General Irish politics discussion thread

There is no reason to believe that the funding for those trips was in any way improper.

In fact, as was explained by  Willie O’Reilly who has experience in various media outlets in Ireland, all these practices are normal in the industry . The fact that you, and I, don't like the idea of wining and dining clients doesn't mean that it was in any way improper.

The two invoices at the centre of this were found by the auditors and brought to the attention of the CFO, the DG and then the chair of the ARC all within ten days. And within another ten days a forensic investigation was started.

I have to say, the sort of comments you are throwing out are the reason a lot of very capable people would never serve on a board of a state company.

And that is to acknowledge that the RTE should not have been trying to undermine its' own policy on salary cuts by making under the table payments. But let us find out where the faults lie and not sack the whistle-blower.

The most stupid idea put forward through all of this has been that the Chair of the Risk and Audit Committee should be fired. It is a hysterical, nonsensical, hypberbolic, sensationalist reaction to the events.

Do you think any of them should be told to clear their desks Rock?

I think the minister can only have lost some confidence in the chair. Ni Raghaillaigh because of the way she handled the dismissal of the DG. But nothing else in this mess seems to be due to her negligence.

I thing more questions should have been asked by the commercial director when she was told/asked to put these invoices through the barter account. However , if she was unaware of the 'deal with NKM' then it might fall into the category of carelessness .

The people at fault here, from the evidence we have. is the DG, NMK and RT. The DG has already been dismissed/resigned. RT is apparently out of contract. And it is hard to see what sanction can be brought against NKM.

I believe, having watched both committees , that the CFO has paused to reflect before answering any question and that 'style' has not been appreciate by the politicians, particularly by PAC. But i think PAC members need to ride above any issues of personality and do their job, which is to elicit what happened. For instance, it is still unclear to me why RTE would ever get involved in this sort of arrangement. All they had to do was say to RT, 'You are free to earn any extra moneys that don't interfere with your work for us' and let him and his agent try to do a deal with Renault or anyone else. Why RTE felt the need to involve themselves is a mystery so far.

It is also now clear that the information that these invoices were problematic came to light a week before RT gave up the LLS. No one has been questioned as to who knew there was an issue or if RT found out. It is a very strange co-incidence but no one thought to pursue this wuestioning.

I don't like the mix of commercial and public sector that RTE has become. I think that perhaps a wall need to be built around the commercial division and the rest of the organisation. But, I fully expect the commercial division to operate as it does in other media organisations and that includes all the special events and wining and dining. I don't like it and I would prefer RTE did not do it but the alternative is probably a doubling of the licence fee.

(As an aside, I don't believe that these stars are anywhere near as valuable as they , and RTE, think they are. I listen to daytime radio regularly enough. I listened to PK, SOR, and now CB. To be I would llisten if the presenter was unknown because it is a current affairs program and I am interested. The idea that I, and other listeners, would dessert the radio if RTE didn't pay these exorbitant salaries is not based on any evidence I have ever seen. )

@FrancieBrady "his feeling that the taxpayer was defrauded"

Francie, did you see , or listen to , the actual exchange. Because , although some politicians have reported it that way, this is very much not what was said. If you haven't seen the actual exchange I can give you verbatim what was said as I have it recorded(although it will take me time to extract the relevant section). As far as I can see, the Oireachtas has not posted the transcript of the meeting yet.( in contrast to the Art media meeting on Wednesday which was posted on the Oireachtas website, but has now disappeared, as far as i can see)

@Seth Brundle "Do we know where the money in the slush fund came from or who controlled the account & how long it has been in existence?"

The transaction went through a 'barter' account. I have never heard of such an account but apparently it is common in media and advertising. The previous commercial director stated it was in existence before his time ( 2014). So a long standing arrangement. And evidence that various media companies also operate such accounts.

The Current CFO was unhappy with this barter account and so brought it under main financial control. Without his action we would not know about the issue at all because it wouldn't have be caught in the audit.

I assume you do know, having posted this text, that you know it is not a full account of what was said?

@FrancieBrady , i really want to restrict my comments to the political aspects of these deliberations and in particular to my comment in post #1844

" But, I think one thing is clear from the PAC session yesterday, and that is the the electorate were very wise in not giving politicians additional powers in these committees.

The behaviour of some of the members of the committee coupled with their lack on understanding of some of the answers given, makes many of them wholly unsuitable to such an inquisitorial role. Between personal attacks on the CFO asking for resignation of the Acting DG and telling the chair that she would be sacked if the questioner was the line manager, this meeting had all the hall marks of a kangaroo court and non of a fact finding exercise."

The exchange with the CFO and Allan Dillon you posted and the follow up with John Brady perfectly illustrate my point.

Here is the exchange with AD and CFO

Deputy Alan Dillon "The chair of the board outlined in her initial statement that there were deceitful practices in play here. Would Mr. Collins agree with that? "

Mr. Richard Collins "I would, yes."

Deputy Alan Dillon "Would "Prime Time Investigates" call it fraud? Would Mr. Collins agree?"

Mr. Richard Collins "(Well I think that ..) We have had legal advice to say that it is not fraud."

Deputy Alan Dillon "In what context?"

Mr. Richard Collins "It has been looked at as part of the Grant Thornton review. Arthur Cox has looked at this and given advice, or given an opinion, and there is not fraud involved here. "

Deputy Alan Dillon "Raising invoices for something knowing that it is not what it is-----"

Mr. Richard Collins "It is concealment and deception."

...

Then , when pushed further on the 'fraud question'

Deputy Alan Dillon "Would Mr. Collins not determine that - wrongfully knowing - to be fraud ?"

Mr. Richard Collins "It depends on who the fraud is against and whether anyone has lost out. (You could say that, ) My own opinion is that maybe the taxpayer was defrauded, but-----"

So only after explaining that it was not fraud, and they had legal opinion that it wasn't did Mr Collins use tow words in relation to the general taxpayer.

However , much later in the proceedings, Mr John brady, in the clip you posted puts an entirely different spin on this , saying that Mr .Collins had made a bold statement and should report to the Guards.

Deputy John Brady "Okay. Mr. Collins stated that the taxpayer was defrauded, so that is a very serious-----"

Mr. Richard Collins "I said that in my opinion you could look at it that way."

Deputy John Brady "Okay, in his opinion. Has Mr. Collins spoken to An Garda Síochána and made a statement about that?"

Mr. Richard Collins "No, I have not."

Deputy John Brady "Does Mr. Collins intend on making a statement to the Garda? Defrauding is a serious offence. It is unlawful, and that is a statement that Mr. Collins has made. On that basis, will he speak to the Garda?"

Mr. Richard Collins "I would have to take advice on that."

Deputy John Brady "I think Mr. Collins should because he made a very bold statement."

It is as clear as daylight, as explained my Mr Collins, that advice is that no fraud occurred . Yet these two TDs insisted in trying to put that statement into the mouth of Mr. Collins. I hope @FrancieBrady that you would agree with me that that is one reason why our politicians should never be trusted with interrogation of witnesses under any powers of compellability. And i have said nothing about the treatment of the same witness by the Chair near the beginning of the session regarding his pay, or about Mr Alan Kelly suggesting that the chair would be sacked if he were minister.

I don't want to expand on the controversy in RTE. I fully agree that what has happened was wrong and that public confidence needs to be restored. There is a separate thread on that. But, in so far as we can trust our politicians, i can say, having watched the PAC ( I think the tome of the Tourism, art media committee was very different) that I would , as a matter of principle, refuse to go before such a committee to answer questions. I have no doubt Mr Tubridy, Mr. Kelly and Ms. Forbes will make the same decision.

@FrancieBrady "I think PAC did a sterling job"

And I respect your view. I will keep fast to mine, that the behaviour of the PAC re-enforces the view that the electorate were correct to reject the amendment ( ?? thirtieth ) to give more powers to Oireachtas committees. This particular interaction with the CFO and Dillon/Brady was not the only matter of concern with the behaviour of PAC.

As so spake the mob - off with their heads.

The PAC's remit is to hold to account, on the basis of forensic examination of accounts. It should be the most boring committee in the Dail, if they are doing their job properly. Unfortunately, if gives shysters the ability to play to the gallery and the mob, we end up not getting to the bottom of anything, but some people think they are doing a great job. I weep in despair at such attitudes.

Eh, we knew that from the audit. The PAC didn't advance our understanding in any way beyond the information in the accounts, all it served was as a witchhunt from grandstanders.

I didn't think the PAC did originally have oversight of RTE. Did they not have to pass a resolution in Dail to allow them invite RTE.

I think most of the information gleaned from RTE was done so by the Tourism, Culture etc. committee. The dates when RTE executives knew there was a problem, the sacking of Dee Forbes, The barter account. I am not too sure that PAC advanced our knowledge significantly.

Would it not be better for PAC to take a step back and let the Tourism, Culture etc committee continue with their work?

@FrancieBrady I won't get into a back and fourth but--

"We found out that historical chairpersons were asleep at the wheel and were totally oblivious to Tubridy's deal even though one of them Moya Doherty sat on the Renumeration Committee which sanctions the 'talent's' deals."

We seemed to hear conflicting evidencve around this committee. Unless I totally misheard, I thought originally that the committee was told this Remuneration committee had no role in 'talent' pay. Then we were told it had ( and in fact Kielty's pay had to go to it even though it was already agreed and signed off on). I would like to know exactly what role it had and I have just misheard the explanations .

It's a part of their remit to:

Memo (rte.ie)

According to The Currency Moya Doherty didn’t attend the Renumeration Committee meetings for 4 years.

I wonder who appointed her to the board.