Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I believe all citizens of our republic, whatever their location, should have access to the same level of public services, and that includes broadband facilities. As we heard earlier, it is clear that if the Fianna Fáil Government under Bertie Ahern and Mary Harney had not privatised Eircom 20 years ago in 1999, a State-wide roll-out of Internet infrastructure would probably have been complete by now and reasonable speeds, at least, would be available. We have to remember that the national electricity grid was only completed around 1964, although the ESB was founded in 1929. Fianna Fáil with the strong support of the then Ministers, Mary Harney and Michael McDowell, and of Fine Gael got us into the current mess. Some 13 years after the Eircom debacle, the then Minister, Pat Rabbitte, launched a national broadband plan but, by 2017, Eir was able to leave 542,000 Irish homes and businesses without up-to-date telecommunications and broadband. From listening to earlier discussion, an equally conceivable plan might be to simply renationalise Eir and to take back the national infrastructure which this House should not have allocated to a private company 20 years ago.

We have also seen the further debacle of the resignation of Deputy Denis Naughten as Minister, which we discussed in this House last year. I strongly believe that on the basis of the circumstances surrounding the forced resignation of the Minister alone, we should not proceed with the Granahan McCourt consortium. In fact, it is outrageous that the Minister proposes that we should.

We learned today that the expected cost should we proceed is now €5 billion, with the implication that the State itself is committing at least 60% of this cost, although we do not know that as the Minister has not told us. We will be paying €400 million per annum all the way through the 2020s. This cost will rise year after year. The incredible result is that in 2028, or perhaps 2043, the Irish people whom we represent will not own a single pole or fibre optic line of that network.

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's observations on the NBP, which we have all read, are truly shocking and unprecedented. The Minister referred to second level education yesterday but it is not a comparable situation. We were going to move on to second level at some stage. We should have moved on to it in the late 1940s, as England and Northern Ireland did, but we did not because of the influence of Fine Gael on government at that particular time.

Many of us have been very critical of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, its management meetings, and so on with regard to the national children's hospital, but the Secretary General, Mr. Watt, and his officials, whose job it is to critically evaluate all budgetary expenditure proposals, are now discharging their responsibilities and clearly recommending against proceeding with this plan, which they say totally lacks credibility. We were very critical of officials in the national children’s hospital debates and how they missed the flashing warning signs. The Minister would not tell us about these signs because the Government was going to hold a general election last October and did not want to give us bad news about the children's hospital. The Department has stated: "We strongly recommend against approval of the appointment of the preferred bidder to the current NBP procurement process". It goes on to list all the grounds for this recommendation, including cost and affordability and the cost-benefit analysis.

Given his academic history, the Minister will know a good bit about cost-benefit analyses, as do many of us on this side. It is quite clear that the cost-benefit analysis does not add up. Why is he proceeding when this is the case? The officials outlined their "major concerns" about the cost-benefit analysis. They said it "is not credible and it is questionable whether it is consistent with the Public Spending Code". Is this decision legal? Is the Government acting legally in attempting to proceed with this half-baked proposal?

Deputy Sean Fleming, whose past work I respect, outlined in an article in The Irish Timesthis morning - an article which I support - the reasons he, as Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, believes we should not proceed. He gives additional alternatives to the very good alternative which the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has proposed.

There is now a heavy responsibility on Deputy Brophy and all the other members of the Committee on Budgetary Oversight, including myself and Deputy Boyd Barrett, to ensure value for money in the final roll-out of broadband. Deputy Brophy must urgently call a meeting of the committee. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will know, we are supposed to be responsible for future spending. The Parliamentary Budget Office should also immediately proceed to examine the details of this proposed contract.

I am one of those who believes there should be a separate Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. One of the few proposals on which I agreed with the previous Government was having a Minister for Finance and a Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, however, cannot stand over this and nor should he. He and the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment must come before the Committee on Budgetary Oversight and explain the situation to us. This process should immediately be halted and then done again differently in one of the ways which has been suggested from this side of the House.

See this speech in context