Naughten had to go for myriad of failings

REGULAR readers of this newspaper will know that we have long harboured reservations about Denis Naughten’s performance in his role as Communications Minister. In the first instance, it is no exaggeration to say that we were deeply disappointed at his dismissive attitude to the concerns of Irish parents about the effects of smartphones and social media on children.

Earlier this year, Mr Naughten showed where his loyalties lay by giving Facebook and Google a platform to speak on child safety online at his ‘Open Forum’ on the issue, while denying critics of the tech giants a voice. He then glibly equated the notion of age restrictions on smartphone ownership – an idea supported by a majority of the public – with the idea of banning people from using pens.

Some months later, it emerged that Mr Naughten had spoken to a lobbyist for Independent News and Media – and allegedly given the inside track on his department’s likely response to the company’s bid to buy a regional newspaper group. This suggestion, although denied by Mr Naughten, was all the more extraordinary given the minister’s refusal to offer TDs insights on the department’s plans.

Now we learn that Mr Naughten had at least four private dinners with the leader of a consortium bidding for the State’s billion euro rural broadband contract. Worse still, he failed to tell the Government, the Taoiseach or the public about these dinners – even after questions about these meetings between him and the businessman first emerged several weeks ago.

In this situation, the Taoiseach is quite right to say he could no longer continue to have confidence in Mr Naughten as Communications Minister. No Minister should be foolish enough to have a string of private dinners with a businessman in these circumstances: the failure to understand that was reason enough for Mr Naughten to go. More importantly, the public have to know that all ministerial dealings with businessmen in such scenarios will be conducted openly – and without any possible perception of conflicts of interest.