Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 2007

EU Policies on Mobile Phones: Discussion with EU Commission.

I welcome Mr. Bartho Pronk. Members will recall that on 21 February members commenced scrutiny of COM (2006) 382, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on roaming on public mobile networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services.

I am delighted to welcome Mr. Pronk, an MEP from 1989 to 2004 and now a member of Commissioner Reding's cabinet, with responsibility for inter-institutional relations, to discuss with us the Commission policies in regard to mobile phones. This will form part of our scrutiny of COM (2006) 382.

Before I ask Mr. Pronk to begin I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The clerk and I met Mr. Pronk for lunch. I discovered he is married to a girl from Cork. What better person could appear before the joint committee than a Dutchman who is married to an Irish girl, particularly one who is from Cork?

That is a big bonus for Mr. Pronk. He is a very lucky man.

It could depend on who meets in the All-Ireland Final.

At the outset, I will outline to Mr. Pronk what Ireland is doing. Thereafter, he should give his presentation. I am conscious that he must leave Leinster House by 3.30 p.m. to catch a flight back to Brussels.

As Mr. Pronk is aware, from the outset Ireland has been highly supportive of the Commission's proposal on reducing mobile telephone roaming charges. The Taoiseach raised the matter at the spring Council meeting last year and the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has been consistent in his support. Ireland considers this to be a perfect example of how the EU can make a meaningful difference to the lives of citizens by tackling the excessive charges currently in place for roaming.

Ireland led the way in this regard when the Minister and his counterpart in Northern Ireland engaged with mobile operators on the island of Ireland and reached agreement to reduce mobile charges for roaming between North and South. This has resulted in a good deal for consumers and the operators must be congratulated on their efforts. It shows what can be done with co-operation. Today, I seek an assurance from Mr. Pronk that any agreement reached at EU level will not in any way cause operators in Ireland to be obliged to undo their achievements in respect of North-South roaming.

I invite Mr. Pronk to begin and I am sure members will have some questions for him. Again, he is welcome before the joint committee.

Mr. Bartho Pronk

I thank the Chair. It is a great honour to be here. My Commissioner, Ms Reding, regrets that she cannot come in person. At present she has some legislation before both the European Parliament and the Council. This is an extremely complicated time for her, although she has been highly successful up to now.

Before I discuss roaming charges, I should note it is one of a number of proposals the Commission has announced in this field. They are probably all of some importance to the joint committee, given the broad range of subjects with which it deals. Another proposal pertains to audiovisual media services, which is about to be finalised in Council. In respect of the second pillar, we have some programmes such as the European initiative on e-inclusion for consideration in 2008. Finally, in July we will produce a proposal for a framework for electronic communication, which pertains less to roaming than to all the other issues.

I will turn to roaming. I have more material to hand than it will be possible for me to use. That is fortunate for members listening. As for the background to the roaming proposal, it is important to note that Ireland has been among the strongest supporters of the Commission proposal on roaming in Council. This has been the case both at working level and at ministerial level at the last Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council meeting in December. While members will return to this issue, Ireland is in favour of wholesale and retail regulation and would also favour an intervention in respect of short message service, SMS, and managed network services, MNS. However, it has indicated that it would be willing to accept no intervention in respect of data and SMS as long as there is a strong statement to the effect that prices will be monitored and action taken if prices do not fall.

In respect of the main reasons underlying the roaming proposals, while this has been a long debate, I can be brief. Many people, consumers' organisations, national parliaments and the European Parliament have complained for a long time about the position in respect of roaming. Moreover, the regulators in all countries have been extremely worried in this regard. When the regulators investigated the issue, they concluded that while it was quite possible for them to intervene in the national field, intervention became extremely difficult as soon as two or three different members states were involved. In other words, when one roams outside one's own country, one becomes dependent on the costs of the telephone company in the other country and in the opinion of the regulators, this is extremely difficult, or even legally impossible, to co-ordinate.

This is the reason the Commission commenced work on a roaming regulation. The Commission was not greatly inclined to intervene because it thought the telecommunications companies would see the issue and, as happens in some other sectors, adapt the prices themselves. In the beginning, they did not do anything and thereafter they said they would do something. At present however, we are faced with a situation whereby they have indeed diminished their prices a little but not by as much as one would expect. The first time we made an evaluation, it became clear they had even increased their prices. In fact, the telephone companies have been extremely unwilling to follow the ideas of the Members of the European Parliament and the public.

Consumers in particular have claimed there was too much talk and too little action and this is the reason the Commission was obliged to act in the end. As members are aware, the Commissioner is not someone who by nature favours regulation, except in circumstances that clearly justify it. However, despite various claims that prices have fallen and that most consumers are now benefitting from special packages, in some cases operators still charge standard prices in excess of €1.50 to €2 per minute for a roaming call within Europe. Even when it comes to special packages, one can still pay up to €1 for a 15-second roamed call, or the same amount for receiving a 15-second call.

Clearly, this is not a fair deal and is why regulation is absolutely necessary. A recent Eurobarometer survey that received wide press coverage in every member state provided a timely reminder of just how important the roaming issue is for the public. A clear majority of travellers are either deterred from using their phone or even switch it off altogether. Clearly, this is not a sign of a healthy and well-functioning market, especially if one considers the extent to which mobile phones are used within a country nowadays, as well as the length of time people now spend making calls.

The proposal of the Commission consists of two parts. As members may be aware, one attempts to deal with the wholesale situation. I refer to cases in which, for instance, a company in Ireland makes a deal with a company in Spain to provide a service for Irish people who go to Spain. The second part pertains to the retail position. Although wholesale prices have fallen in recent years, unfortunately that advantage has not been passed on to the consumers but has been added to the profits of the companies involved. Basically, this is the problem.

Finally, we compiled a survey that is on the European Commission's website for all to see, of situations in which people would phone from one country to another. While the average costs are as I noted earlier, there are some ridiculous exceptions. For instance, one is obliged to pay more than €8 per minute for a phone call from Ireland to Malta. That would end if this regulation comes into being. There are different solutions. I will not go into too much detail unless members ask me to. The Commission has produced a proposal, while the Council is thinking about another proposal. There are different thoughts about the matter in the European Parliament. The most likely proposal to be accepted will introduce a maximum tariff. Members will probably have questions about this tariff so I will not go into detail about it.

This approach would lead to a substantial diminishing of cost. If everything goes as foreseen, that would be agreed before the summer. The deal should be made before 1 July when the German Presidency, which is very involved in this, ends its mandate. This is what the Commission would like to do. We hope it will not take any longer and are sure that, at some point, this regulation will become part of the law. We cannot guarantee when it will be introduced because it depends not just on the Commission but on the other institutions. I know everybody would like this bonus to be given to consumers on 1 July.

Before I call on Deputy Durkan and Senator Kenneally, could Mr. Pronk give us an example of some of the other roaming charges? He mentioned Malta and other countries. Where does Ireland figure in respect to incoming roaming charges, for example, from somebody roaming in Ireland?

Mr. Pronk

In respect of roaming charges, Ireland is very reasonable in comparison with many other countries. It is when Irish people go outside the country that they face the greatest problem. There are some special arrangements with Northern Ireland and Great Britain, which make it relatively less expensive for Irish consumers to phone from these areas in comparison with the rest of Europe.

Some people are slightly worried that this advantage would disappear, which is not the intention of the Commission. The Commission states that whatever appears will be a maximum, rather than a minimum. It is always possible to make special deals under, but not over, that amount. At the moment we see requests that are over that amount. Unfortunately, it is very easy because most people go to a certain provider because their normal phone calls are cheap or because they get a very nice phone. They have all kinds of reasons for doing this but seldom think about the roaming costs when they travel to Spain in summer. That has made it very easy to have very high costs, particularly in respect of roaming charges. This is the problem and means that the European market, which applies not just to one country but to all, does not function and excessive profits exist in certain cases. That is why, from the perspective of the Commission, intervention seems to be necessary.

Deputy Durkan is the Fine Gael spokesperson on communications.

I welcome Mr. Pronk to the committee and congratulate him for selecting a wife from the Chairman's constituency. I am sure he consulted with him before taking a step in that direction.

Believe it or not, she is actually from the constituency, which is a great boost.

I thank Mr. Pronk for coming before the committee. I raised a number of points the last time we discussed this issue. First, why not abolish roaming charges altogether? I accept Mr. Pronk's point that telephone companies do not want to do anything like that. Of course, they do not want to abolish them. In the same way, banks said they would go into liquidation when the euro was introduced and would not longer be able to exist. This has not happened and the reverse is true. The technology is fairly sophisticated, readily available and found right across the world. The degree to which manual input is involved is minimal. One does not require a system with plugs or points. Therefore, it is possible to reduce or even eliminate roaming charges.

I fully appreciate that bringing in a maximum tariff is a significant improvement. Competition should bring it below that if competition works the way it is supposed to. However, the Single Market must also remain an issue. The Single Market means a single market, rather than a single country like Ireland vis-à-vis the rest of the European Community with 500 million people. That Single Market should be treated by the telephone companies as a single market for the benefit, as Mr. Pronk rightly noted, of the consumer.

I am not suggesting that the progress achieved so far is not a great improvement because it is. There is no reason for holding on to roaming charges, other than reasons of possession, turf, demarcation and profit. Technologically, there is no necessity for them but, obviously and understandably, it is a significant financial issue.

I raised questions about this issue because it has been suggested, perhaps ungenerously in some quarters, that mobile phone institutions are a licence to print money. I would not go that far but they are a lucrative area and have a significant impact on the consumer. Over the past couple of years, individual telephone companies decided to make changes, particularly changes affecting the commercial sector, which was, understandably, the first beneficiary. Every person travelling for business, pleasure or other reasons is a registered telephone user and, as such, should be entitled to the full concession right across the board, having particular regard to the availability and universality of the technology now available.

Mr. Pronk

It was part of the system we put up at the beginning when we introduced the DSM, which is a great success and has indirectly become the world standard. It is the first time a European technology has become a world standard. However, this does not answer Deputy Durkan's question. To answer the Deputy's question, a compromise was found. We think that the majority of member states, including those which get additional money from roaming, in other words, those which attract a lot of tourists, will live with this because they see the reason behind it. We think this may open the way towards what the Deputy wants, namely, a situation where it makes no difference from which EU country one phones. This is politically very difficult at the moment.

We calculated the cost and found that there is a relatively small additional cost involved in roaming, although it is far from what we pay for it. Some companies claim that they would run into problems. The question arises as to whether it would really behave as if it was just the same. The sector is going through all kinds of changes. Perhaps the Deputy's idea may become more feasible, but we are fairly happy in that regard, as it will be quick and a tremendous improvement for consumers.

I welcome Mr. Pronk. The issue of roaming charges has exercised the committee for some time and we have held many discussions on the matter. As Mr. Pronk stated, many of Ireland's problems have been alleviated through agreements with Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Travelling within those areas is not a considerable problem, but travelling further afield is.

In his contribution, Mr. Pronk stated there is a roaming charge of €1 for a call lasting 15 seconds. I am sure Mr. Pronk is aware that many Irish people like to text. Indeed, we might be the world leaders. In the roaming context, what is the situation abroad and is someone charged as much as when one makes a call? When one sends a text, it is over and done with in a couple of seconds.

Achieving universality and agreement among countries and operators is a difficult task. If we are attempting this within Europe, are we also making efforts to reach agreements outside the EU, such as with other European countries, Australia or America?

Mr. Pronk

Texting is not exactly comparable. Its origins were different, as it used to be offered for free, but it is getting more expensive. The Commission did not include texting in the original proposal because the matter would cause a delay. It is not impossible to do something in respect of texting, but we wanted to put the proposal into practice as soon as possible.

The Commissioner has given a few speeches in which she warned the industry not to adapt the texting tariff, thereby prompting more legislation. The industry is under supervision, with which the Irish Government agrees, but there is a possibility for self-regulation. If nothing changes or the differences increase, something may happen. Getting the proposal ready for 1 July is already difficult, but the process would take a few months longer were we to include the issue of texting. It is not that texting is not seen as a long-term problem, but perhaps the companies will change their vision and there will be no necessity to intervene.

The moment we put our house in order, we can talk to other countries and companies. As the committee knows, the US has a different system. If one travels to some parts of the US, one cannot get a signal because there is no contract with the operator. While a difficult issue, it can be examined after our house has been put in order.

Have other countries, such as the US and Australia, tried to reach agreement among themselves?

Mr. Pronk

No, they operate as they normally do. We have an advantage in that our regulators meet every so often and have good contacts, which makes our process quicker than elsewhere.

I welcome Mr. Pronk. Are Irish people placed at a greater disadvantage than other Europeans?

Mr. Pronk

No, one cannot say that. In a way, everyone is placed at the same disadvantage. The special case of Northern Ireland is making other countries consider it as a good way to operate. For example, every border area in the Benelux countries has the same problem experienced by the Republic and Northern Ireland. We know it is possible to arrange something on a bilateral basis. In that sense, one could cite Ireland as an example for the rest of the EU. However, if one roams outside Britain or Ireland, the usual situation obtains.

Does that mean everyone will be subject to the same charge? When the Irish travel abroad, they are subject to higher prices.

Mr. Pronk

It depends on their providers' contracts with the providers in other countries. There may be a small difference between the charges for a Belgian who goes to Malta and an Irish person who goes to Malta due to the companies' contracts. I do not have all of the figures to hand. Ireland is an average country that faces the same impossible problems with roaming as everywhere else.

How can people know the cost? Does Mr. Pronk envisage a single cost for Europe or will costs be subject to operators' charges and contracts in each country?

Mr. Pronk

We foresee a situation where it is clear what every consumer will pay. There is a great deal of discussion in the European Parliament on the fact that when someone goes to Germany, he or she will know what must be paid some way or another.

How will people be alerted to the cost? Will a message be sent to their telephones?

Mr. Pronk

That is the most likely solution, but it depends on technology. A German telephone company believes it to be possible and has made a proposal in that regard. Normally, it sends SMS messages when someone crosses the border, so additional information on the tariff could also be sent.

I thank Mr. Pronk and committee members. There is an EU regulatory body for telecommunications and the regulators meet regularly, but is there a worldwide regulatory body?

Mr. Pronk

A UN organisation, the International Telecommunication Union, deals with that issue, but regulators in the EU meet as well as their Governments. These factors mean we are a little quicker in moving than the rest of the world.

Is it the plan of the EU to promote a worldwide body? Many EU citizens travel to the United States, the southern hemisphere and other countries. I was in Moscow two years ago and the roaming charges were horrendous. I am still paying them off.

Mr. Pronk

We have no concrete plans. In other areas, such as competition policy, there is good co-operation between regulators in the US and regulators in the EU. That is feasible but there will remain some countries in which it is difficult to make bilateral contacts. It could not be arranged by the UN. With the US we have other examples but we have no official plans.

Mr. Pronk stated the regulation could be coming into force in July. That would ensure a uniform mobile roaming charge and a maximum tariff per minute for every operator within EU countries. Is there agreement among mobile telephone operators that this is a fait accompli or will they challenge it in court?

Mr. Pronk

They will not challenge it in court but they hope these measures will not be taken. When one follows the deliberations in Council and Parliament one sees that something will happen.

Has the Commission examined roaming charges within the same country in Europe, for example Vodafone or O2? These companies, two of the biggest operators, own transmission equipment but still levy roaming charges. This is a negation of the policy of reducing barriers and borders in the EU. Has the Commission spoken to the operators in this respect?

Mr. Pronk

We have examined all bilateral agreements but it seems that Vodafone has internal roaming charges but that is the freedom of each company. We will introduce a maximum tariff so that every operator must follow the same maximum tariff whether the charge applies between internal accounts or with other companies. It is not against the law and our website provides details of roaming charges and internal tariffs from, for example, Vodafone Ireland to Vodafone in the Netherlands.

I will use Vodafone as an example. It is a trans-European company and, even if one remains on the company's network throughout Europe, one must pay roaming charges. Let us take Unilever as an example. The price of Persil does not change from country to country. Why should roaming charges change between countries? Has the Commission put it to the operators that they are milking the customer?

Mr. Pronk

The Deputy will have to address that question to Vodafone. The company uses the fact that it is present in different member states.

Does the Commission not think that such practices should be stamped out?

Mr. Pronk

Whether companies operate in many countries, such as Vodafone, or in one country, such as Meteor, they must apply the maximum tariff. The market will work again and prices will decrease below the maximum tariff. Otherwise, the debate is difficult because while the Vodafone companies have the same name they are different companies. It is difficult to do in any way other than the manner in which we have proposed.

I travelled from Budapest to Prague to Bratislava. I had four or five service providers, switching from one to another. The technology is automated and easy to handle. Deputy Fitzpatrick's point is valid.

When one arrives at the airport of a foreign country one receives a text message that one is very welcome to the country. One knows that is so but I expect the chief executive of the telephone company to be on the tarmac to meet me and embrace me. There used to be a charge for that but I do not know if it has been abolished.

We should strive for universal quality of service, particularly within the EU. In many parts of this country we do not have continuity of service even if we do not roam from one service provider to another. Poor coverage and poor reception obliges one to make a call on another telephone. The Commission has further proposals for later in the year. Quality of service is also important. Advanced technology and the single market of the European Union is no use unless we give the consumers the benefit and they recognise that.

Mr. Pronk

We will make all the proposals necessary, which must be accepted by the Council and the European Parliament, in order to keep this as one market. The framework, due in July, will take this into consideration. Member states, through the national parliaments, can send their position to the Commission and it will deal with this through a formal answer. We are aware that everything is not perfect. I do not want to give the impression that everything will be perfect after this regulation. The debate is important in itself because now every citizen knows he or she should expect the same treatment as in the home country. This depends on how the companies voluntarily behave.

The committee has worked on this matter for a number of years. The proposals are for a maximum price at wholesale, known as the inter-operator tariff. It is negotiated between networks for roaming charges. A maximum retail tariff also applies to ensure that the savings enjoyed by a network in having a lower wholesale charge are passed on to customers. Ireland's view is that this automatic retail regulation must be an essential feature of the regulation. Will the Commission maintain its position that a regulated retail price must be a mandatory feature of the regulation?

Over the past two years, all the Irish networks have introduced special tariffs. Mr. Pronk referred to the situation in Northern Ireland, which I presume will be maintained, and I understand his remarks on the maximum tariff. Will it be the task of national regulatory authorities to ensure the regulations introduced by the Commission in July are observed and implemented? Is the Commission satisfied that national regulators have sufficient powers for this monitoring function and that the penalty regime for breaches will be effective in terms of ensuring compliance?

Mr. Pronk

Regulated retail prices must be a mandatory feature of the regulation. Special arrangements such as those in place for Northern Ireland and, to a lesser extent, Britain, must also be maintained. That is at present merely a matter of wording. As long as they are under the maximum, they can be retained. On the Chairman's second question, as I noted earlier, a maximum cap will be set.

The Chairman's final question is the most difficult because he asked about two matters. The functions of national regulators are defined by their respective countries. They are normally independent but that does not guarantee they will have sufficient manpower, which could be a problem. While the issue cannot be addressed at European level because it is an obligation of individual member states, the European Commission can respond to requests for advice or help. Staff complements vary tremendously among states' national regulators. That variation is not solely based on the size of a country.

The efficacy of sanctions partly depends on national legislation. If, for example, criminal sanctions are not currently available for certain behaviour, it is up to the Oireachtas rather than the EU to consider stiffer penalties.

Was Mr. Pronk referring to criminal as opposed to administrative penalties?

Mr. Pronk

Yes.

He should not go down that road. When we discussed similar issues in the context of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005, we nearly tore the souls from our bodies. Will the legislation drafted by Europe be strong enough for each member state to implement or will legal challenges be brought by mobile telephone operators with regard to roaming charges?

Mr. Pronk

We think they will be strong enough and, while it is always possible to take a case to the European Court of Justice when disagreements arise, I have not heard of any threats in that respect.

I am aware Mr. Pronk is anxious to speak about broadband but I wish to ask a final question. My mind has been exercised for some time by top-up charges for mobile telephones. Some retail outlets charge additional fees to customers who purchase telephone credit. Is that a common practice throughout the EU or is it unique to Ireland?

Mr. Pronk

I find that difficult to answer because systems differ among member states. In the country with which I am most familiar, the Netherlands, new cards can be bought in petrol stations, which is somewhat different to a top-up system. The shop which provides the service has to make money one way or another.

If I purchase a €20 top-up on my mobile telephone, I am asked to pay up to an additional €1 for the service, despite the fact that the operator receives a commission from an intermediary who works on behalf of the telephone operator.

Mr. Pronk

I will take the issue on board. It is possibly an example of anti-competitive behaviour.

It is an issue Mr. Pronk might consider. I ask him now to speak about broadband.

Mr. Pronk

Every few months, we give an overview of the status of broadband services in a particular member state. We believe broadband is essential for the competitiveness of the European Union and its member states. It has long been noted that America's competitiveness increased more rapidly than Europe's, which had a lot to do with the fact that the American uptake of information technology was swifter than ours. Broadband is very important in that respect. Although our figures always lag because we try to compare, Ireland was not a frontrunner three years ago. I am aware that the country has since been busy in that regard and that it has already seen its first successes in terms of keeping broadband as broad as possible.

The Commission considers the matter important enough to allow member states to use Structural Funds for broadband provision, particularly in the context of rural development. Every country faces greater problems in rural areas than in cities with regard to increasing broadband penetration. I ask the committee to use its influence to increase broadband penetration even more than is currently the case.

May I make some supplementary remarks on that subject?

No, Mr. Pronk is not prepared for questions. We are at least getting the important message that we must do more to improve our rating compared to other EU countries.

A little done, much more to do is the motto.

I thank Mr. Pronk for appearing before the committee. I was delighted to find that he knows a number of Members and that he is among friends. I ask him to give our regards to Commissioner Reding. She has our full support with regard to the measures on roaming she is introducing on behalf of the Commission and the European Parliament. We hope to see significant changes so that Irish people will be able to spend more money on their European holidays this summer and less on roaming charges.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 March 2007.
Barr
Roinn