Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
The following is the full text of a statement prepared by Michael Lowry for delivery in the Dáil this evening on the Moriarty Tribunal’s finding of his property dealings.
The full statement, as ultimately delivered, went beyond the prepared remarks.
I wish to thank the members of this House for the courtesy shown to me while I made my statement yesterday. I endured only one vitriolic intervention – from Deputy Stagg; a man who has endured his own controversy and received compassion from this House in his own difficult times. Deputy Stagg threw a nasty slur across the floor of this House intimating that Professor Michael Andersen was paid to give his evidence. This is absolutely not true – not even the Moriarty Tribunal has ever alleged this.
Professor Andersen gave evidence when his long standing request for an indemnity was met. His standing as an expert in the field of mobile telecommunication competitions is beyond reproach. He is also and academic and author of real standing. He was the only expert in this field to give evidence to the Tribunal. Just because the Moriarty Tribunal could not deal with his stark “inconvenient truths” they simply whitewashed his evidence completely out of the equation. This “let’s pretend Andersen never happened approach” is not a licence for Deputy Stagg or anyone else to cast ill considered and ignorant aspersions across the floor of this chamber.
Would Deputy Stagg wish to cast a slur on all of those witnesses as well? Is he saying the 17 Civil servants were paid to give false evidence? Maybe those witnesses were all part of a conspiracy to corrupt the licence competition process 15 years ago and all came together in the 15 years since to perjure themselves consistently before the Tribunal? Maybe all of those witnesses were bought and paid for too? Surely they cannot all be wrong?
It is a fact that NO money was ever received into my bank account, my family or any of my businesses accounts from Denis O’Brien. I have NEVER received any money from Denis O’Brien or from anyone on his behalf.
The Moriarty Tribunal has engaged in a cynical exercise of presenting two English property transactions and a loan agreement in a slanted and deliberately incomplete manner to give the impression that I was the nett beneficiary of: – €147,000 – €300,000 – €420,000 A total of €900,000 approximately. To give the false and misleading impression that I got €900,000 approx is an intentional and malicious misrepresentation of the facts. I got no €900,000. I benefited with a BIG FAT zero from these properties. Let me go through these three properties and dismantle the notion that I walked away with €900,000.
House Purchased at 43 Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, County Dublin
- I purchased the property on 17th July 1996. The purchase price was IR£200,000. I was a Government Minister at the time which required my attendance in Dublin on a regular basis. I needed a residence in Dublin.
- I obtained a mortgage for the full purchase price IR£200,000
- I entered into a personal loan agreement with David Austin (deceased) for IR£147,000 to fund the refurbishment to make it habitable. This loan was fully documented and drawn up on agreed commercial terms between myself and Mr. Austin.
- I subsequently had no need for a second home in Dublin.
- I never occupied the house as renovations had not been completed. I sold the house back to the builder in January 1997.
- I repaid the mortgage of IR£200,114.55.
- As per our written loan agreement, I repaid the loan in full together with interest directly to David Austin’s personal account on 7th February 1997 with a payment of IR£148,816.93. The moneytrail shows that he spent his own money after it was returned by me. This was a loan, pure and simple. There was no nett financial benefit to me in this transaction.
- The Spanish property transaction and the loan as between Mr. Austin and myself are clearly two separate and distinct transactions. There is no link between them.Mansfield
- This property was purchased in September 1998, THREE years after the license was granted and TWO years after I was a Minister.
- I paid the deposit of 10% on this property. I paid it out of my own money. Aidan Phelan paid the balance of the purchase price from £300.000 which he had lodged in the English solicitors client account.
- I never received any money from this solicitors client account.
- To this day, Mr. Phelan and I own that property. Mr. Phelan owns 90% and I retain the 10% which I duly paid for with my own money.
- My 10% ownership and Aidan Phelan’s 90% ownership is legally reflected in the registered title deed documentation.
- This Mansfield property was never sold. My 10% is worth little or nothing today.
- I received no payment or benefit in this deal. It is fiction to say that I got 300,000 from this property. There is no money trail.Cheadle (UK)
- In 1999, FOUR years after the license was granted and THREE years after I was Minster, I negotiated the purchase of this property at Cheadle through a company CatClause which was legally registered in my name for £445,000.
- As I was already in partnership in Mansfield property with Aidan Phelan he agreed to pay the 10% deposit £44,500.
- I had difficulty in organising finance to complete the purchase as any loan was subject to an independent personal guarantee.
- I failed to get a bank guarantor so therefore my loan was disapproved.
- Because of my inability to raise the funds Aidan Phelan took exclusive ownership of the deal. It is a fact that he sold the property years later, discharged the loan himself to Woodchester Bank and retained the full proceeds of the sale.
- This was all proven to the Tribunal and backed up with relevant documentation.
- Contrary to the impression deliberately created by Moriarty that I received €420,000, the fact is that I received absolutely nothing from this transaction. There never was €420,000 paid to me by way of loan or otherwise.
- The alleged €420,000 Cheadle payment is a complete and utter lie.It was proven to the Tribunal that I actually did not benefit from any of these transactions. There is no pot of gold at the end of some rainbow in North Tipperary, or anywhere else. The financial trail is actually far more mundane and unimpressive than the Tribunal would have everyone believe. Frankly, the evidence and the facts show that the so called money trail goes nowhere. However, opinions do not have to reflect the facts. Opinions can be infinitely more interesting and scandalous because opinions never have to be proven.
Every transaction in every bank account that I have had since 1986, either in my own name or in the name of my companies, were trawled through. I was able to account for every single transaction in every account. The same went for all accounts held by my late mother, my brothers, sister, and my children. I would ask the members of this House to reflect on the enormous level of intrusion that can be visited upon a citizen by a Tribunal of Inquiry. The pressure as brought to bear would have been too much for me had it not been for the kind support of my family, friends and my supporters. I owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.
This Tribunal report is a triumph of innuendo over evidence; a triumph of supposition over fact. I believe that it is truly a bad day for Ireland when citizens can be subjected to the incredible levels of ridicule and contempt that I and others have endured on the basis of unsubstantiated opinion. I have endured it with great strain but I refuse to buckle under it.
My conscience is clear. I do not accept Michael Moriarty’s baseless opinions and I will not apologise for something that I did not do. I have a life and a career to get back to and I intend to do so. I am certainly a little older and I would hope a little wiser for my experiences with the Moriarty Tribunal but I am still standing and I know that I still have a valuable and worthwhile contribution to make. I intend to make it.
Michael Martin, Fianna Fail and others can continue to make me a political football by way of a politically convenient censure motion. It is my intention to make a contribution to that debate but I will not give my detractors the satisfaction of putting this motion to a vote. I wish to advise that I have no intention of resigning my position as a democratically elected representative of this House. I will not walk away from the overwhelming mandate that was given to me by the constituents of North Tipperary/South Offaly.
I would also emphatically reject the sneering and snide references to “gombeen politics” and parish pump politics that seem to delight certain sections of the media. Contrary to what might be suggested in the media, the constituents of North Tipperary are every bit as intelligent and politically sophisticated as their counterparts anywhere else in the country. I am proud to serve them. I have performed my role as elected representative of the people of North Tipperary to the very best of my ability. I will continue to do so until they decide otherwise.
In conclusion I wish to state that the Moriarty Tribunal has not done the State some service. I believe that in the fullness of time, their contribution will be exposed for what it is; a scandal of truly epic proportions.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Parents who cant be bothered feeding their children properly should be banned from being parents.
Interesting ban to try to enforce, that.
Also, where would the state provide the training and how would it carry out the testing in proper nutrition in order to make the initial determination as to potential parental fitness, and how would you carry out ongoing testing to ensure adherance to this?
(Answers on a postcard to the government that still hasn’t arrested anyone over the contents of the Murphy report…)
I think it was fairly obvious I was being intentionally glib in order to highlight the fact that ultimately, childrens nutrition is the responsibility of their parents.
It was. But then, it was also obvious that a ban on advertising doesn’t stop parents feeding children badly – you can cook bad meals at home just as easily as you can buy them in fast food places.
It did raise a good point though, in that the state doesn’t seem to help parents learn good nutrition and how to provide it for their kids…
Yes! I’d love to see all advertising targeting kids banned but especially junk food.
would you agree its up to the parent to decide what food their children eat people. we cant just start blaming childhood obesity on the fast companies its up to the adults to show some responsibility and just say no censorship is not the way education is
@michael I for one see no reason the state should not be able to make far greater interventions on childrens health. so I think yes parents do control their kids diet but I see not one reason thats a good thing and should continue as it is.
@Michael yes, I totally agree that it’s up to the parents to decide what food their kids eat and banning advertising is not a full solution but it will help a lot.
Children are so easily influenced by advertising and it’s difficult for them to understand the concept of junk food when it’s made to look so good and fun, often even healthy, on telly. I don’t look forward to having to explain to my daughter what McDonalds is and why she never gets it and why she can’t have a happy meal that comes with a shiny toy… And there are a lot of parents who are as influenced by advertising targeted at kids as their kids are and fall for the Ribena ‘made by mums’ line and other clever advertising slogans.
I think we can agree smoking bans have been successful. The tobacco lobby is one of the most powerful. Stop fannying about and lobby against this threat to our health. It’s costing us a fortune in hospital bills
Dammit Susan, I’m starvin’ for McDonalds chicken nuggets now! :D
Whoops!
Yes thanks Susan, have a salad with me but now feel compelled to go to Mc Donald’s. Thanks Aaron also for mentioning the Golden Arches ^_^
I eanted to vote ‘No’ but the conditions of my ‘No’ vote don’t comply with those attached.
Anyway, good luck at controlling Sky, UTV, Ch 4 and all other unrestricted signals received in our 26 counties.
Hi Conor,
I don’t want to stop people voting ‘no’ so I’ve made it more general, to take into account all reasons for voting no to any restrictions. Hope that means you can cast your vote now!
Thanks, Susan
I’m pretty sure we get Irish ads, even on the english channels we get over here..at least on a good few of them anyway.
A ban on advertising these foods would accomplish absolutely nothing. Labelling them would be a good move, if it was backed up with some education. It always amazes me how many people put salt on their food before eating it.
I agree. The ban would accomplish nothing whatsoever. At the end of the day it’s not the kids buying the food its the parents. You could ban the likes of McDonalds advertising but McDonalds will still be at the entrance to every shopping centre in the country.
The ban would accomplish nothing at all…
…except that it’d give a small amount of peace and quiet to parents who otherwise have to convince four-year-olds that the television is wrong and that chicken cooked at home where you know what went into the meal is better than whatever the heck went into a kids meal at McDonalds.
Peace and quiet at home -v- Profit margins in McDonalds and other commercial food companies.
Yeah, I know which I care about more.
Oh, and hell yes to the labelling please.
The more information the better.
Just bring in the fast food levy and be done with it
Hmm. This strikes me as being totally impractical. Who determines the levels as being unsafe and therefore falling into the relevant category? What will the levels of each dangerous item be? Is it just junk food (some of which is not fast food) or is it all fast food (some of which is healthy)? Will it be targeted at certain companies or in general? Take for example your average McDonalds – we all know it’s bad for you on a multitude of levels, including sugar and salt intake (not to mention the numerous other chemicals, fats, oils, etc.) So we can safely implement this restriction on McDonalds burgers and fries. But many other food items are also dangerous, particularly for children. A child’s (4-8yrs) RDA for salt/sodium is 1.2g. However, in just one slice of your typical brown sliced pan there is roughly 0.5g of sodium/salt (Supervalu’s own-brand brown bread has, per 38g slice of bread, 2g of salt and 5g of salt equivalent including sodium). 3 slices of bread a day and your child has already exceeded his/her daily salt intake. Not to mention any butter, cheese, meat, etc. that the child puts on the bread. Therefore we should also restrict bread – no more Brennan’s or Pat the Baker ads on TV. No more ads for crisps, chocolates (which is fine by me). No ads for butter or many cheeses. No ads for Denny bacon, sausages, or any other pork product which as we should all know is riddled with salt. No Sunday beef dinners. No ads for Oxo or Bisto or whatever branded instagravy you use. No more stock cubes. No more ads for McCain’s oven chips. And, knowing our government, all this would be done without educating the parents on the alternatives, who, let’s face it, have been educated by those very ads who dictate their product is wholesome and healthy, despite the fact it’s not.
Good point. I think it would just have to be an outright ban on all food advertising aimed at children. Would be easier to just ban all advertising targeted at children. That’s how it is in some countries and it seems to work.
But what about food advertisements not aimed at children, such as bread, breakfast meats, hams, instant gravies and soups? These are rarely aimed at children, but children eat those foods anyway? Who decides that one particular ad is bad because it’s aimed at a child (such as chips, crisps, chocolate, McDonalds, Supermac, etc.), while another ad promoting a food just as bad for the child gets aired because it’s deemed not to be aimed at the child (Brennan’s breads, Pat the Baker breads, Cuisine de France breads, Kerrygold butters and cheeses, Avonmore butters and cheeses, etc.)? Product placement is another concern. Placing McDonald’s or whatever in the middle of kid’s shows. Can we ban that? If we do ban that then McDonalds et al could request the banning of children eating bread in TV shows. This is why I think it’s impractical. Certainly there are good motivations behind it – but it just won’t work. Someone above compared cigarettes to food. But, unlike food, there are no variations on the topic of cigarettes – they are all bad and easy to remove from the public eye. Food, in all it’s variations, forms, levels of goodness/badness, targets, etc. is a far more complicated topic.
I don’t know, you have to check how they do it in other countries, I”m pretty sure advertising aimed at kids is banned in Sweden and/or other Scandinavian countries, maybe in Canada too? Just copy their model! Easy peasy ;-). I don’t think Oxo, butter, cheeses etc exactly TARGETS children. It’s very easy to see which ads are aimed at kids and which at adults.
Aye Tina, but I wish it was that simple. We all know what corporations are like these days. Banning food advertisements aimed at children would only see those companies change their method of delivery. Rather than aiming their food at children they would simply aim it at a general audience. Children would still be exposed. And if you then wanted to ban the likes of McDonalds et al outright you run into the problem of unfair competition by allowing other companies such as Brennan’s (and I really don’t mean to be singling out individual companies here – they are just off the top of my head) to advertise.
This is true, Brian, but it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t even try to control it a bit. Even some controls would be better than the current situation.
I totally agree Tina. I think though that we have to be careful if we don’t want the wrath of the EU down on us or face legal action by other companies which could ultimately undermine any positive actions or policies implemented by the Government. Personally I think some form of health and culinary class should be made compulsory for all children – a class or course whereby all the nutritional information is provided as well as the culinary skills necessary to cook the food. The fact of the matter is we are sending our kids by the tens of thousands into the world on their own and all they know how to cook is boiled eggs toast and beans – is it any wonder they then turn to fast food, and as they can’t cook, they then foist that on their kids.
Parents should teach their kids the dangers.
As a parent i can say no to my kids. I don’t need someone else telling me what my kids should and shouldn’t be eating. Ireland is really becoming a nanny state. Its ridiculous. Just like the hundreds of ads for xmas and my son asking for everything he sees, the word no will be used then too. Anyway when kids see something new in an ad its forgotten about 2 minutes later. This country has gone mad
Hear hear Sharon – This whole thread is ridiculous. My kids get home cooked meals 13 out of 14 days and a McDonalds or a Burger King or a takeaway every couple of weeks. Big deal! Just say NO the rest of the time….
Sharon and Paul, why don’t the pair of you let us know how that’s going for you in a few years time when your kids have access to their own money? If you think that you as parents are the only influence on how your children’s view of the world is shaped you are mistaken. Also, not that this necessarily applies to either of you, ‘home-cooked’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘good’. I am quite sure many people would be surprised at just how unhealthy some of the things they feed their children (and themselves) are; breakfast cereals, orange juice, bread, pasta, baked beans, sausages, yoghurts, shop bought soups….
@Linda… I totally agree with you re Home Cooked being just as unhealthy as fast food in a lot of instances. I posted on another post a while back about food waste and the cost of eating fresh food versus the cost of ready/processed/frozen food.
I am an advocate for fresh, local produce. We have our own vegetables, hens and lamb. We buy locally where possible and shop around for bargains. We have 3 highly active (Which is the key by the way), healthy children and our weekly shopping bill rarely exceeds 60 euros. We eat freshly prepared food, all day every day… The kids get a fast food treat about once every two weeks! I totally stand over it.
State intervention has worked well in the area of cigarettes and tobacco but, as I posted before on another comment thread, a proper education program and a schools led “Home Ec” type program would go much further then a ban on fast food… IMHO.
The majority vote here is YES so far.
There are two ways of looking at it. Yes, it’s probably a good thing if a child does not grow up seeing fast food ads everywhere and the commercials making eating these foods cool and popular to children. That’s how I voted anyway.
But at the same time, are we so bad at being parents, at being sensible, mature, informed adults that we cannot do the right thing by our children and not adopt an unhealthy lifestyle for their sakes. Do we actually need other people telling us how to raise our children? Do we not love our children enough to do what’s right and not what’s popular? Do we say “No, Jimmy we are not buying takeout just because Johnny gets it, it’s not good for you”, or do we say – ” It’s my child and I will raise him how I see fit as a parent”.
Or maybe you are on a very low income and fast food is cheaper – who can judge then? Food, however bad is better than no food. I think most parents do what they can.
Peoples perception of what a good parent is, varies greatly – some people have no clue, some are too strict.
In the end – it’s not enough that you love your child – you have to care and that means making decisions that your child won’t like, saying no, being a parent and not a best friend.
I cooked for my daughter and made sure she ate all the right things growing up…but on trips out we had junk food as a treat. To me that was okay. Was I a good parent?
Then again bad, lazy parents will feed their children these foods anyway because they grew up eating them themselves and don’t actually cook healthy food at home.
I voted yes, because I thought it was the right thing to do… kids will still get fast food and junk if their parents wish it.
Those who wish to scream “nanny state” should bear in mind that a nanny’s job is to assist parents with raising their children, even the negligent ones.
Also, banning advertising will not prevent certain types of parent from feeding their children crap, because they will still know where to find it in the supermarket, so there is no infringement of their freedom to ruin their children’s health.
Lastly, I’m appalled when I see what some companies will sell, especially to children, just to make money. There is no thought whatsoever for anyone or anything except the bottom line. This leads me to believe that the only solution to the problem of junkfood, like the solution to many other societal ills, is to tax it until its cost to the health service is recouped.
How would they decide which foods to tax? Some baby foods contain more sugar than the average biscuit? I’m not in favour of a total ban in advertising, but a huge reduction during prime time kids’ TV would be beneficial. Parents may have total control when kids are small, but it’s much harder to monitor a child’s diet as he gets older. There’s also too much of a dependence on sweets as a treat or reward. My 1 year old had an injection recently and the nurse presented him with a lollipop which he promptly clamped between his teeth breaking off a large chunk which I had difficulty removing without losing a finger. The dependence on junk food is fostered from a very early age and children are well hooked by the time they’re 4 or 5.
As a parent of a son with a special diet I’m not overly surprised by some of the revelations here about the salt and fat content of some foods so on the face of it I would agree to a ban of adds for junk food aimed at kids, I think most people would. Its how to enforce such a ban thats the problem. I love the idea of educating kids, and parents too, about correct nutrition and how to cook but I think the chef, Jamie Oliver, tried something similar with mixed results. He discovered that many families now don’t even have a table and chairs from which to eat their meals off and instead eat take outs or microwave meals in front of the TV.
I often wonder if the adds we see with a muscled and tanned teenaged model shown jogging into a McWassaname for a triple deck McBurger and fries were to show the same scene 12 months later. The now 18 stone, lad would collapse out of breath into a booth (the wee chair can no longer hold his weight) he takes out his Accu-Chek diabetes monitor and checks his blood sugar levels before ordering his double triple deck McBurger and fries, as he finishes the lot he’s last seen clutching his chest. Exaggerated no doubt, but isn’t this what the advertising industry do?
Its not called “junk food” for nothing and while we all know about all these other things that may also be bad or harmful for us we have to start somewhere and these are aimed at our kids, a real “get ‘em while they’re young” mentality. If we make a stand now and educate our kids we may have a chance of breaking the cycle, the next generation may not be overweight, may cringe at high salt or fat levels and may even be able to do something strange and weird like… cook… for themselves. Maybe, just maybe they’ll be a bit smarter than us.
Yes
The "Parental Skills" course will be starting this September at your local Fás training centre… Available to all dipsh1ts from all levels of society!!!
Can someone define “Junk food and Drink” please? Are we going to ban orange juice if it rots your teeth? what about actimels? they full of sugar!
Ban junk food advertising aimed at kids… nice theory, but is that going to translate to ITV? Channel 4? Nickelodeon? Few enough kids watch only Irish stations I would imagine, so its just not going to be effective. Parents feed their kids, and arent going to stop feeding them junk because there’s no more McDs ads aimed at children…
And will this restriction on free speech be in the name of public morality or public order?
What is happening to parental control? Who puts the food on the table for children? Responsibility towards children starts in the home… Compulsory cookery classes in school would be a better option.
Leave it up to parents to raise their children and stop the nanny state telling us how to live.
I agree with John Beggan. As a father myself with 2 small children I take them to McDonalds at most once or twice a month.
Obesity today is a cause for alarm. Look at the American population and to a certain extent even our own country. I was a 20 year old in the 60s and the general population were much thinner than today.
I believe parents giving their children the wrong food at this period in their lives is creating problems of obesity at a later stage.
I am not a medical man but I have had some personal experience of the above. My partner thought it was great stuffing ‘solid’ baby food down the throat of my little baby son when he was only 5 months old. On one occasion she kept feeding him ‘solids’ until he threw it all back up. Today, at 10 years of age, he is slightly obestic and I believe his system was triggered as a result of what happened 10 years ago.
I relate this because I feel what we feed our children today will determine how they will be later in life.
In general I find my children enjoy good food. Sometimes they would want me to take them to McDondalds but instread I would head to a hotel carvery and guess what? they would clear their plates of good wholesome vegs, boiled potatoes and loads of roast beef, lamb or pork – whatever meats on the menu.
As parents we must say NO the McDonalds of this world. They are after all OUR children and we must be responsible parents.
Today my son takes a certain amount of ‘slagging’ as a result of his excess weight. Therefore he has a social stigma to deal with which I believe could have been avoided.
have your say