Speedy end to phone licence contest outlined

The final stages of the 1995 mobile phone licence competition occurred very quickly and much more quickly than anticipated by one of the more senior members of the team that ranked the bids, it emerged yesterday.

Mr Fintan Towey, a civil servant who was full-time co-ordinator to the team, gave evidence concerning events between October 23rd and 25th, 1995. The fact that Esat Digifone had won the competition was announced by Mr Michael Lowry on October 25th.

Asked about the way in which the decision would be brought to government, by way of aide-memoire or memorandum, Mr Towey said he could not recall any discussion on the matter. He said he thought the decision would be made at a government meeting but "the whole thing happened very quickly". He agreed with Mr John Coughlan SC, for the tribunal, that the decision and announcement came much more quickly than he, Mr Towey, had anticipated.

The tribunal heard that it was agreed at a meeting on October 24th between Mr Lowry, Mr John Bruton, Mr Dick Spring, Mr Proinsias De Rossa and Mr Ruairí Quinn, that the decision would be announced the next day. On the morning of the 25th a short memorandum went to government noting the decision.

Mr Towey was asked what reason he was given for the decision being processed and announced with "such unanticipated speed". Mr Towey said it was clear that Mr Lowry wanted to bring the process to finality. He also said the speedy announcement was designed to avoid lobbying.

He said he understood that it was the view of Mr Lowry's programme manager, Mr Colin McCrea, that he wanted to "get good news out". The secretary of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, Mr John Loughrey, said it was his instinct to get the result out. Mr Towey said he could see that this was good advice "but I can't take any credit for that advice".

Mr Towey said it was his recollection that the Department had a copy of the team's final report on the 25th. He said he had a mental image of writing "final" on the top right-hand corner of it, but he couldn't find that copy of the report.

The tribunal heard that right up to the very end there were discussions between Mr Towey, his colleague Mr Brennan, and Danish consultant Mr Michael Andersen over the presentation of key elements of the report. The key elements concerned were three tables that scored or marked the six bids received according to different criteria, and then ranked them in order of performance. Mr Towey said the matter was probably discussed by way of a conference call at "one o'clock" on the 25th. There was no note of that discussion as far as he was aware, he said. The result was announced by Mr Lowry on the afternoon of the 25th.

The tribunal heard that the team met to discuss the finalisation of the report on October 23rd. Further discussions took place on the 24th, with the meeting going on late into the night. Mr Towey said it was his understanding that following that meeting, the amendments needed for the final draft of the report were agreed, subject to the agreement of Mr Andersen, who was not present.

The amendments were faxed to Mr Andersen and he then discussed them over the phone with Mr Towey and Mr Brennan. Mr Brennan was Mr Towey's superior in the department and chairman of the assessment team.

The tribunal heard that Mr Brennan and Mr Towey attended a meeting with Mr Andersen in Copenhagen in late September during which, Mr Towey said, the bids were ranked and there was discussion about the tables which would show the result. He and Mr Brennan had a different view on the matter of the tables to that held by Mr Andersen, but following discussion the men reached agreement. Mr Towey said he and Mr Brennan came back from Copenhagen with a view on the final ranking of the bids. The discussions on the tables in the final report that took place between October 23rd and October 25th reflected the discussion that had taken place in Copenhagen.

Mr Towey said he and Mr Brennan were anxious to present the results in a table that would show clearly they had been reached in the context of the criteria for the competition as set out by the government. This could have been done by amending the table that Mr Andersen wanted to use to present the result, but it would have been "opaque". Mr Towey said he did not believe Mr Andersen had any reservation of substance.