Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his presentation.

Until today, he had indicated there was a commercial impediment to the release of financial data vis-à-viswhat Granahan McCourt was in a position to commit to. Will the Minister outline what it was or the advice he had in that regard?

The next element, following that particular train, is that at about 1.45 p.m. today, or maybe closer to 1.50 p.m., the national broadband company issued a statement providing the information the Minister is now giving us and that the Taoiseach gave us during Leaders' Questions today. How did that come about? Was the company mindful of what the Minister might say here or about what the Taoiseach was going to say? Has there been any communication between the Department and the national broadband company? Did the Minister seek the issuing of the statement? Has the Department been communicating with the company in that regard? If so, it seems the Minister is seeking the assistance of the company to dig him out of the political hole he dug for himself last week by giving the status of preferred bidder to the company within two weeks of local and European elections. Undoubtedly, at the political level some people felt this would be of benefit to some of the Fine Gael candidates on the doorstep. While that was within the Minister's bailiwick, I would be deeply concerned if he were now attempting to use the company on which he has conferred preferred bidder status, creating a certain liability for the State, to dig him out of the political hole he has fallen into. I am very interested in hearing where he goes from here.

Prior to the Minister's coming here, I sought in private session the support of the committee to begin an investigation into the national broadband plan and all the aspects that are outstanding. I hope the committee will meet later this week to address the proposal. I do not know what our committee will decide but, from our perspective, we will be pushing very strongly for this committee to put together some terms of reference for trying to get to the bottom of what has gone on here for a protracted period.

I am not just being political because we have to be mindful of all the advice the Minister and his Department have received, particularly from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. An effort has been made by some to characterise this as just the concerns of the Secretary General of that Department, but when one goes through the work done in detail, one notes it is not just Mr. Watt but an entire team within the Department that has reached these conclusions. I am hopeful, on the basis that the Minister has decided to move away from the commercial impediment he talked about in regard to the release of the capital investment of Granahan McCourt, that he will be more comprehensive in his appraisal of the documentation circulated among us and remove some of the redactions or most of the redactions that appear throughout. While he did a very significant document dump last Wednesday, there is some critical information that would assist me and other members in making basic judgments on the good or otherwise of this proposal. We will need access to the information, however. I hope that if this committee initiates an investigation, the Minister will commit to reviewing the documentation that has been redacted and provide us with some clarity on it. This could be done. I do not see any commercial impediment. Since there is only one bidder, I fail to understand why the Government could not or would not make the information available to us.

I noted media reports over the weekend, especially a report in The Sunday Timesby the journalist, Justine McCarthy, who made it very clear that there are questions over the financial standing of the remaining bidder, Granahan McCourt.

My understanding, having read the article, is that there is a certain reliance on a company related to Granahan McCourt. While "related" may be a broad term, this involves a company owned and controlled by a brother of the principal of Granahan McCourt. Could the Minister give a detailed explanation as to how that provides the financial standing of the company, recognising that Granahan McCourt itself has disposed of considerable assets in recent times, namely, Enet. Therefore, if one were to take it on its own standing, it would not have the financial track record to be awarded the contract. It would be helpful if the Minister could take us through this in more detail.

The other issue, which perhaps was lost on some in the announcement last week and in the fanfare over what the Department or perhaps the Government sought to dress up as positive, was that the rolling out was going to be delayed very significantly. Heretofore, the Government had indicated the vast bulk of the 542,000 homes would be passed within a three-year period. The Department continued to assert that over recent years, yet the announcement on the last occasion suggested it would take up to seven years, notwithstanding the fact that, buried in the detail, was the point that the build company would remain in existence for ten years. That would raise a red flag for any of us observing the pace of progress on the national broadband plan because every deadline has been missed along the way. One would be forgiven for seeing the potential for further delays.

There are also concerns over the way in which the Department extended the contract for the operation of the MANs to Enet prior to its sale to the State-backed infrastructure fund. All of this happened at a time when Enet was the main bidder and seemed to have lost the support of its then backers within the consortium to win the national broadband plan, namely, SSE and John Laing, which had removed or were removing themselves from the process. Yet, Enet succeeded in extending contracts with the State for the operation of the MANs and, in doing so, increased its value very significantly. Enet was then flipped, resulting in a very significant return to Granahan McCourt, allowing it to invest again. This requires further investigation. There are also questions to be asked on the Peter Smyth report, which was prepared previously. When Mr. Smyth reviewed the meeting that took place in New York between the then Minister and Mr. David McCourt, he concluded Mr. Frank McCourt, the principal of another company I talked about that is now being used to bolster the financial position of Granahan McCourt, was in attendance. At the time and during the Peter Smyth investigation, the necessity for his presence may not have been clear. The reason he may have been present is now clear or more clear. Would the Minister consider having Mr. Peter Smyth review his report in light of what we now know? Maybe that is enough for the moment.