Vol. 650 No. 1
84 Deputy Kieran O’Donnell asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if the independent consultant engaged by him to report on issues surrounding the North-South interconnector is still due to report by the end of April 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10696/08]
120 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the position regarding the study on the comparative merits of overhead electricity transmission lines versus underground cables; when it will be published; if such a study will be carried out in every instance in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10563/08]
269 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if it is possible to extend the timeframe under which a consultant appointed by his Department will undertake a study on the comparative merits of overhead electricity transmission lines and underground cables for the Meath-Cavan-Monaghan 400 kV project, in the context of the fact that a number of companies have decided not to tender based on the tight timescale envisaged. [10736/08]
270 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the number of companies that have tendered for the study on the comparative merits of overhead electricity transmission lines and underground cables for the Meath-Cavan-Monaghan 400 kV project; when a decision will be made on selecting a successful applicant; and the names of companies that have tendered. [10737/08]
271 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if the tender has been advertised on a Europe-wide basis for the study on the comparative merits of overhead electricity transmission lines and underground cables for the Meath-Cavan-Monaghan 400 kV project; and if there has been interest from companies outside Ireland. [10738/08]
272 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will ensure that there will be no conflict of interest between the selected successful tender and the past relationship with EirGrid which may compromise the credibility of the study of the comparative merits of overhead electricity transmission lines and underground cables for the Meath-Cavan-Monaghan 400 kV project. [10739/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 84, 120, and 269 to 272, inclusive, together.
The invitation to tender for the independent study on the comparative merits of overhead and underground electricity transmission lines was placed on the Government's eTenders website on 11 February last. The deadline for receipt of tenders was 29 February. The terms of reference for the study were available both on the eTenders website, which is accessible throughout Europe, and on the Department's website.
The study will examine, inter alia, transmission technologies currently available for electricity transmission at 110 kV and above. It will also review current practices worldwide for constructing transmission lines, and the relative technical performance, capital and total life cycle costs, including the impact on unit electricity prices, and environmental impacts of underground and overground lines across a wide range of criteria. A draft final report is to be submitted by the consultants to the Department 40 days after contract signature and it is anticipated that the report will be finalised within the following 14 days.
It was not considered necessary to extend the timeframe for completion of the study. Four tenders for the study were received by the closing date of Friday 29 February, of which three were from companies outside Ireland. The details of the tenders are commercially sensitive at this time. I will publish the name of the successful tenderer once a contract has been agreed. I have asked my officials to finalise the contract with a view to ensuring that work gets under way as soon as possible and the draft final report is received by the end of April. I intend to publish the study once it is finalised, which implies a publication date during May.
The aim of this independent study is to provide authoritative advice on the issue of overhead versus underground transmission lines, thereby informing debate and decisions on all current and future transmission line projects. It is not envisaged that studies would be carried out for future individual projects.
The tender documentation specifically required each company to declare any conflicts of interest in its tender submission and the Department reserves the right to take whatever action it considers appropriate in case of failure to disclose a conflict of interest or misdeclaration of conflict of interest. I am confident that no conflict of interest will arise that would compromise the credibility of the study.
How much time do we have for questions? Do we get extra time?
I thank the Minister for his reply and for undertaking to do this study, which is a brave move. It is a pity the previous Minister did not do this before the tender went out. However, it is an important decision by the Minister and a sign of democracy in action.
I understand the Minister cannot give us the name of the company that will carry out the study. I am happy the Minister will make sure it is independent and that there is no conflict of interest. Is the deadline for completion of the project 40 working days or 40 days? There is a lot of concern on our side that it is a very short time. If the company that receives the contract asks for more time halfway through its research, will it receive more time? In the 14 days the Minister has allowed for the report to be signed off after completion, will the report come to the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources for discussion? Will the committee have a say on that?
Under the terms of reference the company will be asked to investigate current practice in various countries. I have written to the consultants on this issue also. Can the Minister ensure the company will find out why the authorities in certain countries have decided to adopt regulations with regard to the distance between homes and power lines? Whose advice did they take? That is a point on which we are a bit confused. If the report comes back with recommendations that it is economically viable to put the lines underground, what will happen then? Is the Minister prepared to issue instructions to EirGrid to change the way in which it has been going about its business? The feedback we are getting from EirGrid unofficially is that it is not willing to budge. Those at EirGrid do not think there will be a change. The Minister's answer to this question will tell us whether the process is useful and will work.
I will have to check, but my understanding is that the deadline is 40 days, not 40 working days.
That is very short.
Forty days would not allow us to stay within the April-May timeframe I am setting out. One of the options we wanted to preserve was for the consultants to come to the committee and present the analysis as set out. That would be appropriate and would allow the committee to ask relevant questions with regard to the findings of the study once it is completed. As to what happens after that, I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the study. Everyone has an interest in developing the infrastructure in the speediest manner possible because, to go back to Deputy Coveney's previous question, there is a major issue in terms of the development of our electricity system, particularly in the north east, where the electricity infrastructure is limiting further economic development. No one is looking for unnecessary delays in the process. It will be up to EirGrid, as well as ourselves, to consider the study and its recommendations and incorporate them into its plans. I do not want to pre-empt what the consultants might say.
The Minister has an open mind.
Unlike Deputy English, I would like an assurance that the applicant company selected will be totally independent. It is important that the Minister gives such an assurance. Can the Minister advise us that the selection criteria will include a restriction on those who were previously engaged by EirGrid, Northern Ireland Electricity or any other energy interest to examine other proposals? Can he assure us that they would be debarred from selection if their independence was compromised by a previous contractual arrangement? Can he advise when he will announce his selection? How long will the Minister take to go through the applications he has received? What will be the starting point for the 40 day period? Will it begin on the day of the announcement of his decision to grant responsibility to a certain company or group?
Can the Minister tell us the names of the applicants? I appreciate the sensitivity regarding the details of the tenders presented but is it not within the Minister's gift to advise the House of the names of the applicant companies, groups and individuals? This would let us know who is in the running for this responsibility.
Can the Minister indicate to the House that it is his intention to include in the briefing the terms of reference for this independent assessment of overhead, pylon-supported power lines as this approach is different to the underground approach to power lines? Can the Minister assure us that the assessment will not be confined to the cost of installation but will examine costs over the life expectancy, which, I understand, is some 40 years in each case? We should properly evaluate which approach gives the best return over its life expectancy.
I cannot give details of the companies involved or the likely winner as they are commercially sensitive. In terms of the Deputy's first question on reputation and independence, the companies that have applied are internationally recognised in this area of energy advice. The names of the companies indicate that we are dealing with leading international firms in the area of consultancy and advice. I do not have the full details of their client bases but the nature of such companies is that they will have worked on a range of projects. I am certain, given the reputation of these companies and having seen the work they have done in other areas, that we are talking about reputable, leading international companies. I am not concerned but there is a provision to deal with any conflicts of interest that were, inadvertently, not declared. I do not believe it will be necessary to use it.
The period of 40 days will apply from the moment contracts are signed and I intend for this to happen in the coming weeks. We will finalise details and work will progress.
I stated already that the terms of reference, which I believe are quite open, mention the examination of total life cycle costs and the comparative environmental impact of the different options. The terms of reference have been set in a way that should not restrict consultants in the work they do.
I wish to be associated with Deputy English's comments thanking the Minister for agreeing to carry out this study. This was an example of democracy at work and those who attended the committee saw it in action.
Is the Minister satisfied that 40 days is sufficient time for a proper, in-depth study to be done? I also wish to be associated with Deputy English's remarks on the need for this to be totally independent. Any company that has worked on this type of interconnector structure, north or south of the Border, would attract questions. Will the company evaluate the cost of delays caused by legal actions if this is to go overground? There is no doubt that legal actions would cause delays in such circumstances.
Will the consultants appointed be asked to consult the relevant group that has studied this issue in the Meath, Cavan and Monaghan areas? This group is not an example of "rent a crowd" but is serious and genuine and wants the best for its community and country. The Minister said this is only the start of the roll-out so if we can get this right other areas will become easier. The three Deputies sitting before the Minister have met this group and found it to be concise, active and only interested in dealing with reality. I urge the Minister to ensure the consultants meet this group and use its expertise.
One of the elements I insisted on, in going through this process, was a forum for people with an interest in the issue to make detailed submissions that the consultants must take into account. We ensured this would happen by advertising widely in local and national newspapers to give people the opportunity to make a submission. People are very aware of some of the technical issues and I trust that, given the detailed information they already had, they were able to make their points in a specific and constructive manner.
This is to do with the meetings.
This is the process we decided on to allow people make submissions. The time frame for the work to be done is tight but one of the advantages of using international consultants with experience in this area is they are not entirely new to the issue; they will draw on a basis of international experience as this matter has been examined in many countries. It is appropriate that we use best practice and the latest scientific research from other countries and apply it to the Irish context. An international consultant can do this. We are confident that the work can be done in the given time frame and that it will provide useful information to the Government, EirGrid and the committee for consideration.
I will follow up on one or two of the Minister's answers. The representative group, which consists mostly of the North East Pylon Pressure group, submitted a 300 page document by the deadline. Will the Minister ensure that the consultancy firm meets this pressure group in the same way that, I assume, it will meet EirGrid? If the consultancy firm is from outside Ireland it will need an understanding of local concerns in addition to the localised demands of EirGrid. If the consultancy firm is to do as comprehensive a job as we hope, it will need to meet the two major players in the discussion. This makes sense and I ask the Minister to ensure it happens.
My second question is on the target route of the study. Is this a general assessment of overground versus underground or an assessment of getting a DC light, a 400 kV piece of infrastructure, from one point on the island of Ireland to another point? Is it that one might perhaps be able to use a combination of both? Is it specific to this project or is it a general report on the merits of underground versus overground and the average costs that apply? If it is specific to this route we need to ensure the consultant has the time and opportunity to examine the different routes concerned.
As our all-Ireland grid study, to which I referred earlier, shows there is a significant requirement for us to urgently build a series of grid connections — we would have to do this in any event to upgrade our grid, even if we were not changing our energy policy direction — it is right for us to treat this on a national basis rather than on a project-specific basis because the lessons we learn in one area will obviously apply elsewhere.
That is the issue, rural versus urban.
Having said that, there are very different topographic or regional demographic issues in regard to a 440 kV power line which would go 80 km through drumlin country versus a smaller grid connection that might be applied in the west or in a mountainous region. There are obviously different considerations. We are looking for the consultant to bring back information on the implications for different examples. In that regard one of the projects we will be looking at specifically is the type of project in which we are engaged in the North-South interconnector. It is not a project-specific study, it is a wider study to help inform that project and many other projects which will have to proceed. In those circumstances, I am reluctant to direct the consultant to take on a meeting, regardless of whether a pressure group is capable and has much experience. At least in the requirement that they review the information provided, as set out in our consultation process, that 300 page report provides a detailed analysis on their specific project.
Did EirGrid make a written submission containing hundreds of pages or will it have the opportunity to meet the consultants? This is about fair play and equality across the board. If one has to submit a report but there is no meeting, the same should apply to the other side.
EirGrid has made its point in numerous public fora and in publications.
It has not.
I am not directing the consultant in terms of any meetings. It is up to them with their experience in the area to take the information provided and to bring in international experience because we need to see what exactly has applied elsewhere and if there are other examples in the world where this issue has been resolved. That will tell us more in a sense. The reality on the ground in other countries may tell us much more than a series of meetings we might try to set up here.
I seek clarification from the Minister where he indicated that the brief or terms of reference for the independent consultants is not specific to the North-South interconnector and the 400 kV power line proposal from Meath to Cavan. Will it address at all the specifics of both of these power line proposals or is it, as the Minister suggested, in his further reply to Deputy Coveney, a study in the bigger picture sense of overground versus underground and international experience and best practice? Can the Minister be clear as to what extent the consultants will address either of the two proposed power lines from Tyrone, through Monaghan and Cavan and into Meath, and also including County Armagh?
We are asking the consultants to bring in international expertise to look at the broad national picture here but, obviously, within that to look at specific examples of topography or network configurations which will apply in the development of our network. In doing that one has to look at some of the big connection projects, the North-South interconnector being one of the largest. Obviously one would not ignore specific projects but it is not designed as a project-specific study. It is looking at the broad national picture. By answering the broader questions, it will help us to look at the specific project mentioned by the Deputy.
Will there be anything in the contract to prevent the consultants from actually meeting the groups? As happened in the case of the Teamwork report in Monaghan, the Teamwork group could not meet the people concerned. If in respect of the 300 page document that the consultants have got, they want to consult with the people who wrote it, will they be allowed to meet them?
As I understand it, there will be nothing in the contract which would preclude such a meeting.
That is fair enough.
85 Deputy Dan Neville asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will provide details on the backgrounds of the people who contributed to the international advisory forum on next generation networks in Dublin in February 2008; if other people were asked to contribute but were unavailable; the names of those people; his views on whether the forum had a consequent lack of expertise in any particular fields; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10692/08]
90 Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will provide a detailed timetable of actions he proposes to take on the urgent need to accelerate roll-out of high speed broadband infrastructure throughout the country in the wake of the international advisory forum on this issue that met in Dublin in February 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10697/08]
131 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will report on the recent meeting of the international advisory forum on broadband; the cost in expenses of this forum; the timeframe for publication of the report; if ComReg has its own advisory forum on next generation networks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10555/08]
139 Deputy Michael Noonan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the total cost to the taxpayer of the international advisory forum on next generation networks held in Dublin in February 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10693/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 85, 90, 131 and 139 together.
As Deputies are aware, considerable emphasis is being placed internationally on the development of next generation broadband, NGB, networks. This is a big issue for telecommunications policy in Ireland and I am determined that the approach we adopt will be the right one. To that end, my Department has prepared a draft policy paper on NGB networks. That paper has been critiqued by the international advisory forum, IAF, on NGB networks.
The following people participated on the international advisory forum on next generation broadband networks. Mr. H. Brian Thompson is the executive chairman of Global Telecom and Technology, a multi-network operator. He has previously served as chairman of both the advisory committee for telecommunications and, more recently, the advisory committee on infocoms, both established by my Department. He is also a member of the Taoiseach's Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board. Mr. Frank Sanda founded Japan Communications in 1996 and is chief executive officer of the company. Prior to this, he served as chief executive officer of Apple Computer Japan and as vice president and general manager at Motorola. Ms Isolde Goggin is a former chairperson and commissioner of the Commission for Communications Regulation. She now works as an independent telecommunications and regulatory affairs consultant. Ms Goggin is also a member of Ofcom's Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland. Mr. Kenneth Carter is a senior consultant at wik-Consult, based in Germany and is a member of the firm's NGN and Internet economics department. Mr. Carter was previously senior counsel for business and economics in the office of planning and policy analysis at the United States Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Tony Shortall is an economic adviser within the European Commission. He was a senior economist at the Irish Competition Authority between 1997 and 1999. Mr. Michael R. Nelson is currently visiting professor of Internet studies in Georgetown University's communication, culture and technology programme. Prior to this, Mr. Nelson was director of Internet technology and strategy at IBM. He has also served as director for technology policy at the United States Federal Communications Commission and as special assistant for information technology at the White House office of science and technology policy where he worked with Vice President Al Gore on telecommunications policy. Mr. Martin Cronin is the chief executive officer of Forfás. He is also a member of the National Competitiveness Council, the Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation, the Higher Education Authority, the Management Board of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the board of the Tyndall National Institute.
As is evident from its membership, the forum brought together valuable insight and expertise into the development of Ireland's future broadband policy. The members brought a diverse range of knowledge and experience from around the world.
The draft policy paper is currently being updated to reflect the forum's contribution and will be published shortly for public consultation. The estimate of the cost of the International Advisory Forum on NGNs is €50,000. A breakdown of estimated costs is not yet available.
Within ComReg there in an internal NGN working group. ComReg also facilitates a separate, independently chaired NGN group, which comprises two sides, one addressing next generation access and the other addressing next generation network core issues.
I thank the Minister for a detailed reply. I accept there are some impressive CVs on the forum. Will the Minister explain the reason he chose not to have any current business users of broadband services in Ireland on that forum? It would surely have made sense to ask businesses and consumers what they need, the speeds they need, what services they can access, how much they pay and whether they are satisfied with it. I would be surprised if the Minister was not receiving letters of concern from industry and business leaders about the lack of telecommunications infrastructure. The purpose was to examine international best practice but I would have thought the Minister could have benefited from the expertise and views of existing broadband users in Ireland, particularly when one considers the number of foreign companies in Ireland.
In terms of rapid roll-out of next generation broadband, countries such as France and Scandinavian countries are the success stories in Europe yet no one from these countries will attend. While there is a representative from Japan, he is the only person from the Middle East or the Far East with significant success in this area. Could the Minister outline the process that led to the appointment of these people? Were there terms of reference, a skill set demand or did the Department use its contacts in putting together a group of people with whom it had past correspondence or contact?
We wanted a mix. It is difficult to talk about these individuals because they gave their time.
I am not questioning individuals.
Of the first two I mentioned, Mr. Thompson comes from a strong American position and has experience in the fixed-line business, while Mr. Sanda from Japan has extensive experience in mobile networks, particularly in the evolution of mobile networks at the present time. It is an example of regulatory, business — both fixed-line and mobile — and international backgrounds. It is not easy to get people and I commend those who gave of their time in support of the Government and the Irish people in developing policy in this area.
Regarding the inclusion of domestic business users, I did not exclude that and referred earlier to meeting providers. I suggested to some of these people to join the forum but we decided to keep it as an international forum before opening up to a wider consultation forum, which would involve telecom providers, industry users, enterprise and development agencies and anyone with an interest in this rapidly changing area. We did not preclude it but, having suggested it to some of the Irish industry operators who have taken a strong view on it, we decided it was better to leave it as it is.
Regarding where we develop from here, the Minister stated that we will see an amended policy document from the Government in the middle of April. This is quite soon. Could the Minister seek time in the House to debate that report? The Opposition would like to do that. Could he indicate the timescale we can expect for the consultation process? There is a great deal of impatience in the sector affected by this issue. It wants to see the Government taking a position and investing money in the national development plan to subsidise certain areas and encourage the private sector to roll out next generation broadband. Can the Minister indicate a timescale so that we have a target towards which to work?
It should be short — a number of months — because this is a fast-changing area. We want to encourage investment by the private sector in the technological developments being considered at present. I do not want long and drawn out speculation on government intervention delaying investment from private operators. Considering the example of countries that were successful, Denmark and the UK — the countries we must compare ourselves against — they are successful because they have a competitive environment. The competitive spur between, for example, a cable company and a fixed line operator or another mix drives the investment that leads to higher bandwidth speeds. The Government will have a crucial role in stimulating demand, supporting where the market cannot deliver, ensuring we use existing assets in a co-ordinated way, particularly in backhaul or inducting, and changing building regulations so that all new buildings are future proofed and existing buildings are retrofitted. The primary response will come from a competitive market here.
We are seeing developments in that area. We have a more competitive market between cable companies, fixed line operators, mobile operators, 3G operators and wireless companies, all of whom are investing. We should not block that investment by holding out the carrot that the Government will step in with a magic solution. We must create the right conditions and a range of policy measures that steer us in the right direction. That will be contained in the report and will be an ongoing process.
Many areas in the rural constituency of Cavan-Monaghan do not have access to broadband. I accept the Minister's point on competition but this exists only in built-up areas. Whatever the Minister does to bring this process forward, I hope he recognises the urgent need for roll-out in all areas. Jobs are being lost in rural areas. The opportunity is there to provide home jobs to a certain number of people if they have broadband.
On the same issue, I agree with the Minister's last comments. The State's job is to facilitate competition in this area and, where there is market failure, to subsidise where necessary. By doing things such as building regulations to require ducting into every house and business that is being built in the country, we facilitate competition. By setting up an audit to maximise existing infrastructure, we facilitate a more proactive, aggressive and competitive market place, which is what consumers and business people want. In areas where there may be market failure, and where we are applying the national broadband strategy, will whoever wins the tender process for the national broadband strategy be required to provide next generation access to rural parts of the country or will it be the speeds that we are embarrassed about in Ireland?
In response to Deputy Crawford, we must consider what will be the next leap forward, the next crucial development. We must ensure we assist and develop broader digital technology changes that are occurring. The computer industry is moving from one where all the services are on a PC in an office or on a laptop to one where many services will be available on a network. Those in the computer industry refer to the need for ubiquitous access, easy accessibility to a network, if a country is to adapt to that computer world. The range of different applications and services may not require 100 megabyte speed; they may be a series of smaller applications but cumulatively they create a market and a demand for high broadband speed that is sustainable and commercially viable. To use a green metaphor, the strength of a tree is on the leaves as well as the backhaul or the trunk. It is vital to have ubiquitous access in Monaghan, Cavan and elsewhere through a range of different and often interoperable platforms, including mobile and fixed. A more open access network facilitates the development of other new digital technologies, be it a mobile device for broadcasting, games or other material or a basic and simple laptop that will draw down applications from the Internet rather than having its own hard disk.
The telecommunications industry must facilitate an imminent significant change in the computing industry. One will support the other. There will be a commercial case for the telecommunications operator through the myriad applications that are only now becoming apparent in the changing computing world. In many instances, the ubiquity, ease and flexibility of access is as important as speed.
There is no access. That is the problem.
To answer Deputy Coveney, we are engaged in a competitive dialogue process in respect of the national broadband scheme and must be careful about interfering in it while companies look to determine the best position. The Government would seek an evolving system so that access speeds can improve in line with speeds elsewhere in the country. This will be difficult in rural areas because of the nature of economics, in that it is more difficult to serve a rural isolated area with a small number of houses compared to a housing estate or large apartment block in a city centre. There is no getting away from the fundamental economic difference. A benefit of our demography will be the development of new innovative access solutions to suit our topography and to be a part of a flexible and ubiquitous open access network.
I am sure the Minister appreciates that he is dazzling us with his knowledge, but Deputy Crawford's question was when all parts of Monaghan would get broadband. Coverage in Northern Ireland is 100% and Monaghan is a Border county. I would have believed it a simple matter to tell the Deputy when it is he might expect to be able to inform his constituents of the answer to the above question. What is the total cost of the international advisory forum and its processes?
The national broadband scheme is a key component in ubiquitous access because it will lead to a situation in which Cavan, Monaghan and elsewhere will be covered.
The Deputy wanted to know when.
For the operations to start delivering, we must sign off by June. It will take a further 18 months or so to deliver.
Northern Ireland is a good example and we must measure ourselves in terms of developments north of the Border as well as south because the topographies are similar. Broadband uptake is speeding up in Ireland and we have reached the point of equal access with the North. We are not satisfied by this, though, and want to be more ambitious.
That is not true.
In speaking with ComReg about the latest figures on uptake levels, it is my understanding that we are on a par with the North.
I will not dazzle anyone, but these are the key issues. If approximately 50% of homes have broadband access, which is the amount towards which we are heading, what limits the development of ubiquitous open access and a range of small applications? One limit is that 40% of households do not have computers.
We are discussing availability.
A benefit of the national broadband scheme and other Government interventions in demand management stimulation is to examine ways in which to ensure we will avoid putting broadband connections in homes where there are no computers. The connection is needed for a computer, not a cooker. We must determine how to increase the number of homes with computers if we are to increase broadband figures and what the purpose is of people getting new computers.
With all due respect, could we not concentrate on getting broadband to the people who have computers and who want broadband? This is what the question is all about.
We are discussing availability for those who want it. While everyone in Northern Ireland can get it, only 25% of people in the Republic can get it.
The figure will be 100% after we complete our national broadband scheme.
Thousands of people have been waiting.
To answer Deputy McManus's request for a cost, the amount is €50,000.
The Minister speaks of rural Ireland as if it were an alien planet. It has an extensive telephone system, but people cannot get broadband connections because the Government has not invested in upgrading lines. On a regional road near Larha in north Tipperary, a person cannot get a chip and pin service because the telephone is too far from the exchange and the line is out of date.
The Minister referred to a tree trunk. Taking Thurles, a large provincial town, as an example, there is no trunk because no tree was planted. It was left out of the MANs project. Why is this occurring and why will the Minister not take responsibility and provide a broadband service in a provincial town like Thurles? He should not state that it is up to competition to handle, as it is up to the Government to give guidance and investment so that places such as north Tipperary can benefit. Perhaps it would be worth the Minister's while to visit and see that we in rural Ireland are not ETs.
If I may explain my metaphor, my roots go right down into Tipperary——
It has been a while since the Minister checked them.
——and the Glen of Aherlow.
Perhaps the Minister should go home for a while.
I visit the Glen of Aherlow and other locations around the country regularly.
That is an alien country, as I was discussing north Tipperary.
In delivering the national broadband scheme, it is our ambition to serve——
They probably write to the Minister.
The Minister has been in the Pale for too long.
——the Ryans in the Glen of Aherlow and everywhere else.
We will invite the Minister to see for himself.
We will discuss green acres another day, as we must move on.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
