Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

He was there to ensure the integrity of the process and he approached it in the right way. He looked at four tests. These were whether the Minister was privy to sensitive information, whether he took any decisions in the process that benefitted Granahan McCourt, whether he was in position to influence changes in the tender documents and, in particular, the evaluation of the submissions. In all cases, Mr. Smyth found that the Minister was not in a position to do so and his conclusions are robust. He is satisfied that neither the former Minister nor Mr. McCourt had the opportunity to influence the conduct of the tender process in favour of Granahan McCourt or otherwise. Mr. Smyth also stated that while it was a cause for concern that the meetings took place he believed the decision of the former Minister to resign - thereby removing himself from the process - insulated the process from any apparent bias created by his engagements with Mr. McCourt. This was a very strong finding from Mr. Peter Smyth. He attended the Oireachtas committee and has made himself available to explain how he reached his conclusion. I strongly believe he was the right person to do so.

Deputy Catherine Murphy referred to the MANs and how they developed. She has been critical of the decision, made before my time, to extend the contract for the first period to the second, which was envisaged during the first period. I assure her that we will learn anything that is to be learned from the MANs process and I am determined to do so. I only recently received the MANs report, which I am considering. I will publish it shortly and take whatever steps are appropriate. I will also ensure that any lessons that can be learned from the process will be learned, should the project be approved for the national broadband plan.

I assure the Deputy we have accurate mapping of those who can provide speeds at the required level. As she knows, the commercial providers have carved out their areas leaving the amber areas for which we will provide. Although the amber areas contain only 23% of the population, they cover 96% of the landmass. We have to reach an area in which customer density is 80 times less than in the areas provided for commercially. This is challenging.

The Deputy asked for an honest debate on the cost of provision. The ambition to achieve 100% reach is the right one. We should not decide we will leave some of our population behind, whereby some people will be marginalised from opportunities in health, education or other evolving policies the State and others will develop that will require high-speed access. It is right that we aim to deliver this ambition.

I understand that people rightly want assurance. I can provide an assurance that we will not just push ahead because, to paraphrase Shakespeare, to return were more difficult than go o'er. Whatever decision is taken, it will be taken on the grounds that it is in the best interests of delivering the service with robust technology and at an appropriate cost.

That is why the time is being taken to evaluate what has been submitted. I refer to ensuring the technology is robust, we can put in place the proper governance, and checks and balances are in the contract to protect the taxpayer and potential users in the future. I appreciate the Deputy's concern and I assure the House I am taking it, and the concerns I know other Deputies will express, extremely seriously so that, whatever way this decision goes, we will make the decision with the best information available to us.

See this speech in context