Services Directive: room for improvements. SPOCS: Next generation Points of Single Contact

Transcription

1 Services Directive: room for improvements SPOCS: Next generation Points of Single Contact Today, unjustified or disproportionate requirements put a major brake on the development of service activities. Businesses, in particular small ones, are being deprived to make use of their opportunities, whether they want to do business at home or abroad. Citizens, in particular consumers, are as a result denied access to a wider and better range of services. i The Services Directive aims to improve the functioning of the Single Market for services, which is the EU's major source of growth and job creation. The Directive (Directive 2006/123/EC) was adopted end 2006 and it had to be implemented in all EU countries by 28 December It covers a large variety of economic activities such as retail, construction services, tourism services and the services of many regulated professions representing around 40% of EU GDP and employment. The Directive commits Member States to carry out an ambitious reform programme, combining the lifting of unjustified regulatory barriers and administrative simplification. It is expected to significantly contribute to boosting growth and job creation. ii According to conservative estimates, the potential economic benefits of the Services Directive could range between billion Euros, representing a growth potential of % of EU GDP iii. However, a EUROCHAMBRES survey conducted among Chambers of Commerce throughout the EU shows that only 9 out of the 27 Member States complied fully with the Services Directive by the 28 December 2009 deadline. Implementation in the remaining 18 countries is average or unsatisfactory because of problems or delays with legal and/or operational aspects. iv Shortcomings concern on the one hand the legislative screening, still not completed in some countries, and the delayed adoption of horizontal implementing laws. On the other hand, about a quarter of EU Member States have not yet put in place the key operational element, the Points of Single Contact (PSC). v It is clear today that while some countries have progressed well over the past three years, several others lag substantially behind, particularly from an operational perspective (Point(s) of Single Contact, electronic interoperability, administrative simplification), thus making the directive, from the business perspective, irrelevant and/or ineffective. vi This situation not only jeopardizes the directive s aims, but might also place these countries at an economic disadvantage vis-à-vis their EU counterparts at a moment when not only businesses but Europe s economy as a whole strongly need a properly integrated services market. vii The following points represent the key elements for reflection now that the directive s implementation deadline has elapsed: Legislative aspects: screenings not completed or legal changes not yet adopted. Chambers report marked differences between Member States' legislative implementation of the directive. In about half of Member States, the process has been finalized. Conversely, some countries have not yet completed the screening of their national or regional legislation, while in others the screening has been completed, but implementing laws have not yet been adopted for legal or political reasons. SPOCS Consortium Page 1

2 Operational aspects: unsatisfactory set-up of Points of Single Contact (PSCs). Virtually all Member States have decided how and where to establish the PSCs, with a great majority opting for a model which comprises of both a point of information and a point of completion of formalities. However, in about a quarter of Member States, the basic preparations for the PSC set-up have not yet been completed. Elsewhere, national PSCs which are already accessible do not yet offer the full range of services and information that they are required to provide. Significantly, some Chambers highlight the difficulties encountered by their government in replacing paper-based forms and procedures with electronic ones. It is also noteworthy that nearly half of the national PSCs are currently available only in the national language(s). viii The PSC will be acting as intermediaries between service providers and the national public administrations. These single intermediaries are designed to allow businesses to complete electronically all the relevant administrative procedures, such as obtaining authorizations to start an activity, which are necessary for providing their services in another EU country. For example, Italian tourist/travel agents want to set up a company in Germany and will be able to ensure that all the administrative procedures are filled in online through the German Point of Single Contact. SPOCS (), a pilot project launched by the European Commission that officially begun on 1st May 2009, aims at building the next generation Points of Single Contact through the availability of high impact electronic procedures. The project builds on solutions developed in Member States as they implement the Services Directive. Therefore, its goal is cross border interoperability based on existing systems. The Vision of SPOCS is the following: develop the next generation PSC by creating interoperable electronic services: SPOCS Consortium Page 2

3 Taking a closer look at what SPOCS plans to do, one can distinguish several key building blocks: SPOCS Reference Process Model The methodology used for Pilot requirements made sure that: the requirements placed by the piloting countries, the competent authorities and the licensing schemes can be handled and the work in the technical SPOCS work packages will be able to provide solution that fulfils the requirements. SPOCS partners decided that strong co-ordination was needed among business and technical experts across the whole SPOCS consortium for this deliverable. For this reason a special flexible working group i.e. the Executive Framework Group (EFG) was established. SPOCS Consortium Page 3

4 The SPOCS reference process model clarifies the use case scenarios that must be supported by the pilots. The pilots in the SPOCS context are focusing in the application process depicted in the figure above that includes the following elements: 1) The Preparation process: This is the phase when the service provider is considering to expand his business in a new market. This phase is not directly supported by the SPOCS pilots and contains all the appropriate steps that help the service provider to decide to apply for a permit in another Member State or not. 2) The Selection process: This is the phase when the service provider has decided that he/she wants to apply for a permit and has an interaction with the PSC portal in order to find more specific information. 3) The Identification and Authentication process: In this phase the service provider provides additional information to the PSC in order to be able to apply. Usually public administration require information regarding the identity of the service provider so as to be able to decide whether they will allow him/her to have access to the offered service. 4) The Personalization Selection process: In some cases using a wizard the PSC can provide personalized help. Usually this interaction requires exchange of detailed information regarding the service provider and the case that the case to be handled. 5) The provide information phase: At this stage the PSC provides either general information regarding the licensing procedure of the profession selected or personalized information according to the information the service provider has provided. 6) The esignature Process: This phase when the service provider signs his/her application form and the supporting material that he/she is submitting. 7) Create PSC Receipt: When the PSC receives the requested case dossier, it replies by giving a receipt that this dossier was well received. In any case the Competent Authority is the one that SPOCS Consortium Page 4

5 will finally accept or ask for additional information regarding the case if required. In other words the receipt from PSC certifies that something was well received but it does not certify that the appropriate information and supporting documents were submitted and will be accepted by the CA. 8) CA Processing: Usually the dossier of the case is transferred to the Competent authority (CA) that handles the case. This process is not affected by the SPOCS solution. CAs will continue to work as they used to. 9) epayment process: The licensing procedures usually request for payment of fees. This describes the process that the competent authorities receive the amount of money for the fees by the Service provider. This will be done according to the usual business way. SPOCS will not affect this process. 10) Deliver PSC Receipt process: PSC will deliver the receipt keeping proof evidence. This receipt certifies that the dossier of the case and any relevant information that was sent was well received by the PSC. This process focuses on the edelivery functionality. 11) Deliver PSC Results process: PSC will deliver the answer of the Competent Authority. This answer may include for instance a permit for exercising the profession, a request for additional information or a negative answer regarding the permit. This process relies also on the edelivery functionality and the proof evidence required. Accomplishments during first year To this point the following key achievements have been accomplished on time given the budget and the resources: Taking stock of existing solutions. Identification of guidelines towards interoperability. Selection of the piloting professions. Definition of pilot requirements. Exploring in detail processes for business start up in five piloting countries, understanding of Trusted Services Lists, IMI, etc. Creation of a strong community of practice comprising Member States outside the project, Industry, SMEs, End Users, other LSP and similar projects/ programmes. Submitting specifications for public consultation. Building of Internal communication and risk management strategy. Tasks achieved and milestones/ deliverables are summarised in the figure below: SPOCS Consortium Page 5

6 May-Sept 2009 Oct-Dec 2009 Jan-March 2010 April-June 2010 Task X.0 Multi Project Management Technical Work in WP1-4 Technical Work in WP5 Contractual delay Task 1 Taking Stock Questionnaire Desk research Questionnaire Task 2 Assessment Guidelines for interoperability Task 1 Profession Selection Desk research Involving CA s Assessment Jan-Feb 2010 DX.1 Assessment of National approaches and Guidelines for interoperability Task 3 Common Specifications Version /02/2010 D5.1 Methodology & profession selection Task 2 Pilot Requirements Defining SPOCS process reference model Assessing piloting countrie s specificities Strong dependencies Defining Functional requirements from WP1-4 Consultation 30/06/2010 D5.2 Pilot Requirements Legend: Task 3-5 Work package 1 Contents syndication, multilingual issues and glossary Work package 2 edocuments Work Package 3 Interoperable delivery, esafe, secure and interoperable exchanges and acknowledgement of receipt Work Package 4 Interoperable eservice Directories Work Package 5 Experimenting with Professions SPOCS specifications SPOCS made public its draft specifications of a European interoperability layer for egovernment services. Contents syndication: Deliverable contains the technical specifications, standards and recommendations to be used for content syndication within SPOCS and the architecture description of the SPOCS syndication modules. edocuments: Deliverable offers a multilayered interoperability concept for cross-border exchange of electronic documents. Interoperable edelivery, esafe and acknowledgement of receipt: Deliverable describes specifications for the interoperability layer to connect existing edelivery and esafe solutions based on common esecurity architecture. Based on the specifications open modules will be developed. SPOCS Consortium Page 6

7 Interoperable eservice Directories: Deliverable describes specifications for the access to eservice directories and the exchange of information about eservices. It also includes an architectural approach for the SPOCS interoperability level regarding eservice directories. Based on the specifications the guidelines and governance schemes as well as the open modules will be developed. Experimenting with Professions: Deliverable includes the SPOCS reference process model, the functional requirements for other deliverables, the specific piloting country functional requirements as well as the material collected for the specific piloting profession(s) per piloting including the templates of the required documents, the application and the permission. SPOCS enlargement The SPOCS enlargement that is currently taking place is a very important phase to on-board new Countries and to increase the SPOCS footprint across Europe. Furthermore, it provides a unique opportunity to create a knowledge base with a global European picture of electronic procedures. The enlargement also enables all Member States to quickly adopt the solutions developed and enables all businesses to benefit from the reduction of the administrative burden. Finally, increasing the number of partners enables the SPOCS consortium to identify the best match in terms of diversity and maturity in the field of the Services Directive. SPOCS is currently negotiating the enlargement with DG INFSO. The accessing European countries are Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia and UK. The expected impact of an enlarged SPOCS project is to improve the competitiveness of European businesses and particularly SMEs by providing a fully electronic and interoperable PSC (point of single contact) across all Member States and enable all Member States to quickly adopt the solutions developed and enable all businesses to benefit from the reduction of the administrative burden. The major expected output at the end of the project will be to deliver hands on guides on how to adopt SPOCS enabled solutions and how to scale the solutions to more service sectors included in the Directive. Therefore, regarding the Services Directive, there might be formal compliance but there is room for improvements. Most implementations of the Services Directive are minimalistic with a focus on administration not on businesses; there is poor availability of online procedures and heterogeneous national systems; there is minimal interoperability between national services and services abroad; barriers remain on using eservices of other Member States as well as high information and learning costs for businesses. SPOCS has already started to improve this situation. Stakeholder engagement The vision of SPOCS is to use marketing communications so as to achieve sustainability/take up of SPOCS enabled solutions. For this reason, a community of practice has been created involving Industry, Member States, Users and related projects, organizations and services in order to reach the fullest development of cross border high impact services for business and citizens. SPOCS encourages cooperation and synergies with all other Large Scale Pilots and European Commission. In line with the European Commission s Digital Agenda, epsos, STORK, PEPPOL, ISA SPOCS Consortium Page 7

8 and ECAS and so on, have started working together to identify which solutions have to be sustained for further deployment, identify long, medium and short-term actions to ensure sustainable development, assess and evaluate risks and to propose necessary corrective measures. The marketing of the pilots is linked to sustainability. Thus, target user groups related to the pilot activities and more broadly linked to users have been identified: Service Providers, Chambers of Commerce, Competent Authorities, and so on. Chambers of commerce will bring SPOCS message out to the beneficiaries. Member States role is vital for delivering the SPOCS message to different tiers of government. For this reason, we have created the Member States group (for non-spocs Member States) and held five meetings during the first year. At the same time, 14 new partners will join the SPOCS project in the context of the enlargement. The key issue is what SPOCS will deliver not only for administrations but also for business and to communicate a strong political message so as to achieve acceptance and sustainability of SPOCS solutions. For this reason, the Industry group was created and two meetings were held during the first year. Spreading the SPOCS word across the European Commission is key to gaining visibility, buy-in and support from key European Commission DGs: INFSO, MARKT, IT, Sec Gen. Close collaboration with the Commission DGs in deliverables, events, further stakeholder engagement and other collaborative frameworks is considered critical for the sustainability of the project. The engagement and sustainability of the Communities of Practice around the Pilots will determine the success of the project. SPOCS has started developing a framework for sustainable development and exploitation at a pan- European level. Mapping of countries within SPOCS SPOCS partners decided to prepare a common position as a consortium and send it to the Commission. Therefore, on the one hand detailed country responses were collected, which can be found in the appendices. On the other hand, a supporting position paper was created to explain how SPOCS aims to build the next generation Points of Single Contact through the availability of high impact electronic procedures. Please find below a summary table of the key findings from our SPOCS country responses: SPOCS Consortium Page 8

9 Questions Questions on national measures imposing an authorisation (Article 9 of the Services Directive) Are there authorisation schemes imposed on service providers which you consider to be contrary to the Services Directive because they are discriminatory, unjustified or disproportionate? Are there cases where, in your view, authorisation schemes could be replaced by a less restrictive measure (e.g. declarations, a posteriori inspections)? Answers Greece: The procedures in Greece have not yet been simplified. Italy: No Poland: No Greece: All fees must be paid electronically without visiting the tax offices. Italy: Do not have the required skill to answer. Poland: Examples of existing regulations that are consider too restrictive: Article 51 paragraph 1, Act on National Archival Resources and Archives Article 19a, Act on Forests Article , Act on Real Estate Management Article 4, Act on Tourist Services Act on the ethyl alcohol production and tobacco production, Act of production and wine products slop, trading and wine market organization, Act on spirit beverages production and geographic denomination of spirit beverages registration and protection Article 3, Act on Detective Services Act on restrictions of administrative barriers The regulations considered disproportionate should be replaced by less stringent regulations: Article 7 paragraph 1, Act on cleaness and order keeping in community Article 75 paragraph 1, Road Traffic Law SPOCS Consortium Page 9

10 Questions on national measures imposing certain types of requirements (Article 15 of the Services Directive) Questions on national measures restricting multidisciplinary activities (Article 25 of the Services Directive) QUESTIONS REQUIREMENTS ON APPLICABLE TO THE CROSS BORDER PROVISION OF SERVICES Questions on requirements applicable to the cross border provision of services Are there any specific requirements of the type mentioned in Article 15 of the Services Directive which you consider to be contrary to the Services Directive because they are discriminatory, unjustified or disproportionate? Are there cases where, in your view, these requirements could be made less stringent? Are you aware of restrictions to multidisciplinary activities which are imposed on services other than regulated professions and services of certification, accreditation, technical monitoring, test or trial services? In your view, are there any restrictions to multidisciplinary activities imposed on regulated professions or on certification/accreditation/technical monitoring, test/trial services which are not needed to ensure the independence and/or impartiality of the provider or could be replaced by less stringent requirements? Are you aware of any specific requirement (mentioned or not in Article 16 (2) of the Services Directive) imposed on cross-border service provision which, in your view, is discriminatory, not justified for reasons of public policy, public security, public health or the protection of the environment or disproportionate? Are there cases where, in your view, some of the requirements imposed on cross border service provision could be replaced by less restrictive measures? Greece: According to the current legal framework the licences generally are issued from specific prefectures but services can be offered at national level. Italy: No Poland: The examples of existing limitations concerning article 15 of the Service Directive: Ban of running more than 1% of pharmacies on the area of voivodeship (region) (article 99, paragraph 3, Pharmacy Law), Possibility of the scale of fishing capability (of fishing fleet) limitation by the competent ministry (article 7, Act on fishing) Greece: No Italy: Do not have the required skill to answer. Poland: Same as previous answer. Greece: No Italy: No Poland: No Greece: In some cases some regulated professions combine kind of services that could be separated. Italy: Do not have the required skill to answer. Poland: No Greece: Currently there are a lot of obstacles but the simplification is still an ongoing process in Greece. Italy: No Poland: No Greece: Generally the responsible Ministries are reluctant to have less restrictive measures. Italy: Do not have the required skill to answer. Poland: No SPOCS Consortium Page 10

11 While the EU internal market for goods is already effective, the internal market for services is not yet functioning to its full potential. An effective single market for services is necessary and the red tape burden that hinders service providers from establishing themselves in other countries or from trading across borders must be removed. The objective of the Services Directive is to improve the functioning of the Single Market for services, which is the EU's major source of growth and job creation. While some countries have progressed well over the past three years, several others delay particularly from an operational perspective. As a result, the Services Directive is made irrelevant and/or ineffective from the business perspective. SPOCS () has started to help improve the situation and build the next generation Points of Single Contact through the availability of high impact electronic procedures. The end goal is competitiveness. SPOCS is going to achieve competitiveness by improving PSCs: improved and fully transactional service offer (functionality, usability etc). SPOCS will improve PSCs by improving the cross border process of finding information and processing Service provider dossiers through developing technology as a key enabler. Towards this direction, SPOCS counts on DG MARKT to work towards sustainable and scalable solutions to implement the next generation PSC. i Source: "Expected economic benefits of the European Services Directive", Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB), November ii Source: guilanguage=en iii Source: "Expected economic benefits of the European Services Directive", Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB), November iv Source: v Source: vi Source: vii Source: viii Source: SPOCS Consortium Page 11