Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

With some justification, the Minister and Department have said repeatedly that this is a visionary leap into the dark, and they have repeatedly compared this project with the electrification of rural areas and the building of Ardnacrusha. With some justification, they are comparing the importance of the two projects. The national broadband plan is to deliver fibre broadband to 56,000 farms, 44,000 businesses, 670 primary schools and probably many private houses. The key difference between what we are doing here and what we did with rural electrification and the building of Ardnacrusha is that we did not spend on the process of tendering. We have spent €80 million so far on the current project. With electrification, we did not tender out, hire elaborate consultancy firms or engage in elaborate competitions. We constructed a State-run company with a single remit, namely, the ESB and instructed it to provide a vital service to rural areas. The provision was not dependent on the profit margins of some private entity. That is a key difference. If, in order to electrify the country we had used the model we are using today, most of the country would still be in the dark. The people would be listening to this discussion by candlelight because it would never have worked.

The main mistake we are making is that, once again, an essential service is being privatised at huge cost to the taxpayer, remarkably without the taxpayer even owning the service at the end.

Let me comment on points made repeatedly by the Ministers. Their great concern for equality of opportunity for the people of rural areas is quite astounding when the Government has just closed down many rural post offices. How many Garda stations were closed during the years of austerity and not reopened? How many villages and towns throughout rural areas have been disconnected from bus services? When this was happening, it was all about saving money. Now there is significant expenditure on rural areas that is being justified on the basis of equality of opportunity, which the Government has consistently denied rural areas, whether it was through running down the fishing community, closing down schools needed in very rural villages and towns, or, as sometimes happened, closing hospitals and nursing homes. The idea that what is being done represents efficiency is absolutely disgraceful. The reputation of Fine Gael, a party known for its prudence in dealing with public funds, will be utterly changed from here on in.

I want to ask the Ministers a few questions on the whole scheme of things. When we went to a briefing with the Department just less than a week ago, we were told there has been no study of the uptake of broadband rolled out to individuals’ homes. There are comparisons with other studies but no study done on who in rural areas might avail of the service. Clearly, we know who needs to service. They include the 56,000 farms and the 44,000 businesses but do we know how many will avail of the service in total? We have not done a study. We have just been told there are broadband officers in every county but the level of uptake is still not clear. As Mr. Robert Watt pointed out, at least 20,000 of the homes are holiday homes. Their owners will probably not incur the expense of having broadband brought to them.

I wish to ask a couple of key questions. Why was there no study of where the uptake might come from? I have a couple of legal questions. I am sure the Minister is aware of the legal action against Granahan McCourt by Cube Infrastructure Managers over the sale to Irish Infrastructure Fund of the stake in Enet. Does the Minister believe this might at some point compromise the tender? Does it have ramifications for what the State is about to do?

I have another legal question. The investigation into Siteserv is not due to be completed until March 2020, yet we now regard the company that has taken over from Siteserv, Actavo, as a key component of the consortium. Have the Minister or his officials considered the implications of the inquiry into the role of Actavo in the consortium and the bid on which he may be about to sign off? Does he see a problem in that the consortium that now comprises the only remaining bidder is very different from what it looked like at the beginning of the process? Those are my questions for now.