Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 405: To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views in terms of the public interest on a person and a company (details supplied) who and which will be in a position to acquire control over the entire cable television platform here while at the same time being the most significant shareholder; and if he will instruct the Competition Authority to undertake a full phase 2 investigation of the acquisition of a company (details supplied). [19151/05]

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 406: To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if his attention has been drawn to the fact that control of NTL Ireland has already passed out of the hands of NTL to a company (details supplied); if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that the parties used an elaborate warehousing stratagem to oust the system of prior merger control provided for in Part 3 of the Competition Act 2002; if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that UGC has agreed to pay a company €4 million to secure its participation in this warehousing stratagem; his views on the involvement of a company and the willingness of UGC to make a substantial payment; and if he considers that Part 3 of the Competition Act 2002 requires amendment to ensure that the prior merger control regime is not sidelined in this way in future. [19152/05]

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 407: To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on the fact that, in conjunction with the interposition of its bankers (details supplied), UGC will already be exercising control of influence over the former NTL Ireland business; if the Competition Authority will be instructed to undertake an immediate investigation to ensure that UGC has not jumped the gun by exercising control or influence over the former NTL Ireland business before the authority and the Minister have conducted their statutory reviews; and if the Competition Authority will be further instructed to undertake a review of the participation or acquiescence of a company in any jumping of the gun which might have occurred. [19154/05]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 405 to 407, inclusive, together.

The warehousing provision referred to was included in the Competition Act 2002 in line with standard international practice for regulating transactions of a purely financial investment nature. The rationale for the provision is essentially to lighten the regulatory burden for mergers and acquisitions which raise no competition concerns. For example, the EU merger regulation contains a similar exemption. I understand that the transaction in question was notified to the Competition Authority on 24 May 2005 and that the authority is currently carrying out an initial phase 1 competition analysis. As the proposed acquisition is currently before the authority, I am satisfied that the merger and acquisition provisions of the 2002 Act have not been sidelined in the manner suggested and are working satisfactorily in terms of notification requirements.

The Competition Act 2002 also transferred general responsibility for the regulation of mergers and acquisitions from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to the Competition Authority with effect from 1 January 2003. Since then, the authority examines and decides upon notified transactions on the basis of competition criteria alone. However, I also have a role in the decision-making process where the acquisition in question involves a media business. In such cases the Competition Authority carries out a competition analysis and I consider the transaction in the context of the public interest criteria listed in the Act. The authority may decide to carry out a detailed phase 2 investigation if required. I may also direct the authority to carry out such a phase 2 investigation if I consider it necessary.

Where the authority determines that a merger may proceed, I may agree or disagree with the decision having regard to the public policy criteria specified in the Act. These are as follows: the strength and competitiveness of media businesses indigenous to the State; the extent to which ownership or control of media businesses in the State is spread among individuals and other undertakings; the extent to which ownership and control of particular types of media business in the State is spread amongst individuals and other undertakings; the extent to which the diversity of views prevalent in Irish society is reflected through the activities of the various media businesses in the State; and the share in the market in the State of one or more of the types of business activity falling within the definition of media business that is held by any of the undertakings involved in the media merger concerned or by any individual or other undertaking who or which has an interest in such an undertaking.

I am confident that the Competition Act provisions for media mergers, in particular the fact that such mergers and acquisitions must surmount two separate hurdles — a competition test and a public interest test — will adequately address the issues arising in this case. Furthermore, any merger which is put into effect without regulatory clearance is void under the Act.