INTERVIEW WITH MEP CATHERINE TRAUTMANN ON THE REVISION OF EU TELECOMS REGULATIONS : "THERE IS A PROBLEM OF COHERENCE AND OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS".

Catherine Trautmann (PES, France) is the European Parliament's rapporteur for the draft framework directive on electronic communications. In her view, the European Commission has to take account of the difficulties created by its proposals, tabled on 13 November, the Council has to make its positions more flexible and the EP needs to show more inventiveness.

The first views expressed by the EP were critical. Are you concerned about a centralisation of powers?

The European Parliament wants to assert its role as legislator and its decision-making role in organising regulatory powers. The previous regulatory framework had positive effects. Changes still need to be considered and implementation strengthened. But what is striking is that the Commission emerges in the front line at every level. In addition to initiating regulations, it also advises the national authorities on their application. There is a total ambiguity in this situation, which we pointed out immediately: the role of national regulators is supposed to be reinforced and at the same time the Commission's right of intervention strengthened through a wider right of veto on remedies. What is more, with the introduction of the European telecoms authority, things are vague.

Is there a danger of a conflict of interests between national regulators and the EU authority?

There is obviously a problem of coherence and of conflict of interests: coherence in relation to the ENISA [European Network and Information Security Agencya- Ed], which was integrated into the European authority as discussions progressed at the Commission. That is regrettable. It weakens the structure since there is neither clarification nor any changes per se to the ENISA's framework of action. Some of the ENISA's tasks may be perfectly compatible with an authority, whatever form it may take at European level, a sort of coordination of national regulators. But in fact, such coordination is simply reinforced. So it is not strictly speaking an agency like another. On the other hand, the ENISA is an agency. How can this be combined? This is what the regulators themselves cannot resolve. Yet the main stakeholders are the states, the national regulators and companies.

If the EP were to tamper with the planned European authority, what direction would it take?

I do not wish to speak for my colleague (Pilar Del Castillo, EPP-ED, Spain) who has the report on the authority, or for my other fellow members dealing with consumers'...