The civil servant who chaired the group which selected the winner of the second mobile phone licence competition discussed the progress of the project three times with the then minister, Mr Michael Lowry.
On the third occasion, in early October 1995, Mr Martin Brennan told Mr Lowry the names of the top two bids and said more work was needed to separate them. However, he said he would have given the names with a "health warning" to the effect that the assessment process was not yet completed.
Responding to Mr Jerry Healy SC, for the tribunal, Mr Brennan said he had no reason to believe his conversation with Mr Lowry would have been kept other than confidential. "Every minister is treated by civil servants with a presumption of integrity." Mr Brennan said his first conversation during the process with the minister occurred after he had read the six bids received by the August 4th, 1995, closing date. He said he told Mr Lowry he was confident there would be a good licensee.
On another occasion Mr Brennan said the bids could be broken down into three strong bids and three weak bids, or two strong, two intermediate and two weak bids, much in the way interviewees for a job might be categorised. He said he did not believe he mentioned names at that stage. He could not recall the circumstances of any of the three conversations he had with Mr Lowry during the process.
Mr Brennan said he wanted to emphasise that Mr Lowry at no time showed an interest in preferring one application over another. He said he had no reason to believe any interest shown by Mr Lowry was other than an interest in how the process was proceeding. He also said Mr Lowry had been "at pains" to show he understood the sensitivities involved, and that Mr Lowry understood the decision was to be one of the most important taken by the then government.
He said the assessment group was acutely aware of the sensitivity of the work it was engaged in and even during discussions among themselves the group members referred to the bids by their codenames "in case somebody would overhear".
Asked about the statement from Sir Anthony O'Reilly to the tribunal to the effect that Mr Lowry had in September 1995 referred to the performance in an oral presentation of representatives of a consortium in which Independent News & Media had an interest, Mr Brennan said he had no way of knowing if that had happened or how it could have happened.
He said a "chance remark" might have been made to Mr Lowry by a civil servant or by a representative of the consortium. It was "not credible that in between intensive meetings over a number of days that people were going up and down the stairs saying how it was going." Mr Healy said no one was making any such allegation and Mr Brennan said he knew of nothing to support any such allegation.
In relation to his giving the names of the top two bids to Mr Lowry, Mr Brennan said he felt Mr Lowry was entitled to this information. The result was becoming clear and Mr Lowry was entitled to some access to it, he said. "He didn't ask for details." Mr Brennan said Mr Lowry was not constantly looking for information about the process. "I did not have a minister who was demonstrating to me that he was keenly interested in knowing names."
Mr Brennan said there had been a dispute with the Danish consultant, Mr Michael Andersen, when Mr Andersen sought more fees. Consideration was given to ending the contract but in the event an increase was agreed.
Mr Justice Moriarty said it was a situation analogous to having a builder on site in your home. "You might give some consideration to dismissing him but you have time constraints." Mr Brennan agreed.
