THE FORMER minister denied that he misled the Dail in his statement last December outlining details of his relationship with Dunnes Stores. He said he should never have made such a detailed statement and he had paid a price for "coming forward and being so open".
Mr Lowry told counsel for the tribunal, Mr Denis McCullough SC, that he had gone further than any politician in the history of the State in outlining his personal financial affairs to the Dail.
When Mr McCullough commented "not far enough", the former minister said that in fact he had gone too far "because I was so comprehensive and detailed in it that I left myself open to the kind of charge that you have put to me today".
Mr McCullough had questioned Mr Lowry at length about why he had not disclosed details of a number of payments to him into offshore accounts by Dunnes Stores.
He asked why Mr Lowry, in outlining the arrangements behind the building of an extension to his home by Dunnes Stores, had said in his statement: "If someone were trying to hide income, would he or she not be more likely to put it in an offshore account?"
"Why did you say that unless you were trying clearly to give the impression to the Dail that you certainly had no monies in an offshore account when in fact you had?" Mr McCullough asked.
Mr Lowry: "That was not my intention, Mr McCullough..."
Mr McCullough: "Well, why did you say that then?"
Mr Lowry: "That was not my intention. I conveyed a message and I have already said to you at the start of it. I raised it with you myself, I conveyed it badly."
Asked what message he was attempting to convey, Mr Lowry said it was that he wasn't hiding anything about the construction work on his house by Dunnes Stores, which was common knowledge" at the time.
"The house was an open secret. I bought the house at public auction. It was clear that it was Dunnes Stores. Holycross in Tipperary is a very small place ... it was clear that Dunnes Stores' builders were on site, that Dunnes Stores' architect was on site, that they were paid by Dunnes Stores.
"I had nothing to hide with it ... everybody knew that it was Dunnes Stores were constructing the house on the basis that they owed me money. I never made any secret of that but I conveyed that message badly in my Dail statement.
COUNSEL put it to the witness that he had contrasted the openness of that with concealing money in an offshore account, "clearly conveying the impression, Mr Lowry, and I suggest to you deliberately, that you certainly would not hide income in an offshore account".
Mr Lowry said he was categorically stating that he did not deliberately do that. Nor did he in fact hide income in an offshore account. "I didn't deliberately conceal anything," he told counsel.
Asked by Mr McCullough if he had one adviser or more dealing with the statement, Mr Lowry replied: "One or more advisers? I didn't count them but I would have had a couple of advisers.
Mr McCullough: "You would have to count them, would you? There'd be more than one, you would have to count them?"
Mr Lowry: "No, I wouldn't have to count them."
Mr McCullough: "Well, how many were there?"
Mr Lowry: "I don't see what relevance it has."
Mr McCullough said it was relevant to the care and preparation that went into making the statement. Mr Lowry was seeking to suggest that a sentence in the statement did not properly convey what he was trying to say.
He wanted to know how Mr Lowry and his advisers had put such a sentence in the statement, referring specifically to offshore accounts, unless he was intending to make a point about offshore accounts.
Mr Lowry said he rejected categorically the inference in counsel's question, which was the suggestion that this was deliberately done. "I didn't even understand the significance of that until such time as my Dail statement was delivered and, one or two days after, it was highlighted.
"It was totally inadvertent, as I have already said and I accept whatever responsibilities are with me for that," he added.
When Mr McCullough continued to question the witness about the same issue, counsel for Mr Lowry, Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, asked what the relevance of this was to the terms of reference of the tribunal. It was not an inquiry into the statement Mr Lowry had made in the Dail.
The chairman, Mr Justice McCracken, said it was an inquiry into the motives for payments made by Mr Dunne and the motives of Mr Lowry in receiving them. "The fact that he did not reveal these payments to the Dail is in my view very relevant."
Mr McCullough then put it to Mr Lowry that he had had almost three weeks to prepare his statement. News of these matters had broken on November 30th, and the statement was made on December 19th.
Mr Lowry said he "very much differed". The context in which the statement was made was that he was a minister in probably the biggest government department. He was also president of the EU Council of Ministers for transport, energy and communications.
"There was no person as busy or busier than I was in political circles at that particular time and I wanted to discharge my responsibilities and functions in that regard first, before I concentrated my attention on preparing that statement," he said.
Mr McCullough: "What was the date on which you resigned as Minister?"
Mr Lowry: "I'm not quite sure, it was some time in December I think."
Mr McCullough: "It was some time before making the statement?"
Mr Lowry: "Yes."
Mr McCullough: "So you had some time then when you were no longer a minister, when you could concentrate on preparing the statement?"
Mr Lowry: "I would also say, to you, Mr McCullough, you've never had to resign as a minister, and I hope you never have to, it's a traumatic experience and it does take time, if you don't mind me saying so, to recover on a personal level before you can get your thoughts together to know where you go from next."
Asked by the chairman if any member of the Dail could have conceivably realised from his statement that he had received more than Pounds 700,000 personally from Mr Ben Dunne, Mr Lowry said he had outlined the background as to why he could expect very substantial payments.
Mr Lowry had earlier told Mr McCullough that the reason he did not refer in his statement to all the payments made to him by Dunnes Stores was that he concentrated on the matters which had come into the public domain.
He did not go through the "thousands and thousands" of transactions which he had had with Dunnes Stores. "I didn't think it was anyone's business to do that and I didn't think it was relevant."
His statement was in response to the negative publicity and "near- hysteria" which had developed in Ireland over the way the construction of his house had become public. It was also against the background of the leaking of the Price Waterhouse report.
"I went into the Dail to explain my relationship with Dunnes Stores, to tell the Dail how it was that it came about that Dunnes Stores had an involvement in the construction and refurbishment of my house and to tell the Dail specifically how the Price Waterhouse payments that had been leaked, how they referred to my business," said the witness.
More importantly, he had gone into the Dail to preserve his political integrity, because there was "inference and innuendo and accusations" that he was involved in "political corruption and bribery".
"The reason I have exposed myself to such humiliation and ridicule in the Dail and with this tribunal is because that's all I have left. I have lost everything, but I will not allow a situation to continue where my political integrity is impugned."
Mr Lowry said the reason he had referred to only three payments from Dunnes, one of Pounds 50,000, one of Pounds 6,500 and another of Pounds 6,000, was that they were the only ones which were brought to his attention in respect of the Price Waterhouse report.
Mr McCullough said he had made no reference to a Pounds 25,000 payment to a Bank of Ireland account in the Isle of Man, to a Pounds 40,000 payment to the Badgeworth account in the Isle of Man, or to the Pounds 34,000 payment to the AIB in the Channel Islands.
Mr Lowry said he had not done so because he had gone into the Dail with the "express purpose" of addressing what he knew of the contents of the Price Waterhouse report.
Mr McCullough said it was clear that the witness saw himself as a victim in all of this. But had not he brought it all on his own head?
Mr LOWRY replied that he had learned "the lessons of a lifetime". He had paid a high price for them and was prepared to amend whatever mistakes had been made.
He knew he had contributed to his own misfortune, but also believed that "rarely in the history of politics in the State has anybody paid such a high price or been ridiculed and been subjected to such sustained, prolonged criticism".
Mr McCullough put it to Mr Lowry that he had given the impression to the Dail that he was going to make a "full and frank" disclosure, "but you, in fact, only told the Dail what you thought you needed to tell them and no more, and in fact your statement was misleading in relation to that sentence about the offshore bank accounts".
Mr Lowry said he rejected that. His statement was full and comprehensive.