2 Audiovisual and information services:
protection of minors and public dignity
| (27235)
5593/06
COM(06) 31
| Amended 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
|
| Document originated | 20 January 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 26 January 2006
|
| Department | Culture, Media and Sport
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 13 March 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see HC 38-iii (2004-05), para 11 (12 January 2005)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 28 March 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
2.1 In 1998, the Council adopted a Recommendation on the protection
of minors and human dignity from unsuitable material from audiovisual
sources, such as television, videos and the Internet.[1]
It recommended co-operation 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.
2.2 In December 2003, the Commission's second report
on the evaluation of the application of the Recommendation found
that progress was broadly satisfactory but said that a proposal
to update the Recommendation would be made.
2.3 The Commission presented the first draft of the
new Recommendation in April 2004. Paragraph I(1) of the first
draft recommended that Member States should consider introducing
their own legislation to provide a right of reply to material
carried on any of the media.
2.4 Paragraph I(2) recommended Member States to encourage
action to help minors make responsible use of on-line audiovisual
and information services (notably, by providing media-literacy
programmes for parents and teachers).
2.5 Paragraph I(3) recommended Member States to encourage
the industry to avoid discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic
origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation
and to oppose such discrimination.
2.6 Paragraph II of the draft Recommendation was
addressed to "the industries and parties concerned".
It recommended that they should develop measures for the benefit
of minors, including helping them to obtain access to audiovisual
and information services without exposure to harmful content.
It also recommended the industry to develop "effective measures"
to avoid discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin,
religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, to
oppose such discrimination and "promote a diversified and
realistic picture of the skills and potential of women and men
in society".
2.7 The Annex to the first draft of the Recommendation
contained "indicative guidelines" for the implementation
by Member States of measures to ensure the right of reply. For
example, it said that a right of reply should apply to all the
media in the Member State's jurisdiction; and Member States should
decide the procedure for exercising the right of reply.
2.8 The then Minister for Media and Heritage at the
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
told the previous Committee that the Government and sections of
the UK industry were concerned that the proposals in the draft
Recommendation about combating discrimination leant in the direction
of influencing editorial content. There was a risk that including
all online media in the proposals about the right to reply or
countering discrimination could produce a system that would not
work and which would, in practice, be ignored.
2.9 The Government enlarged on these concerns at
the meeting of the Council of Ministers in November 2004. The
UK was the only Member State to express reservations about the
draft Recommendation. The Government submitted a Minute Statement
to the meeting, formally setting out its position.
2.10 The previous Committee could see nothing wrong
in principle with the draft Recommendation and cleared it from
scrutiny.[2]
The document
2.11 In September 2005, the European Parliament gave
the draft Recommendation a first reading. It adopted 38 amendments.
2.12 The document sets out the Commission's opinion
on those amendments. The Commission has accepted four of them
in full and has accepted nearly all the others in part or in principle.
As a result, the new text of the proposed Recommendation is significantly
different from, and substantially longer than, the draft considered
by our predecessors.
2.13 The main differences between the revised text
and the first draft are as follows:
- eight new recitals have been
added;
- substantial amendments and additions have been
made to Recommendation II;
- further guidelines have been added to Annex I
and the title of the Annex has been changed from "Indicative
Guidelines" for the implementation by Member States of the
right of reply to "Minimum Principles" for that purpose;
- a new Annex II, headed "Examples of possible
actions concerning media literacy", has been inserted; and
- a new Annex III, headed "Example of possible
actions by the industries and parties concerned for the benefit
of minors", has been added.
2.14 Some of the new recitals merely emphasise or
enlarge upon text which was included in the first draft of the
Recommendation. But others are significant and seek to commit
the EC to new legislation. For example, the Commission proposes
a new recital (1a), which says:
"The European Community has already intervened
in the field of audiovisual and information services in order
to create the necessary conditions to ensure the free movement
of television broadcasts and other information services, in compliance
with the principles of free competition and freedom of expression
and information, but it should act with greater determination
in this area with the aim of setting up a legal framework and
adopting measures to protect consumers from incitement to discrimination
based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability,
age or sexual orientation and combating any such discrimination.
Such action should take into account the balance between both
the principle of protection of human dignity and the principle
of freedom of expression, in particular with respect to Member
States' responsibility for defining the notion of incitement to
hatred or discrimination in accordance with their national legislation
and moral values."
2.15 Similarly, the Commission proposes a new recital
(1d), which says:
"Legislative measures need to be enacted at
European Union level on the protection of the physical, mental
and moral development of minors in relation to the content of
all audiovisual and information services and the protection of
minors from access to adult programmes or services".
2.16 The Commission proposes the addition of a new
Annex II. It lists eight "examples of possible actions concerning
media literacy". They include:
- distribution of information
packs on the dangers of the Internet;
- measures "to establish or improve the performance
of telephone hotlines, so as to make it easier to lodge complaints
about harmful sites and make it possible to report their existence";
- "action to allow one of the most serious
offences against children's dignity, child pornography on the
Internet, to be combated effectively"; and
- "publicity campaigns designed to condemn
violence against minors and to help victims by offering psychological,
moral and practical support."
2.17 In response to the European Parliament's amendments,
the Commission proposes a new Recommendation IIa. It includes
statements of the Commission's intention to:
- run a European-wide information
campaign "to inform the public about the risks of the Internet,
how to use it responsibly and safely, how to make complaints and
how to activate parental control";
- consider the possibility of "introducing
a European freephone number … to assist Internet users by
directing them to available complaints mechanisms and information
resources and providing information for parents about the effectiveness
of filtering software"; and
- consider the possibility of "supporting
the establishment of a generic second level domain name reserved
for monitored sites committed to respecting minors and their rights".
The Government's view
2.18 The Minister for Creative Industries and Tourism
at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (James Purnell)
tells us that the Commission's revised draft of the Recommendation:
"is far too long, detailed and prescriptive
for a Recommendation, and paints a very negative picture of the
Internet and the media in general."
2.19 The Minister also tells us that:
- the Government is surprised
that the Commission is willing to accept the European Parliament's
view that EU legislation is needed on the content of all audiovisual
and information services so as to protect the physical, mental
and moral development of minors (proposed new recital (1d));
- protection of minors is essential but can be
managed satisfactorily by Member States;
- EU legislation, particularly if it were binding
on the press, would be "entirely inappropriate"; and
- the new Annex II (examples of possible actions
concerning media literacy) "majors on the potential dangers
of the Internet. It reads as a litany of horrors". The Government
strongly supports the promotion of media literacy in order to
maximise the personal and economic benefits of the new information
technologies as well as to guard against any dangers.
2.20 The Minister says that the Council has already
reached agreement on alterations which would remove some of undesirable
features of the Commission's revised draft (for example, removing
the reference to "legislative measures" from new recital
(1d)). He says that:
"The UK will continue to press for further amendments.
It has to be recognised, however, that the room to secure improvements
is limited. Most other Member States have not expressed serious
difficulty with the propositions in this document."
Conclusion
2.21 We share the Minister's view that the Commission's
revised draft is far too long, detailed and prescriptive. As he
says, it includes commitments to future EU legislation which might
conflict with the principle of subsidiarity and which are, in
any event, out of place in a Recommendation. We ask the Minister
if he shares our view that a Recommendation under the EC Treaty
cannot properly include commitments for future action under the
EU Treaty.
2.22 The Commission has not presented a justification
of the addition of the new Annex II ("examples of possible
actions concerning media literacy"). Moreover, the Annex
includes actions which do not appear to be about media literacy,
such as adopting measures against child pornography on the Internet
or running publicity campaigns to help victims of violence to
minors "by offering psychological, moral and practical support".
2.23 In our view, it is unlikely that the Recommendation
would be effective if the revisions proposed by the Commission
were adopted. We are glad, therefore, that the Council has already
agreed to remove some of the undesirable features. We support
the Government's aim of securing further amendments so as to achieve
a text of reasonable length and balanced content and which is
not cluttered with extraneous detail.
2.24 We ask the Minister to tell us why the Government
regards Article 157 of the EC Treaty as an appropriate legal base
for the Recommendation. We also ask him to provide us with reports
on the progress of the negotiations. Meanwhile, we shall keep
the document under scrutiny.
1 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, 7.10.1998, p.48. Back
2
See headnote. Back
| 
