Mr. Aidan Ryan:

Senator Mooney is correct. The proposal is trying to bring together parties for a common good and a better good. For example, one might consider an item of restrictive infrastructure, such as where an entity might have ducts going across a key bridge. While the desire might be to go from one part of an area to another, the nature of the bridge might confine the rolling out of additional infrastructure or make it very difficult - it could be a protected infrastructure or whatever. If that duct is in place, it is owned by a particular operator that may consider it to be a particular asset it controls and it might use it for competitive advantage, that is, to restrict. Consequently, an operator could be reluctant to facilitate other competitors availing of that piece of infrastructure. This proposal is that parties should be aware this infrastructure is in place and there is a way to get across from one part of a bridge to another. The parties should be able to talk and should reach conclusions on reasonable terms that allow the infrastructure to be shared. The term, "reasonable terms", is used quite a bit in the legislation and associated documentation. However, pending someone's refusal to make available such infrastructure, in the greater social good the appeals panel will try to address that. The purpose of that panel is to serve the good. Moreover, recognising the sovereignty and subsidiarity issue, the directive is completely without prejudice to the right to go to court as being the ultimate arbiter, in the event of a complete breakdown of negotiations.