Archives

RTÉ Funding – Is The Irish Government Right To Ask Where The Money Is Going?

The Irish Government has decided that RTÉ will receive €240 million in public funding in 2027 instead of the €260 million previously promised.

That statement raises two important questions:
Is the Government justified in holding back the extra €20 million? And has RTÉ delivered the reforms it promised in return for such substantial public funding?

RTÉ Director General Mr Kevin Bakhurst strongly disagrees with the Government’s decision. He says RTÉ planned its future on the basis of a three-year Government funding commitment and that changing the figure at this late stage will affect its five-year strategy.
And he has a point. But taxpayers are also entitled to look at what RTÉ promised to deliver in return.
What happened to the promised staff reductions?
One of RTÉ’s major reform commitments was to become a smaller and more efficient organisation. RTÉ’s strategy proposed reducing its workforce by up to 400 positions, roughly 20% of its workforce, over the five-year transformation programme.
Its 2025 Voluntary Exit Programme was therefore an important first test.
RTÉ received 325 applications from staff wishing to leave, and RTÉ itself said its target for 2025 was “over 100” exits under the voluntary scheme.
What actually happened? Only 67 employees left through the Voluntary Exit Programme in 2025.
RTÉ also abolished or “suppressed” another 30 posts, giving a headline figure of 97 positions removed.

But there is an important distinction. Sixty seven people actually left through the redundancy programme. The additional 30 were posts removed following other departures or organisational changes.
Therefore, against RTÉ’s own stated target of more than 100 voluntary exits in 2025, only 67 were achieved. That means the actual redundancy programme delivered roughly two-thirds of its first-year target. And RTÉ still has a very considerable distance to travel if it is to achieve its overall ambition of reducing staff numbers by up to 400.

RTÉ’s own internal review subsequently acknowledged that the voluntary exit scheme failed to produce departures on the scale required. It found that the criteria were restrictive, the application period was too short and that, if the experience were repeated, RTÉ might have to make around 500 offers to achieve 300 exits. That surely strengthens the Government’s argument that the promised transformation has not progressed as quickly as expected.

What about RTÉ’s €22.5 million surplus?

RTÉ reported a €22.5 million surplus for 2025. At first glance that produces an obvious question: Why does an organisation reporting a €22.5m surplus need another €20m from Government? The answer is more complicated.
RTÉ says some planned expenditure was postponed into 2026 and that part of the surplus arose from accounting adjustments rather than cash sitting unused.
It also says €9.6 million resulted from the release of accounting provisions and accruals, so that portion should not simply be regarded as spare cash.

Nevertheless, taxpayers are entitled to ask:

  • Exactly which projects were postponed?
  • How much did each project cost?
  • How much of the €22.5m surplus represented genuine underspending?
  • And why isn’t that information presented in a simple, easily understood breakdown?

RTÉ receives much more than €240 million overall.
There is another important point often overlooked in this debate. RTÉ does not operate on €240 million alone. In 2025 its total revenue was approximately €383.4 million. That included licence-fee income, additional Government funding and substantial commercial income from advertising and other activities.
So the €240m being discussed is RTÉ’s public-funding allocation, is not the broadcaster’s entire annual income.
RTÉ operates television channels, radio stations, news services, RTÉ Player, digital services, regional reporting, Irish-language broadcasting, sport, drama, entertainment, documentaries and cultural programming.
Nobody seriously suggests all of this can be provided for nothing. But when hundreds of millions of euro of public money are involved, the public is entitled to know exactly what it is buying.

Where is all the money going?
There should be a straightforward annual statement telling taxpayers:

  • How much goes on staff?
  • How much goes on management?
  • How much goes on television and radio programmes?
  • How much goes on sports rights?
  • How much goes to independent producers?
  • How much goes on buildings and property?
  • How much goes on technology?
  • How much has actually been saved?
  • And crucially, How many of the promised redundancies and staff reductions have actually happened?

The Government certainly has questions to answer.
It publicly committed itself to predictable multi-year funding and RTÉ understandably made plans on that basis, but RTÉ also made commitments. It promised a smaller, more agile organisation and proposed reducing staffing by up to 400 positions.
In the first major voluntary redundancy programme, RTÉ sought more than 100 exits. Despite receiving 325 applications, only 67 people ultimately departed under that scheme. That cannot reasonably be described as the level of progress originally envisaged. Public funding should come with public accountability. So perhaps the real question is not simply whether RTÉ should receive €240m or €260m.

It is this:
Before another €20 million of taxpayers’ money is handed over, shouldn’t RTÉ be required to show clearly how the money already provided has been spent, why its redundancy programme fell short of its own target, how it intends to achieve the promised reduction of up to 400 positions and exactly what measurable reforms the public/taxpayer is getting in return?

Derelict Tipperary – Government Turns Up The Heat On Empty And Abandoned Properties

Not before time, owners of derelict properties across Co. Tipperary are facing a tougher new regime as the Government moves to increase pressure on long-neglected buildings and bring more vacant properties back into use.

Budget 2027 has put dereliction firmly back on the agenda, with plans for a new ‘Derelict Property Tax’ intended to strengthen enforcement nationally.
For Tipperary, however, the crackdown is already well under way. Tipperary County Council says the number of properties on its Derelict Sites Register rose from 84 in January 2025 to more than 120 by the end of that year, as its Vacant Homes Team stepped up efforts to identify neglected buildings and engage with owners.
The Council has also initiated compulsory purchase proceedings, with one property already transferred into Council ownership.

Owners face a clear choice.
At present, once a property is entered on the Derelict Sites Register, Tipperary County Council can require its owner to carry out works to remove the dereliction.
Failure to act can lead to financial penalties, an annual levy equivalent to 7% of the property’s market value, court proceedings or, ultimately, the property being acquired through a Compulsory Purchase Order.

That means the message to owners is becoming increasingly clear:

Repair it. Sell it. Bring it back into use. Or face escalating intervention.

Tipperary is already identifying more properties The increase in properties appearing on the county’s register is significant.
Rather than waiting for complaints alone, the Council says its teams have been actively identifying vacant and derelict sites throughout Co. Tipperary and intensifying engagement with owners.
Residents can also report suspected vacant or derelict properties, which the Council’s Vacant Homes Team can then investigate and follow up with the owner.
This could have major implications for all towns and villages where abandoned houses, former shops and deteriorating buildings have remained unused for years.

But there is money available to save these buildings
The Government’s approach is not based solely on taxation and enforcement.
Owners and purchasers of qualifying properties in Tipperary can currently receive up to €50,000 through the Vacant Property Refurbishment Grant, with an additional €20,000, where the building is confirmed as derelict.
That means a qualifying derelict property could receive grant assistance of up to €70,000 to bring it back into residential use. The scheme is already having a substantial impact locally.
By the time Tipperary County Council prepared its 2026 budget, it had received 784 applications, approved 576 of them and recorded more than €33 million in housing investment through the programme. More than 200 completed properties had already returned to occupation.

Empty rooms over shops are also being targeted.
A further initiative launched this year could make a significant difference to Tipperary’s town centres. Since March 2026, grants of up to €135,000 have been available to help convert qualifying vacant space above commercial premises into homes.
There is also additional funding where an entire former commercial building is being converted into multiple residential units.
These measures could prove particularly important in traditional Tipperary town centres, where many street-level shops remain in use, while upper floors have stood empty for decades.

A major test for Tipperary, The policies are now in place. The real question is whether enforcement will follow. Tipperary has hundreds of buildings and sites capable of becoming homes, businesses or community facilities instead of remaining boarded up and deteriorating.
The Government and local authorities are increasingly combining grants for those willing to act with financial penalties and compulsory purchase powers for properties that remain derelict.
For owners, the days when an abandoned building could simply be left untouched indefinitely may be coming to an end. For the people of Tipperary, the hope will be that this new push does more than add names to a register.

The real measure of success will be seeing boarded-up and crumbling properties restored, occupied and brought back into the life of our towns and villages.

Millions Spent, Billions Committed – Who Is Protecting The Irish Taxpayer?

At what point do individual controversies over public spending stop looking like isolated incidents and start raising a much bigger question about governance, oversight, accountability and value for taxpayers’ money?

Consider what we now know.
€4.38 Million – And Not A Single Student Bed Delivered
Dublin City University has written off €4.38 million in professional fees connected with a proposed student accommodation development.
Planning permission had originally been secured for 1,235 student beds at DCU.
A first phase involving 405 beds received approval in principle for Government support, but following tendering, escalating construction costs raised value-for-money concerns and the development did not proceed.
DCU says the €4.38 million included architectural and planning fees, two tender processes and redesign work required to comply with updated building regulations.
Planning permission remains valid until 2029 and DCU is continuing to seek a viable funding solution, meaning the provision could potentially be reversed if the project ultimately proceeds.
But the position today remains stark; €4.38 million spent – and no additional student accommodation delivered.
At a time when students are struggling to find somewhere affordable to live, that deserves serious scrutiny.

Dublin City University.

The National Children’s Hospital — From €987 Million To About €2.24 Billion

Then there is the National Children’s Hospital. Construction began in 2016 and the project has experienced repeated delays and escalating costs.
The estimated project cost has risen from approximately €987 million to €2.24 billion.
As recently as September 2026, contractor BAM had submitted claims amounting to €983 million in disputed additional costs. These are claims, not established additional liabilities, and there remain substantial contractual disagreements between BAM and the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board.
Whatever the eventual outcome of those disputes, the public is entitled to ask how one of the most important infrastructure projects in the history of the Irish State became so expensive and so delayed.

A Bicycle Shelter At Leinster House, €336,000.
Then came the €336,000 bicycle shelter at Leinster House. This was not simply a case of members of the public deciding that something looked expensive.
A subsequent Deloitte audit found an “absence of some fundamental good practices”, including the absence of a value-for-money assessment before the project proceeded.
The audit found that when the decision was taken to proceed in 2021, project costs were neither presented nor discussed.
That is precisely the type of governance issue taxpayers should be concerned about.
If nobody properly establishes whether a project represents value for money before approving it, how can taxpayers have confidence that their money is being protected?

€336,000 Bicycle Shed

A Security Pavilion, €1.429 Million
A separate security pavilion at the Leinster House/Government Buildings complex cost €1.429 million. It is important to acknowledge that this was considerably more than a simple “security hut”.
The OPW said the development followed a Garda security review and incorporated extensive security, communications, CCTV, anti-ram protection, mechanical and electrical systems, underground works and the re-routing of existing services.
The OPW also stated that the work went through an open competitive tender process.
Nevertheless, €1.429 million remains an extraordinary amount of public money for a relatively small structure, and its cost understandably became another focus of questions over value for money in public construction.

Up To €3.9 Million In EV Grant Overpayments – Only About €109,000 Recovered
Now here we have another troubling example. The Comptroller and Auditor General has examined overpayments under the State scheme supporting electric vehicle purchases.
When the scheme was extended to demonstration vehicles purchased by dealerships, EU State-aid limits applied.
But the administration of the scheme relied heavily on self-declaration to establish whether individual dealerships were connected to larger dealership groups for the purposes of those limits.

  • That system failed to identify all of the relevant linked businesses.
  • The potential overpayments were subsequently estimated at up to €3.9 million.
  • As of September 2026, only approximately €109,000 had been recovered.
  • Some dealerships are contesting SEAI’s assessment, so it would be wrong to imply that every disputed euro has definitively been improperly retained.
  • But the Comptroller and Auditor General’s findings raise a fundamental governance question:- Why were sufficiently robust verification controls not in place before millions of euro in public money were paid out?

See also previous post:- “€20m Armoured Vehicle Fleet Raises Serious Questions Over Value For Money”. View HERE.

The Common Thread: Governance Before Spending
These projects and schemes are very different. They involve different organisations, different circumstances and different explanations.
It would therefore be unfair to suggest that every euro involved represents “waste”. But taken together, they raise legitimate and serious questions about how the Irish State protects taxpayers’ money:-

Electric Charging Station.
  1. €4.38 million in professional fees on student accommodation that has yet to produce a bed.
  2. €336,000 for the Leinster House bicycle shelter, followed by an audit identifying shortcomings in fundamental project practices.
  3. €1.429 million for a security pavilion.
  4. Up to €3.9 million in disputed EV grant overpayments, with only about €109,000 recovered so far.
  5. A National Children’s Hospital now estimated at about €2.24 billion, following years of delays and substantial contractual disputes.

The common issue is not whether Ireland should build hospitals, provide student accommodation, improve security, install bicycle facilities or encourage electric vehicles. Of course we should invest in public services and infrastructure.
The question is whether we consistently demand the same discipline when spending taxpayers’ money that families and businesses are expected to exercise with their own.

Governance should mean proper business cases before projects begin:-

Independent challenge of costs;
Meaningful value-for-money assessments;
Strong verification before grants are paid;
Clear responsibility for decisions;
Continuous monitoring as costs change;
Swift action when something goes wrong.

Accountability after money has been spent is important, but prevention is far better.
Every million unnecessarily lost to poor planning, inadequate controls, excessive costs or avoidable delays is a million that cannot be spent on housing, healthcare, disability services, education, policing or other essential public services and ultimately there is no mysterious pot of “Government money”. It is “taxpayers’ money”.
The public has every right to expect that those entrusted with spending it can demonstrate not merely that procedures were followed, but that value was obtained. Because repeatedly discovering problems after millions, or billions, have already been committed is not enough.

Public money should be protected before it is spent, not simply explained after it is gone.

Ireland Should Move Forward On Plug-In Solar

We recently looked into why small plug-in solar systems, sometimes called balcony solar, are widely available in countries such as Germany but are still difficult to use in Ireland.

Irish households are paying some of the highest electricity prices in Europe. Eurostat reported that Ireland had the highest household electricity price in the EU in the second half of 2025, at €40.42 per 100 kWh compared with an EU average of €28.96. At prices like these, people should have access to every safe and affordable way of reducing the amount of electricity they have to buy from the grid.

Balcony Solar

Small plug-in solar systems will not solve Ireland’s energy-cost problem, but they could give households a simple and relatively low-cost way to generate some of their own electricity. If certified 800-watt systems can be used safely elsewhere in Europe, Ireland should move quickly to establish clear standards, simple registration and approved products so Irish consumers can benefit too.

The answer is surprisingly simple. The solar panels themselves are not the problem. The main issue is how our electrical and grid rules currently treat them.
In Germany, households can buy small solar kits, often around 800 watts, connect an approved micro-inverter and register the system through a simplified process.
Some of these complete systems are sold by retailers such as Lidl for only a few hundred euro.

In Ireland, however, a small plug-in system is currently treated much more like a conventional solar installation. Grid-connected solar generally has to comply with ESB Networks requirements, Irish electrical standards and microgeneration connection rules.
That makes a €300–€500 DIY solar kit far less practical here.

The good news is that Ireland is now actively examining the issue. The Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment has been considering plug-in mini-solar, together with ESB Networks and other relevant bodies. Safety issues, including how electricity flows back through household circuits are part of that work.
Nobody is suggesting that electrical safety should be ignored. But other European countries have shown that small solar systems can operate within clear limits, using approved equipment and appropriate registration.

For Ireland, the important questions are now straightforward:

  • What maximum output should be allowed?
  • What safety standards should the inverter meet?
  • What electrical protections are required?
  • Can consumers register an approved system through a simple online process?

Once those questions are settled, Ireland can publish clear rules so consumers and retailers know exactly where they stand.
Small plug-in solar will not replace rooftop solar farms or large home PV systems. But it could give people living in apartments, rented homes or houses, where a full solar installation isn’t practical, another way to generate some of their own electricity.
It could also lower the entry cost of solar from several thousand euro to a few hundred euro.

Ireland has already spent considerable time examining this technology. The next useful step is for the Government, ESB Networks, CRU, NSAI and Safe Electric to complete that work and publish a clear, safe framework.

If an approved 800-watt solar kit can be safely used by households elsewhere in Europe, Ireland deserves a clear answer on how, and under what conditions, the same technology can be used here.

Let’s get the rules settled and give Irish consumers clarity.

Fuel Costs And Carbon Tax Back In The Spotlight Ahead Of Budget 2027.

Pressure is growing on the Government to address Ireland’s high fuel and energy costs ahead of Budget 2027.

More than 1,000 people attended a public meeting in Moate, Co Westmeath, where organisers warned that further protests could follow if the Budget does not deliver meaningful reductions in fuel costs.
Among the demands raised was the complete abolition of the carbon tax on fuel, alongside further reductions in other fuel taxes and additional support for households, farmers, hauliers and businesses struggling with rising costs.

The debate comes as motorists continue to face significant prices at the pumps. September figures from AA Ireland showed petrol averaging around €1.87 per litre and diesel around €1.94 per litre.
The Government has already introduced temporary excise reductions and postponed some planned tax increases. However, those measures are temporary, and decisions on what happens next are expected to form part of Budget 2027, on October 6th.
Representatives of the haulage sector have also warned that further fuel protests cannot be ruled out, if businesses continue to face unsustainable diesel costs.

With the Budget approaching, the key questions now are whether existing fuel-tax reductions will be extended, whether further relief will be introduced, and what decision will be made on carbon-tax measures.

For households and businesses depending heavily on fuel, the outcome could have a significant impact on costs heading into the winter.