Moriarty investigates information leaked to Esat lawyer

The Moriarty tribunal is investigating why a solicitor for Esat Digifone was in possession of a letter from the EU Commission to former Fine Gael minister Mr Michael Lowry in 1995, prior to it being made public.

The letter, which was sent by the then European Competition Commissioner Mr Karel Van Miert to the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications on July 14th, 1995, contained crucial information about how the various consortiums bidding for the State's second mobile phone licence would be evaluated.

It outlined the relative weightings which would be attached to each of the evaluation criteria in the competition, in particular the fee to be charged for the licence.

On July 24th, 10 days after the letter was sent, Mr Jarlath Burke, a soliticor for Esat Digifone, faxed a copy of the letter to a colleague.

The tribunal, which was today outlining the results of its year-long private inquiry into the licence award, says it has yet to ascertain how Mr Burke obtained a copy of the letter at this stage of the competition.

Mr Burke has told the tribunal he cannot recollect where he obtained a copy of the letter but that it was most likely to have been from the Commission itself.

This is the second incident, uncovered by the tribunal, in which it appears that Mr Denis O'Brien's consortium Esat Digifone had access to confidential information relating to the competition for the second mobile phone licence.

Earlier, the tribunal said it is investigating another solicitor associated with Esat Digifone who was in receipt of confidential information discussed at a meeting during the competition for the licence.

In a letter to a colleague, Mr Owen O'Connell, who was a soliticor for Mr Denis O'Brien's Communicorp Group - a 50 per cent shareholder in Esat Digifone's bid - cited the European Commission's objections to the setting of a fee for the second GSM licence.

The Commission is understood to have rejected the "auction concept" inherent in the Government's proposals for the granting of the second GSM licence.

The Commission was concerned that the charging of an upfront fee was in breach of trading rules.

The information was supposed to be confidential at the time and known only by members of GSM project group, set up by the Government to oversee the awarding of the licence.

The tribunal, which is outlining the results of its year-long private inquiry into the licence award, said it had questioned Mr O'Connell about how he could have known about the Commission's objections.

Mr O'Connell told the tribunal he had no recollection of where he had obtained the information and that he had no written records concerning the receipt of such information or its source.

Tribunal counsel Mr John Coughlan SC said the matter will be further investigated by the inquiry to see if the granting of the second licence was in any way "compromised or undermined."