1 Interoperability for
Pan-European eGovernment Services
| (27974)
14645/06
COM(06) 611
| Commission Communication: Evaluation of the implementation of the IDABC programme
|
| Legal base | Article 156(1) EC, followed by Decision 2004/387/EC
|
| Document originated | 24 October 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 3 November 2006
|
| Department | Cabinet Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 16 November 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see HC 34-xxiii (2005-06) para 12 (29 March 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
1.1 IDABC stands for Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment
Services to public Administrations, Business and Citizens. According
to its website, it takes advantage of the opportunities offered
by information and communication technologies to:
- encourage and support the delivery of cross-border public
sector services to citizens and enterprises in Europe;
- improve efficiency and collaboration between European public
administrations; and
- contribute to making Europe an attractive place to live, work
and invest.
1.2 To achieve its objectives, IDABC:
"issues recommendations, develops solutions and provides
services that enable national and European administrations to
communicate electronically while offering modern public services
to businesses and citizens in Europe". The programme also
"provides financing to projects addressing European policy
requirements, thus improving cooperation between administrations
across Europe. National public sector policy-makers are represented
in the IDABC programme's management committee and in many expert
groups. This makes of the programme a unique forum for the coordination
of national e-government policies. By using state-of-the-art information
and communication technologies, developing common solutions and
services and by finally, providing a platform for the exchange
of good practice between public administrations, IDABC contributes
to the eEurope objective of modernising the European public sector".[1]
1.3 The IDABC Programme continues on from the work done under
the IDA[2] and IDA II programmes,
which have established a number of data exchange networks between
Member States, as required by European legislation, in areas such
as employment, health, agriculture, fisheries, statistics and
competition.
1.4 The IDABC programme includes both Projects of Common Interest,
which implement European eGovernment services in specific policy
areas (e.g. education) and Horizontal Measures (HMs), which
implement infrastructure services and European eGovernment services
not linked to specific policy areas and perform strategic and
support activities. HMs are grouped under four main headings:
- Technology Solutions: addressing basic, common requirements
of many European eGovernment projects: currently network and hosting
services, middleware, security and interoperability guidelines;
- Business Applications: providing specific solutions
for the particular needs or "business" of different
policy areas, including eProcurement, Interactive Policy Making
and the "Your Europe" portal to Services of Public Administrations;
- Spreading Good Practice: including the eGovernment
Observatory and Promoting Open Source Software and OSS-related
activities; and
- Programme Management: activities aimed at improving
the execution of the IDA I and II programmes and preparing the
successor IDABC.
1.5 On 29 March 2006 we considered a Commission Communication
on the IDABC, which noted that while much progress had been made
on all levels of administration in Europe, more effort now needed
to be paid to developing the cross-border dimension of eGovernment
and raising the attention of Member States to the necessary work
to achieve pan-European interoperability of eGovernment services.
For the purposes of the Communication, interoperability was defined
as "the ability of Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) systems and of the business processes they support to exchange
data and to enable information and knowledge to be shared".
We noted that with eGovernment increasingly central to the efficient,
effective and economical delivery of both national and European
policies and services, and increasingly touching everyone's business
and private lives, improving delivery would be crucial to the
attainment both of governments' aspirations and business plans
and of customer satisfaction; though a "next step" rather
than a radical departure, we judged it appropriate to report it
to the House because of the intrinsic importance of its subject
matter and because the picture, in the UK at least, had been mixed
so far.[3]
1.6 On 8 November 2005, the Commission had adopted the first IDABC
work programme for the period 2005 to 2009.[4]
Commission Communication
1.7 The Communication details the mid-term Evaluation of the programme
and sets out recommendations on how the programme should be taken
forward. The evaluation was carried out by the Commission with
the assistance of a consultancy company[5]
and in cooperation with various stakeholders including officials
from Member States. It focused on five main issues:
- Relevance: the extent to which the objectives and aims
of the programme are pertinent to the evolving needs and priorities
at both national and EU level, first and foremost in relation
to the i2010 programme and more generally to those established
by the Lisbon objectives;
- Efficiency: how economically the inputs and action
were converted into outputs and results;
- Effectiveness: whether the results and outputs of the
programme achieved their objectives;
- Utility: whether the results of the programmes compared
with the needs of the target population, and what improvements
might be made; and
- Coherence: the extent to which the actions formed part
of a "holistic" approach within the programme and how
well synergies were achieved between IDABC action and other Community
activities in the area of pan-European eGovernment and infrastructure
services.
1.8 Three cross-cutting issues were also raised during the Evaluation,
relating to:
- the state of progress of actions funded by the programme;
- the coordination and involvement of Member States; and
- the extent to which the recommendations from the evaluation
of the IDA II programme had been met in the implementation of
the IDABC programme.
1.9 The Evaluation's recommendations are:
- Greater attention must be paid to the timing of the evaluations;
- The Commission must ensure that all stakeholders know their
part in the implementation process;
- Efforts should be made at the strategic level of the programme
to gather and disseminate specific and up-to-date information
about users' needs;
- The extent to which IDABC actions are able to comply with
agreed milestones should be closely monitored during the implementation
of the programme in particular to Horizontal Measures; and
- A strategic appraisal of the links between the various EU
programmes with which the EC develops interoperable eGovernment
initiatives should be carried out.
1.10 All in all, the Commission says that "while highlighting
a few shortcomings", the report is "largely positive"
at a time when detailed appraisal is "rather premature",
and says that it will "pay the utmost attention" to
the recommendations.
The Government's view
1.11 In his 16 March 2006 Explanatory Memorandum, the Parliamentary
Secretary at the Cabinet Office (Mr Pat McFadden) finds it "encouraging
that the UK is on the same path as the IDABC Programme in achieving
organisational interoperability across administrations and also
to assist in the drive for efficiency". He gives, as an example,
in line with the work highlighted in Recommendation 5 of the Evaluation,
that:
"the Delivery and Transformation Group [in the Cabinet
Office] has developed a cross-Government Enterprise Architecture
(xGEA). This is a fundamental element of the government's Transformational
Government Strategy. The xGEA will allow us to identify opportunities
to reuse solutions and share across public sector organisations,
so saving resources and driving efficiencies".
1.12 He also says that the Scottish Executive "is proposing
to work with the National Computing Centre (the eGovernment Interoperability
Framework Authority) to help map out the interoperable links between
the big projects and programmes underway in Scotland".
1.13 Although, he notes, the Evaluation:
"confirms that in many cases the projects and measures
are not yet mature enough to realise their objectives, HMG and
the Devolved Administrations look forward to further progress
of the IDABC Programme…. HMG
is broadly in favour of IDA and IDABC as the these programmes
have proven successful in delivering guidelines, a communication
platform and several software tools which are useful for HMG's
European work. Throughout the history of IDA, the European Commission
has been keen to take on board the views of the UK as a leader
in eGovernment and this continues to be the case".
Conclusion
1.14 As the Commission and the Minister rightly
say, the IDABC is at an early stage. Nevertheless, it seems to
us that this evaluation has identified more than "a few shortcomings".
It cannot evaluate efficiency or effectiveness at
all. As regards utility, there seems to be no agreement
on who the target, or targets, should be: whether European public
administrations at all levels, or "whether efforts to satisfy
needs of businesses and citizens should be increased".[6]
The Commission expresses no view. Nor does the Minister. We should
like at least his views on what would seem to be a fundamental
consideration.
1.15 In the section on coherence, the Commission
talks of "a global level of dissatisfaction as regards the
ability to co-ordinate opinions between Member States' representatives
in the PEGSCO and in the sectoral Committees". Given that
the IDABC is all about Member State cooperation with the Commission
and among themselves, this does not sound encouraging. We should
be grateful for the Minister's comments, and for an explanation
of what PEGSCO is and how it operates.
1.16 The Recommendations strengthen the
sense that, while the IDABC may be working well internally, its
external aspects — which would seem to be central to its
purpose — are not. In particular, we wonder:
- why the IDABC Decision was
not amended accordingly, since an evaluation carried out now would
clearly be half-baked (Recommendation 1)?
- why those involved in the
IDABC still need to become "fully aware [of] their roles"
and to be "aware of their roles and responsibilities in the
implementation process" (Recommendations 1 and 2)?;
- on what basis has IDABC
been operating if strategic level information still needs to be
gathered and disseminated about users' needs (Recommendation 3)?
- if a better balance is required
between Horizontal Measures and staff resources, why the Commission
thought it preferable to move the goalposts — the milestones
and deadlines — rather than the staff resources (Recommendation
4)?
- what action the Commission
proposes to take and over what time scale to improve the coherence
of IDABC with other Community pan-European eGovernment programmes
and infrastructure services (Recommendation 4)?
- And, if so, how this is
related to the strategic appraisal "of the links between
the various EU programmes within which the EC develops interoperable
eGovernment initiatives" (Recommendation 5, which is drafted
in such a way that its purpose and scope is incomprehensible to
the lay reader)? and
- above all, how it is possible
to evaluate a programme without at any stage saying what its budget
is, how much has been disbursed and upon what activities?
1.17 We should be grateful if the Minister would
let us have answers to the above questions. In the meantime, we
shall keep the document under scrutiny.
1 http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/home Back
2
Interchange of Data between Administrations Back
3
See headnote Back
4
See http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/5101/3 for the IDABC
work programme 2005-2009 Back
5
Whose report is available at http//ec.europa.eu/idaabc/en/document/5707/3
Back
6
COM(06) 611, page 5 Back
|
