What did Mr. John Loughrey, Secretary General of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, say in his evidence?
Mr John Loughrey was the Secretary General of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications at the time the second mobile phone licence process took place. As such, he was the most senior and experienced civil servant directly involved in that process.
In his evidence to the Tribunal on Day 191 (27 February 2003), Mr. Loughrey stated categorically that Mr Lowry did not interfere in the second mobile phone licence process:
“Q. Now, just turn to some of the decisions that have been referred to and the steps taken, because I want to understand your — the role played by you and by the Department vis-à-vis the role played by the Minister. And as I understand it, firstly, in relation to the carrying out of the evaluation process, your view is that the Minister was aware of the carrying out of the evaluation process, but at no stage intervened or sought to intervene?
A. That’s absolutely correct. He quite correctly was informed of progress, because he had the responsibility to his colleagues in Government, he had responsibility to the Oireachtas for the delivery of this very important departure and initiative, but that was his only involvement. His involvement was one that he quite correctly should be in a position at any stage to know the progress of the evaluation, but he never asked, or was never informed at any stage of anything that would effectively break the seal of the assessment, if I may put it that way.
Q. And that applies also to the selection of the winner by the Project Team, that again he was made aware of it but didn’t intervene or never sought to intervene?
A. He never intervened or never sought to intervene.
Q. Now, when we come to the announcement of the winner, when it was decided to announce the winner, it seems to me that that initiative to announce the winner, when the announcement took place, came from you and from the Department, as informed by other members of the Department, not from the Minister, although he did not disagree with the initiative suggested by you?
A. I can’t — I can’t know or certainly can’t be certain of what the Minister’s own, if I may say so, stand-alone attitude towards an early announcement of the decision, but I know for certain that what my own attitude was, and I think that’s documented, and my own attitude was: To move as quickly as possible. That was at my initiative. I urged the Minister to act as quickly as possible.
Q. And he did?
A. And he did, yes. Now, he may well have had that in his own heart himself, but clearly my recall is, and I think the documentary evidence shows that it was my initiative to accelerate the decision-taking process.
Q. And when we come to the negotiation of the terms of the licence, which began after the announcement of the winner took place, that was a process that was undertaken by the Departmental team, albeit slightly different roles, slightly changed roles, and again the Minister was made aware of these negotiations, but never sought to intervene and never intervened?
A. I don’t recall even expressing a, certainly any concern whatsoever about the negotiations. He left it entirely to the Department until, perhaps, sometime early in the new year, and I think Mr. Coughlan — once again, there was reference to a meeting at the Telecommunications Council in Europe where the Minister was anxious to get things going, but this was six months after Esat had got the exclusive negotiating rights, and a Minister was quite entitled to say, “What’s happening? Can we move this dossier ahead.” But as for content, as for the Department’s positioning in looking after the State’s interest, he never interfered in any way.
Q. When we come to then in April, the press conference which was held on behalf of, if I can put it that way, of the Department officials. The initiative for that, and the impetus for that again came from within the Department, not from the Minister?
A. It came clearly from within the Department, and I think Mr. Brennan has cited how perhaps incensed he felt himself, because I suppose, if there were any innuendos floating around, he, as the effective primus inter partes of the group, actually — he could feel that he might well have been the target of such innuendo, and it certainly was, if I may say so, a bottom up revolt in the Department and did not come from the Minister, but equally, when we had decided on such a proposed move, he didn’t demur, clearly.
Q. I know you felt that maybe with hindsight a press conference might not be the chosen route, if you were to do it again. But the civil servants in question were civil servants who had been in the service of the State for a considerable period of time, very considerable experience, and had devoted huge working hours and outside working hours to this project and to trying to get it right. Did you understand their sense of concern and upset at the speculation that was taking place?
A. I thought their chagrin at the time was absolutely understandable, and I shared in that sense of both frustration and unfairness by inference. But when I said at the time to Mr. Coughlan that I expressed some regret, it wasn’t regret in a sense of that the Department’s frustrations perhaps should be known. It was just an innate, I feel, innately that civil servants in general, it shouldn’t be — a press conference or a press briefing shouldn’t be the first port of call for civil servants. It was unusual, to say the least.
Q. But understandable, perhaps, in the light of their preoccupation with the allegations made against them, as opposed to against anybody else?
A. And indeed, I shared in that myself actually, I shared in that myself.
Q. Shared in their concern?
A. I shared in their concern, quite.
Q. And then when we come to the ultimate, the approval of the makeup of the consortium and the ultimate award of the licence, that again was a role that was undertaken by the Department, where you came closer to the centre of the stage. And again the Minister was aware of all this taking place, but did not seek to intervene or to steer it in one way or another?
A. He did not seek to intervene in any way. Once again, I might preface that by saying, it may well be that Mr. Lowry’s views and ours coincided, but my recollection, clear recollection is when informing him of what the Department’s position was, and notably on our determination that the percentages should remain as in the bid, he did not raise any objections whatsoever.
Q. There was a statement made yesterday, Mr. Loughrey, looking at this in the overall, there was a statement made that your whole system had been gotten inside by this consortium. Could I just ask you to comment on what your views are in relation to that statement?
A. Well, I would regard that as quite incorrect, and I believe I could, without taking any much time of the Tribunal, refute it very effectively. I think both the personnel concerned were sufficiently experienced, and would not have been in any way awestruck somehow by businessmen coming in to see them. Bear in mind, that civil servants, I believe, have no sense of self-importance, but senior civil servants are used to seeing players, from Prime Ministers in a European context, or PT GSM in a US context, they are used to seeing players of world significance or serious European significance. The fact that, no matter how worthy professionals on behalf of business people, or business people themselves, would somehow affect their judgement or have them awestruck in any way is clearly nonsensical.
Q. And it’s presumably equally nonsensical to suggest that the system, your system, your Department was in some way infiltrated in an improper manner by this consortium?
A. There is no question of that from start to finish. That wouldn’t have arisen, and did not happen, Mr. O’Donnell.”
