12 Audiovisual and information services:
protection of minors and human dignity
| (25647)
9195/04
COM(04) 341
| Draft Recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity and the right of reply in relation to the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry
|
| Legal base | Article 157 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Culture, Media and Sport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 3 November 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxii (2003-04), para 17 (9 June 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 16 November 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (decision reported on 9 June 2004); further information now requested
|
Background
12.1 In 1998, the Council adopted a Recommendation on the protection
of minors and of human dignity from unsuitable material from audiovisual
sources, such as television, videos and the Internet.[38]
It recommended cooperation between users, consumers, public authorities,
parents, teachers and the industry to promote self-regulation
and co-regulation, codes of conduct, and the development of rating
and filtering systems.
12.2 In December 2003, the Commission's second report
on the evaluation of the application of the Recommendation found
that progress was broadly satisfactory but stated that a proposal
to update the Recommendation would be made.[39]
In April of this year, the Commission made its updating proposal.
12.3 Paragraph I(1) of the draft Recommendation proposes
that Member States should consider:
"the introduction of measures into their
domestic law or practice in order to ensure a right of reply
across all media, without prejudice to the possibility of adapting
the manner in which it is exercised to take into account the particularities
of each type of medium."
12.4 Paragraph I(2) of the draft Recommendation recommends
Member States to promote action to enable minors to make responsible
use of on-line audiovisual and information services (notably,
by education programmes for parents and teachers).
12.5 Paragraph I(3) recommends Member States to encourage:
"industry to avoid discrimination based
on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability,
age or sexual orientation in all media and to combat such discrimination."
12.6 Paragraph II of the draft Recommendation is
addressed to "the industries and other parties". Paragraph
II(2) recommends them to:
"develop effective measures to avoid discrimination
based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability,
age or sexual orientation in all media, and to combat such discrimination
and promote a diversified and realistic picture of the skills
and potential of women and men in society."
12.7 When we considered the draft Recommendation
in June, the Minister for Media and Heritage at the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey) told
us that the Government welcomed the proposal and that Ofcom has
powers to set content standards and to handle broadcasting complaints
about invasion of privacy and the fair treatment of individuals
and groups. We decided to clear the document from scrutiny.
The Minister's letter
12.8 The Minister has now written to say that, while
the Government continues to welcome the stress the draft Recommendation
places on media literacy and the protection of children and minors
and believes that there is benefit in a pan-European approach,
further consideration of the text, together with views expressed
by parts of the media industry:
"have led us to develop serious concerns
about it in as far as it appears to suggest that inappropriate
levels of regulation should be applied to Internet sources.
"The Recommendation covers both broadcasting
and a range of internet services. So far as both broadcasting
and the Internet are concerned, we believe that the proposals
on combating discrimination at Recommendation I (3) and II (2)
in the document lean in the direction of influencing editorial
content. That is not a proper role for Government to take.
"We also foresee problems with the inclusion
of online services in the right of reply and discrimination sections
of the Recommendation. A common regulatory regime between broadcasting
and internet content, as proposed here, is unnecessary.
"Including online media in terms either
of 'discrimination' or rights of reply risks producing a system
that will not work and will in practice be ignored. Many online
services of the kind to which the Recommendation applies merely
aggregate material over which they have little editorial control
and which may originate outside the EU, for example search engines,
and there would be real difficulties in producing a workable definition
of web-based news services.
"Users of the Internet have a right of reply
by virtue of the technology. They can add their own material by,
for example, creating their own websites.
"As a result, we fear that the Recommendation
may have a chilling effect on the growth of e media in the EU.
It could work directly contrary to its stated aim of enhancing
the competitiveness of the European online industry.
"The Recommendation is to be discussed at
the Ministerial Council in Brussels on 16th November.
It is also to be discussed in the European Parliament Culture
and Education Committee on, we believe, November 25th.
Our current intention is to use the opportunity of the Ministerial
Council to make the Government's reservations about it plain.
I thought though that before that it would be helpful for your
Committee to have a further opportunity to consider the issues
which the Recommendation raises."
Conclusion
12.9 We are grateful to the Minister for alerting
us to the concerns about this proposal that have emerged since
we first considered the draft Recommendation in June. We regard
his letter as an encouraging example of the open and constructive
dialogue between the Government and ourselves which we wish to
encourage.
12.10 We agree that great caution is required
in dealing with any proposal that could amount to censorship of
content. But it does not seem to us that paragraph I(3) of the
draft Recommendation proposes Government censorship. The paragraph
expressly refers to Member States "encouraging industry to
avoid discrimination". "Encouragement" is a different
matter from regulation and it does not seem to us that there is
anything improper in governments encouraging the audiovisual and
information service industries, or anyone else, to avoid unfair
discrimination. On the contrary, we regard it as right and proper
for Government and Parliament to speak out against injustice wherever
it may be found.
12.11 Paragraph II(2) of the document recommends
the industry to "develop effective measures to avoid discrimination".
We can see nothing wrong with such a recommendation in principle
and the reason for misgivings about it appears to us obscure.
12.12 The Minister's letter indicates that it
might not be practicable for the online media to apply effective
systems to avoid discrimination or for rights of reply. We see
no value in a proposals that are unworkable or will be ignored.
We should be interested to know, therefore, whether other Member
States share the Government's doubts about the practicability
of this part of the draft Recommendation.
12.13 At this stage, we are not persuaded that
there are sufficient grounds for us to rescind our previous clearance
of the document. But we should be grateful if the Minister would
tell us about the discussion of the document at the Council on
16 November 2004 so that we may reflect on the issues again with
the benefit of further information.
38 Recommendation on the development of the competitiveness
of the European audiovisual and information services industry
by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable
and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity
(98/560/EC); OJ No. L 270, 7.10.98, p.48. Back
39
(25215) 16205/03: see HC 42-ix (2003-04), para 21 (4 February
2004). Back
|
