I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 10, 13, 25, 29, 30, 35, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 84, 85, 86, 87 and 88 together.
I am pleased that Deputies have put down questions on the GSM competition because it gives me an opportunity to detail what I believe was a landmark competition in terms of the process, its objectivity, its fairness and the speed with which it was carried out.
When I announced the competition for this second GSM licence last March, I was determined to put in place a selection process that, like the process for telecom's strategic partner, would be fair, impartial and objective. This was done. Clear selection criteria were set, published to the interested parties, and rigidly adhered to. International consultants with specialist experience were engaged to advise. An evaluation team, led by my Department was set up and included the consultants and officials from my Department and the Department of Finance.
The terms of the competition were specifically approved by the EU Commission. The selection criteria included demonstrated financial and technical capability; the credibility of the proposers' business plan and their approach to market development; their pricing policy, which had to be competitive; their timetable for achieving roll-out.
The contenders were each required to supply an immense amount of detailed information in regard to financial, technical and business development matters. All this material was examined exhaustively by the evaluation team, which worked intensively over a period of more than two months after the closing date. The consultants, and subsequently the full project team, came unanimously to a single result. I am very pleased with the way the process worked and am completely satisfied with its integrity.
No political or other considerations whatever entered into the selection, which was made totally on the basis of the objective criteria laid down in advance and made known to all. This exhaustive and patently fair process can now serve as a model for future decisions of a similar kind in other areas. It is an example of the standard of decision making that I wish to see become the norm across the spectrum of Irish public life.
The import of Deputy Kenneally's question is that I should have awarded the licence by reference to factors other than the selection criteria which were announced in advance and known to the applicants. I reject the import of that question. It was not open to me to follow such a course and I would have exposed myself and the Government to legal redress if I had done so. ESAT Digifone won because the project team determined, after meticulous comparative evaluation, that they had submitted the best application.
The decision to grant the licence and to whom is statutorily that of the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance. In view of the importance of this decision I, and the Minister for Finance, discussed the result of the competition with the leaders of the parties in Government on 25 October. The matter was put before the full Cabinet for noting on the following morning. In a case as sensitive as this there is a great advantage in announcing the result as soon as possible thereby putting an end to speculation and media hype which grows around such matters, as was the case on this occasion. The formal decision makes it clear that the licence will be awarded to ESAT Digifone subject to satisfactory conclusion of discussion leading to a licence which incorporates as binding commitments the relevant contents of the application which led to its selection.
The Government agreed the detailed selection criteria and their order of priority in advance of the opening of the competition and agreed to the appointment of consultants to carry out the evaluation. It was clear to me, and to the Minister for Finance who was represented in the project team throughout the competition, that the thoroughness of the approach taken left no room for doubt as to the clear-cut result contained in the consultants' report. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Government had no difficulty in agreeing to my recommendations in relation to the result.
There was no undue haste. In fact a flowchart diagram prepared by the consultants on 14 July in the context of the relaunch of the competition following consultations with the European Commission shows clearly that the final report was to be submitted in the week beginning 22 October. The consultants are to be congratulated on achieving this target. My commitment was to announce the result not later than the end of November. If I had not allowed some interval in case of slippage I would have been open to criticism for not meeting my deadline.
At an early stage in the competition four out of the six applicants requested and all were given assurances that the information in their bids would be kept confidential on a permanent basis. It would be impossible to have detailed disclosure of the comparative analysis without breaching this confidentiality. This dilemma is one of the reasons reputable independent consultants are engaged in competitions of this type. The consultants act as guarantors of objectivity.
The question of detailed feedback to applicants as to the reasons one applicant was successful and the others were not therefore presents me with a difficulty. Furthermore, disclosure by me at this time of significant elements of the winning application which would arise in any comparative feedback on public discussion of the outcome could be of considerable competitive advantage to the existing operator, Eircell. I would like to be as helpful as possible to understandably disappointed applicants but the constraints on me are severe. The involvement of reputable consultants was intended to be a guarantee of fair play at the outset and the clear-cut result from them was the one which I announced.
Deputy Gallagher refers in his question to "the seriousness of the situation" in reference to non-EU ownership of Telenor. Five of the six applications had significant participants which were not of EU origin but the origin of any of the participants had no place in the selection criteria. It was a competition open to all.