Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming before the committee to assist us in properly scrutinising, analysing, questioning, and querying this decision of Government. We preface our remarks, as always, by saying that we all accept and that nobody disputes this infrastructure is badly needed. It is most definitely needed throughout the entirety of the country. It is many years overdue. Many commitments, deadlines, and promises have been made but missed thereafter. The cost, however, is far in excess of what was originally indicated. When two bidders dropped out, there was an understanding on their part, I am sure, that the subvention was to be far less than it has turned out to be. That in itself is not of great value to the taxpayer, in hindsight.

Deputy Donohoe, as Minister for Finance and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, is a senior member of the Government which approved this plan. Having read through his submission, he seems to be indicating that it is a matter for the Department of Communications, Climate Action and the Environment. Fobbing it off to that Department in the absence of further questioning will not cut it, I am afraid. It is perfectly fine for the Minister, or any other Minister, to challenge, to disagree with, or to question the advices that arrive on his desk, but in this instance, despite continued communications to the relevant Department, the Secretary General, in his final memorandum to Cabinet, outlined his serious concerns. I am sure the Minister was well aware of those. He was well aware that these concerns related to value for money, the cost-benefit analysis, the impact on the national development plan, projects to be forgone as a result, the unprecedented risk, and the plan's lack of compatibility with Project Ireland 2040. For the Minister to counter that and for him to say that, on balance, he disagreed, where did he go to, who did he consult, and what advices countered that advice primarily for him to arrive at the conclusion he did?

I refer to some of the specifics.

In the first instance, notwithstanding our questions, if this project were to proceed and the contract were to be signed, we need clarity on aspects of it. The State will enter into a contract with National Broadband Ireland. According to the reply to a question I asked on 15 May, NBI comprises Granahan McCourt Dublin, Tetrad Corporation and McCourt Global. The Minister or his Department has since clarified that McCourt Global is not a shareholder. The Minister and his colleagues have said consistently that in the contract and the method by which the contract will be adhered to the risk is on NBI, not the State. If that risk is called in, is he sure there is a lien on, for example, Tetrad Corporation? If NBI folds, do the holding company or the shareholders walk away? If they walk away, is that not a lien on the State? That is not protecting the taxpayers' interests in the way in which the Minister and his colleagues have said they will be protected.

The other issues relate to the mammoth cost associated with this. It is far in excess of what had been indicated over the past number of years. The Minister said it will come from future revenues. It is almost magic, a Freddie Mercury job. The Minister has to be straight. It is either capital projects forgone, as the Secretary General says, or not. Where will the future revenue come from? Will it be from corporation tax or new taxes? If not from there, is it coming from current spending and what implications will it have for current spending?