Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I apologise if I ask some questions that were asked earlier. I had to go to the Chamber for a priority question to the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation. If the Minister is unable to answer any specific questions, he can provide a written reply. As was suggested earlier, we will have to do further investigative work to make sure the public interest, as best we can discern it in the next six months, is protected in this contract.

First, everybody agrees that we want to have the same access and conditions for people throughout the country. The contract that has been outlined refers to a wholesale price of €30 per month from the national broadband company. On 19 November last, ComReg issued its regulation regarding the wholesale access price for broadband, fibre to cabinet, primarily to Eir as the monopoly current provider. It set the price at €19.54 per house and it applied from 1 March last. That is the current price for wholesale access for broadband. We are being asked to agree a contract where it is at least €10 more expensive. Is that €30 per month expected to be index linked? Who will regulate any increases in it? Is it ComReg's role to assess that price? What role did ComReg play in the assessment of whether that is an appropriate price for this contract? It is strange that there is such a gap in the prices given that the State will put more than €2 billion into this product. One would have thought it would be, if anything, lower than the private market wholesale price. Similarly, the Minister said it is estimated that there will be a €40 million payment per year to Eir for the use of the poles and the ducting. Is that index linked? How is that price regulated as the contract proceeds? Is the Minister including index linking for it or is it something ComReg will oversee and regulate so we can ensure supernormal profits do not go to the bidder?

Second, I am told one of the main objections to this project from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is that the State may incentivise or support a continuing sprawl model of development in which a one-off housing model of development is facilitated.

There are understandable concerns not just about the cost of delivery of broadband services but also about a range of public services related to the sprawl-development model we have seen here.

Based on the briefing we received, I understand the Minister expects 60,000 additional homes to be added to the 500,000 already covered by the network. Does the contract make provision for the further expansion of one-off rural housing? Is it being included in the contract or are we just doubling down on what the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is concerned about and what goes completely against the national planning framework? Rather than consolidating development in cities, towns and villages, this policy may signal that another 60,000 one-off houses need to be serviced as part of the scheme.

I ask for a detailed international analysis that backs up the statement that fibre typically decays in 25 to 35 years. In other networks fibre has not been deployed in this way in many cases. I am interested in knowing the scientific evidence. The Minister can provide it in a written response if it is not available today.

The Minister expects an 80% uptake of the broadband service being provided in the 25-year period. What is the projected uptake in the first ten years?

I have two further questions. I apologise to the Chairman for having multiple questions. We will have more in the coming months. The industry experts, from whom I have sought advice, have said the percentage of houses we could address with wireless broadband should be higher than the 2% estimated in the draft plan. The cost might be reduced significantly if the figure was closer to 10% or 15% and we stilled maintain a high quality service. Is the 2% figure part of the radical price inflation from the original €1 billion to €3 billion now?

A mistake was made in parcelling the 300,000 houses which resulted in the ESB exiting the process. I do not believe its role is necessarily finished. Having spoken to officials and other parties involved in the process, I understand there will still be flexibility in the next six months when the contract will be finalised for the developer to use ESB poles as opposed to Eir poles, thereby bringing a competitive process into the final stages of the contract. It is not the case that at this stage we want the ESB to take the whole project, but in some of their comments the Minister and the Taoiseach are ruling out the possibility of the developer negotiating with the ESB to use those wires. We have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to move from having two sets of poles to one. Even if it may not now be possible to do so for the whole project, I still think we should pursue it as a policy objective in the remaining months of the final negotiations. The developer may have a real incentive because it may allow it to bid with Eir in a much more competitive framework if there was an alternative option before them. I am interested in hearing how the Minister thinks the process of negotiation might work out. I recognise that he is in a difficult position because he is also the shareholder of the ESB, but we should keep that option open. I am keen to hear the Minister's views.