Vol. 530 No. 6
35 Mr. McDowell asked the Minister for Finance the discussions or communications he has had with the Director of Telecommunications Regulation in relation to the allocation of the third generation licences; if he has received a request for his consent in regard to the fee to be charged for the licences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4895/01]
As the Deputy is aware, under section 111(6) of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, as amended by Statutory Instrument No. 96 of 1998, my consent to the charging of a fee for such licences is required.
I received a request for my consent to certain fee proposals from the Director of Telecommunications Regulation. Discussions are continuing with the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation with a view to bringing the matter to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
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 telecommunications infrastructure in Ireland.
I agree with the Minister's response to the previous question. I say so only because I know it causes him distress when I indicate my agreement with these matters. In conjunction with the Minister for Public Enterprise, does the Minister intend to use his power under subsection 111(6)(a) of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983? As I understand it, this power does not require him to deal with the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation.
Section 111(6)(a) stipulates that the director may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, charge fees for the grant of licences under that section. I engaged DKM consultants and Professor Len Waverman of the London Business School to advise me. The director has her own advisers and has put proposals to us.
Discussions between officials and my Department and the director have been ongoing. Formal meetings have not yet taken place but I am due to meet the director tomorrow when, I hope, we will be able to progress the matter.
The relevant section of the 1983 Act, as amended by the statutory instrument of 1998, gives me responsibilities regarding the appropriate fee. The Deputy will appreciate that I am taking this matter seriously.
Does the Minister agree that the facility to issue these licences deals with an important, scarce and valuable national resource? Does he further agree that the value to the State of the disposal of this resource has diminished considerably due to the delay over the past 12 months?
I agree with most of what the Deputy said in that this is a valuable resource. Due consideration has to be given as to the appropriate fee. The director first contacted my Department in December 2000. My consent to the director's fee proposals was originally sought on 7 December and I replied to her on 20 December. There have been ongoing contacts between our officials since then.
I offered to meet the director on 1 or 2 February. A meeting was set up but deferred at her request. Another meeting was arranged for last Friday, 16 February, which was again postponed at the director's request. I am due to meet the director tomorrow morning. This is a serious matter. I agree with Deputy McDowell that it is important to get an early decision but it is more important to get the right decision.
Do I understand from the Minister's response that he will meet the director?
Yes. There have been meetings between officials of the Department, the director's office and the director. I have not had a face to face meeting with the director but we have exchanged correspondence.
Does the Minister agree that the licences should be disposed of for their market value?
Under the legislation the decision as to whether there should be a public auction or what has become known as a beauty context for the licences is reserved for the director.
The Minister's consent is required.
It was not for me or the Government to decide whether there should be a public auction, which many would favour, or whether there should be a beauty contest which an equal number of people proposed. This was not a matter for me as Minister for Finance or for the Government. Under the legislation the decision rests solely with the director. However, the consent of the Minister for Finance must be sought as regards the setting of a fee and I have outlined the procedures I am adopting.
