed in 2019 when the company registered as a charity. This required significantly more detailed financial reporting, which is also appropriate for a body substantially funded by State grants. It was originally envisaged that Exchequer funding for the capital of culture programme would not exceed 50% of the overall financial cost. However, in the end, the programme relied on public sources for the majority of its funding. Covid-19 restrictions significantly affected the delivery of the programme and impacted box office receipts but sponsorship support was also much less than envisaged even before the pandemic became an issue. At the time of completing this report, independent evaluators were in the process of formally assessing the effectiveness of the Galway 2020 capital of culture programme.

I invite Ms Licken to make her opening statement.

Ms Katherine Licken

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil libh as an deis a thabhairt dom an ráiteas seo a dhéanamh inniu. Gabhaim buíochas freisin le hOifig an Ard-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste as an mbealach proifisiúnta a rinne a cuid oifigeach an obair a bhí riachtanach i ndáil leis an gcuntas sin.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to address the committee at what I believe is a very critical period in time for the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. As I address the committee, I am extremely cognisant of all of the ongoing efforts to mitigate the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic across society. This is particularly pertinent in respect of the sectors served by the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. These sectors are fundamentally about people, audiences and participation. They include the arts sector, live entertainment and cultural events, which includes artists, entertainers and audiences; sporting participants and spectators; hotels, restaurants, bars or tourism attractions and services and the tourists and patrons who enjoy these facilities; and students attending coláistí samhraidh, the coláistí, mná tí and hallaí pobal that support this experience and businesses in Gaeltacht regions.

Our national and local media have also been critical stakeholders right throughout the pandemic. They have provided important public information and debate throughout the crisis, while also experiencing their own challenges.

The impact of the pandemic on all these sectors is well documented. Employing many hundreds of thousands of people, right across the country, these are the sectors that thrive when people congregate to enjoy their leisure time together. They were the first to close as a result of the pandemic, and they are among the last to return to full operations as restrictions ease. In response to the impact of Covid-19 across these sectors, the Department introduced several new schemes and initiatives over the past 18 months. These include the Covid-19 business continuity scheme, business adaptation schemes and restart grants for the tourism and hospitality sectors; a significant suite of supports for live performance across the events and entertainment industries; a support package for the sports sector, encompassing the IRFU, GAA, FAI, the national governing bodies of sport and clubs and communities; measures to support the Irish summer colleges sector; and measures to support media, and the independent and local radio sector in particular. These measures are all in addition to the significant suite of cross-sectoral supports that the Government has introduced.

The staff of the Department and its agencies have worked tirelessly to design and implement a wide range of initiatives and programmes in the optimal manner to focus the supports where most needed, while simultaneously pivoting to a new way of working that did not involve physical attendance at the office. The supports put in place needed to be flexible and dynamic in response to an ever-changing environment, and that still remains the position as we continue to monitor and assess the impact of both the pandemic and the mitigating interventions.

Regarding my appearance here, the briefing note provided to the committee outlines the background to the establishment of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media in 2020 and some of the key outputs of the Department in that year, by programme area, and it also provides details regarding the Galway 2020 European Capital of Culture project, which is the subject of chapter 7 of the report of the Controller and Auditor General for 2020.

The European Capital of Culture is the longest running and one of the most high-profile European Union actions in the cultural space. It has been a great honour for Galway to hold the designation from February 2020 to April 2021, despite the complications that Covid-19 presented. During its designated year, Galway 2020 supported more than 600 artists and other cultural workers, such as producers, technicians and crew, to deliver more than 500 events through a combination of physical and online events in what was an unprecedented global pandemic. In delivering this programme, Galway 2020 employed a dynamic volunteer programme, consisting of more than 800 volunteers from 50 countries, and a strong community engagement programme, as well as vibrant international and partnership programmes.

As Accounting Officer for the Department, I welcome the Comptroller and Auditor General's examination of the oversight of funding for the European Capital of Culture 2020 project. I accept the recommendations made by the Comptroller and Auditor General on foot of the detailed examination, as outlined in chapter 7 of the 2020 report, and I will continue to work to ensure that all relevant grant management provisions are fully incorporated and implemented as part of future oversight of and reporting on grants.

I reiterate my commitment as Accounting Officer to ensuring that all projects under the remit of the Department are managed in accordance with the provisions of the public spending code and all relevant circulars. We will continue to take lessons from the past to ensure that we have the most appropriate and effective structures and processes in place to deliver effectively for all our stakeholders, many of whom have been and continue to be adversely impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. I am happy to expand on any of these areas. I have brought my full management board team with me today because of the breadth, range and depth of our programmes. Therefore, we are very happy to expand on any of the programme areas.

I thank Ms Licken. Her Department covers a wide range of issues and areas. I have some questions. Focusing on RTÉ, and looking at its accounts, that organisation has run a deficit for six consecutive years. RTÉ's income has reduced by €100 million in the same period, while costs have increased by €30 million. Land was sold in the last year as well. In addition, in 2019, RTÉ recorded borrowings of €95 million. The director general of RTÉ, Dee Forbes, described the situation as "unsustainable".

The overall picture with this commercial semi-State, which comes under the remit of the Department, looks to be far from secure. We have concerns about this aspect, and Ms Licken might like to comment in this regard. Does she see RTÉ perhaps requiring some kind of a State bailout? Are we facing into a crisis with the organisation? I would like Ms Licken to outline, briefly, her Department's take on the current situation.

Ms Katherine Licken

RTÉ demonstrated how important public service broadcasting really is during the pandemic. It provided critical information. The evidence is there to show that people rely on RTÉ as a trusted source of information. Good and transparent public service media, and good media overall, are important for a well-functioning democracy. It was precisely for this reason that the Future of Media Commission was established. It is in the programme for Government. The commission has completed its deliberations, and those are being considered by the Minister and the Taoiseach. Part of those deliberations concerned looking at public service broadcasting and the wider media landscape.

To address the Chair's question, we do monitor RTÉ's financial position closely. It was in surplus in 2020. As I said, the Future of Media Commission is a policy matter for Ministers, but we are working closely with RTÉ, with NewERA, which has a role in the governance of RTÉ, and with the BAI to monitor the situation closely. We are conscious of the importance of RTÉ.

Ms Licken is the Accounting Officer for the Department, and we understand that RTÉ is an independent commercial semi-State organisation, but a large part of its funding comes through the Department. Ms Licken outlined those figures in the documents she sent to us for today's meeting. Is she concerned now, however, at the financial state of RTÉ? I ask that because the situation looks to be far from healthy. Costs have increased and income has reduced dramatically. Land can be sold, but that can only be done once. There has also been substantial borrowing. The most recent figure I could find in that regard was for 2019, when it was €95 million. Is the situation at RTÉ sustainable?

Ms Katherine Licken

RTÉ has exercised great judgement and management in this regard. It has cost-cutting measures in place, and it is working to contain its costs as best as is possible. We are working closely with the organisation in that regard. I should stress that RTÉ's funding comes from the television licence fee, as set out in statute. The money that comes into our Vote is, to all intents and purposes, a pass-through. It comes in from the television licence fee and then it goes out to RTÉ.

I understand that. An internal memo in Ms Licken's Department earlier in the year, however, referred to the finances of RTÉ as not being "sustainable" and that they "were undermining its capacity" to perform its role. Can Ms Licken confirm if that is accurate?

Ms Katherine Licken

We are of course concerned, and we will always be concerned, about funding for public service broadcasting. We will always be concerned, generally, about RTÉ's funding position. It is for that reason, and in that policy context, that the Future of Media Commission was put in place to examine the future not just of public service broadcasting, as encompassed by RTÉ, but also of the media generally. It is right, therefore, to say that there are concerns. It is also right to say that the Government is acting on those concerns and that the Department is working closely with RTÉ regarding its financial position. The organisation's surplus in 2020 was €7.9 million. Therefore, some of the predicted shortfalls did not emerge as anticipated, and that was good news.

Has RTÉ requested additional funding?

Ms Katherine Licken

RTÉ has worked closely with the Future of Media Commission regarding its future funding. It does not get funding directly from the Department, other than through the licence fee.

That is the mechanism by which it is funded so it does not seek funding directly from the Department. It got additional funding last year in respect of the free licences from the Department of Social Protection for pensioners. That is a long-established mechanism, but the Department does not fund RTÉ directly through any line item in its Vote, other than passing through the TV licence.

Thank you. I do not doubt the importance of public sector broadcasting and, personally, I am a great supporter of it. I agree with your comment that it is important to have that in a democracy.

The lead questioner for the committee today is Deputy Sherlock, who has 15 minutes. He will be followed by Deputy Catherine Murphy. All other members will have ten minutes each.

Deputy Catherine Murphy took the Chair.

I thank the Secretary General and her colleagues for appearing before the committee. I wish to focus in the first instance on cultural institutions, programme B, specifically subheads B1 through to B15, of the tourism, culture, arts, Gaeltacht, sport and media Vote. The entire budget of the Department is rapidly nudging up to €1 billion. As a result, I assume that will give rise to many new challenges. Under the Project 2040 national development plan, NDP, there is €460 million allocated to the national cultural institutions investment programme. The projects incorporated into that programme include the conversion of the Bishop Street warehouse into a secure, environmentally controlled archival repository for the National Archives, the National Library of Ireland redevelopment, the development of the Crawford Art Gallery in my native Cork and the proposal to renovate the National Gallery of Ireland, the National Museum of Ireland, the National Concert Hall, the Abbey Theatre and the Chester Beatty Library. The National Museum of Ireland is preparing a design procurement of the history of Ireland galleries.

All are laudable projects and are to be supported. However, they will all bring challenges for the Department. The big shift in the spending capacity of the Department in respect of these cultural institutions under the NDP gives rise to a number of specific questions. First, what expertise and systems have increased at Department level to ensure the efficient disbursement of funding for approved capital development projects?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, we have got funding of €460 million under the NDP for the cultural institutions. This is a very welcome injection of funds. As the Deputy will know from the Crawford Art Gallery in Cork, many of these institutions have not seen major redevelopment for many years and, in some cases, centuries, for example, the Natural History Museum. This is welcome funding. The first phase of the refurbishment of the National Gallery of Ireland led the way in terms of showing what can be done in the cultural institutions when investment is provided. On foot of us receiving that money, we moved immediately to establish a dedicated team, composed principally of economists, that oversees our investment programme and particularly the investment in the cultural institutions. That is the Project Ireland 2040 team that we established a number of years ago. The purpose of the team is to ensure the institutions walk carefully through the public spending code and the capital works framework when undertaking their investments. Many of the institutions are now in progress with regard to those investments. Obviously, we work closely with the Office of Public Works, OPW, too. It delivers the projects for us. We are also working closely with RTÉ. I might ask Mr. Conor Falvey to speak in a little more detail on the individual programmes.

If I may, I have further specific questions that may assist the process before Ms Licken defers to her colleague.

Ms Katherine Licken

My apologies.

They are very specific questions. First, who will be responsible for procurement and project management for the capital development projects in the cultural institutions? What is the precise role of the Department, the cultural institution and, where applicable, the OPW in this? Who ultimately manages those relationships? Who undertakes the procurement and daily project oversight? Who signs off on procurement and spending, the Department or the cultural institution? If overspends occur and if the Legislature, through this committee, needs to interrogate certain issues, who will appear before this committee? Looking at the projects I referred to, it is statistically possible there might be issues that may arise in respect of overspends and public procurement that may give rise to questions that have to be answered. If overspends occur, who would appear before this committee? Would it be the Secretary General and her Department or the cultural institution? Furthermore, what additional resources and expertise have been made available to the cultural institutions to deal with this increased oversight and workload? That is just one parcel of questions. There are further questions on this issue.

Ms Katherine Licken

Under the public spending code, there are very clear roles and responsibilities designated to the different parties to these investments. The Department is the approving authority, the relevant national cultural institution is the sponsoring agency and the OPW is the contracting authority. If something goes wrong, the committee will have us back before it and, perhaps, the OPW as the contracting authority. We are very conscious of that. It has to be borne in mind that some of these projects are old buildings so there is always the risk of finding something that was not anticipated. For that reason the public spending code and the capital works framework allows to us to have a phase of investigation work. That is ongoing at the National Library at present. It is a detailed investigation. Once we have cleared the books out of the site we have contractors to go in and carry out a detailed investigation of what is there, the conditions there and what difficulties are likely to arise. That is before one goes to detailed planning and contracting, so one can get a better estimate of the cost.

Who will sign off on the procurement? I want to understand the process.

Ms Katherine Licken

The Department.

Will it be the Department or the cultural institution? The context in which I ask these questions is that I worry that the voluntary boards of the institutions that are earmarked for capital development projects, notwithstanding their expertise on cultural and governance matters, might not have expertise on procurement matters. With this money coming down the track to these laudable projects, I worry that there might not be the capacity within the institutions to be able to have that expertise. I am trying to tease out whether it is the intention of the Department to buttress those institutions with additional skill sets as befit the specific project as it arises. The Secretary General said a dedicated team has been established comprising economists. I would like to be assured whether there are teams of procurement specialists and governance specialists being readied for the delivery of these projects. There is a gap there and it is giving rise to concern. I do not feel assured by the answers so far, if I may say that.

Ms Katherine Licken

My apologies. I can assure the Deputy that the expertise is there and will be there.

The Deputy should not forget that the OPW is in place also. Procurement and building buildings are the core activities of the OPW. I will ask Mr. Falvey to come in on that.

I thank Ms Licken.

Mr. Conor Falvey

The Department works very closely with the OPW in each of the natural cultural institutions as we move them through the various procurement phases. All of the projects have oversight groups in place. In earlier stages, we call them interim working groups. They comprise officials from the Department, the government unit within the Department that oversees the individual institutions, the Project Ireland 2040 office, the OPW and the cultural institutions. We provide resources to the cultural institutions to procure the design, expertise and project-management expertise and to manage the current project phase. Separate from that, the Department and the OPW have a programme-level oversight group that overviews all the projects. It includes the commissioner, the State architect, me, my colleague, Ms Murphy, from our government side, and various representatives from the OPW and the Department. We work very closely with the institutions. We are moving them all very carefully through the various phases under the public expenditure code.

On the code, there are a number of decision gates, covering strategic assessment, the business case, pre-tender approval, approval to proceed and the final business case. All of those are subject to the approval of the Minister. The groups typically meet every two months, or eight weeks, depending on the phase of the project. The models we have had have been based on the lessons from the National Gallery, whose transformation was very successful. As the Secretary General alluded to, we have completed phase 1 of the works at the National Library. This has seen a significant risk to a national collection in the west wing of the National Library completely mitigated, which is a very significant outcome. As we move to the next phase, investigative works are being done by the OPW to establish the physical fabric of the building, as the Secretary General referred to in order that we can have a good evidence basis for estimating the cost of the next phase of the works, which in turn will inform the design before we go to procurement, etc. That is an overview. If there is anything the Deputy would like me to elaborate on, I will be happy to do so.

I appreciate that. We will examine the matter further as time goes on. I thank the witnesses for that.

I want to move on to a quite bespoke issue, namely, that of storage within the cultural institutions. My understanding is that there is a storage facility for the National Museum which is housed in Swords. The National Museum of Ireland's collections resource centre in Swords houses 4 million objects. This is an extraordinary figure. What does the future hold for the storage of the key objects in our national collections, regardless of the institution? I understand that, in the case of the National Museum of Ireland, there are only eight years remaining on the existing lease and that a rent review that was due in September 2020 has still not been concluded. If we are seeking to animate any of the projects I outlined, we will have to decant many of the artefacts or pieces, be they artistic or otherwise, to other sites. How are the witnesses dealing with the issue of the storage of these precious items within our national collections, specifically in the National Museum of Ireland? What are the witnesses doing to ensure there is a sustainable storage facility for the National Museum of Ireland and other cultural institutions?

Ms Katherine Licken

The Deputy is correct to raise this issue. The storage issue is very important to us. We have worked very closely with the National Museum of Ireland on storage. The museum uses the storage facility not only for storage but also for researchers coming to access the collections to work on them. I might ask Mr. Falvey to go into more detail. We have a lot of engagement. The facility is under contract with the OPW. We have had an awful lot of engagement with the National Museum of Ireland and the OPW in respect of this particular site.

Mr. Conor Falvey

It is a site we share with our heritage colleagues in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. It is an issue; it is on the agenda. That is all I can say at present. It is-----

May I intervene? I have 40 seconds left in my slot so I ask Mr. Falvey not to tick down the clock on me. I would like a very specific answer in the 30 seconds I have left.

Mr. Conor Falvey

We are engaged with the National Museum of Ireland on the issue and are very mindful of the timelines.

That is not an answer, with all due respect. I asked a specific question about rent reviews. What was the outcome of the rent review? Can the witnesses assure this committee and the people of Ireland that there will be, from 2030 onwards, a fit-for-purpose, modern storage facility for any collection within the national collection, be it art or the remains of an Irish elk, for instance?

Ms Katherine Licken

What I can say is that we will revert to the Deputy on the rent review because we do not have figures in front of us here. We are very mindful of the importance of the facility and making sure that there is a facility to properly house the collections. That is a priority for us. I can assure the Deputy of that.

I will ask some questions. I wish to pick up on one of the points made by Deputy Sherlock regarding the cultural institutions. I visited the National Library about ten years ago and was horrified by the conditions in which the collection were then being held. I am very pleased that a significant risk to the collection has been mitigated. Work is absolutely necessary. The same applies to the National Archives and the problems with storage. I am completely on board regarding the need for these projects.

Let me pick up on the point on controlling costs. With regard to the National Gallery, I understand the original Estimate was around €25 million. Is it the case that it came in at €52 million and that there is conciliation at the moment? What is the story with that?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, it is the subject of a process at the moment. Maybe Mr. Falvey will want to elaborate on it. Since we have not actually landed on the final figure yet, I do not believe we can give a final figure.

Could I have a short response, please, because time is very limited?

Mr. Conor Falvey

I confirm that it is the subject of a process but, given the sensitivity of it, I would not like to expand without-----

Are my figures correct?

Mr. Conor Falvey

We will confirm the figures for the Vice Chair. I do not have them to hand directly, but they are-----

Are they ballpark correct?

Mr. Conor Falvey

The original figure, the €25 million, sounds a little low, if the Deputy knows what I mean. I would not really want to comment on something that is the subject of the conciliation-----

The witnesses must know the bill.

Ms Katherine Licken

We will come back to the Deputy with the figures.

Mr. Conor Falvey

We will come back to the Vice Chair, if that is okay.

Ms Katherine Licken

With precise figures. We probably will not be able to comment on the final figure because it is subject to a process but we can certainly come with the initial estimation. Things have changed even since then in terms of how we walk through the public spending code. I went on the same tour of the National Library as the Vice Chairman and saw the drains coming down beside the old newspapers, which I believe were from the 1920s. Part of the process now is to come in and do investigative works before getting into planning.

I completely understand that. I want to move on because we will all have limited time.

Was a value-for-money review carried out in respect of the Ryder Cup in 2006? There is a commitment to host the Rider Cup in 2027. Could I have a "Yes" or "No" answer on whether there was a value-for-money review?

Ms Katherine Licken

A review was done. Fáilte Ireland, in conjunction with PGA-European Tour, commissioned Deloitte and Touche to conduct an economic impact assessment of the Ryder Cup in Ireland. According to that report, the findings of which were announced in April 2007, the Ryder Cup was worth a record €143 million to the Irish economy. The total direct economic impact figure of €143 million exceeded the pre-event predictions of €130 million. The figure represented an increase of 32% of the impact of the Ryder Cup in England and an 80% increase on foot of the 1997 Ryder Cup in Spain. The report confirmed previous reported perceptions about our visitor experience, with more than 80% of visitors suggesting that they would return to Ireland in the future.

Can I ask that Ms Licken provide us with that report? That would be useful.

Ms Katherine Licken

Absolutely.

What has been expended to date on the 2027 event?

Ms Katherine Licken

I do not have the figures to hand. Perhaps my colleague, Mr. Ó Lionáin, has the figures for the Ryder Cup.

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

On what has been spent so far, there has been a payment of €3.2 million to the Ryder Cup Europe LLP in 2020. There will be ongoing payments between now and 2027. The figure to date is €3.2 million.

Does Mr. Ó Lionáin have a schedule of payments for each year?

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

There is an agreement with Ryder Cup Europe. Elements of it are commercially sensitive, but we can supply indicative figures between now and 2027 to give the Vice Chair the overall picture on that.

If you would, please. Has the Department made commitments to additional major sporting events, other than the Ryder Cup?

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

Yes. At the moment, we have made a financial commitment to support the scoping of a bid for the 2030 FIFA World Cup. No money has been paid so far, but we reckon that by next summer a few hundred thousand euro will be spent on that. At that point, the Government will need to take a decision as to whether to proceed with the bid. The Ryder Cup-----

Was any money expended on the America's Cup?

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

What is happening with the America's Cup is that we are in the middle of a six-month further assessment process. The Department has allocated additional staff and resources to work on that. A team is working on that. The expenditure to date is effectively staff time. There will probably be some expenditure on economic and other specific appraisals. The intention is to have that piece of work finished by the end of March or early April.

What was expended on the UEFA European Football Championship, which we were originally supposed to host?

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

I will come back to the Vice Chair with the precise figure as I do not have it at my fingertips. I know the Vice Chair is conscious of time so I will come back to her with the precise figure.

If you would, please. I want to turn quickly to Galway 2020 and the amount of sponsorship. It was anticipated that there would have been more sponsorship than there was. At what point did the Department realise that it would go beyond the 50% expenditure that was committed? Indeed, when one starts adding in the contributions of the local authorities, it was not far off an 80% spend. At what point did the Department realise that there would not be the anticipated sponsorship and that there was not the local commercial commitment?

Ms Katherine Licken

Galway 2020 was for Galway, which is a city that is steeped in culture. This was to be one of its finest moments. Obviously, the pandemic had a huge impact on Galway 2020, like it has done on so many other sectors. The combined public sector funding - not just the Exchequer funding, but the combined funding of the Exchequer, the local authorities and other sources of funding for that project - was to be 85%. That was the combination. The programme was launched in February 2019 and the pandemic hit in March. It became clear to us quickly that some elements of the funding would not materialise. On the local authority funding, local authorities were hit hard by loss of income from sources such as parking, rates, etc. We then had a decision to make whether we would continue with Galway 2020. The 50% Exchequer funding was a guide, which we put out when we first asked the cities of Ireland to put in bids. We said that there would be a guide of either €15 million, which was even at that stage only a guide, and 50% of the cost funded by the Exchequer.

I am down to my last minute. We need to see a report on this from the Department. Are assets owned as a legacy of this? Who owns them? Did the model that was ultimately decided on work? Has the Department reviewed it? Is it likely that it will review the model, if we were to have another city of culture?

Ms Katherine Licken

The assets are being wound up. The 356 percussion instruments, which were part of an element of the project, have been donated to the Galway-Roscommon Education and Training Board, ETB, for use in music generation. Following the expiry of its lease on 31 March 2021, Galway 2020 officially moved from 16 Merchants Road to its new office in the Wave Maker hub at the Cornstore in Middle Street, Galway. Prior to that, the assets identified for disposal included furniture, fixtures, fittings, ICT and technology equipment. Approval was obtained from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for the disposal of assets. I can give the Vice Chair a note on this if it would help her, rather than walking through these step-by-step here.

Yes, please.

Ms Katherine Licken

Certainly, there is a legacy programme. There are legacy assets. There are artworks to go into six towns and into Galway city as a consequence of it.

We all feel very sorry for the people who were organising the event, given what was to happen. That is understood as well. I may come back to this issue later on, but my time is up so I will move on to the next speaker. I understand Deputy O'Connor will be delayed so I will move to Deputy Munster.

I thank the Vice Chair. I want to touch on RTÉ. Ms Licken said the funding for RTÉ comes through her Department, but we know that RTÉ is funded through the television licence. RTÉ accounts for nearly 25% of the total expenditure. The funding comes through the Department and it is tasked with handing the funding over. I want to touch on the fact that RTÉ recently made a settlement with the Revenue Commissioners for €1.2 million, which arose from the misclassification of workers or, effectively, bogus self-employment. In June, in correspondence with the committee, Ms Licken had indicated that she could not engage on the subject as it was part of an ongoing process with the Revenue Commissioners. Now that the settlement has been made, what actions have the Department taken in response? Has it done anything in response to that settlement being made?

Ms Katherine Licken

RTÉ is a commercial semi-State company under the aegis of the Department. These are operational matters for RTÉ. Obviously, we are conscious of them. However, they are operational matters for RTÉ. RTÉ has appeared before the committee and has undertaken has appear again before the committee on the matter. The matter is apparently still under consideration by the Department of Social Protection. There is a process ongoing. Ms Murphy might like to comment further on that.

Ms Patricia Murphy

As the Secretary General said, the work of RTÉ with Eversheds and the engagement with the Revenue Commissioners has been completed, but the Department of Social Protection is still doing a report. The outcome of that report is awaited. RTÉ has put in place an employment-first policy, which we are aware of, to address future issues arising. The Department is happy with progress in that regard.

I am asking about the settlement it made and the Department's take on it.

Ms Patricia Murphy

We were happy that RTÉ engaged in a process with Eversheds Sutherland to address the issue. These are complex employment law-related issues. RTÉ also dealt directly with Revenue in that regard. The Department is happy there was a process in place and an agreement has been reached. The issue has been well addressed.

Would the Department be concerned about the lack of oversight? The settlement was made as a consequence of a lack of oversight. We have been here before. I would give the FAI as an example of an organisation that lacked oversight. Would Ms Murphy be concerned at all about that?

Ms Patricia Murphy

The Department has a good oversight process in place for RTÉ. We have quarterly governance meetings on issues that arise. The terms and conditions of staff are a matter for RTÉ. It is independent in that regard under the Broadcasting Act. As I mentioned, these are complex employment law issues. Revenue and the Department of Social Protection are best advised on contract and service issues. RTÉ has reviewed its processes in that regard. The Department is happy that the matter has been addressed, and is continuing to be addressed, with the Department of Social Protection.

There is another issue there. I recently engaged with RTÉ regarding pay disparity that has been ongoing between clár reachtairí and their English-language counterparts. It seems that workers are essentially being paid less if they work through the medium of Irish. I understand that has been going on for approximately 20 years. RTÉ at the time claimed to be unaware of it, which surprised me. It said it would follow up with a note, but it did not do that. It reneged on that. It said it was carrying out a review, which could take months or years, or might never see the light of day. Ms Murphy spoke about transparency earlier. A hell of a lot of public money is involved and one would be concerned. The Department is responsible for the media and the Gaeltacht. Would our guests have any particular interest in an organisation that gets its funding through the Department implementing, if you like, a sliding scale of wages, based on the language that people work through? Surely our guests would have some concerns about that.

Ms Katherine Licken

I might start to respond to that. As the Department with responsibility for the Gaeltacht and the Irish language, we are always concerned about funding for the Irish language and actions to promote it. We increased the funding to TG4 last year and this year. We understand that RTÉ is conducting a comparative review of the remuneration of Irish-speaking workers. It has run a public tender to engage an expert partner with specific experience in the media sector to carry out a full evaluation of all staff roles and grades in RTÉ. Irish-language roles will be part of the review, which will commence on completion of the tender process. It is important.

On the question of the oversight of RTÉ, we have the BAI, ourselves and NewERA. There is extensive oversight of RTÉ. Issues will obviously always arise from time to time with any entity and it is important that issues are addressed promptly.

That again comes back to the issue of oversight. This has been going on for 20 years. It was only when it was flagged and people persistently chased it that RTÉ did what it is doing. We have, as yet, nothing concrete from RTÉ. There has been a lack of oversight and, for 20 years, there has been a sliding scale of wages.

Ms Katherine Licken

There is a wider issue about grade structures that RTÉ is looking at, not just as it relates to Raidió na Gaeltachta. All I can say is I welcome the fact it is doing a review now and looking at the issue. It is complex. Perhaps Ms Murphy would like to add to that. It is a complex area. RTÉ is a large organisation with a wider variety of different grade structures.

Does Ms Murphy want to come in?

Ms Patricia Murphy

As the Secretary General says, we are happy that RTÉ has processes in place to look at these issues. In the context of the terms and conditions of staff, RTÉ has independence but, as I say, the Department has a robust oversight structure in place, as Ms Licken referenced. That structure involves us, RTÉ and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We meet quarterly and go through issues. We are happy that RTÉ has a process in place to address the issue. We await the conclusion of that process and the report we will receive at the end.

This practice went on for 20 years. Was the Department aware of the pay disparity between workers depending on the language through which they worked?

Ms Katherine Licken

This Department has only had responsibility for the media function since the summer of 2020. I was not aware of the disparity.

Is the review that is being carried out to review the grades of all staff? Does it apply specifically to the pay disparity?

Ms Katherine Licken

As I understand it, the grades of all staff are being reviewed. That will include the staff of Raidió na Gaeltachta.

Is RTÉ specifically looking into this issue? It comes back to oversight and public moneys, and how they are spent.

Ms Katherine Licken

RTÉ is specifically looking at this issue but in the context of the wider review. It has given an undertaking that it is looking at this issue within that wider review.

In that context, and the settlement for the bogus self-employment, a question arises as to who RTÉ is accountable to.

Ms Katherine Licken

RTÉ is accountable to the Department and the BAI. NewERA also has a role in monitoring RTÉ. This is an area in which we need to exercise some caution. As has been mentioned, it is important that public sector broadcasting is independent. It is critical that it is at arm's length.

Ms Katherine Licken

RTÉ does report to the Department.

I accept that, but when serious issues such as those I have outlined arise,-----

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

-----and these are not minor issues, RTÉ is accountable to the Department in that regard.

Ms Katherine Licken

That is right.

The settlement with Revenue, the ongoing investigation with the Department of Social Protection and the pay disparity were all going on under the Department's nose, if you like, costing the public money and bringing into question the manner in which public money was spent. No action was taken by the Department. That is worrying.

Ms Katherine Licken

It is not the case that no action was taken by our Department. We engage very extensively and regularly with RTÉ and where issues arise, we raise them with RTÉ. It has taken a series of actions to rectify and address those issues. Our role would be to ensure that where issues arise, they are identified and acted on.

Was the Department aware of both of those issues? The pay disparity has been going on for two decades. There was also the misclassification of workers. For how many years was the Department aware of those issues?

Ms Katherine Licken

As I said, RTÉ has only come under the remit of this Department since 2020. Both of those issues predate that time.

The Deputy's time is up. I hope there will be time for her to come back in later. Deputy O'Connor is not with us yet. Is Deputy Hourigan with us? She is not. I call Deputy Colm Burke.

I thank the representatives of the Department for their presentation. I have questions about sports capital grants and the underspend in 2020. I think there was a €14 million underspend from a budget of €28 million. I am concerned about that because the grants provided to sporting bodies are essential to continue to upgrade facilities. Why was no provision made for that money to be carried over to allow sports bodies the time to complete those projects?

Was there a particular reason that was not extended?

Ms Katherine Licken

I will ask my colleague, Cian Ó Lionáin, to come in more detail on this. What I would say is there is provision for the Department to carry over funding under the public spending code. A percentage of its capital funding can be carried over from one year to the next. We carried over €7.6 million from 2020 into 2021. Just because the year ends, it does not mean projects lose their funding. The commitment to funding them remains. Covid played havoc with the ability of some of the sports clubs to draw down their money to get matched funding and construction contracts in place. I will ask Mr. Ó Lionáin to give more detail, but when a grant is in place, it continues. Whether it is this year or next year, the commitment to the grant continues and if there is a question of a project not being able to draw it down, we engage very extensively. Ultimately, we would take the grant back, eventually, but only as a last resort.

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

The Secretary General has emphasised the most important point in all of this, which is that due to the cyclical nature of how sports capital grants are awarded, drawn down and paid, there can often be underspend, but no individual club will ever miss out. Due process is given to them. It can take them a number of years to draw down grants. We currently have more than 2,000 older grants on the system dating back a number of years and there is potentially more than €60 million payable there, but those individual grants might not be drawn down for a number of years. Individual clubs might have legal issues they need to clarify in conjunction with the Chief State Solicitor. There might be questions of matched funding, etc. However, we take a very sympathetic approach to them. If a club has been validly awarded a grant, we will do everything to try to work with it to make sure it can be drawn down. In terms of the underspend, we carried over as much of the underspend as allowed under public accounting rules. The bottom line is that no club will miss out and we are constantly working with them to encourage them to draw down and manage budgets over successive years.

With regard to applications for grants that have now been submitted, there are two issues for voluntary organisations submitting grant applications. The first is that they have submitted the applications before the rise in building costs and the second challenge they have is that they are not able to do the same level of fundraising. Will the Department make provision for, and be more aware of, the challenges organisations now have and take that into account when dealing with these applications and the carryover?

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

We are aware of the pressures the applicants have. The closing date for the sports capital current round was 1 March. We have been pushing to try to have those grants awardable this side of Christmas. It is now possible it might be in the early weeks of January before that happens. What the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers, is trying to do is to ensure there is as much funding as possible there to recognise the increased costs and ensure valid applicants get a sufficient amount that will enable them to proceed with their project. One of our key jobs over the coming weeks will be to maximise that pot. I am sure the Minister of State may be having bilateral conversations with Ministers with deeper pockets - anything to ensure we can maximise the round that will be announced in January.

I know there has already been allocation for the grant applications made by 1 March. Some €40 million is available and €16 million has been allocated for equipment. Is it possible these applications will be dealt with together with the budget for 2022? I know the witnesses cannot say that will happen. However, rather than people having to do the whole process all over again in 2022, is it feasible to do it as a two-year project rather than a one-year project, in view of the restrictions on voluntary organisations over the past 18 months?

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

The equipment grants amounting to €16 million were announced in August. That was a subset of what was the largest ever round and ask we have received under the sports capital programme. We are finalising the process of review of those applications. There is nothing further for those who have applied under that process to do. There has been significant interaction with them since 1 March because, as the Deputy probably knows, there is now an opportunity for clubs to mend their hand if they have made an administrative or other error in their application. The critical issue for us is to maximise the available pot of funding for what will probably be an early January announcement. That is our number one ask of others and task for ourselves in order that we can ensure we can give every valid club as much as possible to allow their projects to proceed.

Ms Katherine Licken

The sports capital programme has delivered more than 13,000 projects since it began in 1998, to the tune of €1 billion. Our business is to try to get the money out to the clubs for the betterment of communities. That is what we do. Every time there is a round of the sports capital programme, Mr. Ó Lionáin and the team review to see how it worked and what did or did not go well. All of this is done with a view to finding what works for communities and clubs in order to get good infrastructure out to them. We will continue that.

Last Sunday week, I was at the opening of a new community facility. The Department made a grant of €130,000 available to that project, which is a huge contribution. The project cost more than €460,000, so the €130,000 grant from the Department was very welcome.

Do we learn from previous experiences with the capital of culture? I was Lord Mayor of Cork in 2003-04. In 2005-06, Cork was the European Capital of Culture. The same mistakes seem to have been made in Galway as were made in Cork back in 2005-06. Surely the Department should have a protocol in place in order that there is a clear plan in place for projects such as this, rather than trying to make it up as we go along, as seems to have happened with Galway. The same thing happened in Cork. I am being up-front about that. We could get far better delivery on these projects if we had a clear plan, rather than making them up as go along. Has the Department looked at that, especially the issue of securing European funding? There is European funding for culture and so on and I am not sure we are making every effort to get it. Will Ms Licken outline what engagement we have at European level and address the issue of having appropriate structures in place when we secure funding and ensuring we get good value for money?

Ms Katherine Licken

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and referring to Cork when it was a successful bidder for the European Capital of Culture. Of course we learn from previous capitals of culture. We had a national capital of culture in Limerick in 2014. There was a review of that which fed into Galway 2020. We had very robust governance arrangements and significant consultation in the run-up to Galway 2020.

The European Commission runs a compendium of all of the findings of the various European cities of culture in order to inform whichever country is doing it at a given time. The title comes around maybe once every 15 years so it is important that is done. This time, for the first year ever, the Commission has looked for member states to do a review immediately afterwards. We have a review of Galway city of culture, which is nearing completion. That will be very important to input, not just for us, but for other member states.

What really went wrong with Galway city of culture was Covid and, notwithstanding that, it produced an astounding array of events. Many artists and artistic workers pivoted online and reached huge audiences worldwide that they might not have otherwise reached.

They were some benefits to it. I will ask Mr. Falvey to come in with more detail. What proceeded, proceeded really well. People will be familiar with some of the larger events such as DruidGregory, the Galway International Arts Festival and Macnas.

As the Deputy's time has expired, I ask Mr. Falvey to give only a brief response.

Mr. Conor Falvey

Just to assure the Deputy that, as pointed out by Secretary General, we draw on the learnings. There are reviews of all European cities of culture. There was a national city of culture. We review those in terms of designing of the service level agreements, etc. All of that is factored into our design. It is challenging. It is important to acknowledge that.

The next speaker is Deputy Matt Carthy.

I thank our guests for being here. I want to touch briefly on RTÉ. Am I correct that the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media is the Department that RTÉ deals with in regard to requests for increases in the licence fee?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, that is correct.

In the discussions around the licence fee are there any deliberations or conversations in regard to the expenditure of moneys that RTÉ is currently in receipt of?

Ms Katherine Licken

As I said previously, we have extensive oversight and monitoring arrangements in regard to RTÉ, but at the same time respecting the arms length principle that it is public sector broadcasting. It is important that arms length is there. The Future of Media Commission, which was established by the Government, is looking at the longer term funding of media in Ireland, including public sector broadcasting. That includes looking at the licence fee model.

I am more concerned about the accountability for moneys that are already allocated under the current system, as mentioned earlier by one of Ms Licken's colleagues with regard to, for example, the issue with Revenue. Is the Department happy with the process that is in place? Is Ms Licken satisfied that an adequate process with regard to salary structures, employment status, etc., was not in place for quite a number of years? At any point during that time, did the Department have any direct contact with RTÉ on the questions with regard to the salary structure within RTÉ and the employment structures, particularly in regard to self-employment status? Would that issue have been raised with RTÉ at any point?

Ms Katherine Licken

As I mentioned earlier, RTÉ and the broadcasting function come under the remit of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media as constructed last year. These issues predate RTÉ coming under the remit of the Department. It is key that where issues arise, they are identified, that the systems are in place to identify them and that they are dealt with swiftly once identified. The issue in regard to the contracts, as I understand and through our engagement with RTÉ and the Committee of Public Accounts engagement with RTE, the matter has been dealt with with Revenue and is continuing to be dealt with by the Department of Social Protection.

Ms Licken said "when issues are identified". What process is in place to identify issues, particularly in regard to employment contracts?

Ms Katherine Licken

We would have regular quarterly governance meetings with RTÉ. The BAI, as the regulator, also has a role in regard to RTÉ and fulfilment of its commitments. RTÉ produces an annual report and accounts, which are audited. They are all the regular governance structures that are in place to track developments and identify emerging issues.

In terms of the governance, how does that work with regard to employment contracts? Would that issue be raised at governance meetings?

Ms Katherine Licken

On this particular issue, they would probably be discussed at the governance meetings. My colleague, Ms Murphy, might want to comment further on that. Where an issue is arising and it is a governance issue it is, of course, discussed at a governance meeting. I am not sure if Ms Murphy would like to add to that.

We appear to have lost contact with Ms Murphy. Am I correct that the issue with regard to bogus self-employment did not arise as a result of the governance meeting structure that was in place?

Ms Katherine Licken

I will have to come back to the Deputy because, as I said, this predated my role as Accounting Officer in regard to RTÉ. This Department has only had responsibility for RTÉ in the past year or so. I will come back to the Deputy on when exactly it was identified. There are layers of governance structures which include annual report and account and audit. These are all really important layers. They are there to identify these issues. Whether they are identified by us, in the audit process or in the annual report and accounts, the whole point is that you have the systems there such that they are picked up some way. This issue has been picked up and it is being dealt with.

That is what I am trying to find out. Can Ms Licken point to the annual report wherein RTÉ outlined the issue with regard to the dispute over self-employment status of its staff?

Ms Katherine Licken

I am sorry, I missed the first part of the question?

In terms of the governance structures, which Ms Licken mentioned are in place, including the annual report and the audit reports, can she point to which audit report or annual report highlighted the issue with regard to the potential outlay to Revenue with regard to the employment contracts?

Ms Katherine Licken

I will come back to the Deputy on that because, as I said, this issue predated my time with RTÉ. I will come back to him on exactly when it first emerged and how it first emerged. I am happy to do that.

I thank Ms Licken for that. In that regard, in terms of the current governance meetings, how many times a year would those meetings take place?

Ms Katherine Licken

There would be four formal meetings per year, but there is regular engagement in between those meetings, as happens with regard to all of our agencies.

Who attends the governance meetings?

Ms Katherine Licken

The governance meetings are attended by our RTÉ governance unit, which is our finance officer who has responsibility at the moment for the governance of RTÉ.

With whom does that officer meet?

Ms Katherine Licken

The senior executives in RTÉ.

Given that, as we now know, there is a substantial payment being made to Revenue, do those governance meetings address the safeguards to ensure that there will not be further outlays in that regard?

Ms Katherine Licken

Where there are governance issues arising, the purpose of the governance meeting is to discuss them and what measures the agency, company or organisation is taking to address the issues. There would be an update at meetings.

Is Ms Licken satisfied that there are no outstanding issues that could result in a future outlay to Revenue with regard to employment contracts?

Ms Katherine Licken

For an Accounting Officer to say that he or she is ever satisfied that there are any outstanding issues on anything probably would not be reasonable. What I can say is that the governance arrangements are in place. There are layers of governance. The purpose of those layers of governance is to identify the issues.

This is where I am confused. Ms Licken said that at the governance meetings issues that have been identified are raised, but that she is not sure of the structure that ensures that issues can be caught early. In other words, she is not sure that they can be addressed before they are raised, specifically in terms of contracts. I note Ms Licken's point that an Accounting Officer cannot ever be satisfied that something would not be possible. Is she satisfied that the governance structures in place would quickly and swiftly identify issues and address them?

Ms Katherine Licken

I am satisfied that we have good governance structures in place in respect of RTÉ. We do not just have that governance, we have our own arrangements with RTÉ and we have our quarterly governance meetings.

You have the role of the BAI, you have the production of an annual report and accounts that are audited and you have the role of NewERA, which analyses its accounts. There is a robust governance framework in place for RTÉ and all our other agencies.

I am sorry. Vice Chair, am I limited for time? How long have I left?

You have one minute.

Perhaps Ms Licken could just outline the role that the BAI and the NewERA approach have in relation to staff contracts within RTÉ. Ms Licken mentioned them a number of times in relation to this matter.

Ms Katherine Licken

NewERA has a role in terms of reporting on the finances and analysing financial issues relating to RTÉ.

Would that include staff contracts?

Ms Katherine Licken

Where it arose, but it would not be getting into the detail of it. This is a matter between RTÉ and the Revenue Commissioners, and RTÉ and the Department of Social Protection. The key governance issue here has to be managed by RTÉ in consultation with the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection and then reported back to us.

Am I correct in saying the BAI has no role either-----

Ms Katherine Licken

No. The BAI has a strong role in governance of RTÉ.

-----in terms of staff contracts?

Ms Katherine Licken

It would be aware, I assume, of the staff contracts issue. The BAI's role in RTÉ is around its commitments in terms of its strategy and delivering on its commitments in its strategy but, obviously, it would be aware of the issue in relation to the staff contracts.

Deputy, your time is up.

The difficulty is in terms of public money, which is taxpayers' money. Some €1.2 million of taxpayers' money has gone back to Revenue through a settlement and there may be others.

Deputy, your time is up.

I am not satisfied that we can be sure that the mechanisms are in place to make sure that outstanding issues will be addressed quickly or that issues will not arise in the future.

Ms Katherine Licken

It is fair to say that RTÉ has put a comprehensive process in place to address this issue. I cannot get into the weeds of RTÉ to find out each individual contract and to look and see is this right or wrong. We rely on it to put in place a good process to engage with Revenue and to engage with the Department of Social Protection. A very extensive engagement has gone on there and is continuing to go on in order to address the issues.

Thank you very much. There should be time for Deputy Carthy to come back in later on. I call Deputy Devlin. When the Deputy finishes, we will take a ten-minute break.

I welcome Ms Licken and her team. It is good to see many of them at the Committee of Public Accounts.

At the outset, I want to refer to the breadth of her organisation. Ms Licken referred to it in her own opening remarks. I note some members have focused in on RTÉ and others on the European Capital of Culture 2020. I will touch on a number of other elements within both the accounts and other areas.

The first I wanted to touch on was something I raised on the previous occasion we engaged, and that was around the television licence. Obviously, things have changed in terms of the pandemic and the need for inspectors to do other work. For how long were the television inspectors suspended from their ordinary work during the course of the pandemic? What impact did that suspension of television licence inspections have on the collection rate of 2020 and 2021? That will be my first question.

Ms Katherine Licken

The television licence fee receipts comprise two components: the contribution from the Department of Social Protection in respect of the free licences issued under the household benefit scheme; and the direct sales by An Post. In terms of 2020, in the period from 13 March to the end of 2020, inspectors could only operate as normal for two months. They were off the road completely for four months and they operated on a non-contact basis for three and a half months. The latter involved putting cards in letter-boxes but not knocking on doors. In 2021, there was no physical activity at the doors by the licence inspectors for four months, non-contact only resumed on 10 May and full inspections resumed from 14 June.

Obviously, this had an impact on the licence fee receipts, with a sharp decline in sales for the first half of the year and marginal recovery in the middle of the year - this was in 2020 when restrictions eased. The second lockdown was put in place then, in autumn 2020, which meant that sales did not recover to the levels it expected. The fact that licence fee revenue remained static at €222 million in 2020 is largely due to the increased Exchequer contribution from the Department of Social Protection.

On that point, it is the first time I have heard them referred to as "sales". I do not know if the people who pay them would exactly classify them as sales.

In terms of the money that has not been collected, is there a plan to try to collect that at some point?

Ms Katherine Licken

Obviously, that is a matter for An Post. Yes, I would assume so. If you have not paid your television licence and you are liable to pay it, An Post will be pursuing that.

There is a collection agent. Okay, that is fine.

Ms Katherine Licken

There is a collection agent.

The Decade of Centenaries is something we have engaged previously on. In terms of the specific projects that the Department is engaged with, can Ms Licken give us an outline of expenditure to date on that topic?

Ms Katherine Licken

I might ask Mr. Falvey to come in in more detail on this. Obviously, the Decade of Centenaries is a really important programme that we lead on in this Department. We had a comprehensive programme of events and initiatives in 2020 across 31 local authorities. We increased the funding to the local authorities in 2021 to €50,000 per local authority - €2 million in funding for the local authorities in general. To date, we have had key exhibitions, outreach programmes and digitisation programmes in our national cultural institutions, including a recent partnership with the National Archives of Ireland and the embassy in London on the Anglo-Irish Treaty. We have a new artist in residence programme in a number of the cultural institutions, the Military Archives and, of course, there is the Beyond 2022 project, which is the records that were burned 100 years ago. We have a new national poetry project, which has been launched in partnership with UCD and Poetry Ireland. We have the well-established Mná 100 new online platform and we have a range of partnerships with rich online content, which has been really important over the past two years, in partnership with both Boston College and RTÉ.

Given the importance of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, a range of activities will be rolled out in the coming weeks, including the current production of "The Treaty", at the National Concert Hall, a ground-breaking production, with ANU and Theo Dorgan, on the Treaty debates, which will go live at the end of this year and into 2023, a new concert at the concert hall featuring contemporary-----

I am familiar with a number of those projects. Ms Licken is correct. It is very important and I recognise Ms Licken's Department's involvement in that. In terms of expenditure, do we have a figure of how much has been allocated or spent to date?

Ms Katherine Licken

Mr. Falvey, do you have the figure to date? On the figure for this year, we increased funding from €2 million to €5 million. I do not know whether Mr. Falvey wants to comment any further?

Mr. Conor Falvey

Yes. The figure is €5 million. I do not have the precise spend at the moment.

The witnesses might send us a note on it, if they would not mind.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

Mr. Conor Falvey

We will, of course. It is based to some extent on the drawdown by the local authorities but we are chasing them at present to ensure they do that.

Of course. They are hampered too. I accept that.

I see Ms Banotti there. We spoke previously about Creative Ireland. Since we last spoke, I want to commend the work, particularly in the 24 DEIS schools on Fighting Words, that programme that was very well received, as well as the creative youth projects and others. It is important to acknowledge that work. Mr. Falvey mentioned the local authorities. It is important that there is good collaboration between the Department and Creative Ireland, and I thank them for that.

Turning to the appropriation account, there is a note here about six contracts to the value of €578,000 for non-compliance. The majority of that was cleaning and other utility contracts. However, the sixth one relates to genealogy services in the National Archives of Ireland and it has now been re-tendered. Could Ms Licken outline what happened in that regard? There are nine other contracts as well but I will get on to that in a second.

Ms Katherine Licken

If the Deputy could just bear with me for a moment, I have a note on all of these, which I cannot locate. I have it here. We will come back to the committee, probably later today, with a note on these projects, because a note has been requested on them. A lot of them were contracts which we picked up. When we talk about governance, it was our own governance system that picked up the fact that these contracts had expired and had not been retendered.

A procurement manager has now been appointed for the genealogy service in the National Archives of Ireland. A new genealogical service contract was put in place in June 2021. Mr. Falvey might have more details on the contract.

Mr. Conor Falvey

No, but I will just say to the Deputy that we were in a transitional phase between directors in the year being accounted for. I think that might have been a factor.

That is fine. I await the note on that. I apologise, as I have limited time.

There is a note as well on the procedures and control changes within the Department as a result of Covid-19. Ms Licken specifically mentioned risk register details, and controls and actions needed to mitigate risks and assign responsibilities for co-operation and controls to staff. Has that process been concluded now? Is it correct that those new roles have been assigned within the Department?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes. I ask the Deputy to bear with me for a moment. Obviously, we had to update the risk register in respect of Covid-19, because it did not just affect this Department in terms of everybody having to work online, it affected us deeply in terms of how we had to pivot our focus on our work to support the sectors. As I said in my opening remarks, we are very much an audience-facing Department, one that is about people, that is, people congregating, socialising and playing sport. We had to re-evaluate all our work programmes and we have taken on board some areas, for example, in the live entertainment sector, dealing with stakeholders that we never dealt with before because they were out in the commercial market making money and they did not need recourse to the State. We updated all our risk registers to take account of Covid-19. We set up a specific Covid unit in the Department. Those positions are in place a long time and the team is still working flat out, engaging with the stakeholders, and designing programmes.

Deputy Devlin's time is almost up.

In my remaining time, I commend the work of the Department, specifically in the sports sector and the response to it, especially the €85 million that was allocated to sporting bodies. It is important that we acknowledge the quick response of the Department in a short period to the various organisations. I presume that I have used all my time, but I hope to get back in later.

We will now have a short break of approximately ten minutes.

Sitting suspended at 11.03 a.m. and resumed at 11.16 a.m.

In an effort not to cover areas that my colleagues have covered, I want to go back to some of the delays. Can you hear feedback, Vice Chair?

No. Deputy Carroll MacNeill is coming across very clearly.

I want to go back to some of the underspend on cultural infrastructure and development. There was an underspend of €6 million in 2020. The Department attributed that to a number of large-scale projects that did not progress due to the time frame relating to various issues, including Covid-19 delays. Ms Licken stated that the full underspend was to be carried forward into 2021. Could she provide some detail on that? What large-scale cultural infrastructure and development projects were not progressed in 2020 due to Covid-19 reasons?

Ms Katherine Licken

I apologise to Deputy Carroll MacNeill. I was having difficulty turning off the mute button on the mic. I will ask my colleague, Mr. Falvey, to come in on this in a moment. We have a large cultural infrastructure programme of €460 million for the development of cultural institutions. Thankfully, none of those projects were in construction phase during Covid. The National Library of Ireland is in the investigative works stage. It decanted all of the books out of the dangerous area to which the Vice Chair referred that was a risk to the books. They were decanted to another part of the library. The investigative works are ongoing but those works were delayed because of the restrictions on construction, but there was not a construction contract, as such, in place there.

Is Deputy Carroll MacNeill thinking about capital projects? A lot of the initiatives and performances abroad that we were to fund under Culture Ireland did not happen because of the restrictions.

To be honest, I had been thinking capital.

Ms Katherine Licken

That is okay.

We can certainly go into other areas. What I want to try to get a handle on first is what has been put off on the capital side of things and also if there were increased costs associated with Covid delays, especially during 2020. We know that 2021 has been slightly different.

Ms Katherine Licken

Increased costs have not necessarily materialised as yet, but we do know that we will be going to contract on a number of the projects.

For example, the Crawford Art Gallery project is at design phase now with a view to going to planning. We know the cost of material has increased considerably in the past number of years and we are anticipating cost increases as a result when we go to tender. Everything will go to tender in the normal fashion and investigative works are part of the process of finding the actual cost.

Many projects relevant to members of the committee have proceeded. For example, there is the Butler Gallery, Kilkenny, the Tullamore arts centre, the Mary Robinson Centre, Ballina and Townhall Cavan. These are projects that have been ongoing and have not been necessarily impacted. There is also the Wexford Opera House development as well, which has €1 million for capital works. Mr. Falvey might speak further to this. We were kind of fortunate we were not at the construction phase in the big projects. At the same time there is an obvious impact. For example, personnel could not get into the National Library to do the on-site investigation works.

Mr. Conor Falvey

We do much work relating to the appraisal phases of the projects but there is expenditure related to it. For example, there is 10% to 15% for planning and design, etc., and that is not in the construction phase. With the construction projects that were under way or due to be under way, there was a hiatus with the library at the investigative works stage. In respect of the National Archives, there were two issues. The asbestos matter held us up for a period and, in addition, we had the withdrawal of a contractor. That will lead to an increase in overall costs for the project of approximately €500,000 for a €24 million project. That is not related to Covid-19 per se but rather contractors having put in bids that they may now struggle to hold to. This is a matter we are monitoring carefully. The design of the programme carries with it contingency permissions at different phases to ensure all these measures are planned for and managed. If there are any pressures on cost, they are identified at an appropriate stage and subject to appropriate approvals as part of the management of the programme.

I understand. Perhaps I could ask Ms Banotti about some of the Culture Ireland programmes that were mentioned by Ms Licken that had to be cancelled or could not happen.

Ms Katherine Licken

Mr. Falvey or I might take it. Ms Banotti is on the Creative Ireland programme.

Ms Katherine Licken

That is all right. There is plenty happening in the Deputy's area through Creative Ireland. Some of the Culture Ireland events affected include the performance of a Samuel Beckett piece at the Coronet Theatre in London, which was postponed, and the presentation of The Second Violinist by Mr. Donnacha Dennehy and Mr. Enda Walsh at Park Avenue in New York, which was cancelled. An exhibition by Ms Jane Fogarty in the new Orleans gallery in Ottawa, Canada, was postponed. A presentation by Poetry Ireland in The Writing Center at Harvard in Boston was cancelled. There are more as well. The purpose of Culture Ireland is to fund artists going abroad and make presentations. The 20th Annual Irish Film Festival in Boston, screening contemporary Irish film in Somerville, Massachusetts, was postponed. The Fidget Feet presentation with Arcadia Spectacular at the Glastonbury music festival was postponed. A presentation of the Pan Pan Theatre's Eliza's Adventures in the Uncanny Valley at the Forum Freies Theater in Düsseldorf, Germany, was withdrawn. There is a list and I can send it to the Deputy.

That is fine as I am getting a real flavour of it. I also get the flavour of how much opportunity was missed both in the execution of the work and, more important, for the artists who would have had an opportunity and platform from that. It sounds like a long list.

From the much more prosaic perspective of the Committee of Public Accounts, what is the cost of losing those opportunities? Was there a significant cost to all of those not going ahead? Were we already tied into contracts or anything of that nature? I am nearly sorry to have to ask this, given what was lost, but this is the Committee of Public Accounts.

Ms Katherine Licken

Mr. Falvey might comment but where the events did not happen, the money was not paid, as I understand it.

Mr. Conor Falvey

There would have been a small number of cases where artists might have travelled overseas in March 2020 and their performances were cancelled before they found themselves stranded overseas. We supported artists in coming home in those circumstances. We can get details of those and supply them to the committee.

That is important. I take it from the list given that many of the artists were in the US. Were they there for long or were they able to get back quickly?

Mr. Conor Falvey

We were able to bring back people quickly. They were in different places with different stories. There were people in other parts of the world, including the Middle East and other locations. I do not have all the details to hand but some people were abroad and engaged in a programme of work at the time and they found themselves in circumstances where they needed to get home quickly.

We were not putting up somebody in Manhattan for six months or anything like that.

Mr. Conor Falvey

No.

That is all right then.

Ms Katherine Licken

Our focus was on getting them home.

Sure. I have a minute left and the Vice Chairman might advise if anybody has asked about the up-to-date position on the purchase and redevelopment of the national 1916 monument at Moore Street.

You are okay. That has not been asked.

Ms Katherine Licken

The monument at Moore Street belongs to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. It is of interest to us because of its historical significance but it belongs to that Department. Its Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, brought a report to the Government in March 2021 on the monument and developments there. That was the Moore Street advisory group's final report to the Minister, which was presented to the Cabinet on 11 May. The buildings are in the ownership of the State and plans are under way for the sensitive and respectful restoration of the monument, along with the visitor centre to the rear. Again, it is not under our Department any more. It was but not any more.

I appreciate the confusion and Ms Licken will understand why I asked.

Ms Katherine Licken

That is okay.

It is important to say to the witnesses that I appreciate Mr. Ó Lionáin's comments on the sports capital grant. It is somewhat disappointing that the announcement timeline is being extended because only last week I called all those I am advocating for to say it would be the end of November. It is very important from a community and social perspective as if there is anything the Committee of Public Accounts can say is worthwhile and value for money, it is the sports capital grant. It brings cohesion to communities and social development, particularly to our youth in a time like this Covid-19 pandemic, when there is so little else going on. It is very important. I am happy the witnesses are doing their best to maximise the effect of the grant. I do not want anybody to be disappointed and I hope there will not be any disappointment.

I have a question on subhead D3, on page 23, whereby only a portion of what was left over in 2020 is being carried forward to 2021. Will that have an impact on projects?

Ms Katherine Licken

Mr. Lionáin will comment on that but, as we said earlier, if a project has been awarded grant aid, it will get that grant aid as long as it fulfils the conditions of the grant application. That is really important to us. The Deputy is correct in that sport is part of the fabric of communities right across Ireland, as is culture. There is quite a synergy between the two areas. For some people sport is for them and for others it is culture, while some find both important. Both are important to the social fabric of society.

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

I can understand the disappointment felt by the Deputy and people in general about the timing. We were really hoping to get that out before Christmas but we want to do it right and maximise the moneys. When we make the announcement in January, it will only have been ten months since the round was opened, and this is two and half months or three months quicker than the previous occasion. Although we are at an historic high when it comes to applications, it will still be a relatively efficient process and it is certainly quicker than previous years.

On the underspend, I echo the Secretary General's point. It will have no impact whatever on grants.

There are public account rules as to how much capital can be brought forward any year. Within the sport division, we have maximised how much we can bring forward. It will not affect the outcomes for any of the applicants.

Ms Katherine Licken

As Mr. Ó Lionáin said, we hope that the timeline is shorter than the previous one. Within that, applicants were given a second chance. Approximately 50% of them availed of that chance. It was a significant additional piece of work that we had to do, but we have still managed to keep the timelines shorter than they were previously.

I appreciate that. I am mindful that, given the times we are in, there will be a significant increase in the cost of projects that were the subject of applications that were sent in last March. That is just the building industry in general. The sooner the better, as they say, and it will all be good in the end.

Turning to section 7.7 on page 87, I am fascinated and would like an answer as to why a company that was limited by guarantee was set up for Galway 2020. It was a diversion from the original structure. Why was it set up in that way, why was the older model not followed and who made the decision to divert? What research was undertaken to determine that it was a better model and will the company be wound up at the end of this year? Who wishes to take these questions?

Ms Katherine Licken

I will take them and Mr. Falvey might add something further. The idea of a company structure was the recommendation of the European Commission as regards European cities of culture. I believe it was in 2014 that it recommended that host cities should set up independent structures to manage the cities of culture. All 13 European cities of culture in the 2016-2022 period have been set up as independent not-for-profit or charitable organisations governed by boards of directors. This was done on the advice of the European Commission. The three sisters, which was unfortunately one of the unsuccessful proposals for a city of culture, had proposed setting up a separate structure as well. We are only aware of one European city of culture - Umeå in Sweden - that did not set up a separate entity. In Galway's case, it was set up in this way to give it flexibility. I am sorry, as I meant that Umeå in Sweden in 2014 was the last city that we are aware of that did not set up a separate company. The future role of the Galway company will be considered as part of the legacy planning, which is aimed to be completed by the end of this year.

To reiterate the Vice Chair's comments, it was most unfortunate. Perhaps a great deal was learned - I do not know - but will there be a review of the structure in comparison with what it had been?

Ms Katherine Licken

A review by an audience management agency on the whole of Galway 2020 and how it operated is nearing completion. It will be completed by the end of the year. We will provide it to the committee.

Turning to Ms Licken's previous appearance before us, a number of recommendations were made. I am conscious that Covid has intervened in all of this, so I am really just asking how everything is going. The Department was to establish a revised set of operational and governance arrangements in respect of its national cultural institutions, NCI, capital investment programme. That was to include detailed arrangements for project oversight groups to meet regularly, ensure effective oversight and have communication channels in place so that the Department was fully informed of any issue that arose. The steering groups were to include officials from the Department, the Office of Public Works, OPW, the relevant NCI and project management teams and, as the projects developed, relevant experts. What has happened in this regard? Did the groups meet to ensure oversight of the projects and did Covid hamper that?

Ms Katherine Licken

I will ask Mr. Falvey to speak on the details, but I am happy to say that, after my previous appearance before the committee, we put a range of measures in place, including the establishment of a Project Ireland 2040 team that was staffed with economists to oversee compliance with the public spending code and guide our processes. We have established oversight groups for each of the cultural institutions in respect of their projects. Those groups comprise us, the OPW and the cultural institutions. They walk through the steps of the process and ensure there is good governance. Does Mr. Falvey wish to elaborate?

I am sorry, but just in case I run out of time, I have a further question to ask. In any application for capital funding for a large-scale investment project, the Department now requires it to be demonstrated that appropriate project management structures are in place. Has any application been turned down for not meeting this criterion?

Mr. Conor Falvey

I assure the Deputy that the structures are in place. We can provide the committee with a schedule of meetings that have taken place, if that would be of any assistance to it.

I do not believe that anyone would get to the point of making an application without having the necessary resources in place. The level of engagement that we have with the cultural institutions is such that they are fully aware. We see issues in draft and discuss them. We like to have everything ready by the time an application is formally made. I spend a great deal of time at those meetings, as do colleagues. We would be happy to provide the committee with a schedule of the meetings that have taken place. We went online as a result of Covid.

I can imagine. I assume that Covid has hampered matters but that the trial run at least is there. I thank the witnesses.

If there is time, I will invite the Deputy to speak again.

I welcome our witnesses. My first question is on the welcome funding for the sports sector. At a time when it was desperately need, the Government stepped up and provided much-needed resilience funding to our national sporting organisations. Will the witnesses provide a breakdown of the funding that was allocated in 2020?

Ms Katherine Licken

Is the Deputy looking for the Covid-specific funding allocations?

Ms Katherine Licken

Gaelic games were allocated €31 million, other field sports were allocated €31.4 million, the national governing body resilience fund was allocated €4.63 million, the sports club resilience fund was allocated €11.4 million, the national governing body restart and renewal fund was allocated €1.5 million, local sports partnership schemes were allocated €3 million, the disability sport support fund was allocated €1.1 million, older adult supports were allocated €115,000, swimming pool supports were allocated €3.2 million and Dublin local sports partnerships were allocated €1 million. We can send this table on to the committee if that helps. There is more detail within it, but I know that the Deputy is short on time.

That would be useful. Regarding our three main field sport organisations - the IRFU, the FAI and the GAA - will Ms Licken provide an outline of the specific funding for each?

Ms Katherine Licken

I believe we awarded €18.2 million to the IRFU to support its national governing body, NGB, the provinces and 166 clubs; €13.2 million was awarded to the FAI to support its NGB, affiliates, League of Ireland teams and 400 plus grassroots teams; and €15 million was awarded to three Gaelic games associations, those being, the GAA, LGFA and camogie, with €5.2 million awarded to the three NGBs to support the safe return of club activity for 33,271 teams across 1,780 facilities and €10.795 million awarded to support the three NGBs in respect of their county and provisional structures. We will get that table to the committee.

I thank Ms Licken. Ensuring that these organisations remained operational during Covid was important for keeping people's spirits up throughout the country, and especially to keep their minds off the pandemic.

On the Future of Media Commission, I sit on the Oireachtas Committee on Media, Tourism, Arts, Culture Sport and the Gaeltacht and we have done much work around the online safety and media regulation Bill. There is huge frustration around the report that is sitting in the Department. Will Ms Licken give us an understanding of when it will be published? How much has the report cost the taxpayer in terms of expenses related to the Future of Media Commission?

Ms Katherine Licken

The report is with the Minister and the Taoiseach so it is a policy matter for them. I cannot comment on when it will be published but the Minister gave an indication that it is a priority and was being considered yesterday at the committee. The issues are complex and this is the first time the State has stepped into the space of looking at the future of media, beyond public service broadcasting. It is looking at the whole media landscape, which we would all agree is important in terms of the global shift, particularly to online, and the threat that poses to traditional media. Is it expenses to date for the Future of Media Commission that the Deputy is looking for?

That is correct.

Ms Katherine Licken

I think Ms Murphy has had a difficulty getting back in. I am not sure if there are any expenses as such associated with the Future of Media Commission. I will get back to the Deputy if there are.

Ms Tríona Quill

There are some expenses associated with it but not for our Department. The Department of the Taoiseach carried the costs of the Future of Media Commission in its Vote and I understand from a reply from that Department some time back that the costs associated with it came to €422,000.

I see in the appropriation account in regard to the broadcasting fund that there was a provision of €18.05 million available under the sound and vision scheme and we had an overturn of €21.7 million. Why was there no Covid-19 scheme available for the local print media?

Ms Katherine Licken

I will ask Ms Quill to come in on that but the Department does not have a specific role in relation to print media at the moment so the sound and vision scheme is set up by statute and administered by the BAI, which does not legally have the vires to deliver funding to the print media. Having said that, much Government advertising - I think it was €4.4 million - went to the local media sector. Ms Quill probably has the figures to hand. We are very conscious of the role print media, particularly local print media, play in the regions.

Very conscious, but no funding was provided for that sector.

Ms Katherine Licken

In terms of supports, €4.4 million was spent by the Government on regional and local print advertising from March 2021 to date. Ms Banotti, who is present, also put advertising in relation to Cruinniú na nÓg, the national day of creativity for children in the local print media. Our Department spent €187,000 on that. The print media also had access to the horizontal supports and we know they availed of them. They were made available across Government. We are conscious of the role of local media.

The Secretary General can understand the frustration among the National Union of Journalists, NUJ, and local print media outlets when they see the sound and vision scheme allocate funding on two separate grounds and their industry is left secondary with regard to any type of Covid funding. They feel aggrieved about what the Department is doing to support their sector. Will the Department address this?

Ms Katherine Licken

I understand that and emphasise that they were eligible for all the other supports and availed of the horizontal supports. Sound and vision is a vehicle for funding broadcast media and that is set out in statute by the BAI so it cannot fund print under the current legal structure. That points to the importance of the Future of Media Commission and the policy of Government to embrace the whole media sector, recognising the pressures that local and national media are under in a changed media environment.

My final question is on subheading 6.2, national lottery funding. There are different subheadings around Sports Ireland and grants for sporting bodies. What is the amount of money under this subheading for 2020?

Ms Katherine Licken

Under which subhead?

Subhead 6.2, miscellaneous note 6.

Ms Katherine Licken

There are a number of subheads across the Department's Vote which are part-funded from the national lottery, namely, B9, C4, D3 and D5. That is arts and culture, Gaeltacht and sport. There is no differentiation in the Revised Estimate volume for the Department under these subheads between what is funded by the Vote and what is funded by the lottery but those three areas are part-funded.

I will continue the line of questioning raised by Deputy Dillon on media. The pandemic has been a huge pressure point for all media outlets but has also displayed the huge role good quality public and private media organisations play and the way they helped communicate the messages during the pandemic. Deputy Dillon spoke about local newspapers and radio stations but, unfortunately, in Dublin there is almost a complete absence of local media. It is a challenge because it deprives the Dublin area of spaces in which to debate important topics of relevance to the city. My area has two local free sheet papers which are under huge financial pressure and no local radio stations. All the local radio stations operating on a Dublin-wide basis are essentially competing with national radio stations. It is a problem because I am often envious of my Oireachtas colleagues who have better channels to communicate and engage with voters. The decision for Newstalk to receive a national rather than a Dublin-focused licence tempted us with what was possible but absent. The closure of Dublin-specific phone-in shows like "Dublin Talks" on 98FM has made the problem even worse. Within the spend of the Department, is work being undertaken to try to address the need in the capital?

Ms Katherine Licken

We do not fund radio stations directly in the Department. Usually funding is provided via the sound and vision fund for commercial and community radio stations. That is funded by a proportion, I think 7%, of the licence fee. Where we have found savings in the Department, we have put money into the sound and vision fund to allow for increased funding and different programmes. In sound and vision round 36 in December last year, €670,000 was allocated to 22 community radio projects.

My background is in radio so I am conscious of that ecosystem out there and where it is not out there. These are policy matters and Government has taken a decision to get into a broader policy space in relation to media, not just public service broadcasting but the future of media itself. We got funding in the budget next year for the establishment of the media commission. That commission attracts a lot of attention as being around the regulation of online platforms but it is also about subsuming the BAI and creating a new vision for the sector.

It is the BAI that has the strong regulatory role there. We would be very happy to engage with the BAI on the structure and what stations are out there serving what different areas. I agree that the structure in Dublin is entirely different from the structure in rural areas, where the local radio station dominates and can be really strong in an area. We are very cognisant of that.

It is interesting that Ms Licken raises the Future of Media Commission because there has been a lot of discussion about online platforms. Unfortunately, Facebook forums have become the predominant forum for local community news. The difficulty with that is that it carries with it all the threats that social media bring while at the same time giving local communities really good forums. Those forums are massively open to both political and malignant manipulation, so the lack of a strong Dublin media, both in local print and on local radio, is a major policy gap. While I accept that it is the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland's role, I believe that within the broader work being done by the Future of Media Commission, we need to look specifically at the capital. I see that Ms Licken wants to respond to that.

Ms Katherine Licken

In budget 2022, we got €5.5 million for the establishment of the media commission. As the Deputy probably knows, the Minister hopes to publish the legislation soon. The Oireachtas joint committee made 33 recommendations, which we are working through in the pre-legislative scrutiny. We are anxious to proceed with this as fast as possible because we understand the pressures out there and all the issues to which the Deputy has alluded. The whole purpose of the media commission is to address those issues.

Sometimes our rural colleagues here in the Houses of the Oireachtas are much better at working together on these issues. Sometimes in Dublin we are a little shy about shouting for the capital. On this issue, however, we need to work very closely together with the Department and the Government.

The pandemic had a significant impact on sports capital grants, and I know there was an underspend in two years. Has the Department considered how that will be addressed, given that the ability to fundraise has also been limited and may impact future years? I apologise if the question has been asked already; I was in the Dáil Chamber.

Ms Katherine Licken

That is okay. I will get my colleague, Mr. Ó Lionáin, to respond directly on that.

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

The question has been asked. The quick answer is that the way in which sports grants are applied for, awarded and then drawn down is a cyclical process. No clubs will suffer because of underspend. We hope to announce the current round of sports capital grants in early January. It should be borne in mind that about half of all applicants have already received an equipment grant. That was announced in August. We are trying to maximise the available pot for January by getting as many old grant applicants that are on the system to draw down this year, thereby maximising the pot for next year. That is the quick snapshot of where things are. No applicants will suffer. We are well used to this process.

Has consideration ever been given to having a rolling sports capital application process? I have dealt with many clubs this year, as in previous years, and one of the difficulties is that their planning or their fundraising targets might not be reached within the window of the application process or thereafter. I have often considered that a rolling application process might be far more agile.

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

Effectively, with sports capital being announced over recent years, at least every two years there is a rolling element to it. From our experience of engaging with clubs, that pattern seems to work pretty well for them. Obviously, we would never say "No" if there were an increased fund that would allow for such a model, but at the moment the model seems to suit the needs of clubs on the ground as long as there are not long gaps between rounds of sports capital funding. It is a priority for us to make sure we can award grants at a relatively regular frequency.

That frequency is very important, and Mr. Ó Lionáin makes a really important point that the absence of the regular awarding of grants and the fact that it does not happen on a rolling basis is a major flaw in the system.

On the issue of the support that clubs received during the pandemic, from my experience, sports clubs were divided into two groups: those that perhaps had large borrowings connected with a clubhouse or perhaps a clubhouse operating a restaurant and bar and those that did not. While funding was provided to national bodies, as Ms Licken outlined to Deputy Dillon, clubs on the ground, particularly those that had large borrowing requirements, really struggled, and financial institutions were not always amenable to working with those clubs. I know this does not fall entirely into the period we are discussing, but what audits has the Department done on how much money got out onto the ground and made an impact in individual clubs as well as in the sporting bodies, which, obviously, have a need too?

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

There are two aspects to that question. First, at the corporate governance level there is a rolling programme of audits of the national governing bodies, NGBs, which are done by Sport Ireland. The impact of sports capital on the ground is something we keep under review. For instance, looking at our large-scale sports infrastructure fund, which targets much bigger projects, we are just now coming to the end of a review process of the initial round. One of the emerging lessons is that there is a gap there in that the past 20 months have been really hard on those NGBs and local authorities that applied. Sports revenue has dried up. Costs of construction have gone up. Without prejudging the outcomes of the review, I think we will definitely have to learn from and look at this as we review the large-scale sport infrastructure fund, LSSIF. A lot of the same lessons will probably also apply on the sports capital side, which applies to smaller events.

We will now have a second round of questions. Each Member will have six minutes and if we have time, we will come back around again. We will start with Deputy Munster.

I want to ask the Secretary General first about the issues I raised regarding the miscalculation of workers or effective bogus employment at RTÉ and the pay disparity whereby workers are paid less for working through the medium of Irish. Ms Licken said her Department had no knowledge of those issues and that they predated her time in the Department since 2020, but is it not correct to say that the broadcasting staff had transferred into her Department?

Ms Katherine Licken

What I am saying, as Accounting Officer, is that the broadcasting function has come over only in the past 18 months or so. Some of the staff transferred and some did not transfer. As part of the corporate governance of RTÉ, the broadcasting function generally came over and the corporate governance function came over but not all the staff transferred with it. That is absolutely not to say it was not known. I am just saying that, from my perspective, I came to this in June 2020.

The broadcasting staff came over and the corporate governance staff came over.

Ms Katherine Licken

No, not all the corporate governance staff came over-----

However, the Department has corporate governance staff-----

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, absolutely.

-----who were transferred.

Ms Katherine Licken

No, not who were transferred.

Ms Katherine Licken

No. Some of the corporate governance staff came over, yes, but not all of them.

Yes. Some of them came over. There is therefore no reason on God's earth that that knowledge would not be there within the Department.

Ms Katherine Licken

Absolutely. Yes.

That is not what Ms Licken said earlier, though. She said that this predated her time and that she had no knowledge of the issues.

Ms Katherine Licken

I think what the Deputy was asking was when this came to my attention. It predated my involvement.

I only knew about it since then. We will come back to the Deputy on when this first came to the Department's attention - the Department being in whatever configuration.

Okay, but that really is not good enough. Until my time for asking questions was up, Ms Licken was more or less saying the Department had no knowledge of it but what about the staff in the broadcasting section and in corporate governance? It all comes back to the point I am making about oversight. I cannot believe Ms Licken said that the Department had no knowledge of it when broadcasting and governance staff in the Department did so. Were questions asked? The misclassification of workers and bogus employment were splattered all over the media. At what stage did the oversight or the questions start? RTÉ misclassified workers for years. It exploited workers for decades. Having listened this morning, it seems that what happens when RTÉ is found out is that it lets the Department know, it tells the Department it will fix it and that is the extent of the Department's oversight. That is just not good enough. This is public money we are talking about.

Ms Katherine Licken

With regard to the context of the question, what I was trying to say is I do not have the exact timeline as to when this first came to the attention of the Department - meaning this Department or the Department that formerly had responsibility - and the staff. I will get that for the Deputy. Having said that, there are governance frameworks in place within RTÉ as well as our oversight. The purpose of these frameworks is to surface these types of issues and deal with them. When issues come to our attention we absolutely speak to RTÉ all the time about what it will do about them and what measures it will put in place. We monitor how it rectifies them. We know it has made a settlement with the Revenue Commissioners. We know it is engages with the Department of Social Protection. These are very complex individual contracts that have to be worked through. We absolutely keep a very close eye on it.

Earlier, Ms Licken said the Department was more than satisfied that there was good governance in place. She said she was aware that RTÉ has made a settlement. I do not think anyone in the country is not aware because it was splattered all over the papers. I am astounded at what Ms Licken said when she knew full well that broadcasting staff and corporate governance staff in the Department knew all that was going on. The unions have been speaking about this pay disparity for 20 years and no one in the Department, even Ms Licken coming before the Committee of Public Accounts, has something to say other than that it predated the Department-----

Ms Katherine Licken

No, I-----

It had the staff there. The knowledge and information were there. Is this the extent of the oversight, that after it has been found out RTÉ can just say it has a problem and it will fix it and the Department says that is grand and it will leave it with it.

Ms Katherine Licken

Absolutely not. We would never say-----

I have seen nothing to contradict this. In fairness, I have heard nothing from Ms Licken today that would make me think otherwise.

Ms Katherine Licken

I assure the Deputy we meet RTÉ on a regular basis. We have governance structures in place.

I apologise for cutting across Ms Licken but time is of the essence. The Department meets RTÉ on a regular basis and raises issues of concern. What discussions were had in respect of pay disparity?

Ms Katherine Licken

The discussions on pay disparity were on when the issue arose. I have to say the issue predates me because I only came into this as accounting officer in 2020. The issue was discussed as soon as it surfaced and was discussed regularly as to what the issue was and what RTÉ was doing to address it. We also monitored to make sure RTÉ was doing something to address it. RTÉ has acted to address it.

What precisely is it doing?

Ms Katherine Licken

As everybody knows, it made a settlement with Revenue. It is in very detailed discussions with the Department-----

Ms Licken is confusing the two issues. That was the misclassification of workers-----

Ms Katherine Licken

Oh yes, the pay disparity.

I am speaking about the pay disparity whereby workers who work through the medium of Irish are paid less.

Ms Katherine Licken

On that, it is conducting a comparative review of the remuneration of Irish workers-----

Ms Katherine Licken

In fairness, RTÉ has thousands of employees and many different grades. Where an issue arises of a serious nature and is complex of course we review it. We get someone in to have a look to see what needs to be done, what the problem is and what the history of it is.

Was it the Department that requested the review or did RTÉ, having been outed on the issue, decide it had better carry out a review? Did the instruction come from the Department or was it because it was in the public domain that RTÉ said it had better look as if it were doing something about this and start a review?

We will leave it at this once the response comes in because the Deputy is well over time.

Ms Katherine Licken

I will come back to the Deputy on the timelines of all of this and how things arose and where they arose.

Please do. I thank Ms Licken.

The next speakers are me and Deputy Devlin. I remind people to indicate if they wish to contribute. There may be time for people to come back in if nobody else indicates. I want to discuss Sport Ireland. It has not published its accounts as yet. It is very difficult to make sense of this very mixed Department. We would nearly need to look at each set of accounts for the individual entities and there are almost 20 entities. It is quite difficult to make sense of it. Included in the package for Sport Ireland will be part of the rescue package for the FAI. How much was provided to Sport Ireland to channel to the FAI in 2020?

Ms Katherine Licken

I will ask Mr. Ó Lionáin to go into this directly.

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

In 2020, €13.2 million was supplied to the FAI under Covid funding.

I am speaking specifically about the rescue package.

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

Apologies. There is a memorandum of understanding and a governance review group has been established to monitor this process. There is an annual payment to the FAI. I am afraid I am looking at 2021 figures at present. In 2021, €5.8 million was paid and there is a separate payment of just over €2 million that goes towards its costs for the Aviva Stadium. There is a very strong governance oversight process on this, which is managed by Sport Ireland's governance oversight group. It is a joint partnership between Sport Ireland in the FAI. It is critically measuring the FAI and comparing how it performs in more than 160 different indicators arising out of the various reviews of recent years and how it is delivering on them. In October, we were told it had satisfactorily completed more than 120 of these.

I thank Mr. Ó Lionáin. In the previous Dáil I was on the committee that dealt with transport, tourism and sport where I continuously raised governance. It was clear there were problems and those problems followed on problems experienced in the Olympic Council of Ireland. I have concerns about a couple of sporting organisations. The Secretary General spoke about the layers of governance. I know the amount of money provided to the FAI was a very small proportion of its overall budget in the years up to 2019 and 2020 when a rescue package had to be put in place. What lessons has the Department learned on governance? What additional oversight is there in Sport Ireland? What additional measures and powers have been put in place?

This was an open secret that some of us were working on for the last few years, namely, the role of the Department where there might continue to be problems in other sports organisations.

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

Before I answer that, to clarify, the 2020 accounts for Sport Ireland were only recently audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and they will be going to the Cabinet in the coming weeks, prior to being laid before the Houses, so the committee should have that very shortly.

In terms of the long-term lessons from the FAI and other NGBs one of the clear lessons learned is the absolute importance of rigorous and regular auditing of the family of NGBs. Sport Ireland has a very rigorous programme whereby, at any one time, one of the three large field sports, or an aspect of it, is under review and there is a selection every year of the smaller bodies. That kind of forensic review by robust external audit-----

Is the Department looking at the overall governance of an organisation as opposed to looking at how public money is spent?

Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin

Yes, every NGB that is audited in that way will get recommendations not just about money management, but also about how they are structured, the value of independent directors and long-term strategy and planning. It is not just the money; it is about how the organisations themselves operate for the long term.

A huge amount of damage has been done, although some very good things are happening in the FAI now. However, the damage to the Olympic Council and the damage to the FAI because people were asleep at the wheel, or because there was not the right kind of oversight, is immeasurable. It is not only about financial cost; it is also about reputational cost and opportunity cost in terms of volunteers and all the rest of it.

I want to move on to another area, which is the National Archives. I am not sure how the National Archives is funded, and it appears to be slightly different from the National Museum and the National Gallery. Can we get a note on the National Archives? I know that a big building programme is under way, which is welcome. A huge number of records were not even catalogued and there should be a big digitisation programme. We have underspent on these institutions for decades and there is a lot of catch-up to do. However, it is not very obvious how it is funded. Is some of the activity directly funded by the Department? It is not easy to figure that out.

Ms Katherine Licken

The National Archives is funded directly from the Vote under subhead B4. Although it is a cultural institution, and rightly so, it comes directly within the Vote of the Department. We will get the committee a note on it. The Vice Chairman is correct that we are investing not just in capital, but also in the archives staff, and we are recruiting archivists at the moment in recognition of the valuable work they do. They have some very specific projects ongoing at the moment and I will ask Mr. Falvey to come in on that.

To circle back on the sport issue, under the national sports policy published in 2018, there is a new governance code that the governing bodies have committed to subscribing to by the end of 2021. As of 8 November, 47 bodies have formally adopted the code and the rest are on the journey, with more of them to be compliant by the end of the year. That is another layer of the governance, so it is not just the rolling audits.

How many are outstanding?

Ms Katherine Licken

As of 8 November, 47 have adopted the code and there are a remaining 58 bodies on the adoption journey.

The majority have not signed up to it yet.

Ms Katherine Licken

A small majority. Seven say they are in compliance but they just have not formally submitted the paperwork yet. They are on the journey and Sport Ireland is working very closely with them. This is a very welcome development from our perspective. Mr. Falvey might like to come in on the National Archives.

When the Department is sending the note on the National Archives, will it include Portlaoise, the retrieval costs, what digitisation programmes are under way and whether the lead-in to the 2026 census is something the Department is starting to fund at this stage?

Ms Katherine Licken

I want to correct what I just said. It is 58 NGBs in total and 47 are signed up. My apologies, that was a mistake. Mr. Falvey will come in on the archives.

Mr. Conor Falvey

The staff are staff of the Department, essentially, and the director has specific powers under the Act. We are engaged in all of those projects. The census 2026 plan is in hand at present and the preparation work has commenced already. We can certainly get the committee a note on all of those matters.

Mr. Falvey said 2026 is in hand. Is that to have it online for 2026?

Mr. Conor Falvey

Yes.

Thank you. I call Deputy Cormac Devlin.

I want to come back to the sports elements because that is where we left off when I was last speaking. I agree with Deputies Paul McAuliffe, Alan Dillon and Colm Burke on the issues around large-scale infrastructure and other grants. If I heard the witnesses correctly, it was said that with regard to the grants for sporting bodies and provision of sports and recreational facilities, that underspend was as a result of challenges faced by the clubs in trying to spend that money but it is still earmarked for them and they are not going to lose the funding. Is that right?

Ms Katherine Licken

100%, yes.

That is fine. With regard to part C, the capital grant programme part of the appropriation accounts, there seems to have been a significant increase in grants cancelled, from the figures for 2019. Can Ms Licken elaborate on the rationale for those cancelled grants?

Ms Katherine Licken

The Deputy might point out where that is.

It is section C in the appropriation accounts on page 15. It is at subhead 2.9 on commitments.

Ms Katherine Licken

I apologise but I cannot find it.

The Department might come back to me on that or send a note.

Ms Katherine Licken

Absolutely. We will come back to the Deputy.

To stick with the appropriation accounts, under subhead 2.4 on prepayments, there seems to have been a reduction in expenditure on the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010-2030. Can Ms Licken explain what that is about and why there is such a dramatic reduction in that expenditure?

Ms Katherine Licken

I think that was just on the timing of payments and it is not a reduction.

It is not a loss.

Ms Katherine Licken

It is not a loss, absolutely not.

That is okay. In theory, the same money allocated to that programme is going to be there and it just has not been spent. Is that what we are saying?

Ms Katherine Licken

Absolutely. We provided additional funding again this year for the Irish language more generally. That strategy for the Irish language is a rolling programme that is being ramped up.

I wanted to get clarity on that in order to be sure. The recommendation from the Comptroller and Auditor General states: “The Department should put in place robust controls to ensure compliance of future grantees with relevant grant management and reporting requirements”. I note the Department accepts that recommendation. How is it going to be implemented?

Ms Katherine Licken

This is the recommendation from the previous-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is recommendation 7.1 of the chapter. It is in regard to Galway 2020 but, more generally, it will apply to future grant management.

Ms Katherine Licken

We place great importance on adherence to the conditions of the grant management circular and corporate governance generally.

In this instance, Galway 2020 was a one-off. It probably will not happen again for 20 years. Although the conditions in question were not in the PDA, they were rigorously enforced in terms of drawdown of funding, and we do that for all our other management programmes. The grantees have to make a declaration that the material they presented to us was not used to draw down grants elsewhere. We already rigorously apply that. The issue here was that we did not put it into the PDA as a specific condition. Obviously, if we were doing it again, we would. We totally accept the recommendation.

Ms Licken might revert to me on the question relating to the cancellation of grants, whether by note after the meeting or towards the end of the meeting.

Ms Katherine Licken

Absolutely.

In respect of the comments made by Deputy Munster, it would be remiss of me not to remind members of the long-standing practice that they should not make charges against those outside the Houses, particularly when they are not here to defend themselves. I will not labour the point; it is just a reminder.

In the absence of other members indicating, I might come in with a few points myself. A total of €1.5 million was paid directly to Galway 2020, in accordance with the EU regulations. Why was the additional €1.5 million of EU funding not sought? It appears it was not applied for. Did Galway not meet the criteria?

Ms Katherine Licken

We were delighted Galway 2020 did achieve the €1.5 million award. It did not directly apply for other EU funding as, legally, the organisation had to have been in existence for more than two years to comply with EU funding application criteria more generally, and the organisation was not in situ for two years at that stage-----

Does that go to the point Deputy Verona Murphy made about the arrangements that were put in place? It would have been known that was a criterion. Why would that not have been insisted on? It is quite a sizeable sum in the overall scheme of a capital of culture.

Ms Katherine Licken

If the organisation had been set up sooner, it could have applied. The European Commission emphasises that the delivery team should focus on the overall programme delivery and support our artists to build their capacity and networks at European level. Galway 2020 was successful at getting some of the partners and projects to get money themselves directly from the EU.

Everybody sees the value of a capital of culture. I acknowledge that Galway has a particular offering and that it was unlucky with the timing We had had problems with this previously, as Deputy Burke pointed out. Limerick was another capital of culture where, if I recall correctly, there were problems. We appeared to repeat the mistakes as opposed to learn from them. Has there been an overall analysis, with issues identified, in order that we will not run into those difficulties again? It is very worthwhile but it is often diminished by some of the controversy around it.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, we did a review following Limerick city of culture in 2014, and this is the first year under European capitals of culture that the European capitals of culture are required by the European Commission to do a review. The Audience Agency has been recruited by Galway 2020 to do a review of the programme and lessons will learned from that, as well as from the rolling series of lessons learned kept by the Commission.

I might ask Mr. Falvey to come in on this in a moment. An awful lot of good things happened in the past year and we need to give credit to the artists, Galway 2020 and all the partners and volunteers. A lot of good things happened but they just were not as visible. We would be having a very different conversation if Covid had not happened because those things would have been more visible. Mr. Falvey might talk to some of the projects and how truly spectacular they were, even if some of them went under the radar.

Can Mr. Falvey keep that brief?

Mr. Conor Falvey

Yes, the Vice Chairman will recall that in Limerick, for example, the event had something of a difficult gestation but it was a huge success in the end. The loss of status much bemoaned by residents, to the point that Limerick sought to host the European Capital of Culture for 2020. With things such as the John Gerrard Mirror Pavilion on Claddagh Quay last summer or DruidGregory, the opportunities for public engagement with the arts were very significant in Galway 2020, although not to the extent everybody would have hoped for, given the constraints because of Covid. Had there been further opportunities, it would have been of great benefit to everybody. It is a great shame that did not happen but there were many very good things. If someone was on Claddagh Quay last summer and saw the public gathered there, or at the Gerrard pavilion, it was very striking and it was a fantastic opportunity for public engagement with the arts, very much in line with the objectives of the city of culture designation.

There is no doubt that in the year that was in it, this particular sector was so impacted that we would all acknowledge that while it was just a tiny proportion of what was needed, it was certainly of benefit. We in the Committee of Public Accounts examine governance, funding and value for money, and I do not ask these questions to diminish the designation. Some of these issues cannot be measured monetarily in respect of the benefit gained.

What was Fáilte Ireland’s remit in the distribution of Covid grants? I would like to hear the Secretary General's feedback on how they were administered. We all understand Fáilte Ireland's primary remit relates to tourism, but it was asked to administer a number of grants, one of which was the adaptation grant designed to enable tourism businesses in the hospitality and tourism sector to make improvements through the different levels of restrictions. A great deal of importance was put on these grants but there was difficulty for businesses in gaining access to them. How does the Department feel about the way these grants were administered and what feedback has there been from Fáilte Ireland regarding their administration?

Ms Katherine Licken

Fáilte Ireland has been a critical player in the response to Covid. Its business, which it continues, was in developing the tourism product. It continued that throughout Covid and, at the same time, reorientated itself to deliver a range of grant programmes. It has engaged extensively with us, the tourism sector and the wider hospitality sector, which is covered by us and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Fáilte Ireland has been very flexible in moving quickly to provide schemes and engage with the sector and with us. For example, it provided a €10 million inbound agents business continuity scheme, a €10 million coach tour operators business continuity scheme, a €26 million adaptation fund from August to December 2020 and an €8 million restart scheme.

Budget 2021 allocated more money and the tourism business continuity scheme was launched on 1 February. That was in addition to all of the horizontal supports and to the guidance. Fáilte Ireland has been a key player in providing guidance in the sector. There were the regulations when the restrictions were in place and there is a series of guidance measures. A phenomenal amount of work went on behind the scenes to produce that guidance, in consultation with the sectors and with ourselves. If the committee would like, we can ask Fáilte Ireland to provide the committee with a detailed note and if it has some specific issue or difficulty we can certainly address that. To reiterate, Fáilte Ireland has played a critical role and has not been found wanting from our perspective in responding quickly.

I understand the fantastic work that it does. In its capital programme for 2020, was there any slippage on projects that were not completed as part of its funding allocation under the appropriation accounts?

Ms Katherine Licken

I am not entirely sure for 2020. I do not necessarily think that there was but I could not say that definitively and I will need to come back to the Deputy with a definite answer on that. I know that Westport House and Gardens was one of the flagship projects under Platforms for Growth that was recently announced by Fáilte Ireland which is a welcome development.

I thank the Vice-Chairman.

I thank the Deputy and Ms Licken. That contribution concludes our two-hour slot. I thank our witnesses for joining us today and the staff at the Department for the work involved in preparing for the meeting. I also thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff for attending and assisting the committee today. Is it agreed that we request the clerk to the committee to seek any follow-up information and carry out any agreed actions arising from the meeting? It is agreed.

Is it also agreed that we note and publish the opening statements and briefing provided for today’s meeting? It is agreed.

Ms Katherine Licken

I thank the Vice-Chairman, the committee and all of the team.

The witnesses withdrew.
Sitting suspended at 12.32 p.m. and resumed at 1.33 p.m.
Deputy Brian Stanley resumed the Chair.
Barr
Roinn