Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Role of eGovernment for Europe's future’
Date: 2004-06-16
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU programme, electronic government, information system, technology assessment, trans-European network

C 318/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.12.2004

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the
the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Council,

the European Parliament,

Committee of the Regions on the Role of eGovernment for Europe's future’

(2004/C 318/07)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on The Role of eGovernment
for Europe's Future (COM(2003) 567 final),

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 26 September 2003 to consult it on this
subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the decision of its President of 6 November 2003 to instruct its Commission for Culture
and Education to draw up an opinion on this subject,

Having regard to the Ministerial Declaration from the Conference on eGovernment of 8 July 2003 in
Como, Italy,

Having regard to its Opinion on eEurope 2005: An information society for all (CdR 136/2002 fin) (1),

Having regard to its Opinion on Interoperable Delivery of pan-European eGovernment Services to Public
Administrations, Business and Citizens (IDABC) (CdR 247/2003 fin) (2),

Having regard to its Opinion on eEurope 2002: creating a EU framework for the exploitation of public
sector information (CdR 134/2002 fin) (3),

Having regard to its draft Opinion (CdR 392/2003 rev. 2) adopted on 5 April 2004 by its Commission for
Culture and Education (Rapporteur: Mr Keith Brown, Member of Clackmannanshire Council, Scotland, UK/
EA),

Whereas:

1)

2)

3)

eGovernment not only contributes to the efficiency of the public administration but to democracy
in improving governance and citizens' participation in public life,

there is a need for top-political commitment to put in place eGovernment structures and services
and that most legal barriers are not at European level but at national, regional and local one,

the different traditions and legal basis in the current and future Member States which makes it diffi-
cult to define common standards on the delivery of public services,

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 55th Plenary Session, held on 16-17 June 2004 (meeting
of 16 June).

1. The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

and understanding of the needs of services and users which are
individual and com-
paramount, and direct engagement at
munity level which enables them to promote the acquisition of
new skills and to influence behavioural changes required to
make eGovernment a practical, beneficial reality;

1.1
welcomes the importance which the Commission is
attributing to the role of eGovernment for the achievement of
the Lisbon goals, and places particular emphasis on the role
and contribution of
in
promoting and exploiting its potential, due to the range and
importance of the services and regulation they provide for both
citizens and businesses;

and local government

regional

endorses the description of eGovernment as essentially
1.3
the combination of use of ICT in the area of government and
administration, with organisational change, and the develop-
ment of new skills;

local and
1.2
highlights
regional government,
in respect of scale and closeness to
communities which enables speed of innovation, knowledge

the essential characteristics of

(1) OJ C 128, 29.5.2003, p. 14.
(2) OJ C 73, 23.3.2004, p. 72.
(3) OJ C 73, 26.3.2003, p. 38.

highlights the paramount importance of creating and
1.4
investing in training and development opportunities to enable
the widest possible spectrum of individuals to participate in
eGovernment developments;

22.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/23

emphasises that

1.5
the value of eGovernment will be
demonstrated in the transformation of public service delivery,
and the enhancement of citizen involvement in democratic
processes and public policy development, in other words the
comprehensive modernisation of government service delivery
and interaction with citizens;

1.12
is aware of the importance of privacy and security
enhancing technologies to give confidence among service users,
but considers that this must balance against adopting protocols
which could unreasonably inhibit electronic transfer of infor-
mation concerning identified individuals;

1.6
cautions that such transformation at all levels of govern-
ment is not cheap, but will require significant and sustained
commitment of resources, redoubled by the need to maintain
transition, which is a
existing systems through periods of
distinctive requirement upon government not present
in
commercial environments;

1.7
notes that to enable a high level of adoption and interac-
tivity, transition to broadband is essential, so welcomes the
Commission's call for connection of all public administrations
by 2005, and believes that funding support is required to
resource such transformation, particularly for
those areas
where current level and rate of development of access is rela-
tively low;

appreciates the distinction made in the Communication
1.8
between eGovernance and eGovernment, and considers that
the wider concept of the former encompassing major social
services is highly relevant to the interests of local and regional
government;

commends the application of a common framework of
1.9
research standards to ensure that qualitative and quantitative
assessment of all
is
published thus sharing both success to be emulated and frank
analysis of failures to improve learning and future practice;

significant programmes and projects

believes

the creation of
that partnership-working,
1.10
consortia and joint venture developments at all levels among
public agencies, and where feasible private organisations, both
national and EU wide, is fundamental to exploiting innovation
and avoiding obsolescence, to transferring existing and future
good practice, and to achieving best value from public expendi-
ture;

1.11
recognises the potential of eGovernment to sustain and
promote cultural distinctions and equity of access to services
and its contribution to policy and process among the diverse
populations of the Regions, and in this respect, recognises the
unique roles played by local and regional authorities, all of
which makes quality research work important in informing
inclusive practices;

observes that this Communication is part of a wider
1.13
suite of modernisation innovations, the collective impact of
which has the capacity to transform citizen/government inter-
action for the better in respect of social inclusion, but neverthe-
less considers that there are potential dangers for social cohe-
sion from isolation resulting from reducing interpersonal
human interaction which must be guarded against.

2. The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

the

that

recommends

2.1
European Commission in
promoting eGovernment, gives priority to ensuring common
standards, frameworks for information exchange and effective
awareness of pan-European
interoperability,
services, and ease of access to information on national and
regional services for all citizens across the EU. Priority must
also be given to security of all transactions and data. Public
confidence and usage are directly correlated with security
issues;

to promote

2.1 a)
recommends that the European Commission redouble
its efforts for real and effective coordination of action under
eGovernment-related programmes, especially IDA, eTEN and
eGov
Framework
Programme, in order to optimise the results and make best use
of the efforts and resources that the European Union is putting
into developing eGovernment;

activities

research

under

Sixth

the

2.1 b)
recommends that the European Commission exam-
ines in detail the regional and local dimension of actions under
eGovernment-related programmes;

recommends funding provision from governments and
2.2
from EU Structural Fund allocations for the provision of broad-
band technology in areas where it may not be commercially
viable, thus ensuring the availability of eGovernment in all
areas of the European Union focussing on those areas where
access and/or rate of development of access is low. The specific
features of the regions, especially their size and population,
must be taken into account when determining the infrastruc-
ture funding needed to ensure access throughout the EU;

C 318/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.12.2004

2.3
insists that at least in the transitional stage, training
courses should be provided regarding access to eGovernment,
with facilities for those with disabilities, older people and those
who are less highly trained, in order to encourage e-inclusion
and eliminate any danger of discrimination;

2.4
welcomes the observation that provision is no guarantee
of usage of online services and strongly encourages research on
demand-side preferences and barriers, both in relation to
service type and access methods, as well as on supply-side
innovation, to identify channels which will attract the widest
spectrum of users, across differing geographic locations and
among different age, gender and socio-economic groups;

2.5
stresses that the potential of IT should be exploited to
the full when improving the quality and productivity of public
services provided through traditional channels;

2.6
recommends the adoption of a protocol that eGovern-
ment programmes and projects supported with public funding
are required to share outcomes, and to report the benefits
accrued from the initiative and lessons for improvement;

2.7
urges the Commission to encourage support for local
and regional authorities to provide eGovernment in different
languages with a special focus on regional and lesser used
languages;

2.8
acknowledges the complexity of evaluation of major
initiatives in new fields of activity, but urges the setting of clear
inception and full open critical assessment of
targets at
outcomes (both successes and failures) on criteria including
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and functionality, with the
goal of future improvement.

Brussels, 16 June 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the
the European Economic and Social Committee and the
European Parliament,

the Council,

Committee of the Regions on unsolicited commercial communications or “spam”’

(2004/C 318/08)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on unsolicited commercial
communications or ‘spam’ (COM(2004) 28 final);

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 22 January 2004 to consult it on this
subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 5 April 2004 to instruct its Commission for Culture and
Education to draw up an Opinion on this subject;

Having regard to its Opinion on the Follow-up to the multiannual Community action plan on promoting
safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks and the Proposal
amending Decision No. 276/1999/EC adopting a multiannual Community action plan on promoting safer
use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks (CdR 140/2002 fin) (1);

Having regard to its Opinion on adopting a multi-annual programme (2003-2005) for monitoring of
eEurope, dissemination of good practices and the improvement of network and information security
(MODINIS) (CdR 252/2002 fin) (2);

(1) OJ C 73 of 26.3.2003, p. 34.
(2) OJ C 128 of 29.5.2003, p. 19.