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

Mr. Griffin maintains that his job or duty is to ensure value for money and ensure taxpayers' money is protected. I would expect nothing less. We too are elected to ensure the same thing, among others, the difference being that we will be thrown out of our jobs if we do not abide by it.

The taxpayer, as has been alluded to by others, is aware that the Department and the Government are moving towards finalising the contract to employ what many see as an unknown entity with no experience or history of the provision of such a product in this area. The exposure to the taxpayer is €2.9 billion. This is along the lines of what Senator O'Reilly said. Meanwhile, Eir says now, definitively, that it can do the same thing, that is to say, provide broadband to every home, with an exposure to the taxpayer of €1 billion. That is inclusive of VAT and contingencies and it is an informed estimate because of the experience that Eir has since had with the 300,000 extra connections originally intended to be in the national broadband plan.

In response to this contention, Mr. Griffin and his colleagues state there are rules that must be adhered to, especially state aid rules. We now know that is contested by reputable opinion. It would appear that there is nothing definitively in writing from the Commission to back up the Department's contention. Mr. Griffin also says there are issues surrounding governance and oversight. I am not a member of this committee but I have responsibility to speak for my party on public expenditure matters. As Deputy Dooley said earlier, it would appear the Department is spending €2 billion to protect €1 billion.

The last questioner asked what would happen if the whole process was paused at this stage. Mr. Griffin asked about the basis for that and noted that Eir withdrew from the process. He says the contention from Eir, as well as the information the company has given to the Department and the committee, are not to be considered as a proposal. It would appear the Department is simply carrying on regardless. The Department has legal advice that contravenes what the company contends, states or insists could be the case. Is the Department simply doing us a favour by entertaining us in this process, despite the best intentions of those who called for this process?

I have some specific questions on foot of that. This did not simply become a story recently when Eir submitted details to the committee on how it was in a position to provide the same solution for €1 billion rather than €3 billion. Eir wrote to the Department in January 2018. Can Mr. Griffin confirm that? While Eir might not have stated that it could do the job in a certain way or that it would give customers or the public or the taxpayer what they wanted for €1 billion, the company did say it could do it at a fraction of the cost. What consultation or correspondence has taken place with Eir since the Department received that letter?

I have some other questions. I had to listen to the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Government tell us that they looked at every alternative and every other option, as is their duty. They said they went over and under them and considered them and reconsidered them but were left with no option but to proceed along the course as we know it now. Meanwhile, this letter was sitting on someone's desk since January 2018. I have no correspondence or information to tell me that the matter was investigated to the nth degree at the time or that it was checked, rechecked, considered and reconsidered based on what was contained in that letter.

The State has conferred preferred bidder status to Granahan McCourt Capital.

What cost does the State incur in the event of a contract not being finalised or signed? I asked the Minister that question at the Committee on Budgetary Oversight. He could not answer and said he would come back to me. That was about a month or six weeks ago and I have not got an answer yet. In the meantime I put it in writing. It is important and the public need to know. If there was a breakdown in the negotiations on a contract with the preferred bidder, what legal status is given to the bidder and what cost is associated with that? That is against the background of the €200 million it is putting in. People say the wholesale contract allows a recoup. However, if it goes to the wall, the taxpayer picks up the cost, end of story. It might not be the case with a reputable firm like Eir, but it is definitely the case in this instance.

All joking aside, the Department is hell-bent on implementing this process at a cost of €2 billion to save €1 billion. If Eir said it could deliver this to every home for €1 billion, would Mr. Griffin accept its good faith? Does he believe it could do it its way for €1 billion?