Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-24-Speech-1-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051024.17.1-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, it was with a great deal of pleasure that I listened to the previous debates on projects very close to my heart, projects that I helped to move forward and to develop during the period in which I was responsible for culture. I am, moreover, very happy to continue to take an active part in the area of culture by taking charge, more specifically, of the audiovisual sector. In actual fact, the audiovisual sector fully participates in the programmes on cultural diversity, with cultural diversity being Europeans’ greatest asset. On this subject, rest assured that I was delighted, as were all the Members of the European Parliament, that Unesco adopted the universal declaration on cultural diversity. It should be known that it took a long fight to obtain this outcome. Moreover, it is the sign, as one Member said in the previous debate, that, if Europe has a sound unifying project, founded on a vision that gathers the world around Europe, and that if Europe speaks with a single voice, it can triumph. I believe that this needs to be a lesson for us all: no, cultural diversity is not exclusively European; it is a global phenomenon, and we are right to invest in our European cultures.
The second group of amendments concerns actions and objectives that are already covered by the programme. There is therefore no need to repeat them. For example, there is no point in adding a priority that is already one of the actual headings for action under the programme.
The third group of amendments concerns one of the priorities of the programme – an absolute priority, in my view – and that is the need to reduce the imbalances, within the audiovisual market, between countries with a high audiovisual production capacity and those with a small geographical and linguistic area. That is a crucial priority for the MEDIA programme. However, the proposed amendments would have the effect – unintended, I am sure – of limiting the actions that have been proposed by the Commission in favour of the new Member States. They would not strengthen co-productions either, which, for me, like, I believe, for you, are one of the crucial factors for improving collaboration beyond borders. Therefore, if I reject certain amendments, it is to prevent them from hindering some of the core priorities of the new text.
I would like to criticise two other amendments: one on the Constitutional Treaty and one on opening up the programme to third countries. With regard to the Constitutional Treaty, the Commission’s position is not to accept references of this kind as long as the Treaty has not been ratified. As for the second amendment, it is desirable to follow the approach that has already been established and to consider such cooperation in the appropriate context, namely that of adhering to the conclusions of the Thessaloniki European Council.
That being the case, Mr President, Mrs Hieronymi, I would like to say that, in light of the very great majority, indeed of almost all, of the amendments proposed by Parliament, the Commission will be amending its proposal. I thank you once again for the work that Parliament has done.
It is along these lines, of course, that the MEDIA programme plays a dominant role. The MEDIA programme helps our cultural, and cinematographic, diversity to exist. Firstly, it helps future film-makers to find their way and to choose their vocational training. Then, during the period in which the film goes from being just a dream to becoming a screenplay – a period that is fraught with difficulties, in which no one yet believes in the project – it is Europe that helps the film-makers to find the financial resources they require. Then, at the production stage, full responsibility for supporting the production of the film is handed back to the Member States, which support their national film industries by means of the State aid that we, as the Commission, authorise. At the same time, we make the private sector aware of its responsibility to invest in the creative film industries. Finally, when the film is complete, Europe takes over once again because the film still needs to be distributed, not only in the country in which it was made, but also beyond the borders of that country. Cultural diversity, in actual fact, means that a film should be seen, and not only in the country in which it was made and in the language of that country, but also by the rest of Europe. What better way of understanding our neighbours’ cultures than of understanding them by means of a film?
I am proud to say that nine-tenths of European films exported for screening in another country are exported with the help of the MEDIA programme. I can also tell you just how proud the networks of film-makers, cinemas, film creators and film festivals are. All of these networks are doing, in actual fact, what Europe does best: uniting and joining forces to give expression to our cultures.
Mr President, it is very important that we continue along this path because, even if we help our film industry and even if we are proud of our film-makers, European films are, and remain, in the minority on their own soil. It is therefore crucial that we continue, even more so than in the past, to make cinema more diverse and to distribute films. That is why the MEDIA programme, which was presented in July 2004, has been provided with a budget of over EUR 1 billion. The Commission recognises, in fact, the importance of this programme for the future of our creative output and of our audiovisual heritage.
I hope with all of my heart, like all of you do, that the debates on finance in Europe will enable this investment in our film industry to materialise and that the budget will not be cut back. I know that you are anxious for this to be the outcome, and I would also like to thank the Committee on Culture and Education, as well as its rapporteur, Mrs Hieronymi, for the magnificent job they have both done. I would like to thank all of the other committees - the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy – which have, themselves, also studied the problem. They were right to do so because our films amount to a great deal more than culture: they involve trade, international relations and industry. Therefore, all MEPs, irrespective of their committee, need to take an interest in this cultural diversity, brought about by our cultural industries thanks to the talent of our film-makers.
As regards the amendments, I would like to say to you that, as a general rule, I can accept almost all of them. There are 77 amendments. The Commission will accept 56 of them because, quite simply, Parliament has done some very positive, creative and constructive work, and I would like to thank it for having done this work, which markedly improves the project the Commission has put on the table.
To come back to the amendments in more detail, I would like to say to you that I particularly welcome the amendments that enhance the importance of the new priorities given to MEDIA 2007 compared with the previous MEDIA programme. On the one hand, it is a matter of funding small and medium-sized enterprises, which are fragile and need our help and, on the other, of using digital technology. Digital technology is making great strides all around us, but it is still not perfect. We must help to improve digitisation. Those two points are crucial for strengthening the competitiveness of the sector. Furthermore, we also need to make sure that European films take advantage of the new prospects offered by digital technology such as, for example, the legal downloading of films from the Internet. Parliament knows that I am encouraging the directors of businesses in the telecommunications and Internet sector and content creators to sit down together around a table in order to resolve, among themselves, the problem of piracy and to distribute the revenues between the two branches of the industry.
As regards the amendments that the Commission cannot accept – a very small minority of amendments, Mrs Hieronymi – I would like to explain why this is the case. This explanation will enable you to understand that we are not opposing one particular amendment or another. Rather, it is in consideration of their appropriateness, or otherwise, that we are not accepting them.
There are three groups of amendments. The first concerns the amendments introducing actions and objectives that do not come under the MEDIA programme. For example, as commendable as the amendment concerned may be, the MEDIA programme is not designed to meet the needs of disabled citizens, which would require, for example, cinemas in certain Member States to be adapted. We simply do not have the resources to invest in this area. However, it is, of course, a policy that we support in moral terms."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples