I have received no apologies. I expect a full turnout from the committee.

Today we are engaging on matters relating to policy, governance, expenditure and administration at RTÉ. The meeting has been convened with the chair to the board of RTÉ, the RTÉ director general and his leadership team and relevant officials from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media to discuss matters relating to policy, governance, expenditure and administration at RTÉ.

For today's session, the committee has given notice it wishes to seek clarification from today’s witnesses on relevant matters including, but not exclusive to, the following: impairments in the writedown of sums relating to enterprise, resource, planning, ERP project; PRSI classification and related currency and legacy employment issues; RTÉ redundancy schemes; and RTÉ’s ongoing plans for transformation.

I warmly welcome the following witnesses from RTÉ: Mr. Terence O'Rourke, board chairperson; Mr. Kevin Bakhurst, director general; Mr. Adrian Lynch, deputy director general and director of audience channels and marketing; Mr. Daniel Coady, director of legal affairs; Ms Deirdre McCarthy, director of news and current affairs; Ms Eimear Cusack, director of human resources; Mr. Gavin Deans, director of commercial; Ms Mari Hurley, chief financial officer; Ms Patricia Monahan, director of audio; Mr. Richard Waghorn, chief technology officer and director of operations; and Mr. Steve Carson, director of video. From the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, which will change its title soon, I understand, I welcome the Secretary General, Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh, who is joined by officials from the Department’s media and broadcasting division, namely, Ms Tríona Quill, assistant secretary, and Mr. Stephen Ryan, principal officer. Opening statements have been received from the chair to the board of RTÉ, its director general and the Secretary General to the Department. Can I have members’ agreement that we take the statements received as read and that the committee publishes the opening statements to the committee’s webpage now. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we proceed to questions from members of the committee I wish to advise members that while the committee has received correspondence from and concerning individuals and other organisations and companies in advance of this engagement regarding some of the items that have been flagged for discussions, I remind all members that the names of individuals or identifiable entities or any personal information relating to them should not be discussed publicly in today’s session. If it strays into that unfortunately I will have to intercede and ask members to desist.

I would also like to clarify some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege in respect of the presentation they make to this committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Chair to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they may be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with my direction in such cases.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We will shortly proceed to a questions and answers session with members. Members will be given six minutes for questions and answers. We will have at least two rounds. I ask that members’ questions be specific and direct. As the witnesses are the first witnesses before this committee in public session, I will set some rules as regards engagement. It is not specific to RTÉ but, rather, relates to everyone who will come before this committee while I am chairing. Answers specific to the questions are requested. If there are any issues as regards answering the questions, please flag them but I expect answers to be succinct and to the point. In other words, we do not want to see a situation where there is padding or running down the clock in respect of questions.

With that in mind, members will be given approximately six minutes speaking time. That includes both questions and answers. We will commence with Deputy Malcolm Byrne.

I thank the Chair. I welcome the witnesses although I fear it is a case of here we go again. As one of only two members who served on the last committee, I am familiar with many of the issues. During the previous Oireachtas, I asked Mr. Bakhurst whether there was anything else and he honestly answered at the time that he did not think so, to the best of his knowledge. However, we are obviously aware of the writedown on the ICT systems. I understand that writedown is of the order of €3.6 million and that was funded fully by RTÉ’s sale of land in 2017 which netted €107.5 million for RTÉ. Was there anything else out of that land sale that ended up being written down or written off? My concern, which was highlighted by The Currency, is that the problem with this came before the audit and risk committee on 20 April 2023 and then on 27 April 2023 it was brought to the attention of the board. Is this not something, given that we asked whether there was anything else? Surely this is something else and it is a very considerable sum of money?

Yes, it clearly is something else. I answered that question honestly in the knowledge I had at the time. I was not on the board in April 2023. Regarding that meeting, I attended the beginning of the board to be introduced as the incoming director general and I left the board and so I was not part of the board discussion.

Can I ask specifically when Mr. Bakhurst personally became aware of this problem?

I became aware of it on foot of the request from the Department, from the Minister, for a list of capital projects since 2020 with a value of over half a million euro each.

We did up that list and it included 39 projects. When the list was being prepared by the CFO, she alerted me, initially on 26 February, to the size of the impairments.

I am not doubting Mr. Bakhurst's honesty but somebody in RTÉ was aware of this issue in 2023. Mr. Bakhurst came in as director general and he was aware of all the other controversies happening. Did nobody in RTÉ think to come to him and say, "Hey, DG, we have a problem involving a €3.6 million write-down"? Particularly given everything else that was going on, was that not done until the Minister specifically asked about it?

No one brought the numbers to my attention. It is fair to point out that the CFO who was responsible for making the write-downs had left the organisation. From what I have discovered subsequently and as per the documents we have provided to the committee, the organisation felt this matter was accounted for in the accounts, although I would say not clearly enough. It was there in the accounts as an impairment. It could have been clearer but it was clear enough that NewERA saw it and came back asking exactly what the impairments were for. The issue was properly recorded, it went through the board and the audit and risk committee, ARC, felt it had dealt with it.

As I said in my opening statement, one never wants to lose sums of public money, whether it comes from land sales or otherwise. Sometimes, unfortunately, significant projects go wrong. To give a bit of context, the 39 projects we looked at and provided information on to the Department had a total value of approximately €57 million and they came in within €500,000 of that. So, overall-----

I appreciate that. One never necessarily gets praise for projects that are delivered on time and on budget.

No, of course not.

However, €3.6 million is a significant write-down. I respect the work Mr. Bakhurst is doing but he will understand my concern that he, as director general, was not informed of the issue internally.

My next question is for Mr. Ó Coigligh. Is it correct that the Department was not alerted to this problem at any stage until it sent its request about it to RTÉ?

As Mr. Bakhurst said, the impairment was noted in the accounts in two years. NewERA followed up with a query and that query and the response to it were notified to the Department. There was not clarity about what had happened. It was not clear that part of an ICT project had failed. There was an awareness of the impairment but not of the detail.

When did somebody become aware it was a €3.6 million write-down? Somebody knew there was a problem but when was it known that it involved a cost of €3.6 million?

As Mr. Bakhurst said, it was on foot of the request I made to bodies under the aegis of the Department within the media, culture and sports areas in regard to projects with a cost of more than €500,000 from 2020 onwards. The report we received from RTÉ, as the director general indicated, detailed 39 projects valued at €56 million within a 1% variance. That one project stood out, which is when the Department specifically noted it.

Who might have known, and how early might they have known, there was a write-down of €3.6 million within RTÉ?

The CFO at the time would have known. The write-offs were made over consecutive years; they were not all made in one go.

We have had the Ernst & Young report and so on and the matter went to the audit and risk committee. Did anybody in that committee or anyone else on the board know about the scale? I am trying to establish that.

I have asked those questions because I, too, wanted to establish who knew about it. Yes, the audit and risk committee was aware of the approximate amount.

Was it aware from 2023?

Yes, it knew in 2023.

The committee was aware in 2023. Okay.

I welcome the witnesses. I am sure we all hoped representatives of RTÉ would not be here again in this Dáil term to discuss any more financial scandals, let alone so soon after the events of 2023 and 2024. Following those events, three reports were published by the previous Minister for the media, namely, a review of the governance and culture of RTÉ; a review of contractor fees, HR and other matters at RTÉ; and the examination of the books and records of accounts of RTÉ. There was also the report of the Committee of Public Accounts with its 21 recommendations, all of which were accepted last year. In light of those reports and the acceptance of their findings, does the €3.6 million write-off for an IT system, which was revealed this year, breach any of the new guidelines, protocols or accepted recommendations in any of the four reports?

I have not thought about it through that prism. The 105 recommendations of those two expert committee reports, which we are implementing and reporting to the Department on their implementation, should ensure this never happens again. The way things were done within RTÉ at that time contributed to the lack of knowledge across other members of the executive. The communication between the executive and the then board was not good enough. We have been addressing all those things anyway and some of them are recommendations in the reports. Those recommendations will go a long way to ensuring issues like this one are as avoidable as possible.

It was before my time and I am not making excuses. As I have said previously, it is very unfortunate to write off, in effect, more than €3 million of public money. However, big projects, particularly big IT projects, can go wrong. What I have looked at is how the organisation tried to salvage that, what lessons were learned from it and how to ensure, looking at the Ernst & Young report, we are operating to best practice, as set out in that report. That is what we are doing now. Would having that in place previously have stopped this from happening? I do not know because projects can go wrong-----

That is not what I asked.

I am sorry; what was the question?

I was really looking for assurances from the director general that those reports and their recommendations are being adhered to. I respect that all of this happened before his time but it is disappointing that his first line of response to me was that he had not thought about it. It is fairly obvious to me that if he is trying to set a new regime for RTÉ and a new respect for good governance, good auditing and good practice, this would be the first port of call he would rely on. However, I thank him for his response.

Will the Deputy explain why she thinks this should be the first port of call for me?

Considering the amount of time that was put into RTÉ in the Oireachtas, the exposure RTÉ got and the exposure of all the bad governance, the process the organisation fed into for so many committees, particularly this committee and the Committee of Public Accounts, and the time and effort put into all those reports, I would have thought that would be a basis to build on to ensure transparency and good governance were to the fore.

We are trying to do that. As I made clear in my opening statement, we act whenever anything appears. When our new CFO was going through the balance sheet, she wanted to tidy up another couple of matters. They will be in the annual report but I wanted to bring them to the committee today.

I ask Deputy Byrne to keep in mind the time available to her.

That is no problem. I will move on to the accounts and the impairments in the accounts. It is a matter of public record that information provided to NewERA did not give rise to any concerns, which is why its report did not flag this issue as a matter of concern. I cannot get my head around how that happened if it was noted in the annual accounts from 2020 to 2023, as I understand it. I presume it was minuted in meetings and escalated to the relevant management. I am not sure why it did not give cause for concern. I would like a comment on that.

May I answer that specific question?

Please do.

NewERA acts on behalf of the Department. It properly identified these issues and asked questions as to what the impairments were for. Its role is to report to the Department, not to us. NewERA would have looked at what those impairments were for, on what basis they were decided-----

NewERA has stated that information provided by RTÉ to it did not give rise to any concerns. If NewERA was not given cause for any concerns, it could not, in effect, report on that to the Department. That is the bit that sets off alarm bells for me.

To be clear, NewERA looked at the impairments, whether they were treated properly in the accounts, whether they were audited independently by our independent auditor and whether they were reported to the Department. NewERA then looked into the rationale for why the impairments were made. It said, in effect, that they were correctly accounted for and correctly reported. That is what NewERA said. It did not raise a red flag because, in its view, there was no red flag to raise.

Okay. As a result of the issues arising, I understand the contract with one of the appointed suppliers was terminated. This led to a settlement agreement that is subject to a confidentiality clause, which I respect. Are such clauses still in use today? I do not understand the rationale for paying a supplier for not doing the job it was hired to do.

Is RTÉ defending that these clauses are open and transparent with public and taxpayers' money at this stage considering the amount of waste of public money we have seen in recent years?

The Deputy is right that of the payments and the impairments, one was to one of the companies involved which was later not involved in the project because it was not delivering it. Two of the significant impairments within the €6 million were for an expert consultant who was brought in at the beginning of this project to try to ensure it was properly carried out, as the Deputy can see from the papers I supplied. A significant amount of RTÉ's staff costs - approximately €750,000 - was written off as part of these impairments.

I should say that the impairments were made by the CFO at that point thinking that the whole project might fail. To be crystal clear, the main part of the project - the finance system - was delivered. As I understand it, the threshold for reversing impairments, even if the project can be put back on track, is very high. Arguably, some of the impairments could have been reversed because they were made for the finance system, which was delivered for RTÉ and is currently in use by RTÉ.

The witnesses are all very welcome. I think of the words "Groundhog Day". We are back here again after a couple of years. I was a member of the previous committee, along with Deputy Malcolm Byrne. Mr. Bakhurst has just made a comment about this never happening again. We were told a number of years ago that this would not happen again. It took a news agency and a letter of correspondence from the Minister to find out about the significant write-down, with repayments of €2.7 million and €1.1 million to the Revenue Commissioners. Mr. Bakhurst made the point in his opening statement that this information is being given, with regard to the Revenue Commissioners, as a reflection of the higher standards of transparency. We should have transparency at all times. Over a number of hearings we had here a number of years ago, trying to elicit information from the organisation was like trying to pull teeth at times. That is continuing. It is not acceptable for an organisation that is funded by the taxpayer.

Can I respond to that, Deputy?

Yes, if Mr. Bakhurst will just let me finish for a second. Mr. Bakhurst made the comment that the audit and risk committee was aware of the write-down. A number of committee members who are in this room at present were at those previous meetings. We saw that RTÉ asked for significant funding from the Government to bail it out. It requested significant moneys yet no one in the Government was notified of this.

I think a few things there are incorrect. I remember that the last time, or several committee meetings ago, Deputy Carrigy asked me to resign at that point. I should say that nothing was hidden here. This is very different from 2023. Neither of these were on my watch. I have been trying to clear up what happened in the past. I have looked at this issue in some detail, as the Deputy would expect me to, since it surfaced through the Department making that query. This is very different. The 2023 scandal was about things being done deliberately to mislead the public about sums of money being spent and covered up. This was in the accounts. It was questioned by NewEra. It is highly unfortunate to lose this amount of money. The impairments were made. The organisation did end up with an updated finance system, which is significant. In fact, the majority of the project was successfully delivered in the end. This is very different from 2023. Sums of money were lost. I have spoken to one or two members who were then on the ARC and they felt it had been properly accounted for, it had been audited by our auditors and it had been reported to NewERA when it asked about it. Nothing was hidden here. That is not to say it was not unfortunate. Quite frankly, and I have spoken to the CFO about this, if we were to make a similar impairment - God forbid we will not have to - it would be much clearer in the accounts today than it was several years ago.

There are staff members present here today who were in senior roles in RTÉ during that time, such as the acting DG - the previous DG is not here - and the head of HR. Did they know about this while they were attending meetings of this committee and speaking to Members of the Oireachtas who asked questions of them? Two staff members are present. I will ask Mr. Lynch and Ms Cusack straight out: were they aware of this? If they were, why did they not inform the members of this committee at that time? I would like a straight yes-no answer. Were they aware of it? My time is limited. Was Mr. Lynch aware, as acting DG?

No.

Was Ms Cusack aware of it?

No, I was not.

As head of HR, and bearing in mind that this was a system that was related to HR, Ms Cusack was not aware that this had happened.

Who put together the tender for this IT system? Was it put together properly? Was the right ask put out there when it was being tendered for? Was Ms Cusack involved in it?

It was part of our procurement process that had a number of people involved across it. It began in 2016. I started in RTÉ in 2017 so I was there when the project was being procured. So, is that-----

Ms Cusack was aware of the tender being put together. Was the correct tender put out? Did it have the right specification for the job?

Yes, it was.

It was the right specification for the job. Was the right supplier picked?

I was responsible for the HR element and the HR requirements. We went through a tender process. A number of vendors participated in that process. We had an external evaluation of the final bids to ensure we were picking the right providers and that was the result.

Was it properly project managed?

It was. The project ran into a number of difficulties. I think a number of issues arose, particularly between the contractor and the subcontractor. Every effort was made by the teams involved, both from technology and from finance and HR, to make the project work.

I am sorry to interrupt, but I am caught for time. RTÉ got it wrong. People are responsible. The specification was not done properly, the right supplier was not picked and it was not project managed. That is why there is a deficit of €3.7 million.

Deputy, can I-----

Sorry, but I am just asking Ms Cusack specifically about this. The reality is that all three of these things were gotten wrong.

No, I could not agree with that because we put in our requirements. The contractor and the subcontractor who won the tender said they could deliver on those requirements. Ultimately, the finance system was delivered upon. The contractor and the subcontractor said they could not deliver on the HR system but that was not known at the time they signed up for the project when they said they could deliver on it.

I thank the witnesses for being here. It is undeniable that RTÉ has had significant problems in the past with treatment of employees, issues of pay parity, cultural issues, serious governance issues and the treatment of employees as contractors. This has cost RTÉ and the general public dearly in terms of public trust in an institution we all treasure. I encourage at today's session that what we want to see demonstrated is care: care for the witnesses as custodians of our national broadcaster, care for the employees in their employment and care for RTÉ's role as a public service broadcaster.

My first question is about Press Council affiliation. I will direct it at Mr. Bakhurst but he can delegate the question to whomever is the most relevant person to answer it. Given RTÉ's duties as the national broadcaster and the large amount of trust put into RTÉ as a news source, it is vital that RTÉ's editorial independence is protected as well as the quality of news it produces. In light of the fact that articles published on the RTÉ website are not regulated by the Broadcasting Act 2009, or by the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022, will RTÉ become a member publication of the Press Council which would ensure this is a mechanism for journalistic accountability for online reporting by RTÉ? Just to be clear, it was confirmed by the Minister of State, Deputy McConalogue, that the Press Council could do this if RTÉ online became a member.

I may bring in our legal counsel in a second if that is alright. Our head of legal, Mr. Daniel Coady, has been across this. As I understand it, in regard to the online content of RTÉ, the proposals to be soon laid before the Oireachtas by the Department, in terms of the new media Bill-----

I know there is stuff coming down the line but this would be an immediate fix we have identified as something that RTÉ online could do to preserve that integrity now. My question is simply this: will RTÉ pursue that membership of the Press Council?

We can look at it. Although RTÉ is not regulated in the same way online - the Deputy is correct about that - our journalistic guidelines absolutely apply to online content and we hold ourselves to the same standards on that. That is not the same as being regulated but we do-----

I have a lot of questions. I just wanted to ask that specific question-----

We can take it away and look at-----

Please. Going back to my-----

-----whether that is practical ahead of the new legislation which will put regulation out anyway. I do not want to be double regulated.

I suppose it is speaking back to my opening comments about the public trust, which I believe has been eroded and we need to win back.

Yes.

Does Mr. Coady wish to come in?

I have one comment on this. One of the issues with that proposal is that RTÉ would then be regulated by two separate codes.

Much of our online content derives from material that is broadcast. Something will be broadcast, which is regulated by Coimisiún na Meán, and then there would be a news article on the basis of that.

Nonetheless, it would provide for public trust. I encourage RTÉ to pursue it.

I will skip on to the voluntary redundancy scheme. Regarding suppressing alternative posts and redeploying staff to other roles, how will the rights of those staff staying behind be best protected, particularly in roles between TG4 and RTÉ? I also note there are no trade union representatives on the steering group being put in place to oversee the voluntary exit programme. How is this compatible with a desire to change the culture around the treatment of employees in RTÉ? Again, those questions are to Mr. Bakhurst.

We spoke to the unions about this process before it launched on how it was going to look. In particular, we spoke to them about the safeguards put around the process for having an independent outside body on this. We have to report rigorously to the Department on it and it is overseen by our board subcommittee so there are a lot of safeguards around it.

There is no trade union representation on that steering group, however.

No. It would be unusual to have trade unions deciding who can join or leave the organisation individually because it is about individual decisions. The trade unions have a role - they want to represent people - but this is a voluntary scheme. We had 328 people apply and a few late applications. It is entirely voluntary to apply and if we make an offer to some of those people, it is entirely voluntary whether they accept the offer or not. They can of course have union representation if they want it.

Specifically to RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta, it is extremely welcome to see Irish language journalists and broadcasters come a step closer to pay parity with their English language counterparts. Those toward the top of the old Raidió na Gaeltachta pay scales will now be at the closest point on the RTÉ pay scales to their previous salary. Given the significant disparity - I believe it is a difference of €16,000 for radio producers and a difference of €14,000 for the radio BCO scale between the pay scales - why are people not being put on the point most equivalent to their experience as opposed to their current lower pay? Perhaps Mr. Bakhurst will answer that.

As the Deputy knows, this is has been an outstanding issue for years. When I came in, I discussed with Eimear Cusack, head of HR, that I wanted this resolved and we have resolved it. The ask was that our staff who work at Raidió na Gaeltachta be given parity with their colleagues in similar jobs - they are not exactly the same jobs - in RTÉ Radio.

A difference of €16,000 does not sound like parity.

Funnily enough, this of particular benefit to the people Deputy Gibney has talked about near the top of their bands at Raidió na Gaeltachta because they would not have been able to progress much further once they hit the top of those bands. They now have significant headroom to progress.

That is because they have taken quite a dip.

No, they have not. They have moved across at exactly the same pay levels but it has given them more headroom to progress in their jobs.

It goes back to the question that it should surely be relevant to their experience rather than moving them along on that band. I would have thought that should factor in.

I have one more question regarding bogus self-employment. I note the finding that 60% of cases investigated by the Department of Social Protection were found to be correctly categorised but it is concerning that 22%, so far, were incorrectly categorised. How much money has RTÉ incurred in costs defending cases of bogus self-employment where it was ultimately found to be in the wrong? If Mr. Bakhurst does not have time to answer now, perhaps we can take a written answer.

He can provide a quick answer.

I think we provided those numbers in the pre-read but, if not, those can be provided.

To be specific, Mr. Bakhurst, Deputy Gibney asked how much it cost for the cases RTÉ lost.

I will have to come back to the committee on the ones we have lost.

I ask Mr. Bakhurst to come back to us on that before the meeting finishes.

I am not sure we can do that because I want to get the number right.

Surely you can get the number right. It must be pretty obvious.

I am not sure we have broken down the ones we have lost or the ones that are currently in play.

I welcome everyone to the meeting. There are enough people here to fill a hurling team. They have come out in numbers, and fair play for that.

To say it is highly unfortunate to lose €3.6 million suggests it was an accident. This situation did not occur by accident. Whether the buck stops with those involved in the procurement process or with NewERA, someone somewhere knew the system was unworkable. Someone must be accountable.

The director general, Mr. Bakhurst, was made aware when the Minister specifically asked in 2025. The audit and risk committee of the RTÉ board knew in April 2023 and the board met later in April 2023, yet nobody thought to feed that information up. The Department is on record this afternoon as saying it was aware of the impairment but not of the detail. The sum of €3.6 million is not pocket money. It is not good enough to be aware of an impairment but not the detail.

RTÉ is going to receive €725 million in the next three years from the Government. I would have thought there would be a little more attention to detail as regards funding.

May I reply to the Deputy on that point?

Please do.

Since I was made aware of this, we have done a significant amount of work on the detail of how this happened and what the safeguards now in place are to try to prevent it from happening again. We are considering what the details are, what the decisions are, if there are lessons to be learned in procurement and if we have imposed all the recommendations of the EY report. One thing we have brought in, which has never happened before, is that the full list of significant capital projects comes to the leadership team once a month, so that we are all aware of-----

For clarification, how many are on the leadership team?

There are ten and they are all here.

They are all made aware of any bigger spending-----

Correct. That had never happened before and it is why things were done in silos. Some people on that leadership team did not know the size of the impairments because it was handled by the CFO.

I want to move on quickly to the PRSI classification because I am very conscious of time. I note RTÉ paid out €4 million that was tied to the misclassification of some 700 staff, although obviously they were not all misclassified. What does RTÉ expect will be the final amount paid to the Department for that?

The Deputy knows the size of the provision we have made in the accounts, which is approximately €21 million. It is very hard to say at present because a significant number of the cases are outstanding. There is an agreed disagreement, if you like, between us and the Department about the status of people who were self-employed through their own companies. Those are going through the legal system, or at least some of them are going through as pathfinder cases, and that will have a significant impact in the end on how much we will have to pay as an organisation. We have taken a very conservative view, as I would expect from Mari Hurley, in terms of------

I note the figure for legal advice related to High Court costs is €165,000. What figure does RTÉ expect to see from those High Court challenges?

I do not know. It depends how long the cases go on.

When does Mr. Bakhurst expect the process to be completed?

I would like it to be completed as soon as possible but it is out of our hands. It is in the hands of the Courts Service.

I should add that some new officials came into the Department of Social Protection about a year ago and we have made extremely rapid progress because they have been working openly and collaboratively with Ms Cusack and her team to try to get these cases resolved as soon as possible.

Fair enough. How many employees does RTÉ have?

Approximately 1,850.

Some 325 have applied for voluntary redundancy?

It is 328 now.

Mr. Bakhurst's application has come in then.

I am ineligible, I am afraid.

Will everybody who applies be eligible? I know there is a process in place and a group has been set up but will everybody who applies be eligible?

The criteria drawn up by our Department and the Department of public expenditure, are extremely strict. Individuals will only be eligible if we either do not need to replace them or we can make the savings elsewhere. The criteria are very strict. Some may not be eligible because they may be in a specific role. For example, and I know this is true as I have already said it to them, it is very hard to see with musicians in the orchestra because we cannot move someone across from the newsroom to replace them.

How many voluntary redundancies is RTÉ seeking?

We were seeking 40 last year and 87 this year. We would like, if possible, to meet that target of around 127.

Will that number have left the organisation by 31 December of this year?

They have to under the terms of this programme.

What is the upfront potential cost of that?

It depends on who goes because some people will cost more.

Does Mr. Bakhurst have a guesstimate?

We have set aside €15 million.

Does RTÉ intend to request another severance package in 2026?

I have said publicly that I think we will have to. We have to demonstrate first that this one is properly carried out and delivers efficiencies for the organisation. We can only do this one phase at a time, so there are some other significant things we need to do. We have already talked about "Fair City" a number of times but that will be a separate phase. We cannot do it all at once.

I am very conscious of time but I have one last quick question.

Should RTÉ have considered doing up the newsroom, to make it a more suitable workplace for its staff, instead of hiring props to shoot an ad?

I very much welcome being able to answer this question because it has infuriated me. First, a significant amount of the press coverage has been totally inaccurate about it. Second, we have just spent €50,000 on doing up part of the newsroom. Regarding the props that were allegedly used, a couple of plants were moved from elsewhere in RTÉ and were put back to cover up electrical points.

So there were no props?

There were two plants. As the Deputy will be aware, even when news interviews are being filmed, people sometimes wear makeup, they have lighting, a plant might be moved to improve the shot, etc. I would expect that of our highly professional promotions team. Lastly, there has been some coverage about extras being brought in. The proper conversations were had about this between our marketing team, who were doing this, and the news management team. They discussed how it was going to be done. The initial request was for some journalists from the newsroom to sit in the background - they can be blurred out, by the way - while filming was being done for several hours. The answer was, "No, our journalists are too busy, so you have to use other people".

How much did the extras cost?

The total cost of this promotion comes from our marketing budget. The annual marketing budget is about €2 million. The Deputy will appreciate that-----

How much did this particular promotion cost?

This cost less than €100,000, which would be bog standard.

I want to go back to the IT debacle. I have a quick question and others will flow from it. Is the PeopleSoft programme still being used today? It is 24 years old. At this stage, without any live support or any back-up support, it is at its end of life as a system.

It is an end-of-life situation and we are in the middle of a procurement process for a new HR system. PeopleSoft is still in use, despite being at the end-of-life stage.

Yes, it is at its end of life and it has been for quite a number of years. Which company is hosting it at this stage or providing back up?

PeopleSoft has been our HR system for 24 years. We manage it internally on our own in-house infrastructure. This is modern infrastructure and we back up the data on PeopleSoft on a regular basis. The issue is being taken care of.

So BearingPoint has no role in it at this stage?

No, it is managed in-house by the internal technology team.

The original procurement was for five systems to be replaced, three of which were HR and only two were done, so not even half of the project was got up and running. The finance part was got up and running but not the HR part, which would be vital, to most people.

Absolutely. We put in place additional systems in the last few years because PeopleSoft did not have the capability to do the workflows that we wanted to do. The intention was not to have multiple systems supporting HR and finance; it was to have a single system. This is very common in many industries. That is why we went to market to find one ERP system that could take care of both finance and HR. Through a fair and open public procurement process, we selected the vendor that was going to offer the best value for money. The system met our requirements. It was unfortunate that the project did not deliver, because we had the challenges on the way, as set out in the note. The PeopleSoft system is still working today. Unit4 Business World, the new finance system we contracted, is in place and working.

There is a logic that all big organisations have to upgrade or update their IT systems. However, at one stage, there were three vendors. Then two of them colluded to win the contract, or that is how it appears, because RTÉ ended up with BearingPoint and Unit4, with BearingPoint winning the contract and then employing one of the under-bidders. That, in itself, seems to raise questions.

It was a fair and open procurement process. The three vendors that went through to the ITT were the ones that were still in the competition. The Deputy is absolutely right. One of the vendors that was bidding alone was going to be subcontracted to another vendor. Through the procurement process, that vendor decided to withdraw and then go with the other contractor. At the end, we then had two bids from the eventual winner and then from another third party.

It seems odd that the winner had to depend on an under-bidder. Did that not raise concerns at the time that they could not deliver and had to bring in Unit4?

No. The contractor we contracted with was a systems integrator. What would be common is that they would then make a bid with a vendor of a product. This happens with a lot of the projects we procure. What we got from that bid was a systems integrator working with a vendor. The vendor was also in the process separately. That has happened in some other procurements we have run as well.

When will the existing programme be replaced to make sure it is up to date?

We are currently in procurement for a new HR system. As we are in procurement I cannot give the details of it. All being well, we hope it will be in place during the course of next year.

What will the approximate cost be? I know it is kind of-----

The budget we approved on the business case was €1.6 million and there would be our operating expenses costs on an annual basis as well. Ultimately, it depends. We are looking to go with SaaS or Public Cloud for this particular system, so at the end of the day, the cost profile might be slightly different from what we put in the original business case. Once we have completed the procurement process, we go back to the leadership team and the board with an updated business case to reflect the costs that have come through the procurement process.

I will now address the issue of the dismantling of structures in RTÉ. Different departments are earmarked for "increased commissioning", which is a signal for dismantling or getting rid of some departments. Is it intended, in the future, to close the HR department or outsource its functions? What does RTÉ intend to do with the departments that make religious programmes, documentaries and sports?

As the Deputy will already be aware, a lot of our content is already being made in the independent sector. Apart from "Fair City", all of our drama is made by independent contractors, as are many of our documentaries. Yes, we are putting Christian religious programmes out to tender as well. We hope to get a different and a better product from that. We will need to be making more programmes in the independent sector. Regarding the corporate functions like HR and so on, following one of the recommendations from the expert advisory committee, we have looked at our internal audit. We are now doing that as a partnership with one of the big accounting firms. We still have an internal audit function but instead of doing it all internally, we are using one of the big firms, which I understand is best practice and was recommended in the expert advisory committee report.

Will Mr. Bakhurst clarify when he became aware of the issue?

It was on 26 February.

On 26 February.

I initially became aware then and had the detail on 6 or 7 March.

I ask every representative here from RTÉ when they became aware of the issue. I will start with Ms Hurley.

The director-general passed on the request from the Department on 25 February.

Yes, it was around that time as well for me.

Of the full impairment?

Of any issues in terms of problems and costs.

I was aware of the impairment on 26 February.

On 26 February.

This year?

Yes

The same for me.

It was brought to the leadership team.

Yes, same for me.

Yes, on 26 February.

It came to the leadership team.

On 26 February.

There are 11 people here from RTÉ and they all became aware of the issue at the same time. How many people did Mr. Bakhurst say is employed in RTÉ at the moment?

About 1,850.

Is there anyone of that 1,850 who was aware before that? Is there any current member in RTÉ of the 1,850 who was aware before the 11 people here?

Of the size of the impairments?

No, just aware of an issue. Do not worry about the exact figures.

To be fair, I was aware there had been an issue in terms of not delivering an HR-----

When?

When I started the job. I asked if we had an HR issue.

What were you aware of at the time?

I was aware that we did not have an HR system, but not about the impairments. Were other people aware of the impairments? I have not come across anyone who was aware of the actual figure of the impairments.

Not the figure, just an issue in terms of the cost of it and the waste.

Not the exact cost, no. Ms Hurley looked into it.

Yes.

It is extraordinary that there is nobody in the whole organisation that would have been aware of this level of issue.

I would say people in finance who would have been involved and in the organisation-----

Would have been aware, surely.

-----would have been aware. So, on the day that Mr. Bakhurst passed me the information, I spoke to the finance team and a member of the finance team immediately brought to my attention that there would have been historic impairments on the ERP project.

Does the person whom Ms Hurley spoke to still work in RTÉ?

Yes, as are a number of other people who would have been aware of that.

The very first question that was asked today was when did people become aware of this. We now know there is someone in RTÉ who was aware of this before the 11 witnesses and that person is not in this room. Why? Why not bring that person in?

It is because the leadership team was invited to this.

RTÉ knew what the first question would be.

Yes, and I answered it honestly. These people are junior members of the team who felt that this was correctly accounted for at the time.

But they were aware of it and they have said that they were aware of it at the time.

Yes.

And 11 people come in here and say that they knew nothing about it.

To be fair, Deputy, they-----.

It just seems for any organisation-----

I would say it is a good thing that it was brought to my attention immediately.

I agree.

I would pay tribute-----

We found a good staff member.

-----to the staff person who did that.

I agree.

I think it speaks volumes that a junior member of staff came to me immediately to tell me that there was an issue with an historic ERP project.

Yes. One would think that member would be promoted into a senior role so as to come in here and we could speak to him or her.

Maybe that person should be put into a senior role.

That is my point because there has been deflection for a number of years by people who came in here, although not necessarily everyone in this room. It is incredible to think that there are people who work in RTÉ who were aware of it and whom we cannot actually speak to yet the whole leadership had not a clue what was going on. It seems amazing that Mr. Lynch did not know anything.

I think we knew there was a distinction between when people knew about the impairments and when people knew there were issues with the project. It is a project that went on since 2019 so the people-----

Ms Cusack is head of HR.

Yes.

When did Ms Cusack become aware there was an issue, not financially, but just with the system?

With the project, that issue was early on. That was in 2019. We knew that there were issues, in that the design of the finance piece of the system was going at speed and the HR one was lagging behind. I knew that there was a problem with the HR piece and in the design phase of that.

With whom did Ms Cusack raise that?

It would have come up at the steering group meeting, which had members of the RTÉ steering-----

In the steering committee, when Ms Cusack raised those concerns or issues, did anyone from the finance side, or anyone else from the leadership team, ask whether there was a financial issue with this?

No. Being very honest with the Senator, we were desperate to get a HR system because the PeopleSoft system literally had to be resuscitated every week.

Even if RTÉ is desperate to get something, it still has a responsibility when it comes to taxpayers' money. The money generated by 22,500 people who pay licence fees has been wasted on this.

Yes, but a contract-----

RTÉ can be desperate but it still has to do it properly.

A contract had been signed at that point for the delivery of the finance and HR systems. We were in a contract situation. The issue for me as the HR person responsible for the HR requirements was to work with the team to move heaven and earth to try to make the project work from a HR perspective. That was done in good faith because we were in contract.

I have only 20 seconds left. Would the CFO consider the way the write-down was documented in the annual accounts best practice?

I think it meets the technical requirements under accounting standards.

Was it how the CFO would do it?

I think, as the DG has already said, we would be very conscious, particularly now as a public body and in light of the recommendations that the other Deputy mentioned coming from the various EAC reports. Certainly, the standards we would aspire to now are not minimum disclosure, but to adopt a process of openness and transparency.

It certainly is not the way the CFO would do it, I suspect.

In the annual report that we are doing and will be published in the next couple of weeks, the Senator will find that all the recommendations, as set out by the EAC, have been adopted and a lot of additional disclosures will be published. That will continue going forward.

I welcome all of our guests and thank them for their attendance.

I want to start with a question on the licence fee. This issue dates back to the former Minister, Catherine Martin. At the time, she was criticised for essentially signing a blank cheque in regard to the subsidy that would be received by RTÉ from the Government going forward. In terms of collection for 2023, I believe that RTÉ was €40 million down. How is that carried forward and likely to go into the future? The then Minister was criticised and I want to briefly hear where we are with State funding.

In terms of the licence fee so far?

Yes.

The numbers go up and down week to week. So far this year, they would broadly be in line with sales last year.

Have things picked up from the €40 million shortage in 2023?

Full year, when our licence fees are relative to the same period in 2024, we are 2% behind. There is quite a degree of weekly volatility. I particularly noticed that in the back end of last year. It has been more stable in the first few months of this year. The licence fee again declined marginally by 4% over the full year of 2024 versus 2023. The more significant declines that had been experienced in 2023 have been averted.

That will help with some of the other stuff that we are here to discuss.

Yes.

Our guests have mentioned the budget of €15 million and there are 325 potential retirements or redundancies. How many of the 325 people are close to retirement? Does RTÉ have an approximate figure or even a rough percentage?

I think the split between severance and retirement is approximately 60:40, so 40% of the applications would qualify for early retirement, which is from aged 55 onwards.

I want to discuss the Department of Social Protection and its scoping investigation. It was referenced in the statement that 60% of the contractors had been found to be valid or correct and that 82% of the entire scoping exercise had been done. Do I take it that 40% of the 82% of the contracts were not proper or valid?

Some 60% were deemed to have been properly classified. There are 22% that we have settled with the Department of Social Protection on and there are a number outstanding. As the director general has said, a majority of those would be related to limited companies where there is a dispute between the Department and RTÉ on a point of law.

On the disputed contracts, and I do not like to personalise things so will not name individuals, how many of those people, individuals or companies would be higher earners, by which I mean, earn in excess of €100,000 or €150,00?

There is a mix.

The overall provision sitting on the books of RTÉ at the end of April was approximately €21 million. Approximately 50% of that would relate to 20 individuals or companies. This gives the Deputy some sense of the profile.

I will not hold RTÉ to a time - others might - but are we looking at those being rectified and done by this year? Is it going to go into next year? Typically, how long does it take to resolve these things?

On the limited companies, that has become a point of law. There are two cases currently pending in the High Court on that issue. Whatever is determined by the High Court will be the pathfinder for others. It very much depends on how quickly that proceeds but it is in train.

I am going to sound like a hypocrite having just said that I do not like to individualise things but there has been quite a significant recent retirement from RTÉ Radio 1. I think everybody in here would wish Joe Duffy the best in his retirement. I want to know who will replace him and take over his radio slot. He earned a significant salary. Regarding his new replacement, whoever he or she may be, is that significant salary a target or cap? How is the salary being viewed? I am not negotiating on anyone's behalf but it is a significant salary.

I think I have made it clear, and this is the rule we operate by, that no one in the organisation will earn more than the director general. It is not me personally. It is the director general's salary.

As this is the media and sports committee, I want to use my last minute to ask a few questions on sport.

I am a big soccer fan, like the Chair. It was unfortunate that RTÉ lost the League of Ireland rights. Could Mr. Bakhurst account for that, the negotiations that occurred and why Virgin was successful? Stadiums are full at the moment. If you turn on the radio, you can get a GAA game or rugby game, involving a competitor or your own team, but very rarely do you hear a League of Ireland game. Therefore, I am concerned about the approach RTÉ has taken to soccer specifically. If you go to Turners Cross on a Friday night, it will be full. Most of the League of Ireland club grounds are full on Friday and Saturday nights. I am concerned about the direction being taken the League of Ireland specifically.

As with all sports rights, we put in a bid. Right until the last minute, we were negotiating to get slightly more games than we had the last time. We understood right until the last minute that there was going to be a split again between us and Virgin, but suddenly we were quite surprised to find Virgin had got all the games. We were both surprised and disappointed. One thing we have managed to do is secure the rights to the cup games.

The delegates are all very welcome. Many of the issues around governance, expenditure and administration have been well and rightly ventilated. I want to turn to an issue of policy, and it is probably most appropriate to direct my question to Mr. Bakhurst and Ms McCarthy. Many are critical of RTÉ because they feel it fails to reflect the variety of perspectives of a silenced, significant minority in this country. I am speaking about the social and political conversation in the nation, not the relative amount of coverage given to political parties or individuals. There is a widespread sense that RTÉ is sometimes more of a State broadcaster than a public service broadcaster. I have spoken to many who believe there is a strong, systemic bias in favour of so-called progressive points of view as opposed to socially conservative points of view. People who have this concern do not experience public service broadcasting in the sense that we all instinctively understand the term. There are in groups and out groups, as they see it. There are groups that are trumpeted and amplified and others that will tend to be kept invisible. It is fair to say that many political anoraks I speak to tend to believe that diverse points of view get a better crack of the whip on Newstalk, and at a significantly lower cost. These issues can be subjective, of course, but I want to know whether RTÉ has any concerns about groupthink or a lack of attention to diversity when it comes to political coverage or coverage of different social and political perspectives. If the delegates accept that there may be a problem in this area, have they any plans to deal with it?

I thank the Senator for the question. I do not have concerns. We are legally and statutorily obliged to be reflective of all the perspectives of Irish society. Across our news and current affairs programming and bulletins, that is what we do. We give a variety of views and we are representative. With regard to there being criticism, we are often criticised for not being regional enough or not reflecting exactly what is going on in communities at local level. That can sometimes be the charge rather than that we do not provide a variety or diverse range of opinions, be they political or those of NGOs, community groups or individuals who have a view. Being representative is our job. I am not aware of any serious issues regarding the claim the Senator has made.

I accept that there is always a degree of subjectivity regarding these issues but believe the answer given is the standard defensive boilerplate answer that RTÉ has been giving for years. Let me give one example. Today there was a discussion on Claire Byrne’s programme about an often-ventilated issue, namely the need for daycare and childcare in this country, yet the perspective that probably influenced last year’s referendum result to some degree is not covered. A survey quoted by David Quinn suggests 69% of mothers, if they had a choice and were not under financial pressure, would prefer to be stay-at-home mothers. That point of view, whether one agrees with it or not, is an example of one that is “lesser spotted” or less often heard, to say the least, on RTÉ. I am not aware of a single change of direction or desire to consider last year’s referendum results, what they suggested and whether there was an unreflected discourse in the country that RTÉ, as a public service broadcaster, would have a responsibility to cover. I believe it is a question of social conservatism versus progressivism.

When I talk to people about what the solution is, they say it could lie in RTÉ being taken away from the less oxygenated Dublin 4 and located out the country a bit more. Some say it may be a question of divvying out the money a little more widely to the benefit of organisations such as Newstalk, which I believe give more diverse, pungent social viewpoints an airing. Alternatively, maybe it is a question of legislation. Ms McCarthy mentioned RTÉ’s obligations but I do not see the point in repeating mantra-like one’s legal obligations if there is no sense of what I am alluding to among a significant cohort. We should remember that if a significant number of people have issues with the way RTÉ preaches to the nation, that is RTÉ’s problem. It is a problem it has to address, particularly if it wants ongoing public support. My sense is that RTÉ is tone deaf on this particular issue.

May I answer? I agree with what Ms McCarthy said but want to add something. We are always very open to considering representations. We have a weekly cross-organisation editorial meeting that people from many different areas attend. On the cliché of groupthink or whatever, there is a degree of editorial independence around the organisation. The team on the Claire Byrne programme takes decisions separately from the team on “Morning Ireland” or “Drivetime”. They are delegated to do that. We do a lot of audience research. Yes, we have-----

Does RTÉ do any staff research? Does it ever investigate whether too many people think the same way about certain issues in the organisation? Many think that is the case.

No, because we pay people to be impartial, accurate and objective. Does the Senator want us to ask people what their political views are? That would be a little bit North Korean.

I think there is a cultural elite, and I think Mr. Bakhurst needs to ask the question.

I think that would be a little bit North Korean. It is really important for us to be open.

On the cliché about Dublin 4, the majority of people who work in Donnybrook do not come from Dublin 4, by the way, although I do live in Dublin 4. Part of the strategy for the next five years is that we are going to move more resources and production around the island of Ireland so we will be more in touch with the communities whose views we should be representing on air. I hope that will be part of what we do-----

One of the great ironies of our time is that there is so much talk about unconscious bias practically everywhere except where it matters – in our public service broadcaster. I invite the delegates to reflect on this issue and ask whether what they are hearing from me is just the subjective view of a small number of individuals or whether there is a wider concern. I suggest that they do not just wait for people to get in touch with them; rather, they should take the temperature on these kinds of issues.

In the interest of transparency and good faith, I must put on record for the committee that I am a former employee of RTÉ. I spent 20 years in the organisation as a staff member but I am asking questions today as a Member of the Oireachtas and member of this committee. I do not gain materially from doing so and am asking all of my questions in good faith.

I want to talk about the bogus self-employment contracts and the legacy issues. It might be good if my discussion is with Ms Cusack. On the 655 cases that went to the Department, the opening remarks suggested 82% of them have been concluded. That is very definite language. Can Ms Cusack tell me what “concluded” means?

Of the 655 cases there is no further action on 82%. Of that 82%, 60% were correctly classified as class S and 22% were classified as class A. There are a number outstanding.

Therefore, “no further action” is the same thing as “concluded”. What action was taken? Is Ms Cusack talking about the backdated PRSI that was paid to the Department?

The Department of Social Protection investigation is on PRSI.

Exactly. Does Ms Cusack agree that if the scope section decision was that PRSI had to be back-paid, it meant those concerned were actually misclassified and employees from the date to which PRSI payments had to be backdated?

No, because the Department of Social Protection only deals with PRSI.

But if RTÉ had to back pay PRSI, that is basically an admission that they were misclassified in the first place because it had to go back and pay the PRSI.

What the Department asked for when it began its investigation in 2020 was a list of names of people who had provided contracts for services in 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Is Ms Cusack talking about Eversheds? I am not.

No, that is what the Department asked for - a list of contractors. A large number of those had been providing services to RTÉ but were no longer doing so. Some were still in RTÉ and some were employees, so it was a mixture of people. They were not all employees.

I know that. Deputy Gibney asked about how much the appeals have cost. RTÉ will come back to us with that figure. Do the witnesses have an overall figure for the PRSI that was paid back?

It is €3.2 million.

Were there any penalties for-----