Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 1995

Vol. 454 No. 7

Written Answers. - Second Mobile Phone Licence.

Mary Wallace

Ceist:

21 Miss M. Wallace asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if the EU Commission has sought in any way to prevent the Government from seeking an estimated £45 million for awarding the second mobile phone licence. [8961/95]

Seán Power

Ceist:

40 Mr. Power asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications when he will award the second mobile phone licence in competition with Telecom Eireann; and whether he has satisfied himself with the policy being pursued on this issue. [8965/95]

Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Lowry)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 21 and 40 together.

I am currently in consultation with the Commission regarding certain aspects of the GSM competition and, in particular, the requirement that applicants indicate the level of fee they are prepared to pay for the licence. The Commission is concerned that this requirement may be contrary to the competition rules of the EU Treaties. It had been anticipated that these discussions would have been completed before the planned closing date of 23 June 1995 for receipt of applications for the GSM licence. Unfortunately it became apparent over the last week that this would not be feasible. Consequently, I informed all prospective applicants that the closing date would be extended.

My priority now is to get the competition back on track as a matter of urgency. Consultations with the Commission could take up to a further four weeks to complete. My aim is to achieve as much legal certainty as possible before announcing a new closing date. While prospective applicants will be allowed an appropriate period to adapt their applications if necessary, the new deadline for receipt of applications will be set as early as is practically possible and I am confident that the successful applicant will be selected before the end of the year.

As I have stated on a number of occasions, my primary objective in this competition has always been to select the applicant who will have a progressive approach to market development, a commitment to a high quality national service and an innovative approach to tariffs. I am not convinced that a voluntary fee determined by the market for the right to the licence would undermine that objective. I should clarify in this context that the Government never indicated a requirement for a fee of £45 million. However, in the light of the views of the Commission, I am seeking to agree a compromise solution to the fee, which may involve a contribution from Eircell.