I do not have the figures for the cost of the two trips taken by the reporter, but I will be happy to obtain them and revert to the committee.
To respond to Deputy Pat Deering's question on scapegoating and rewarding, I do not believe anybody has been scapegoated or rewarded. Two of the people involved have left RTE and two of the others are involved in a personnel investigative process on which I do not want to prejudge the comments to be made. Nobody has been rewarded as a result of this programme. However, it would be very difficult to argue this, given what has occurred in the past year. The process is not yet complete.
Three people were part of the filming crew that travelled to Africa. I understand, although I am not sure, that the team would have been picked by editorial management of the current affairs section and "Prime Time Investigates".
I was asked why the managing director of radio, rather than television, was present. "Prime Time Investigates" reports news. I wanted to bring a range of people because broad editorial issues apply that apply to radio and news programmes. As I believed financial issues could be raised also, I asked the chief financial officer to attend.
Let me address Senator Paschal Mooney's point on focusing on the flaws and the comparison between RTE and the BBC. It is worth remembering what RTE delivers with its licence fee income. The licence fee income of the BBC is over €5 billion. RTE, which competes with the BBC regularly in the major language spoken in the country, has licence fee income of €170 million. We are also allowed to generate commercial income.
People referred to RTE as if there were one broadcaster, one system and one approach. RTE competes with a range of broadcasters, including the BBC, on a range of programming. It has a range of arts programmes and is the only broadcaster which invests heavily in Irish drama productions. It is the only one which invests in young people's programming and the only broadcaster on the island which runs an Irish language radio station and a classical music radio station. There is a range of factors to be considered. RTE is not a single entity; it is not one programme, department or division. We need to remember this, particularly when we are, understandably, under the spotlight because of some of our output, particularly the programme under discussion. RTE provides a range of services to which the public has reacted positively and which it appreciates and likes. The services are delivered to a high standard, even outside journalism.
There is always a risk of going in the opposite direction and there is no point in my saying otherwise. After the Hutton inquiry, many considered the BBC became quite conservative in its approach to journalism. It is part of my job to ensure that does not happen. It is part of my job and everybody else's to say we need new approaches and question ourselves. We must try to ensure our standards meet what we require as a public service broadcaster. As a public service broadcaster, we require the highest standards. However, there is a risk, of which we need to be aware. People have said we are introducing new editorial boards and controls, but part of what we are trying to do through the guidelines is get managers, in particular, to take responsibility. We are not saying people cannot be doorstepped. As was stated, if people do not make themselves available, that is the final recourse in obtaining answers to questions. We are not saying there will not be secret filming, nor that there will not be tough investigative journalism which it is absolutely our responsibility to deliver. For me, sign-off is not some piece of paper put in front of somone that he or she does not even read. The reason for sign-off is that there is a challenge process. It is a question of determining whether it is certain a potential interviewee will not make himself or herself available and whether means other than secret filming were used to obtain the information. These are the questions one needs to ask.
There is always a risk that one will go to the other extreme. As director general, I contend the board is absolutely committed to further investigative journalism. We are not going to be knocked off course in that regard and will learn from what has occurred.
On the Dublin 4 culture, only one of the senior executives present was born and raised in Dublin. There is a range of views and experiences of which people may not be aware at all levels within RTE. Understandably, people tend to look at certain elements of our regional output, including correspondence and commissioned programmes, but they should realise there is a huge range of output, from radio, television and news programmes, in respect of which we go out into the regions - 2fm roadcasters sponsor regional events. We have a fundamental obligation to be a national broadcaster and are not pulling away from that responsibility. We are very aware of the responsibility to cover the whole island. It is a matter for a separate day's discussion to consider the ways by which we may need to do everything in RTE, but we are absolutely aware of our responsibilities to the regions.
I am surprised Deputy Tom Barry felt I was spoiling for a row. I have been doing most of the talking for the past two hours and 20 minutes and have not had a row with anyone today. I have not come spoiling for a row and did not do so last week. The Deputy, as a licence fee payer, is absolutely entitled to his view on the role of any member of RTE's executive or board. I do not have any issue with accountability. If one is in a leadership role, one must be accountable and responsible. My responsibility is to lead the organisation through a very difficult set of circumstances and I have done so head-on in the past four or five months. I have been out front in the vast bulk of public appearances in difficult circumstances. This was appropriate and I am not looking for a pat on the back for doing so. The responsibility of the director general is to say this is an organisation that is going through a financial and an editorial challenge. This is an organisation in which I believe. It is also one in which the public believes. The responsibility is to lead it through the current situation, learn from it and come out stronger at the other end.
On the question about being in no position to make judgments on investigative journalism, RTE has done some fantastic investigative journalism. I have been involved in investigative journalism as a reporter, a producer, an editor and a manager. I have been involved in it on and off since I left college. I was brought into RTE as a reporter because it was looking for someone to do investigative journalism in the business area. I have some experience. Perfection is certainly not a virtue I have ever claimed for RTE or myself in that regard. However, for anyone to feel that all the investigative journalism that RTE has done over the past 30 years is now forgotten and means nothing is to ignore the significant public service that this journalism has done. That does not mean there were not faults or mistakes. There were certainly some huge ones in this case. We are trying to learn from this and move on from it.
On the question raised about this being an Africa story, I was merely relating to the Deputy the notes I had read and the conversations I had that the editorial team in "Prime Time" was involved in when the decision was made to do this programme. I was not relating anything to do with my own views. Similarly, it is the same on the confidence of the paternity test and the legal risks.
Door stepping will continue but will be governed by new guidelines, open to challenge and scrutiny. We will have to ensure it is not there simply to provide a dramatic moment in a 52-minute documentary. There will still be those elements to what we do.
On the question of the scientific evidence, this is a significant issue. What would have happened if there had not been a paternity issue? We have strong libel laws. If Fr. Reynolds took a libel case, I do not believe we would have succeeded in getting the main witness from Africa. As we saw from the interview and the results of the paternity test, I think that under questioning if we had succeeded that would have been difficult. I am not totally convinced there are not other elements of recourse available to people in this country who feel they have been wronged by any media outlet.
The starkness of this case, where a paternity test led to the disproving of the programme in such dramatic terms, raises issues for us. The level of proof required in similar cases will have to be higher. There will have to be complete evidence that a subject has been fully interrogated. We are absolutely aware of the effect on the victim in this case, Fr. Reynolds. It raises issues. There is no simple answer to it. We have to interrogate all of these areas in a much stronger way and more intensely.
Sheila did not get any financial inducement. I do not know if she got legal advice. I do not have the answer to that.
