Written answers

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

Competition Authority Investigations

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

71. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Competition Authority failed to make a decision on the propriety of an acquisition (details supplied) within the statutory timeframe to commence a phase two investigation; the reason provided to his predecessor for this failure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10734/15]

Photo of Richard BrutonRichard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In 2006, an administrative miscalculation of dates by the Competition Authority (“the Authority”) led to the Authority being one day outside the statutory deadline to make a determination about a proposed acquisition by Topaz Energy Group Limited of Statoil Ireland Limited. The details, which are outlined below, were set out at that time by the (then) Chair of the Authority to the (then) Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Chair also subsequently appeared before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise and Small Business on 25 October 2006 on this (and other) matters. Numerous measures were immediately put in place in the Authority to ensure the same thing would not be repeated. Since its establishment in 2002 as an independent statutory Agency, this has been the only merger whereby the Authority missed the statutory deadline to make a determination.

A notification was made to the Competition Authority on 12 July 2006 pursuant to Section 19 of the Competition Act 2002 (“the Act”). Under Section 21 (2) of the Act, the Authority had one month within which to make a determination. The Authority commenced its investigation and, on 11 August 2006, it requested further information from the parties as provided for in Section 20 (2) of the Act. The making of such a request had the effect of restarting the one month determination deadline from the date on which the information requested was furnished by the parties. Further information was supplied on 25 August 2006 thereby changing the one month deadline to 25 September 2006.

Following a further examination of all of the information received, the Authority advised the parties that it had competition concerns in relation to some specific aspects of the proposed acquisition. On 22 September 2006, Topaz furnished the Authority with proposals to address those concerns, a facility provided for in Section 20 (3) of the Act. Section 21 (4) of the Act provided that where proposals are submitted, the one month deadline is automatically increased to 45 days. It was at this point that the miscalculation occurred and 10 October 2006 was erroneously calculated as the new deadline rather than 9 October 2006. This happened as a result of the case team who were conducting the merger review adding 15 days to the one month deadline rather than recalculating 45 days from the revised start date of the investigation. The one month period (25 August to 25 September) had 31 days and so by adding 15 additional days, the new deadline was of 46 days duration rather than the statutory provision of 45 days. The issue came to light on 10 October 2006 and the Authority issued a press statement on the matter. After this event, the Authority continued to work with Topaz with a view to removing the competition concerns that had been raised during the comprehensive review of the merger.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.