Dan Boyle (Green Party)

I second the amendment to the motion. The motion is stark and simple and is difficult to argue against in its own terms. I suggest the motion should not be taken in terms of the historical situation, because that is as it is. We are below average and behind where we need to be, and we need to improve our game by putting in place the communication infrastructure that will allow us to have the most competitive economy and advanced educational society possible. The motion should not be taken in terms of how we got here and whether the right decisions have been taken. Policy decisions have been made that can and should be argued with. The question is whether the commitment and competence exist to make up that difference and bring us to our goal. I am glad the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is in the Chamber because that is the question we must address. Is there a commitment at ministerial level, led by the Department, to ensuring the Government puts in place the necessary resources and proper policy initiatives to bring us to our target in broadband and a well-developed communications infrastructure? I argue there is.

Many wrong decisions have been made. Many points were made in this debate about the piecemeal approach and the introduction of the MAN system, whether that was the right decision and has been effective. Most people who are informed on this will answer that it was the wrong approach and mistakes were made. We are also dealing with the reality of decisions that were made on the main telecommunications company, once a State institution, being privatised and the fact that it was done without providing the telecommunications infrastructure we needed for the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. We can either revisit that debate or see how present policy initiatives can change the playing field.

It could be argued that mobile telephone communication was reliant on a competition approach and the establishment of an infrastructure in which the State had little involvement. However that has led to unnecessary duplication and while there is coverage for mobile telephone use in this country and we have a higher level of mobile telephone use than other countries, we must ask why open competition has not worked in the provision of a broadband infrastructure. There must be structural problems that prevent the private sector alone from delivering such an infrastructure. We can examine countries of similar size and population, or smaller, that have dealt with these problems in a more advanced way than we have. Particularly good examples are Finland, Estonia and the Scandinavian and Baltic region in general. If they can deal with similar scale and population problems there is no reason we cannot. Perhaps in Finland the response was inspired by the fact that a large scale mobile telecommunications company was important for their GNP. We lack similar companies in Ireland and we fail to push that agenda. However, Estonia has 1.5 million people and seems to be dedicated to an e-economy. From the ground up, through its primary education system right through to third level and among the general population there is a coverage and use of broadband and computer technology that puts Ireland to shame. The nature of tonight's debate should not be about where we are — engaging in the classic Irish arguments of begrudgery — but rather about where we need to be and how we are going to get there. It should be concerned about whether there is a consensus on how we should get there and if there is collective confidence about this.

I believe the approach being taken is the correct one and that the people steering it are the right people to do so. Either we have that faith or we do not. Ultimately we shall divide on the issue as to whether we agree on those questions. I suspect, as is usual on Private Members' time, there will be a division as there tends to be every week. That said, it is important that the debate is being held. I am glad the issue has been raised and put in such stark terms. The nature of the dynamic between Government and Opposition is that the former must be constantly challenged as to whether its programme is effective and if it is going in the right direction in terms of achieving what needs to be done. I welcome this motion because we are debating an important piece of infrastructure in terms of how the country develops into the future. I would welcome the tabling of similar motions on a regular basis in Private Members' time to ensure Government is kept up to speed in terms of its very real responsibility in delivering on this important piece of infrastructure.