BREAKING: Lowry was denied opportunity to respond to accusations made by Pearse Doherty

Tipperary North TD Michael Lowry has said that he was denied the opportunity to combat allegations made in the Dáil by Sinn Féin's Pearse Doherty.

In early 2025, Deputy Doherty criticised Taoiseach Micheál Martin for forming a Government with Michael Lowry, saying: "You called him a rogue politician, now you welcome him back into the bosom of Government."

READ MORE: BREAKING: Man (40s) dies after workplace accident in Tipperary meat processing plant

He said of Deputy Lowry: "The star of the Moriarty Tribunal, that found that Michael Lowry received over a million Euro in direct payments and loan supports from Denis O'Brien."

"Deputy Lowry had 57 meetings in relation to the Doncaster deal, including here, in the houses of the Oireachtas."

"So will he explain also in September and October of 2001 why his accountant and his advisor paid the person putting the Doncaster deal together two bank drafts of £32,500 and £25,000 for his fee. And while he's doing that, maybe he'll explain why these payments came from an account in Gibraltar and where did they originate from. These payments were never disclosed to the Tribunal.

"Will he use Government's time to explain to this house and to the public why he on the fifteenth of March 2001 met with other key individuals in relation to this deal in Dublin, the outcome of this meeting was the creation of a false narrative and fake new documents. Fake documents that were given to the Tribunal.

"Maybe he could explain why he it is claimed with two others that were central to these deals, met in a rural farm on 2002, to burn the original documents pertaining to these deals. He did so to make sure that the truth would never see the light of day.

"So maybe next time, when you sit down with Michael Lowry to discuss your grubby Government deal, ask him, did he burn the documents? Where did the Gibraltar payments come from? Why did he meet in a meeting that ended up creating false documents? And why, why did he lie to the Tribunal?"

In a statement issued following the decision taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions to not pursue legal action against Deputy Lowry following a garda investigation into the Moriarty Tribunal, Deputy Lowry issued a statement as to why he did not respond to Deputy Doherty's remarks at the time.

He said: "In recent days I have been repeatedly asked by media outlets as to why I did not respond to allegations made by Deputy Pearse Doherty under Dail Privilege.

"Immediately in the aftermath of Deputy Doherty’s outrageous allegations I formally wrote to the Ceann Comhairle requesting an opportunity to address the unfounded, malicious and totally false comments of Deputy Doherty. I was strongly of the view that it would only be fair that I was allowed the opportunity to respond and put the record straight.

READ MORE: REVEALED: Which Tipperary restaurants made the 2026 Irish Restaurant Awards winners list?

"The Ceann Comhairle relying on Standing Orders refused my request."

In response to Deputy Lowry's request, Ceann Comhairle Verona Murphy wrote back saying: "I refer to your email of 23 January 2025, requesting that you be permitted to make a personal explanation in Dáil Éireann further to remarks made by Deputy Pearse Doherty in the Dáil on that date.

"As you will be aware, further details of the content of your explanation were sought on 29 January 2025. In addition, on 11 February 2025, it was requested that you provide a script of your proposed explanation, which you provided on 18 March 2025.

"I have considered your request and your proposed explanation in the light of the provisions of Standing Order 57, and I must advise that, pursuant to those provisions, I cannot permit you to make the personal explanation submitted.

"In making this determination, I have had regard to the provisions of the Standing Order which require a personal explanation to be “non-argumentative” and “not be such as would cause debate or give rise to further explanations”. I do not consider that your explanation would meet these requirements of the Standing Order; accordingly, I must advise you that I cannot accede to your request."