Accelerated process may have favoured Esat

The Moriarty tribunal is to inquire into whether the competition for the second mobile phone licence was accelerated to the advantage of the winning bidder, Esat Digifone.

Mr John Coughlan SC, counsel to the tribunal, said yesterday that the inquiry would also seek to establish whether any acceleration was due to the intervention of the former minister for transport, Mr Michael Lowry, and how such acceleration occurred.

It was alleged yesterday that the GSM project team, which was charged with recommending a winner to the minister, had yet to make a decision on the matter by the time Mr Lowry announced the award of the licence to Esat on October 25th, 1995.

In addition, it emerged that the Department did not receive the final evaluation report from consultants Anderson, detailing the rationale for the decision, until the day after.

Documents showed that the taoiseach, Mr John Bruton, and tánaiste, Mr Dick Spring, as well as two former ministers, Mr Ruairí Quinn and Mr Prionsias De Rossa, were informed of the decision at a cabinet committee meeting just hours before the announcement.

However, Mr Coughlan said it appeared no one had informed those present about the risks regarding the funding of Esat, and its main competitor Persona.

In addition, he said, the matter was brought before government the following day without reference to its programme managers who would normally be informed of ministerial decisions in advance of cabinet meetings.

Concluding the chronology of events leading to the announcement, Mr Coughlan cited a personal report of Mr Ed O'Callaghan, a member of the GSM project team, recording the view on October 17th that the minister had made it known he wished to announce a winner before the end of that month.

Mr O'Callaghan further noted that at a meeting of the project team on October 23rd it was agreed with the Department secretary, Mr John Loughrey, that the team should have a further week to consider Anderson's evaluation report.

He added that the announcement, of which he heard at short notice, had been made without a signing off on the report. "Effectively, no decision [has been made] by the project team," wrote Mr O'Callaghan.

Another member of the team, Mr Sean McMahon, supported this evidence, saying he understood the team had been given a further week to consider the Anderson report following the meeting of the 23rd. However, Mr Loughrey and two other members of the team have told the tribunal they had no recollection of such an agreed time extension.

Moreover, in a memo to Mr Lowry on the 25th, Mr Loughrey wrote that a decision had been taken by the project team by then, and "their selection was unanimous". Mr Coughlan said, however, that there were no documents in Department records to show that a unanimous selection "or any selection" had been made.

The minutes of the meeting of the 23rd indicated discussion was still ongoing over the merits of rating mechanisms, and the language in the report. In a reference to close ratings of Esat and Persona, the minutes read: "It's too close, and the report is not clear enough." They also noted the view of the Department's regulatory division that "we can't justify conclusion".

Mr Coughlan said the tribunal had been told by some members of the team that they worked on the report on the evenings of October 23rd and 24th. However, the tribunal had seen no record of such work.

In a separate memo, Mr McMahon noted that the minister had expressed in early October his wish to accelerate the process. However, Mr Lowry has told the tribunal he had no discussion with any official which could have caused them to believe he wished such a thing.