Vol. 539 No. 2
13 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Finance when he expects to make a decision on the request submitted to him by the Director of Telecommunications Regulation for approval of the licence fee to be charged for the third generation of mobile phones; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19043/01]
As the Deputy may be aware, under section 111(6) of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, as amended by Statutory Instrument No. 96 of 1998, my consent is required to the charging of a fee for such licences. The question of when the licences are awarded is a matter for the Director of Telecommunications Regulation.
In fulfilling my statutory responsibility I will be concerned to ensure that the fees paid adequately reflect the value of the licences issued, taking account of the non-financial obligations involved in the licence terms and of the importance of third generation mobile telephony to the development of the telecoms infrastructure in Ireland.
I confirm that I have received a request for my consent to revised fee proposals from the Director of Telecommunications Regulation. Follow ing receipt of these proposals, I asked my advisers to reconsider the position in the light of these new proposals and any other relevant considerations. In this context, my advisers met the advisers to the director and have recently furnished me with their assessment of the latest proposals. Consultations in the matter are proceeding.
Has the Minister met with the director since his reported meeting of 2 February last? The situation was never intended to be like this. When the director employs advisers and the Minister employs advisers to deal with the director, we are getting to a level of chess-playing between Government bodies that was never intended as part of the legislation. It was never intended or expected that the Minister employ, as I understand he has, outside consultants to advise him as to whether he should accept a recommendation from the director. This suggests either a defect in the legislation or that the process we are engaged in is not what was intended.
As the Deputy raised the point, the legislation is clear but unsatisfactory. The question of deciding whether it should be a beauty contest or an auction was a matter in the legislation to be solely decided by the director. My function is that the director sends me a submission and I have a say over the fee. However, I cannot put forward a new proposal. My job is to either reject or accept this, which is unsatisfactory. That issue is being addressed in the new Bill being brought forward by the Minister for Public Enterprise. The legislation is clear cut but very unsatisfactory, as the Deputy pointed out.
I had a formal face to face meeting on one occasion with the director. I would have to check the records but I think it was after 21 February, when I last answered oral Parliamentary Questions on this matter. I had one meeting with the director. However, my advisers have had various meetings. As Minister for Finance I have obligations to the State on behalf of the Exchequer. I am obliged to take advice on to what is being put to me, particularly as this is an area in which I profess no more expertise than any other Member.
The Minister is effectively rejecting the decision of the director to have a beauty contest and is instead arguing for a fee, which changes the rules of the game.
I do not accept the Deputy's contention. Whatever my views as to whether we should be in a beauty contest or auction, they are not relevant at this stage.
They are if the Minister has the final say on the fee.
I, like the director, am committed to having a satisfactory resolution and rolling out the new system but I must take broader con siderations into account. I have endeavoured to do that and the legislation is specific, if a little unsatisfactory.
I agree with some of the Minister's reservations about the director's decision. Nonetheless, the delay in deciding on a process is, to say the least, putting back the possibility of rolling out, in the Minister's phrase, the new system. It is certainly reducing the likely value of—
We must move on to the next question.
I accept that it would have been better if this matter had been resolved some time ago. There has been much media comment based on incorrect information that did not come from my Department. Some of the assertions made over the past six months are incorrect. The matter has been put in a particular way that does not agree with the facts. I agree that the matter could have been resolved much earlier. Hopefully, that will be possible in the near future.
