The national broadband plan, NBP, was announced as far back as 2011 or 2012. Various promises were made before various general elections including 85% coverage, 100% coverage and so on but there has been a complete failure of delivery. Tendering started in 2015 and two bidders subsequently left - SIRO in September 2017 and Eir in January 2018. It must be said that the remaining consortium bears no resemblance to the original bidding consortium led by Enet.

The Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Naughten, met the head of the remaining consortium, Mr. David McCourt, in July and discussed the tendering process with him. Relevant officials from the Department handling the bid were not present, which is very significant. An official who deals with climate change was there but no official dealing with the bid was in attendance. The minutes are clear that four issues relating to the bid and consortium were discussed. Decision makers such as the Minister, Deputy Naughten, are properly and normally insulated from lobbying and any attempt to influence them during a tendering process. It is clear that Mr. McCourt was trying to convince the Minister that he had addressed the concerns of departmental officials, that they were sorted and that the consortium was good to go. He was canvassing and lobbying and canvassing disqualifies. It must be remembered that at this stage, a decision still had to be taken by the Minister on whether to accept the remaining bid. The Minister should be completely at arms' length from the tendering process.

I find it extraordinary that I am even in here, asking these questions and putting these points to the Taoiseach. Remember, this is a massive contract which could be worth up to half a billion euro or more of State funds or taxpayers' money. It is quite extraordinary. I put it to the Taoiseach that the Minister should not have met Mr. McCourt. Does the Taoiseach accept that? Has the tendering process been contaminated by the Minister's actions? Outsiders looking in might be forgiven for thinking that the key to getting a lucrative contract in Ireland is face time with the Minister. We have had tribunals about this kind of thing in the past. It is extraordinary that this has occurred. In my view, the Minister has contaminated the process. The Taoiseach and the Government must reflect on that before any further action is taken.

The Government is very committed to the national broadband plan, NBP.

It has been going on for a long time now.

Once approved, it will be one of the biggest investments in rural Ireland that has ever taken place, providing high-speed broadband to over 500,000 homes, farms and businesses across rural Ireland This huge investment in rural Ireland will allow people to access more services online. It will also allow business in rural areas to flourish and to embrace the online and digital economy. Since this Government came to office, the percentage of premises with access to high-speed broadband has increased to over 75%. It was only 52% when we took office, is at 75% now and may reach 80% in the new year. We plan to move on to the NBP after that. This is all part of our vision of investing in rural Ireland and connecting it to modern public services and the modern economy.

In terms of the role of the Minister in the context of the NBP and the procurement process, the Department is responsible for the governance and evaluation of the tender and the Minister has no role in this. The Minister's overall responsibility is to ensure the Government's objectives under the NBP on State-led intervention are met. He is also responsible for timelines associated with the Government's rolling out of high-speed broadband to non-commercial areas as soon as possible and to meet targets set out under Europe's digital agenda. The Department is also required to keep the Minister and Government informed of the progress, timelines and likely cost of the State intervention. The Minister is briefed by departmental officials on progress and any key developments the Department believes may impact on timelines or the cost to the State of the intervention planned.

The lead equity bidder in this consortium is a Granahan McCourt entity and the Department has advised in statements to the media that this has been the case since the procurement process commenced in December 2015.

Regarding the dinner to which Deputy Martin refers, while visiting New York in mid-July to speak at the UN on Ireland's progress towards achieving the UN sustainable development goals, the Irish delegation, including the Minister, Deputy Naughten and his officials, were invited to attend a dinner hosted by the McCourt family. It is worth nothing that Mr. McCourt has been a significant investor in this country for many years, employing hundreds of people. The exchange was of a ten-minute duration, as the minutes show and the Minister did not enter into any detailed discussions on matters with Mr. McCourt. Mr. McCourt has also publicly confirmed this fact-----

He would, would he not?

-----and the tender was not discussed. The minutes show that no official from the national broadband division was in attendance, which is an important fact and that it was not a meeting arranged to discuss the NBP. The engagement in question took place in a social setting and the engagement on the NBP lasted no more than ten minutes, with Mr. McCourt directing his comments to the officials from the Department. The procurement team has confirmed that in no way whatsoever has the procurement process been compromised by the Minister and his officials meeting Mr. McCourt in New York, as has been alleged by some members of the Opposition. The short discussion was of an administrative nature-----

Sorry?

There is a single bidder so competition is not a factor here. Furthermore, the meeting took place on 16 July, when the evaluation stage had not yet commenced. The evaluation stage commenced on 18 September 2018 when the final tender document was submitted to the Department. The minutes of this meeting have been published.

That is not credible. I asked the Taoiseach if he believes the Minister should have met Mr. McCourt and whether he thinks he was wrong to do so. I ask for a straight answer on that. The minutes are clear that four key items that the Department had raised were discussed. Mr. McCourt underlined his ongoing commitment to the process and addressed the four issues which he understood had previously been raised by the Department for clarification.

The issues raised include the need for a permanent Irish-based leadership position, the need for streamlined decision-making processes within the consortium, the importance of the 15 August 2018 deadline and the need for the necessary financing to be in place. That is not discussion of an administrative nature. The need for any changes in the make-up of the consortium to be avoided or, where such are necessary, kept to a minimum was also raised. The importance of this issue is understood by the consortium. This is the goddamn meat of the bid. This is Mr. McCourt saying he has answered the case.

Does the Taoiseach not find it extraordinary that we are even discussing this? An admission that the Minister and an official were at the lunch but that a Chinese wall was erected such that the Minister heard nothing of the conversation regarding the national broadband plan is not credible. It is beyond question that the bid has been contaminated. The Department should stand back and stop giving us that mumbo jumbo about Chinese walls, discussion of an administrative nature and such nonsense. A Minister should not have met a key bidder in the context of a massive project and a State contract with hundreds of millions of euro at stake. That is a basic point. Ministers and decision makers should be insulated from such lobbying and canvassing.

The formal guidelines state that they should be so insulated.

If the Taoiseach cannot understand that, then we have a problem. The guidelines are very clear. Section 13(9) of the project information memorandum contains a series of paragraphs outlining the prohibition on canvassing. Surely, the Minister was advised by his officials not to meet any bidder. Does the Taoiseach stand over the Minister meeting Mr. McCourt in the context of this tender?

The Deputy has a history in this Dáil of making allegations against Ministers and claiming that things are not credible. He said the same about the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, and about me in regard to CervicalCheck, yet the Scally report proves that what Deputy Martin believed incredible was credible. He made allegations regarding the former Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald and we will see what the findings are in that regard. He has a history of making allegations against Ministers, stating their assertions are not credible, and then refusing to retract his claims when they are disproven by an inquiry. It is an unfortunate pattern of behaviour by the Deputy.

It is acceptable for the Minister, Deputy Naughten, to have met Mr. McCourt-----

Is it?

-----provided it conferred no advantage on Mr. McCourt. Deputy Naughten is the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment. Are we really saying that over a two or three-year period as Minister, it would not be acceptable for him to meet the CEOs of Eir, SSE Airtricity, SIRO-----

He should not discuss the tender with the bidder. Does the Taoiseach not understand that?

Does the Deputy propose that over a two or three-year period the Minister would not have any engagement with anyone involved in the sector? Perhaps he should not meet the chairman of RTÉ or TG4 when decisions are made about the funding of those bodies. Perhaps he should not meet any CEO in the entire industry.

It is a public tender.

I am not aware that TG4 is bidding for a €500 million contract any time soon.

No, but it gets millions of euro in State funding.

RTÉ and TG4 are semi-State bodies.