Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-12-Speech-1-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011112.10.1-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that the report by Mr Vander Taelen has come just when it is needed. It reminds me of when we arrived in Parliament two and a half years ago. I realised that, in the space of two and a half years, by the autumn of 2001, we have gained the commitment of the European Investment Bank, the balance proposed by the Commission for state aid, the recognition of state aid, and now the report by Mr Vander Taelen is telling us that we must circulate films. That is what I mean when I say it has come just when it is needed. It has come just at the right moment to give great support to the audiovisual industry and to the cinema tradition, which we must highlight and which I see as a new development. I would like us to get to grips with this, because we speak a great deal about cultural diversity, but tell me, please, what is cultural diversity if you do not circulate works? If cultural diversity means to strengthen each specific characteristic within another specific characteristic, we will not gain anything in terms of diversity, in the way that we want to here in Europe. It is therefore essential and necessary to circulate films. In order to illustrate how important this is, I would first of all like to thank Mr Vander Taelen, and also to express my regret that one of his amendments, and not everyone agrees on this, since it was not reviewed by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, that one of his amendments, proposing that coercive measures be used to ensure the circulation of films, was not adopted. We therefore reached an agreement on undertaking a feasibility study into this circulation. That is all very well, it sounds good. I regret that we did not choose a better way. And I would like to stress two other aspects of this report. Firstly, in today’s Europe, we like to say that we have European works. That is wonderful. We have criteria to define European works, in terms of production, but we now know that it is film heritage which will also define and which defines European works. I therefore welcome the fact that the rapporteur has highlighted the issue of building up our heritage. We know that the Commission hopes to give us a European Cinematic Heritage Foundation. We also know that the Council of Europe recently stressed the importance of building up our heritage. We know very well that this cannot merely be achieved by conserving European films, but, as several of my fellow Members have already said, this comes from providing education on the diversity of European works and on what European works represent for future generations. I therefore attach great importance to the issue of heritage.
To sum up, I would like to stress one important point, that of new technologies. New technologies are instruments for the circulation of many things, such as information, knowledge, and cinema. New technologies have their own linguistic facilities which could be of valuable help in circulating European films. I shall therefore stress the opportunities that this report could provide in this area.
I have emphasised this issue in my report on the Sixth Framework Programme that we will be voting on in a few days. However, I believe that new technologies, research into new technologies and digitalisation are all important."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples