Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-03-Speech-3-221"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011003.7.3-221"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, to begin with, I would like to thank Mrs Hieronymi very much for her excellent report, and for her commitment to television and cinema. This commitment demonstrates that Parliament understands the importance of the Television without frontiers directive and its implementation. I would like to remind honourable Members that Mrs Hieronymi’s report does not deal with the development of television in general, nor is it about cinema. It deals with the Commission’s report on the implementation of the Television without frontiers directive between 1997 and 2000. I completely agree with those Members who deplore the state of European cinema, and are critical of both the quality of films and the industry’s economic role. I would like to remind them that last week the Commission published its report on cinema. Mr President, I am sure Parliament will have the opportunity to begin a wide-ranging debate on the development of cinema in Europe. I wish it well. However, the issues relating to television are slightly different. I would like to draw your attention to the promotion of the distribution and production of television programs (as outlined in Articles 4 and 5 of the directive). It can be seen that the weighted average of European programmes broadcast by the major channels is between 53 and 81%, with the exception of one country. It should also be noted that the majority of Member States have introduced more rigorous legislation than that provided for by the directive. Fortunately, the situation is far better for television than for cinema. Therefore, Mr President, I propose that we discuss the subject of cinema seriously for once in this House. It is very important that we hold this debate. Several Members have spoken of the need to revise the directive. This process is already under way. It began this year with a wide-ranging consultation with the industry. The process will continue next year. I am sure you know that we have begun three studies on different aspects of the directive on the Audiovisual sector. We have ensured that these studies are undertaken by experts who are independent. They are therefore impartial studies, benefiting from the input of the industry and providing an objective assessment of the situation on the ground. The consultants involved have organised workshops bringing together people from the industry, from government and politicians. Members of Parliament were also invited to these workshops. Plans are afoot for further workshops. Surveys of the views of interested parties will, of course, be followed by assessment and drafting work. The findings will be brought together in a series of reports which our consultants should make available to us at the end of this year or January next year. The Commission will then begin its own consultation process with the publication of a working document, to which everyone will be invited to respond before the summer of 2002. Mr President, Parliament will therefore have plenty of opportunity to reconsider the avenues explored in Mrs Hieronymi’s report. Most importantly, Members will also be able to examine possible future directions. On the basis of the work undertaken, and depending on the results obtained, this will lead to an institutional debate on the directive and, if necessary, on the Commission’s proposals for a new directive, between now and the end of 2002. I would like to point out that I agree with Members on the need to reform the directive. It is clear that the process in which we are engaged is extremely complex. The views of Parliament will be taken into account at each stage of the process. Mrs Hieronymi’s report devotes much attention to the revision process, while also illustrating the complexity and importance of the debate.
Mr President, if I may, I would like to examine two parts of the report presented to Parliament. I wish to comment on Recital H and Article 1 e). According to Recital H, the directive is now obsolete and applies only to generalist, free-to-air television, for which purpose it was originally created. This is an inaccurate assessment of the situation. The directive has a much wider scope. It applies to broadcasting in general, including subscription and thematic broadcasters, and also to digital and analogue broadcasting. The comments made in Recital H are therefore mistaken. They constitute a serious error as the directive does not apply to the Internet as the Internet did not exist when the directive was drafted. Appropriate provisions should therefore be included in the revised directive. At present, it is risky to say that the directive is obsolete for the simple reason that this could play into the hands of Member States that have not yet implemented the directive. Your rapporteur underlined this point: why implement an obsolete directive? This would result in no action being taken and no further pressure could be applied. The final outcome would be the opposite of the wishes of Parliament. This may also pose problems for candidate countries. They are currently experiencing considerable difficulties in transposing the acquis into their own legislation. I shall say more about them later. Are we going to force them to implement an acquis that Parliament considers to be obsolete? In the interests of this matter, Mr President, it is therefore extremely important to amend this part of the text. We must also ensure that we do not give a negative impression to Member States implementing the directive, or to the candidate countries transposing the acquis. Rather, we must remind them that the directive continues to provide legal certainty to European audiovisual operators. Some Members have already, quite rightly, highlighted this point.
Point 1) e) of the report deplores the fact that the Commission has provided insufficient information on the efforts made by the candidate countries to implement the acquis relating to the audiovisual sector, and has not stressed the need for them to increase their efforts. I would like to remind you that the report drafted according to Article 26 of the directive deals solely with the implementation of this directive by the Member States of the European Union. It does not deal with the adoption of the acquis by the candidate countries. It therefore follows that there are no details on the adoption of the acquis, or of recommendations for these countries. That said, I have some good news on this subject as the overall situation regarding the adoption of the acquis has improved since the end of 2000. All candidate countries, except for Romania, Hungary and Turkey, have provisionally closed Chapter 20 relating to the audiovisual sector. This clearly shows that the national legislation of the great majority of the countries concerned complies with the acquis.
Mr President, I would like to thank Parliament for always having supported me very strongly in my efforts to try to make progress to benefit our cultural industries, and also our cultural diversity. I can but say to Parliament that our work has only just begun. Revising the Television without frontiers directive will be a considerable and highly complex task in which I will continue to need the resolute support of Parliament. On the basis of past experience, I feel you will not fail me."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples