A senior member of the team that judged the State's second mobile phone licence competition has rejected the suggestion that the team's final report was a "complete cooking of the books".
Mr Fintan Towey said there was absolutely no way that what was put to him by counsel for the tribunal, Mr John Coughlan SC, was correct.
He said he rejected and resented the suggestion.
Mr Coughlan was questioning the witness about what he said was a revised breakdown of the weighting used to measure the bids in relation to the most important of the criteria under which they were judged.
The "revised" sub-weightings were agreed between two members of the team, Mr Towey and Mr Martin Brennan, during a meeting with Danish consultants in Copenhagen in late September 1995.
During the same meeting the ranking of the applicants according to all the criteria was drafted, showing Esat Digifone in first place and Persona second. An alternative use of the weightings could have produced a different result with Persona ahead, or the two consortiums being ranked equally, Mr Towey accepted. Mr Coughlan said the records of the assessment team's meetings did not record it agreeing to the new sub-weightings. Mr Towey said the team's agreement to the revised weightings was implicit in the final report, where they were set out.
Mr Coughlan said there was no mention in the final report that there was agreement on a revision of the weightings. He said that there was an "unauthorised alteration" of a table in the report so that it would coincide with other tables that showed the revised weightings.
He also said that a statement concerning the methodology used in the assessment said "weightings adopted before the closing date" (which was in August) had been used. The weightings for the main criterion had been revised in Copenhagen in late September.
"Doesn't it only suggest one thing," said Mr Coughlan. "A complete cooking of the books to pull this together." Mr Towey said there was "no question of that. Absolutely no question of that." The exchange took place immediately before lunch. When the tribunal resumed after lunch Mr Coughlan said he understood from Mr Towey's counsel that Mr Towey was upset by the suggestion he had made in relation to the cooking of the books.
Mr Coughlan said he was inquiring and asking questions. The matters he'd outlined "could suggest" that the books had been cooked. Mr Towey said that if Mr Coughlan was inquiring as to whether the books had been cooked, "I want to make it absolutely clear that I reject any such suggestion in the context of the role I had in the process." He said he rejected and resented the suggestion. Mr Coughlan said the witness was upset by the way in which the point had been put but he would suggest that what he was pursuing was a legitimate line of inquiry.
Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, said it was unfair to Mr Towey to suggest to him that the books had been cooked.
Mr Towey was doing his best to assist the tribunal, he said. He said Mr Towey had to leave the box and see what appeared in the media arising out of allegations such as that made by Mr Coughlan. Mr Justice Moriarty said the tribunal was conducting a painstaking examination of the licence process and if on occasion a comment was seized upon by the media, then that was not something over which the tribunal had control.
He said that anyone who was present over the entirety of the inquiry would conclude that the examination was restrained, dispassionate and fair.
Mr Coughlan said he wasn't making any allegation. He had said that looking at all the matters which had been examined during the morning, "isn't it possible" that the books were cooked.
Mr Towey continues his evidence today.
