TRIBUNAL FINDINGS:Q&A Compiled by PAUL CULLEN
Did Michael Lowry help Denis O’Brien’s Esat Digifone get the State’s second mobile phone licence?
A: The report says he did. It finds that he not only influenced but “delivered” the result that led to Esat Digifone being licensed and describes his influence as “insidious and pervasive”. It says the selection process was “far from sealed” and Lowry was “far from being an encouraging but disinterested [m]inister”.
How did he do it?
Through the exercise of direct, indirect and “insidious” influence, the report says.
Lowry disparaged two of Esat’s rival bidders and provided significant information to O’Brien while the process was ongoing. When O’Brien told him Dermot Desmond was joining his consortium, Lowry “provided comfort” to O’Brien that this would not impact on his prospects.
Lowry also withdrew time from the group of civil servants making the decision, the report says, thereby accelerating the process. He also saw to it that fellow cabinet ministers had no time to consider the recommendation in favour of Esat.
Follow the money, they say. So did Denis O’Brien give money to Lowry?
Yes. The report lists three sums from O’Brien to Lowry – payments of £147,000 stg and £300,000 stg and a “benefit equivalent to a payment” in the form of O’Brien’s support for a loan of £420,000.
The payments were made through intermediaries and some were made offshore and, the report says, they were made because Lowry was the minister for communications. Steps began to make the first payment less than seven weeks after the mobile phone licence was granted. This sum was repaid, but the tribunal says this was because of a fear that it would be disclosed to the McCracken tribunal.
Dermot Desmond wasn’t in the original consortium but ended up with a 20 per cent stake. Did Lowry play a role in this?
The report says there is no evidence that Lowry initiated Desmond’s involvement but says he played a vital role in the events that resulted in this outcome. It says that when Lowry and O’Brien met in a Dublin pub on All-Ireland hurling final day in September 1995, there is no doubt they discussed the licence bid. What Lowry said confirmed O’Brien’s view that it was vital to get Desmond on board.
What about the civil servants who made the actual decision? What has the report to say about them?
Earlier drafts of the report were reportedly harsher on the department officials, but the final version dismisses any possibility that they colluded with Lowry to deliver a decision on the licence. Allegations of collusion are “groundless, uninformed and bereft of the slightest objectivity”, the report states.
Was the evidence of Michael Lowry and Denis O’Brien accepted by the tribunal?
The central contention of both men – that the award of the mobile phone licence was above board – is clearly not accepted. But much of their other evidence is also rejected. For example, O’Brien’s evidence in relation to a conflict of testimony with his friend Barry Maloney is described as “inconsistent, unconvincing and implausible”. Meanwhile, Lowry’s evidence is criticised as “formulaic, evasive and unhelpful”.
So does the report find both men acted corruptly in relation to the mobile phone licence?
No, it does not. In fact, the only mention of corruption is in a section dealing with Lowry’s efforts to influence a rent arbitrator to increase the rent paid on a property owned by businessman Ben Dunne. The report says what was attempted by the two men was “profoundly corrupt, to a degree that was nothing short of breathtaking”.
What does the report say about Lowry’s tax affairs?
The inquiry examined 19 bank accounts held by Lowry, some of them offshore, and found unmatched lodgments of over £31,000. In general, it says, his financial arrangements disclosed “palpably inadequate book-keeping, a want of transparency in his dealings, and a disposition to declare and discharge his tax liabilities far below what could reasonably be expected from a holder of public office”.
In relation to a £100,000 deposit made in 1991 to an offshore account in the name of Lowry and three and his children, the report concludes that Lowry together with AIB officials, “knowingly and improperly combined to circumvent exchange control regulations then in force, and to aid Mr Lowry in evading his taxation liabilities in respect of the funds placed offshore”.
The report examines the Revenue Commissioners’ treatment of Lowry and his company, Garuda. In 2007, Garuda made a tax settlement for €1.261 million with Revenue in respect of under-declaration of taxes, while Lowry’s settlement was for €192,000. However, Revenue waived €447,000 due by Garuda after Lowry pleaded inability to pay. The report says Revenue discharged its duties in a diligent and professional way and could not be faulted for any delay.
Does the report deal with donations by Denis O’Brien to Fine Gael?
Yes it does. In relation to the $50,000 donation from Esat/Telenor to Fine Gael, the report says it is regrettable that Fine Gael and other parties to the transaction made no disclosure to the tribunal, even though they had a substantial degree of knowledge about the “clandestine” circumstances involved. Separate from the above payment, Fine Gael got a total of £22,140 in donations from O’Brien and his companies.
Well, at least Lowry isn’t as bad as Charles Haughey?
Well, the report actually says he displayed similar qualities to Haughey’s, in his “cynical and venal abuse of office, the brazen refusal to acknowledge the impropriety of his financial arrangements with Denis O’Brien and Ben Dunne, and by his contemptuous disregard for his taxation obligations”.