Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of those who contributed to this debate.

The first issue the Minister raised in his contributions in response to my opening statement was the Peter Smyth investigation. He was satisfied with it, and outlined the reasons for that. However, it was not measured against the NBP communications protocol. Indeed, it seems that the protocol was ignored. The protocol is clear. It sets down the rules, and outlines the matters that have to be complied with. On canvassing, it states:

The following prohibition on canvassing applies and is detailed in section 13.9 of the Project Information Memorandum which states;

"Direct or indirect canvassing by any Bidder, Consortium Member, Bidder Member or their suppliers or advisers in relation to the Project or the Procurement or any attempt to obtain information from any of the agents or employees of the Department, its political representatives or its appointed advisers concerning another Bidder or a Solution or Final Tender or the Procurement is prohibited.

Bidders must not offer, give or agree to give to any member of the Department (or its advisers or evaluation team) any gift, or consideration of any kind as an inducement or reward in relation to the obtaining or execution of any Contract. "Any breach of this section will entitle the Department to immediately disqualify the bidder concerned from the Procurement and/or cancel and terminate the Contract...".

The rules governing the relationship are pretty clear. The Minister went on to quote from Mr. Smyth's report, specifically a passage concerning the fact that the Minister deciding to resign was an important aspect to all of this. I was in this Chamber that day, when Deputy Naughten came in to address us. We waited for him and thought he would go through some of the detail and respond to some of the concerns we had. It was very clear that the Deputy resigned reluctantly and that it was on foot of a loss of confidence by the Taoiseach in him. This was not a matter of the Deputy deciding to resign to preserve a process. We should not seek to rewrite history. Mr. Smyth was the process auditor, and had the responsibility to ensure the process worked as it was laid out. It did not work. It is not credible to call the Smyth report robust; it was not.

Returning to the issue relating to MANs, they were put in place to ensure that everyone within those areas would be in a position to use them in a cost-efficient way. However, there is anecdotal evidence from people in the industry that usage numbers are relatively small and, in some towns, they are barely being used at all. This has as much to do with penetration as the roll-out of the MANs contract. It shows the importance of having the information in advance of any tender being awarded under the NBP. We need information on what is and what is not working. I welcome the fact that the Analysys Mason report will be published in the coming weeks. I hope it will be published before any tender is awarded. The appeal to the appeals court will be moot if the information produced in the report is suppressed by virtue of the fact that the Department has not decided to adhere to what the Information Commissioner said. Will the Minister consider stopping that appeal on the basis that this information should be in the public domain, and could be in the public domain in the form of the Analysys Mason report? The information in that report will be gathered from the same source.

We discussed the other providers, including BT. It was entirely unhappy with the process. I understand that it is a competitor, but we are talking about key players in the market, and it knows the market well. It should not be ignored. It does not appear that the Department took the concerns of BT on board when considering the extension of the MANs contract. BT stated in its letter that operators have the right to enter the competitive national leased lines market, but that it would have serious concerns if Enet was to leverage the MANs regional state aid into the competitive national market. It further stated that it was seeking to ensure that Enet traded its MANs dark fibre on a transparent and non-discriminatory wholesale basis to other parties on the same terms, conditions and prices that it sold to itself and that this would mitigate against Enet giving itself preferential treatment. The company also questioned whether state aid approval allows Enet to sell to itself since it is stated specifically that Enet cannot act as a retail service provider. This is despite the fact that it owns an associated company, Airspeed, which sells on the retail market. BT expressed valid concerns, yet the analysis was that the process was working fine.

When Eir withdrew from the bidding process for the NBP, the company stated that it had worked through the formal dialogue channels to try to ensure that the plan not only delivered on the policy objective of providing high-speed broadband throughout Ireland but did so in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Based upon the significant commercial issues and complexity within the tender process, together with the growing uncertainty on a range of regulatory and pricing issues residing outside the NBP process, the company board decided that the risks were too great. I would like a much clearer understanding of what Eir meant by that. These people had the technical expertise to deliver the plan, unlike the consortium in place at the moment. The consortium certainly has the financial wherewithal, but does it have the technical wherewithal?

I can understand the frustration people are feeling about the delay. I am not pressing the Minister to make a quick decision, but rather the correct decision. This project has the potential to come back and bite us in respect of both delivery and price. I do not believe the costs that could be associated with a subsidy, which would have to be paid to ensure this is rolled out to every household and which is the ambition of the plan, are at all clear. It may be that the roll-out will be available to every house, but the penetration may not be as good as it needs to be. It may be low if it is prohibitively expensive. It is clear that in areas served by MANs, a sizeable number of people are not taking it up. I presume that is due to the cost in many cases.

We need to know the kind of expectation for the subsidy that will be paid because of the amount that is being talked about. There are wide variations, but amounts of €500 million to €3 billion are in the range of money that is being talked about. It is important that far more information is made available to us. I am keen to stress the importance of getting this right. It may well be a case of more haste and less speed if we have to come back and review something a year or two from now or if the right people are not in place with the right technical expertise to deliver the broadband.

See this speech in context