Evidence from other civil servants involved in the second mobile phone licence competition process
Ms Regina Finn was an Assistant Principal in the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. She reported to Mr Sean McMahon. She was a member of the PTGSM.
In her evidence to the Tribunal on Day 216 (13 May 2003), she stated that she did not recall any details of direct dealings with Mr Lowry in connection with the affairs of Esat Telecom Limited, any associated company, or of Mr. Denis O’Brien.
Mr Ed O’Callaghan worked in the Telecommunications and Radio (Regulatory) Division of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. He reported to Mr Sean McMahon. He attended a number of meetings of the PTGSM from 4 September 1995 onwards.
In his evidence to the Tribunal on Day 197 (11 March 2003), he stated that the PTGSM was totally independent:
“Q. Were you ever subjected to any influence that you believed was subverting your independence in playing the role appointed to you?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Insofar as you had to exercise your independence or your independent will to work with the process, did you ever feel your ability to do so was being overborne by any person?
A. Never, no.
Q. In relation to the people you worked with on the Project Group, did you ever form the view any person in that group was being subjected to the type of influences I have described?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Had you thought that for one moment, what would you have done?
A. Oh, if I had come under any pressure whatsoever, I would have — I wouldn’t have been shy about coming forward with it. I would have raised it within my own — within my own people, and — and/or go straight to the Secretary on the subject. I’d have no doubt about that’s what I would have done.
Q. I think the one thing they have learnt about the civil service in the course of this module of this Tribunal is that there exist in place checks, balances, methods of raising your hand and saying there is a problem here that needs to be addressed; is that right?
A. Absolutely. The Secretary General at the time, John Loughrey, as I am sure any Secretary General would have had the same attitude, but I know Mr. Loughrey had an open-door policy, but he wouldn’t have had to have an open-door policy in something — if something along the lines you have postulated here had occurred. Every civil servant would know in his heart that it does not operate to pressure, and if anything was being applied, then they would have immediately blown the whistle and gone to the authority that would be able to deal with it; in this case, the head of the Department.”
Mr Aidan Ryan worked in the Telecommunications and Radio (Technical) Division of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. He was a member of the PTGSM.
In his evidence on Day 232 (10 July 2003), Mr Ryan stated that Esat Digifone was the clear winner of the competition:
“CHAIRMAN: Insofar as it is common case in that it was a very close finish between the top two, was there ever, at any stage, any attempt in the final project meeting, particularly the final October one, to actually as a jury, so to speak, to have a head count around the table to see what individual members might have felt was the favourite balance as regards between the top two competitors?
A. At the final meeting — the final meeting mainly dealt with presentational aspects, but at the end of it, I recall Martin Brennan turning around to everybody and saying, “Are we happy now with the result we have got and the work we have done?” And there was agreement across the table. And there certainly was not disagreement.”
He further gave evidence that Michael Lowry did not interfere in the second mobile phone licence competition process.
“Q. And insofar as the process up to the decision, you had no knowledge of any interference, direct or indirect, of the Minister?
A. No.
Mr Jimmy McMeel was an Assistant Principal in the Department of Finance. He was a member of the PTGSM.
In his evidence to the Tribunal on Day 209 (8 April 2003), he stated that Esat Digifone was the clear winner of the competition and that he had no problem with the way the evaluation process was conducted.
“Q. Indeed. Insofar as you were involved in the process and learnt that a winner had been selected, do you have any difficulties with the process that you were involved in and the view you had formed that that was an appropriate winner?
A. No, I have no problems whatsoever with the process or with the outcome of the process. I specifically said to the Minister that I endorse it, and I still do.”
Mr Billy Riordan was employed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC), Chartered Accountants and was seconded to the Department of Finance. He was an observer who attended meetings of the PTGSM to provide financial expertise when requested to do so by Mr Jimmy McMeel who was the representative of the Department of Finance on the PTGSM.
In his evidence to the Tribunal on Day 211 (10 April 2003), he stated that he had no recollection of Mr Lowry having an input into the process.
“A. No, I am not, no. Sorry, I am saying I don’t recall any input from the Minister to the process — to the meetings.
Q. Well, maybe clarify that for me. I don’t think the note suggests that the Minister was present.
A. No, but I don’t remember anybody saying this is what the Minister wants, or the Minister has suggested that these are bankable. I don’t remember any such suggestion.
Q. I see. That is what the note says, isn’t it?
A. It says “The Minister does not want the report to undermine itself, e.g. either a project is bankable.”
Q. Does that indicate something the Minister wanted?
A. That the Minister does not want the report to undermine itself. I don’t think it necessarily indicates that the Minister thought a project was bankable.”
Mr Donal Buggy was a chartered accountant on secondment from PWC with the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. His role was to provide advice from a financial perspective to any official of the Department who sought that advice. He was a member of the PTGSM.
In his evidence to the Tribunal on Day 227 (19 June 2003), Mr Buggy stated that the result was clear:
“A. Yes, I don’t think anyone at the Project Group was unhappy with the result. I think everyone was happy with that result.
Q. Some people say the consensus was that you had the winner, and it was just getting the wording right.
A. Yes.”
Mr Buggy also rejected any suggestion that the PTGSM pandered to Mr Lowry:
“Q… It was suggested to you, and maybe it was unintentional, that at a point in time, the Minister was aware of the ranking of the top two participants or the top two applicants. And that in some way meant everybody just back-pedalled and seemed to lose interest in doing their job in concluding analysing the result. Do you think that’s a fair analysis of what you saw happening at the progress group?
A. No, it’s a very unfair analysis. I don’t know if that was said, but it wouldn’t be the way I would describe it. There was a significant amount of work put in by the Project Group, even after that point in time.
Q. Insofar as you were there, and we have heard your evidence that although you were appearing as a sort of quasi part of the Department of Finance, you’d always wish a civil servant to be with you making the decisions, did you ever see any indication of somebody’s will being suborned in the course of the job they were doing in the grouping?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Did you ever see anything that suggested the Minister was attempting to influence how the group was treating its task in trying to achieve an equitable result?
A. Not on this issue, and not on any other issue while I was there.
Q. Now, did anybody attempt to influence you or cause you to conduct yourself in a way that would have gone against the terms of the competition and the rules of the competition?
A. No, they didn’t, no.”
Ms Maeve Ni Lochlainn was an Administrative Officer and secretary to the PTGSM. In her evidence to the Tribunal on Day 225 (29 May 2003), she stated no one attempted to control or influence her work on the PTGSM.
“Q. And it would seem clear, but possibly needs to be said, Ms. Nic Lochlainn, that there seems to be, running throughout that, absolutely no suggestion of anyone controlling, dictating or influencing your mind in the way in which you should arrive at a result?
A. None whatsoever.”
Ms Margaret O’Keeffe was an Executive Officer in the Communications, Corporate and Development Division of the Department of Transport Energy and Communications. She acted as note taker to the PTGSM at two of its meetings. Nowhere in her evidence on Day 224 (28 May 2003), does she suggest that the independence of the PTGSM was compromised or that Mr Lowry attempted to interfere in the workings of the PTGSM.
