John Brady on RTE coverage, IT write-down and trust

Just a few concluding questions then for myself, just to touch on the whole Ireland game in Chechia and the, I suppose, coverage there. Look, without a doubt it was one of the biggest matches that we've been involved in, but the fact is that the biggest team there was not the Irish soccer team, it was the team from RTE. And it's the visual impact that has and perceptions for people out there that have seen an organisation that has been through the mill over the last number of years, between barter accounts and tickets for UEFA Cup and all sorts of things for people, you know, sort of level of expenditure throughout, and what people are seeing. And I think this is feeding into, I suppose, that sense of not trusting the organisation and the confidence in the organisation. And I think that's feeding into the continuing drop-off in people voting with their feet and not renewing their TV licence. So I would argue, and many people would argue, in my view, correctly, that whatever commercial benefits were to come from RTE's coverage of that game was going to come anyway, given the sense of public interest in that game. How can you say that? Because I know for a fact, if we had not sent, some of the teams specifically, some of the individual programmes were sponsored by commercial sponsors, if they'd not gone we wouldn't have got the money. Okay. You might give us a breakdown. Well, I don't want to name the sponsors to be unfair to them, but I mean, we can certainly give you, I can give you a breakdown from our commercial department. And I spoke to our commercial director about this, and he said across the piece, if we hadn't done the amount of coverage we'd done, it probably would have cost us multiple tens of thousands of euros in commercial revenue that we would not have got as a result of it. Okay, but look, it's the visual thing. 41 people is overkill. Can I just appeal one thing, which is, it's very easy to, you know, broadcasting is actually quite labour intensive. You'll see from the list of people who went, there were no freebies, right? There was no one on some sort of fun trip. Everyone who went there worked extremely hard, and it's dispiriting for them to hear the criticism. They know they worked hard, they know they delivered for audiences. Not criticising any individual or anything like that. No, but as a whole they feel criticised. But I would appeal to serious commentators to take a look at the overall picture, which is the level of audiences, the level of public interest, our commitment to big national sporting events, and the commercial revenue as a whole, before you start getting into the, is it 41 people or 35 people? You know, it's really appealing to people to look at the whole picture. Okay, well, you might furnish us with some more. I know we did get some facts there. I just want to touch on the, I suppose, the decision to write down 3.6 million for the failing IT system within RTE. Something that we haven't had an opportunity to discuss at this committee. And whilst, you know, I think it came as a surprise to many, I think it's correct in saying it came as a surprise to yourself as well as Director General, of the organisation and IT projects and failed projects and overspends is something that we've given a lot of time and a lot of focus to within this organisation. We will be bringing forward a report following a comprehensive piece of work we've done. So firstly, can I just ask, where is that system now at this point? So the one that was written down didn't deliver. That was finished years ago. We are currently in the middle of installing the new system, which is an orifice system. Annette sits on the chair of the steering committee for that. It's on target time-wise and it's on target cost-wise as well. What is the cost of that project? I'd need to double check the total cost. I'll come back to you with that, Deputy. I wouldn't like to give you a wrong figure today. I think we might have it here, actually. Kevin, we might have it there. I actually brought a list of all our capital projects here. And with the exception of one capital project over this, we review this every month at the leadership team and then goes to the Audit and Risk Committee, I think. But with the exception of one capital project, every single one of them is financially on target or coming in under. I would like to give it to you, actually, because it does show that we are handling big projects properly. I'm just talking to you while I'm trying to find the HR project on here. But if I find it, I'll come back to you in a sec. Sorry. Oh, yeah, here we are. Okay. HR systems upgrade. It's approximately $6 million. $6 million. And it's on budget. It's on budget. And it's due to be delivered in early 2027. Early 2027. Okay. I suppose the learnings then from the failed system, I mean, what learnings were taken from that? I mean, how did that go so wrong? Was it the scope or what went wrong? Yeah, I think it was slightly in the back of my mind now because it was a while back since we've spoken about it. I think it was the scope. We went for an overcomplicated bespoke system which dealt with both finance and HR. And in the end, I think one of the lessons is buy something off the shelf and don't try and adapt it too much if possible. I think there were problems with the internal staffing around it. We didn't have enough people working on the project, if you like. And I think when it started to go wrong, the organization took the decision a couple of times to put in more money and more effort rather than stop it. Sorry, not enough people or not enough people with the necessary qualifications? Both. Okay. No, I think the people who were on it had the qualifications. It was just understaffed internally. And then there was another problem with the actual installer, which has been a big issue for this. And with the current one, we went out twice to tender for procurement because we went through one process and actually we lost confidence in who was going to install it. So we went out again a second time and we got a different company installing it. But there was an incredible amount of work done on references, who they work for, which systems they've installed. Have they done it successfully? Have they done similar systems in the public sector and so on? So there was a lot of time taken before the project to make sure we had the right product and we had the right installers, which is critical. Okay. I'm sure there was a review carried out following the failed system, the write-down of 3.6 million. You might furnish the committee if that's agreeable. I think it would be very useful for our focus on the issue. I think we may have given it to Jock already so we can give it to you as well. Okay. That would be extremely useful. Sorry, just to say on this list of projects here, the one that is above budget is we installed regional fibre circuits, which was to all our premises to update them. And the reason it's above budget is because we found out that Arna G needed more business reliability after the storms. So we put an extra circuit in and that explains the overspend on that because we decided to spend the extra money. Okay. Just some quick concluding questions. Just in relation to travel and subsistence, we have the figures there for 2023, 2024. Can I ask what was the total amount spent on travel and subsistence in 2025? Do we have that figure? I don't think we have it. I have to come back to you with that. Okay. If you could come back to us and provide a breakdown between the international and domestic expenditure for 2025 also. I just want to touch on the whole issue then of the limousines or the, I suppose, the term that you put on it, cars. Sorry, Chair, I've got the figures. You're asking for 2024? 2025. We don't have 2025. It's 2023, 2024. Sorry. Okay. If you could furnish that to us. I suppose the usage of limousines or whatever terminology you put on it yourself, Mr. Backhorst, do any presenters have contracts that require that particular service? Is it written into any contracts of any presenters? I don't know if there's any existing contracts. But, yeah, I think we've agreed. Sorry, Mr. Lynch, did you say? The one that we have written in, I think, is Patrick Healty. Patrick Healty? Yeah. It's written into his contract that he has a limousine. It's not a limousine. It's a car. It's a car. A car with a person to pick him up in the airport, I'd imagine. I believe it's so that he can do the Friday night and then go on to, he works in Belfast the following day for the BBC, so it's to enable him to do both. Okay. So a driver will pick him up at the airport, bring him to? I don't know about the airport, but picking up at RTE and take him towards Belfast. And do we have a cost on that? Not yet. No, not yet. Okay. And is that part of the overall agreement? No, it's part of the overall contract, but it's not included in his salary there. He's provided with a certain clothing allowance and transport. Okay. He might give us some details on that. Sure. So he's the only person, only presenter? To my knowledge. We'll go back and check. I don't think there's anyone else. Not in their contracts, anyway. I mean, they do get transport, but I don't think it's written in. Okay. But that's, yeah, I mean, that's interesting then that, I mean, obviously the information we got there in terms of obviously the new contract that's in place, the salary cap that is tied in terms of your own salary. So this is an add-on? It's a build-around? It's not an add-on or a build-around, no. It's part of his contract. It's a benefit. Well, it's a benefit, yeah. I mean, it's a benefit. But, I mean, like some presenters have clothing allowances and other things written into their contract, so, you know, beyond separate to their salary. Small things, but, you know, they would get two or three suits a year or something like that, you know? Okay. Well, it'd be good to see the value of that. And just in terms of the taxes then, there's a very, very high, I suppose, number there in terms of the cost of provision of taxes. And you outlined the rationale for that. I know you understand the rationale in some circumstances. Staff outside of, I suppose, their daily business, would staff utilize taxes? No. I mean, staff are in... No, staff... Yeah, well, look, staff would be under the agreement with the union. Staff are entitled to taxes if they're at antisocial hours, so very early in the morning, very late at night. Okay. And yourself, you mentioned earlier on, you use Ubers and taxis. Would your usage be contained in those figures there as well? It would be, yeah, but just a general taxi. It would be, yeah. And can I ask, I think you get, on top of your salary, you get an allowance of, I think, $25,000. Correct. What's the purpose of that allowance? Well, it's called a car allowance, but it's just a general allowance, yeah. Okay, you get a car allowance and you have unlimited usage of taxis, which is separate. Yeah, yeah. Okay. I don't use that many, though, but I do use some, so... Okay. Do you think that's right? Well, if I used a car to come in here today, I'd probably pay more in parking than I would for... Okay, so, but my $25,000... Yeah, it's called a car allowance, it's actually... To come in here and yet you have unlimited usage of taxis... Oh, sorry, I came in with five colleagues today. Okay, okay. But the... Can I just be clear about car allowances? We are reducing them. They are called car allowances. They're not for cars, necessarily. I don't know why they're called car allowances. They are allowances that people get in the organisation. We've reduced the number significantly and no one... Do you think it's right that someone in receipt of a car allowance should have unrestricted usage of taxis... As long as you use them carefully and for business reasons. ...which is an additional cost on the organisation. As long as you use them carefully and for business reasons, yeah. I mean, look, I work hard enough, I think I need to maximise my time. And you get paid well enough, yeah. I get paid pretty well. Yeah. Okay. I think that concludes the questions and I think, obviously, there's an important piece of work starting now in terms of the involvement of the CNAG and the extension to ensure there's proper oversight. And I'm sure this will be an ongoing process here into the future before the Public Accounts Committee. And I started at the outset of the meeting, I said, you know, look, it's an opportunity to be open, to be honest and frank, because inevitably, you know, the forensic work that the CNAG's office carries out when auditing, you know, departments or agencies, you know, inevitably, if there are issues, they will come out in the wash. So this was an opportunity to, I suppose, front load any of those. And I just hope on foot of, once the CNAG embarks on that work sooner rather than later, you know, hopefully everything is both board and proper. There are bigger issues there in terms of the future funding of RTA. Those issues are outside the remit of this committee. But inevitably, I suppose, the expenditure, the spending of that money will come under our focus. But there are huge issues there. Maybe a concluding question, because I know 89% of staff within the organization voted no confidence within the direction of the organization. And I'd say that's an extension, a vote of no confidence of your leadership within the organization. And I think, you know, public confidence is rock bottom out there. And we see that with the fall off in terms of the TV licenses. There is a big piece of work needed within RTA to recalibrate that, to regain the confidence vote of staff within the organization and also the public. Can I respond to that? Absolutely. And I'll leave the concluding comments to you in relation to that. Where do you think that confidence vote in terms of the public, given all of the issues that we've discussed here and the concerns around the expenditure and also the concerns expressed within the workforce of RTA, where is that confidence? Look, first of all, on the 89%, that was 89% of SIPTU members, not of overall staff. And the unions don't represent anywhere near all the staff. But, you know, we take on board concerns and we have good relationship with the unions and we'll discuss that. And I know there are concerns about, obviously, among some of the members, but we need to deal with that. There's a lot of change going on. I think that is a reflection of the amount of change. What I was saying, and in overall terms, you know, you said public confidence is low. That's not necessarily true. We measure public confidence with an audience, with a rolling audience measurement tool from through Red Sea. And actually, trust in the organization now has risen quite significantly in the last year or so, after reaching a rock bottom in 23. So it is on its way back. But beyond an illusion, we know there's a huge amount more work to do. And it is about me and the leadership team showing that RTE is delivering brilliantly for audiences, delivering value for money, being transparent, you know. And I've no doubt, I was at an EBU conference last week in Prague, or the week before, and talking to colleagues from other organizations that RTE is in a really good position in terms of European public service media. And we're lucky to some extent because, you know, I think there is a consensus in this country that public service media actually matters, you know, and that hopefully the country is prepared to invest in it and we'll drive commercial revenues as hard as we can. But, you know, we know that we all do the job because we believe in the role of public service media. And we want RTE, you know, to be recognized by everyone in this room and outside, you know, for the organization that it is becoming, which is a very good modern public service media organization. Okay. Thanks for that.