Vol. 466 No. 1
42 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he originally suggested the figure of £15 million as a cap on the fee of the proposed second mobile phone licence; if not, the person who did suggest the figure of £15 million; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10861/96]
I received on 3 May 1995 a letter from Commissioner Van Miert dated 27 April in which he questioned the fee element of the competition documentation.
Representatives of the project team from the consultants, the Department of Finance and my Department, including the Chairman, conducted discussions with the Commission on 2 June 1995. In the course of these discussions the hypothesis of a cap on the licence fee coupled with a somewhat lower fee applied to Eircell was canvassed by the team as one means of resolving the difficulties raised in the letter.
The substance of the understandings reached at that meeting and supporting argumentation were then set out in a letter from me to the Commissioner dated 22 June 1995 and as I have said previously, accepted by him in a reply dated 14 July 1995.
43 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the date upon which the evaluators of the second GSM licence, including the consultants and the relevant officials, settled their approach to the evaluation, including the weighting to be applied to the criteria on which the assessment will be made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10856/96]
49 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the weighting and other criteria for the evaluation process agreed upon at the time of advertising the second GSM licence; whether any changes were made in the weighting criteria subsequently and, specifically after the cap of £15 million was placed on the licence fee; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10867/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 43 and 49 together.
44 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if all the consortia which made bids for the second GSM licence were capable of funding the project; if so, if he has been provided with full details of the funding arrangements and names of investors by the successful tenderer; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10870/96]
Consistent with what I said in the House on a number of occasions, the answer to both parts of the question is yes. While true perceptions in certain circumstances could be different.
