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 substantialcommercial 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?
The Defence Forces are expanding towards a planned strength of 11,500 personnel by 2028, and an increasing proportion of new recruits were born outside Ireland.
According to reported figures, between 13% and 18% of recruits since 2022 have been born outside the Irish State. That statistic deserves discussion, but we need to ask the right question. Being foreign-born does not make somebody a security threat. Many foreign-born people have lived in Ireland for years, have built their lives here and subsequently become Irish citizens. Others eligible to join include EEA nationals, recognised refugees and people with subsidiary protection who meet residency and other requirements.
The real national-security issue is therefore not someone’s place of birth. It is how Ireland vets military personnel and decides who gets access to our most sensitive capabilities. Every Defence Forces applicant undergoes security vetting. The Department of Defence has confirmed that this is carried out with the assistance of An Garda Síochána and that cases involving an overseas or non-national component can require contact with international vetting authorities.
That is reassuring. But as Ireland invests heavily in defence, cyber capabilities, intelligence, radar, communications, weapons systems and maritime security, another question arises; should every person who can join the Defence Forces automatically be eligible for every sensitive military appointment?
Other democracies make an important distinction between being eligible to serve and being eligible to access highly classified information. The United States allows lawful permanent residents to enlist, but non-US citizens generally cannot obtain a personnel security clearance. That restricts access to classified information and certain sensitive military occupations.
The United Kingdom also recruits some non-UK nationals but operates several levels of national-security vetting. Higher-level vetting can examine overseas connections, financial circumstances, family relationships and other vulnerabilities relevant to foreign influence or coercion. Some particularly sensitive national-security and intelligence positions may also be restricted by nationality.
Canada permits permanent residents to serve in its armed forces, but its security system is similarly graduated. Under recent reforms, Canadian citizenship is required for Top Secret and Enhanced Top Secret clearance, alongside stronger continuing security checks.
So what is Ireland’s equivalent? That is the question I believe deserves a clear public answer. Ireland should be able to welcome people who genuinely wish to serve their adopted country, while simultaneously protecting intelligence, cyber systems, strategic communications, weapons and other sensitive military capabilities. Those two objectives are not contradictory. A modern security system should assess the individual, not stereotype somebody according to birthplace. But it should also recognise that foreign intelligence services seek leverage through relationships, financial pressure, overseas connections, coercion and access to information. And those risks can apply to Irish-born personnel too.
Perhaps Ireland therefore needs a more clearly defined system in which eligibility to join the Defence Forces; eligibility to receive particular security clearances; and eligibility to work in the most sensitive areas of intelligence, cyber, communications and strategic defenceare treated as separate questions.
There may already be classified safeguards that cannot sensibly be made public. But the Government should at least be able to explain the principles governing the system. With the Defence Forces expanding rapidly and Ireland facing a much more complicated international security environment, this is not a question about ethnicity or immigration. It is a question about national security, loyalty, vetting and access to sensitive information. Ireland should welcome anyone who is eligible and genuinely committed to serving the Irish State. But the State also has a duty to ensure that whoever gets access to its most sensitive military capabilities, Irish-born or foreign-born, has been vetted to a standard appropriate to that responsibility.
As we expand our Defence Forces, perhaps the question we should be asking is; “Do Ireland’s security-clearance rules match the military we are now trying to build?”
Parents across Thurles and County Tipperary are being advised to prepare for possible school closures on Wednesday, October 14, as teachers and other public-sector workers plan a nationwide 24-hour strike.
Primary teachers represented by the INTO and secondary teachers represented by the ASTI are due to begin work-to-rule action from Monday, October 5th, before joining the wider public-service strike on October 14th if the dispute remains unresolved.
The action is linked to the continuing dispute over a new public-sector pay agreement. The previous agreement expired at the end of June, with unions seeking assurances that cost-of-living pressures will be addressed as part of negotiations.
Some schools have already contacted parents warning that disruption is likely. The work-to-rule may also affect duties carried out by teachers outside normal contracted hours, including some early-morning supervision arrangements. Schools affected by changes to supervision are expected to communicate directly with parents.
Formal parent-teacher meetings and other activities normally carried out using additional “Croke Park hours” may also be affected by the industrial action.
Union leaders told Public Expenditure Minister Mr Jack Chambers this week that there is currently “no basis” for entering negotiations under the existing framework. The Government says it remains willing to enter talks, including without preconditions, and says any new agreement must be affordable and sustainable.
If the planned October 14th strike proceeds, schools in Thurles, across Tipperary and throughout the country could face widespread closures, although parents should await confirmation directly from their child’s school.
Further updates are expected as talks between unions and the Government continue.
Are you looking for temporary work in your local area and an opportunity to play a part in an important national project?
The Central Statistics Office (CSO) will be recruiting over 3,880 Census Field Support Officers across Ireland for Census 2027. These roles will involve working in local communities, helping and supporting members of the public as they complete their Census.
Applications open: 23 November 2026
Positions available nationwide
Temporary contract: 5 April – 28 May 2027
This could be a great opportunity for individuals who enjoy meeting people, working in their local community and being part of a nationwide team.
For further information and to apply when recruitment opens, visit: www.census.ie
Please feel free to share this post with anyone who may be interested in working with Census 2027.
The Cost-of-Living Crisis And Its Impact On Mental Health.
We need to stop pretending that the cost-of-living crisis is only about money. It is about stress. It is about anxiety. It is about lying awake at night wondering how the next electricity bill will be paid. It is about standing in a supermarket adding up the cost of groceries before reaching the checkout. It is about parents cutting back on their own needs so their children do not go without. It is about people working hard, doing everything they were told they were supposed to do, and still feeling as though they are falling further behind.
Increasingly, all of the above is becoming a mental health crisis. Yes, the growing cost-of-living crisis is having consequences that reach far beyond household finances. It is increasingly affecting people’s mental health, emotional wellbeing, and sense of security.
Recent research from St Patrick’s Mental Health Services found that almost three-quarters of more than 1,000 adults surveyed, identified the cost of living as the leading factor negatively affecting their mental health. The same research found that 92% of respondents believe there is a worrying level of anxiety in society.
These findings should be taken seriously. Behind these statistics are individuals and families facing the daily pressure of rising food prices, rents, energy bills, housing costs, childcare expenses, and other essential living costs. For many people, financial stress is no longer an occasional concern. It has become a constant presence in their everyday life. This pressure can have a profound impact on mental wellbeing. Financial insecurity can affect sleep, concentration, relationships, confidence, and a person’s sense of hope for the future. People may continue going to work, caring for their families, and carrying out their daily responsibilities, while privately struggling with anxiety and fear.
It is important that we continue encouraging people to seek support when they are struggling with their mental health. Counselling, professional services, community supports, family networks, and open conversations all have an essential role to play. However, we must also recognise that mental health does not exist separately from the daily circumstances in which people live. It is difficult to reduce anxiety when someone is unsure how they will pay their rent or mortgage. It is difficult to manage stress when a household is choosing between heating, food, childcare, and other essentials. It is difficult to tell people simply to “look after themselves” without acknowledging the real and continuing financial pressures many are experiencing.
For some people, anxiety is a direct response to difficult and uncertain circumstances. That means our conversations about mental health must also include honest discussions about housing, wages, energy costs, food prices, childcare, poverty, and financial security. There are encouraging signs that more people are willing to seek help for mental health difficulties, and that progress should be welcomed. No person should ever feel ashamed for admitting that they are struggling or for asking for support. At the same time, too many people continue to suffer in silence. Some do not want to worry their families. Others feel embarrassed about financial difficulties or believe they should simply be able to cope. Many appear outwardly well while carrying significant stress privately.
We need a culture in which people feel able to say, without shame, “I am struggling,” or “The financial pressure is becoming too much.” We also need to recognise that meaningful responses to mental health difficulties cannot focus solely on helping people cope with pressure. We must also address the conditions contributing to that pressure. People need accessible mental health services, strong community supports, secure housing, financial stability, and the dignity of knowing that working hard should provide a reasonable standard of living. This is not about creating fear or hopelessness. It is about acknowledging the reality facing many people and responding with compassion, seriousness, and practical action.
The question we should be asking is not only, “Why are so many people experiencing anxiety?” We must also ask what pressures people are being expected to carry every day and what can be done to reduce them.
The cost-of-living crisis is not simply an economic issue. It is a social issue. It is a family issue and increasingly, it is a mental health issue. We must continue to support those who are struggling, encourage open conversations about mental health, and work towards a society in which people can live with greater security, dignity, and hope for the future.
Political Parties And Their Response To Concerns. The pressure created by the cost of living should also encourage the public to look carefully at how political parties respond to these concerns. Governments must ultimately be judged on the decisions they make, the measures they implement, and the results those measures produce. Opposition parties, meanwhile, have an important responsibility to challenge Government policy and present alternatives, but those alternatives should be examined with the same seriousness. Promises made in opposition can sound attractive, particularly when households are under severe financial pressure, but voters are entitled to ask whether those commitments have been properly costed, whether they can realistically be delivered, what trade-offs would be required, and how they would be funded over the longer term.
Ireland already has mechanisms through which political parties can have proposals independently costed by the Department of Finance and Department of Public Expenditure, while the Parliamentary Budget Office also provides independent analysis of fiscal and budgetary proposals.
For that reason, public debate on the cost-of-living crisis should not become simply a competition over which parties can make the largest or most appealing promise. The same standard of scrutiny should apply to everybody seeking political power; those in Government should be questioned about what they have actually delivered and whether existing policies are working, while those seeking to replace them should be challenged to demonstrate that their alternatives are financially sustainable and practically achievable.
Previous analysis of Irish election manifestos has shown that substantial spending commitments can be made across both Government and Opposition parties and that questions can arise about whether the total package of promises fits within prudent fiscal limits.
When families are already experiencing financial stress and anxiety, political debate should therefore be grounded not only in promises, but in true credible figures, realistic implementation plans and an honest explanation of the choices and the consequences involved.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Recent Comments