Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

The Tribunal of Inquiry (Payments to Messrs Charles Haughey and Michael Lowry) was established on 26 September 1997, on foot of a unanimous resolution of the Oireachtas. Part one of the tribunal's report was published in December 2007 and dealt mainly with payments to Charles J. Haughey. The tribunal has today just concluded part two of its report, which deals with payments to Michael Lowry and covers the granting of the second GSM licence to Esat Digifone Limited. The tribunal's investigation into the circumstances surrounding the second GSM licence has run intermittently over eight years, including on over 120 public sitting days.

The award of the second GSM licence to Esat Digifone Limited by the then Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications in May 1996, was, as it subsequently emerged, the most valuable licence awarded by competitive process in the history of the State. In its report, the tribunal states that what led it to investigate the GSM award decision was evidence of the commencement of the process shortly thereafter whereby payments were made by Mr. Denis O'Brien to Mr. Michael Lowry in clandestine circumstances. It states that the steps taken to effect the initial payment arose less than seven weeks after the licence was granted. The tribunal goes on to set out in very great detail a history of the GSM competition and the relationships between the various parties to that competitive process, including those between Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Lowry. I wish to express my gratitude to the chairman, Mr. Justice Moriarty, for the work his tribunal has undertaken and for the depth of its investigation.

As Deputies are aware, the second report of the Moriarty tribunal relating to the award of the second GSM licence was published today. The report runs to almost 2,000 pages. I have not yet had the opportunity to the read the report or take other than cursory advice in respect of it. My Department is reviewing the report. I have not had an opportunity to speak to the Attorney General about its findings. However, my officials and I will consider the report in depth. Some of these findings have implications which go well beyond my Department, dealing as they do with procurement issues generally.

As Deputies are aware, the report contains findings of the upmost gravity in relation to the then Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. I refer to the report and cite the tribunal. It says that Deputy Lowry displayed an appreciable interest in the substantive process, had irregular interactions with interested parties at its most sensitive stages, sought and received substantive information on emerging trends, made his preferences as between the leading candidates known, conveyed his views on how the financial weakness on Esat Digifone should be countered, brought an untimely guillotine down on the work of the project group and proceeded to bypass consideration by his Cabinet colleagues. He thereby not only influenced, but delivered the result he announced on 25 October 1995, that Esat Digifone had won the evaluation process, which led to the licensing of Esat Digifone on 16 May 1996. The report then states that each of these elements of Deputy Lowry's insidious and pervasive influence on the process will now be addressed.

I note that the tribunal did not make a finding that the licence was incorrectly awarded. I also note that the report, at paragraph 60.37, found that the officials involved in the process had no knowledge at any time of any relationship between the then Minister and Mr. O'Brien.

It was undoubtedly the case that the tribunal's investigations "were personally and professionally discomfiting for those officials, who, through no fault of their own, found themselves at the intersection of an irregular and improper relationship between politics and business, in the persons of Deputy Michael Lowry and Mr. Denis O'Brien, of which they had no knowledge at any time. It is Deputy Lowry and Mr. O'Brien who are at fault, and had either of them seen fit to respond to the tribunal inquiries openly and honestly, those officials would have been spared the spectre of public scrutiny of their actions."

The report would appear to have significant implications for how Government business is done, for the relationship between Ministers and civil servants and for the relationships between Ministers and business. At first glance, for example, there would appear to be immediate implications for procurements procedures.

Given the nature and the range of the report's findings, a whole of Government approach may be necessary. In this context, I will have to consult fully with my colleagues in Government. It is reasonable to presume that the report's findings will lead to consideration of change in how Government and Departments for example make licensing decisions. This will have to take account of the many changes implemented in the period since the award of the second GSM licence. In particular, Deputies will be aware of the range of independent licensing agencies that now operate in the economy and the fact that a new EU procurement framework applies.

The new programme for Government has committed to a number of reforms that would have, had they been in place at the time, obviated many of the conclusions in the report. It is important that Government consideration of the issues arising from the tribunal report be fully informed by an in-depth examination of the issues by the Departments directly involved. In this way we can ensure that the Government response is measured and appropriate in the context of the very serious issues that have been raised by the tribunal.

Deputies should be aware that the award of the licence is the subject of proceedings in the Supreme Court, taken by some of the unsuccessful applicants against the State. The proceedings are being contested by the State. In the circumstances, Deputies will understand that I am somewhat circumscribed in what I can say here today. As I have already stated, I will be taking the advice of the Attorney General in relation to the findings in due course.

See this speech in context