I welcome the witnesses and those in the Public Gallery. Deputy John Brady will attend in substitution for Deputy Andrews and Senator Marie Sherlock will attend in substitution for Senator Annie Hoey. The following Members have also requested permission to attend: Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett and Senators Timmy Dooley and Eugene Murphy.

I advise non-committee members attending that I do not intend to extend the meeting any longer than the three hours that have been scheduled and I will only provide non-committee members with speaking time after committee members have finished. Last week, the meeting went for maybe five hours. Our witnesses today have spent three hours before a committee this morning and have come in here voluntarily and, therefore, I will stick to the three hours allocated to us.

The committee is meeting with Mr. Ryan Tubridy and his agent, Mr. Noel Kelly, to consider matters relating to the ongoing examination of the transparency of RTÉ's expenditure of public funds and governance following the RTÉ board's statement of 22 June 2023. The committee has agreed that Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly will be accompanied by their legal representatives.

I wish to explain some limitations regarding parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references made by witnesses to other persons in their evidence. We have a bit of housekeeping to go through so I hope the witnesses can bear with us while we do that. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses are again reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity.

Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, witnesses will be directed to discontinue their remarks.

Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members again of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of Leinster House to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to attend where he or she is not adhering to that constitutional requirement and where a member is attending remotely. As such, members should please confirm that they are attending from Leinster House before making a contribution via Microsoft Teams. I do not think that impacts on any of my colleagues here today, however.

I also emphasise to members and witnesses alike again that it is imperative that today's meeting is conducted in a fair and respectful manner at all times. It is important, in the interest of natural justice, that members and witnesses act responsibly on utterances concerning those present today and particularly those who are not present. I will intervene in exchanges where I deem this not to be the case. I also seek members' agreement that we suspend at 4.30 p.m. to give our guests and witnesses and members themselves a ten-minute break. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The agenda for today's meeting is matters relating to the ongoing examination of transparency in RTÉ's expenditure of public funds and governance following RTÉ's board's statement on 22 June 2023. The committee welcomes that fact that Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly wish to fully co-operate and assist with examination of these matters. It is timely and certainly in the public interest that they set out their position. Mr. Tubridy and Mr. Kelly have been advised of the areas of focus for today's meeting, which we will try to stick to, which has been convened to consider matters relating to the committee's ongoing examination of transparency in RTÉ's expenditure of public funds and governance around the statement RTÉ made on 22 June.

We note that the opening statements have been supplied. I appreciate that the witnesses have already gone through them, but I understand they want to do that again because, obviously, they are mindful of the fact that they are not just speaking to the committee but to the public. As witnesses know, we have curtailed time. Is there any way their opening statements could be condensed into three minutes or would they prefer to speak freely about them? What way would they like to do that?

First of all, it is very nice to be here. I thank all our Senators and Deputies for their time today. We read the opening statements into the record before the Committee of Public Accounts earlier. That is not to disrespect this committee, however. If the Cathaoirleach wishes, we will happily read our statements again. They are lengthy, but it is entirely up to her.

That is not necessary. I do not think my colleagues need that because they listened to the earlier meeting.

It is a reasonable proposal not to read them again. I think everybody watched the meeting this morning.

I will take it that the statements have been read. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Is the Cathaoirleach sure? I am happy to do it.

No, I think everybody was watching the earlier meeting. On that basis, we will move to questions from the members. As colleagues know, they have ten minutes each for their questions and answers. The should be mindful of how they want to use those ten minutes. I thank both witnesses for coming today. As I said at the beginning, this is voluntary and we do appreciate that. I am sure the witnesses, as well as everybody in this room, realise the importance of all this around our public service broadcaster, RTÉ, and its continuation into the future. I thank them very much.

I would also like to reiterate something I said earlier, which is that we both want to say how much we respect the Oireachtas as an institution, but also the work of the committee. We are very happy to be here.

I thank Mr. Tubridy very much. Without further ado, I will turn to my colleagues. I ask Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan to take the floor.

I thank our witnesses for attending a gruelling three-hour meeting. It cannot be easy. I certainly would not like to be in their shoes at this point. Fair play to them for offering to come in to try to clarify many of the issues that have arisen over the past three weeks. That is commendable.

That said, the Committee of Public Accounts session has posed further questions. I particularly want to focus on the raising of those two €75,000 invoices.

Sure.

The fact is that they were clearly raised with the description "consultancy fees". It is fair to say that I doubt anybody watching the previous session believed it when they saw that they were raised for consultancy fees, which they clearly were not for. We heard that these particular invoices were raised under CMS Marketing as opposed to NK Management, which would be usual. People are incredibly sceptical and very questioning. They have serious doubts as to whether Mr. Kelly did not knowingly conceal these payments and that he did not work with RTÉ in knowingly concealing the fact that these payments were coming from RTÉ. Can Mr. Kelly respond to that? That is the mood out there.

Sure. I thank members for having us here. Were there deceptive practices on behalf of RTÉ? There were, and we were deceived as well, as we said earlier. We had no knowledge whatsoever of the arrangement and no part of it.

Mr. Kelly knew they were described as being for consultancy fees and they were not for consultancy. That is the doubt everybody has.

We were instructed by RTÉ to make the second and third invoices for the Renault roadshow out to Astus for consultancy services and send them to RTÉ and it would look after them from there.

Okay, we have heard-----

I am sorry; at the time, we did not know what Astus was, but we presumed it was a subdivision of Renault.

Can Mr. Kelly understand why people are sceptical? Can he understand why people have concerns around the fact that "consultancy fees" was the description?

I can, but they are the facts.

Mr. Kelly said earlier that he was just following a process. Is he aware of any process either in corporate governance or accounting that allows for an invoice to be raised with a description it is not actually for?

Again, it was what we were asked to do. As I said, we are small company. RTÉ is a €350 million massive organisation.

That is a serious mismatch.

The Deputy has to appreciate that is the process if somebody asks whether we can invoice for something. Again, we were acting under instructions at all times.

Okay. On the same issue, and I am not being facetious here, but how would Mr. Tubridy describe his profession?

Broadcasting or broadcaster.

Never consultancy.

Not necessarily, no. I do not know how anyone else chooses to describe my job but I know what I do.

Mr. Tubridy has never partaken in consultancy. He does not do consultancy as his profession. He is a broadcaster.

I do not know what the dictionary definition of "consultancy" is. I am not being smart, but I suspect the answer is "No".

That comes back to Mr. Kelly's part in this and the raising of the invoices. He knowingly raised the invoices with the term "consultancy fees". Mr. Tubridy knows he is not a consultant. I am sure Mr. Kelly knows that Mr. Tubridy is not providing consultancy-----

Yes.

-----in any way, shape or form. What I am trying to get at here is whether Mr. Tubridy still has full trust and faith in Mr. Kelly-----

Yes, I do.

-----considering that it seems to be clear to everybody that there was some form of deception with RTÉ and Mr. Kelly using the term "consultancy fees", and also using a separate company that had never been used before. Does Mr. Tubridy still have full faith?

Yes, I do have full faith in Noel. He was doing his job and in the course of his job, he was given instructions and he carried them out.

Mr. Tubridy is happy that those instructions were to raise the invoices for "consultancy fees" and he just did that without asking any questions.

We would never have discussed that. If I were to-----

However, now that Mr. Tubridy knows-----

The Deputy is asking after the event. It is a bit late now but I think that if I were to look at so many of the things I have been hearing at the various Oireachtas hearings over the last two weeks, there is a lot of room for better practice around the place. I suspect that as of Monday, with a new director general, that is going to happen.

That is not-----

In some ways, this is cathartic for RTÉ.

-----quite the question. The way the Committee of Public Accounts meeting played out this morning over three hours is that many questions were put to Mr. Kelly about the description of the invoices as "consultancy fees" and the fact that they came from CMS Marketing, which was different to where they would usually come from. There are many doubts among the public. With Mr. Tubridy knowing that now and all of this being brought up at today's Committee of Public Accounts meeting, can he still honestly say, despite the public sentiment out there, that he still has full faith and that he will continue to let Mr. Kelly represent him?

Yes, I will.

We heard the new director general, Mr. Kevin Bakhurst, on RTÉ radio yesterday when a question was put to him specifically with regard to Mr. Kelly. He was asked whether he would work with agents like Mr. Kelly again and was asked to give a "Yes" or "No" answer. He said he could not give a definite "Yes" or "No" but, to paraphrase, he said that in all likelihood, it is a "No". Does that not put Mr. Tubridy's future at RTÉ in serious jeopardy?

No, it does not. I can still work with Mr. Kelly and negotiate an agreement with RTÉ.

They are different jobs. RTÉ is one element of what I do for a living.

Potentially, any future arrangement Mr. Tubridy has with RTÉ would exclude Mr. Kelly's services.

What would Mr. Kelly say to that?

Not necessarily. If I could add to that, we manage a number of people. Most of them are not full-time broadcasters. They do bits and pieces of work. I represent them. I am their shop steward. I am their union. I am the only thing between them and absolutely nothing.

But the-----

I am sorry; we have to get this right. Is the Deputy saying to me that the director general would say that these people-----

Did Mr. Kelly hear the director general's comments yesterday?

I read them. Is the Deputy saying these people cannot have representation? They are not all the top three.

What I got from those comments was that, in all likelihood, he would not be willing to work with Mr. Kelly again.

It was not a flat "No" but we will have to see.

Regarding the €150,000, I am just trying to get the bottom of things here and establish facts. When did the €150,000 for those two latter invoices, the two €75,000 invoices, go to the witnesses? I presume they would have gone to Mr. Kelly's account first.

We would have invoiced them. We would have invoiced Astus and then they were paid. The first invoice was paid by Renault and the second two invoices were paid-----

Together?

-----by Astus. The first three events have happened so those two invoices are for the next six events that are still contracted.

I just want a direct answer to the actual questions. When did the €150,000 for those latter two invoices go into the account? Was it the CMS account?

It was 2022.

Either Mr. Tubridy or Mr. Kelly might be able to answer this. When did they go into the Tuttle Productions account? I presume the payment of €150,000 would have then gone from Mr. Kelly into the Tuttle account.

I do not have that information. I do not know when that was.

Could Mr. Kelly find out that information?

It will be in the 2022 accounts.

It would have been prior to the publication of RTÉ's top earners on 15 February 2023. What I am trying to get at here is that Mr. Tubridy would have seen this €150,000 come into his account. He would have then seen that it was not represented in the payments as published in February 2023. I know he has apologised for it before but-----

Sorry, RTÉ's 2023 publication is only for 2020-21 earnings. Generally they are three years behind. As I said this morning, we get ten minutes' notice that these are going out.

Which years did the invoices relate to?

The invoices related to 2021-22.

Part of the earnings that were published in February 2023 would have been related to 2021 as well.

Those are still to be done.

I have one minute left so I will move on. In July 2020, Mr. Tubridy got a letter addressed to him from the then director general, Dee Forbes, stating, "The purpose of this correspondence is to record in writing our guarantee and undertaking that the fees set out in this Agreement will be paid by RTÉ without any reductions and RTÉ shall not make any request or enquiry from you in relation to a reduction in the agreed fees during the currency of the Agreement save as to those that might be imposed by changes to legislation". Essentially, it is a letter saying that Mr. Tubridy will get no further reduction in fees or earnings. How does that sit with him, knowing that colleagues around him were taking pay cuts left, right and centre but he got what was essentially special treatment? If I was to receive a letter saying I would not receive any further pay cuts but Deputy Dillon did not get the same letter, that would be special treatment for me. How does that sit with Mr. Tubridy?

It is important to mention the 40% pay cut I have taken. That would be a relevant figure in these conversations. Some numbers have been isolated somewhat unfairly and the truth of the matter is that I did take pay cuts. Since 2012 or more-----

For the six years between 2012 and 2020.

From 2012 to 2020 it was a total sum of approximately 40%.

Mr. Tubridy received a letter from the director general that no other member of staff or employee, to my knowledge, would have received. Does that not scream special treatment?

Can I answer that? That was a request that was in the contract negotiations. It was because there was €120,000 of the €345,000 that was never invoiced for and never taken. Mr. Tubridy had never invoiced it so he decided not to take that payment. In the 2020 contract, which was for 2020 to 2024, he reduced his earnings voluntarily by €105,000 so that was €525,000 plus the €120,000 he did not take. Overall from 2012-----

That is not really what I am asking.

I know but-----

Deputy O'Sullivan, I am going to have to draw this to an end.

That is fair. My last question is to Mr. Tubridy. In his opening statement he said he took a 20% pay cut. I thought Deputy McAuliffe's questioning earlier very clearly outlined that in fact, this was not a 20% pay cut because those €75,000 invoices were coming from RTÉ. They were underwritten by RTÉ, coming from the licence fee holder and the taxpayer and going into Mr. Tubridy's account. Does he accept now that it was not a 20% pay cut?

Unfortunately not. This is one of the great fog of war situations. The money that came in - an enormous amount of money; I do not deny that for a moment - came, as we understood it, from Renault. We thought it was a side agreement. It was a totally different agreement entirely. It was an independent contractor agreement that Renault was paying for. That was the understanding. That is what I was told and I had to accept that for what it is. I cannot operate in a sort of never-never land.

Now Mr. Tubridy knows how it worked. It was an underwriting. Those two €75,000 invoices were underwritten by RTÉ, paid for by RTÉ, the taxpayers and TV licence holders to Mr. Tubridy's account. Does he not accept that he actually has not taken a 20% pay cut because it represents much less than that?

Again-----

I am sorry Deputy O'Sullivan but I will have to conclude. I call Deputy Dillon.

I thank our guests for the earlier session.

We meet again.

It was very constructive. I will follow on from Deputy O'Sullivan's line of questioning. RTÉ previously stated that it never made cash transactions to the barter system for presenters and that this situation was particularly unusual. It outlined that the primary use was for media companies in exchange for goods and services. Has Mr. Kelly ever made any cash payments through the bartering system?

No. We had no knowledge of the arrangements. We had no part in suggesting it or setting it up. We were not consulted about it.

Why were you-----

We were not told at any stage about the nature of it.

I want to get as much information from the witnesses as possible. Members only have ten minutes so I ask Mr. Kelly to allow the Deputy to ask his question.

Sorry.

Why would Mr. Kelly not make a cash transaction through a barter system?

I had never come across a barter system before this. This was the first.

We know from earlier this morning that in 2018, Mr. Kelly used Astus for a transaction for his charity.

No, we did not.

That was clarified this morning, was it not?

No. RTÉ took a table last year and it put that through Astus.

I am sorry.

Not at all.

I will retract that statement. As I previously examined this morning, RTÉ raised an invoice with Mr. Kelly's company, CMS, for payment by a third-party company, Astus, which Mr. Kelly did not know and which RTÉ had never previously dealt with. Mr. Kelly was under the instructions of the commercial manager, Geraldine O'Leary, not to put Mr. Tubridy's name on the invoices. Is that correct?

Yes. As I said, we did not know who Astus was and we presumed it was related to Renault.

Does that not sound bizarre to Mr. Kelly? A note on the invoice sent to Geraldine O'Leary clearly stated, "Do not put any person's name on the Invoice". Did Mr. Kelly ask the commercial manager to do that?

I can only reiterate-----

We have seen the email that went to Geraldine O'Leary with a note that said not to put any person's name on the invoice. Did Mr. Kelly instruct that?

No. They sent that to us.

This was sent to Geraldine O'Leary.

No, Geraldine O'Leary's person sent it to us.

Did Mr. Kelly instruct that person to not put a name on the invoice?

No. We were, again, acting under instructions from RTÉ.

Who instructed Mr. Kelly?

Geraldine O'Leary.

This email did not come from Geraldine O'Leary. It went to Geraldine O'Leary.

It said that if it was sent back she would sort everything out. We took comfort from this. What was done was as per RTÉ's request and instructions.

It just does not add up why RTÉ went to such lengths. It did itself, the taxpayer and its own reputation so much damage to protect Mr. Tubridy's name.

Mr. Tubridy was doing events for Renault, not for RTÉ. Renault is the sponsor. He was doing events for Renault. We were paid by Renault. We understood this money would be paid by Renault, and there are still two years of events owed for Renault.

Did Renault reduce its overall advertising bill with RTÉ to cover this separate contract?

Again, we have no relationship with Renault. That is between Renault and RTÉ. I have no knowledge of their advertising or sponsorship. We would not be party to any of that.

Mr. Kelly is not aware if Renault was going to divert the existing advertising budgets for RTÉ to cover a new contract, or a separate contract he was negotiating on behalf of Mr. Tubridy.

No. Completely not.

Okay. Mr. Kelly is completely washing his hands of the deal, of which he and Mr. Tubridy were going to be sole beneficiaries.

This deal was constructed by RTÉ with Renault, for Renault. We were-----

It is very difficult to accept that.

It was a completely separate contract for services. Mr. Tubridy's contract is for 205 radio shows and 38 two hour-plus television shows. This is completely separate, as would be his publishing and other work.

Mr. Kelly was the sole beneficiary and was going to get a commission fee for it. Mr. Tubridy was going to get an extra top-up payment on top of this salary. However, Mr. Kelly is telling me he was following instructions from RTÉ.

Yes, and this is a separate contract for services.

RTÉ made you do it.

We acted under its instruction, as the Deputy can see. That is why we have come here and provided all of this documentation.

The alleged method suggests that Mr. Kelly collaborated with RTÉ, as I said at the previous committee, to engage in secret payments through the barter system.

I am not RTÉ. That is a question for RTÉ.

Mr. Kelly was the beneficiary of this, with the intention of hiding the payment for your client. Is that correct, or can he provide clarification to address the accusation?

I am sorry, will the Deputy repeat that one more time?

RTÉ would normally never do cash transactions. By putting this payment through the bartering system, was there an intention to hide the payment made to your client, Mr. Tubridy?

We were instructed by RTÉ that all invoices for the Renault roadshow were to be sent to Astus, for the services as they had stated.

During an online meeting in May 2020 between Mr. Kelly, the former DG, RTÉ's solicitor and a colleague of Mr. Kelly's, a verbal guarantee was given by RTÉ to underwrite the Renault commercial agreement. Is that correct?

Yes, but previous to that Breda O'Keefe had-----

No, no. I am talking about this, which was in May 2020.

It had been agreed by RTÉ.

Mr. Kelly must have been aware it was the taxpayers' money from RTÉ, and not Renault's payment, that would be supporting these invoices.

At every juncture we expected this was Renault. Renault is still-----

Renault was not in a position to renew the contract for "The Late Late Show" in 2020.

Why were they not?

Was it not a case that-----

No, Renault is still the sponsor.

It is still the sponsor, but what about the tripartite agreement to underwrite payments?

No. I say again, that anything to do with sponsorship and advertising is between RTÉ and Renault. That is completely a relationship between RTÉ and Renault. It is nothing to do with us at all.

Mr. Kelly must accept he played a pivotal role as the conduit to these under-disclosed payments. Blaming it on RTÉ now seems difficult for us to accept as credible.

Okay. I say to the Deputy that in an organisation that turns over 350-----

That is not the question.

Will the Deputy let me answer, please?

That is not the question. Mr. Kelly will answer the question

Mr. Kelly will answer the question.

I know, but-----

He played a pivotal role in this through the barter system-----

RTÉ, under instruction, asked us to do this at the time.

-----for a cash transaction, which did not have Mr. Tubridy's name on it.

We did not know what a barter system was until all of this happened.

Mr. Kelly is washing his hands of it.

Completely. It is an RTÉ issue.

I have some final questions for Mr. Tubridy, relating to the discrepancy between what he was paid and what was published.

Yes.

Why did he not ask questions at the time?

Is the Deputy referring to the years 2017, 2018 and 2019?

Yes.

This is about the reporting of my remuneration and why I did not object to it at the time. Am I right in saying that?

Yes.

I need to begin with the 2015 contract, which ran until 2020, just to be sure. It states clearly how much I was to be paid every year of the five year contract, for hosting "The Late Late Show" and the radio show. In addition to these sums, the contract states that I was to be paid a further €120,000 in what has been variously called an exit fee or loyalty bonus.

In reality, Mr. Tubridy was not aware of what he was being paid.

In reality, this was a fee to be paid at the end of the contract where I would make myself available at any stage during the contract to do additional, optional work for RTÉ. As it turned out, when that contract concluded in 2020 I was not called upon to deliver any of these additional pieces of work. Although I was entitled to payment for making myself available, I waived this entitlement. I did not issue any invoice on the basis that I did not want to be paid for work I did not do.

This question is for Mr. Kelly. That is even though two invoices for €150,000 still have not been-----

There are still six events due.

The invoices are still sitting there.

We are contracted to do another six.

Where is that money now? Whose account is it in?

That is in the Tuttle account.

Even though he is not "The Late Late Show" presenter.

That is only now.

Is that money, which should go back to-----

Absolutely. The reality with that is there----

Has Mr. Tubridy started on that-----

There has been no contact on that issue. However, that is referring to six outstanding appearances that were to be made for Renault. As the Deputy knows, I made the decision to leave "The Late Late Show" last summer. The stories are conflating a little, but we can get to that later. That work is still outstanding. If I am not called upon to do that work, the money will of course go back.

Is Mr. Tubridy still being paid by RTÉ?

Yes, I am.

What are the terms of the verbal agreement in place?

Does the Deputy mean as presenter of the radio programme?

Yes.

I could be out of a job by Friday.

I thank the witnesses.

I welcome the witnesses, arís.

It is good to see the Deputy again.

I want to start by saying that I would much prefer to be focusing on the abysmal lack of corporate governance in RTÉ. However, the witnesses asked to come here to put their side on the record, and answer questions. I will start with Mr. Tubridy. He sat through three hours this morning, followed by a one hour break. On reflection, does he accept, as another Deputy suggested, that he did not take the 20% pay cut, when the tripartite agreement that paid him €75,000 is taken into account?

I understand why that perception is out there, but we have tried hard to explain the difference between being paid separately by Renault versus being paid by RTÉ, and the pay cut involved. There is also a need to explain the accumulation of pay cuts that take it to a 40% pay cut since 2012. I have tried to reflect on that. However, the Deputy's question is a fair one and I will try to answer it. I of course understand why there is confusion, and why there is a perception issue, but it is not right.

That is fair enough, but in reality, which is why I said that, RTÉ footed that bill through the public purse. It had no business underwriting a separate commercial deal. They actually paid the €375,000 payments.

No, no. I am sorry. I say this really respectfully. This is why I am in such a terrible state at the moment.

It is because there has been so much misunderstanding and misreporting about this and about these figures. The figure the Deputy just mentioned is not a real figure at all. It is not a fair figure.

Right. Okay.

It just gets thrown at your head. That is why we are here today: to try and right that because, unfortunately, like that story, "Doubt", when a feather leaves the pillow, it is very hard to get that back. So unfortunately, with my good name, the feather has left the pillow and I am here trying to put the feather back in the pillow.

I hope that Mr. Tubridy can put the feather back in the pillow.

I appreciate that. I thank Deputy Munster.

The payments of €75,000 for the second and third year were paid by RTÉ.

Again, they were paid by Astus.

Yes, but RTÉ made those payments to Astus.

The payments to us were from Astus.

Yes, but they came from RTÉ.

But we did not know that.

That is it.

Yes, but that is what I am saying.

That was the misunderstanding.

We did not know that.

The witnesses know now in hindsight.

Yes.

Whether Mr. Kelly knew at the time is another question, but he knows now that RTÉ paid those payments. That was my question to Mr. Tubridy initially about the tripartite agreement making up for the 20%. Even if he disputes that, which is fair enough-----

What I would say to Deputy Munster is that it was for work outstanding, separate to what I had done previously in RTÉ. It was meant to be a separate contract but the whole thing got muddled.

Okay.

In fairness to Deputy Dillon, who asked the question about what happens the money if I do not do the work for Renault, the money goes back. I do not want money for nothing, for goodness' sake. Of course. I totally understand. I hope that answers Deputy Munster's question a bit better than earlier.

Yes. Just in relation to that, now that Mr. Tubridy knows that RTÉ paid for those payments, does he accept that it was wrong of RTÉ to use the public purse to pay that?

What I would say to the Deputy is that I am not here to be critical of RTÉ. I have been working there since I was 12 years old. It is a very important place to me, but I have to defend myself. The new director general of RTÉ has asked for maximum transparency. That is what he said in the last 48 hours. That is why I am here.

Okay. So Mr. Tubridy accepts that it was wrong for RTÉ to pay those top-ups out of the public purse.

It strikes me as being unorthodox.

Okay. That is fair enough.

I want to ask Mr. Kelly a question. I find it very hard to believe or I just do not find it credible that he said earlier this morning that RTÉ initiated this whole deal – that RTÉ was the instigator of this tripartite deal. I cannot figure out why, if his client was the only one to benefit from such a deal, RTÉ would be the one to initiate a deal and to develop it, even though it would cost it money by underwriting it. It is clear that Mr. Kelly wanted a commercial deal - otherwise, he would not have entered into it in the first instance - and a guaranteed and underwritten payment by RTÉ. At the same time, we were watching Covid spread from the east. In February, while the emails were going back and forth on this deal, Italy had already gone into lockdown. Was it not the case that Mr. Kelly saw a way for income to be guaranteed by RTÉ and that he locked RTÉ into that agreement that it would have to forfeit? As it transpires, that is exactly what happened.

I did the contract before Covid. The contract was done at the start of 2020 and Covid happened in March 2020.

I have just told Mr. Kelly that Italy had already gone into lockdown in February. These emails were going back and forth in February, and Mr. Kelly had requested that RTÉ would underwrite the agreement. He told us that this morning. He had requested that RTÉ would lock the agreement and that it would be the fall guy if any sponsor pulled out or in the event of a lack of any other sponsor. He knew Covid was there. He knew the lockdown had already started, and the likelihood was that it was going to come across, and that was his way of locking in RTÉ. As I have said from the beginning, the one who is ultimately responsible for all of this is the executive board of RTÉ. It is the one that underwrote a commercial deal, which it had no business doing. It is the one that raised false invoices. The response Mr. Kelly gave to that is not credible either. It also put those payments through the barter account. Is it not true that the only person who benefited from this deal was Mr. Kelly's client?

No. On the question of who would benefit from this deal, obviously Renault was a major sponsor – I assume probably the biggest sponsor in RTÉ's portfolio. RTÉ obviously wanted to keep it on board. Who would benefit by having Ryan Tubridy doing roadshows for five years? Renault would, because the association would obviously continue for those five years and then I assume that RTÉ would keep Renault on as a sponsor. The relationship of RTÉ is with Renault, it is not with us. In relation to the actual contract, this started long before Covid really hit, which was 13 March 2020, when people had to work from home. This was well before that. On what I asked it to do, I never wanted RTÉ to underwrite this. This was always the relationship, with a separate agreement for Renault. What I wanted RTÉ to do applied in the event that there was a change of sponsor. There still is not a change of sponsor. Renault was always going to pay for this. If there was a change of sponsor, we would be a part of the agreement so that it would not be a case of "You have to do this" or "You have to do that".

But Renault did just have a one-year agreement.

No, it was a five-year agreement. Renault is still the sponsor, but the first two years, 2020 and 2021, were pushed out because of Covid. The first lot of events happened in 2022 and then the other six are owed. As Mr. Tubridy said, if they want them to be honoured and we are still in contract, he will honour them, and if they do not, he will hand the money back.

But RTÉ had underwritten that agreement at Mr. Kelly's request.

What RTÉ was underwriting with me was that it would interact with whatever new sponsor was there. Again, it was all under instruction from RTÉ.

Does it not sound more plausible, given that Mr. Kelly's client was the only one to benefit and we were coming into Covid, that he sought, asked and negotiated that RTÉ would underwrite the agreement? It is responsible for underwriting it and all the shenanigans we have seen since, but at the end of the day Mr. Kelly had asked it.

No, it was pre-Covid.

I have only a couple of seconds left so I will ask one final question of Mr. Kelly. When RTÉ published the salaries, in particular his client's salary, he knew that it was not correct, as such.

Yes.

He would have checked the published figures. Even for the sake of his own client, optically, why did he not raise the fact that he was being misrepresented? What did he do about that?

We had asked before. We get ten or 15 minutes' notice that the top salaries are being published and then they are out. This generally happens on a Friday. We put in the contract that we wanted at least 48 hours' notification. If we had had notification of all of this, we would have been able to say "this is wrong". They were wrong.

But Mr. Kelly did not call it out after it was published.

We did. We put it in the contract negotiations that we wanted to be informed-----

But not publicly. It would have saved Mr. Kelly's client a lot of hassle, and having to explain. Mr. Kelly did not-----

In the document on page 6, Deputy Munster will see:

Please note that these matters are private and confidential. Any PR [as in figures of fees going out] set to be released by RTE needs to be discussed in advance of any publication, this includes both salaries and pay cuts.

Of course we want to see them, but they are out before-----

Mr. Kelly could have set the record straight, but he chose not to.

That is exactly what we did there on page 6 of the document. That is exactly what we were doing.

Yes, in this document, but I am talking about publicly. Mr. Kelly would have saved Mr. Tubridy a lot of questions and hassle had he called it out publicly at the time.

But as the Deputy can see, the figures relating to under-declaration and over-declaration were put out by RTÉ, not us. Also, they were stated-----

It just seems to be – I am not denying that RTÉ is in the thick of it – that everything today is RTÉ's fault. This is a simple enough question that Mr. Kelly, as his client's agent, could have publicly rectified. It is not the biggest issue, but he could have publicly rectified it and he chose not to.

We informed RTÉ and we also tried to put it in as part of the contract. RTÉ is the one that keeps on sending the figures out, not us.

Mr. Kelly did not correct them.

I call Deputy Fitzpatrick.

I welcome the witnesses. I hope we can get the truth. My first few questions will be for Mr. Tubridy. RTÉ engaged in deceptive practices: hiding payments, the misrepresentation of financial reporting and hiding information.

RTÉ was responsible, but Mr. Tubridy did not take action to resolve these errors. That is an act of deception. Does he agree?

No, of course I do not agree with that assertion. We are here today to counter that and that is why members have a document full of answers to the questions that have been put to me in the Deputy's question.

Mr. Tubridy is saying he did not hide payments-----

Yes.

-----he did not misrepresent the financial reporting-----

Yes.

-----and he is hiding no information.

Correct.

Does Mr. Tubridy realise people look up to him and feel really let down by him? I do not know who all these people are who are rubbing his shoulders and shaking his hand, because if he came to County Louth, it would be the opposite. On 3 March, he shut down talk of his leaving "The Late Late Show". He had a cushy number and was well liked. Nobody would give him a wink. A week later, questions started to be asked and his retirement announcement came merely nine days later. He repeatedly stated at this morning’s committee meeting that his leaving "The Late Late Show" had nothing to do with this, as he put it, "fiasco". He stated that the timing was entirely a coincidence and that he first became aware of the Grant Thornton review in May. Is this true?

Deputy-----

I am only asking a question.

And I am only answering. Let me tell you-----

Just answer the question please.

Yes. The Deputy's dismissal of the good people of Ireland who have the courtesy and kindness to approach me in the street is not something I appreciate, on their behalf.

Second-----

They have approached me too.

Second, I wish I had brought with me, in some ways, the countless cards and letters I have received from people around the country, speaking words of kindness and, indeed, wisdom. I would not like to dismiss their decency either.

Third, no.

If Mr. Tubridy had been made aware, would he have stayed in his position until the end of his term or would he have resigned?

That is a hypothetical that is unbecoming, I think, of this committee-----

It is a question.

I get the sense the Deputy chooses not to believe my reason for leaving "The Late Late Show"-----

I am only asking the questions I am being asked by other people.