The Minister has now lost all authority. The question is whether the Taoiseach has the sense to act swiftly
THE words in the email were crystal clear: Communications Minister Denis Naughten was planning to ask the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to investigate the proposed takeover of Celtic Media Group by Independent News and Media. He was going to do so, the email stated, ‘because of the overall ownership of print and broadcast titles by DOB’.
The DOB in question was Denis O’Brien, the majority shareholder in INM and owner of Newstalk and Today FM, amongst others. When the email was written in November 2016, as a majority shareholder in INM Mr O’Brien had a very serious interest in knowing whether the planned takeover of Celtic Media was going ahead – or whether there would indeed be an investigation by the Broadcasting Authority, which could delay or even block the deal.
And that is precisely why the Government’s view of the matter should have been kept secret. It was one which had the potential to affect the value of both businesses: and INM is a public company, with shares traded on the stock exchange, meaning an advance warning about the Minister’s decision could be seen as price-sensitive information.
And yet, according to an email written by Nigel Heneghan, the owner of a well-known PR company, that information was not kept secret by the Minister. Mr Heneghan’s email states that Minister Naughten revealed his plans to Eoghan Ó Neachtain, a lobbyist employed by Heneghan PR on behalf of INM.
The email chain in question shows that on November 12 Mr Heneghan put the Minister’s views in an email to Leslie Buckley, the former chairman of INM and long-time friend and confidant of Mr O’Brien. Mr Buckley then passed the email on to Mr O’Brien. And so a decision which was not formally announced until January 2017 was conveyed to Mr O’Brien two months before anyone else knew.
MR Naughten insists that he has done nothing wrong. He says he did not tell Mr Ó Neachtain what he was going to decide as Minister: rather, he says, he told Mr Ó Neachtain his ‘personal opinion’ of what was likely to happen. In other words, Denis Naughten the Communications Minister is claiming that, for that brief moment, Denis Naughten stopped being the Communications Minister: for a few key seconds he became Denis Naughten the private citizen, who gave a purely personal opinion of what Denis Naughten the Communications Minister was likely to decide.
This is, of course, a nonsense. Mr Naughten was speaking as Minister to a PR representative of INM about a decision that would ultimately fall to him. In such a scenario, the Minister cannot have a personal opinion, far less give that opinion to the affected party: he can speak only as Minister.
Mr Naughten’s ludicrous proposition is like suggesting that a judge can give a court claimant a ‘personal opinion’ of the verdict he is likely to arrive at once all the evidence has been heard. It is like Joe Schmidt giving a ‘personal opinion’ of who’s going to be in the starting 15 on Saturday. It’s an artificial and non-existent distinction that lacks credibility.
It is also disingenuous of Mr Naughten to suggest that he was merely telling the INM lobbyist what everyone already knew. In fact, a great many people thought the deal would NOT be referred to the BAI. That very day, for example, Adworld online magazine stated that the deal ‘still requires the imprimatur of the Minister for Communications Denis Naughten, but it [is] expected to get the all-clear before Christmas’.
The National Union of Journalists did not know what decision was going to be made: that’s why it so publicly implored the Minister to send it to the BAI. The journalists in the Celtic Media Group – many of whom stood to lose their jobs under the takeover plan – did not know. And TDs clearly did not know: that’s why they asked Mr Naughten questions in the Dáil about what he planned to do! If they had known what was going to happen, why would they have bothered asking questions?
Indeed, Mr Heneghan cautioned that the Minister’s thinking was ‘to be treated as highly confidential’. If what was being relayed was something that everyone knew, then why would it need to be treated as confidential?
The reality is that this belief was not common knowledge: and three weeks later on December 6, 2016, Mr Naughten gave the Dáil an entirely different answer to what was essentially the same question. In that instance, he did not remotely suggest that any one outcome was likelier than any other. He said that no decision had in fact been taken. And he insisted – with no apparent irony: ‘I have not made my views known and I am not going to.’
The Minister’s position is further undermined by the fact that his conversation with INM’s lobbyist was kept entirely secret. It was not recorded in the lobbyists’ register by the lobbyist. It was not reported by Mr Naughten to his officials. No formal note or transcript was taken. And yet this was a conversation with the representative of the affected party in a takeover deal on which the Minister would have to rule.
Mr Naughten claims he didn’t mention the conversation to his staff because he ‘didn’t see the significance of it’. If he can’t see the significance of a Minister telling an interested party the likely outcome of a ministerial decision he will have to make, then frankly he’s not up to the job of being a minister at all.
Moreover, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement is concerned enough to have included this email in court affidavits in which he argues that material passed by Mr Buckley to Mr O’Brien may have breached stock market rules. If the ODCE didn’t believe that Mr Naughten actually revealed anything, why would he suggest that this might be an example of Mr O’Brien receiving information ahead of other shareholders?
Equally, we cannot ignore the issue of the people to whom Mr Naughten’s ‘opinion’ was passed. Denis O’Brien is without question the most powerful media figure in the State. He owns numerous radio stations and exerts a very powerful influence over INM, the biggest newspaper publisher in the country. Mr Naughten is the Communications Minister – the man responsible for overall policy towards newspapers and radio stations. Mr Naughten is also in charge of policy regarding INM and Communicorp’s competitors – for example RTÉ. The State broadcaster has long been lobbying for a move from the licence fee to a more general broadcasting charge – a move Mr Naughten has repeatedly rejected, even though RTÉ says it is vital to its future.
THUS it is vital that the Communications Minister is seen by all as being scrupulously neutral when it comes to matters pertaining to media businesses: yet by giving a confidential ‘opinion’ to INM’s lobbyists, Mr Naughten has shattered that notion. He may be seen as having done a favour for INM – and thus by extension to Mr O’Brien, INM’s biggest shareholder.
Thus Mr Naughten’s position is clearly untenable: the question now is simply whether the Taoiseach will put expediency ahead of probity.
The indications so far are that Leo Varadkar is prepared to stand by Mr Naughten. That is his right. Mr Varadkar is probably correct in thinking that the Opposition are unlikely to risk forcing an election, and that he can keep Mr Naughten in government and survive. He may well be right: but if he does so, he badly underestimates the damage it will do.
Standing by Mr Naughten will damage the office of Communications Minister at a time when that office, and its office-holder, need to be utterly beyond reproach. It will damage the reputation of politics as a whole. And it will damage Mr Varadkar himself.
The Taoiseach’s reputation is based largely on the idea that he is different: that he is a man of integrity, unafraid to call out unacceptable behaviour in public life. By insisting on keeping Mr Naughten in office, he risks damaging that reputation – and losing his electoral trump card. He risks being seen as just another politician who will call out unacceptable behaviour when it makes him look good, but will endorse unacceptable conduct by his ministers when it suits him. It is time for Mr Naughten to go: and if the Government refuses to act when it is right, there is no way of telling who the Communications Minister will take with him when he is finally forced out.