Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

To deal with the group of amendments as a whole, it is not necessary for me to discuss amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, 7, 9, 35, 37, 39, 40 or 41. The issue is amendment No. 38 because all the other amendments are as a consequence of that amendment.

On the whole, amendment No. 38 makes some sense and I am supportive of it. The one area where the Minister may consider amending it somewhat is in regard to relocation costs and roadworks. My understanding from the briefing earlier and from reading the amendment is that if a telco has laid fibre in a duct, or put a ducting in place itself and laid fibre, and if the NRA needs to put roadworks in place to either move the road or move the duct, then the NRA will make the appropriate financial compensation for the cost of actually reinstating that ducting as well as laying the fibre. In the instance where the NRA is effectively charging the telecommunications company for laying fibre in its own duct, if the NRA needs to move that duct for whatever reason, such as roadworks, and as a result the telecommunications company is inconvenienced and must move its ducting, the cost of putting the new duct in place must be borne by the NRA. At present there is no financial liability for the cost of relaying the fibre. We may have got the balance wrong and I ask the Minister to look at it. If someone is paying a rental fee for the use of an NRA duct and the NRA needs to shift that duct, and as a result forces a telecommunications company to take up the fibre and relay it in the new duct, when it is laid, the cost should be borne by the NRA so telecommunications companies can have some certainty that when they lay duct there will be some permanence and if there is to be a change, the cost will be borne by the landlord from whom they are renting the space. That may not be possible but it seems to be a sensible approach. If someone rents space and is forced to relocated, the cost of relocation is normally borne by the landlord if the landlord is forcing the change.

My genuine concern is to make it as attractive as possible for private sector telecommunications companies to use State-owned ducting infrastructure, particularly NRA infrastructure, which is a valuable resource that is not being used at the moment. I do not want a situation whereby people feel they do not want to lay fibre in NRA-owned ducts because there may be a plan to shift the road or widen it in the near future and the cost of that may be prohibitive. If someone has a contract with e-Net to use us a fibre in a metropolitan area network and the MAN must be moved, is the cost of relocation and reconnection borne by e-Net? I suspect it is. I do not see why the same rationale does not apply for NRA ducting as it would for ducting owned by a private sector interest.

See this speech in context