REPORT containing its opinion on the evaluation report regarding BEREC and the Office
13.11.2013 - (2013/2053(INI))
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
Rapporteur: Salvador Sedó i Alabart
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
containing its opinion on the evaluation report regarding BEREC and the Office
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission staff working document of 23 April 2013 on the Evaluation Report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and its office (SWD(2013)0152),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 19 May 2010 entitled ‘A Digital Agenda for Europe’ (COM(2010)0245),
– having regard to Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to its resolution of 5 May 2010 on ‘a new Digital Agenda for Europe: 2015.eu’[1],
– having regard to the framework for electronic communications,
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office[2],
– having regard to Rule 119(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0378/2013),
A. whereas the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) was created to contribute to shaping technical and policy orientations for the completion of the internal market, with the twin aims of giving regulators the utmost possible independence and making their implementation of the regulatory framework more consistent throughout the EU;
B. whereas the evaluation report appreciates and recognises the worth of BEREC and the BEREC Office, notably with respect to the Article 7/7a procedures and in the areas of net neutrality and international roaming;
C. whereas only a short period of time has passed since BEREC and the BEREC Office were created;
D. whereas the completion of the internal market is a continual process best served by improving regulation across individual national markets, and whereas the most robust and sustainable way to achieve this (thereby ensuring that regulatory decisions are seen as having legitimacy within national markets) is through the ‘bottom-up’ approach currently represented by BEREC;
E. whereas BEREC can only be effective if its independence from the Member States and the EU institutions is guaranteed;
F. whereas national considerations may complicate the definition of common positions, making agreement more difficult;
G. whereas BEREC plays a fundamental role in enhancing the consistent application of the EU regulatory framework in all Member States, which is essential for the successful development of an internal market in electronic communications networks and services;
H. whereas recent initiatives taken at national level, particularly with regard to spending review processes, could affect the implementation of the independence principle;
I. whereas national regulatory authorities (NRAs) are not homogeneous, given that they sometimes have very different powers within their home countries, some dealing only with market regulation while others also deal with aspects such as market regulation, net security, privacy, domain register, spectrum and user services;
J. whereas it is possible that optimal use is not being made of the BEREC Office at present;
K. whereas some of the Union agencies based in other countries also have a satellite office in Brussels;
L. whereas most of the expert working group meetings were held in Brussels or hosted by an NRA, and whereas videoconferencing should be developed;
M. whereas consumer benefit is one of the main goals of the internal market in electronic communications;
N. whereas decisions taken by BEREC at European level should create European added value;
1. Considers that the evaluation report is, overall, relevant and balanced;
2. Considers that time is needed to fully develop the requisite cooperation, coordination and informal aspects of regulation;
3. Considers that there is still room for improvement in the functioning of BEREC and the BEREC Office, while acknowledging the limited resources available; stresses, however, that the use of the new procedure under Article 7/7a of Directive 2009/140/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services has worked effectively, justifying the two-tier set-up;
4. Emphasises that BEREC is the smallest EU agency, with an EU budget contribution of only EUR 3 768 696 and 16 authorised posts under the EU budget in 2013, primarily providing administrative support for the BEREC structure, which is composed of national regulatory authorities;
5. Recalls the opinion of the Committee on Budgets of 29 May 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Electronic Communications Market Authority (COM(2007)0699 – C6-0428/2007 – 2007/0249(COD)), by which the establishment of a new agency was rejected;
6. Considers that NRAs play an important role within the regulatory system, as national markets have immutable differences related to network topology and also differ with respect to consumer demand patterns, demographics, etc.; stresses that in order to ensure structured cooperation within the EU, and thus a correctly functioning single market, it is essential to have independent, sector‑specific and properly resourced regulators;
7. Considers that BEREC plays a crucial role within the regulatory system as the entity tasked with aligning national factual and regulatory differences with a view to completing the internal market in electronic communications;
8. Recommends that BEREC’s role, in particular its relationship with NRAs, be better defined, and strengthened by broadening its responsibilities so as to facilitate the definition of common positions with a view to enhancing the internal market approach, including by evaluating the efficiency of current cooperation with NRAs and the Commission under the Article 7/7a procedures;
9. Considers that greater harmonisation of the tasks carried out by NRAs in the Member States, giving them competence for relevant aspects directly related to security and resilience in the internal market in electronic communications, could contribute to better functioning of BEREC and greater predictability for market actors;
10. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure that the independence of NRAs at national and European level is strengthened, not weakened, as this is the only way to ensure the overall independence of BEREC;
11. Considers that the roles and structure of BEREC and the BEREC Office should be adapted according to the level of completion of the internal market in electronic communications;
12. Calls on the Commission to guarantee BEREC’s independence from the EU institutions in future proposals relating to the scope and mission of BEREC;
13. Considers that BEREC should act in the interests of the European public, and that the mechanisms for accountability to the European Parliament, as the only EU institution directly elected to represent the interests of the European public, should be strengthened;
14. Recommends that BEREC strengthen its internal accountability by clearly defining its objectives in its annual work programme and presenting in its annual report its achievements and progress on the basis of those objectives;
15. Deems it to be of the utmost importance for the coherence and consistency of BEREC's work to better prioritise its tasks and to foster communication with all interested stakeholders at the development stage of its annual work programme;
16. Considers that BEREC should have more room to take strategic decisions, meaning, among other things, that BEREC should produce its own analysis and studies enabling it to take such decisions, so that the decision-making process is more top-down and independent;
17. Emphasises that BEREC’s advisory role upstream of legislative proposals affecting the electronic communications sector should be made methodical;
18. Considers that BEREC's external communication should be clarified and improved in order to encourage stakeholder involvement at all levels of policymaking;
19. Recommends formalising the role of the Independent Regulators Group (IRG) in Brussels, while ensuring that it does not duplicate the tasks entrusted to the BEREC Office;
20. Recommends that greater use be made of teleworking, videoconferencing and other remote working techniques enabled by electronic communications, in order to cut costs and reduce the carbon footprint;
21. Recommends that the Commission and the Member States ensure that adequate financing is made available for BEREC and for the NRAs;
22. Considers that the location of the BEREC Office is not a barrier to monitoring the EU institutions’ day-to-day work on electronic communications, which is a matter of special interest to BEREC, and that it will not hamper the efficient use of the BEREC Office, provided that greater use is made of electronic communications strategies;
23. Considers that the mission of the BEREC Office should be revised, reinforced and defined more precisely, taking particular account of the outcome of the BEREC audit on this matter;
24. Recommends that the necessary changes be made, and the necessary resources considered, to enable the BEREC Office to support BEREC’s substantive work more effectively and efficiently, rather than simply providing administrative support;
25. Considers that any discussions on the location of the BEREC Office should be conducted with a view to reinforcing its independence from the EU institutions and the Member States and with due regard to the principle of equal geographical distribution of the seats of the EU’s institutions, agencies and other entities;
26. Considers that greater consolidation is needed to enable operators to exploit economies of scale more fully, and that BEREC should have a prominent role to play in that process;
27. Considers that a clear and stable legislative framework is needed for a better internal market that will result in increased competition and improved services for consumers;
28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
The purpose of this document is to outline the preliminary views of the Rapporteur on the Evaluation of BEREC and the BEREC Office (SWD(2013)152), with the aim to foster the debate and discussion on the issue in order to elaborate a balanced Report.
Overall, the Rapporteur’s view is that BEREC as such is generally functioning well. BEREC (and its predecessors) appear to have enabled a gradual deepening of mutual trust between NRAs contributing towards the effective achievement of the BEREC objectives. That however should not prevent debate about the possibility of a more ambitious, internal market oriented, set of goals for BEREC and of the BEREC structure. The BEREC Office on the other hand, and the relationship between BEREC and the Office, appears to present problems of its own.
On the one hand, the Evaluation appreciates and recognises the worth of the BEREC and BEREC Office work since their creation in 2009, notably the Article 7/7a procedures, and in the areas of net neutrality and international roaming.
On the other hand, the Evaluation also shows there still room for improvement. This can be due to the short period passed since its creation (it was created as a result of the latest review of the e-communications regulatory framework), but there appears to be room for considering some more structural aspects, in particular in the context of the next overall review of the framework for electronic communications.
Room for improvement
Independence and potential conflict of national versus European interests.
According to the evaluation report, “the independent role of BEREC is still questionable”.
The independence of BEREC shall be considered from the perspective of a) EU Institutions, b) NRAs and c) the Member States (through the national independence of the NRAs).
It seems that independence from the EU Institutions is already guaranteed. But the reason which assures this independence seems to be the same that puts in doubt the independence from the NRAs (and through them, from the Member States), which is the fact that BEREC is composed of the NRAs itself. Although “in all its activities, BEREC shall pursue the same objectives as those of the national regulatory authorities”, it’s also true that BEREC shall provide an EU-wide approach towards the issues addressed: it shall “contribute to the better functioning of the internal market for electronic communications networks and services, by aiming to ensure a consistent application of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications”. That raises the question of a possible conflict between the NRAs role in national markets and BERECs role on the internal market. The bottom-up approach has some advantages, as it ensures a link back to national markets; flexibility allows NRAs to take account of national circumstances. On the contrary, the national considerations may make an agreement when defining a common position more difficult, weakening the pure EU-single market approach. There are recent initiatives taken at national level, particularly related to spending review process, which could affect the implementation of the independence principle.
Accountability
What should BEREC be accountable for? BEREC is supposed to express its considerations related to key topics, define priorities and advise the EU institutions regarding the harmonisation of the Single Market. The Evaluation states it shall be accountable for its own objectives, proposing that BEREC indicates the commitments for the following year, and details the achievements in the Annual Report.
Location
The location of the BEREC Office can be a barrier to follow the day to day work of the European Institutions on electronic communications, which shall be a matter of special interest to BEREC.
Approaches
Two main approaches can be considered for the Draft Report on the Opinion on the Evaluation of the BEREC and the BEREC Office.
Static approach
If we believe that the ongoing structure of BEREC is well defined and successful, and no major changes are needed, then we can address only the topics we believe could be incrementally improved; without modifying the existing structure. Mainly the improvements would be solving inefficiencies, such as clarifying the use of BEREC Office, the roles related to the external and internal communication and the role of BEREC towards some topics.
Evolutionary approach
In case we believe that the ongoing structure of BEREC is successful, but that it could be better defined. The opinion could then propose some modifications or changes without touching the main basis. A possible solution could be providing more room to the BoR (Body of Regulators) to take strategic decisions, making the decision process more top-down, and strengthening BEREC’s already established presence in Brussels.
In both approaches, there’s the question of the BEREC Office, including its role, efficiency and location. The Evaluation points out that the role of the Office remains unsettled: It either exists to provide purely administrative support, or it assumes a more prominent role in the drafting and delivery of BEREC work. This question is both structural - the role of the Office in the BEREC Regulation - and practical, in that it would appear intimately connected to the attractiveness of the Office for the purpose of recruiting and retaining highly qualified staff, which in turn could be impacted by its location. As regards efficiency, the Office has to comply with the same cumbersome procedures as much bigger agencies. The establishment plan provides for 28 posts in the Office, of which 24 were filled as of 31 December 2012.
According to the Evaluation, 11 posts are exclusively occupied with providing administrative support for the Office itself, and only seven to twelve posts available to support BEREC and its eleven expert working groups. It is also notable that while the Office was prepared to provide meeting facilities in Riga in 2012, all meetings of the expert working groups were either held in Brussels or hosted by an NRA. During the year, the seven to twelve Office staff supporting the expert WGs participated in 103 Expert Working Group meetings, involving regular travelling to Brussels.
It is notable that the NRAs also continue to cooperate in the Independent Regulators
Group (IRG). The IRG, organised under Belgian law, maintains a secretariat in Brussels consisting of two staff (unencumbered by the Union regulations and procedures the BEREC Office have to comply with). The IRG secretariat provides a presence for BEREC in Brussels.
OPINION of the Committee on Budgets (18.10.2013)
for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
on the opinion on the evaluation report regarding BEREC and the Office
(2013/2053(INI))
Rapporteur: Jutta Haug
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:
1. Underlines that the Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication (BEREC) is the smallest EU agency, with an EU budget contribution of only EUR 3 768 696 and 16 authorised posts under the EU budget in 2013, primarily providing administrative support for the BEREC structure, which is composed of national regulatory authorities;
2. Reiterates that the choice of the seat of EU agencies is too often made by the Council on the basis of accommodating the interests of certain Member States, rather than being based on objective and financial criteria and practical aspects of working capacity;
3. Recalls that peripheral seat arrangements have negative side effects, such as difficulty of access to the location, rarely adequate education facilities for the children of staff members, insufficient access to the labour market, social security and medical care both for the children and for the spouses of staff members, as well as high mission costs, thereby creating difficulties in attracting qualified personnel;
4. Recalls, furthermore, that small agencies located in cities where no other EU institutions or bodies are located face additional problems with regard to sound budgetary management, as they lack partners with which to share administrative resources or undertake other forms of cooperation, thereby resulting in an incapacity to create synergies;
5. Recalls the opinion of the Committee on Budgets of 29 May 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Electronic Communications Market Authority (COM(2007)0699 – C6-0428/2007 – 2007/0249(COD)) by which the establishment of a new agency was rejected;
6. Suggests using the evaluation process to reconsider both the choice of the seat as well as the decision to set up an agency to fulfil primarily the function of a secretariat for BEREC; considers it worthwhile, therefore, to discuss the option of either setting up a BEREC secretariat within the Commission’s Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, thereby avoiding the overhead linked to the structure of an independent agency and creating savings for the Union budget or transforming BEREC into a body with actual comprehensive competences, independent of the European institutions and the Member States.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
17.10.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
20 0 1 |
|||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Zuzana Brzobohatá, José Manuel Fernandes, Eider Gardiazábal Rubial, Lucas Hartong, Jutta Haug, Anne E. Jensen, Ivailo Kalfin, Sergej Kozlík, Jan Kozłowski, Alain Lamassoure, Giovanni La Via, Jan Mulder, Vojtěch Mynář, Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar, Nadezhda Neynsky, Andrej Plenković, Alda Sousa, Oleg Valjalo |
||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Maria Da Graça Carvalho, Paul Rübig, Georgios Stavrakakis |
||||
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
5.11.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
44 1 0 |
|||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Josefa Andrés Barea, Jean-Pierre Audy, Ivo Belet, Bendt Bendtsen, Jan Březina, Maria Da Graça Carvalho, Giles Chichester, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Christian Ehler, Vicky Ford, Adam Gierek, Norbert Glante, Fiona Hall, Jacky Hénin, Edit Herczog, Kent Johansson, Romana Jordan, Krišjānis Kariņš, Lena Kolarska-Bobińska, Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, Jaroslav Paška, Aldo Patriciello, Vittorio Prodi, Miloslav Ransdorf, Jens Rohde, Paul Rübig, Amalia Sartori, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, Francisco Sosa Wagner, Konrad Szymański, Britta Thomsen, Evžen Tošenovský, Catherine Trautmann, Claude Turmes, Vladimir Urutchev |
||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Jerzy Buzek, Ioan Enciu, Andrzej Grzyb, Roger Helmer, Seán Kelly, Bernd Lange, Zofija Mazej Kukovič, Franck Proust, Algirdas Saudargas |
||||
|
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote |
Nikos Chrysogelos |
||||