Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media debate

Culture and Governance Issues at RTÉ: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

Today's meeting of the committee has been convened to consider governance and culture issues at RTÉ. We are meeting with the trade union groups to discuss those issues. The joint committee is empowered to consider the legislation, policy, governance, expenditure and administration of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media or a State body for which that Department is responsible. RTÉ is such a body.

Given the issues we are discussing, I will take this opportunity at the outset of the meeting to request that members and witnesses refrain from discussing individual cases, including those that may be the subject of legal proceedings. It is envisaged that today's proceedings will remain focused on policy. While people may refer to those matters in a general sense, I ask that members in particular not identify any specific individual cases.

I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses are regards references that witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. I ask the witnesses to bear with me for just as a moment as we go through the legal terms and conditions. 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 in respect of the presentation they make to the committee. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty, as Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, to ensure that it is not abused. Witnesses are again reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, 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 any identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are also reminded of the 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 again remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of Leinster House to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to attend where her or she is not adhering to that constitutional requirement. Where members are attending remotely, I ask them to please confirm that they are attending from Leinster House before making any contribution via Microsoft Teams. Any member who attempts to attend from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

I emphasise to members and witnesses alike that it is imperative that today's meeting is conducted in a fair and respectful manner at all times. I will intervene in any exchanges where I deem this not to be the case. That is the terms and conditions out of the way.

I thank our witnesses for coming along today. As they will be aware, we have been dealing with issues around culture and governance at RTÉ before this meeting.

We have been particularly focused on the long-term future of broadcasting and the wider media. As such, it is important that we hear the voices of staff and their representative organisations. Therefore, I welcome the witnesses. Mr. Séamus Dooley, who has been with us many times before, is the Irish secretary of the National Union of Journalists. I congratulate him on his recent elevation to Offaly Person of the Year. I welcome Ms Emma O'Kelly, chair of the Dublin broadcasting branch of the NUJ, Mr. Brian Nolan, the assistant general secretary of Connect Trade Union, Mr. John Reynolds, electrician and camera technician at RTÉ and shop steward with Connect Trade Union, Ms Teresa Hannick, divisional organiser in SIPTU's services division, Mr. Zac Sloper, SIPTU shop steward and chair of the SIPTU committee in RTÉ, and Mr. Brendan Byrne, regional officer with Unite the Union.

The format of today’s meeting is such that I will invite each of our witnesses to make an opening statement of a maximum of five minutes, followed by questions from members. As the witnesses are probably aware, the committee may publish their opening statements on its web page, if that is agreed.

I propose that we proceed with the opening statements. The floor is Ms O’Kelly’s.

Ms Emma O'Kelly

I thank the committee for inviting us to attend. I am chair of the Dublin broadcasting branch of the NUJ, which is a voluntary role that I undertake as an RTÉ employee. The voice of staff has been missing from discourse in this chamber, so we are grateful for this opportunity to express the anger and frustration of NUJ members in RTÉ and also their views on the future.

It is not possible to address the issues before the committee in isolation from the climate that RTÉ has been forced to operate under for a long number of years and under which it continues to operate. RTÉ has been starved of necessary funding for decades by successive Governments. When we, the staff, spoke out over the summer, it was in direct response to the immediate crisis, but the real wellspring was the deep frustration and powerlessness we had felt for years as a result of severe underfunding. We have struggled as best we could for years, striving to deliver quality output for the public as budgets were slashed.

Away from any media glare, we in the NUJ have fought on issues such as gender equality and against excessive salaries and perks at the top. In 2019, we called for a cap on salaries. We also called for the abolition of, for example, the €25,000 executive car allowance. Years before that, we called for a review of employment contracts and contracts for service in RTÉ.

We look forward to the publication of the two expert reports – they are already overdue – but we are concerned at the insistence on delaying funding decisions while RTÉ continues to teeter on the brink of disaster. The licence fee model is no longer fit for purpose. We all know that. Public service media in this country urgently needs to be supported by means of a new funding model that is not only sustainable, but also equitable for the paying public. The level of funding needs to be adequate. Most Government and Opposition politicians have, over the summer months and since then, expressed their strong support for public service broadcasting, but without adequate funding, those words are hollow.

Regarding future plans for the organisation and as outlined in A new direction for RTÉ, the station's strategic vision document, staff are concerned that the organisation is effectively being held to ransom. The deal seems to be that, in return for some movement on funding, RTÉ must cut its workforce by one fifth and outsource a significant proportion of the work currently being done in house by people in proper jobs to the private sector. Four hundred jobs are to be suppressed. That will be 400 fewer full-time jobs in this wider creative sector for young people coming out of college, for example. We are concerned that those jobs will be replaced by mostly precarious short-term contracts in the private sector, where workers move from short-term contract to short-term contract with no rights to things like pensions, holiday pay or maternity leave. This is an environment that especially damages women. We are fully supportive of a thriving, growing independent sector, but we do not believe that it should be achieved at the expense of jobs in RTÉ. None of the governance failings or disgraceful excesses at RTÉ exposed since the summer had anything to do with the size of RTÉ or with us, its ordinary staff. The NUJ fears that this crisis is being used to drive through an entirely different agenda, namely, the privatisation of large swathes of RTÉ. This is something that we will oppose.

The use of bogus self-employment contracts is a stain on RTÉ’s reputation. The systematic misclassification of workers was an attempt to keep staff costs down, denying workers fundamental rights. While trade unions have sought an industrial relations solution to the issue of bogus self-employment, there are workers in RTÉ who are being forced to pursue legal options in the face of an obstinate employer.

Looking to the future and the new strategic plan, and despite all of the debate over the summer, we now look upon the prospect of RTÉ being driven further into the arms of the commercial sector and forced to move further down the road towards becoming a commissioning house. We have learned nothing from Dee Forbes’s first folly when she shut down young people’s programmes and outsourced the creation of all programming for young people. Under the new DG, we see plans to dismantle a further one fifth of the organisation via the replacement of content currently made in house with material sourced from the private commercial sector. This is sending RTÉ further down the wrong road.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I thank Ms O'Kelly. Is Mr. Dooley going to make an opening statement or has Ms O'Kelly made one on behalf of the NUJ?

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Ms O'Kelly is the chair of the branch. I have been before this committee many times and I felt it appropriate that members hear the voice of the staff.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

Mr. Dooley's voice is always welcome at this committee.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Thanks.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I call Mr. Nolan on behalf of Connect Trade Union.

Mr. Brian Nolan

As members will be aware, the two largest unions in RTÉ - the NUJ and SIPTU - will share their reports on past events, for which no workers are responsible, and what they see the future for workers being as per A new direction for RTÉ, the organisation's strategic plan.

One of the major issues has been the deliberate use by RTÉ of precarious employment strategies, in particular bogus self-employment. It is the position of all unions that this cannot form any part of the future employment strategies within RTÉ. Connect has produced a number of publications on bogus self-employment and, therefore, we have been requested to outline the negative effects this has had on workers in RTÉ based on their experience in other sectors, particularly construction.

As a result of representations made by workers and some individual cases taken by employees, RTÉ commissioned the Eversheds report. Perhaps the most glaring finding was that, of 433 outsourced contracts reviewed, 157 were deemed not to be contracts for service but contracts of service. Basically, these people were fulfilling the role of direct employees. It was clear that, in the case of these 157 employees, RTÉ had misclassified them as per the code of practice for determining employment status that was commissioned by the Government and issued by the Workplace Relations Commission. This has resulted in further investigations by the Department of Social Protection's scope section into other employment contracts in RTÉ. Those investigations are ongoing. It is worth noting that the figure of 36% is almost as high as the 39% reached by Connect Trade Union in its investigations into the practice in comparable sectors, such as construction.

What does the practice of bogus self-employment mean for workers and what kinds of worker does it affect the most? Bogus self-employment disproportionately affects younger workers and female workers. It circumvents workers’ rights, for example but not limited to, sick leave, maternity leave, maternity leave and annual leave. It shifts risks onto workers. It erodes training and opportunities to acquire new skills. It undermines pay and conditions. It undermines health and safety and workers' well-being, as bogus self-employed workers are less likely to report workplace issues. Bogus self-employed workers are also much less likely to secure loans and mortgages. This affects their ability to purchase a home, thus contributing to the housing crisis. All of these issues have been reported to trade unions at RTÉ, in particular by younger and female workers.

Regarding the future of RTÉ, the future direction document states that commissioning outsourced work will increase by 50%. This will ensure more work for the gig economy and more bogus self-employment and is contrary to the Government principles signed up to in the public service agreements, which commit to public services being provided through direct labour. RTÉ is a public service broadcaster and, while not a party to the public services agreements, it is broadly aligned to them. The document also states that RTÉ will cut the number of direct employees by 20% while outsourcing, which is unacceptable and of questionable value for taxpayers’ money. On the issue of taxpayers' money, evidence has been presented to Oireachtas committees that bogus self-employment costs the State more than €1 billion annually. Adding to this will not help RTÉ or the State.

The document puts a lot of emphasis on new technology but it should be put on the public record that workers in RTÉ have always co-operated with the use of new technology.

The future of public broadcasting lies in a properly funded and resourced sector, with good secure jobs for workers who know they are safe to raise and investigate issues of public concern without the threat of insecure precarious employment that could hinder their work contrary to the public good. As billionaire moguls buy both traditional and new social media outlets to promote their agenda, an independent public service that can report without fear or favour is a necessary counterbalance. The workers in RTÉ, while willing to play their part, cannot be held responsible for the extravagant and lavish wrongdoings of those at the top, all of which have been well documented. All this occurred while workers engaged in genuine efforts on pay, cost reduction, etc., to secure the future of RTÉ and public sector broadcasting. It suggests that any future for RTÉ should not rely on the precarious practices of bogus self-employment.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I thank Mr. Nolan. I call Ms Hannick to give the next presentation.

Ms Teresa Hannick

SIPTU welcomes the opportunity to appear before the committee. SIPTU is the largest trade union in Ireland and represents the largest and most diverse membership within RTÉ, including workers in administrative, operational, technical and directing grades, musicians and actor members of Irish Equity, which is an affiliate of SIPTU. An extremely large proportion of our members earn less than the average industrial wage.

The current crisis in RTÉ, brought about by the revelations in the summer of 2023, posed serious questions about RTÉ in terms of trust, corporate governance, corporate culture and transparency. For several years, our members have had deep misgivings relating to the governance of RTÉ. They have had to deal with various crises that resulted in job losses and pay cuts while being informed by management that everyone in the organisation would be treated the same. We cannot overstate the sense of betrayal our members felt when the disclosures in 2023 revealed that not everyone was treated the same and not everyone felt the pain of pay cuts and other changes.

Our members are proud of the work they do in RTÉ, the national broadcaster. SIPTU and its members support the requirement for a public service broadcaster for the benefit of democracy and our society. As stakeholders, our members must be part of any discussion that can improve this service for the people of our country.

In November 2023, our members read about the RTÉ management’s strategic vision plan, A New Direction for RTÉ, in the media. Once again, our members found out about their future through leaks in the media before being told directly by their employer. The announcement of 400 job losses sent shockwaves across RTÉ and rumours spread like wildfire about where these job losses would be. Our members have gone through previous change plans before and the cuts always seem to impact our membership more so than members of any of the other unions.

Since that announcement, there has been no information or detail as to where these 400 job losses are to come from. Our members were told that 168 of them will come from natural wastage by way of retirements, etc. The director general has stated publicly that news and current affairs will not be affected by these job losses, but he has not indicated if any other areas will not be affected, which would suggest that the bulk of the 400 job losses will more than likely come from operational areas. Most of the workers in these areas are SIPTU members.

Our Irish Equity members acting in "Fair City" have been dealing with suggestions that the production would be outsourced to an independent production company. While that has not happened, they have been informed there will be no filming in July and August this year. This is happening so that management can use the technical staff to cover the 2024 European Football Championship, the Paris Olympic Games and the GAA championships, all of which require huge resources. This is a new development that has never happened previously, even though RTÉ has broadcast these events before. The national broadcaster has a duty, under its public service broadcasting remit, to produce drama like "Fair City". Our members in Irish Equity are extremely disappointed and distressed by this reduction in filming and they believe that RTÉ management considers them second-class employees and expendable if savings need to be made. It could seem to an outside observer that when money needs to be saved, "Fair City" and drama are easy targets.

The RTÉ Concert Orchestra is central to RTÉ fulfilling its public service broadcasting remit. The orchestra is a vital part of the arts, music and education ecosystem in Ireland. The RTÉ National Symphony Orchestra was transferred to the remit of the National Concert Hall in 2022. Our members in the RTÉ Concert Orchestra are extremely concerned about their future. The orchestra performed to over 69,000 live audience members last year, as well as to many hundreds of thousands of listeners to the orchestra's broadcasts in Ireland, across the EU as part of the EBU broadcast network and worldwide, on radio, television and online. The orchestra works with both young and established Irish and international artists of the highest quality. It is a significant cultural asset in Ireland, and its place in RTÉ’s future strategic planning should be of great importance.

RTÉ has been moving slowly into the 21st century. New technology has been embraced by our members and the result in output to the public has been noticeable. New studios, production models and investments have all been welcomed enthusiastically. However, it is clear that RTÉ and our members need more. Our members tell us that the "Nuacht" studio in the organisation is falling apart and it is an extremely difficult and stressful situation to work in.

There are concerns about the vague references in A New Direction for RTÉ to automation and AI and how that will impact staffing levels going forward. While our members welcome investment in technology and skills, there is no detail regarding what that means for the workers in those areas. All they know is that A New Direction for RTÉ states there will be a 20% reduction in headcount, but as to who or where and what impact it will have on workers, there are no details. There is also a reference to a 50% increase in commissioning spending by 2028 on independent productions as part of a hybrid production model. Again, we have no information on what that means for our members in RTÉ.

Our members welcome the opportunity to address other concerns that they all recognise within the organisation, including slow, backdated administrative processes, poor governance and a concentration on commercial activities as opposed to public service broadcasting. It is extremely difficult, however, to engage constructively with an employer that launches an ambiguous document labelled a strategic vision for the future with no real detail on where these 400 job losses will come from, nor how they will be achieved, and with nothing on what the implications could be on the lives of the workers left behind.

These are real and genuine concerns for our members. We have a real opportunity, if management engages constructively, to get this right and address these problems within RTÉ. SIPTU and our members believe this can only be done with proper engagement and not by setting up multiple working groups which do not fully address the issues and have little or no ability to effect real change in the culture, corporate governance and transparency needed in RTÉ and, above all, rebuild trust in the national broadcaster.

I am conscious of the time. My colleagues have gone through the bogus self-employment aspect, but it is important to speak a little about what it means to actors. Actors in "Fair City" have only recently become RTÉ employees. However, they do not have a contract of indefinite duration, despite some of them working in drama for over 20 years. From media reports last year, we know that RTÉ has settled claims by several actors from "Fair City" on their claim for contracts of indefinite duration. This practice of not dealing with this issue collectively but by settling individual claims with a secrecy clause has led to division and created a difficult environment for these workers. They must agree to RTÉ having first call when it comes to them being available for work outside of RTÉ.

To explain what this means, as an actor, it is necessary to seek permission before accepting any other offer of work and this is done with the executive producer. The executive producer confirms if it is appropriate for the actor to accept such an engagement and the actor must accept the executive producer’s decision as final. There is no appeal. It is difficult not to see this as an example of how actors are controlled by RTÉ. These actors have two months this year without work and they are still going to face this situation.

We thank the committee for allowing SIPTU to present to it. The uncertainty for our members in RTÉ must end. Our members want full transparency and the creation of an action plan for the national broadcaster that places a commitment to public service at its centre, not a slash-and-burn plan that threatens to reduce staffing levels and terms and conditions of employment.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I thank Ms Hannick very much. I call Mr. Byrne.

Mr. Brendan Byrne

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address the committee on behalf of Unite the Union. Our comments will focus on the second matter being considered by the committee, namely, the processes and procedures relating to the misclassification of workers' employment status and the impact thereof.

Unite the Union represents a small number of craft workers in RTÉ who have the protection of permanent, full-time contracts. Our union is part of the trade union group in RTÉ and our members stand in solidarity with all workers whose employment was misclassified by RTÉ, those known as the bogus self-employed.

The employment status section of the Department of Social Protection, scope, is currently investigating whether 695 RTÉ workers should have been classified as full-time employees.

It is our view that it would have been useful if the committee had facilitated workers affected by misclassification of employment in RTÉ to address the committee. We understand the committee has received legal advice to the effect that it has no power to mediate on workplace grievances. However, allowing workers to outline their experiences would not have placed any onus on the committee to mediate. It could have better informed the committee’s deliberations on this issue.

In Unite’s experience, bogus self-employment is a feature across a range of sectors. While this hearing relates to journalists working for RTÉ and other persons, the practice is particularly widespread in construction and is also prevalent in areas of the economy. Bogus self-employment, like other forms of precarious working, impacts on workers, compliant employers and the wider economy. It enables inequality in the workplace, where one worker is employed on a permanent contract and enjoys all the associated benefits, while other workers in the same or an equivalent role have their employment misclassified and are denied these benefits. It limits workers’ access to benefits such as pensions, holiday pay or illness cover and they enjoy fewer protections against unfair dismissal or discrimination in the workplace.

Employers who misclassified workers as self-employed or who engage in other forms of precarious employment have an unfair competitive advantage over other employers. The non-payment of employer PRSI not only reduces the money available to the Social Insurance Fund; it also reduces individual workers' social insurance entitlements. The effect of this is that the individual workers concerned and wider society are effectively subsidising the employer’s business costs. Some years ago, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions estimated that bogus self-employment in the construction sector alone cost the Exchequer €80 million per annum. That figure is now likely to be significantly higher.

In 2021, Unite put forward the following proposals as part of our submission to the then Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands in response to its draft recommendations on bogus self-employment. It proposed the establishment of a presumption of employment where an employment relationship should be presumed to exist unless it can be proven otherwise. This means that the burden of proof in the event of a disputed relationship must be on the employer rather than the worker. It also proposed the updating of the code of practice on determining employment status to reflect new forms of bogus self-employment and precarious working. The code of practice should be put on a statutory footing. It proposed the establishment of a dedicated and appropriately resourced unit within the Workplace Relations Commission to carry out in-house investigation, on-site inspection and adjudication functions relating to employment status; the development of standard definitions of the terms "employee" and "worker", to be incorporated into all relevant legislation; and the extension of the limitation periods - look-back periods - applicable to breaches of employment law to six years, putting them on the same footing as the limitation periods applicable to other areas of contract law.

A number of these proposals were reflected in the committee’s final recommendations, including putting the code of practice on a statutory footing; establishing a dedicated and resourced employment status unit within the Workplace Relations Commission; and developing standard definitions of the terms "employee" and "worker", and applying them to all employment legislation.

While the current committee hearing relates specifically to governance and culture issues at RTÉ, we know that the practice of misclassified workers' employment status is not confined to the national broadcaster. We would, therefore, urge the committee to consider endorsing the recommendations I have outlined, which, if implemented by the current or a future Government, would go a long way towards addressing bogus self-employment and other forms of precarious working.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I thank Mr. Byrne and all of the witnesses. The committee is very appreciative of them coming in. They will be aware that the committee has expressed its solidarity with the staff in RTÉ over the revelations in recent months. The committee collectively has always been very appreciative of the content provided by RTÉ. We understand the difficulties that staff have faced and the anger they felt, which is why it is important to have the witnesses here today.

We will now proceed with questions and answers. Members will know the speaking order. Each member has ten minutes for questions and answers. If there is a specific person that members wish to pose a question to, I ask them to identify him or her. If anyone wants to respond to a specific question, they should raise a hand.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I thank the staff and their representatives and trade unions for attending. It is almost a year since the payments to Mr. Tubridy came into the limelight and we had our first sessions on those payments and the situation that followed. It is not good enough that it has taken us almost a full year to get staff and their representatives into committee to hear from them. I am sorry it has taken that long but I am glad they are here now and that we will hear from them.

I hear clearly the desperate plea from staff and union representatives for the future funding model to be decided. It is fair to say that most members of this committee have been quite strong on that matter. A decision has to be made, sooner rather than later. We are waiting on two reports but that too has been going on too long. The issue needs to be decided.

One of the main reasons for this session is that we have not yet heard staff voices on the issues arising around the payments to Mr. Tubridy through to the massive exit packages that were paid. We have heard the strong statements staff have made in protests at RTÉ and in the media but they have not had a chance yet to express their opinions at this committee. I ask RTÉ staff members to describe how they felt during this period, from the emergence of the payments from the barter accounts right through to the exit packages. I want to give them an opportunity to describe how that made them feel. We heard statements from members of the executive board that they understood the staff and how these issues affected morale within RTÉ. I would like to give the RTÉ staff this opportunity to say a few words on that.

Ms Emma O'Kelly

I thank Deputy O'Sullivan. The summer was devastating for staff and very upsetting but it was also like a dam bursting because we were very aware of what was going on in RTÉ for a long time before that. As I said, out of the glare of the media, nobody seemed that interested but we were fighting internally in RTÉ on a number of fronts and we did not feel we were being listened to. In the summer, when all this broke, it was like a dam bursting for us. It was upsetting.

When we spoke out during the summer, I could speak as chair of the broadcasting branch but other colleagues of mine came forward very bravely and spoke just in their personal capacities. We all hoped - this is why a lot of us spoke out - that this would be a catalyst for change, that it would lead to improvements and that, finally, some of the issues that we had been railing against for so long would be addressed. As the Deputy said, it is almost a year on and our concern is that while there have been some welcome changes, we still feel that we are flailing and getting nowhere.

I have to bring the discussion back to funding. It is a daily struggle in RTÉ. In the newsroom where I work, we struggle still. We struggle to do our jobs. We cannot get the most basic equipment. Going into the newsroom, it is sometimes like a lottery as to which printer is working. I will ask whether printer 42 is working today and will be told it is not and to try 71 but that printer will not be working either. These are the things we face.

Our crews are driving old cars with no satnav. The building we work in is falling apart. It is a listed building. It is part of our national heritage, but it has not been invested in for years. Months on, we are still in the same bind as we were over the summer. At this stage, we urge the committee to do all it can to address the issue of funding - the model of funding and the level of funding.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

Ms O'Kelly has made that point loud and clear and we have to take that on board.

Mr. Zac Sloper

From the point of view of SIPTU and the workers I represent, when this and everything else post was revealed the anger was palpable and we were very disappointed. Two or three years previously, we had been asked to take a pay cut during the pandemic. When other contractors were being paid huge amounts of money we were asked to take a pay cut. I stress that this has been going on for as long as I have been working at RTÉ, which is almost three decades. Every few years there is a crisis. Every few years we are looking for money. Every few years RTÉ comes along with the poor mouth saying it has no money and it cannot do this or that. We have had enough at this stage, and we really just want it sorted.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I appreciate that, and the message is heard loud and clear. Were any of the RTÉ staff here ever on these bogus self-employment contracts?

Ms Emma O'Kelly

No, I was lucky. I came into RTÉ on a one-year contract of employment and was then made permanent, but I have worked for many years alongside colleagues who were. Some of them are here.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

That leads to my next question, which we will probably not have an opportunity to address. I would love to hear from Ms O'Kelly, to the best of her ability, about how it felt to be on those bogus self-employment contracts and not to be entitled to sick leave, maternity leave, paternity leave and annual leave. What was the general sense working alongside people doing the same job who are entitled to those?

Ms Emma O'Kelly

I will do my best to speak on their behalf. I have worked closely for many years with colleagues on these bogus self-employment contracts. A lot of the time we did not know. You are just working with colleagues and you think they are the same as you. You assume they are on similar conditions. I remember the first time a colleague started to tell me about his employment conditions. I was completely shocked because at the time I had been looking into bogus self-employment in the construction industry around schools being built. I remember telling him that was completely wrong and he should be an employee. My colleague got very upset and I could see the stress and strain. I had to apologise to him in the end because he was so upset and saying he did not want to talk about it because he was under such strain. I have also spoken to female colleagues who told me about the times they went on maternity leave - three times in one case - and never got any maternity pay. They were shocking things for me to hear. As far as I and everybody else in the area I work in is concerned, they are colleagues straight up, just like us, but they were treated differently.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I have been a trade union official for 25 years, and 20 years dealing with RTÉ. One of the first things I was involved in with RTÉ was the Goodbody process, which has not been mentioned in any committee. That was when RTÉ, under pressure from the trade union group, regularised bogus self-employment. Having done that, I remember touring the country with former trade union group secretary, Dónall Ó Braonáin, and sitting down with people to examine their new contracts of employment. The same bad practice was slowly introduced again by stealth. In 2008 and 2009, the group of unions began a campaign to stop that practice again. The issue of bogus self-employment has come up again and again, and it is something we have resisted.

Reference has been made to the employment status group and the guidelines for employment. What is interesting is that was introduced in 2001, directly as part of the negotiations with congress under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. One of the things that informed those negotiations was the experience in RTÉ. However, the reality is that the trade union group has been crying in the wilderness in these Houses for action on bogus self-employment for a long time.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

That is understood and I again thank the witnesses for coming. It is tough. They are describing an atmosphere within an organisation I am sure they are mad about and passionate about. It is not easy for them to come here and make those really strong statements about what it was like.

Deputy Brendan Griffin

I thank all of the witnesses, and I appreciate the submissions they have made. I am conscious that they represent many workers at RTÉ. I am also conscious that there are workers who do not feel represented by the unions, and who feel somewhat disenfranchised. If the Chair allows, I will try to give a voice to some of those workers. I had hoped we could have heard directly from some of the people impacted by the bogus self-employment issue. According to advice from the OPLA, that was not possible. However, I want to acknowledge that we had some written submissions accepted in private session and they will become public documents. There are others that will hopefully become public later.

I want to give the committee and the watching public an extract of some of the submissions we have received. The first is from Angie Mezzetti and has been accepted by the committee. She says that bullying in RTÉ has been widespread for decades and that threats not to renew contracts and threats not to grant contracts at all but to have employees work continuously on flat rates without increments or pensions is a form of corporate bullying. She says that the practice has to end and that telling a presenter they are not an employee yet proudly displaying them as a voice or face of RTÉ is a form corporate gaslighting. She says that the human resource practice in RTE of not granting employment rights universally has been an issue, as outlined above. She says that the inability of various unions to secure employee rights for their members has not been exemplary, to say the least, and that the trade unions must be prepared to stand up to management to secure the rights of all in RTÉ, including bogus self-employed and those on zero-hour contracts and not a privileged few. She says that how the proportion of people employed under bogus self-employed was allowed to be so large reflects very poorly on the unions and that estimated bogus self-employment is over 43% and that three quarters of so-called contractors were found to be bogus self-employed. She went on to say that RTÉ, as an organisation, must be subject to compliance with human resources legislation, taxation and social protection law for its own employees and companies it subcontracts to.

Joey Kelly is another person who has made a formal submission.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I remind the Deputy not to identify a specific individual.

Deputy Brendan Griffin

This was agreed in private session.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I do not think it was agreed to publish, if I am correct.

Deputy Brendan Griffin

I have consent as well.

He said:

In 2021 the department of social protection contacted me, asking to interview me on my employment

status. RTÉ never contacted me regarding this.

In 2022 I received a decision stating that I should have been an employee from the years 2012 - 2018. RTÉ have paid my PRSI for those years.

When trying to engage with the unions and RTÉ on this matter I feel like I am being totally ignored. I have emails dating back to 2022 with regards to asking SIPTU. I have engaged with RTÉ on this matter personally recently, RTÉ are refusing to acknowledge that [we] were staff at the time without actually giving a reasonable explanation as to why [we] are not staff instead they are using terms like "no assumptions can be made".

With regards to the procedures and processes relating to the misclassification of workers employment status and impacts thereof I want to show the process the staff members must go through in order to be heard by RTÉ.

On the real life impact on people's lives, people don't have homes, pensions. It has impacted people careers and their home life, these workers had to give up a lot personally (we usually had to work the shifts others didn't as they were entitled to take the time off, missing out on a lot of big family occasions like Christmas.)

It does take a [toll] on your mental health to have to deal with people [who] try to convince you that what you know to be true is not true.

We had a very public declaration from Keith Walsh, the former 2FM DJ, recently. He had hoped to be here and would have liked to have given his submission. He felt not being able to give his testimony to this committee was a trauma on top of trauma. Those were his words. That is something that must be recognised.

Another person, who wishes to remain anonymous, came to me:

They said:

I worked exclusively for RTÉ for almost 25 years. The contract ended with no entitlement to lump sum or pension. Two years later, the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection began a review of the PRSI and employment status in RTÉ. Five months later the decision of the deciding officer from the Department of Social Protection was that the employment of the person by RTÉ for 25 years was insurable under the social welfare Acts for all benefits and pensions at PRSI class A.

Four months later, RTÉ appealed the decision through Arthur Cox solicitors. Then the Department of Social Protection, four months later, was awaiting full submission from RTÉ on that appeal.

The person wrote to the DG about this matter but has yet to receive a response. Three further months passed before the case was assigned to an appeals officer.

In another example, a person pointed out to management in RTÉ that they were working more days than staff and that they should be an employee. The person was refused. They went on to say:

For many reasons which I am unable to go into here due to environment and behaviour towards me at my place of work I did not appeal the WRC LRC recommendation. In 2022 and 2023 the employment status investigation unit, Scope, and social welfare appeals office deemed me to be an employee with PRSI status, class A. All this mental stress, physical illness and financial cost could have been avoided for both me and RTÉ back in 2008. I understand that RTÉ has paid my PRSI bill to the Department of Social Protection but I am still waiting for the payment of their pension benefits, holiday pay and other job entitlements for six and a half years. I was forced to be self-employed within the national broadcaster. I have received a solicitor’s letter from RTÉ stating that they will vigorously defend any proceedings and will affix me with the cost of such defence. Surely RTÉ would not have paid my PRSI bill if it did not admit liability. Surely RTÉ should spend its money paying individuals like me instead of clocking up a huge bill with one of the biggest law firms in the country. I currently understand that the legal cost is up to €74,000. The 6.5 years pension alone would mean that my future would be secure and that I would not have to work into old age. This is the only opportunity I have to describe my ordeal within the national broadcaster.

I have another submission from a group of workers.

They stated:

We are a cross-section of misclassified workers in RTÉ. We have each been identified more correctly as employees either through the RTÉ Eversheds reports or Scope or Revenue investigations. We have in total worked over a century of years for RTÉ with no employment benefits or protection to show for it. RTÉ tells the Oireachtas that RTÉ is working hard to remedy this but tells us that RTÉ will bring their PRSI contributions up-to-date over the course of the next 15 years but our service will not be backdated. We will not get retrospection of other lost benefits. RTÉ will only offer us one 12-month employment contract now without full statutory protections or benefits or regular staff benefits. If we do not accept this, we are told by HR: take it or leave RTÉ.

This is part of the problem; this culture of fear and threat.

They stated further:

If we get legal advice RTÉ hand our file to Arthur Cox. We do not know how RTÉ can publicly state at Oireachtas hearings that RTÉ have accepted the findings of both Eversheds reports but can then use public money to have Arthur Cox deny and argue against those findings in court. RTÉ is now instructing deliberate reductions in work for many of us. This can minimise our ability to pay for legal representation and limit the potential WRC award which is based on our earnings. We are being bullied with no recourse as we have no employment rights. We are let down by unions - SIPTU, in all of our cases - who allowed decades of bogus self-employment and who now seem unable to negotiate against HR or support individuals who bring complaints. Many of us have not even been allowed to see our individual Eversheds determinations. How can RTÉ say this is transparent?

After decades of loyal service, we are devastated by the sharp practice by HR and the inertia of SIPTU. As it stands, many of us with decades of service, will not be eligible under the voluntary redundancy scheme as we have no recognised service years. We are at risk instead of quietly disappearing from RTÉ at the end of one-year contracts currently offered with no pension, no redundancy. The contract offered explicitly excludes protections under unfair dismissal. SIPTU do not seem to be able to do anything. Making matters worse, we have lived with this since 2017. Worrying about how to pay our bills, how to deal with Revenue if they back-date tax. Working in a culture of fear in case we are simply disappeared. This so-called resolution process is expected now to drag on for a further 15 years, according to RTÉ, during which time many of us will have reached retirement with no pension or will have simply vanished from RTÉ when annual contracts are not renewed. The financial and psychological damage to us and our families is a disgrace to RTÉ when all we have done is our jobs. We did our jobs and did them well because if we did not, we would not have been renewed. We were only contractors. They employees in legal and HR were the ones who did not do their jobs, who made grave and sustained mistakes. We are the ones paying for their mistakes and they are bullying us so they can get away with it.

It is important that all those voices are heard. That is only a small sample of the voices that needed to be heard that I would have liked to have had sitting before us today but for one reason or another they were not allowed to be here. Those people have to be heard. The unions have to do more to represent them. I know they have a difficult job but these people cannot be forgotten either. Neither can they be forgotten by Members of the Oireachtas. They have to be protected and their rights have to be fought for.

A number of questions were brought to my attention. They were posted by Martin McMahon on Twitter at the weekend. They are pertinent questions. If there is not time to answer them now, it would be helpful for the unions-----

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I will allow the Deputy one or two questions but quickly.

Deputy Brendan Griffin

I will list the questions. It will only take a short time. If the unions cannot come back to me now, it would be very helpful if they could provide answers to the committee on some or all of these questions.

Workers were not at all involved in the Eversheds review. How did RTÉ, SIPTU and other unions select workers for the Eversheds review? The Eversheds review established a bogus self-employment rate of over 40%. Why were union members not informed? On what legal authority are unions excluding hundreds of workers from redress for being bogus self-employed by RTÉ which is a criminal offence on the Statute Book? I can give a copy of these questions in writing. This might not be a question for the unions but why is the full Eversheds legal advice on the extent of bogus self-employment in RTÉ not before the media committee? That is something we, as a committee, need to pursue. What liability did the Eversheds review establish? The Eversheds review was an attempted cover-up of massive bogus self-employment in RTÉ, why did the unions not call this out? Union members who paid full subs for decades were given “yellow pack” contracts by RTÉ with the approval of unions after the Eversheds review. Will unions be refunding members the subs?

Then there is a question of the 396 workers dismissed by RTÉ after the Eversheds review. Keith Walsh was one of those. Based on figures, we have from the Taoiseach himself, 297 of those workers were employees at the time. How will this be resolved? If we do not have time today, I would appreciate those answers afterwards.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

We may come back to it. The Deputy is well over time. I will remind the Deputy that the format for today was agreed by the committee in private session.

It was agreed that, rather than inviting many individual workers to come along, the representative bodies and unions would be the ones invited. I will, however, allow time for people to respond later.

The next set of questions are from Deputy Munster.

I would like to hear from SIPTU too. As a union, what protection did it afford, given that decades on, these workers are still in the same precarious situation? If I may ask-----

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Definitely direct Exchequer funding.

Ms Teresa Hannick

Direct Exchequer funding.

Senator Marie Sherlock

Mr. John Reynolds

As Mr. Sloper has said, across the organisation sick leave is very difficult to cover and holidays can be difficult to get because of staff shortages. The last couple of rafts of redundancies and pay cuts have all been at the front line.

Many of those positions were suppressed and not replaced. What has happened is that staff on the ground have picked up the slack. Much more work has fallen on their laps and they are doing more. In addition, cross-grading is going on and multitasking is happening across the organisation. The stress and strain is certainly felt there. Speaking personally, there is the stability of a full-time job but I can only imagine, if somebody is on a bogus contract or has not got that stability, how much more extra strain that is adding to that individual. We needed to come here today to say that working in broadcasters is quite a stressful environment, with short times and turnarounds and all that sort of thing. When you have stability, that is okay, but when you have the instability of a bogus contract, you do not know whether it will be renewed.

The difficulty across RTÉ, and the folks seated behind me would say this, is that on the floor we are a family. I have worked with many of the bogus employee contractors and those who are on all the different contracts that exist. We are a family and we know each other. Seeing someone just disappear who has not had his or her contract renewed is extremely difficult. It is another layer of distress in an already distressing place. There is then the risk of redundancy hanging over them. Members applying for mortgages have been refused or have had to get letters of comfort from HR because banking organisations are saying, "Where are you gone?" Even full-time people are feeling that pressure.

Senator Marie Sherlock

Okay. Does Ms O'Kelly want to add to that?

Ms Emma O'Kelly

I spoke briefly about this already so I will not repeat myself. I will add one point. I canvassed colleagues on these issues before I came to the meeting. We are so stretched at the moment that a number of people expressed fear about our coverage of all the elections that are coming up. We are already absolutely stretched. We are facing into elections like no other elections. We will have massive challenges. We are in a whole new environment in terms of disinformation. We will have to have the resources to have experienced journalists fact checking. There is real concern among colleagues in the newsroom as to how we will fulfil our public service remit, which is to deliver balanced, fair and informative coverage, in this completely new environment. There is concern that we do have the resources, or that we need the resources, to be able to do that properly.

Senator Marie Sherlock

I will ask about bogus self-employment. I will say to some colleagues present that I look forward to their enthusiastic support when it comes to the transposition of the EU directive on bogus self-employment when it has to be transposed here. I am a little incredulous at some of the union blaming.

I will ask about the conditions. Mr. Dooley talked about decisions, or bad practice, by stealth that were introduced over the years. For the record, will he identify the number of reports that have been commissioned over the past 20 years? It is obviously management decisions that have led to this situation and not unions.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I mentioned the Goodbody report and the Evershed report, which was a legal review. Following that, there was an appeals process at the insistence of the NUJ. I noted some Twitter comments regarding the potential illegality of the process. That review was conducted by Peter Ward SC. Anyone who was dissatisfied with the outcome made his or her appeal to Peter Ward SC, who is one of the leading employment lawyers. There was then a follow-on independent review specifically on retrospection. It is important to say for the record that anyone who wanted to appeal was not bound by that process. The problem, however, and I echo the concern expressed, is RTÉ's insistence on engaging, at a time of shortage, one of the top legal firms in the country, which is putting up significant challenges for anyone who goes on that route. That is a major concern.

Senator Marie Sherlock

Ms Hannick talked very passionately about the situation "Fair City" workers now find themselves in. People are probably a little incredulous at how RTÉ, as a semi-State organisation, can have the level of bogus self-employment it does. People come in as freelancers. Will Ms Hannick very briefly describe how people come in as freelance actors but then end up being bogusly self-employed?

Ms Teresa Hannick

As the Senator knows, acting is a precarious profession. Most actors are self-employed. There have been all kinds of legal challenges when trade unions have tried to represent those who are called self-employed. Anti-competition laws have been brought up when unions represent them. Most people who join the acting profession, which is a very difficult profession, and I sometimes wonder how they do it, are there to bring us joy and sadness and they go out and do it. Actors come in as short-term characters. They could be playing somebody buying something. It can be very difficult for people to get permanent employment and be a regular character. If there is any difficulty, somebody's character could be written out as having a terminal illness. It is difficult. When it is temporary work, the problem is what they do for the rest of the month to find other work when all that other work has to be approved because they are on this contract of indefinite duration. It also happens to directors who are involved. It can be difficult.

Senator Marie Sherlock

Has any good come out of this crisis? I would like to hear from the witnesses on that.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I would love to say "Yes" but that would be very foolish. It has been a most painful process. The only ones to have benefited are a number of TDs and Senators, whom we might never have met otherwise.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I will leave that comment with you. I thank Senator Sherlock. Senator Carrigy, who is substituting for Deputy Cannon, is next.

Senator Micheál Carrigy

I thank the Chair. I welcome the staff representatives and thank them for coming. The one thing that needs to be made clear, as a punter and public representative, is that I have full trust in the staff and in the quality of the product of the public service broadcaster. It is important all of us on the committee say that and that it goes back to the staff. We have full trust in the quality of the public service broadcaster. We need to support it, especially, as Ms O'Kelly said, with elections coming up. We need to resource and make sure that trusted information is out there and that the public get it. It is important to put that on the record.

I have a couple of questions. My colleague, Deputy Griffin, asked a number of pertinent questions with regard to the Eversheds review. Time constraints meant people did not get an opportunity to reply. I might give some of my time to allow the representatives to reply to Deputy Griffin on the Eversheds review.

The RTÉ strategic vision document is the future. The witnesses outlined some of the points in it that need to be put in place with regard to the future of RTÉ. It reviewed allowances, grades, structures, etc. What are their views on the discussions? What level of discussion took place between them and RTÉ management? What sort of engagement was there with unions and staff over recent months with regard to the expert committee advisory review? I will leave it open to-----

Mr. Séamus Dooley

We had the opportunity to meet the expert review group. We had a very intensive negotiation. It is a matter of record that we did not have any engagement at all with the governance review group. That is unfortunate because the two groups are relevant. We used the review group engagement as an opportunity to discuss some of the issues and concerns we had. We await that report. I said this morning on "Morning Ireland" that I understood the report had been furnished and that we would like to see it published as soon as possible. That seems to be a matter of debate. The Minister is waiting for the two reports to be published simultaneously. Bluntly, I do not see the reason for that. A lot of other things are going on in RTÉ HR at present, including issues such as a grade review. We would like to see that report out there because there is a lot of work to be done on that.

Mr. Zac Sloper

I echo what Mr. Dooley said. There has been some engagement, but we would certainly like to see the report published as soon as possible.

Mr. John Reynolds

From an information point of view, the more information we have about the future, the better. That will be very important to members and staff.

Senator Micheál Carrigy

It is disappointing to hear the opportunity was not afforded to engage at those levels. That is extremely disappointing.

Deputy Griffin asked a significant number of questions earlier and he did not get an opportunity to get answers. These are questions coming from members of staff who could not be here today. We as a committee should actually go out to RTÉ and have the opportunity to meet all the staff who could not be present to allow their views to be put forward. That would inform us better as committee members ahead of our report. I will put this on the table.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will be aware that we did agree on a course of action.

Senator Micheál Carrigy

Perhaps I will have the opportunity to get answers to the questions Deputy Griffin asked about the Eversheds report.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

An Cathaoirleach

I am sorry folks but there may be time to come back in again. If Senator Carrigy has a final question, I will allow it or I am going to move on. The substituted order is Senator Fintan Warfield now.

Senator Fintan Warfield

I wish to talk about the future strategy and what that might mean for the media landscape, including the audiovisual sector, film, TV and radio.

If RTÉ cut 400 jobs and increased commissioning by 50%, what would the reality be for workers? Could the witnesses tell us what the state of play is for workers in the independent sector? Do the witnesses represent any of those workers? Is there trade union membership in that sector? Have we learnt anything from the symphony orchestra being moved to the National Concert Hall and children's programming being outsourced?

Ms Teresa Hannick

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Public service broadcasting is a rich tapestry or a jigsaw, with all the pieces related. I am as concerned about the future of the concert orchestra as Ms Hannick is. Why stop with the concert orchestra? Why not abandon Irish language programming? Why worry about archives? It is important that the public service broadcaster fulfils its entire remit. The very commercial values - which is a contradiction in terms - that brought us to our knees, that is, the flip-flop mentality, the executive pay, the commercialisation and the private enterprise ethos, are the very antithesis of public service broadcasting.

On the industry, I am going back in a way to Deputy Griffin's and Senator Carrigy's comments. One of the issues that is relevant about the private sector is that it has scant regard for trade union recognition. We do not have trade union recognition rights for collective bargaining in Ireland. That is why, since members asked about the independent sector, I cannot represent members in Virgin Media. They pay their money, but I am not let in the door unless I want to go on "The Tonight Show" to criticise RTÉ. We are not allowed into Bauer Media. We are not recognised in most of the local radio stations. That is important. It is easy to debate this in isolation from a much wider picture. If there is to be an increase in independent public service broadcasting that is great because we need that, but if it is going to be outsourcing, then public procurement rules must apply. We must ensure that people are not transferred or we will be having a conversation in ten years' time about bogus self-employment and other dodgy contracts, but it will just be under a different umbrella.

Senator Fintan Warfield

I studied film and TV production in Galway. It always seemed to be a bit of a pipe dream to get into RTÉ from college. Would Ms O'Kelly have a vision of an RTÉ where young people can come in at entry level? It seems a very difficult organisation to get into. Does she share that impression?

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Yes, I do. However, I do not want to sound too negative either. I really do not want to put people off wanting to come into RTÉ. That question really tears me because when I came into the organisation, it was a very different place. It was an amazing thing to get in the door and be offered, after one year, a permanent job. It is so different now. I speak to so many talented younger colleagues who are really struggling and very stressed with extremely difficult shift patterns and many other real problems. The pay is very low, so I really feel concerned for them. Over the summer, I thought for the first time - and this was a terrible thing - that I did not know whether I would recommend it to anyone to come to RTÉ. That was a very shocking thing for me to feel because up until that point, I would always have said people should go for it. I want to reverse that here and say RTÉ needs young talent.

It may be hard to get in and it may be a struggle for people once they are in the organisation. Their ideas might not be taken on board. I really want all those people to keep coming to RTÉ. We need young people. We really value young people as colleagues and we want them in the organisation.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I am conscious that the meeting has been going on for nearly two hours. Would the witnesses like to take a five-minute comfort break? They are indicating they are happy to proceed. That is fine. The next speaker is Senator Cassells.

There was one presenter who threatened so often to leave that we said, "Well, just show him the door". RTÉ did show him the door. It engaged someone else and the ratings increased. That has happened consistently. There is plenty of talent available. This is a small country. I reject the notion of a media market existing in that format. In fairness, the current director general has had a much better approach in this regard.

Senator Shane Cassells

Ms Hannick referred in her report to the impact of the job losses. From a technical point of view, there seems to be a choice this summer between sport and drama. Instead of Carrigstown, it will be Paris and Berlin. Does she think this is the thin end of the wedge and that there will be further impacts on other departments?

Ms Teresa Hannick

The problem, as I said, is that RTÉ has a remit to create drama that employs local talent, whether in front of or behind the camera. Does it view the big sporting occasions as having more of a commercial draw? It is a problem when one is being weighed against the other. It goes back to what we say about the funding of RTÉ. It is a public service broadcaster but there is a huge push towards commercialisation. That is why we see the threat of outsourcing directly employed jobs. The myth is put out that this is a more creative way of doing things. There is of course a huge amount of creative talent in the independent sector. However, it is a way of commercialising operations. Many of our members have had a belief and fear for a long time that there is a privatisation of RTÉ going on. It might be going on by stealth. It would not be the first commercial State or semi-State body to which that has happened under this Government.

They have never ended well for the people of this country. They have ended well for any kind of investor or hedge fund manager but we have lost out. We should not be here today. We should be trying to protect RTÉ as a public service broadcaster, with what it brings to our art, culture, news, information, democracy and society. We should not be selling it to the highest bidder.

Senator Shane Cassells

In her opening statement, Ms O'Kelly refers to the fact that the voice of the staff had been missing from the discussions. One of the voices that has been missing from these discussions is the former director-general, Dee Forbes. Does Ms O'Kelly feel that there will ever be a resolution to the work that is being done here on overall governance if that voice is not heard in these discussions either?

Ms Emma O'Kelly

We would all love for Dee Forbes to come before this committee or the Committee of Public Accounts to answer questions. We would be keen to see that happen. I agree with the Senator that there is a missing link. We would love to see her appear before a committee.

Senator Shane Cassells

I acknowledge, in the Gallery, the presence of one of the voices of many of our youths, Brian Carthy, who was the voice of many championship summers and a real asset to broadcasting in this country. The manner in which he was treated by the State broadcaster was also disgraceful. He has done the profession of journalism a great service.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I want to issue a fíor fáilte roimh gach duine anseo. I want to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for coming. I expected a different response but nonetheless I believe the witnesses are doing their best. It is a messy situation. There is a saying about something rotten in the state of Denmark. There is something very rotten in Montrose. I have been quite straightforward and blunt in my questions. Some 1,396 workers were let go after Eversheds Sutherland's report. In the figures given by the Taoiseach, 297 of those workers would have been employees at the time. They were dismissed. What steps has the TUG taken to recoup what was stolen from those 297 RTÉ employees?

Mr. Séamus Dooley

The trade union group or indeed individual unions will represent members who come to us and seek representation. That is what we do. I have represented members who secured employment and secured retrospection. SIPTU has done the same. We will continue to do the same.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

The number of 297 is astounding. They were treated appallingly. They were literally dismissed. RTÉ reclassified employees and forced them into yellow pack contracts where terms and conditions were far less than if they had been legally classified as employees in the first instance. How can the TUG stand over such contracts?

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I would again suggest to the Acting Chair that it is appropriate that these are questions directed to the employer. The TUG has not entered into agreements on individual contracts. We do not have that power. This is not a collective process. We agreed a process. There was a review. There was an appeals process, as I said earlier, chaired by a senior counsel. There was another process for retrospection. Anyone who is not happy with that outcome is free to go to a third party. We are extremely unhappy not just with this process but with the whole way in which RTÉ has subsequently responded to positive Scope determinations. I am surprised at the apparent belief on the part of some members of this committee that we have extraordinary powers as trade union representatives. We are limited by the law of the land, by what the law allows us to do, and by contract. There is this notion that we have sat back. We have not done that. Cases are ongoing. We do not comment on individual cases.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

Okay. I thank Deputy McGrath. It falls to me to contribute, but I will allow the two non-members of the committee to make brief interventions. I call Senator Clonan and then Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Senator Tom Clonan

I have to declare a conflict of interest. I am a member of the NUJ and have been for 23 years. I have had issues that were very well dealt with by the secretary general, Mr. Dooley. I just wanted to put that on the record. The other conflict of interest I have is that I have been in and out of RTÉ for 24 years as a security analyst, less so recently for whatever reason, and I have found all the staff I have met in Montrose to be extremely hardworking. Sometimes when I drive through the UK, which has a population of more than 60 million which supports the BBC, I listen to the standard of broadcasting and television output in the UK. It is extraordinary what is produced here. The quality of public service broadcasting is high. The public service broadcaster has highlighted many of the issues that brought me into this institution and continues to do so unfailingly.

My question is about the culture and governance of RTÉ. I have not have been a public servant since 1987. One of the things about the disbursement of public funds is the absolute perception of fairness. What struck me over the summer in the committee hearings on RTÉ is the shocking levels of unfairness in RTÉ, the different categories and classifications of workers. There has been a lot of mention of the bogus contracts. I will ask a specific question about equal pay for equal work, which is a fundamental trade union principle.

In RTÉ there are categories of workers who earn far more than their colleagues, some are on contracts and some are employees. When presenters who are paid very high salaries on contract take a break and are replaced by another presenter, is the replacement presenter paid the same amount of money? I am concerned about this because in a number of cases - this is not a criticism of the presenters; it is a question about management's disbursement of funds - male presenters who are very highly paid take a break, go on leave or whatever they do, they are replaced by a female presenter. Is that female presenter paid the same, like pay for like work? In other cases it may be that female presenters on contract are replaced by male presenters. When it comes to disbursement of public funds, it is important there is pay parity.

Ms Emma O'Kelly

I can answer the question about pay. If colleagues of mine in the news room step up and present a flagship programme on air, they are paid an additional €20 before tax for doing so. That is what I have been told.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

The issue the Senator raised is one of the issues we raised with the expert group on HR. We spent a considerable amount of time on it. I share the Senator's concern about some of the issues he raised. They are deeply disturbing. One of the big failures of the Evershed Sutherland review process was that RTÉ did not include in the review so-called on-air talent. The word "talent" is not used any more. The Senator is right that there is no justification for it. Public service broadcasting should set the gold standard. In holding everyone else to account, it needs to do so.

Senator Tom Clonan

Do the unions have a means to do so? I have learned a lot in the short time I have been sitting here about the extent to which the unions can represent their members. Is that something it can ballot for industrial action over? In another part of the public service - I worked in DIT, now TU Dublin, for 22 years - if I was asked to do the work of another lecturer without getting paid, I would refuse to do it. Are there any means by which this practice can be challenged? A number of years ago, there was a flagship fashion show on RTÉ and it emerged that the male and female presenter, who were both high profile people, were being paid different amounts. Those presenters took action themselves to ensure they were both paid the same amount. Do the unions have any means to pursue this?

It is an absolute fundamental principle of work, particularly work that is funded by the Exchequer, that there is equal pay. Is there any remedy at members’ disposal? Can members say they cannot do something because they are not being paid the proper amount? Can they take industrial action or ballot for industrial action on that?

Ms Emma O'Kelly

It is a difficult issue. I have had cases of women coming to me and saying they are only being paid X amount and they just discovered their colleague, who is male and less experienced than them, has been brought in at much higher up on the scale. We on the shop floor try to pursue those cases. Those workers are, at the same time, perhaps on a temporary contract and not secure. They have an eye to their future and do not want to rock the boat too much. If you talk about people stepping up to present programmes, people want those opportunities. We do our best but it is a struggle and it is hard. It is a complicated picture. It is not as simple as saying we will all ballot because there are many different factors feeding into the individual circumstances of people. It is tough. On the gender pay issue, we have been railing against this for years and we got nowhere.

On the top pay, in 2019, we met as a branch and agreed there should be a cap placed on top earnings in RTÉ. That got very little traction outside of RTÉ. We have been trying to fight this and have been railing against it. We did not get very far, and our hope was that everything that happened over the summer would be a catalyst for real change, and so far we have not seen that.

Ms Teresa Hannick

The Senator asked about balloting. For many of these cases, we are talking about equal pay and how the Equality Act would cover them. The difficulty we have with some of the equal pay cases is when it is an individual contract, which can happen with some on-screen positions. It is much easier to bring an individual employment case for a member for equal pay when we have a grading structure and a pay scale like that which exists for some of the more operational roles. As we explained here previously, under these kinds of individual cases, there are also the limitations of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, where people would do some industrial action, as was talked about, but it is classed as a trade dispute. I would find myself involved in some of the more public sector ones because they are very strictly graded but even as you talk, people are very strict to hold onto it and do not do it when there is a difficulty. As Ms O’Kelly outlined and what we have found is that when people join and come in on a temporary contract, they are concerned about getting future employment and do not want to rock the boat. Much of what we can hear in the TUG is people have been there for a few years and are concerned. I have been in a situation where people do not want to talk on the media about what it is like to work in RTÉ.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Pay transparency is essential to all of this but the other thing I hope will be dealt with in the review group is that we need to get rid of the cult of personality and the notion that editors and director-generals have the divine right of kings. There needs to be an opportunity for everyone to apply for the opportunity to go on air. There needs to be open and transparent processes of recruitment. It is the absence of that which leads to secrecy around individual pay.

Senator Tom Clonan

In my questioning, there is no implied criticism whatsoever of any of those presenters. Like I said, I think the product that is generated is of a very high standard. It is failure of management and leadership. Unfortunately, as was pointed out by committee members, some of those people have not made themselves available to the committee. Particularly with public funding, that is a built-in programmed unfairness. I am very sorry to hear that because the witnesses’ jobs are difficult enough without that culture of unfairness.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Right from the outset I felt that the worst possible thing that could happen in the RTÉ scandal is that a small number of ridiculously paid executives, a small number of ridiculously paid presenters and the lack of governance around those things were going to lead to ordinary workers losing out who had no responsibility for the misgovernance and, frankly, the greed of a small number at the top. I am interested to hear from the witnesses on this. My concern is that the worst-case scenario is unfolding.

Of course, it was the people at the top who decided to misclassify workers. I think it was the bosses in RTÉ who misclassified workers, because that is who does it. They do it in the private sector and the public sector. I have been campaigning against bogus self-employment for many years. There has been some criticism of the unions here. To be honest, I think the unions, at times, should be fighting harder against bogus self-employment. However, the people who misclassify are the bosses. The people who fund RTÉ – the Government – should make sure that the bosses they fund do not break the law and do not misclassify workers. I would like to hear from the witnesses about where they think they have failed in that regard. It is outrageous that in a publicly-funded body, the Government has failed to see what is absolutely obvious. There is an objective test – it is the control test. Are you an employee or are you a contractor? It is obvious in the vast majority of cases that these people had all the attributes of employees, they should have been classified as employees, it was breaking the law not to classify them as employees and it was designed in order to not give them their rights, entitlements and all the rest of it, which they now should have. It is absolutely right that they are enraged they were denied them, and they should get them. I hope the witnesses agree. The question of them getting their retrospective entitlements should not then be used as an excuse to threaten the future existence of RTÉ.

Tell me if I am right or wrong. The way I look at it, if jobs are suppressed in RTÉ, they will then be outsourced to a sector where there is no chance of getting a contract of indefinite duration – none at all. I am going to the WRC this Friday with workers in the film sector who have been blacklisted out of the sector because they asked for contracts of indefinite duration, even though they have worked in that sector for 20 and 30 years. The one thing that is obvious to me is that it might be bad in RTÉ, where people are misclassified, but if you go out to the so-called independent sector, you do no not have any chance of ever having a job, which is far worse. I think that is what needs to be emphasised, and something needs to be done. I am interested in the witnesses’ comments about what is happening in that sector. From what I understand, in respect of the sort of worker whose jobs may now be suppressed in RTÉ, none of their equivalents working in the independent TV sector or the audiovisual sector has a contract of indefinite duration even though they have worked for that industry for decades – nobody – which is absolutely shocking.

Ms Emma O'Kelly

I agree with much of what the Deputy said. However hard it is to police employment in RTÉ - and it has been very hard - it is much harder in the private sector, and that is what we are facing. The Deputy spoke about the summer. Our worst fears are being brought to pass because we were hoping this would be a catalyst for positive change but it is a case of using a crisis to drive through another agenda. Even though there is absolutely no connection between the size of RTÉ and ordinary staff and ordinary workers in RTÉ, it seems we are the ones who are bearing the brunt of the scandals we heard about over the summer. We are seeing the workforce cut by one fifth. As the Deputy said, and I said it earlier, this will now be outsourced to the private sector. I have been contacted by people in the private sector since June. I looked back at some of the texts I got and one of them is from a person I know from years back. He spoke about the stress and insecurity of working in the private sector, going from gig to gig. He said that by your 40s, you are worn down. As the Deputy said, they have no contract – nothing.

The questions I wish to ask are as follows. Why is RTÉ being cut? I ask politicians why is this decision being taken to cut the RTÉ workforce by one fifth? I have not seen the rationale for that. Why do programmes have to be privatised wholesale, or whole parts of the organisation? Television entertainment is being emptied out at the moment. The plans for a Saturday night show have been shelved. It has all been hollowed out to be privatised. We do not why this is happening and we have seen no rationale for it. It all seems questionable. If one says something enough it becomes the truth or an accepted thing that just has to happen, and we do not understand why.

Ms Teresa Hannick

I totally agree with Ms O'Kelly. We are all led to believe that outsourcing in the private sector is best in everything. For example, people talk about how the health services would be great if a big business mogul ran it like a business. I think outsourcing is a way to move figures around on a balance sheet and helps the share price but it helps nothing else. There is concern within the industry regarding all that talent going out and being out there. History shows that when any big high-level chief executives or management makes decisions or companies go wrong, and one can think of all the scandals across the world, it is always the ordinary worker at the bottom who pays and that is the belief here again. I believe there is a responsibility on the Government, and every Department, to look at every contract, process or whatever and ensure governance is being done correctly.

What is the rationale? The rationale should not be just on a commercial basis to sell out jobs or get rid of jobs. We believe that RTÉ has very important cultural and artistic roles to play in society. To see jobs being downgraded, and the possibility of a future being downgraded, is incomprehensible but it does seem that this is the way to privatisation. I do not want to say it is Machiavellian but is very hard not to believe there is a desire out there to privatise RTÉ and sell it off to the highest bidder.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

On the issue of contracts, there has, correctly and understandably, been a focus on bogus self-employment and I do acknowledge the support that Deputy Boyd Barrett has given on that issue. I also acknowledge his support, over many years, on the related issue of the right of freelancers to be represented and the reform of competition law.

The issue is not just bogus self-employment. It is also a use of casual irregular contracts, sole trader contracts and the notion that some people can set themselves up as companies or have agents yet be treated in a different way. I see all of those as being part of a piece. I am a firm believer in the concept of people having contracts of service and reasonable but not extravagant pay. That is also a way in which we ensure that people pay their taxes and the State benefits. All of these other schemes are designed in different ways to deny people their rights, which has many consequences. I look forward to the HR review, both in terms of what it says and because it allows us to have an informed and focused discussion on why it is that we have this variety of things. When one ask that question, one is told that is the nature of the industry; it is stardust. We need an examination of that.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I know our witnesses have been here for quite a while and I thank for that. There can always be criticism of any organisation. On the policy side, I have always found the trade unions to be very generous with their time and information.

To come back to the point made by Deputy Boyd Barrett, if ire is to be directed at those who originally signed up, then the bulk of that ire needs to be directed at whoever designed these contracts in the first place. I appreciate the difficulties our guests have faced as trade union advocates dealing with those issues.

I wish to acknowledge that the independent production sector does a lot of good work. I appreciate that our guests have not said that but it is important to acknowledge it.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Definitely.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I want to respond to a point mentioned by Ms Hannick in respect of Equity being part of SIPTU. We are talking here about the future and we have talked a bit about the impact of artificial intelligence on productions and actors. Members may come in on this issue if they so wish. Obviously Ms Hannick will be aware of the disputes in the US involving the Screen Actors Guild and the Writers Guild of America. What consideration has been given to that issue and the impact it will have on employment within the sector?

Ms Teresa Hannick

We are part of FIA, the International Federation of Actors. There is significant concern. We have been very supportive of our colleagues in SAG-AFTRA and their dispute over the issue. The president of Irish Equity will shortly attend a seminar in Europe on the matter. There is huge concern about what this issue will mean. There is a difficulty for actors, particularly in this country, and in the context of how different agreements are transposed, regarding talent being brought to the screen and the residuals actors will get in the future. I read somewhere that the guy who played the character of Charlie Bucket in the original motion picture “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” still gets $500 a year in residual payments many years after that film was made. Residual payments are very important for a lot of actors because of the precarious nature of the work. Residual payments are very important as actors can work for a long time. Not everybody is a Cillian Murphy. This is especially important in Ireland, which is a small country. Production companies in this country put huge pressure on artists to sign away their residual payment, which is an income gone. Next is the problem of what will happen to the industry if artificial intelligence becomes the norm. We would follow what other unions do concerning these issues.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

Can Ms Hannick envisage a future episode of, say, “Fair City” being written by AI and some of the roles being voiced or, indeed, acted by AI?

Ms Teresa Hannick

I can envisage people attempting to do that. I would say, wearing my trade union hat, that Irish Equity would not allow that to happen in this country and would fight it tooth and nail. They are a very determined group of individuals and I understand why they would not want it. We do not want it. This is art and we should not dismiss it or downgrade it to just a few pixels on the screen. We are talking about people who can bring words to life and make us cry or laugh. Creatives bring the written word on to the screen and we should not lose that.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I agree because AI can never be a substitute for creativity. On the technical side, obviously technology will work in conjunction with human technical experts. Perhaps our guests would like a comment.

Mr. John Reynolds

As a group we have always engaged with technology. Certainly from when I was an apprentice electrician until now technology has changed massively, homes have become far more automated and what people watch television on has completely changed. No longer is it the television mounted on the wall. It is the smartphone, it is on the move, it is the snippets and it is on social media platforms. We have engaged with that, especially in RTÉ across the years. In the time that I have been in RTÉ we have gone from a 4:3 standard to widescreen, to online, to satellite and to all the various platforms. Most workers in RTÉ have an appetite to engage with technology going forward, including AI, but obviously not at the expense of good, well-paying jobs.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

The use of AI has huge relevance in terms of journalism, staffing and editorial resourcing because what we are going to need is greater fact-checking, and greater emphasis on tackling misinformation and disinformation. AI has great potential in terms of statistical and other analysis but it also requires a huge amount of vigilance. We have seen examples of false stories already. Concerns about AI must be factored into everything. A number of media organisations have said "Yes" and the future is AI but what they have not done is tell us what they are going to do.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I might ask Ms O'Kelly about this because she specifically and understandably mentioned that politicians are interested in elections. A number of elections will take place in the next 12 months. She mentioned the concern about disinformation. Does she see AI being used within the newsroom, particularly to combat disinformation?

How prepared does Ms O'Kelly think the RTÉ newsroom would be to tackle disinformation or a case of a deepfake in the middle of the general election campaign?

Ms Emma O'Kelly

I have not considered the issue of AI being used to tackle disinformation. That is the first thing. I have not considered that at all. It is a prospect.

On the issue of technology, beyond AI, RTÉ needs to invest in technology. RTÉ needs to be properly funded to invest in the technology it needs to do a better job. That is the first thing in terms of resourcing. On the upcoming elections, my point was that some of my colleagues are fearful of how we will be able to address the issues that will arise for the very first time in the coming elections compared with previous elections. Like never before, there will be disinformation and claims will be made and this will need to be fact-checked. I have said this already, but much of the time, resourcing is just a matter of people. We need bodies on the ground. We will need experienced journalists who will be able to focus purely on fact checking. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach mentioned deepfakes, and it is perfectly possible that something like that would arise. We are concerned with the level of resourcing we have currently because we are absolutely stretched to breaking point already. We are looking at the big new challenges we are facing, such as a series of important elections which are coming up. We are very concerned about how we will rise to our public service mandate and report accurately and fairly given all those new challenges. That is as much as I can say, because it is such new ground for us.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I am conscious of the opening question posed by my colleague, Deputy Christopher O’Sullivan. He spoke about the past 12 months and how difficult they have been. Certainly, we express our solidarity with many of the workers in RTÉ. Can we be optimistic when we look at the end of this 12-month process and when we get through all the reports. I welcome that all the unions have indicated their support for a publicly funded model from the Exchequer. I am assuming that would be handled through Coimisiún na Meán, which is an arm’s length body. Witnesses may wish to speak about this. In 12 months, when we get through all of this, because it is still critical for our democracy that we have a strong RTÉ, where do the witnesses see us?

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I hope we will not still be waiting for expert reports, which is what happened with the Future of Media Commission. It took a very long time. I sound that warning because we really need it. Assuming those reports are published, I believe we will move very quickly to an area where people will roll up their sleeves and have the resources to achieve reform. There is goodwill on the part of the trade union group. I think there is goodwill on the part of the leadership within RTÉ. Earlier, I was asked whether any good came out of this. One of the good things that has come out is the ability of the public to recognise the difference between a management culture and workers on the ground who deliver excellence in adverse circumstances. While people will have their differences about editorial decision-making, there is still respect for public service broadcasting, as well as an acknowledgement of what that means. In my experience, this is particularly the case outside the greater Dublin area, where people understand the importance of public service broadcasting. This is not just for RTÉ; there is also public interest journalism. In my view, one of the things informing that is how people are more and more aware of the alternative. They see the misinformation and reflect on what happens if we do not have informed, responsible and ethical journalism. If I were to be optimistic, I would say I think we can build on that. There is a contract that has been broken and it was not broken by us, but that contract has to be restored.

Mr. Brian Nolan

We have to draw a line and move on at some stage. Time and again here today the conversation about bogus self-employment has come up. We could refer to the document that was released about the future of RTÉ and we could bring up the horror stories about the 20% cuts and the outsourcing, but we should get away from that and focus on what needs to happen. The only way A New Direction for RTÉ can live up to its title is to consign bogus self-employment to history. It cannot continue within RTÉ. It should not continue anywhere. We have scars on our backs from construction and we deal with it day-in, day-out. RTÉ has the ability to fix that here and now. Yes, it has work to do to make good on the promises it broke. If it is to actually fulfil its obligations under the document A New Direction for RTÉ, the new direction must be the right direction with no bogus self-employment.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

I will give the very last words to Ms O’Kelly.

Ms Emma O'Kelly

I will be very brief. We just want to be able to do our jobs and have the resources to do them. We want this to be a place where talent can be nurtured and brought on. We want to complete our public service remit to the best of our abilities and to the highest quality by informing, educating and entertaining. That is it.

Deputy Brendan Griffin

I want to come in very briefly.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

It will have to be very quick because we need to wrap up.

Deputy Brendan Griffin

Very briefly, I thank the witnesses who came before the committee today, even those we had barneys with. I thank the union representatives. I want to ask three things at the very end of this meeting.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

Very quickly.

Deputy Brendan Griffin

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

Mr. Dooley may have ten seconds.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Nothing that has been said today is news to me. Our door is always open. I can commit to reopening an agreement. We certainly have no difficulty with looking at how we can assist workers, such as what the Deputy raised.

There are changes. There is a Supreme Court case on which it is ruling on the Domino's pizza case, which has direct implications for all those workers. That is something at which we will be looking.

Political support from all the parties with regard to the composition of the EU directive on workers and collective bargaining is probably the strongest thing the committee can do in terms of offering support. We are more than happy to sit down, but I am not going to deliver commitments at a minute's notice that I might not be able to meet.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Malcolm Byrne)

Okay. I thank all our witnesses and guests for coming here today and for their input. That concludes our public session. We now need to move into private session with members. We will suspend briefly to allow witnesses and guests to withdraw from the meeting before we resume again in private session.

Sitting suspended at 4.20 p.m. and resumed in private session at 4.22 p.m.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.31 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 15 May 2024.

Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media debate - Wednesday, 24 Apr 2024

Culture and Governance Issues at RTÉ: Discussion

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Brian Nolan

Ms Teresa Hannick

Mr. Brendan Byrne

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Mr. Zac Sloper

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Ms Teresa Hannick

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Zac Sloper

Mr. John Reynolds

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Ms Teresa Hannick

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Zac Sloper

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Teresa Hannick

Mr. Brendan Byrne

Mr. Brendan Byrne

Mr. Brendan Byrne

Mr. Brendan Byrne

Mr. Brendan Byrne

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Teresa Hannick

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Ms Emma O'Kelly

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media debate -
Wednesday, 24 Apr 2024