Contradictions in Century position under spotlight

The former chairman of Century Radio, Mr Laurence Crowley, has no recollection of allegations that senior Fianna Fail figures…

The former chairman of Century Radio, Mr Laurence Crowley, has no recollection of allegations that senior Fianna Fail figures sought kickbacks in return for the award of radio licences, The Irish Times has learned.

Mr Crowley has informed the tribunal in a statement that he cannot recall fellow director Mr James Stafford telling him that payments were sought by the former minister Mr Ray Burke, and the former Government press secretary, Mr P.J. Mara.

However, Mr Crowley, now the governor of Bank of Ireland, has told the tribunal he was made aware of the £35,000 payment by another Century director, Mr Oliver Barry, to Mr Burke some time after it was made. Mr Crowley was drafted in to serve as chairman of Century in February 1990. Mr Stafford has told the tribunal he kept Mr Crowley informed of a variety of conversations he had with Mr Barry in 1990.

In these, Mr Barry allegedly claimed that Mr Burke and Mr Mara would have to be paid to secure a broadcasting licence. The alleged fee was £90,000 for a national radio licence, £75,000 for a Dublin licence and £25,000 for a local licence.

READ MORE

According to Mr Stafford, Mr Barry was approached several times by Mr Mara, who said he was owed money by Century. Mr Stafford says he insisted there was no question of money being paid to Mr Mara. He went to Mr Crowley who agreed with him the demand was "preposterous".

Mr Stafford was in the witness-box yesterday for the second day. Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for the tribunal, spent most of the day picking holes in Century's approach to the establishment of the first national commercial station in September 1990 and in particular its disputes with RTE over transmission fees.

RTE and the Department of Communications reached agreement on a charge of £614,000 for transmission fees, but Century refused to pay anything near this.

As for Century's assessment that it should pay RTE a sum of £375,000 for rebroadcasting its signal, Mr Hanratty concluded that this figure was arrived at on the basis of accountancy, and not on any technical assessment.

Before Century even went into the IRTC hearing, the company solicitor minuted during an internal meeting that "£375,000 is our figure. Commission will avoid that issue. May have the information afterward." This, Mr Hanratty suggested, meant that the company had "advance information" regarding the issues the commission would ask it about.

This interpretation is lent support by another company minute which reads: "RTE fee (unlikely to be asked)".

Mr Stafford insisted he had no specific knowledge of the commission's thinking. "If I said that, it was a view that I had formed, not a view I was informed about." In February 1990, a further company minute noted that "the Minister will give a direction of £375,000". Note: not "may" or "might" give a direction, but "will". And this was before any application was made to Mr Burke asking him to fix the RTE charges. Mr Stafford maintained that this minute was the result of "speculation" on the part of him and Mr Barry, and not any certain knowledge. The two men went to Mr Burke, who said he could do nothing.

According to Mr Stafford, however, Mr Burke then contacted Mr Barry to say if the issue were raised with the IRTC first, and the IRTC in turn raised it with him, then he might be able to intervene. There is no record in Department of Communications files of any of these contacts.

Century told anyone who would listen that if it had to pay anything over £375,000 it would no longer be viable. In February, for example, the board relayed its unanimous view that this figure was non-negotiable.

What then are we to make of an internal minute revealed yesterday which said that Century "could pay up to £520,000"? Or another minute which says "could pay up to £520,000; a steal at £375,000".

Mr Stafford tried to fend off these contradictions for a time, but eventually succumbed. The figure of £375,000 was a "negotiating position", he conceded. And no, he added, it was not true that the project would not have been viable at a higher figure.

However, he denied Mr Hanratty's assertion that he had taken a "false and dishonest" position.

pcullen@irish-times.ie