|
Select Committee on European Legislation First
Report
TRANS-EUROPEAN COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS |
|
25. We consider that the following raises questions of political importance, but make no recommendation for its further consideration:--
25.1 The draft Decision is designed to provide a series of guidelines on the objectives, priorities, main measures and areas for projects of common interest, for telecoms Trans-European Networks (TENS).
25.2 On 22 November 1995 we considered the Commission's original proposal, judged that it raised questions of political importance and suggested that it would be relevant to a debate on telecommunications technology. On first reading of that proposal the European Parliament (EP) put forward 35 amendments. The Commission accepted 13 of these in full and rejected 13. Of the remainder, it accepted 4 in principle and 5 in part. It delivered its opinion in the form of an amended draft Decision which we considered on 15 May 1996[48]. We did not recommend it for debate. At Second Reading the EP proposed 26 amendments on the Common Position agreed on that text.
The Commission's Opinion and amended draft Decision
25.3 The Commission has accepted eight of the 26 amendments in full, a further two in part and two which follow as a consequence. In an Explanatory Memorandum it details its reasons for rejecting fourteen amendments.
25.4 Amongst the amendments accepted and incorporated in the new text is one which points out that trans-European projects should not be purely experimental and must be effectively co-ordinated with projects provided for by other Decisions applying to TENs. Other amendments underline the Treaty obligation that projects relating to a Member State should be approved by that Member State and call for applications to address the widest possible populations of users.
25.5 Amendments which have not been incorporated included proposed changes to the decision-making mechanism for specific projects. These were rejected as being too inflexible, too restrictive for a sector where private initiative is of prime importance, time-consuming and an unnecessary departure from well-established practice. Another amendment which required that local languages must be used was rejected by the Commission.
The Government's view
25.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum (dated 18 October) the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Science and Technology at the Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Taylor) says that this proposal
The Minister adds that the Council is unlikely to accept all the EP's amendments and the matter is expected to be referred to a Conciliation Committee.
Conclusion
25.7 We did not consider that we should recommend the text which we saw on 15 May for debate. The Commission's revised proposal does not cause us to change this recommendation. A broader debate on the future of the information society in Europe, which we recommend elsewhere in this Report[49], will provide an opportunity to raise telecommunications issues of wider significance. 48. (16371) 8328/95; see HC 51-i (1995-96), paragraph 18. Back |
| |
| © Parliamentary copyright 1996 | Prepared 12th November 1996 |