Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-03-Speech-3-212"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011003.7.3-212"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we agree that revision of the Television without frontiers directive is urgently needed.
Firstly, it is needed because the context in which the televisual market operates, as it has been described, is so different from what it was when the directive was last revised that it does not seem feasible to retain the latter for a further two or three years. As an estimate, we could say that at most, the directive only covers some 50% of the problems currently experienced in the sector.
Secondly, revision is required because we need to come up with solutions which were not provided at the time. Television remains the main source of information and entertainment for most Europeans. In my view, apart from the issue of the low quality of content, it is beset by three main problems. Too much advertising is broadcast, with no thought for its suitability or the ages and timings involved. Only rarely are European films broadcast, which is an affront to European culture. The business of digitalising programmes so they can be shown on subscription channels has taken off.
Doubtless these problems already existed in 1996, but the situation is now critical. This suggests that although the directive has been successful as far as the free circulation of television services within the Community is concerned, it has failed in other important areas.
The Commission’s communication does not allow us to assess the efforts Member States made to redress the situation in the three years under scrutiny. Suffice it to say that three Member States did not even transpose the directive into their legislation. Most probably, the results for the remaining Member States were not identical, but the Commission has not made such a comparative study available. There is little detail on the situation in the candidate countries. This should feature prominently in the new directive.
For all these reasons, Mrs Hieronymi has refrained from launching an in-depth debate in her report. I believe she was wise to do so. This debate should take place when the directive is revised, and she has requested such a revision. A number of guidelines to inform the process have been laid down. I should like to refer to just a few of these, namely the urgent need to introduce new services based on new technologies, the need to stimulate and accelerate the transition to digital technology and the coordination of the new directive with the revision of the directive on electronic commerce.
The Socialist Group will therefore vote in favour of the report and endorse two amendments tabled by Mrs Junker. Regarding these amendments, I would like to highlight the need for Community legislation to ensure that events or shows of great interest to the citizens should be protected from digitalisation so that they can be made available to all social classes free of charge."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples