15 Trans European Networks: The eTEN
Programme
| (26789)
11757/05
COM(05) 354
| Commission Communication: Mid-Term Review of the e-TEN programme
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 18 April 2006
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 34-vi (2005-06), para 8 (19 October 2005) and HC 34-ix (2005-06), para 8 (9 November 2005). Also see HC 34-i (2005-06), para 20 (4 July 2005) and HC 34-xx (2005-06), para 9 (1 March 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | —
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
15.1 According to the Commission's website, "eTEN is a European
Union programme that seeks to extend the potential benefits of
the single European market and the information society to all
European citizens by facilitating the widest possible participation
in the new knowledge economy". It aims at funding electronic
services, not infrastructure. It is designed to help the deployment
of telecommunication network-based services, or e-services, with
a trans-European dimension. It focuses on public services in five
areas — e-government, e-health, e-inclusion, e-learning
and trust and security — that would help make new on-line
services available across the European Union. It runs from 2003
to 2006, with a budget of €170.5m over four years.
The Commission Communication
15.2 The Commission Communication is a summary of a report carried
out by independent consultants into the operation of the eTEN
programme for the period from July 2000 to June 2004. It examines
the way the programme has been carried out, and the impact that
it has made, together with some recommendations as to how it can
do things better in the future in terms of operation and in orientating
the programme so that it has maximum relevance. It also includes
the Commission's response to the findings and recommendations.
15.3 In his 29 September 2005 Explanatory Memorandum,
the Minister of State for Industry and the Regions (Alun Michael)
said the programme underwent a major re-orientation in July 2002,
when it was re-aligned "to become the major support mechanism
for projects that were intended to take forward the Europe 2005
agenda". The Minister went on to say: "the Commission
accepts the report as being a fair assessment of the programme
during the period, and welcomes the report's conclusion that the
programme is now well run and strategically relevant to Information
Society policies. It also recognises the need for the programme
to evolve further in order to meet the different demands in the
future".
15.4 When we considered the Commission Communication
on 19 October, we felt that the Minister's limited comments were
in line with the rather disappointing nature of his Explanatory
Memorandum, which said nothing about the wider context in which
the eTEN programme is located — not only its provenance
but, more importantly, its proposed future. A glance at the eTEN
website showed how ambitious its aspirations were. But there was
little in this Mid-Term Review that suggested that, after the
best part of a decade, the eTEN programme really knew how well
it had done or where it was going. Yet it seemed likely to appear,
in an expanded format, in the proposed €4.2 billion Competitiveness
and Innovation Programme, as part of the €800 million ICT
Policy Support element. When the Committee considered the CIP
on 4 July, [35]
it seemed that the Minister and we had the same misgivings about
an expensive and unconvincing programme, and we urged him to approach
it with appropriate rigour in the subsequent discussions —
the sort of rigour that seems lacking in the consideration of
eTEN.
15.5 While we awaited further information on the
outcome of the CIP discussions, we asked the Minister for his
views on the effectiveness of the e-TEN programme in terms of
delivering concrete, sought-after outcomes; if he believed that
there should be an e-TEN-type programme under the CIP; and, if
so, why; and we kept the document under scrutiny, while considering
it relevant to the debate on "i2010 — a European Information
Society for growth and employment" that took place on 8 November
2005.[36]
15.6 The Minister responded in his letter of 3 November
2005, which we considered in our Ninth Report. We felt that while
the insights there (which might perhaps have been better offered
in his original Explanatory Memorandum) could from one perspective
be seen as refreshingly honest, in acknowledging that "over
the years significant amounts of money have been spent without
any real evidence that a real difference has been made",
they could also be seen as indicative of one of the fundamental
problems of such EU expenditure — that, this diagnosis notwithstanding,
it was nonetheless seen as inevitable that "such an element
in the CIP, focused on supporting i2010, will receive strong support
from most Member States and the European Parliament", in
the face of which the Minister seemed to suggest that the best
that could be hoped for was that sufficient of the Minister's
colleagues would share his professed determination to look very
carefully at what was proposed. However, as he himself said, the
present programme was too well-funded for a Commission facilitation
role whereas "increasing it substantially would need to be
on the basis of evidence of need that does not appear to be there".
We considered this an unsatisfactory response, and asked the Minister
to explain to us in person why he did not propose to oppose further
expenditure in this area, and in the meantime kept the document
under scrutiny.
15.7 That evidence session was finally scheduled
for 26 April 2006.
The Minister's letter
15.8 In his 18 April 2006 letter, the Minister says:
"I thought I should write to you again in
advance of my scheduled appearance before your Committee on 26
April 2006 on the subject of the eTEN programme, since our positions
are very close indeed and it may help if I explain why that is
my perception.
"From Michael Connarty's[37]
letter of 16 November 2005, it appears that the key remaining
question to which the Committee sought an explanation is "...
why, in the face of the evidence you cite, you do not propose
to oppose further expenditure in the area". Actually, as
my earlier replies have shown, we do oppose further expenditure
on an approach that does not work. However, it is a bit more complicated
in practice as I shall explain. Essentially we are of one mind
with your Committee that the eTEN programme has failed to demonstrate
that it has made a real impact. We are also in agreement that
further expenditure in this area should be resisted where it resembles
or repeats the existing eTEN Programme and I intended to make
this abundantly clear in my letter of 3rd November.
"Later, you will recall that I wrote to
you about the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme on 13 February
this year in response to your Committee's comments on the ICT
Policy Support Programme aspect of the Competitiveness and Innovation
Programme. In my letter I set out the Government's argument in
favour of some of the ICT Policy Support Programme but not all
of it. A key point to make clear here is that it is not just the
objectives of the existing eTEN programme that are being incorporated
into the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme.
"These are being merged with those of MODINIS
and eContentplus into a single ICT policy strand.[38]
I pointed out in my letter that one of the advantages of this
new Framework Programme is that any of its many instruments can
be used to fulfil any objective. This means that the Management
Committee responsible for progressing the ICT objectives (which
will be made up of Member State experts) will be able to decide
on a case by case basis how actions to fulfil the objectives should
be undertaken using a wider range of available tools than is the
case for the existing programmes. I think this approach is important
because it illustrates that the roll out of those objectives that
were previously part of eTEN will not necessarily be the
same under the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme. The key
point to underline is that eTEN objectives (which are worthwhile)
can be taken forward in the Competitiveness and Innovation
Programme in a way and within a context that does not resemble
the existing eTEN programme.
"An additional point that is relevant here
is that as a direct result of UK officials' interventions and
resulting amendments, the evaluation process for the Competitiveness
and Innovation Programme will be robust. As a consequence, I am
confident that by the 2009 interim evaluation we will have a good
indication of effectiveness and what further changes should be
made by the Management Committees to improve impact.
"A related issue which may help meet the
Committee's concerns is the recent agreement on the Financial
Perspectives. As I stated in February, the Government's preliminary
view was that the ICT Policy Support Programme does not need a
budget of £800 million as proposed by the Commission last
year. We have not yet had final confirmed figures for the allocation
of funds across all CIP objectives, but the Commission confirmed
last week that the overall budget will be reduced by nearly £930
million.
"The Commission is still assessing what
this means to the proposal, as part of the process of finalising
the allocation of funding across the whole programme, though my
officials understand this is likely to be similar to the split
set out in the Commission's original proposal. Once these figures
are confirmed I will write and update you with the Government's
view.
"Within the context of that reduced budget
I can confirm that my officials have said in Council that the
UK does not think eTEN objectives should be funded generously.
The UK was the only Member State to say so. As well as being alone
in our stance, we are now operating under two different sets of
constraints.
"Firstly, we have to be realistic about
the likely success of any call by the UK to reduce spend in ICT
actions. This requires a realistic assessment of the positions
of other Member States, the European Parliament and the enormous
political will behind the wider Competitiveness and Innovation
Programme which includes the ICT actions. For example, Heads of
State at the 2005 Spring Council called for improved take up of
ICTs by SMEs and for the i2010 Strategy to focus on JOT innovation.
Indeed, the UK is a leading proponent of that wider agenda. Promoting
ICT developments across Europe was at the heart of our work during
the UK presidency of the EU. The Programme as a whole has a key
role, as is explicitly stated in the revised text. The limitations
of this wider political landscape were set out in my letter of
3 November 2005. Having said that, I believe it is entirely consistent
for us also to resist any extension of the eTEN activities and
I will keep you informed on any progress we achieve.
"Secondly, we understand that revised text
of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme proposal which
was approved by Partial General Approach at the March Competitiveness
Council (and which the UK endorsed) was generally acceptable to
the European Parliament. As a consequence the Austrian Presidency
has come under considerable pressure from the Parliament for the
Competitiveness and Innovation Programme to be agreed at the earliest
opportunity — that is at the May Competitiveness Council.
The Parliament will also be voting on it in Committee and Plenary
in early May. On this timetable delegations will only have very
limited further opportunity to discuss the proposal. I understand
that the Commission intends to present its complete budget split
for the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme at the meeting
of COREPER on the 26th April.
"My officials have already placed a scrutiny
reserve on the whole budget and specifically on the funding for
the eTEN objectives to indicate that we want to look at these
in more detail before agreeing them. However, given that the Government
is content with the text of the proposal and the scale of the
overall budget cut, we do not wish to stand in its way. As the
lead Presidency that so successfully initiated amendments, the
Government would prefer to endorse the final proposal. In any
event it would not be possible for the UK alone to block progress
as it only requires a qualified majority in Council. I will write
to you again as soon as possible with further details once they
are known in order to address any outstanding queries for your
Committee.
"I hope that my comments here will allow
your Committee to agree that the outstanding question under Scrutiny
of the Mid-Term Review of the eTEN programme has been answered
satisfactorily by our stated intentions to pursue the approach
on which you and we are agreed as long as there is a chance of
achieving the desired outcomes."
Conclusion
15.9 In essence, the Minister suggests that there
would be little point in his giving evidence, in that he would
not be able to enlighten the Committee further or to hold up a
CIP with an eTEN-type programme as one of its three components
— a CIP that, as the result of UK endeavours, will be smaller
and with the prospect of being better managed and better evaluated
than either its predecessors or as originally proposed by the
Commission.
15.10 We agree. But we remind the Minister (as
he himself acknowledges) that we await answers to the other queries
we raised about the CIP in our 20th Report (essentially
regarding how complementarity will be achieved, and overlap avoided,
between the Structural Funds, the 7th RTD Framework
Programme and the CIP, given the similar scope of the European
Regional Development Fund and the CIP).[39]
15.11 We also hope that we, or our successors,
will be able to see in the Mid-Term Review of the CIP the improved
outcomes and assessment process, especially in the ICT Policy
Support Programme, that the Minister is confident will now ensue,
and which was so lacking in the e-Ten programme. We look to him
or his successor to pay particular attention to these considerations
when the time comes to report this matter to the House.
15.12 We now clear the document.
35 HC 34-i (2005-06), para 20 (4 July 2005). Back
36
Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee, 8 November 2005,
cols. 3-22. Back
37
The acting Chairman on that day. Back
38
MODINIS provides financial support for the implementation of the
eEurope 2005 Action Plan: monitoring and comparison of performance;
dissemination of good practice; analysis and strategic discussion
and the improvement of network and information security. eContentplus
is a market oriented programme which aims to support the production,
use and distribution of European digital content and to promote
linguistic and cultural diversity on the global networks. Back
39
HC 34-xx (2005-06), para 9 (1 March 2006). Back
|
