Mr. Eugene Dillon:

I would turn it the other way around. I do not presume to speak for any other member state but, normally, if a member state has a particularly strong view on a proposal from the Commission one would expect it to lobby bilaterally. In other words, it would be in touch with this country, Germany or another country, and say it has particularly strong reservations. That has not happened. I am aware that more private companies in the UK are engaged in utilities such as electricity and rail and they might have particular concerns, whereas our State bodies have a public good element to them. They might be worried about the effect on their balance sheet if somebody else’s property is going through their ducts but that is speculation on my part. The reason we are reasonably comfortable with the proposal is that existing Government policy is consistent with it. In other words, all the State bodies are encouraged, if it is to their benefit and on a commercial basis, to make their infrastructure available or to negotiate with telecommunications providers on a commercial basis. I am speculating but it might be the case in Britain that because there is private or commercial ownership that those property owners would have lobbied and in the context of ownership that subsidiarity is a concern.