Politics

Michael Lowry Q&A: Why Independent TD’s involvement in government formation talks is controversial

Dáil vote in 2011 called on Tipperary TD to voluntarily resign but he refused, later telling The Irish Times he would not be run out of politics by ‘the media’

Michael Lowry is point of contact for the Regional Group of Independents. Photograph: Alan Betson/The Irish Times
Michael Lowry is point of contact for the Regional Group of Independents. Photograph: Alan Betson/The Irish Times
Colm Keena's picture
Colm Keena
Mon Jan 13 2025 - 11:57
What’s wrong with Michael Lowry being involved in talks about forming the next government?

Tipperary North Independent TD Michael Lowry (70) is unarguably the most controversial TD sitting in the Dáil. Numerous inquiries into his personal, political and business affairs over the years have cost the public tens of millions of euro, mostly in legal bills.

In March 2011, following the publication of the second report of the Moriarty (Payments to Politicians) Tribunal, the chamber passed the following motion without a vote: “The Dáil believes the conduct of Michael Lowry set out in the tribunal report was completely unacceptable, and calls on Deputy Lowry to resign voluntarily his membership of Dáil Éireann.”

Lowry did not resign. Last year he topped the poll in Tipperary North for the seventh general election in a row.

What did the tribunal say that was so bad?

Firstly, that Lowry, when minister for communications, “secured the winning” of the competition for a mobile phone licence for Denis O’Brien’s Esat Digifone. The winning of the competition was the launch pad for O’Brien’s ascent into the super-wealthy league.

READ MORE

Secondly, that O’Brien conveyed financial benefits on Lowry including a July 1996 payment, for £147,000 (€187,000), made when Lowry was still a government minister. The money ended up in an account in the Isle of Man.

And, thirdly, that the benefits conveyed to Lowry by O’Brien “were demonstrably referable to the acts and conduct of Mr Lowry in regard to the [licence] process, that inured to the benefit of Mr O’Brien’s winning consortium”.

Both O’Brien and Lowry rejected the tribunal findings, but they still stand.

The McCracken (Dunne Payments) Tribunal, in August 1997, found that Lowry and his refrigeration business, Garuda, were paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by the late Ben Dunne and Dunnes Stores in ways designed to help Lowry and his business evade tax.

The payments included deposits in offshore accounts and paying Lowry £395,107 (€501,785) by having work done on his Tipperary home charged as if it was work on the Dunnes outlet in the Ilac Centre in Dublin. During some of this time, Lowry was a TD and chair of the Fine Gael parliamentary party.

The tribunal made the following comment: “It is an appalling situation that a government minister and chairman of a parliamentary party can be seen to be consistently benefitting from the black economy from shortly after the time he was first elected to Dáil Éireann. If such a person can behave in this way without serious sanctions being imposed, it becomes very difficult to condemn others who similarly flout the law.”

In the wake of McCracken, the government appointed an inspector to investigate Garuda. In 2007, Lowry and Garuda agreed a €1.4 million settlement with the Revenue. Then, in 2018, Lowry and Garuda were found guilty in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court of delivering incorrect corporation tax returns and failing to keep proper books of account for the 2006 tax year.

The case arose because of a six-figure payment to Garuda from a Norwegian company that had not been disclosed to the Revenue during its investigations a decade earlier. Lowry was fined €15,000 and banned from operating as a company director for three years. The Norwegian payment had gone to a man who, the Moriarty tribunal found, knew Lowry and others were party to misleading the tribunal about financial links between O’Brien and Lowry.

In 1993, the year Lowry became chairman of the Fine Gael parliamentary party, he availed of the tax amnesty but didn’t make a full disclosure. (He didn’t tell the Revenue about the Dunnes money sitting in the offshore accounts.)

When he was minister for communications, and heavily involved in Fine Gael’s fundraising efforts, Lowry sought to intervene in a rent review on an office building on O’Connell Street, Dublin, owned by Ben Dunne and rented out to State-owned Telecom Éireann.

Had the attempt succeeded it would have increased the value of Dunne’s investment from €6.86 million to €16.19 million, the Moriarty tribunal found. The loser would be the public.

“What was contemplated and attempted on the part of Mr Dunne and Mr Lowry was profoundly corrupt to a degree that was nothing short of breathtaking,” it said.

“What was reprehensible about his actions was that the tenant of the building was Telecom Éireann, of which, as minister for communications, Mr Lowry was the ultimate shareholder.”

Lowry, then a party trustee, sought to influence a Fine Gael insider but the insider refused, the tribunal was told. In his evidence, Lowry denied asking for the valuation increase and also denied responding to the insider’s refusal by saying: “What are ‘we’ going to do as Ben Dunne has contributed IR£170,000 to Fine Gael”.

Can Michael Lowry still be government kingmaker now Moriarty Tribunal has resurfaced?

Listen | 25:40
What’s the difference between the McCracken and Moriarty tribunals?

In 1997, in the context of controversy sparked by media reports, the Oireachtas set up McCracken to investigate payments to politicians by Ben Dunne/Dunnes Stores. Haughey was the major focus, but Lowry also featured heavily. Following publication of the McCracken report, the Oireachtas set up Moriarty to look at payments to politicians from all sources, not just Dunnes. Its main focus for the first number of years was Haughey, who had lived way beyond his means for decades. That changed in 2001 when a media report disclosed new information about a payment to Fine Gael from Esat Digifone that was routed through an offshore account. Then a bank came forward to privately disclose to the tribunal a property deal in England that seemed to involve Lowry and financial backing from O’Brien. Then the tribunal learned about the £147,000 that ended up in Lowry’s Isle of Man account. The discovery of these financial links between O’Brien and Lowry led to the tribunal undertaking the massive task of investigating the licence award to Esat. It came to be called a tribunal within a tribunal, and took years.

Why hasn’t Lowry resigned?

In 2012 he told The Irish Times he remained in politics because he enjoys it, because he believes he has made a substantial contribution to his constituency and because he has continued to receive great moral support from the people of North Tipperary. “And there is also in my mind a defiance, that I am not going to let the media run me out of politics.”

So, what’s happening now?

Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are looking to form a new government with the support of, among others, an eight-member group of TDs called the Regional Group of Independents. Lowry was appointed their point of contact, but then The Irish Times reported that the Criminal Assets Bureau had recently sent a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) arising from its examination of the 2011 Moriarty tribunal report. Simon Harris and Micheál Martin – who were both in the Dáil when it passed the 2011 motion calling on Lowry to resign – blushed a bit, but said they were still willing to deal with the Regional Group.

Why did it take the Garda so long to file their report?

Evidence collected by a tribunal of inquiry cannot be used in the criminal courts, so the gardaí had to conduct their own inquiries while preparing their file. Some of the material they collected probably came from outside the State. On the other hand, the tribunal report was there to act as a roadmap so, yes, 14 years is a long time.