Lowry ‘didn’t interfere’ in mobile phone decision

A SENIOR civil servant told the Moriarty Tribunal yesterday he didn’t believe former Minister Michael Lowry interfered with the process by which Esat Digifone was selected to operate the country’s second mobile telephone network.

Martin Brennan, an assistant secretary in the Department of Communications, agreed with Rossa Fanning BL, counsel for Mr Lowry, he was effectively staking his professional reputation on the tribunal finding there was no interference in the process.

Neither did he believe it was possible for Mr Lowry to have interfered in the adjudicative process. Mr Lowry was more interested in the execution of decisions rather than the detail behind them. "I actually don't think that the minister, at any time, got a deep understanding of the process before, during or after," said Mr Brennan. The tribunal heard how a departmental GSM project team, chaired by Mr Brennan and assisted by Danish consultants, vetted the bidders for the second mobile licence and Mr Lowry announced Digifone as the winner in late October 1995. After negotiations, Mr Lowry issued the licence the following May.

Replying to Eoin McGonigal SC, for Digifone consortium chairman Denis O'Brien, Mr Brennan said they had the result of the GSM competition at the end of the project team's meeting on September 28, 1995. They had a result, subject to checking and it was a result that all attending the meeting had agreed on. That result and the recommendation put Digifone first, with the Persona consortium running second. Mr Brennan agreed the result was determined by those present at the meeting and the minister could not have brought about the result because of the way in which the process was put in place and the minister did not have an input.

Mr Brennan said the minister was the licensing authority, but the process was carried out independently of him. "I don't think the result could have been changed," said Mr Brennan. The result was the clear result of a predetermined process. Asked how a subcommittee, a minister or Cabinet could have changed that result, Mr Brennan said: "In legal terms they would have to have a very transparent justification which they were prepared to articulate. But I don't think they could change it on a whim or for any frivolous reason. I suspect they wouldn't do it without the full authority of the Attorney General as well."