It is important when we change legislation, even in this rather cackhanded way, that we do so to make sure that any process we establish is as efficient as possible. I have some concerns about the Minister's amendment. Deputy Coveney and I tabled a similar amendment but this one is complicated, I suspect unnecessarily so because there are two Departments involved, the Departments of Transport and of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. At various points in the amendment there are references to consultation between the Departments on guidelines and a scheme of charges but these are on top of a fairly complex system for someone trying to access ducting in roads other than national primary or major routes because the local authority still has a role there.
This leads to a one-stop-shop, whatever that is. It has not been defined but there is a need to provide a one-stop-shop to ensure that all these systems are streamlined and the process can be expedited. I am concerned that the Minister mentioned this only at the end of his speech where there is a reference with no explanation. In response to a parliamentary question that I put to the Minister on 25 November last he described a process that made my blood run cold. The Minister has a responsibility to set up a one-stop-shop, to make sure that we can develop the broadband infrastructure that we desperately need, particularly in a time of recession.
He has the power to do that but does not seem to have the inclination to do it, although he certainly could do it if he chose. Instead, he started his reply by talking about the complex process. It is not that complex. Using ducts in the road is not exactly rocket science. He then referred to the first stage, which is internal engagement with relevant State bodies, the next stage is a review of State-owned networks determining routes, etc. I do not know why that has to take time because it seems odd that the data is not easily accessible.
The Minister will then set up an implementation task force. That was when my temperature went down to zero. To put icing on the cake he will consult what alternative options telcos might suggest. Either he is going to do this or he is not. This tortuous process begs the question of whether the Minister is willing to make a decision. He said that sometime in 2010 he expects the one-stop-shop to be set up, although it is undefined and undescribed.
This may be a cheap shot but we must be wary because under an earlier Minister, this Department intended to introduce a fisheries Bill to rationalise the fisheries boards. In 2005 the relevant elections were deferred and this year we have been asked to defer them again, for the fifth time. I have no doubt that the Minister in 2005 said the new system would happen in a year, if people would vote his way. I hope this Minister will prove me wrong. I do not have confidence in the Minister if he uses this circuitous, tortuous route of using an implementation task force, consultation and alternative options. Where will that lead us?
The National Competitiveness Council has just published a document making the point that so many of our exports now depend on the IT sector that we need an enabling measure in the form of a one-stop-shop. The report argues too that State involvement is necessary to establish a next generation network. That raises the question of whether we can afford to leave it to the market. The Eircom experience surely tells us that we cannot. It was a disaster that destroyed our chance of taking a leading role and developing our chance of becoming competitive. I recall the then Minister, I think it was Deputy Dermot Ahern, saying that Ireland would be at the forefront of the IT revolution, etc. The way in which Eircom was privatised and the loss of management of the network and its infrastructure has left a big hole in our chance of developing broadband and a next generation network. We must study that broad picture.
This issue is a small part of the big picture but it seems that even with the support of the Opposition, which the Minister has, he should consider simplifying this at every opportunity. The more complicated it becomes, the more open to challenge in court. A small example of this is that the authorities can have a representative present when a duct is being opened. That makes sense, even if the NRA is the authority. The person who should be present is the area engineer working for the county council because that person will be available. This Bill does not make clear whether, if an issue went to court it could be argued that the person was not a representative of the NRA, and that could lead to difficulties. It is a minor point but it raises issues about the unnecessary complexity of this amendment.
