11 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 10 December 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxii (2003-04), para 17 (9 June 2004) and HC 42-xxxvi (2003-04), para 12 (10 November 2004)
|
| Discussed in Council | 16 November 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (decision reported on 9 June 2004)
|
Introduction
11.1 In June, we considered a proposal from the Commission to
update the Council Recommendation of 1998 about the protection
of minors and human dignity from unsuitable material from audiovisual
sources. The Government told us that it welcomed the proposal.
We cleared the document from further scrutiny. But in November,
the Government informed us that it had developed concerns about
some aspects of the proposal. We were not persuaded that there
were sufficient grounds for us to rescind our previous clearance
of the document but we asked to be told about the discussion of
the draft Recommendation by the Council on 16 November so that
we might reflect on the issues again with the benefit of further
information.
Background
11.2 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.[34]
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.
11.3 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.[35]
In April 2004, the Commission made its updating proposal.
11.4 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."
11.5 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).
11.6 Paragraph I(3) recommends Member States to encourage
the industry
"to avoid discrimination based on sex,
racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or
sexual orientation in all media and to [counter] such discrimination."
11.7 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."
11.8 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.
11.9 The Minister wrote to us on 3 November to say
that, while the Government continues to welcome the emphasis 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 the e media in the
EU. It could work directly contrary to its stated aim of enhancing
the competitiveness of the European online industry."
11.10 The Minister also told us that the draft Recommendation
was to be discussed by the Council on 16 November and by the European
Parliament's Culture and Education Committee on 25 November. The
Government intended to make clear its reservations about the proposal
at the Council meeting. The Minister said that he thought that,
before the Council discussed the matter, it would be helpful
for us to have a further opportunity to consider the issues raised
by the Recommendation.
11.11 When we considered the Minister's letter on
10 November, we agreed that great caution is required in dealing
with any proposal that could amount to censorship of content.
But it did 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 did 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,
it is right and proper for Government and Parliament to speak
out against injustice wherever it may be found.
11.12 Paragraph II(2) of the document recommends
the industry to "develop effective measures to avoid discrimination".
We could see nothing wrong with such a recommendation in principle
and the reason for misgivings about it appeared to us obscure.
11.13 Moreover, the Minister's letter indicated that
it might not be practicable for the online media to apply effective
systems to avoid discrimination or for rights of reply.
11.14 In the light of the information before us on
10 November, we were not persuaded that there were sufficient
grounds to rescind our previous clearance of the document. But
we asked the Minister to tell us about the discussion of the
document at the Council on 16 November so that we might reflect
on the issues again with the benefit of further information.
The Minister's letter of 10 December
11.15 The Minister's letter tells us that the Council
agreed a general approach to the draft Recommendation on 16 November.
He says that:
"The UK was the only Member State which
expressed reservations. I explained that whilst the UK Government
agrees with the parts of the proposal aimed at improving children's
media literacy, it objects to the parts of the Recommendation
which lean in the direction of content regulation of the Internet
and to applying a right of reply to the online environment. The
UK submitted a Minute Statement which sets out our position."
11.16 The Minister also comments on the consideration
of the draft Recommendation by the European Parliament's Culture
and Education Committee on 25 November. He says:
"The Committee's rapporteur, Marielle
Sarnez, set out her initial views. As I understand it these were
that there needs to be more education for parents on the risks
of letting their children surf the Internet, that search engines
should regulate whatever sites they gave access to, and that there
should be a helpline for citizens to use if they discover a suspicious
site or chat room which is targeting children.
"Aside from the point about search engines,
I think that the UK Government would be broadly happy with all
these propositions. Mme Sarnez also said that the right of reply,
as a separate issue, should therefore be in a separate recommendation
of its own. To which, the Commission expressed some concern about
the danger of the proliferation of different recommendations in
this area.
"The Committee [of the European Parliament]
agreed to reconsider the Recommendation in March and that there
should be a plenary vote on it in May 2005."
Conclusion
11.17 We thank the Minister for this information.
It does not, however, contain anything new to lead us to revise
the views we formed when we considered the draft Recommendation
in June and November. Accordingly, the document remains cleared
from scrutiny.
34 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
35
(25215) 16205/03: see HC 42-ix (2003-04), para 21 (4 February
2004). Back
|
