Michael Lowry (Tipperary North, Independent)

I thank the Members of this House for the courtesy shown to me while I made my statement yesterday. I endured only one vitriolic intervention from Deputy Stagg, a man who has endured his own controversy and received compassion from this House in his difficult times. Deputy Stagg threw a nasty slur across the floor of this House intimating that Professor Michael Andersen was paid to give his evidence and he wanted to know who paid him. This is absolutely not true and not even the Moriarty tribunal has ever alleged this.

Professor Andersen gave evidence when his long standing request for an indemnity was met. His standing as an expert in the field of mobile telecommunication competitions is beyond reproach. He is also and academic and author of real standing. He was the only expert in this field to give evidence to the tribunal. Just because the Moriarty tribunal could not deal with his stark "inconvenient truths" they simply whitewashed his evidence completely out of the equation. This "let's pretend Andersen never happened approach" is not a licence for Deputy Stagg or anyone else to cast ill-considered and ignorant aspersions across the floor of this chamber.

Would Deputy Stagg wish to cast a slur on all of those witnesses as well? Is he saying that 17 civil servants were paid to give false evidence? Maybe those witnesses were all part of a conspiracy to corrupt the licence competition process 15 years ago and all came together in the 15 years since to perjure themselves consistently before the tribunal? Maybe all of those witnesses were bought and paid for too? The question one asks is could all of them, with Michael Anderson, be wrong.

Last night I referred in my opening address to this famous money trail. I want to deal now with the property transactions. It is a fact that no money was ever received into my bank account, my family or any of my business of mine from Denis O'Brien. I have never received any money from Denis O'Brien or from anyone on his behalf. The Moriarty tribunal has engaged in a cynical exercise of presenting two English property transactions and a loan agreement in a slanted and deliberately incomplete manner to give the impression that I was the net beneficiary of €147,000, €300,000 and €420,000, amounting to a total of €900,000 approximately. To give the false and misleading impression that I got €900,000 approximately is an intentional and malicious misrepresentation of the facts. I did not get €900,000. I benefited with a big fat zero from these properties.

Let me go through these three properties and dismantle the notion that I walked away with €900,000. The first was the property transaction at Carysfort Avenue in Blackrock. I purchased the property on 17 July 1996. The purchase price was IR£200,000. I was a Minister at the time, which required my attendance in Dublin on a regular basis and I needed a residence in Dublin. I obtained a mortgage for the full purchase price IR£200,000. I entered into a personal loan agreement with David Austin, who is now deceased, for IR£147,000 to fund the refurbishment to make it habitable. This loan was fully documented and drawn up on agreed commercial terms between myself and Mr. Austin. I subsequently had no need for a second home in Dublin. I never occupied the house as renovations had not been completed. I sold the house back to the builder in January 1997. I repaid the mortgage of IR£200,114.55. As per our written loan agreement, I repaid the loan in full together with interest directly to David Austin's personal account on 7 February 1997, which totalled IR£148,816.93. The money trail shows that he spent his own money after it was returned by me. This was a loan, pure and simple. There was no net financial benefit to me in this transaction. The IR£147,000 was received as a loan and repaid on commercial terms in full and with interest.

Commentators have referred to the Spanish property. The Spanish property transaction and the loan between Mr. Austin and myself are clearly two separate and distinct transactions. It is not fair to draw a link between them considering the evidence and documentation put before the tribunal.

Mansfield was purchased in September 1998, three years after the licence was granted and two years after I was a Minister. I paid the deposit of 10% on this property. I paid for that 10% out of my own bank account. Aidan Phelan paid the balance of the purchase price of £300.000 which he had lodged in the English solicitor's client account. It is important to remember this money went to the solicitor's client account and the record proves clearly I never received any money of any description from this solicitor's client account. To this day, Mr. Phelan and I own that property. Mr. Phelan owns 90% and I retain the 10% which I duly paid for with my own money. My 10% ownership and Aidan Phelan's 90% ownership is legally reflected in the registered title deed documentation. This Mansfield property still exists. It was never sold and the fact is that my 10% is worth little or nothing today. I received no payment or benefit in this deal. It is a total fiction to say that I got £300,000 from this property. There is no money trail.

In 1999, four years after the licence was granted and three years after I was Minster, I negotiated the purchase of a property at Cheadle through a company, CatClause, which was legally registered in my name and the purchase price was £445,000. As I was already in partnership in the Mansfield property with Aidan Phelan - I had 10% of that property as I said - he agreed to pay the 10% deposit on the Cheadle property. I had difficulty in organising finance to complete the purchase and that has been given in evidence by several witnesses. The reason I had difficulty in completing the purchase is because any loan was subject to an independent personal guarantee. I failed to get a bank guarantor so my loan was disapproved. Due to my inability to raise the funds Aidan Phelan took exclusive ownership of the deal. It is a fact that he sold the property years later and it was he who discharged the loan to Woodchester Bank because he was responsible for it and he retained the full proceeds of the sale. All this documentation was given to the tribunal and it was backed up with legal and accounting details. Contrary to the impression deliberately created by Moriarty that I received €420,000, the fact is that I received absolutely nothing from this transaction. There never was €420,000 paid to me by way of loan or otherwise. The alleged €420,000 Cheadle payment is a complete and utter lie.

It was proven to the tribunal that I actually did not benefit from any of these transactions. There is no pot of gold at the end of some rainbow in north Tipperary or elsewhere. The financial trail is actually far more mundane and unimpressive than the tribunal would have everyone believe. The evidence and the facts show that the so called money trail goes nowhere. However, in the case of a tribunal, and particularly in the case of this tribunal, opinions do not have to reflect the facts. Opinions can be infinitely more interesting and scandalous because opinions never have to be proven.

Every transaction in every bank account that I have had since 1986, either in my name or in the name of my companies, were trawled. The distinction between me and others who have been investigated is that I was able to account for every single transaction in every account. The same went for all accounts held by my late mother, brothers, sister and children. I ask the Members of this House to reflect on the enormous level of intrusion that can be visited upon a citizen by a tribunal of inquiry. The pressure brought to bear would have been too much for anybody, including me, had it not been for the kind support of my family, friends and supporters. I owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.

This tribunal report is a triumph of innuendo over evidence, a triumph of supposition over fact. It is truly a bad day for Ireland when citizens can be subjected to the incredible levels of ridicule and contempt that I and others have endured on the basis of unsubstantiated opinion. I have endured it with great strain but I refuse to buckle under it.

My conscience is clear. I do not accept Michael Moriarty's baseless opinion and I will not apologise for something I did not do. I have a life and a career and I will go back to these. I am still standing. I know that I have a valuable and worthwhile contribution to make and I intend to make that contribution.

Deputy Martin, Fianna Fáil and others can continue to make me a political football by way of a politically convenient censure motion. It is my intention to contribute to that debate, whether it is constitutional or not, and highlight the hypocrisy of Deputy Martin in his career in politics. However, when the debate is over, I will not give my detractors the satisfaction of putting the motion to a vote. The House is free to pass the motion, but I advise the House that I have no intention of resigning my position as a democratically elected representative. I will not walk away from the overwhelming mandate that was given to me by the constituents of north Tipperary and south Offaly.

I also emphatically reject the sneering and snide references to gombeen politics and parish pump politics that seem to delight certain sections of the media. Contrary to what might be suggested in the media, the constituents of north Tipperary are every bit as intelligent and politically sophisticated as in any other part of the country. I am proud to serve the people of north Tipperary. I have performed my role as their elected representative to the very best of my ability and I will continue to do so until they decide otherwise.

The Moriarty tribunal has not done the State some service. In the fullness of time, its contribution will be exposed for what it is: a scandal of epic proportions. In recent days, the media have misrepresented a number of facts, particularly about the position of the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Garda authorities. Yesterday evening the Garda authorities issued a statement clarifying their position.

I have been bombarded with suggestions from the news media, particularly radio and television, that the CAB is already investigating matters. The media should not present hypothetical scenarios as the truth. It is sensationalism of the highest order. The media have been notified of the facts by the Garda representative body and the press office. As late as an hour ago I contacted the Office of the Garda Commissioner to establish the factual position. In any case in which a tribunal report is given to the Oireachtas, it is also submitted to the relevant authorities, including the Garda, for their observations and comments and so that they may pursue the matter if there is something to pursue. Rather than presenting this to the public as a fait accompli, the media should report the reality, which is that the Garda is examining the report. If there are questions to be answered, I will be happy to answer them. In these circumstances, we are dealing with real facts and real evidence, and that will be the key test.

I have explained my position to Dáil Éireann. I intend to remain as a Member of this House. I will await the outcome of the Garda examination. If the matter is pursued, I will obviously defend myself, as others will. I will await the decision of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and then I will make a decision about what the future will hold with regard to this report. There are options available to me in my own jurisdiction and outside it, including the High Court, the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. Let us wait and see whether the opinions of Mr. Justice Moriarty hold up under the scrutiny of the law of this land.

See this speech in context