Norris campaign is over. He should quit the race for the Presidency

I WANTED to write two letters over the weekend — although I suppose nowadays you’d be more likely to send two e-mails.

One of them would be to someone I’ve known for years and always admired, the other would be to someone I don’t really know at all.

To the person I’ve known for years, the message would have to be: it’s time to quit. It’s a hard message, but one I think he has to consider at the level of principle. To the person I hardly know at all, my message would be that he must on no account quit. There will be plenty of people out to get him now, and more than a few will be chortling at his discomfiture. But he needs to stand firm in the face of the inevitable sneering.

The first person — the one who needs to quit — is David Norris. I don’t find it easy to say this, because the Presidential election can only benefit from having someone of his ability and personality in the race. He knows, I hope, that I have supported him in the face of criticism in the past. Even though, as a Michael D Higgins supporter, I wouldn’t have been voting number one for David Norris, I have always believed in his right to be in this contest. In fact, were it not for the party allegiance I can never deny, the presence of David Norris and Mary Davis in this election — two people I have always admired for different reasons — would have given me a tough choice on polling day.

Not, alas, any longer. There is no need to rehash the details of the controversy swirling around David Norris here. It’s enough to say that it raises the most fundamental and serious issues that demand immediate and detailed answers.

But there have been no answers. Not one. As I write this on Monday morning the public silence from David Norris has been absolutely, and astonishingly, deafening. There has been no statement, no interview, no press conference. His Facebook page, which boasts nearly 10,000 followers, has had nothing. His website, which he used to some effect to deal with the last controversy, hasn’t been updated for days.

This silence is deadly. It can only mean that there is no defence, there are no answers to the questions. And it can only mean that the man himself, and those still around him, don’t know where the next bombshell is coming from.

David Norris has made a huge contribution to Irish public life. I believe he has more to contribute. But not like this. His campaign for the Presidency is over now. He will not get the nomination he has sought. But even if he were to do so, the issues of principle that this latest controversy has thrown up will simply not go away.

As one of those who has supported his right to be in this race, and as someone who has often wondered whether there is a media conspiracy against David, I believe only one conclusion is possible. It doesn’t matter whether there was a conspiracy or not — actually, it does matter, but it’s an issue for another day. What matters right now is that David should, for his own sake, for the sake of the causes he believes in, for the sake of the Presidency, withdraw.

Which brings me to the other man I wanted to e-mail this weekend, Gordon Jeyes. I’ve met him several times, and I guess you would say we have a working relationship. But I can’t claim to know him well, although I wrote here a couple of weeks ago about the job he needs to do.

Now he too is mired in controversy, because he was sharply critical of his employer, the HSE, in a public lecture. It was quite clear that in the speech in question he was talking about standards, accountability, good practice. In all those areas he found the HSE wanting, and in urgent need of change. He also warned the Government against thinking that there were easy or cheap solutions to the issue of child protection, saying that some ministers seemed to believe that passing legislation would be enough, and that they would also have to deal with what he called the “daft” moratorium on the filling of posts.

His speech was actually supported, broadly speaking, by the Minister for Health, although the HSE itself issued a rather prim response, saying “The HSE has seen only snippets of this transcript. It would be necessary to see the entire document and to talk to Gordon — who is abroad currently — in order to put his comments into full context prior to drawing any conclusions on this matter.” Sounds like they’re getting ready to put him on the carpet.

Some years ago, when I was working for an Irish government, I gave an interview in which I said that the peace process wouldn’t be worth a penny candle if Sinn Féin weren’t involved in it. That sentence apparently confirmed the worst fears of unionists all over the place — that I must be a Provo fellow-traveller, and even worse, that my boss Dick Spring couldn’t be trusted either.

Speaking in the House of Commons for instance, David Trimble implied that my comments reflected an Irish government attitude that regarded Sinn Féin as more important than all the other parties in Northern Ireland put together. “That is a profoundly depressing and anti-democratic state of mind,” he added for good measure.

THOSE kind of moments generally leave you wandering around wondering how you could possibly have been such an eejit. I remember my own state of mind at the time wasn’t much improved by meeting a sympathetic civil servant, who said sadly, “now you see how much trouble the truth can cause”.

But that’s the first thing Gordon Jeyes should remember. He may not have been too diplomatic, but he spoke only the truth. He described a culture that we all know exists. And actually, he spoke for a great many people within the HSE when he talked about the frustration and damage that culture of secrecy and defensiveness can do. There have been too many instances in the past when the bare facts had to be dragged out of the HSE for anyone to doubt that it needs to change.

The truth may temporarily embarrass Gordon Jeyes, but it won’t damage him unless he lets it. If he decides to leave, or even if he decides he’d better keep his head down and say nothing in future, he’ll be doing a disservice to the whole issue of child protection. If he continues to speak out frankly, calling it as he sees it, he’ll not only advance the cause he believes in, he’ll help the reputation of his organisation in the process.

There will be those — there always are — who would love to stifle anyone prepared to let the light shine on a murky past, with a view to building a more trustworthy future. Every bureaucracy needs the occasional shock to the system if it is to retain human values. That’s the value of Gordon Jeyes’ brutal honesty, and long may it last.