The Competition Authority and the Office of the Director of Telecom's Regulation, Ms Etain Doyle, are sparring over what role each will have in telecoms regulation in the Republic, it has been learned.

Documentation obtained under a Freedom of Information request by Mr Andrew Whitaker, editor and publisher of trade magazine Competition, shows prolonged disagreement between the two over the role of a consultation group, which was to be set up to liaise and discuss possible areas of overlap in regulation and competition in the telecoms sector.

Ms Wendy Hederman, a senior associate at Dublin solicitors Mason, Hayes and Curran, specialising in telecommunications, competition and technology law, said the affair showed there were major issues of licensing and regulation still to be solved regarding the powers of the newly appointed regulators.

The documentation shows that one of the five members of the executive of the Competition Authority, Ms Goggin, wrote to the assistant secretary of the Department of Enterprise, Mr Brian Whitney, blaming the telecoms regulator for a lack of collaboration between the two on cases relating to the telecoms market.

Ms Goggin wrote that "the main area of concern was the proposal to include the terms of Section 4 and 5 of the Competition Act in the draft licences, and to make breaches of those terms grounds for revocation of the licence, at the sole discretion of the director . . ." The Competition Authority feared the telecoms regulator was setting up a parallel jurisdiction in competition matters "by the back door", according to a paper Ms Hederman delivered recently.

The letter from Ms Goggin then explained that the authority had made numerous attempts to meet the regulator between June and October 1998 to discuss overlap in the investigation of complaints but had been fobbed off on each occasion.

This led Mr Whitney to write to the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, on November 4th, 1998 to apprise her of the situation and to outline the concerns of the Competition Authority and his own about the situation.

He said: "We have become increasingly concerned over the last couple of months about possible `turf wars' and conflicts between the Competition Authority and the Director of Telecoms Regulation concerning the determination of competition issues.

"We would be anxious that regulation should apply only where it is necessary . . . As a general rule, regulators will want to regulate and have been known to exhibit excessive zeal to the detriment of competition."

Noting that the Republic was not alone with these problems he said it was "highly desirable" that co-ordination between the two bodies be achieved but agreement did not seem to be possible.

"Initial indications are not promising and it may be that a solution will have to be imposed by legislation."

This comes after news that the Minister for Public Enterprise, Ms O'Rourke, would shortly announce a major review of regulators.

Prof Paddy McNutt, chairman of the Competition Authority, said on August 30th there had been no substantive meeting yet of the Competition and Telecommunications Co-ordination Group' - the group designed to liaise between his office and the telecoms regulator. This was nine months after it was agreed that a liaison group would have to be set up to share information and determine responsibilities between the two bodies.

It is believed the Department of Public Enterprise could have blocked the release of the documentation, by appealing to the Freedom of Information commissioner on the grounds that a policy document was pending on the matter and the publication of these documents could adversely influence or affect this policy.

The role and powers of the telecoms regulator have not been teased out fully and this may be the reason for the resistance of the regulator to give any ground.

Encapsulating relations between the two bodies, was a memo circulated by a member of the Competition Authority, Mr Pat Massey before the eventual meeting of their Chairman Prof McNutt and director Ms Etain Doyle. It said the authority had a duty to enforce the Acts in telecoms as in every other area, "we sought co-operation and it has not been forthcoming" and certain aspects of Ms Doyle's licence proposals could in the their view "have the effect of impeding competition, on the basis of misguided views as to what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour."

In the end the lack of progress led to Mr Barry Harte telling Mr Whitney that legislation was the only way to start up a co-operative body because "in practice, this is needed because common sense has not to date prevailed in discussions between the regulator and the Competition Authority".