8 Interoperability as a means for modernising
the public sector: the ISA2 programme
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Not cleared from scrutiny; further information requested
|
| Document details | Proposal for a Council Decision establishing a programme on interoperability solutions for European public administrations, businesses and citizens (ISA2)
|
| Legal base | Article 172 TFEU; ordinary legislative procedure; QMV
|
| Department | Cabinet Office
|
| Document Numbers | (36197), 11580/14, COM(14) 367
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
8.1 ISA2 is a proposal for the continuation of the ISA programme,
which funds projects on interoperability for public services across
the EU. In this context,
"interoperability" means enabling different national
systems to communicate with each other, reducing friction and
improving efficiency in cross-border and cross-sector transactions.
As such, "interoperability" underpins the aims of the
European Commission's Digital Single Market strategy, particularly
in relation to work on e-government and "the cloud".
8.2 When the ISA2 Council Decision was presented
for scrutiny in October 2014, the then Minister (Mr Francis Maude)
illustrated a number of concerns, and noted that the Commission
had yet to produce a full evaluation of the earlier ISA programme.
Our predecessors said that the Commission was thus pushing ahead
without any objective evaluation of how effective the predecessor
programme had been, or any assessment of the impact of its proposed
successor. When responding to its observations, in February, the
Minister was only able to add that he was still trying to obtain
definitive responses from the Commission to some of the questions
raised; its view, meanwhile, was that the need for an EU interoperability
programme had been previously agreed and, because ISA2 was a continuation
of an existing programme, there was no requirement for a full
impact assessment; he and other like-minded would continue to
press the Commission to properly justify the proposals for ISA2
before further discussions of the detail, especially as ISA2 was
now to be a Latvian Presidency priority; and a full update would
be provided when progress on these issues had been made.
8.3 The new Minister for the Cabinet Office, and
Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock) has now written, on 10 June
2015, stating that, after a "lot of work … in Council
working groups on this file over the last two months", the
Commission has proposed that Member States vote to agree a General
Approach on the ISA2 text at the 12 June 2015 Telecommunications
Council. He illustrates a number of ways in which he says that
the text has been improved. But the Commission continues to maintain
that no impact assessment was required because ISA2 is the continuation
of an existing programme which is believed to be of value; whereas
the Minister continues to believe that the ISA2 proposal would
have been stronger if a proper impact assessment had been prepared
when the proposal was being drafted. Whilst stating that the Council
draft is significantly better than the Commission's original proposal,
the Minister says that more could and should also be done during
trilogue to improve the text to ensure that ISA2 is effective.
8.4 The Government continues to support the overall
aim of improving interoperability to reduce the friction involved
in online transactions across borders and across sectors within
the EU. However, given that it has not yet been possible to properly
scrutinise the text and given the areas where he believes further
improvements to the text could have been made, the Minister says
that he will abstain from voting on the general approach on 12
June. Beyond that, he will continue to work to support further
improvements:
"with the hope that the proposal will be something
that we can support when it comes to a future Telecoms Council
for final agreement. The European Parliament has voiced some similar
concerns on the proposal to those set out by the UK, so we do
not anticipate any significant risk of the work to date being
reversed during the trialogue process."
8.5 The Minister notes that the interim evaluation
of the predecessor ISA programme raised concerns with regards
to the important areas of effectiveness, coherence and coordination;
and that the Commission's proposal for ISA2 did little to address
those concerns. But the Commission remains obdurate: full evaluation
will not be produced until the latest date possible, in December
2105; work will nonetheless continue on ISA2 without the benefit
of this evaluation; and no impact assessment is required because
ISA2 is the continuation of an existing programme which is believed
to be of value. This is an entirely circular argument. How can
a programme be deemed of value if it has not been fully evaluated?
And how can any successor be deemed not to need an impact assessment
because it is a continuation of something that has not been fully
evaluated? The Minister refers to an annex to his letter, on the
Commission's reasoning, which he did not in fact enclose. We should
therefore be grateful if he would send it to us, along with a
letter summarising its key points and setting out his views.
8.6 The other like-minded Member States of February
have presumably been won over during the working group discussions.
Nonetheless, in these circumstances, it was plainly right for
the Minister to have abstained. We now look forward to his keeping
us regularly updated on the trilogue process, since it may be
appropriate for this Council Decision to be debated before a final
position is adopted, and we do not wish to be presented with a
fait accompli; on this occasion, the dissolution and then
the absence of a Committee in mid-June has meant that the lack
of any update until the last minute was immaterial, but it would
not be acceptable in future.
8.7 In the meantime, the draft Council Decision
remains under scrutiny.
Full
details of the documents: Draft Council
Decision establishing a programme on interoperability solutions
for European public administrations, businesses and citizens (ISA2):
(36197) 11580/14: COM(14) 367.
8.8 The ISA programme was launched on 1 January 2010
and runs for five years. It has a budget of €160 million
(£114 million). Its main objective is to support cooperation
between European public administrations by facilitating efficient
and effective electronic cross-border and cross-sectoral interaction,
with a view to enabling the delivery of electronic public services
supporting the implementation of EU policies and activities (see
our predecessor's Report of last October for full details[ 95]).
8.9 A January 2013 interim evaluation was largely
positive. But it was too early to arrive at any firm conclusions
on the programme's utility or effectiveness. The need to identify
possible means to ensure the long term sustainability of an increasing
number of solutions developed by the ISA programme was highlighted.
Although the evaluation found that ISA was generally working well
internally and with other EU initiatives, the majority of stakeholders
interviewed suggested that there were overlaps that could be better
managed; and whilst Member States were involved in the oversight
of the ISA programme, it was not yet sufficiently effective in
meeting the needs and priorities of individual Member States.[ 96]
8.10 The proposed Council Decision is for a successor
programme, ISA2, to run from 2016-20, with a budget of €146.6
million (£104.2 million), and is intended to "consolidate,
promote and expand its activities". In particular, the new
programme will:
· "help
to identify, create and operate interoperability solutions, which
will then be provided for unlimited use to other Union institutions
and bodies, and national, regional and local public administrations,
thus facilitating cross-border or cross-sector interaction between
them;
· "develop
interoperability solutions autonomously or complement and support
other Union initiatives by piloting interoperability solutions
as a 'solution incubator' or ensuring their sustainability as
a 'solution bridge'; and
· "assess
the ICT implications of existing and proposed EU legislation."[ 97]
8.11 The then Minister (Mr Francis Maude) noted that
there were a number of interrelated programmes across many policy
areas including Health, Taxation, Business and Competition, Justice,
Procurement, Animal Health, Statistics, and ICT & Digital
Services, and is broadly supportive of this proposed Council Decision,
as are the other government departments who have been consulted
(see our predecessor's Report of last October and its annex for
full details).
8.12 He also noted that:
— the
Commission had yet to undertake an impact assessment on this decision
and that "UKREP have been trying to obtain more information";
— adoption
of this decision affected a number of programmes or initiatives;
— however, it did not "itself have
any direct impacts on businesses or citizens since it promotes
interoperability between governments at all levels";
— the only assessment undertaken by the
EU was largely based on the evaluations of previous programmes
and on the fact that these programmes had identified an ongoing
need for developing or updating interoperability standards; and
— "the full evaluation of the current
programme is not yet available and HMG will want to monitor progress
in implementing the recommendations from the interim evaluation".
8.13 Finally, the Minister said that he did not know
"when Council will give consideration to this decision, nor
which Council will lead the discussions".
The previous Committee's assessment
8.14 The picture was thus of the Commission pushing
ahead without any objective evaluation of how effective the predecessor
programme had been, or any assessment of the impact of its proposed
successor.
8.15 At the same time, both the then Minister and
his predecessor had made their requirements clear:
— greater
value for money from any new programme, and a shift in focus from
funding for studies to funding for implementation, with an emphasis
on re-use or adaption;
— indications of progress in implementing
the recommendations from the interim evaluation;
— more work on common methodologies;
— more use of open standards, a streamlined
governance structure, and "a more iterative, agile approach"
in any successor programme;
— "more clarity about governance,
a better articulation of user needs, a clearer understanding of
how this will work with other initiatives, and clarity on the
financial case for investment"; and
— addressing concerns about "the usage
of jargon, acronyms, and ambiguous wording where the meaning is
not clear".
8.16 Given that the new programme was envisaged to
start in 15 months' time, it seemed extraordinary that the then
Minister had no idea of the timetable, or which Council would
be responsible for handling this dossier.
8.17 Nor did the then Minister analyse the present
ISA2 text either in terms of the extent to which it addressed
the areas of concern identified in the ISA interim evaluation
or with regard to what he and his predecessor wished to see in
the proposed new programme.
8.18 However, he seemed to have become a victim of
his own concern about ambiguous wording where the meaning is not
clear, in that they at least had no idea what was meant by "a
more iterative, agile approach", or implementation, with
an emphasis on re-use or adaption.
8.19 The previous Committee accordingly asked the
then Minister to address these issues forthwith; and also to know
when he expected a full evaluation of the current programme to
emerge; and the Commission impact assessment of the proposed ISA2.
8.20 In the meantime, the draft Council Decision
was retained under scrutiny.[ 98]
8.21 The Minister did not reply until 9 February
2015. When he did so, it was part of a "portmanteau"
letter embracing a number of digital issues, revolving around
Public and International Procurement.[ 99]
In sum, the Minister noted that:
— his
officials, working with UKREP, were still trying to obtain definitive
responses from the Commission to some of the questions raised;
— the Commission view was that the need
for an EU interoperability programme, its policy objectives and
its benefits had been previously agreed;
— because ISA2 was a continuation of an
existing programme, there was no requirement for a full impact
assessment;
— they had, however, agreed to share more
information from the mid-term interim evaluation of the existing
ISA programme;
— many of the issues identified by the
previous Committee about the first ISA programme related to the
lack of a full evaluation of the existing ISA programme and an
impact assessment for ISA2; the UK was one of a number of Member
States to raise these concerns and was looking to work with other
like-minded Member States to ensure they were fully addressed;
a full update would be provided when progress on these issues
had been made; his officials continued to push the Commission
together with other Member States to properly justify the proposals
for ISA2 before further discussions of the detail of the proposal;
and
— the Telecommunications Council would
now take this programme forward and the Latvian Presidency had
made this a priority matter.
8.22 With regard to the previous Committee's uncertainty
about the meaning of "adopting an agile iterative approach
with an emphasis on reuse and adaptation", the then Minister
said:
"Agile is an iterative approach to software
development and project management, which the Cabinet Office (in
particular the Government Digital Service) has effectively used
in developing digital services. It is an approach that many believe
can help with rapid development of interoperability solutions.
Agile provides a methodology to develop and deliver solutions
quickly, these can then be used, re-used or adapted as required.
If ISA2 adopted an agile approach, it should see more solutions
appearing quicker than has been the case in the current ISA programme."
The Minister's letter of 10 June 2015
8.23 The Minister begins his letter by stating that
the Commission has proposed that Member States vote to agree a
general approach on the ISA2 text at the Telecommunications Council
on 12 June 2015. He continues thus:
"A lot of work has been done in Council working
groups on this file over the last two months, but the draft proposal
is now more stable in advance of Friday's Telecommunications Council,
so I am taking this opportunity to write to update the Committee."
8.24 Recalling our predecessors' October 2014 Report,
the Minister continues as follows:
"The Committee's report highlighted a number
of concerns on the Commission's work on interoperability which
had been raised in the Explanatory Memorandum (11580/14) on the
proposal. They included:
· "the
need for a clearer, better structured programme to ensure that
ISA2 creates value for money[ 100];
· "the
need for progress to be made on implementing the recommendations
from the interim evaluation of the predecessor ISA programme;
and
· "the
need for a clearer understanding of how the programme fits with
other initiatives to ensure the most useful possible projects
are being funded in the context of wider European work on interoperability.
"The interim evaluation of the predecessor
ISA programme raised concerns with regards to the important areas
of effectiveness, coherence and coordination. The Commission's
proposal for ISA2 did little to address those concerns. In particular:
· "article
9, which failed to make provision for funding to be stopped in
the case of an action which is not showing any results;
· "articles
5-7 in relation to actions to be funded under ISA2 and the implementation
of ISA2's work programme, where there was no guiding structure
for prioritising which actions ISA2 should fund, missing the opportunity
to create a more effective programme that can ensure it is funding
the most appropriate and useful actions;
· "article
3 that included the ambiguous language around 'solution incubators'
and 'solution bridges'; and
· "article
11 and the recitals, which failed to properly set ISA2 in the
context of other European initiatives also working towards interoperability,
therefore missing the opportunity to ensure that the actions funded
are aligned with other European efforts and to avoid duplication
of work.
"The Committee's report also noted concerns
about the lack of impact assessment, and asked about the likely
timing of the final evaluation for the first ISA programme. On
the latter, the results of the final evaluation on ISA will be
communicated to the European Council and Parliament by 31 December
2015, in line with Article 13(3) of Decision Number 922/2009/EC.[ 101]
"DISCUSSION IN COUNCIL
"We have outlined all of our concerns over the
course of the Council's discussion of the proposal on ISA2 at
working group meetings.
"With regards to the impact assessment, the
Commission has made it clear that it does not feel that an impact
assessment was necessary. The Commission maintains the argument
that no impact assessment was required because ISA2 is the continuation
of an existing programme which is believed to be of value. Their
full reasoning is enclosed in Annex A to this letter.
"With regards to the text of the proposal itself,
some progress has been made towards improving it. The restrictive
handling marking (limité) was removed on 5 June,
so the Council's latest draft text is enclosed in Annex B.
"The most significant advancements to the draft
text thus far are:
· "additions
to recital 33 to ensure better coordination with other programmes;
· "the
removal of the confusing terms 'solution incubator' and 'solution
bridge' in article 2;
· "the
inclusion of new articles on criteria for eligibility and prioritisation
of actions to be funded after article 6, helping to create a clearer
governance structure; and
· "the
inclusion of a new provision to stop funding ineffective actions
in article 9.
"UK POSITION
"I continue to believe that the ISA2 proposal
would have been stronger if a proper impact assessment had been
prepared when the proposal was being drafted. Whilst the draft
now produced by the Council is significantly better than the Commission's
original proposal, more could and should also be done during trialogue
to improve the text to ensure ISA2 is effective.
"In particular, I am still keen to see further
improvements in relation to:
· "a
clearer requirement, either in the recitals or in article 3, stating
that the main objective of the programme should be on developing
and maintaining tools which contribute to interoperability —
this would ensure that most of the programme's efforts are spent
on practical progress towards interoperability;
· "better
coordination with other EU activities on interoperability to ensure
different parts of the Commission are working together - this
could including looking at a possible joint evaluation of ISA2
together with other measures on interoperability rather than evaluating
each separately; and
· "clearer
prioritisation of user needs, for example by making provision
in articles 9 and 11 to base monitoring, evaluation and on-going
funding on some genuine testing during development of ISA's interoperability
solutions.
"NEXT STEPS
"It remains the case that the UK supports the
overall aim of improving interoperability to reduce the friction
involved in online transactions across borders and across sectors
the EU. However, given that it has not yet been possible to properly
scrutinise text and given the areas where I believe further improvements
to the text could have been made, the UK will abstain from voting
on the general approach on 12 June.
"We will continue to work to support further
improvements to the file with the hope that the proposal will
be something that we can support when it comes to a future Telecoms
Council for final agreement. The European Parliament has voiced
some similar concerns on the proposal to those set out by the
UK, so we do not anticipate any significant risk of the work to
date being reversed during the trialogue process."
8.25 The Minister concludes by expressing the "hope
that the Committee will feel that, in conjunction with the then
Minister for the Cabinet Office's letter of 9 February 2015, this
addresses all of the points made in the Committee's report of
15 October 2014", and undertakes to "keep the Committee
updated with further progress on this file".
8.26 On 12 June, the Council issued a statement confirming
that the Council had adopted a general approach on the ISA 2 Programme.[ 102]
The aim is to make sure that European public administrations can
interact electronically with each other and with citizens and
businesses in a seamless manner. The ISA 2 Programme will support
both cross-border and cross-sector interaction. It is set to run
from 2016 to 2020, with a financial envelope of "about €131
million". The programme will support actions to assess, improve
and re-use existing interoperability solutions and to develop
new ones. Compared to the initial Commission proposal, the presidency
compromise text:
"introduces provisions to clarify the eligibility
criteria for actions to be financed under the ISA 2 programme
and introduces criteria to prioritise actions. It also includes
provisions to avoid overlaps and ensure consistencies and coordination
with other EU programmes."
8.27 The Council statement also notes that, in order
to be adopted, the decision will have to be approved by both the
Council and the European Parliament, the latter of which has not
yet voted its position.[ 103]
Previous
Committee Reports
Thirteenth Report HC 219-xiii (2014-15), chapter
10 (15 October 2014).
95 Thirteenth Report: HC 219-xiii (2014-15), chapter
10 (15 October 2014). Back
96 Ditto. Back
97 COM(14) 367, p.11. Back
98 See Thirteenth Report HC 219-xiii (2014-15), chapter 10 (15 October
2014). Back
99 See Thirty-third Report HC 219-xxxii (2014-15), chapter
5 (11 February 2015). Back
100 The Minister's footnote: "(this includes clearer language;
more clarity about governance; and an approach that focuses more
on implementing interoperability solutions that make a real impact).
Member States will play a role in on-going decisions about the
ISA2 programme through the Committee referred to in Article 11
of the proposal. However this new legal basis is an opportunity
to refine the programme and give it a clearer structure". Back
101 This says:
"The ISA programme shall be subject
to an interim evaluation and a final evaluation, the results of
which shall be communicated to the European Parliament and the
Council by 31 December 2012 and 31 December 2015 respectively.
In this context the responsible committee of the European Parliament
may invite the Commission to present the evaluation results and
answer questions put by its members.
"The evaluations shall examine
issues such as the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, utility,
sustainability and coherence of the ISA programme's actions and
shall assess performance against the objective of the ISA programme
and the rolling work programme. The final evaluation shall, in
addition, examine the extent to which the ISA programme has achieved
its objective": see OJ L 260/20 of 16 September 2009, page
7. Back
102 Available at General Approach. Back
103 See Press release. Back
| 
