Danish expert queries findings

CONSULTANT:THE DANISH expert who was the lead consultant to the 1995 mobile phone licence competition has questioned core findings about the competition contained in the Moriarty report.

Prof Michael Andersen gave evidence to the tribunal over a number of days in November 2010 in which he disagreed with confidential provisional findings made in November 2008 by Mr Justice Moriarty.

Contacted by The Irish Times, Prof Andersen said the findings in the final report meant his evidence had not been accepted, even though it was his impression, at the time he gave evidence, that it was not challenged.

“The tribunal has decided that Michael Lowry effectively handed out the licence to the winner and made a considerable impact on the [evaluation] process and the result. I don’t think that is in accordance with my perception of what went on.”

He said the bids were evaluated in a well-defined process and “one applicant won on a fair and square basis”, but, he said, this does not come through in the report.

Prof Andersen said he did not give evidence before the preliminary findings because his request for an indemnity had not been acceded to. The tribunal sought an indemnity from the State but the cabinet decided against it.

The Danish consultant sought the indemnity, he said, because he had received “hostile letters” from the tribunal.

He had tried to correct by way of correspondence what he said were errors in the preliminary findings, which were sent to him in 2008, but got no response from the tribunal.

He agreed to come to give evidence after he was contacted by a solicitor acting for Denis O’Brien and later given an indemnity by Mr O’Brien. He said he would have preferred to have received the indemnity from the State.

Prof Andersen said in his opinion, the report contained factual errors, including errors which he said he had tried to correct over a period of years.

He said it portrayed the evaluation process as one that was disorganised and chaotic, whereas in his view it was relatively well-defined and conducted with a reasonable degree of consistency.

His evidence was that if there had been any attempt during the process to favour a particular applicant, he and his colleagues would have noticed. Yet, he said, this evidence had not been accepted.

“This is what I fail to understand,” Prof Andersen said.