Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

There is no difference between us in terms of the necessity to rapidly roll out high-speed broadband to those rural and semi-rural areas that have been promised it for the past seven years. It is imperative that we do that. I agree and recognise the impact of the digital divide on those communities. However, the announcement made in the past number of days is anything but a rapid roll-out. It is an absolute confirmation that there will be continuing delays. It is dressed up as a good news story to assist the Government's candidates in the local elections, but the reality is that it is an announcement of delay. What was expected to be delivered in a three-year period will now be delivered under this particular plan in seven to ten years. The Minister of State may believe it is good news and may be able to provide the figures to the people of Headford and other places.

When the people there mine into the detail and it becomes apparent to them that they will not have broadband anytime soon, then they will react differently. A period of seven years to some families will see children go through school and college without access to high-speed broadband at home. Moreover, it will see an entire life cycle on their farms and in their businesses. This is not rapid roll-out.

The Minister has suggested that this is not electioneering, but it is electioneering of the worst kind. The Government produced a pack for each of us the day after the decision setting out the details for our constituencies, but this has been done before the contract is signed. My understanding is that the decision taken by the Government should have been taken when a contract was agreed. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will again have to decide on the conclusion of negotiations around the contract? Will the process need another Government decision? Has the Government ceded some of its negotiating capacity by taking the decision the other day? Has the Government created a further legitimate expectation on the part of Granahan McCourt that will make it more difficult for the Minister to negotiate on behalf of the State as he reaches a conclusion to contract negotiations?

The reality is that in recent days the Minister and the Taoiseach as well as several other Ministers have sought to downplay the value of the asset. The Minister has done it again today. He has downplayed the value of the asset after 25 years, suggesting that it is only fibre strung across poles that the Government is renting from others. He has also suggested that the Government would not have invested in it otherwise. The contractor seems to see the value in it. The assertion put forward by the Minister is entirely disingenuous. The comments have centred around the value of the key infrastructure. Will the Minister confirm that the real value at the end of the intervention period is the monopoly access to a customer base that will be, by the Minister's projections, 400,000 or 80% of the 540,000 figure by the end of the contract period? These people will have no alternative but to use the infrastructure for which they will pay a monthly fee. It is the access to that customer base that will be the real value.

There is nothing to suggest that if the State owned the network, just as the ESB owns its network, it would not upgrade the infrastructure under the normal amortisation process that goes on in all companies. Of course that is the case, and of course those responsible would do that. There would be plenty of money to upgrade the infrastructure.

Let us go through in detail the document or memorandum provided by the Secretary General, Mr. Watt. He asserts that Granahan McCourt will have all its money back after year eight of the 25-year period. The company will go on to gain additional resources and revenues for the following 17 or 18 years and it will own the network at the end. Of course the company will be writing down some of its profits against upgrading the network, as the State would have done had it operated under a commercial semi-State mandate.

From every particular aspect and every way we look at this project it is not fit for purpose and does not meet the objective we all signed up to and want to see realised, which is rapid roll-out of high-speed broadband. With the greatest of respect, there is nothing rapid in a period of seven to ten years. It is bad value for money for the State. There will be no ownership at the end of the period. All in all, it is a rather bad deal.

See this speech in context