8 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
|
| Department | Cabinet Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 17 May 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 41-xii (2006-07), para 2 (7 March 2007) and HC 41-iv (2006-07), para 1 (14 December 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
8.1 The IDABC Programme continues on from the work done under
the IDA (Interchange of Data between Administrations) 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. The IDABC Programme is divided into two areas
— Projects of Common Interest and Horizontal Measures. Projects
of Common Interest aim to help implement Community legislation
and improve inter-institutional cooperation and Horizontal Measures
aim to establish pan-European eGovernment and infrastructure services,
particularly those promoting interoperability.
Commission Communication
8.2 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[25]
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 actions
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.
8.3 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.
8.4 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.
8.5 All in all, the Commission said that "while highlighting
a few shortcomings", the report was "largely positive"
at a time when detailed appraisal was "rather premature",
and said that it would "pay the utmost attention" to
the recommendations.
8.6 We considered the Communication on 14 December 2006, together
with an Explanatory Memorandum from the Parliamentary Secretary
at the Cabinet Office (Mr Pat McFadden), whose brief comments
were largely restricted to saying how well the UK was doing, and
without suggesting that this had much to do with the IDABC.
8.7 As the Commission and the Minister rightly said, the IDABC
is at an early stage. Nevertheless, it seemed to us that this
evaluation had identified more than "a few shortcomings".
It was unable to evaluate efficiency or effectiveness
at all. As regards utility, there seemed 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".[26]
The Commission expressed no view. Nor did the Minister. We felt
that we should have had at least his views on what seemed to be
a fundamental consideration.
8.8 In the section on coherence, the Commission talked
of "a global level of dissatisfaction as regards the ability
to coordinate 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 did not sound encouraging. We therefore
asked for the Minister's comments, and for an explanation of what
PEGSCO is and how it operates.
8.9 The Recommendations strengthened the sense that, while
the IDABC may be working well internally, its external aspects
— which would seem to be central to its purpose —
were not. In particular, we wondered:
- 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 needed 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 IDABC had been operating if strategic level
information still needed to be gathered and disseminated about
users' needs (Recommendation 3)?
- if a better balance was 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 proposed 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 was drafted in such a way that its purpose and scope
was incomprehensible to the lay reader)? and
- above all, how it was possible to evaluate a programme without
at any stage saying what its budget is, how much has been disbursed
and upon what activities?
8.10 In the meantime, we kept the document under scrutiny.[27]
The Minister's letter of 20 February 2007
8.11 The Minister described the IDABC Programme as "complex",
attempting to coordinate the demands and priorities of 27 Member
States on highly complicated IT infrastructure systems and studies
covering a wide range of areas from agriculture to statistics
— an environment whose scope is "ever changing",
with the IDABC programme needing "to adapt quickly and pragmatically
within the boundaries of the Decision which often results in delays
to projects".
8.12 He then sought to answer the specific points raised by us
as set out in our Report of 7 March 2007.[28]
He explained that PEGSCO is the Pan-eGovernment Services Committee:
a Member State committee designed to assist the European Commission
with the management of the IDABC Programme (following the Decision
of the European Parliament on 28 April 2004), which meets approximately
three times a year and primarily gives opinion on funding and
relevance of the IDABC programme. He felt that work in the PEGSCO
was "positive"; "on the whole" Member States
were extremely cooperative in the negotiation process with the
Commission; we were asked to bear in mind "the complex issues
surrounding differing environments of ICT application across Member
States. "Technical architectures, semantics and processes"
varied from administration to administration, which was part of
the challenge faced when agreeing on unilateral understanding
of ICT projects, and a challenge the UK faced internally, where
the Cabinet Office had "begun the task of improving the network
of UK stakeholders in the IDABC programme, albeit with limited
[resources]".
8.13 The Minister then turned to questions concerning the Conclusions
from the Evaluation, which are set out in detail in our immediately
previous Report.[29]
8.14 The Minister concluded by noting that detailed information
on the budget for the IDABC programme was to be found in the full
Evaluation and referred us to the IDABC website.[30]
OUR ASSESSMENT
8.15 Though the Minister's comments were now more extensive,
they were no more reassuring. We looked to him to provide
us with financial information about the programme, not
refer us to a report that we do not have and a website where we
may find it. We also expected an Explanatory Memorandum on an
evaluation of the implementation of this (or any) programme to
contain an assessment of whether the programme at least looked
as though it was on course to deliver its objectives and in a
way that provides value for money.
8.16 Instead, references to the programme being in its early stages,
being "complex" and in an "ever-changing"
environment seemed to be laying the ground for delay. Definite
examples of benefits to all customers could not yet be measured
— nor were there examples of any benefits to any
customers. Indeed, the Minister seemed to suggest that his and
other Member State officials could not even agree on "what
pan-European eGovernment services to Citizens and Businesses"
actually were. He asserted that they did provide the indirect
benefit to the taxpayer of efficient and effective procedures
across European borders — but gave no examples. Though in
its early stages, the IDABC programme had already undergone three
revisions. We assumed that this was all meant to be reassuring:
instead, it served only to call to mind an ill-starred domestic
track record of Government ICT projects over many years.
8.17 Nor were his remarks about the Commission's response thus
far — examined in detail in our immediately previous Report
— at all reassuring. Member States now had "confidence"
that the different bodies of the Commission were "aware of
their ongoing eGovernment work". If so, we wondered what
the situation was hitherto — were they unaware, and instead
operating in unconnected "silos"? Other changes by the
Commission seemed to inspire nothing more than "hope"
that they would "ultimately" show benefit.[31]
8.18 We also noted that there was still no information about what
the Strategic Appraisal would seek to do, when it would take place
and what timescale it would have.
8.19 All in all, we continued to be left with a strong impression
of drift and wishful thinking, and of a general lack of a firm
grip by Member States or the Commission; with no clear idea, beyond
generalities, of what the programme was supposed to achieve, or
what it might have achieved so far; nor any idea of what resources
had been devoted to it. So, in the hope of being corrected, we
again asked the Minister to provide the sort of information, assessment
and clear forward vision that would set our minds at rest, and
continued to keep the document under scrutiny.
The Minister's letter of 17 May 2007
8.20 In his further letter, the Minister begins by noting that
at present there are 19 Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) and
24 Horizontal Measures (HMs), a selection of which he sets out
in the Annex to his letter, and which he says "demonstrate
evidence that IDABC delivers on its fundamental objective to improve
efficiencies between Member States' administrations and bring
practical benefits to European citizens and businesses".[32]
IDABC is, he says, "demonstrating that it delivers on the
objectives of "encouraging and supporting cross-border public
sector services to citizens and businesses", "improving
the efficiency and collaboration between European administrations",
and "contributing in making Europe an attractive place to
live, work and invest". He then lists "the recent highlights
of 2006-07 that were reported to my officials at a recent PEGSCO
meeting:
— The
launch of the HEALTH-EU portal in May. The EU public health
portal creates mechanisms and systems for the sharing and transfer
of data information and experience on health, enabling data transfer
between international organisations, MS, experts and citizens;
— Your
Europe release 2 launched
in July. Your Europe is a multilingual public information service
portal for citizens and enterprises intending to carry out cross-border
activities within the EU. Examples of the services provided for
citizens include moving to a new country, information on schooling,
social security and finding employment. For enterprises it provides
details on accounting regulations, public procurement opportunities,
taxation laws, etc;
— sTESTA
contract signed in September. sTESTA, which stands for 'secured
Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations',
is dedicated to inter-administrative requirements and providing
guaranteed performance levels and security. The Commission has
recently signed a contract with the consortium Equant/Hewlett-Packard
for the provision of the infrastructure, replacing several existing
data communication infrastructures at EU level;
— EUlisses
portal (social security rights) launched in December. EUlisses
constitutes a multilingual web portal, which gives easy access
to EU and national information on the social security rights and
obligations of citizens on the move in Europe and consolidates
national and European information sources in one place. The development
of this portal has taken considerable time and effort by MS and
the Commission. The progress of EUlisses is supported and monitored
by the DWP in the UK;
— AMIS-QUOTA
first phase launched January 07. The system is intended to improve
the management of tariff quotas as laid down in EU regulations.
The current management system is based mainly on fax communications
and manual management. AMIS-QUOTA will build a structured IT system
to support the management of DG AGRI tariff quotas and public
information on the Europa website; and
— EUPL
adopted by the European Commission in January 07. The European
Union Public Licence means that for the first time, the European
Union has published a free/open source licence to use it in order
to distribute some of its own software".
8.21 He then answers other points raised by us as
follows:
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
"Since the last update to the work programme,
the grand total budget for the IDABC programme is currently at
€78,931,597 (rounded to the nearest Euro), broken down into:
- 2005 = €13,899, 915 (€4,400,545
for PCIs & €9,499,370 for HMs)
- 2006 = €29,187,682 (€3,865,699
for PCIs & €25,321,982 for HMs)
- 2007 = €12,579,000 (€3,610,000
for PCIs & €8,969,000 for HMs)
- 2008 = €15,620,000 (€1,775,000
for PCIs & €13,845,000)
- 2009 = €7,645,000 (€0
for PCIs & €7,645,000)
CHANGES TO THE WORK PROGRAMME
"As the Committee noted, the rolling work
programme has undergone a number of revisions. If the IDABC programme
is to remain relevant, then there will need to be regular changes
to the work programme as priorities change over time.
"My officials are fully involved in the
PEGSCO where decisions on funding and direction of the work programme
are made.
"In November 2005, the European Commission adopted
the first IDABC work programme for the period 2005 — 2009.
"On 28 February 2006, the European Commission
adopted the second revision of the work programme, and included
—
- Minor revisions focusing on
updated actions of a number of projects (Protectus, Open Source
Software Repository, Quality Management and the Study into the
financing and management options for cross-border eGovernment).
"The latest revision of the rolling work
programme was adopted on the 14th August 2006, and
included:-
- Up to date descriptions of
all IDABC funded projects;
- Incorporation of Manchester
eGovernment Ministerial Declaration;
- Introduced 5 new actions; and
- Removed 3 actions which had
either been completed or withdrawn from the work programme.
"Due to a number of changes in the work
programme since August 2006, especially with the welcomed realignment
(as set out below) and cooperation within the European Commission,
the Commission will ask Member States to agree on the fourth revision
at the next PEGSCO meeting in May.
ALIGNMENT TO I2010
"While i2010 outlines the policy objectives
of the future of eGovernment in Europe, IDABC provides the practical
solutions that support not only the objectives under the Manchester
Declaration but other projects under taken by other Services.
As referred to in my previous correspondence, the IDABC work programme
is increasingly being aligned to the objectives of i2010, and
one of the drivers for the changes to the work programme has been
this welcome adjustment. Change cannot happen immediately and
DGIT and DGINFSO have actively continuously ensured that they
are using the optimal use of resources and experience located
within the different programmes, creating synergies through work-sharing,
co-ordination and co-operation. My officials have raised the concerns
regarding this issue with DGIT and DGINFSO and are reassured that
alignment is taking place.
"With the establishment of the ICT Policy
Support Programme which is embedded in the Competitiveness and
Innovation Programme (CIP), three existing programmes (eContent+,
Modinis and eTEN) and the activities of the Commission's eGovernment
Unit were merged.
"This new programme, which runs from 2007
— 2013 aims at bringing an integrated and consistent strategic
approach to support the aims of eGovernment in i2010. The CIP
programme is not a policy programme and does not attempt to identify
actions or solutions which the Commission or MS should implement.
It is a support programme which enables MS to test the feasibility
of their technology in real world conditions, with an emphasis
on incorporating interoperability of services across national
borders and between MS.
"There are a large number of projects that
predate i2010 but remain under the IDABC work programme. Most,
if not all of the PCIs would not be able to continue if the IDABC
programme were to be fully aligned to i2010. IDABC is best placed
to run these complex projects due to the level of expertise in
DGIT. If the programme was fully aligned with i2010 some valuable
PCIs would be taken up by individual DGs who are not as well equipped.
By coordinating EU-level IT projects under one work programme,
Member States and the European Commission are able to benefit
from the IT professionalism and project management that IDABC
retains.
"The Commission is showing evidence of increased
synergies (where appropriate) between the two programmes, for
example MS and the Commission have already agreed on areas where
the IDABC can assist the i2010 programme.
"The judgement of my officials is that following
the reorganisation the situation is improving.
"The Commission's Communication on the Evaluation
of the programme stated that a Strategic Appraisal at this stage
of the programme would be premature and therefore any details
of such an appraisal are unavailable at this stage. The Commission
has carried out a sustainability study that assessed options and
possible combinations available for finding a long-term, viable
management and financing solution for the operation of infrastructure
services currently managed by IDABC. At the last PEGSCO meeting
(March 2007), MS representatives were presented with a summary
of findings and recommendations of this study.
"My officials have received assurances from
the European Commission that they are paying the utmost attention
to the recommendations and are implementing them in the way described
in their Communication".
Conclusions
8.22 We are grateful to the Minister for this
further information, which explains the rationale and approach
of the programme much better than hitherto, and illustrates several
of the outcomes so far. With regard to the relationship between
the IDABC and the Commission's i2010 Programme, it is gratifying
that "the Commission is showing evidence of increased synergies
(where appropriate) between the two programmes" and that
his officials judge that the situation is improving.
8.23 Time alone will tell if £50 million
of European taxpayers' money turns out to have been well spent.
Although a Strategic Appraisal at this stage of the programme
would, in the view of the Commission, still be premature, some
indication of when the Commission thinks this would be appropriate
would have provided greater reassurance that this was as important
a consideration in its mind as it ought to be.
8.24 We now clear the document.
25 Whose report is available at http//ec.europa.eu/idaabc/en/document/5707/3
Back
26
COM (06) 611, page 5. Back
27
see headnote. Back
28
See headnote. Back
29
See headnote. Back
30
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=25302 Back
31
See headnote. Back
32
At Annex to this Report. Back
|
