Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-04-Speech-4-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030904.3.4-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the Commission congratulates Mr Perry on his work, evident not only in this report but also in the efforts made over the past months to contribute to a reform of the directive that is in the interests of our citizens. On 6 January, the Commission adopted the fourth report on the application of the Directive and a work programme for its revision incorporating a public consultation.
Finally, as regards media concentration, discussed in paragraphs 36 to 42, I support the idea in the Perry report that pluralism is an important element in safeguarding democracy. This idea is fully reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I would also like to stress that one of the topics covered by the May 2003 Green Paper on Services of General Interest relates precisely to the protection of pluralism. All interested parties are invited to submit their comments by 15 September. The Commission will determine its future policy on the basis of the conclusions of this consultation process.
Finally, I will not be able to comment on all of the changes to the Directive today because we have not yet received all of the written contributions. We receive new contributions every day and I would like to allow my colleagues to complete their analysis before informing you of them by way of the communication on audiovisual policy.
What did we note in this report on the application of the Directive? Firstly, we noted that the Directive is operating relatively well. Nevertheless, recent technological developments call for more detailed reflection. The aim of the public consultation was to enable the Commission to assess the need to update or adjust the Directive and the report and today’s debate will help us in this respect.
As part of its work programme, the Commission organised two series of public hearings, in April and June, and interested parties were invited to participate in public debates by responding to specific questions and forwarding their responses to us. We received 160 written contributions, which are all available on the Commission’s website with the exception of a few whose authors asked for them to be kept confidential. Based on the analysis of the results of this consultation, the Commission plans to submit to Parliament and the Council at the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004 a communication on the future of audiovisual policy, which will be accompanied by proposals if appropriate.
One of the challenges of the revision is to take account of technological innovations. I am thinking in this respect of the Council’s 1998 Recommendation on the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity and Audiovisual and Information Services, which is the first legal instrument to cover the content of audiovisual services on the Internet. After the break, the Commission intends to publish a second report on the implementation of the Recommendation based on a questionnaire that was sent to the Member States. The aim of this report is to ascertain the progress made, to make it possible to make a direct comparison and to include the new Member States.
Mr Perry raises several questions in his report, to which I would like to respond, without prejudice, of course, to the consultations under way. The first relates to the scope of the Directive, referred to in paragraphs 7 to 12. Mr Perry calls for the definition of audiovisual content to be extended to take account of media convergence. However, as long as television broadcasting services continue to enjoy unequal importance and impact in our societies, it would be difficult to reach consensus on the concept of content without frontiers. This was also borne out by the consultation. In addition, while information society services are at an early stage in their development I feel that it would be inappropriate at the current stage of negotiations to subject them to the more detailed approach of the Directive. The very first thing that must be done therefore is to ascertain whether the Directive provides the appropriate regulatory framework for the coming years or whether it needs to be adjusted, and this will be verified in the communication.
As regards the working group of national regulators, mentioned in paragraph 19, the Commission held a meeting with the regulators in March and the next meeting is due to be held on 14 October. Some Member States do not, however, see the need for an additional committee and have already expressed concern that this committee may duplicate work already being done. I am not in favour of the systematic participation of public and private broadcasters; I prefer a system of ad hoc invitations like the one we are using at the moment.
With regard to self-regulation and co-regulation – paragraph 20 of the report – I agree with the rapporteur that greater emphasis should be placed on co-regulation. As a result, in the working documents we have specifically raised this question and I think that we will be able to make some progress in this area.
I would now like to move on to paragraph 28 concerning channels that have a pan-European dimension. I do not think that it is up to the Commission to take the initiative in this field. Indeed, given the disappointing results of a study on the possibilities of using digital platforms for thematic channels, it would be difficult for the Commission to finance any new studies on this subject. Having said that, we are going to contribute indirectly to the creation of pan-European channels by establishing a favourable regulatory framework and by supporting the creation and broadcast of European audiovisual works.
In relation to the question of television for disabled people – paragraph 34 – we must not forget that the Directive deals essentially with the aspects linked to content and the issue of disabled persons is therefore not formally covered in the report on the application of the Directive as it does not fall within its scope. It is up to the Member States to apply the principle of subsidiarity in this area. Nevertheless, access to television services for disabled people is very important. My services have received many contributions regarding these pertinent issues and all of these can be found on the Commission’s website. The website also contains the contributions from associations representing disabled people. In order to make some progress in this area, we plan to organise a round table on 21 October in association with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Royal National Institute for the Blind in the United Kingdom and to invite the Member States to attend and to report on the situation at national level. We are therefore going to continue in this way, and I must also point out that the Information Society DG has set up a working group that has been christened ‘Inclusive Communications’. This aspect is thus being taken into account."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples