Irish Examiner view: Time to identify legal implications surrounding RTÉ scandal

Ryan Tubridy and Noel Kelly were at PAC to discuss the controversy which has now been rolling on for three weeks

When the story first broke, statements were issued by Mr Tubridy and by Mr Kelly’s company in which the responsibility for discrepancies was firmly placed on RTÉ’s shoulders. Picture: Colin Keegan/Collins

Ryan Tubridy returned to our televisions and radios yesterday, and it could be argued that his performance was as compelling as any of his outings on The Late Late Show.

It would have been surprising if anyone had suggested in March, when Mr Tubridy announced he was leaving RTÉ’s flagship chatshow, that his comeback would be on Oireachtas TV. However, he and his agent, Noel Kelly, were at the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to discuss the controversy which has now been rolling on for three weeks, a controversy in which they remain central characters.

When the story first broke, statements were issued by Mr Tubridy and by Mr Kelly’s company in which the responsibility for discrepancies was firmly placed on RTÉ’s shoulders. Though Mr Tubridy apologised “unreservedly” in a subsequent statement, the message from Mr Kelly to the committee meeting yesterday ran along lines familiar from that initial statement three weeks ago.

In his opening remarks yesterday, Mr Kelly sought to change the narrative by stating that his client, Mr Tubridy, had been made the “poster boy” for the entire controversy, adding: “This is not the Ryan Tubridy scandal. This is the RTÉ scandal.”

When the committee members raised questions about the now-notorious invoices, Mr Kelly said that he had been following instructions from RTÉ when he put “consultancy fees” instead of Mr Tubridy’s name on them.

The committee drilled into the details of Renault’s commercial commitments as well as the undoubted toll taken on Mr Tubridy and his family by the events of recent weeks, not to mention diversions into the radio preferences of Green Party TD Marc Ó Cathasaigh’s “missus”. But the lack of
clarity around responsibility for these invoices persists, and remains perhaps the most pressing issue.

Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy got to the heart of the matter when saying at the committee that invoices are not a “creative” document, adding: “So essentially, both sides were complicit in what the chair of the [RTÉ] board said was ‘designed to deceive’.”

By assigning responsibility to “both sides”, Murphy may have moved this controversy onto its next, and hopefully concluding phase: Identifying its precise legal implications and acting accordingly.

Extraordinary call by Cork City Council

On Monday evening, a meeting of Cork City Council agreed to dispose of part of the city’s Bishop Lucey Park to a Freemasons group.

Councillors voted 18-7 to dispose of the 54 sq m parcel — 1% of the area of the park — to the Provincial Grand Lodge of Munster Freemasons for €1, plus €1,500 costs, in order to facilitate an extension to the rear of the Masonic Hall on Tuckey St to improve fire safety and universal access.

In order to extend the facility into the park, trees will have to be removed, and the Freemasons have committed to replacing those trees, while the organisation is to open their facilities to community groups for 20 hours a week as part of the deal.

Those provisions notwithstanding, this seems to be an extraordinary decision. At the council meeting on Monday evening, one public representative said this move had occurred so that “an elitist, sexist, private members’ club” could “have a bigger clubhouse”, and there are wider questions raised by this deal.

It is reducing space in a public park at a time when Cork needs more green areas within the city boundaries rather than fewer. It is a decision which is being made by a public body for the benefit of a private organisation which is well known for being secretive, despite the provision obliging the Freemasons to open the hall to community groups.

The deal has implications for Cork City Council’s own climate change targets, as outlined by councillors on Monday, and concerns have been raised already about the extent of the necessary works and the implications for access and use of the park while those works are going on.

The council’s eagerness to facilitate the Freemasons is surprising enough. What is even more remarkable is the prospect of the council, not the tight-lipped Freemasons, explaining the rationale behind the decision.

Ireland and Nato

The recent debate about Ireland’s neutrality and general security architecture stirred the emotions — the national attachment to neutrality is clearly one that runs deep, and the pros and cons of joining Nato, for instance, would have to be debated fully.

That debate may be necessary sooner rather than later, given how events are moving elsewhere in Europe.

For instance, there was some surprise in Vilnius yesterday when Turkey changed its previous stance in order to support Sweden’s bid to enter Nato. This has major implications, as it will bring a large nation on Russia’s northeastern flank under the Nato umbrella, while it will also have consequences for Russia further south.

It means that Nato can now be more focused in its support of Ukraine in its war against Russia — France declared yesterday that it would be sending the Ukrainian armed forces more munitions and support — though it is far from clear whether Ukraine itself will be joining Nato soon. Germany sees Ukraine’s future in Nato, for instance, but has not committed to a specific roadmap for membership.

These are considerations that come along with Nato membership — a commitment to security on a wider scale than Ireland is used to. Is it a scale we need to become accustomed to as the world changes, however? That’s a question which will no doubt come up again as we debate security — at home and abroad.