Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The second report on the awarding of the second mobile telephone licence to Esat Digifone found that the Minister with responsibility for communications acted in a way that was disgraceful and insidious and had irregular interaction with interested parties at the most sensitive stages. It found that Deputy Lowry gave substantial information to Mr. Denis O'Brien which was of significant value and assistance to him in securing the licence.

Does the Minister recall that Mr. O'Brien later sold this licence and made a personal profit of £250 million? He should have paid £50 million in the then low corporation tax but he was not obliged to pay because he was a tax exile, courtesy of legislation passed by the Dáil. Does this not amount to shocking corporate and political corruption involving a Government Minister and a leading businessman? Does it not amount to wealth which properly belonged to the Irish people, who owned the licence, being passed to the enrichment of a private individual? Does the Minister agree that, as an initial response, the Criminal Assets Bureau should now seek to recover the £250 million profit made by Mr. O'Brien as a result of a corrupt relationship and restore it to the Irish people for the funding of their services, and so on?

Is the Minister aware that the tribunal found that Mr. Denis O'Brien instigated a donation of $50,000 to the Fine Gael Party, which the tribunal said was made in a manner which, having regard to its false and misleading documentation, was secretive, utterly lacking in transparency and designed to conceal the fact of such payment by or on behalf of the donors? Does the Minister agree that it is a shocking indictment of the Fine Gael Party to accept such a donation when this individual was to benefit from an enormous enrichment as a result of a licence given to him by a Fine Gael majority Government? What might the implications be for the unsuccessful bidders? How will the information contained in the report affect the liability of the State towards others who may attempt to recover the money they lost as a result of a shadowy deal?

The tribunal says Deputy Lowry deprived Cabinet colleagues of an opportunity to scrutinise and review the result and sought to overreach his own party leader, the then Taoiseach, former Deputy John Bruton, by intimating that Government should have no discretion in the matter. I ask the Minister to recall his own time in Government. He attended Cabinet meetings at that time. Does he agree that the report is a stunning indictment of the workings of that Fine Gael-Labour Party Cabinet? What does he recall from that time and what were his impressions of being manipulated and railroaded by one particular Minister?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is correct. At first glance, the summary of the report contains serious implications for the way politics is done in this country and particularly for the interaction between politics and business. I am proud that the programme for Government seeks to address these issues in the most comprehensive way ever in the history of this House. It addresses not only the way Ministers interact with civil servants, but also the way they interact with business. The matter of corporate donations is provided for in the report. Of course, a great many changes have taken place since that time in the matter of independent scrutiny of decisions such as this. The establishment of the regulatory system will, I hope, obviate this kind of thing happening again.

One the Deputy's question about political donations, my memory is that Mr. O'Brien made political donations to all of the parties in the House at the time. I certainly recall my own party, the Labour Party, sending it back. It has been the practice in this country for many years that there have been corporate donations. I am happy that legislation will be brought forward by the Government to deal with this issue.

It is not helpful for the Deputy to ask me to speculate on the current position regarding unsuccessful bidders. It is not my job to give comfort to anyone outside the House watching this debate. In any event, like most Deputies, I have not had the opportunity to read the report as I received it at 3 p.m. today following a Government meeting. I need to read the report and take advice before I answer questions about any contemplated litigation or legal procedures that may follow.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As this is the Minister's first official duty in his new position, I wish him well. The Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, indicated earlier that he was not taking this matter because the questions were directed to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte. For the record of the House, when I first tabled my question, I addressed it to the Taoiseach and subsequently changed it, having been advised that the questions were being taken by the Minister. It is an important point for the record. I would prefer that the Taoiseach had the opportunity to respond to these questions.

Does the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, accept that his predecessor as Minister with responsibility for communications, Deputy Michael Lowry, abused his position as Minister when he was directly involved in awarding the licence to his favoured candidate, Denis O'Brien, and Esat Digifone? Does he accept the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, abused his position, based on what he now knows the report contains? I accept the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, has not had the opportunity to study the report in full. Does the Minister acknowledge the great anger that exists given that, following the expenditure of some €150 million of taxpayers' money and the passage of 14 years, we are only now having the full truth properly exposed in this report today? Does he also accept there is a public expectation that this is not where the matter finishes?

The Minister's initial response referred to measured and appropriate action. Will the findings of this report be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Will the Minister, as he indicated earlier, seek a meeting with the Attorney General to address such action and seek her advice and guidance on how the Minister and the Government will proceed in regard to the findings of the Moriarty report? When does the Minister intend to consult the Attorney General on this matter?

There is an absolute need for people to be held to account, and I do not only mean Ministers or Deputies but also citizens who have benefited from any irregularity of this nature and on this scale, which is quite incredible. Against the information released in regard to so-called white-collar crime, we must recognise that the courts of this land had no difficulty sending to jail ordinary decent people who have campaigned to protect their own homes, communities and the natural resources of this land. I refer to the Rossport five. Many others who were coping with real difficulties in their lives were sent to prison for paltry offences and the failure to pay paltry fines. This report must not be an end in itself.

The Minister should also address the issue of Deputy Lowry having repeatedly attacked in vehement terms within and outside this House the Moriarty tribunal and its sole member. Does the Minister reject Deputy Lowry's attack on the sole member and on the tribunal? What is the Minister's response, as a member of the junior party in the coalition, to the report's criticism of the Fine Gael Party for not revealing the clandestine nature of a $50,000 donation made by Denis O'Brien after his company won the second mobile phone licence competition? There are serious questions to be answered in that regard also and I would expect that not only the Minister but the junior partner in this coalition would recognise it is very convenient that this report has presented today, just three weeks after a general election when the senior party, which was particularly named in the report, recorded its best performance in all the elections over the entire 14 year duration of the Moriarty tribunal's sittings.

We have heard the Taoiseach's response to the issue of addressing this report in the House. Does the Minister share Opposition Deputies' views that this report should be addressed as quickly as possible by all Members of the House? We can cut to the chase and get to the core of what the sole tribunal member has told us. While it may not require reading all 2,500 pages tonight, we will not be impaired in addressing the critical findings of the report in this House and in doing so as early as possible. Does the Minister believe we should do this with the urgency the matter certainly requires?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy suggested, I do not intend to get through 2,500 pages tonight. Every single page of the report merits careful reading, however, which, as the Deputy said, will take time. I have defended the tribunal taking as much time as is consistent with its remit as recently as during the recent general election campaign. I deplore any unwarranted attacks on the tribunal but people on all sides of the House have expressed views about this tribunal, other tribunals and the appropriateness of public inquiries under statute that precedes the foundation of the State.

The fact it is 14 years since this tribunal was established is a matter that ought to concern us all. While that is not said without acknowledging that steps were taken along the way which contributed to this delay, it is desirable none the less that in future we should be able to examine such matters in a far speedier fashion than has happened in this case.

I cannot say to the Deputy without studying the report that there is something in it that can be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Some suspected offence would have to lie before that decision could be made. I can commit to the Deputy that, as soon as may be, I will take the advice of the Attorney General in terms of the implications in this regard.

The Deputy raises a difficult question on the matter of how Ministers relate to civil servants. From what I have read the tribunal goes out of its way to make the point it is not unreasonable that civil servants would communicate with their Minister confident in the knowledge their communication would be secure - which is the issue that arises here. An attempt was made to create a process that was ringfenced from the Minister. However, I find it difficult to envisage circumstances where there would not be everyday, casual, informal interaction between senior officials and Ministers. One could regulate out of existence what is, generally speaking, a productive and healthy relationship.

There are commitments in the programme for Government to address this issue. Changes have been made since in terms of the operation of regulators such as ComReg, fencing them off from political intervention of any kind. For that reason I do not envisage this could easily happen again but there will be certain circumstances. In my Department, for example, Spectrum will be auctioned but because of the safeguards taken I do not believe the same is likely to happen. However, the Deputy has raised an uneasy question about that relationship. In fairness, it is important to say that Mr. Justice Moriarty does not say the decision was incorrect. He does not make that claim but instead points out that the seal of confidentiality on the process was breached.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is deeply disappointing the Taoiseach did not take questions on this matter. I accept what the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, said regarding this issue deserving a whole-Government response. For reasons outlined in my question I believe the Taoiseach should have answered questions before the House at this time in regard to the report, particularly those aspects relating to the pattern of Fine Gael fundraising at the time of the awarding of this licence. This must be done and the report must be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Apart from the Esat issue and the awarding of the licence, the tribunal refers, for example, to a rent deal at the time between Mr. Ben Dunne and the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, as being corrupt. That in itself raises serious concerns.

The part of the report I have read states that it is beyond doubt that Deputy Lowry, as Minister at the time, imparted substantive information to Mr. Denis O'Brien which was "of significant value and assistance to him in securing the licence". At very best that is improper and highly irregular. Serious consideration of this point demands that the report be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Let us be clear - this was the largest licence awarded by the State at the time, as the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, noted. We must pursue whatever wrongdoing occurred in order to restore a reputation which has been damaged in regard to how we in this country award licences.

I asked for a full debate on this and the reason I suggested next Monday was to give people a reasonable timeframe within which to read the entire report. I again ask the Minister if he would agree to a full debate on the report and its findings on that day. I also ask the Minister how he would account for the then Government's failures on this issue, as to both the process and the actual decision. Does he accept there were serious failures on the part of the then rainbow Government? Should the Taoiseach apologise for those failures and the role of that Government in terms of this most unedifying spectacle? The report states that at best the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, essentially bypassed the consideration of his Cabinet colleagues and thereby not only influenced but delivered the result whereby Esat Digifone won the evaluation process which led ultimately to the licensing award. The question begs to be asked: What were the other experienced Ministers doing when this came before the Cabinet? When the issue of the licence came to the Cabinet table did people look at it in considerable detail or did they merely allow the Minister, Deputy Lowry, to run roughshod over them? The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, was at the table. Deputy Higgins asked what were the Minister's recollections of what happened at that time. There is reference in the report to the then Taoiseach, John Bruton, being misled by the Minister, Deputy Lowry, in this regard. One does not want to come to immediate conclusions but the then rainbow Ministers were either fools or knaves if they allowed the Minister, Deputy Lowry, to run roughshod over them on this issue.

The Minister made reference to the relationship between business and politics and the report is very disturbing in terms of the pattern of fundraising that went on in the Fine Gael Party at the time and the degree to which Mr. Denis O'Brien, in particular, according to the report, deliberately and conspicuously raised his profile within that party and had meetings. For example, he had a meeting at Fine Gael headquarters in February 1995 in order to become acquainted with the then Minister, Deputy Lowry. I believe he also met the present Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, at around the same time. Clearly, he was endeavouring to influence key decision makers within the party, including the current Taoiseach, who was a senior Minister, the Minister, Deputy Lowry, and other Fine Gael Ministers.

There is a clear pattern between 1995 and 1996 of donations to the Fine Gael Party over and above those made by any other company or consortia involved in bidding for this licence. Does the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, find particularly disturbing the confluence or coicidence of the increased pattern of donations to Fine Gael in or around the lead up to the awarding of the licence and the actual licensing? I am glad the Taoiseach is present in the Chamber. I would argue he has very good reason, apart altogether from the Government issues, to address the Fine Gael issues. Concerning, for example, the then general secretary of Fine Gael, Mr. Tom Curran, and the non-disclosure of the Telenor cheque the findings are significant in terms of the lack of co-operation with the tribunal. Mr. Curran said at the time it would have been "politically disastrous" to report the donation to the Moriarty tribunal and he feared that if the donation was revealed the connection might be made between Fine Gael and the granting of a mobile telephone licence to Esat Digifone.

It is extremely disturbing. That linkage between fundraising donations and the awarding of the licence really comes through the report. One is led-----

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Deputy to allow the Minister to reply.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----to the conclusion that something stinks to the highest heaven when one reads that aspect of the report. The Taoiseach needs to address that quickly and transparently. At the time it was reported that the Fine Gael Party cleared all its debts during the 1994-1995 period in Government and had a very aggressive fundraising campaign. The spotlight has been off that matter for the past few years. I heard the Minister's reply regarding corporate donations.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is there a question?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When will the corporate donations Bill be introduced? The last Government had it in train but Fine Gael continued to oppose it until the eve of the election because it was busily raising funds on a continuing basis.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These are fundamental issues that must be teased out further. This report belongs to the House, which initiated it.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope the Minister does not suggest, as the Taoiseach did six times today, that because people will bring actions to the Supreme Court to try to bury the Moriarty tribunal that we will be constrained or that such attempts will prevent or restrain the House from debating in detail the findings of the report.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As to whether the Taoiseach should have answered questions, he had even less time than I had, namely, half an hour to glance at the report. It would have been very difficult to answer questions. If Deputy Martin wants a full debate in the House I have no difficulty with that. He should take the matter up with the Whips.

My only reservation relates to contemplated legal action and I am sorry the Deputy seems to be dismissive of this. I do not know whether such action will proceed but it behoves us all in the House to be careful. It is not our task to become embroiled in that. Having read the report I believe it should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as does Deputy Martin, and that is not a difficulty.

In regard to the conduct of the rainbow coalition Government, a process was put in place in accordance with the very best practice known across Europe. It was hermetically sealed and nobody around the table of that Cabinet had any knowledge other than that the best practice process worked and produced a result. The author of the report indicates he was not happy that it was ring-fenced from the Minister in question but as far as the Government of the time was concerned, everything had been done according to best advice. The project team and the consultants employed followed best practice as far as we were aware.

I agree with Deputy Martin that this raises serious issues about the traditional connection between politics and business. The words "pot" and "kettle" occur when I hear the Deputy's party so concerned about what has happened. It has been argued that Fine Gael delayed legislation to address this issue of corporate donations but it strikes me that this is exactly what was done with former Deputy Gormley and the Green Party.

I take the substantive point, which is serious. For example, I raced through the conclusions of the report and Mr. Justice Moriarty raises the point. He states:

What accordingly transpired was that, in separate Governments of entirely different political composition, it was possible for Mr. Haughey and Mr. Lowry in succession to show favour to wealthy or prominent individuals, and in recompense obtain payments or other benefits, in each instance bringing improper influence to bear on public servants for the end as sought. The duration and seniority of ministerial office held by Mr. Lowry was far below that referable to Mr. Haughey. Such improper benefits and payments as have been shown, in the case of this and the McCracken Tribunal, to have accrued to Mr. Lowry never reached the monetary scale or degree of fruition obtained by Mr. Haughey.

The Deputy is correct in pointing to a substantive issue in the context of the nexus between business and politics and I sincerely hope the programme for Government and schedule it has set out to deal with this will have all-party support in the House.

I presume there are still people in the House - as there certainly were in the past - who argued that the alternative was to fund politics from the public purse and threw their hands up in alarm as if this was something which could not be contemplated. It seems that the Moriarty tribunal report is another nail in the coffin of that kind of defence. As the Deputy has said, we must ensure the conduct of politics where it necessarily interacts with business. The Deputy understands that it is unavoidable that there should be some contact but for that reason it is all the more compelling that we seek to address the issue. I am happy the programme for Government does that in the most imaginative and thoughtful way that has yet come before the House.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to ask a supplementary question.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That completes the private notice questions. Everybody who tabled a question has had a fair run.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am only looking for 30 seconds.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about supplementaries?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will just be a few seconds.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are moving on.