Hildegarde Naughton (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones, as they interfere with the sound system and make it difficult for parliamentary reporters to report the meeting. Television coverage and web streaming will also be adversely affected.

I have received apologies from Senator McDowell, but I welcome everyone else to the first meeting of the joint committee. I congratulate the newly elected Members who are joining us. It is a great honour for me to Chair this committee and I look forward to working with everyone positively and constructively.

We are meeting European Commission Vice President Andrus Ansip regarding the digital single market. I propose that, after our meeting with him in public session, we hold a short private session. Is that agreed? Agreed. I propose that Mr. Ansip speak for ten to 15 minutes, followed by a questions and answers session in which each member may ask a question or make a comment not exceeding three minutes. I am conscious that Mr. Ansip needs to attend another meeting at 1 p.m., so we might keep that in mind. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss with Mr. Ansip the progress in the completion of the digital single market at EU and national levels. Its completion has been identified by the Commission as one of its top ten political priorities and Ireland is committed to playing its part in the completion of such a single market. The value of the digital single market to the European economy is estimated to be approximately €400 billion per annum. As such, it is hoped that Ireland's economy will in turn benefit from its completion. This meeting presents an opportunity for the committee to get an update from Mr. Ansip on the progress to date and Ireland's performance in the digital single market compared with other member states. Ireland is ranked eighth of the 28 in terms of digitalisation and is performing better than the EU average, but it is improving at a slower rate than the EU as a whole.

I welcome Mr. Ansip and we are delighted to have him present. We look forward to his opening state. I wish to draw his attention to the fact that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if he is directed by the Chairman to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continues to do so, he is entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of his evidence. He is directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, he should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also wish to advise him that any submission or opening statement that he makes to the committee will be published on the committee's website after the meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Ansip to make his opening statement. He may wish to introduce his officials.

Mr. Andrus Ansip:

I thank the honourable Chairman and members of the joint committee. It is my great pleasure to be here. I have a written opening statement, but it would be artificial to spend ten minutes on it. For that reason, I will place this written statement on the Internet. Members already have it in paper.

I will reflect instead on the issues mentioned by the Chairman.

Ireland is digitally well advanced compared to the rest of Europe. The Commission's digital economy and society index ranks it in eighth place among the 28 member states. In terms of e-commerce and small and medium-sized enterprises, Ireland ranks first in the European Union. Its performance, in percentage terms, is twice the average in the European Union. Some 32% of Irish small and medium-sized enterprises are selling online. The average in this regard across the European Union is 16%. In terms of cross-border sales, the story is the same, with Ireland ranked in first place across the European Union.

The EU Single Market was created 20 years ago. Every country has benefited from the Single Market, including Ireland. However, it is a single market in physical terms only, as a digital single market does not exist. We must create a digital single market. According to analysis prepared by the European Parliament in 2014, the cost to Europe of not having a European digital market is huge. Some €415 billion per annum is being lost. The amount being lost is set to increase rather than decrease in the years ahead. As such, there is an urgency to a digital single market. We are not, unfortunately, progressing quickly enough. In 2010, four Prime Ministers issued a letter to their colleagues in which they proposed the creation of a digital single market in the European Union. A decision was made to have a digital single market in place across the European Union in 2015. It is now 2016 and all we have in place is a digital single market strategy. We need to speed up.

Last May, we launched the digital single market strategy. On the basis of this strategy, we made our first proposal last December. This year is delivery year. During this year, we would like to make all the proposals based on the digital single market strategy. Last December, we proposed to allow portability of content. An important detail in the digital single market strategy is that currently 20% of Europeans spend at least ten days a year in another EU member state and while there they would like to have access to their legally bought digital content but because of copyright restrictions they cannot do so. Technically, this is not a big issue. Some 20% of Internet users in the European Union are using VPNs to get access to digital content. Some 68% of film viewers state that they are using free downloads to get access to movies. VPNs are not free of charge. It costs up to €10 per month and €20 per three months. Many users think that because they are paying for a VPN they are not doing anything wrong, but authors are not being remunerated. For this reason, we proposed portability of content. I would welcome the support of the committee for this proposal.

In February, we made our proposal for the 700 megahertz spectrum. As this measure is technical in nature, it must be dealt with by parliaments. Currently, we can only dream about 5G in terms of the Internet, remote surgery and so on. Without access to the 700 megahertz spectrum it will never be a reality. It is proposed that the 700 megahertz band will be divided into two parts, with the upper side being made available to telecom companies and the lower band being made available to broadcasters for wireless microphones and so on. Some member states believe that the target of achieving clarity by 2020 is too ambitious and that 2022 is more realistic. The year 2030 is also realistic. We know, for example, that South Korea will start using major elements of 5G during the Winter Olympics in 2018. At a G7 meeting in Japan I heard that Japan will use 5G during the Olympic Games in 2020. Ericsson and Teliosonera have stated that they will commence the use of major elements of 5G in two towns, Stockholm and Tallinn, in 2018. If we do not speed up the process of providing access to the 700 megahertz spectrum we will find ourselves lagging behind. If this new generation network is not made available we will continue to only dream about apps created on the basis of those new technologies. We will know theoretically how it works, but practice creates the best ideas. It may seem as though we are talking about peanuts, but in 2014, 1.8 million jobs across the European Union were in the app industry. According to analysis, in 2018 there will be 4.8 million jobs in the app industry alone across the European Union and 3 million associated jobs. A 700 megahertz band is necessary not only for that industry but also for the car industry, remote surgery and other applications. We must do our outmost to get clarity in this regard.

As I said earlier, Ireland ranks first in the European Union in the area of e-commerce. However, as members will be aware, the e-commerce market across the European Union is fragmented. The European Commission organised a mystery shopping survey. According to this survey, 2% of people who wanted to access websites to purchase goods and services from another member state were blocked from doing so. One might say that was not a big problem, but 27% of those who could access websites were unable to register because their IP addresses were wrong. Of those who were able to register, 32% experienced delivery problems, which are natural problems to which we must also find solutions. Twenty-six percent of people who wanted to buy goods and services from another country experienced problems making payments. Although we have SEPA in the European Union, some credit cards were not accepted because they were issued in the wrong countries, including Estonia. Thirty-six percent of people who tried to buy goods and services from another EU member state were unable to conclude their purchases successfully. We must abolish unjustified geo-blocking.

In the coming weeks we will make our second copyright proposal and also the telecom proposal. I know Ireland would like to cover the country with a high-speed fibre network. According to my understanding, access to the Internet must be one of those fundamental rights and we must do it. As we know, especially in those areas where population density is not so high, there is not as much tough competition. With the market conditions, telecom service providers are not as ready to invest in those fibre networks. It means we must create certain better conditions to attract those investments. I would like to say we are trying to turn Europe in the same direction as Ireland is moving already.

The second copyright package proposal will be quite a large proposal, with different issues dealing with exceptions relating to education, handicapped people, text and data mining. We have to make text and data mining available for all the scientists across the European Union. Today in the majority of EU member states, scientists cannot use text and data mining. We would like to provide better access to digital content for our people. Our aim is to double cross-border access to digital content for our people. It is the aim of our second copyright proposal.

At the end of this year we will also make a free data flows proposal. We must create an environment in the European Union where free data flows will be possible in the Union and we will not always have to face data authorisation threats. I thank the committee for inviting me and I am ready to take questions.

Hildegarde Naughton (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I ask my colleagues to contribute, I have one question relating to cybersecurity. Reports have indicated cybercrime is on the rise in Ireland. Does the witness have a particular view as to whether Ireland is more at risk in this regard as opposed to other member states or European counterparts? Will the witness expand on the role of the European Cyber Security Organisation in liaising with national bodies and member states? Does the witness have any comment on the privacy shield between the European Union and the United States? Does the privacy shield offer sufficient protection to EU citizens with respect to data and privacy?

Mr. Andrus Ansip:

Thank you for those questions. I will begin by addressing the privacy shield. The aim of the Safe Harbor principles was really good as it was to protect Europeans' data. In 2000, we did not have any kind of idea what kind of technical instruments for mass surveillance, for example, would be around in 2013. In 2013, there was the understanding that the Safe Harbor principles were not safe enough. We saw information from the likes of Mr. Snowdon and so on and in 2013 we started to negotiate with the Americans. We got a court ruling when we were almost there with an agreement; with the ruling we had the understanding that we had to continue the negotiations. We have concluded those negotiations.

The EU-US privacy shield, according to my understanding, is a much better and future-proofed solution because it has a review clause. This will be a process and we do not have to wait for another 13 years to understand that we might have some kind of problem. If we have problems, we can immediately fix them. Since 1 August this year, companies have been able to join the EU-US privacy shield. We already have approximately 100 companies that have joined the privacy shield, with 190 companies in the process in the United States. There are approximately 250 companies that have prepared the application for joining the privacy shield. It is proceeding, according to my understanding, as we expected. It is definitely needed. We have to allow free data flows not only across the European Union, but also between the European Union and our partners. At the same time we must protect everybody's privacy.

Cybersecurity is an area where no single member state is able to deal separately with the issues. We have to co-operate. I can give an example from the country I know best. In 2007, we moved a Bronze Soldier war monument from the city centre to a cemetery and were faced with riots over two nights. In some cities they have those kind of riots after every football game where a local team loses but for us it was totally new. We also faced cyber attacks. With fruitful co-operation between the national computer emergency response teams, we were able to cut the majority of those attacks before they crossed our borders. We were able to deal with those cyber attacks because of co-operation. Now we have a network and information security directive and this is also about co-operation and transparency. It is not about making information about those cyber attacks public but it is important for stakeholders and those dealing with cybersecurity to be informed.

We also launched a public-private partnership proposal for cybersecurity and we expect to get €1.8 billion per year of investment for the area soon. I invite Irish companies to join this process. It is really important to protect cyberspace and to do this we must co-operate.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witness and his staff. I have two short questions. Mr. Ansip has correctly referred to the importance of creating the digital single market and the fact that we are in eighth place is good. We are improving at a slower rate.

Collectively, the national broadband plan will be rolled out over the next couple of years. I hope it will help to move us forward and to maintain the pace of growth.

Roaming charges are due to be abolished on 15 June 2017. Ireland is the only country that will have a problem, due to the unfortunate active partition of the country with its artificial Border. Britain will still be in the European Union as its act of political kamikaze will not be completed by 15 June 2017 and for some time afterwards but Brexit will be completed. How can we safeguard roaming charges in Northern Ireland? If an Irish person travels to Estonia or Romania he or she will be protected against increased mobile phone roaming charges. If one travels a few miles up the road on this island, as Britain will be outside the EU, a mobile phone user could be faced with increased roaming charges. I need not tell the committee the effect such charges will have on business, commerce, and people who trade North and South. Most political parties and businesses are trying increase North-South trade.

My next questions are on geo-blocking. Who will create active geo-blocking? BBC has a programme called "Spotlight" that is available in the North but not in the South. Who is responsible for this situation? Is it a free market issue? How can we remove geo-blocking? One can appreciate that people living on a small island comprised of a little over 6 million people need access to the same media sources. If people are not charged extra for mobile phone usage when they travel to Estonia, Bulgaria or Romania then the same situation should exist in Belfast, Tyrone and Fermanagh.

Mr. Andrus Ansip:

My time here is passing quickly. For me, it is good to take a question and then to respond, but perhaps other members would like to ask questions.

Hildegarde Naughton (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We might follow Mr. Ansip's suggestion and it would give him time to prepare his response.

Mr. Andrus Ansip:

I shall try to quickly respond to all of the questions together.

Hildegarde Naughton (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I urge Deputy Dooley to keep his questions short.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Commissioner Ansip. I thank him for his presence and for the work that he has done to date.

I wish to refer to his prepared remarks, in particular to his second statement that says "Ireland is digitally well advanced compared with the rest of Europe." I want him to know that such advancement is not by accident and is the result of a definite policy by successive Governments, with much of it set around attracting high-end ICT companies. We have worked in harmony with the education system to develop a tech-savvy society.

Yesterday, we had ten hours of discussion in the Parliament on the situation that has emerged from the decision by Commissioner Vestager to find against Ireland's tax law from a competition perspective. I do not expect Mr. Ansip to answer for the Commissioner, but it would be remiss of me not to raise the issue with him in light of his being the Vice President of the European Commission. I wish to share with him our frustration, annoyance and concern about what my party and others believe to be an overreach by the Commission in straying from competition policy into an area of taxation policy. Mr. Ansip is well aware that taxation policy is a competence of member states. It is not pooled or shared through any of the various instruments that we have agreed on over the life of the European Union. We vehemently disagree with the position taken by the competition Commissioner because we believe it has the capacity to impact on our ability, in the first instance, to determine and define our own policy on taxation. It is difficult for us, as a peripheral State in Europe, to attract foreign investment and the kind of tech-savvy companies that have allowed us to emerge, grow and compete with what might be considered mainland Europe. I want Mr. Ansip to take my comments and share them with his Commission colleagues in due course. I want him to recognise that it is the will of the Parliament of Ireland to vigorously defend its right to set its own tax policy. Obviously, that will happen now as a result of the decision taken by the Government to defend against the decision of the Commission.

I wish to comment on a matter that is more relevant to the brief of the Vice President, which follows on from the important point made by Deputy Stanley about the elimination of roaming charges. The European Commission has done good work on this matter. The measure has helped to establish and build on the freedoms that have already been established across Europe. It also helps to develop trade. In the past number of days I read in an article that the Commission has decided, or proposed, usage limits for free roaming. If that is the case then I think the measure would be a retrograde step. I ask Mr. Ansip to clarify the matter.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Earlier I indicated my wish to comment because what I want to say is relevant to the latter comments made by Deputy Dooley. I also appreciate that Mr. Ansip would like to answer our two sets of questions together. I welcome the European Commission Vice President. It is good to have him with us and I appreciate his initial presentation.

I completely support the view put forward by Deputy Dooley. His view is reflective of a large majority of the Parliament, and there is a sense of frustration and alarm. The point was well made by one of the commentators that were the level of proposed imposition on Ireland, or the proposed amount of money that merited collection, to be implemented then the productivity of the Apple workers in Ireland would be beyond anything else on a worldwide scale and in the realms of science fiction. Therefore, the sum involved is unrealistic on that level and on a number of levels. We have operated a very transparent tax system that has been discussed at a number of levels within the EU. It has been defended by the Taoiseach at EU level and discussed openly there. We feel frustrated about the matter and I support the concerns expressed by Deputy Dooley. I agree with him that it would be remiss of us not to have that view expressed. Placing the onus on this State to collect the money is an unrealistic proposition. It is crazy and unacceptable, and we disagree with the proposal. This matter is not specifically the remit of the Vice President, but we had to make him aware of it.

I have two questions that I want to address to the brief of the Vice President. For us to achieve a single digital market across Europe, the big need in Ireland is to have access to high-speed broadband across the country. Large chunks of rural Ireland do not have access to high-speed broad due to population, topography, a lack of infrastructure and a number of other factors. We are now in the process of trying to rectify the situation. In the process of doing so, we intend to use what we call the gap funding model.

The private sector will ultimately get ownership of the network in the 37,000 households that will need support from the State to access broadband, but it will be very important to control costs. Mr. Ansip might comment on that, regarding the role the EU and the Commission might play in controlling the cost the private sector could impose on individual consumers. High-speed broadband is so vital to all these areas of rural Ireland. Before we talk about e-commerce, education, local business or anything of that nature, the fact that so many people are trying to access education locally as well must be recognised. It is a huge issue.

To move very briefly to e-commerce, there is tremendous untapped potential for Internet sales and we have a long way to go. Obviously, we have to get broadband in place across the country. However, I would be interested in the Mr. Ansip's comment on the steps we could take to increase Internet sales further. We are not benefiting enough nationally from them yet, but there is growth in that area.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will start by welcoming Mr. Ansip. From working with people from the Estonian Government over the years, my experience has been that Estonia is a very enterprising country that has very close ties with Ireland. In such circumstances, Mr. Ansip, as an Estonian politician, is very welcome. I agree with his comments on the benefits from advancing this digital single market. I represent a constituency, Dublin Bay South, that is a technology centre, not just home to international companies but also local ones. We have everything to gain in Europe by working together to be technology makers rather than taking from Asia and America, which will end up being the case if we do not work together.

I disagree with my two colleagues. There are different views in the Parliament on the Apple tax issue, but I will not go into the details of that. I will just ask two questions. On tax, does Mr. Ansip believe that - whatever about the retrospective issue - there are now in place tax and transfer pricing rules that allow us to develop e-commerce without that becoming a fundamental difficulty?

My second question is very specific and I do not expect them to get into the politics of it, but our guests would recognise that the possibility of a Brexit has major consequences for the development of e-commerce, particularly in this country, given our Border and our relationship with the UK. Incredibly complex issues immediately come to mind in terms of how we will manage e-commerce with the UK in a Brexit situation, how we will deal with media providers to this country that are based in the UK and also satellite providers - the regulation of which will have to be changed in the event of Brexit - and how we would manage the fact, given that we were talking about cyber security earlier, that everything we do on the Internet is subject to surveillance by the UK Government because of our physical location. My question is not about the witnesses' opinion on what are sensitive issues, but whether the Commission will be able to provide advice for the likes of parliamentary committees such as this, given the technicalities, complexities and all those related issues, when it comes to understanding what is happening in any future negotiations. Can the Commission provide informal advice on some of the technical rules we have to understand if we are to understand the implications of any negotiation process?

Hildegarde Naughton (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a number of questions to be answered and Mr. Ansip may take them in whatever order he wishes.

Mr. Andrus Ansip:

Thank you very much. Some of those questions are quite complicated. Two of them relate to the United Kingdom. The official position of the European Commission is that we will not start to negotiate until the United Kingdom triggers the Article 50 process. For me, it is absolutely clear that we must have good, pragmatic relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom after the latter leaves the Union. We have to find the best solution for the European Union and for the United Kingdom. There will be so many very practical issues, including roaming and how to continue with those roaming surcharges and phone calls in future. It is too early to predict or to start the negotiating process. The UK must trigger the Article 50 process first.

We started to abolish roaming surcharges in the European Union in 2007, but it has been a very complicated process. In the United States, people do not remember roaming surcharges any more, but in the European Union we have a generation of people who know how dangerous it is to use one's mobile devices when travelling in some other EU member states. Even knowing that this business model, based on roaming surcharges, is not sustainable, it is quite difficult for the service provider to change its unsustainable business model. If service providers have to say to their customers, "Don't use my services when travelling in some other EU member states", that is not a sustainable business model. If people do not care about this and continue to use those services while travelling in some other countries, they can easily start to hate those service providers because of the bills they have to pay. Let us remember where we started from a little more than a year ago. During the Latvian Presidency, we had a "5 + 5 + 5" proposal. On five days per year, one would get five minutes of phone calls on a "roam like at home" basis. Not per day, not free of charge, but "roam like at home". Then five SMS messages per day during the five days on a "roam like at home" basis and then 5 megabytes. If a person opened their iPad and there were some kind of automatic download or they went on Facebook and there were videos playing, they could lose up to €100. European citizens had to be happy about the "5 + 5 + 5". We had really tough negotiations and then the decision was made. Since May this year, those roaming surcharges have dropped once again by 75%. I would like to say people were quite happy about this decision during the holidays. The decision was made that from 15 June next year those roaming surcharges will be totally abolished, but we promised to agree on wholesale reform.

We also promised to implement the fair use principles. Why are those fair use principles needed? There is a situation where people from some countries visit southern European countries more often than people from southern European countries visit Scandinavia, for example. In those countries, the people are not ready to pay much more for domestic calls or data just because of roaming. We have to set some kind of safeguards to avoid free-riding. The Commission has not made a decision in this area yet. Those articles were about a proposal about consultations, which will last for three months and this is about safeguards. It was also written that, as a minimum, 90 days of surcharge-free roaming phone calls will be covered. I am sure the big companies that have started this practice already will continue. They will say that during the entire year there will be no more roaming surcharges. Even for those, safeguards will be needed.

It can happen theoretically that people from countries where prices are at a very low level will subscribe to and consume these services in countries where labour costs are at a much higher level. Some kind of safeguards will be needed. I do not want to protect this concrete figure of 90 days. I do not think there is a big difference between 90 days and 180 days. A 90-day figure will cover 99.9% of all these cases. We can discuss those issues. There has to be compromise. I remind the committee that service providers and member states were not ready to move on from the 5+5+5 proposal. Strong support is coming from the European Parliament, but it is not enough. We need to have consensus among member states. Then the European Commission and the European Parliament will have to share the same understanding. I think Europeans deserve the total abolition of roaming surcharges. I am sure it will happen in practice on 15 June 2017.

On the geoblocking of programmes, we will make our second copyright reform proposal during the next couple of weeks. I am not ready to say exactly when this will happen. We would also like to propose some changes in the cable and satellite directive. We would like to extend the country of origin principle to IPTV. This would mean that broadcasters with clear rights in one country will be able to send their content through satellite or IPTV to Ireland so that people here can enjoy it. This is our aim. The proposal is not ready yet. We are in the process. According to the broadcasters, 65% more content will be available across borders if we implement the changes in this plan. I do not think that is enough. We can do more. I think we can double the volume of content that is available for our people across borders. According to our proposal, we will protect creators and will provide better and fairer remuneration to them.

I would like to speak about Ireland and digital development. I was the mayor of the second-largest town in Estonia for six years. I spent nine years as Prime Minister of Estonia. Ireland was always a really good example for me and for all Estonians. When we made our reforms in Estonia, we copied the Irish example. Ireland's very liberal model of the economy was a dream of every Estonian. Estonia is now doing relatively well in digital media, for example. According to this index, we are ranked seventh.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Estonians caught up fast. They must be good learners.

Mr. Andrus Ansip:

We wanted to keep our tax system simple. Tax rates are at quite a low level. We practically did not set any deductions, exceptions or exemptions. It has to be simple, transparent and easy for everybody to understand.

On the Apple case, I do not think I am able to add anything new to the arguments that have been made available over the past week. I think the situation will be a little different when we publish this case. It is up to the Irish Government to push the button in that regard. The Commission is ready to do it right now. The Irish Government has to be absolutely sure that we will not make public any confidential tax or business secrets, etc. It takes time. More legal clarity will be really good. I am absolutely sure this case will provide such clarity for Ireland, the EU and the whole world.

I would like to speak about co-investment in access to high-speed broadband. I have already described our plans to attract investment to build up fibre networks in rural areas where population density is not high enough to attract such investment on the basis of today's rules. My understanding is that Ireland is moving in the right direction, as I said at the outset, but we have to turn the whole of Europe in the same direction. I would like to protect those first movers or first investors. Competition has to stay as a central principle, but in some cases we have to protect those who take huge risks. I will give an example. The service provided by the incumbent telecoms service provider in a town in one western European country was not good at all. The incumbent company was not prepared to improve the situation, so local investors decided to invest to create a better Internet service. The incumbent then decided that new competitors were not needed. Of course it had enough funds to kill the local initiative. I do not think that is fair. We have to find something to protect first movers. I repeat that competition has to stay as a general principle.

When we make our telecoms proposal in the coming weeks, we will set new goals, aims and objectives for the EU.

These include achieving gigabit connection for main social drivers and a 100 Mbps connection for all households, etc. Investment of at least €500 billion will be needed to achieve this objective. According to analyses, if we do not change our rules and try to attract more investment, there will be a gap. According to some concrete analyses, this will amount to €155 billion of the €500 million investment required. We have to at least try to cover this gap. As I stated, the European Commission's aim is the same as Ireland's aim. Ireland wishes to provide a high-speed network throughout the country and we aim to cover the entire territory of the European Union with a high-speed network.

Hildegarde Naughton (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Ansip and his colleagues for appearing before the joint committee for this worthwhile engagement. I propose that we forward the transcript of the meeting to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources for his information and consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed. I also propose that the committee publish the submissions received. Is that agreed? Agreed. We wish Mr. Ansip, as the project team leader, every success in his endeavours to establish a digital single market and we look forward to reaping its benefits, both here and in Europe as a whole.

I propose to suspend the meeting briefly, before resuming in private session to deal with a few housekeeping matters. Is that agreed? Agreed.