Mr. Ciarán Ó hÓbáin:

Let us step back. First, I will not dare to attempt to go into the detail of all of the contingency options because they are in detailed reports that have been published. Having said that, we are happy to drill down on any specific questions on individual options. Under the 2018 and 2019 processes there was extensive engagement internally in our Department and with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We were looking at this in the context of the procurement process ending without a successful conclusion for any reason. We looked at where we would go. Then, at a later stage, we had a final tender in. We understood that it could be delivered but we also understood what the cost was at that point. We had to look again to see where that would bring us. There was extensive analysis. Across the analysis there were some common themes. There were options that we could proceed with in the event that plan A did not go ahead. Under any of the options the first thing we would have to do is effectively go back to the drawing board and consult on the strategy. Then we would need a decision and we would need to publish a new strategy on the way forward. It would not matter which option we took, whether we took one that was going to depend entirely on the market or one of several options around the establishment of a State agency. One factor with a State agency option is that we do not have a State telecommunications body so we would have to establish that and build it up. The obvious starting point would be to look at the resources in place. There is a small team within the Department and we would have to try to build from that. That of itself would take a certain amount of time. We would expect a legislative element involved in that scenario. Then we would need to go back to the market no matter what model we took. Time was certainly an issue.

The Minister answered questions in the House yesterday around a cost-benefit analysis for those alternatives. It would not be possible today - I would challenge anyone who could claim to do meaningful cost-benefit analysis on any of those options - because we are too early in the process. Let us suppose that at this point we considered those options, allowing for the fact that we would have to consult on strategy and the amount of associated time we would lose once we have ended the current process. The first question is what the scope of the intervention area would be.

Would it be 540,000 premises? What would have changed by the time one had moved on that strategy? If we consult on a new strategy, we must be open to different approaches that could affect it. We would have to consult the market in terms of the infrastructure that would be used, because infrastructure was central to the procurement process that we have just come through, whether we plump for fixed line infrastructure of the two main networks, Eir and ESB, or whether somebody might come forward with or press for a more of a mobile solution. Until there is clarity on the scope of the area, the nature of the technology and the scope affect the revenues plus the timing. Again, some of those options that we looked at were to do a project very similar to the current project but over a longer period and gauging the impact of that on revenues. Until we could lock down those factors, investing money in cost benefit analysis or CBA would have been meaningless.