14 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will outline the role his Department have in the process of disposing of State assets, particularly where the disposal of such assets might run counter to restrictive practice legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
It is assumed that the Deputy's question relates to the responsibilities of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in relation to proposed merger or take-over of State assets in the context of the Mergers, Take-overs and Monopolies (Control) Acts, 1978 and 1987. This legislation sets out to control, in the public interest, proposed take-overs and mergers involving any two or more enterprises coming under common control, where at least one carries on business in the State and where certain financial thresholds defined in the legislation are exceeded by each of two or more of the enterprises involved.
Where a proposed merger or take-over falls within the scope of the legislation, notification of the proposal to the Minister for Industry and Commerce is obligatory. A proposed merger or take-over cannot be concluded until the Minister has stated that he does not propose to prohibit it either absolutely or conditionally or, in the absence of such a statement, until a period of three months has elapsed from the date of notification, or from the date of receipt of such further information as the Minister may require.
The Minister has discretion under the legislation, initially, to approve a proposal without further investigation, or to refer it for investigation to the Fair Trade Commission. The commission are obliged to investigate every proposal referred to them and report to the Minister on their investigation. The report of the commission must state their opinion as to whether the proposed merger or take-over would operate against the common good in respect of criteria set out in the Schedule to the 1978 Act. These criteria comprehend such matters as the effect on competition in the marketplace, the interests of the consumer, the effect on continuity of supplies or services, the effects on employment and on employees, the interests of shareholders, the impact on regional development and whatever economic benefits might arise for the enterprises and the industry involved.
The Minister, having considered a report of the Fair Trade Commission, may then approve the proposal, but he is also empowered to make an order prohibiting a proposed merger or take-over, either absolutely or except on certain conditions specified in the order. It would not be unusual for the Minister, in allowing a notified merger or take-over to proceed, to secure the agreement of a party or parties involved in the proposal to undertakings or assurances in relation to areas of concern.
I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I had hoped he would refer to the role of his Department in the sale of a State controlled company such as Cablelink. At what point do his Department get involved in so far as damage might be caused to our reputation by certain action, as happened in the case of Cablelink where the Minister for Communications directed the sale of that company to Telecom? There has been talk of legal action being taken against the Government. Damage has been caused to our reputation at an international level because outside bidders who were told it would be an open competition suddenly found that the Minister for Communications had directed the sale of telecom to another State company.
Has any consideration been given to the loss of investment to this country as a result of the action taken by the Minister for Communications and the lack of consumer choice in regard to the developments which can take place in the future in Cablelink? What effect will the take-over of Cablelink by Telecom have on consumers?
It is estimated that the repayment costs by Telecom will be £4.5 million as against an income of £1.2 million——
I am sorry to have to interrupt Deputy Barrett——
I am just finishing.
——but he is referring to a particular matter worthy of a separate question, and would seem to be the responsibility of another Minister.
I am asking about the role of the Department of Industry and Commerce in terms of making a decision which is in the best interests of this country. I am asking the Minister the role of that Department in terms of the advice they can offer and their input——
The Deputy has made his point.
——to the eventual decision. I highlighted the position in relation to Cablelink in order to stress to the Minister the need for his Department to have a role in this area from the point of view of Ireland's image internationally.
I have already told the Deputy what really happens in relation to the responsibility of the Department of Industry and Commerce in these areas. The Deputy specifically referred to Cablelink and made a number of inferences.Even though questions in relation to Cablelink which were submitted for today's Order Paper have been ruled out of order I should like to respond to one or two aspects of Deputy Barrett's question.
First, the Deputy referred to the Minister for Communication as if he were acting independently of the rest of the Government. The sale, disposal or merger of State assets in the context of this question are matters, first for the functional Minister and then for the Government in accordance with the relevant legislation. In this instance the Minister for Industry and Commerce referred the Cablelink proposal to the Fair Trade Commission and sought their report. That report and analysis took account of the various matters referred to by the Deputy, the public interest and other common concerns. In the final analysis the Minister decided not to prohibit the proposal. There is nothing hidden about that. It was not the sole responsibility of one Minister and in the final analysis it was a Government decision. I do not think any inferences about a particular Minister are fair. The matter was debated in the Dáil only two weeks ago.
We spend a considerable sum of money promoting this country abroad. Yet at the stroke of a pen — in this instance by the Minister for Communications — our image abroad as a good place to do business has been seriously damaged. Does the Minister not agree a clear indication was given that this would be an open competition and that those who made their bids would be treated equally? Does he not also agree that the decision taken by the Government — I assume the Minister for Industry and Commerce is included in this — could have serious reperussions for the image of Ireland as a good place to do business? The Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce, Deputy Leyden, spends a considerable amount of time abroad promoting this country as a place to do business. Yet with one stroke of a pen the Minister has seriously damaged our reputation.
I am sorry to interrupt Deputy Barrett but I have to tell the House that the time available for dealing with Priority Questions is almost exhausted. If we are to deal with Deputy Barrett's final question it must be taken now, and I mean now.
