14 Digital content programme
| (25384)
6431/04
COM(04) 96
+ ADD 1
| Draft Decision establishing a multiannual Community programme to make digital content in Europe more accessible, usable and exploitable
Commission Staff Working Paper Ex ante Evaluation: Multiannual Community programme to make digital content in Europe more accessible, usable and exploitable (eContentplus) (2005-2008)
|
| Legal base | Article 157(3) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 20 May 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xiii (2003-04), para 3 (17 March 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 10 June 2004 Telecoms Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
14.1 The existing eContent programme runs for a four-year
period up to January 2005. Its objective is to stimulate the
production, use and distribution of European digital content on
global networks, by encouraging the growth of a competitive EU
digital content industry. The mid-term evaluation was generally
positive. One of the main recommendations to the Commission was
that the commercial dimension of the projects should be emphasised.[40]
The Commission proposal
14.2 The proposal is for a Decision to establish a four-year programme,
to be called eContentplus, which would build on,
but not replicate, the eContent programme. Its overall
aim is to make digital content in the EU more accessible, usable
and exploitable, facilitating the creation and diffusion of information
and knowledge, in areas of public interest, such as public sector
information, learning content, scientific and scholarly content,
and content from cultural institutions. It focuses on the end-users,
whether citizens, students, researchers, businesses or re-users
of documents wishing to enhance and exploit digital content resources
for economic return. Its social aims relate to areas where market
forces are not sufficient to ensure that citizens and user organisations
can benefit from content offerings made accessible by the latest
technologies. Its overall emphasis is on quality content
that serves to disperse information and diffuse knowledge, not
just more content.
14.3 The proposed reference amount is €163 million, compared
to €100 million for eContent, covering a period of
four years (2005-2008).
Previous consideration
14.4 We first considered the Decision on 17 March, on the basis
of an Explanatory Memorandum from the Minister for Energy, e-Commerce
and Postal Services at the Department of Trade and Industry (Mr
Stephen Timms), in which he outlined the Government's concerns.
There was no argument over the aims, or over the relevance of
the issues to the eEurope agenda. Rather, the doubts were,
firstly, whether a new programme in this area was justified, in
the absence of any Commission evidence that the market would not
address the requirements of the users identified and that action
by the public sector was needed at any level, including the EU
level; the impression instead being that, because the eContent
programme was positively evaluated, there was a strong presumption
that there should be a follow-on. And secondly, its expense —
both as to the amount (€163 million, compared to €100
million for eContent) and the extent to which it could
effectively prejudge decisions on the 2007-2008 years of the next
Financial Perspective. However, the Minister noted that there
appeared to be little sympathy in other Member States for ceasing
this funding and that, if the Government was unable to attract
support for shortening the programme to two years, it would seek
to limit its scope and scale.
14.5 We noted that it is all too easy for EC programmes
to become institutionalised, and welcomed the Government's decision
to challenge the need for a new programme in this area. Given
a tendency for the Council to be too ready to call for and to
endorse action by the public sector to improve competitiveness
in the EU, we felt that a convincing case was needed for the activities
proposed to be supported by public money, which requirement was
not met by positive evaluation of the earlier programme alone.
We also agreed that the Government should ask the Commission
why a substantial increase in the annual budget for the programme
in 2007 and 2008 was justified. Pending a further report from
the Minister on the progress of negotiations on this proposal,
we held the document under scrutiny.[41]
The Government's view
14.6 As the Minister's letter of 20 May details,
despite its best endeavours, the Government has been a lone voice
in questioning the rationale for a further publicly-funded programme.
Moreover, there is no appetite, even on the part of those Member
States which joined the UK in seeking budgetary restraint, for
entering into the conciliation procedure with the European Parliament.
They and other Member States are determined that the full four-year
programme will go ahead as proposed; and the best budgetary outcome
is likely to be €140 million, the only likely alternative
being the full €163 million originally proposed. Having
secured wording to ensure that the annual appropriations are consistent
with the Financial Perspective in 2007-08, the Government is disposed
to preserve unity with its "budgetary allies" around
the lowest available budgetary outcome.
Conclusion
14.7 This is in many ways regrettable, since neither
the original doubts as to the necessity for another publicly-funded
programme, nor the expense of the proposed programme, have been
properly addressed or satisfactorily resolved. However, the Commission
will now have to produce an evaluation report by January 2007
at the latest, including reporting on the consistency of the amount
for 2007-08 with the Financial Perspective and, if necessary,
taking steps to ensure such consistency. We trust that, when
the time comes, the Government will ensure that the Commission
is held firmly to this commitment.
14.8 Though not even half a loaf, a few slices
are arguably better than no bread at all, and that would appear
to be the only alternative. In these circumstances, we now clear
the document.
40 (24957) 13644/03; see HC 63-xxxvi (2002-03), para
13 (5 November 2003). Back
41
See headnote. Back
|
