SEVENTH REPORT
The European Scrutiny Committee has made further
progress in the matter referred to it and has agreed to the following
Report:—
GREEN PAPER ON RADIO SPECTRUM POLICY
(a)
(19738)
14320/98
COM(98) 596
|
Commission Green Paper on radio spectrum policy in the context of European Community policies such as telecommunications, broadcasting, transport and research and development.
|
(b)
(20668)
12840/99
COM(99) 538
|
The Next Steps in Radio Spectrum Policy — Results of the Public Consultation on the Green Paper.
|
| Department: |
Trade and Industry |
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 24 January 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| (a) HC 34-ix (1998-99), paragraph 6 (10 February 1999)
(b) HC 23-ii (1999-2000), paragraph 4 (1 December 1999)
|
| Discussed in Council:
| (a) Not relevant
(b) 30 November 1999
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Recommended for debate in European Standing Committee C, together with documents considered at paragraph 2 of this Report
|
Introduction
1.1 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Small Firms, Trade and Industry at the Department of
Trade and Industry (Mr Wills) commented on the importance of the
issues raised by the Green Paper on Radio Spectrum Policy
in his EM of 2 February 1999[1],
in which he referred to "... 'the vital cultural, social
and economic importance of the radio spectrum', a crucial and
finite resource which in the UK contributes to more than 400,000
jobs and 2% of GDP".
1.2 In April 1999 we informed the Minister
that we would consider the Government's response to the Commission,
a draft of which he had forwarded[2],
when we came to consider whether to recommend the document for
debate. In an exchange of correspondence with Lord Tordoff, Chairman
of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities[3],
the Minister summarised the key points of the Government's response
as follows:
"(i) the importance of effective, strategic
spectrum management that optimises the use of the spectrum, taking
account of national circumstances;
(ii) the need for effective international spectrum
harmonisation, particularly for those services which are likely
to operate on a Europe-wide or global basis;
(iii) the importance of building, so far as possible,
on the existing arrangements for international harmonisation,
through the ITU[4] and
CEPT[5], and avoiding unnecessary
duplication;
(iv) the advantages of selective EU intervention
to provide an impetus to harmonisation in areas where rapid international
agreement is desirable, as has been done, for example, for third
generation mobile telephony through the UMTS Decision;
(v) the need for an effective means of identifying
those strategic issues where a concerted EU-wide approach would
be desirable, (we have suggested this might be done though a high-level
advisory group, chaired by DGXIII); and
(vi) the advantages of a flexible approach to
assignment and licensing, in which tools such as spectrum pricing,
auctions and spectrum trading could play a part, taking account
of the needs and particular circumstances of each Member State".
Document (b)
1.3 In November 1999, the Commission issued
its report on the outcome of its consultation, document (b), which
we considered on 1 December. We confirmed our assessment that
the issues raised were of political importance and concluded that
we should await the Minister's report on the outcome of the 30
November Telecoms Council before deciding whether to recommend
it for debate.
The Minister's letter
1.4 In her letter of 24 January, the Minister
for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt) says
that at the Council the Commission presented the Communication
on the results of its public consultation, summarising the outcome
and the areas in which it envisaged making legislative proposals.
There was no discussion of the Communication. The Presidency concluded
that the Council noted the Commission's intentions which would
require further study when specific legislative proposals emerged
in 2000.
Conclusion
1.5 Rather than wait for the Commission
to put forward legislative proposals in this important area, we
now recommend that these documents should be debated in European
Standing Committee C, together with the two documents considered
at paragraph 2 of this Report on the 1999 Review of Telecoms Legislation
and on Implementation of the Regulatory Package.
1.6 The issues which arise include:
- the rôle of the Community in spectrum
management at the global level. The Minister said in her EM of
30 November on the "Next Steps" paper that the Commission's
proposals could "give rise to practical problems in terms
of negotiating flexibility". She might be asked to elaborate
on this comment;
- the lack of consensus on a pricing mechanism
if charging for radio spectrum is agreed and the differing views
on whether to introduce a secondary market for spectrum. What
arrangements does she now expect will be put in place if use of
the spectrum is to be optimised, as urged by the Government in
its response to the Commission?
- whether there is sufficient co-operation between
radio spectrum management organisations and standardisation bodies
at European and global level on radio equipment and standards;
- how proper account will be taken of defence
interests which, as the Minister points out[6]
are largely overlooked in these documents;
- the areas where the Government is "unconvinced
of the need for action of the kind proposed"[7].
The Minister discusses one of these, saying that it is unclear
exactly how the proposed Decision would function. She might be
asked whether the Government has yet been able to form a clearer
picture and whether this proposal is likely to command the support
of other Member States;
- other areas for concern, such as the suggestion
that, where the use of radio spectrum is harmonised at Community
level, general authorisations should be issued rather than individual
licences.
1.7 The Minister might be asked to comment
in general terms on the effect that such suggestions could have
on UK operators and consumers, if pursued.
1999 REVIEW OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION
(a)
(20657)
12838/99
COM(99) 537
(b)
(20666)
12839/99
COM(99) 539
|
Commission Communication: Fifth Report on the Implementation of the Telecommunications Regulatory Package.
Commission Communication: Towards a new framework for Electronic Communications infrastructure and associated services. The 1999 Communications Review.
|
| Legal base: |
— |
| |
| Department: |
Trade and Industry |
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 24 January 2000
|
| Previous Committee Reports:
| (a) HC 23-i (1999-2000), paragraph 7 (24 November 1999)
(b) HC 23-i (1999-2000), paragraph 8 (24 November 1999)
|
| Discussed in Council:
| 30 November 1999 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Recommended for debate in European Standing Committee C, together with the documents on Radio Spectrum Policy considered at paragraph 1 above
|
Introduction
2.1 When, late last year, we considered
these two proposals, we asked the Minister for a report on discussions
of them in the 30 November Telecoms Council. We also indicated
that we would decide on whether to recommend them for debate in
the light of her report.
2.2 For ease of reference, we reproduce
below the Commission's consolidated list of the positions it set
out in its Communication on the 1999 Review, document (b).
The Minister's letter
2.3 In her letter of 24 January, the Minister
for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt) provides
us with this report. Her main points are as follows:
Document (a): Implementation of the existing package
- the Commission concluded that the successes of
the existing regulatory framework had led to market growth with
increased competition and lower tariffs
- it drew attention to the remaining barriers
to a single European market in telecoms, including:
— a comparatively low level of harmonisation
of Community licensing and interconnection régimes;
— incomplete implementation by some Member
States of Community cost accounting provisions; and
— the lack of competition in local access
markets in all Member States.
Member States approved this general analysis.
Document (b): 1999 Review of the regulatory framework
- all the Member States recognised the need for
swift action in the face of the pace of technological change,
and simplification of the regulatory framework;
- a number, including the UK, stressed the need
for a flexible framework with a minimum of regulation.
2.4 The Minister says that she emphasised
in the Council debate that strengthening competition in the market
for communications services is vital to produce an environment
in which e-commerce can flourish in Europe, and welcomed the Commission's
recognition that regulation should be on a co-regulatory basis
with business where possible.
2.5 The Conclusions adopted by the Council
are attached to her letter. They endorse the principles set out
by the Commission in its Communication.
Conclusion
2.6 These documents raise a number of
issues of undoubted importance to the British telecoms industry.
International competition in this sector is intense and the regulatory
framework set in place within the EU will affect not only the
conditions applying within the UK, but also the ability of British
telecoms businesses to compete successfully within the internal
market — and, indeed with major competitors from outside
the EU. We consider that these documents should be debated in
European Standing Committee C, together with the documents on
radio spectrum policy which form part of the same group and which
we also consider in this Report.[8]
2.7 Members may wish to pursue with the
Minister the following issues:
- The Commission proposes three courses of action:
new or revised regulatory measures, non-binding measures such
as guidelines and self-regulation, and greater reliance on competition
law. Is the Government content with the selection of the issues
which need to be addressed and that the approach advocated in
each case will be effective?
- Examining the current state of the EU sector,
the Member States acknowledged in the Council that barriers
remained. The Minister might be asked whether the Government is
satisfied that all is being done that might be done to remove
these barriers. It has opposed the creation of a European Regulatory
Authority and welcomed the Commission's decision that such an
authority was "not necessary at this stage", commenting
that what was needed was strong independent national regulatory
authorities which enforce harmonised guidelines[9].
Are the current pressures on the individual Member States to remove
barriers sufficient?
- In broad terms, what updating and clarification
to the Telecoms Data Protection Directive[10]
does the Government expect the Commission to propose?
- How aggressive does the Government expect
the Commission to be in using the competition law
concept of dominant position in relation to cost-orientation and
non-discrimination?[11]
- Is the Government confident that the guidelines
proposed will be enforced? What other recourse will be available
if, for instance, a National Regulatory Authority (NRA) is weak
in exercising its obligation to require dominant infrastructure
owners to meet reasonable requests for access?
Annex
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF COMMISSION POSITIONS
Licensing and Authorisation
— Use general authorisations as
the basis for licensing communications networks and services,
with specific authorisations reserved for assignment of
radio spectrum and numbers;
— apply a comprehensive and coherent policy
framework to communications infrastructures, including broadcast
networks, with appropriate transitional measures where necessary;
— restrict range of possible conditions
which can be attached to authorisations; establish procedures
to agree on categories of authorisations at EU level;
— ensure fees for authorisations cover
only justified and relevant administrative costs, and draw
up EU level guidelines to promote best practice and transparency;
— continue to authorise communications
services using the Internet in an equivalent manner to other communications
services.
Access and Interconnection
— Maintain specific Community measures
which govern both access and interconnection, building on the
principles set out in the Interconnection Directive and the TV
standards Directive;
— in the case of access to network infrastructures,
place responsibility on NRAs in Member States to deal with specific
access issues, including resale of services, according to a set
of conditions and criteria laid down in Community legislation;
require infrastructure owners with significant market power to
negotiate, on commercial terms, in respect of requests for access;
require dominant infrastructure owners to meet reasonable requests
for access; maintain the possibility of NRA intervention to resolve
disputes;
— in the case of interconnection, maintain
the requirement for cost orientated interconnection in directives
(hard law) but interpret this concept through Commission recommendations;
maintain the Recommendation to use LRAIC for pricing call termination
services of dominant operators; recognise that call origination
services, transit services and call termination services are likely
to develop as different markets to which different rules apply;
— draw up where appropriate, Recommendations
on access; in particular to consider in the short term a Recommendation
to Member States on technical and economic aspects of local loop
unbundling;
— extend the current standardisation framework
for telecommunications to cover all communications infrastructure
and associated services, i.e. to rely as far as possible on a
voluntary approach to standardisation, but provide procedures
to ensure open access and interoperability if voluntary processes
do not succeed;
— make carrier selection — but not
carrier pre-selection — available to mobile users, by placing
obligations on mobile operators with SMP.
Management of radio spectrum
— administrative pricing and auctioning
of radio spectrum can be a means to ensure efficient use of the
radio spectrum; however, clarification is needed as to the conditions
of implementation, and the sectors in which such system should
or should not apply, so as to preserve other general interest
principles while ensuring broadly comparable access to frequencies;
— Member States should be encouraged as
far as possible to use revenue raised as a result of fees, auctions,
and radio spectrum pricing to increase radio spectrum efficiency;
consideration should be given to making revenues available for
radio spectrum re-farming purposes;
— the current Licensing Directive should
be amended in order to allow — although not mandate —
Member States to make provision for radio spectrum secondary trading
as part of a process to encourage the efficient use of radio spectrum.
The Commission will consider what safeguards might be necessary
in the Community interest;
— continue dialogue with Member States
on allocation and assignment issues, in particular for pan-European
communications services, in the framework of any new institutional
arrangements designed to address cross-sectoral radio spectrum
issues.
Universal service
— Maintain at this stage the current definition
and scope of universal service;
— given that it is a dynamic and evolving
concept, put existing criteria for possible extension of its scope,
as well as mechanisms for periodic review, in Community legislation;
— keep under review funding schemes and,
in the context of funding schemes, encourage the development of
mechanisms where "pay or play" is implemented;
— develop pricing principles at EU level
in order to ensure the affordability of universal service.
The interests of users and consumers
— Update and clarify the Telecoms Data
Protection Directive to take account of technological developments
and to ensure it is appropriate for a converging market;
— mandate enhancement of the European emergency
call number 112 by requiring caller location to be provided to
the emergency services, while taking account of the privacy issues
linked to the disclosure of caller location to the emergency services;
— mandate and consolidate existing obligations
with regard to complaint handing and dispute settlement procedures
and quality of service; consider whether further measures are
required;
— increase transparency of information,
including of tariffs, for consumers (e.g. by introducing requirement
for per-call tariff information for all users);
— require suppliers to publish information
for their customers on quality of service, and maintain reserve
powers for regulators to intervene on quality of service issues
where problems arise in respect of services within the definition
of universal service;
— withdraw the Leased Lines Directive 92/44/EC
once there is adequate choice of leased lines for all users and
leased line prices are competitive.
Numbering, naming and addressing
— Not to pursue specific regulatory measures,
at this stage, with respect to Internet naming and addressing,
but to keep the situation under review;
— encourage greater dialogue between the
bodies involved in numbering, naming and addressing at European
and Member State level and ensure co-ordination of European positions
in international bodies;
— extend the availability of operator number
portability to mobile users, but not at this stage to require
operator number portability between fixed and mobile networks;
— consider mandating interoperability of
national IN databases in order to facilitate pan European service
provision;
— strengthen the current framework with
regard to numbering by (i) confirming the rights of an NRA to
withdraw the use of a number allocation where such changes clearly
contribute to the efficient use of the numbering resource, (ii)
to encourage co-ordination of NRAs on issues of European interests
and (iii) to require NRA supervision of allocation of point codes
in signalling system No. 7 and access codes for corporate networks.
Specific competition issues
— Use of the competition law concept of
dominant position as the more appropriate trigger for certain
sector-specific obligations, in particular cost-orientation and
non-discrimination, while maintaining the lower threshold of significant
market power for other obligations, e.g. obligations to negotiate
access, transparency.
Institutional issues
— replace the existing two telecommunications
committees with a new Communications Committee, which would draw
on the expertise of a new High Level Communications Group involving
the Commission and NRAs to help improve the consistent application
of Community legislation;
— review existing legal provisions with
a view to (i) strengthening the independence of NRAs, (ii) ensuring
that the allocation of responsibilities between institutions at
national level does not lead to delays and duplications of decision
making (iii) improving co-operation between sector specific and
general competition authorities and (iv) requiring transparency
of decision making procedures at a national level.
COMMON STRATEGY ON UKRAINE
(20904)
—
|
Presidency's work plan on the implementation of the Common Strategy of the European Union on Ukraine.
|
| Legal base: |
— |
| |
| Department: |
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 31 January 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None; but see: (20727): HC 23-iv (1999-2000), paragraph 1 (15 December 1999)
|
| Discussed in Council:
| Approved as an 'A' point at General Affairs Council on 24 January 2000
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| For debate in European Standing Committee B
|
Introduction
3.1 The Common Strategy on Ukraine sets
out the objectives for the European Union's relations with Ukraine
for the next four years, and identifies the means to be used to
pursue those objectives.
3.2 We referred the Common Strategy for
debate in European Standing Committee B, when we considered it
on 15 December 1999.
The Work Plan
3.3 Article 46 of the Common Strategy requires
each incoming Presidency to present to Council a Work Plan setting
out how it intends to take forward implementation of the Strategy.
The Portuguese Presidency's Work Plan sets out a programme covering
the range of the Common Strategy's broad principal objectives:
- encouraging the democratic and economic reform
process in Ukraine;
- meeting common challenges on the European continent
(stability and security, environment, energy and nuclear safety);
and
- strengthening co-operation between the EU and
Ukraine (support for WTO accession, investment protection, co-operation
in justice and home affairs, encouragement for development of
cross-border infrastructure networks).
The Government's view
3.4 The Minister of State at the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office (Mr Vaz) says that the Government fully
supported the adoption of the Common Strategy at the 24 January
General Affairs Council, as a valuable development of the European
Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy. It welcomes the wide-ranging
Work Plan which has been put forward by the Presidency. He adds
that if it is achieved, the Work Plan will make a significant
initial contribution to achieving the objectives of the Strategy.
Conclusion
3.5 The Work Plan provides a useful guide
to the activities which the Council now expects to be initiated,
to give practical effect to the Common Strategy. It is ambitious
in scope, particularly in its plans for work to be carried out
to promote the progressive approximation of Ukrainian legislation
to that of the EU, and its implementation.
3.6 We have already expressed concerns
about whether the Common Strategy properly addresses Ukraine's
real problems with establishing a fully democratic society. In
this context, the Work Plan may well be found to be over-ambitious.
We recommend that it should be debated in European Standing Committee
B, together with the Common Strategy document, already recommended.
1 (19738) 14320/98; see HC 34-ix (1998-99), paragraph
6 (10 February 1999). Back
2 Deposited
in the Library. Back
3 Correspondence
with Ministers: Seventeenth
Report from the European Communities Committee, House of Lords,
HL Paper 94 (1998-99), pages 53-54. The Committee is now called
the European Union Committee. Back
4 International
Telecommunications Union. Back
5 European
Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administration. Back
6 See
HC23-ii (1999-2000), paragraph 4.6 (1 December 1999). Back
7 The
Minister's EM of 19 November 1999, cited in ibid., paragraph
4.7. Back
8 See
paragraph 1. Back
9 (20666)
- ; see HC 23-i (1999-2000), paragraph 8.8 (24 November 1999). Back
10 Directive
97/66/EC. Back
11 (20666)
-; see HC 23-i (1999-2000), paragraph 8.6 (24 November 1999). Back
| 
