What did Mr. Sean Fitzgerald, Assistant Secretary General DTEC, say in his evidence?

 

Mr Sean Fitzgerald was Assistant Secretary and Head of the Communications Division of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications (”DTEC”).  Martin Brennan, Sean Mac Mahon, and John McQuaid (key members of the PTGSM) reported directly to Mr. Fitzgerald.  Mr. Fitzgerald in turn reported directly to Mr. John Loughrey.  

 

In his evidence to the Tribunal on Day 193 (4 March 2003), Mr Fitzgerald stated that he had no difficulty in standing over the process.

 

“Q.    And even looking at — and looking back on it now, Mr. Fitzgerald, you have absolutely no doubt in relation to the integrity of the process and the integrity of the persons who were involved in that process?

 

A.    I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the integrity of the persons and that the process that they were entrusted with was carried out without any external influence or pressure and that from within the process, it was done fairly.  I don’t think I can go beyond that.”

  

In his evidence on Day 194 (5 March 2003), Mr Fitzgerald stated that Mr Lowry did not interfere in the second mobile phone licence process:

 

“A.    Mr. Fanning, I can confirm that to the best of my knowledge, he did not.  He was supportive of the whole concept.  He regarded it as a high priority from his point of view.  If he was guilty of anything in relation to the process, it was probably one of impatience, but no more than that.  At the very end he was extremely quick in securing a political acceptance by the subcommittee, Cabinet Subcommittee, and getting clearance for announcing the decision and getting it confirmed the following day by Government.”

 

Mr. Fitzgerald also gave clear evidence that it would have been virtually impossible for Michael Lowry to have interfered in the second mobile phone licence process:

 

“Q.    And I think your evidence is to the same effect as that of your colleagues, Mr. Loughrey and Mr. Brennan, and that is that not only did he not interfere with the result, as far as you are concerned from your vantage point, he couldn’t have interfered with the result either?

 

A.    It would have been, I think, virtually impossible for a Minister to dictate in any way, meaningful way to the Evaluation Group to bring about a result that wasn’t justified by the content of the bids submitted to them.”