A MARBLE GONG

Click on any image for a larger version

Here I am, a former civil servant, waiting for my gong from the French government for services rendered to Jacques Attali, François Mitterand and the French Republic, and what happens.

My attention is drawn to the old Bank of Canada building on the corner of Earslfort Terrace and St. Stephen's Green. You remember, the one the cladding started falling off.

Well Denis O'Brien bought it in 2001 and it has now got a face lift and refurbishment, and a fine site it is.

What my attention was drawn to, by none other than the Irish Times, was an inscription in the marble facing at ground level on the Earlsfort Terrace side of the building.

The inscription is discreetely etched into the marble. So discreetly is it etched that you'd pass it by, unless the sun chose to catch it at the right angle. As we are now in mid winter and the day was overcast, I nearly passed it by myself, so for your benefit I have highlighted the relevant patch of marble above.

The inscription reads

This building is dedicated to
PADRAIG O'HUIGINN
public civil servant whose sole purpose was
the advancement of Ireland and who did so
with patriotism passion and compassion

I'm sure Pádraig would be thrilled with the inscription, if only it had got his name right. And I'm sure that should read public AND civil servant. After all, all of us civil servants are public, after a manner of speaking. Having the advancement of Ireland as one's sole purpose might be a bit over-reaching it and whatever about his passion, compassion in a public servant may not always be appropriate, especially when hard decisions are required in the public interest.

Pádraig is credited in the Irish Times piece with having been a main mover in the development of the IFSC. That particular institution may well have served its purpose by now. It has had a chequered history in recent times and faces an uncertain future as other states become more possessive of their tax base and resent the lure of perceived lighter regulation.

Incidentally, in passing the IFSC on my way to Earlsfort Terrace today, I noticed that the giant logo on the side of the building is getting a bit tatty. Sign of the times?

---

Update: 7 April 2019
Pádraig "passed away April 3rd, 2019 joyously, still optimistic and telling stories" (rip.ie) and the Irish Independent carried this report of his funeral.

Update: 9 April 2019
As Denis O'Brien has sold the property to "global French fund CNP Assurance" I wondered whether they might not share Denis's undiluted admiration of Pádraig and what the fate of the gong might be under the new administration.

So I dropped by yesterday (9/4/2019) and sure enough the gong has disappeared.

What I didn't cop at this stage was that there was another plaque. I wonder was it put there when the original was taken down or did the two co-exist at any stage. This one is more discrete in both text and visibility.

THIS BUILDING IS DEDICATED TO
PADRAIG O'HUIGINN
(BORN 1924)
WHO DEVOTED 50 YEARS OF HIS LIFE TO
THE PUBLIC SECTOR RISING TO SERVE AS
SECRETARY GENERAL AT THE DEPARTMENT
OF AN TAOISEACH FROM 1982 TO 1993

HE WAS CENTRAL TO IRELAND'S GROWTH AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND A MAJOR
PROMOTER OF THE ARTS IN IRELAND
PADRAIG PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE IFSC WHICH WAS
ESTABLISHED IN 1987 IN DUBLIN'S DOCKLANDS

It can, just barely, be seen on the column on the right.

And he can take consolation from the gallery in the Royal Hibernian Academy (RHA) which still bears his name.

What Constitution?

Catherine Murphy, TD
Click on any image for a larger version

I see it all as very straightforward.

RTÉ wanted to publish some details of an arrangement Denis O'Brien had with IBRC (formerly Anglo Irish Bank). Neither O'Brien nor IBRC wanted the information published, on the grounds that it would damage his/their commercial interests, and they got a court injunction prohibiting RTÉ from publishing it.

Clear so far.

Catherine Murphy, TD, subsequently stated in the Dáil (Irish lower house of Parliament) that O'Brien had been getting significant loans at below market rates and, as IBRC was owned by the State, that this amounted to a massive taxpayer subsidy.

O'Brien's lawyer immediately requested most of the media not to publish Murphy's remarks as either the information was already injuncted or he would obtain an injunction to prohibit publication (I haven't seen the letter so I don't know its precise wording).

Tweet of original article by Irish Times at 16:50 28/5/15
Live link

Most of the media reacted by pulling any copy which contained the controversial information. For example, the Irish Times had already published it online but quickly pulled the item and a sanitised version was not issued until some seven hours later. This is the paper that not so long ago consciously broke the law to protect its sources.

Broadsheet.ie's response
Live link

Broadsheet.ie, on the other hand, stood its ground. It also revealed that it had received a legal letter from the O'Brien camp.

Peter Murtagh's link
Live link to Murphy's Dáil Statement

And Peter Murtagh, of the Irish Times, did the clever thing late last night and tweeted a link to the Dáil transcript on the Oireachtas website.

Personally, I think the issue is still very clear. Words spoken in the Dáil are guaranteed absolute privilege under the Constitution as is their reporting. Therefore no lawyer or judge can stop the media reporting Murphy's words in parliament. And that includes RTÉ.

The injunction, whatever its merits otherwise, is not relevant to the reporting of Parliament and the constitutional guarantee trumps any court decision. The only relevance of the existing injunction in this case was whether Murphy would give any weight to it in deciding whether or not to say her piece in Parliament. Once it was said it was protected.

So I'm still very clear on the matter (though admittedly I am not an authority in this area).

What disturbs me is how the bulk of the media immediately ran for cover when they got the legal letter. These are the organs on which we depend to defend our right to information and our freedom of speech. If they can be upset that easily they are clearly not up to the job.

Some politicians have called for the Dáil to be recalled to debate the matter, but it seems to me that it is not a matter for Parliament at this stage. It is a matter for those media who have buckled under a piece of legal blustering and fallen down on their duty to report faithfully what goes on in Parliament. Such reporting has a specific constitutional guarantee, for God's sake.

It is up to Parliament itself to deal with the issue of whether if feels Murphy's statement constituted an abuse of privilege or not.

I would be very interested to see the justification, if any, for the issue of the legal letter and to see its precise wording. I would also like to see whatever legal advice the media got which led them to pull their copy. There is something not very right going on here and it needs the light of day shone on it fast.

Brian Lucey has an interesting nuance in his latest blog post. The implication is that if this were to become a regular occurrence and people's reputations were being destroyed by false accusations rather than by revelations in the public interest, something would have to be done about it. Possibly, but that's for another day.