13 "European Information Society
for growth and employment"
| (26841)
12269/05
COM(05) 425
+ ADD 1
| Commission Communication: "eAccessibility"
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 13 September 2005
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 19 September 2005
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 9 November 2005
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-vi (2005-06) para 9 (19 October 2005); also see (26616) 9758/05: HC 34-ii (2005-06), para 1 (13 July 2005)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 1 December 2005 Telecommunications Councils
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
13.1 The key message of the March 2005 Lisbon Strategy mid-term
review was that, despite important progress in several areas,
Europe remained some way behind the original Lisbon Strategy targets,
and had particularly underperformed in the contribution of ICT
to productivity and innovation. In re-launching the Lisbon Strategy
as "a partnership for growth and employment", the March
2005 European Council emphasised the need for Europe to "renew
the basis of its competitiveness, increase its growth potential
and its productivity and strengthen social cohesion, placing the
main emphasis on knowledge, innovation and the optimisation of
human capital".[31]
The European Council said "it is essential to build a fully
inclusive information society, based on widespread use of information
and communication technologies (ICTs) in public services, SMEs
and households. To that end, the i2010 initiative will focus on
ICT research and innovation, content industry development, the
security of networks and information, as well as convergence and
interoperability in order to establish a seamless information
area".[32]
13.2 The Commission's new i2010 strategic framework
proposes three priorities:
i) completion of a Single European Information
Space, promoting an open and competitive internal market;
ii) strengthening innovation and investment in
ICT research, to promote growth and employment; and
iii) achieving an "Inclusive European Information
Society", promoting sustainability and prioritising better
public services and quality of life.
On 13 July we recommended that the Commission's proposals
should be debated in European Standing Committee C, prior to the
December Telecoms Council, which is expected to adopt Conclusions
thereon. The debate took place on 8 November.
The Commission Communication
13.3 This Communication seeks, at least in part,
to address the third objective, of creating an "Inclusive
European Information Society". As described by the Minister
of State for Industry and the Regions (Mr Alun Michael) in his
10 October Explanatory Memorandum: "This Communication aims
to provide a roadmap in the European Union for overcoming the
technical barriers that people with disabilities or other problems
(through ageing for example) experience when trying to participate
in the Information Society. Therefore, its main objective is to
promote a consistent approach to eAccessibility initiatives in
each Member State on a voluntary basis, as well as to foster industry
self-regulation." The Commission proposed a two-year review
period, beginning from September 2005, during which it would benchmark
and monitor whether the European Information Communication Technology
(ICT) market becomes more accessible or not. If it is deemed that
the European ICT market was not sufficiently accessible, then
the Commission propose to use three new approaches to effect change:
a) Considering accessibility requirements for
public ICT procurement contracts;
b) Considering the introduction of certification
schemes for accessible products and services, including the definition
of criteria for testing and evaluation; and
c) Looking to use the 'eAccessibility potential'
of existing European legislation; including directives on Public
Procurement, Electronic Communications Framework, Universal Service,
Radio and Telecommunication Terminals Directive (RTTE) and the
Directive on Employment Equality.
13.4 A follow-up to this Communication is proposed
in late 2007, which will include an evaluation of the outcome
of the approaches proposed in the eAccessibility Communication
via a full Regulatory Impact Assessment, which may consider additional
measures including European-wide legislation if deemed necessary.
13.5 The Minister's Explanatory Memorandum did not
cover the Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2005) 1095 annexed
to the Communication, which is an initial Regulatory Impact Assessment
on the proposals in the Communication. Having noted "a lacklustre
deployment of previously stated EU policy initiatives on eAccessibility
across the European Union", and that some Member States had
gone further than others in putting those policies into practice
via specific national measures, the Annex noted the risks to European
industry of being forced to operate in a fragmented market, with
the consequent loss of competitiveness and effectiveness, and
the greater risk for European consumers of ICT products and services,
particularly for people with disabilities and older people. It
examined three policy options:
"1) 'Business as usual', accepting the current
situation as the equilibrium status quo;
2) 'Coordinate and promote' actions made possible
by fully exploiting the current legislative and regulatory environment;
and
3) 'Legislate', proposing additional legislative
instruments"
The line proposed leans towards option 2: the use
of a number of existing but not yet widely used instruments aimed
at harmonising guidelines, specifications and standards at EU
level leading, for example, to common accessibility requirements
in the ICT domain, to be used in public procurement, certification
and legislation. The annex says: "this option is likely to
be accepted by industry, notwithstanding the fact that the users
and their representatives, although accepting it, would prefer
the stronger option 3, 'Legislate'".
13.6 It then went on to add a word of caution: a
lack of quantitative data made it too early to deliver a detailed
analysis of impacts of the three options, particularly regarding
option 3 "Legislate", which would only be possible after
the results of the evaluation measures foreseen in the Communication
are available.
13.7 We felt that the Minister did not seem to have
any clear views on how each of the three approaches in the Communication
would best suit UK interests, although it is clear that the impact
of both the "Co-ordinate and promote" and the "Legislation"
option could be significant, different and in certain respects
contradictory. He referred to a Conference on the eAcccessibility
Communication, under the UK Presidency, in London on 21 October
2005, to be attended by all appropriate European stakeholders,
which we felt would help in this regard. We asked that he write
to us with his views on the eAccessibility Communication, after
the conference had taken place, and kept the document under scrutiny.
He has now done so.
The Minister's letter
13.8 The Minister says:
"As you are aware, on the 21 October 2005 under
the UK Presidency, the UK Government held a successful conference
on eAccessibility, which looked at what the practical realities
were in the various European Information Communications (ICT)
Sectors (i.e. The Internet, Telecoms, Broadcasting and Electronic
Consumables) for disabled and elderly citizens in Europe using
ICT products and services.
"The UK Government has conveyed to the European
Commission (at the recent UK Presidency eAccessibility Conference)
that even though the Commission has set out a two year review
process (ending September 2007), urgent action is needed on eAccessibility
in the intervening period if we want to make great strides in
tackling this issue. We are therefore pleased that the European
Commission is in the process of tendering for a study in late
2005/early 2006 to measure progress on eAccessibility in Europe.
The European Commission is also in the process of giving a mandate
on eAccessibility to the European Standardisation bodies, which
will help inform its follow up Communication, which is due to
be published in late 2007.
"To gauge the effects of this Communication
on the various stakeholders here in the UK, my officials will
set up a "UK Stakeholder Committee on eAccessibility",
with participants from the UK's ICT businesses, UK Government
and UK NGOs to look at the issue of ICT businesses setting up
a self-regulatory scheme to ensure that their products and services
are made E-accessible within the stated 2-year European Commission
timeframe.
"As I have stated previously the UK Government
sees eInclusion as both an economic and social issue. If we want
Europe including the UK to meet the Lisbon goal of being the most
competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010, then
all citizens must have access to the economic tool that ICT increasing
represents. As I pointed out in my speech at the eAccessibility
Conference, there are some 8 million disabled people in the UK,
joined by a further 82 million in the rest of the European Union,
before we take into account the needs of an ageing European population.
Just as architects are nowadays expected to design out crime,
it is increasingly important for ICT manufacturers and service
providers to design in access (and to design out barriers to access).
"Within the two-year timeframe we will need
to do more on the use of Public Procurement policy to influence
market changes, and especially look at the experiences in America
with regard to the Section 508 eAccessibility requirements that
they have placed on ICT manufacturers and service providers tendering
for Federal and State ICT contracts.
"My officials are currently digesting the recently
published White Paper on eAccessibility from the European Information
Communication Technology Association (EICTA), which was published
on 19 October 2005. This paper points out the concern amongst
the European ICT business community that incompatible regulations
and policies across the globe may fragment the market for eAccessibility
solutions for users. EICTA has also pointed out that it would
like to see the adoption of globally-harmonised open standards.
We will ask the European Commission in its mandate to the European
Standardisation bodies to look into this issue. However, if we
are to meet the stated Lisbon goals on ICT by 2010, then Europe
including the UK cannot wait for negotiations with other regions
and States to take place, with no guarantee that they will succeed
in the foreseeable future. Therefore, a European regional approach
to the needs of our 450 million population currently appears to
be the most attractive option.
"On the question of a possible European eAccessibility
certification and labelling scheme, analysis of any potential
scheme would need to be undertaken. The initial view of these
schemes is that they could lead to increased product or service
costs while giving little practical benefit to the intended target
customers. We will look to see if we can develop a scheme where
the ICT businesses can prove their conformance with some sort
of agreed eAccessibility guidelines which could be demonstrated
in the supplier's declaration.
"The UK Government will put to the European
Commission the view that the Commission would need to provide
a fully costed Regulatory Impact Assessment by late 2007. This
would need to cover the various options outlined in the Communication
which were not sufficiently covered in the draft Regulatory Impact
Assessment that was appended to the recent Communication."
Conclusion
13.9 When we recommended that the overarching
"i2010 initiative" be debated in European Standing Committee
C, our major concern was that the House would have the opportunity,
prior to 1 December 2005 Telecoms Council meeting, both to hear
the Minister report on the outcome of various consultations he
was planning on it and to express its views in an area that everyone
recognises will be crucial to the EU's economic prosperity and
social cohesion. We considered this further Communication relevant
to that debate, and asked for the Minister's views before the
debate took place. It is regrettable that he was unable to provide
them. Moreover, there is still no clear indication as to which
of the Commission's proposed three courses of action he favours
or opposes.
13.10 That said, it would seem that his preference
is for "Co-ordinate and promote" rather than "Legislate",
which we endorse. It is gratifying that a comprehensive "UK
Stakeholder Group on e-Accessibility" will focus on a self-regulatory
scheme for UK ICT products and services, and that the European
focus will be on self-certification against industry-agreed guidelines,
rather than on a European certification and labelling scheme.
Working with industry at the heart of the process has been fundamental
to the growth of the ICTs, and should remain the preferred way
forward unless it can be demonstrated that legislation is the
only effective option.
13.11 It is also gratifying that the Commission
has been encouraged to commission a proper study to measure progress
on e-Acccessibility, and will be further encouraged to produce
a fully-costed Regulatory Impact Assessment of the options outlined
in the Communication by the end of 2007.
13.12 We now clear the document.
31 Presidency Conclusions - Brussels, 22 and 23 March
2005, para 5. Back
32
ibid, para 18. Back
| 
