Mr Michael Lowry TD has issued this statement following last week's disclosures at the tribunal:
I am restrained from commenting in detail to the media on matters arising since last Tuesday's (May 22nd) sitting of the tribunal. However, in view of the seriously inaccurate conclusions conveyed to the public by sections of the media, I feel compelled to state the following:
The matters under investigation in the next stage of the inquiry were outlined by counsel for the tribunal on Tuesday last. At the end of the hearing the chairman of the inquiry, the Honourable Justice Mr Michael Moriarty, observed that the matters opened gave an outline of the evidence to be produced rather than setting forth any final or provisional conclusion.
The Honourable Judge, at the end of the hearing, expressed the belief that high standards of coverage and objective reporting would be observed in dealing with the matter outlined.
It is my intention to vigorously defend my position and my conduct in these matters. I am confident that, when I am afforded the opportunity at the tribunal, I will give a satisfactory explanation on the matters which have been raised. Unfortunately, that occasion will not arise for some weeks yet.
However, in the meantime, I feel obliged to inform my constituents, through local media, of the following:
In view of the outrageous, misinformed commentary in respect of the granting of the second GSM/mobile licence, I wish to reiterate in clear and unequivocal terms that the six applicants had equal opportunity.
The assessment and evaluation of the applications conducted by an independent project team and international professional consultants was fair and impartial. I, as minister of the day, did not interfere with the process or influence the outcome in any way.
As minister, I accepted the report and recommendation of the consultants. I brought that recommendation to the Minister for Finance, Ruairi Quinn, and to the three party leaders, John Bruton, Dick Spring, and Proinsias De Rossa.
The recommendation was accepted and the Government approved the winning application. Despite the innuendo, gossip and rumour, there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate or justify the allegations of political wrongdoing levied against me in this aspect.
The sensational assertions that the licence decision has exposed the State to massive damage claims by the losers is total nonsense. Despite all the speculation and hype, there is nothing untoward or wrong with the process which led to the award of the licence to Esat Digifone.
As to headline-grabbing reporting in some parts of the media I wish to state:
I did not, directly or indirectly, receive any monies from Denis O'Brien.
A loan facility was made available to me by the late David Austin in the sum of £147,000 in respect of refurbishment works. This sum was repaid in full together with interest.
In December, 1998, I purchased a 10 per cent beneficial interest in a development site in Mansfield, England. The cost of this site was stg£250,000 for which I paid my 10 per cent, i.e. stg£25,000, from my own personal funds.
As to the other site in Cheadle, England, I purchased it in late 1999 primarily through bank borrowings but my beneficial interest lapsed when the bank requirements were not fully met. I no longer have any beneficial interest in the site.