MORIARTY TRIBUNAL: The Persona consortium, which came second in the 1995 mobile phone licence competition, lobbied the then minister for finance, Mr Ruairí Quinn, in the weeks prior to the announcement that Esat Digifone had won.
Mr Jimmy McMeel, a civil servant with the Department of Finance who was a member of the team which ranked the bids for the licence, told Mr John Coughlan SC, for the tribunal, that his minister was lobbied quite late in the process.
The tribunal was shown a letter to Mr Quinn dated October 10th 1995 from Mr Tony Boyle, chairman of the Persona consortium. In his letter, Mr Boyle stated that the Persona team had been working on its business plan for the previous three years. He said that up to then obligations of confidentiality had applied, but he could now give more details of the consortium's business plan. If given the licence, the Persona operation would lead to a significant reduction in prices and other benefits. He also said that all of the companies involved in the consortium had a proven commitment to the Republic.
Mr Boyle said that Motorola, a major constituent of the consortium, was a major employer in the Republic. It employed 1,200 people in Swords, Co Dublin, and was to double that number of employees in the following two years. He said that the company employed 200 people in Cork and also pointed out the involvement of other companies in the consortium in the Irish economy.
On October 23rd 1995, Mr McMeel replied on behalf of the minister, noting receipt of the Persona letter and stating: "The content of your letter and the enclosure have been noted."
On October 18th, Mr Denis Whiteside, the chief executive of another consortium, Irish Mobicall, sought a meeting with Mr Quinn. Mr McMeel recommended that the meeting should not take place and it did not take place.
Mr McMeel agreed with Mr Coughlan that there was no question of Mr Quinn being inappropriately persuaded about anything to do with the licence process.
Mr McMeel said that information concerning Mr Dermot Desmond's involvement in the Esat consortium was filed by him when received from the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications in the period after the competition but prior to the actual awarding of the licence. "I filed them, that's all."
The tribunal was shown a copy of a list of questions it was felt could be asked at a press conference to be held at the time the licence was awarded. The list was drafted by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and had been sent to Mr McMeel for his observations.
One possible question listed was: "The department obviously lives in an ivory tower when so many important jobs and other benefits were associated \ some of the other bids?"
Another question listed was: "What sort of process would allow Esat, a company of at best very thin resources and very shallow pockets, to perhaps carry out one of the most important developments in the history of Irish infrastructure?"
Another point listed was: "Given Dermot Desmond's chequered history in the telecoms area, surely the department would have reservations about his investment?"
The note also pointed to the fact that questions could be "planted" with journalists by Persona and by Mr Boyle.
Mr McMeel, who currently works in the offices of the Irish representation to the EU, said that he joined with the other members of the team who had so far stated on oath that they knew of no improper interference in the work of the assessment team.
A note listing the marks scored by the various bids was shown to the tribunal. It showed that Esat Digifone scored 410; Persona 410; Irish Mobicall 362; Irish Cellular Telephone 353; Eurofone, 347; and Cellstar 268.
The tribunal resumes today with a new witness.
