Resumption of the session President I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament, adjourned on Friday, 30 September 1996. Approval of the Minutes President The Minutes of the last sitting have been distributed. Are there any comments? Plooij-Van Gorsel Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you may remember that during the last sitting in Strasbourg, I asked why the Dutch station RTL4 had disappeared from our screens here. Two weeks ago, I received a call from Parliament to tell me that it would be available again in time for this sitting. So I came to Strasbourg full of anticipation and turned my set on this afternoon, only to find that this was not the case. Channel 12 now has a teleshopping programme selling German goods, which is not the same thing at all. So I would ask you, Mr President, to do what you can to ensure that we do get RTL4 back as we were promised. My second question concerns written questions. On 9 September, I tabled a question under Rule 42, which means that I should have received a reply within three weeks, or six if it was a difficult problem. It is now precisely six weeks since 9 September and I have still not received an answer. To whom should I apply for an answer to my question? President We shall look into your first point, Mrs Plooij-Van Gorsel. As regards the second matter, you will know that I am the one who has been trying to ensure that deadlines are respected in all cases, especially as regards the questions tabled by Members. If that has not worked in this case, I shall do all I can to ensure that you receive a reply very quickly. (Parliament approved the Minutes) Order of business President The next item is the order of business. The final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of 17 October 1996 pursuant to Rule 95 of the Rules of Procedure has been distributed. Wednesday: President The Group of the European Radical Alliance has requested the referral back to committee, pursuant to Rule 129, of the report by Mr Posselt, on behalf of the Committee on External Economic Relations, on the economic and trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Union and Slovenia. I give the floor to Mr Dell'Alba to explain the request. Dell'Alba Mr President, I should like to explain my request for this report to be referred back to committee: first of all, in one paragraph the Committee on External Economic Relations gives its assent, whereas - with all due respect - it is not competent to do so. I know that a corrigendum has been issued. But another simple reason, Mr Posselt, is that an explanatory statement serves to justify a report. Yet this one, a report of an economic nature, contains a reconstruction of historical events since 1945, tragic events affecting not only the Community and various communities referred to in the report, but also the Italian community which used to live in these areas and which has been completely overlooked. Since this departs from the subject of the report, and in particular because the explanatory statement takes no account either of the report or of historical fact, I am requesting referral back to committee. It would, to put it mildly, be a scandal if Parliament were to adopt such an explanatory statement. Green Mr President, as you will remember this was discussed at the Conference of Presidents last Thursday and there was agreement that some of that explanatory statement was not in line with the Rules of this House. You undertook to deal with that before it came to the House. I hope that will resolve the problem and that we can go on as planned and deal with the Posselt report on the agenda. That is what my group is in favour of and we support your approach of trying to take out those items in the explanatory statement which are at variance with the Rules of this House. President You have correctly described the outcome of our discussions in the Conference of Presidents. As regards the motion for a resolution, a corrigendum has since been submitted. The question regarding the motion for a resolution has been settled by the corrigendum. There remains the problem of the explanatory statement. However, I see that the rapporteur himself, Mr Posselt, is asking for the floor. Posselt Mr President, I should simply like to say that I tried in my report to present a genuinely comprehensive picture of the economic and trade aspects and to link these - as is the practice in the Committee on External Economic Relations - with an assessment of the political context, which is essential for an objective evaluation. There was near-unanimity in favour of the report in the Committee on External Economic Relations: it was approved by 18 votes to 1, with all the Italian members present voting in favour. Mr Dell'Alba was not represented. He delivered a minority report in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy, but in the Committee on External Economic Relations the report was approved almost unanimously. As regards the explanatory statement - which is not normally put to the vote - there was in fact an exchange of letters between Mr Konecny, the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Party of European Socialists, and myself, and we achieved a broad degree of consensus on drafting the explanatory statement. I also took the unusual step of incorporating into my report all the comments of my committee colleagues, and there was a broad consensus in the committee that these too were acceptable. President I have now let Mr Posselt speak to explain the situation in the committee. That was already very generous of me, and I see that Mr Fayot, as chairman of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, is looking at me rather quizzically. I shall therefore now also give the floor to Mr Dell'Alba once again on a point of order. I know what that means. But let me say that the vote which we shall have to take in a moment concerns the question of whether we refer this report back to committee, and nothing more. Dell'Alba Mr President, in view of what has been said by Mrs Green, we withdraw our request. We are satisfied with the reply, as long as the explanatory statement can be amended, and the Conference of Presidents has agreed to amend it as necessary. I would just say to Mr Posselt that I cannot possibly participate in all 20 parliamentary committees. President That allows us to solve the problem very neatly and correctly. Friday: President With regard to the votes scheduled for Friday under the procedure without report, 29 Members have opposed application of the procedure, pursuant to Rule 99(2). The objections concern the proposal for a regulation on the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution, and the proposal for a regulation on the protection of forests against fire. These proposals are thus referred back to the committee responsible for reconsideration. That is how we proceed, and this happens automatically when there is opposition from 29 Members. Castagnetti Mr President, I am not clear about the list of urgencies which has been approved. I was requesting the inclusion of the disasters which have struck Italy - the flood in Calabria and the earthquake - because the damage done is truly enormous. Fortunately, not very many lives were lost, but tremendous damage has been done to our artistic heritage and to public property. I believe that solidarity should be shown at the time, and not months afterwards. President You have misunderstood that, Mr Castagnetti. I announced a request for urgent procedure from the Council. The list of subjects for the topical and urgent debate will be presented tomorrow. There is a further meeting of the Conference of Presidents on the question tonight, since we were unable to reach agreement last week. Mr Cornelissen, if I know you, you surely do not wish to raise a point of order, and I cannot give you the floor for any other reason! Cornelissen Mr President, once you hear what I have to say, I am sure you will agree that I am right to draw your attention to a serious coach crash which occurred yesterday. On behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I would ask you to extend Parliament's condolences to the victims and their families and friends. I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission when we can expect to see the measures it announced to improve coach transport safety, which is an extremely urgent matter, as the events of yesterday sadly demonstrated once again. President I shall express the condolences of the House to the victims' families, Mr Cornelissen. As regards the Commission, we shall be having a debate tomorrow on its annual programme, and that is precisely when you can raise the matter. Crowley Mr President, sorry for taking up your time but I just want to put on the record as a point of order my objection to the fact that on the agenda for this week we have Question Time to the Commission at 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday afternoon and at the same time we also have committee meetings. Question Time is this Parliament's one opportunity to put the Commission in the dock and put questions on issues that affect our constituents. I think it is wrong that there should be a clash between Question Time and committee meetings. President As you know, Mr Crowley, when I first took office, I tried to ensure that other meetings did not take place at the same time as our plenary sittings. The House has not followed my lead in this respect, including your own group. So I can do no more about it! Cinema and television production President The next item is the report (A4-0304/96) by Mrs Guinebertière, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, on the proposal for a Council Decision (COM(95)0546 - C4-0070/96-95/0281(CNS)) establishing a European Guarantee Fund to promote cinema and television production. Guinebertière Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report which I am presenting to you today on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media was adopted unanimously, apart from one abstention, and yet this report has made the kind of stop-start progress which is unfortunately all too familiar to us here in Parliament. Its subject is the establishment of a European Guarantee Fund to promote cinema and television production. In the GATT negotiations, Europe obtained the cultural exemption which allows our political leaders to create instruments to support the audiovisual sector. There are in fact considerable cultural and economic interests at stake in our information society, where the need for images is spiralling to dizzy heights. This proposal forms part of the overall Council and Commission policy in favour of the audiovisual industry, based essentially on three instruments. There is the television without frontiers directive, which establishes the legal framework, the MEDIA II programme, which as everyone knows provides support for programmes and catalogues... (The President interrupted the speaker) President I would ask the two Members just beside the rapporteur to stop their conversation. I think that is illmannered and discourteous. Guinebertière Thank you, Mr President. That is indeed much better now - I can hear myself speak. There is the television without frontiers directive, which establishes the legal framework, the MEDIA II programme, which as we all know provides support for cinema and television programmes and catalogues, but is unfortunately not enough to reverse the trend towards further imports from the United States, and thirdly the Guarantee Fund. The Commission's proposal for a decision contains five main points, first and foremost the establishment of a Guarantee Fund, with a view to sharing risk with providers of funding to the audiovisual industry. By acting as an incentive, it should encourage banks to fund the cinema and television production sector, which is widely known as a 'high-risk' activity. The Commission proposes the formation of the necessary capital, half of which - ECU 90 million - would come from the Union, and the other half - ECU 90 m - from private banks. The Commission is asking that the guarantees provided should amount to no more than 50 % of the individual loans and credits granted. Under the proposal, responsibility for managing the Fund would fall to the EIF, which would conclude guarantee contracts with the banks. A cooperation agreement between the EIF and the Commission would cover the management of the Fund, which would be created for an unlimited period, although there would be an assessment after three years, and then every five years. What has been the response from the Council? The Working Group on Audiovisual Affairs has considered the matter three times and raised numerous questions. It called in particular for consultation of the Ecofin Council, and this took place on 11 March 1996. A number of technical and financial issues raised there cast doubt on the political will of the Member States, and a further study has been requested. Nor can it necessarily be said that the banks will seek to participate directly in the Fund's capital in the first instance, since the present proposal says nothing about how the banks should be involved in managing their own capital within the EIF. What is more, the return on private capital invested in this Fund would have to be governed by clauses set out in the cooperation agreement, and here too there is a lack of detail. As rapporteur, having consulted many funding bodies and professionals, I am proposing on behalf of the Committee on Culture that the capital of the Fund should remain open, in particular to the EIB, that the Fund should be able not only to guarantee productions, but also to promote co-productions and the compilation of catalogues, and that the Fund should be used to increase the circulation of cinema and television works in Europe and beyond, as well as promoting co-productions by producers in smaller language areas. We are also proposing a five-year test phase, followed by both a financial assessment and a sectoral impact study, perhaps accompanied by proposals, which will enable the Commission to make the Fund permanent. We should also like this Fund to be managed within the EIF by an ad hoc body to be known as a Banking Committee, consisting of the external partners, the EIF and the Commission. Finally, we think that an additional committee, consisting of experts from banking and audiovisual circles, should be set up to pre-select projects, in order to enable the project sponsors to negotiate their rates for the sums guaranteed. Our amendments are constructive ones, and we hope that they will help the Commission to fine-tune its proposal in an effort to gain the support of the Member States. Personally, I am convinced that a European promotion mechanism on these lines can enable our original productions to compete with those of the American giant. Europe has many talented artists: let us help them to produce works of fiction which will be circulated to 370 million European viewers, and soon many more. Tongue Mr President, first of all, many thanks to our rapporteur, Mrs Guinebertière. She really has done superb work on this proposal and has shown both vision and great attention to detail. And many thanks too to the Commission and Commissioner present with us today for their proposal which, quite rightly, complements a trilogy of measures to support Europe's audiovisual policy and industry. The Europe Guarantee Fund is a key card in our strategy in Europe to bring investment and jobs to this fast expanding sector of the economy. It is always worth remembering that Jacques Delors' famous White Paper predicted there would be 2 million extra jobs in this area of the economy. And it is only with measures like this fund that we are going to create those jobs in Europe. It should also be remembered that we are facing a 4 billion dollar deficit in audiovisual services with the USA. That again underlines the fact that this fund is essential to help redress that balance and very importantly enhance cultural diversity on our screens. Cultural pluralism will only be developed when we have economic pluralism and it is economic pluralism in cinema and television this fund will really help develop. The recent report by the European Investment Bank that our rapporteur mentioned confirms the value, viability and potentially positive impact of such a fund on our cinema and television industry. The report confirms also, very importantly, the positive interest from the financial sector. I make a plea to Ministers: they must take this report seriously as well as the views of this House today. The European Parliament supports the fund, the industry professionals support the fund and certain visionary governments support the fund. In this respect we owe much to the Irish Minister, Michael D. Higgins, whose determination to put culture and the audiovisual industry at the heart of the European Union is absolutely second to none. We wish him luck at the next meeting of culture ministers on this issue. But certain governments are hesitating; certain governments have said 'let's see what Ecofin Ministers have to say about this report' . Surprise, surprise - when they were consulted, what did the Ecofin Ministers say? 'Do we really need this fund? Will it really create jobs?' Such negative comments display a level of economic and cultural illiteracy. As Michael D. Higgins recently said, if the European Union is going to continue to be purely about economics and competition policy it will not win the hearts and minds of our citizens. It is on television and cinema screens that we are going to win the hearts and minds of our citizens and by supporting our audiovisual industry. As the Irish Minister said: books and films are not buckets. Films are also not fish, I would add. At the Cannes Summit of 1995 heads of state actually asked the Commission to go away and propose this fund. I wish ministers had not so easily forgotten that they asked for these proposals in the first place. So at the next meeting of Culture Ministers, under the judicious presidency of Michael D. Higgins, let us have a political decision that this fund should go ahead. Details can be left to later. The United States Administration has always been very serious throughout this century about supporting its film and TV industry. We have to be equally serious. Let our ministers show for once that they are serious about culture and the creative economy and that they care more about that than cars or carrots or, indeed, competition policy. This fund should be up and running at the beginning of 1997. Anything less would be to betray our audiovisual industry and the jobs that it can create. Banotti Mr President, I thank Mme Guinebertière for her heroic work on this very complex document. I note also that it looks as if colleagues from the other side of the House have stolen the Irish Minister for Culture in this context. They have certainly stolen some of my own lines! This is a very welcome report for those of us who have worked in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media on this issue. The proposal for this guarantee fund is both timely and progressive. We are aware of the significant growth in the EU audiovisual market - 16 % per annum - which makes it the fastest growing audiovisual market in the world. We are equally aware of the discrepancy between the EU audiovisual market size and the position of EU productions within that market. In this context a proposal such as the guarantee fund, which puts in place a fourth building block in the development of the infrastructure of the Community audiovisual market is to be welcomed. Let us hope when it is up and running that we will finally be able to produce films which people want to see, will enhance our bank of cultural products itself and also be films that other Europeans want to see and will go to. Ms Tongue has pointed out that this is a political issue and indeed it very much is. While broadly supporting the guarantee fund, it must be stressed that the success of the fund will depend on certain key tenets being addressed in its structure. First of all, it must truly be a pan-European fund. It must be structured to ensure that all countries have access. As we are aware, the banking structure and its relationship with film varies across Europe. It is important that the fund plays a role as an incentive to less film-friendly banking countries to participate in film financing, to take a risk, to take a gamble, to take a toss at producing something so that they might ultimately not just be very proud of their own involvement but also it might actually make some money for them as well. A weighting to reflect the different banking systems may very well be necessary in the fund. Parliament has already addressed this equitable right to participate with its reference to the position of countries with small audiovisual capacity. This is vital and must be retained. It is interesting to note that the differentiation in the banking sector's involvement in film is not necessarily related to the country's audiovisual output capacity. The role of the European Investment Bank in the structuring and operation of the guarantee fund, as currently proposed, is central. We know it generally deals with major infrastructure projects where levels of security are very high and each project's timescale is measured over many years. The fact that the project profile for audiovisual production is more shortterm must be acknowledged. It cannot, as Ms Tongue has said, be viewed in the same way as perhaps more clearly defined economic proposals are. The fund, as currently proposed, allows for the participation of distributors and other funders including broadcasters and independent European film producers. This again focuses on a key element of European policy and thinking regarding the importance of distribution and access to the market for European films. We are also very well aware that good progress in this whole area is being made under the Irish presidency where there is a passionate attachment and a very positive experience of progressing film production. We will, no doubt, continue cautiously, but progress is surely being made in recognizing that the guarantee fund is a vital part of the future for the European film industry. Daskalaki Mr President, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Guinebertière warmly on this excellent report. We are delighted to welcome the undertaking of such a clearly European enterprise, whose aim is to support the European film industry and the wider field of audiovisual broadcasting, which reflects Europe's multicultural society. The proposed fund is an intermediate step between grant-based systems such as MEDIA, for example, which do not suffice on their own to support European film industry, and clearly commercial funding systems. A risk-sharing system of this type is pioneering and addresses the need to create European audiovisual products of high quality with prospects of commercial success, so that they will attract interest from major investors. The report quite rightly points out the need for clarity, both concerning political will for the final creation of the fund and with regard to how it is to operate. In that context, however, the rapporteur's amendments proposing, first, the constitution of an ad hoc body within the framework of the European Investment Fund and, secondly, the fixing of a five-year trial period, are particularly important. However, we are concerned about the eligibility criteria for projects to be funded, and about the criteria of commercial success, lest these should result in a policy of support only for major projects that will neglect the individuality of the audiovisual sector in Europe and its multicultural aspect. The report is particularly successful in drawing attention to those dangers. Small and medium enterprises, and more generally productions from Member States with a limited audiovisual output, geographically small and whose languages are less widely used, should receive more favourable treatment exactly as happens in the context of MEDIA II. We would therefore like to see a specific proportion of the total amount committed to such cases, with priority for proposals relating to co-productions by at least two Member States, and finally, we consider that independent producers, who generally give expression to cultural and linguistic individuality, should be given particular support. Vaz da Silva Mr President, the Guinebertière report deserves a solid parliamentary consensus because, not only is it very balanced, but it also puts forward some specific technical solutions calling for the creation of a guarantee fund to promote European audiovisual production. I would like to pick out some of the most important points for setting up a specific framework for this fund; bringing it into the scope of the European Investment Bank, which has a cultural side, in order to create attractive financial conditions for all the partners involved and, an aspect which I particularly welcome, the accent on including small production countries and small projects in the programme. It should also be pointed out that, without this fund, the MEDIA II Programme, promoting training, development and distribution, and the Television without Frontiers Directive, regulating TV-broadcasting, will never attain their main objective of reviving European production and making it competitive with the rest of the world. The Guinebertière report clarifies and reinforces the Commission proposal, which the Committee on Culture unanimously regarded as a good basis. Now we have to overcome any doubts that might linger in certain Member States. To those Member States which, although aware of the need for the fund, are hesitating to give it the goahead, on behalf of the Liberal Group I should like to point out three things: all professional sectors of the audiovisual industry are unanimous in calling for it to be set up; -the EIF technical opinion, sought by the Commission, has confirmed that it is financially viable; -tens of millions of ECU allocated to the MEDIA II Programme would be wasted unless the go-ahead is given, since without the knock-on effect of the Guarantee Fund only marginal effects will be produced.I shall end with an appeal for a pooling of efforts and ideas so that the fund can be created in 1997 for a trial period, with all of the monitoring and control guarantees proposed in the report. With this Guarantee Fund we should finally attract sufficient numbers of private investors to give European creativity an opportunity to show its strength inside and outside its frontiers. Pailler Mr President, while welcoming Mrs Guinebertière's enthusiasm for the establishment of a European Guarantee Fund, it is easy to imagine just how much will-power, conviction, humour sometimes and optimism she must have needed to bring her report to the plenary. Yes, we do need this Guarantee Fund to promote cinema production, the distribution of films in cinemas, and the broadcasting of European works by television channels. We have repeatedly lined up the figures to prove this, every time there has been a need to defend our cultural identity and our cinema and television industry, almost as if we were dealing with what I might call - if I were not a feminist - ' a young girl's fancy' on the part of Europe. Yet the employment potential of this sector is not insignificant, as Hollywood and the United States realized 50 years ago. The result is that today, according to the figures of the European Audiovisual Observatory, 77.7 % of the works of fiction broadcast in 1994 by the 88 television channels in the EU were not of European origin. That is enough figures. I fail to understand the attitude of some of those in the Council. What does it take to convince you? Unless a historic but unthinkable decision has been taken simply to abandon, to sacrifice Europe's culture. Here too, the figures speak volumes. The initial proposal, in 1994, amounted to 1 % of the Structural Funds, or ECU 1.5 billion over five years. Now the Commission is proposing ECU 90 million, exactly the sum siphoned off from MEDIA II. It goes without saying that, if it is to have a dynamic effect, this Fund should not give priority to large projects. I should like to end by addressing myself more particularly to the French ministers who, instead of jeopardizing the positive role of the financing companies in France by proposing to abolish their tax advantages, should be proposing to extend to Europe this very effective method of funding the cinema, as Mrs Guinebertière has emphasized. In the run-up to the Cultural Affairs Council on 16 December, this report has the great merit of reaffirming the cultural, industrial and economic potential and interest of the cinema and the audiovisual sector. Allow me finally to paraphrase a statement by Wim Wenders. He was referring to industry; I refer to politics and the Union. One can perhaps accept that the European Union cannot afford to be idealistic, but one cannot accept that it has a right to hold its industries and citizens in contempt; it should not be allowed to do so. Wolf Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the language of the audiovisual media is still - and will increasingly be - the first language of mass communication, entertainment and understanding: levels of active and passive participation will continue to increase because, for very many people, the audiovisual media constitute the arena for deciding whether they are to be winners or losers. At the same time, however, the audiovisual media are suffering a fate similar to the enclosure of the medieval commons: language and expression are being reduced to market commodities, instead of being understood as the objects of a continuing public duty - a duty of care and custody, renewal and creation. Likewise, innovation and creativity are not mere by-products of the competitive market, and that is why we need the resources to offer them public support. The Guarantee Fund is one important element. However, we should never forget that it is equally important to strengthen public-service production and distribution. Nor should we fall into the trap of seeking a European answer to the abstraction that is Disney culture. We need genuine diversity, including the capacity to enter into dialogue with others; we need genuinely panEuropean initiatives in which there will also be a place for smaller countries and language areas, which are part of our rich heritage. We need a political logic that will counter the unquestioning acceptance of the WTO logic on a world scale. We need this report - and I thank Mrs Guinebertière for it - but we must also realize, given the increasingly capitalintensive nature of this particular field, that the alliance of European film-makers, which first mooted this project, was certainly unrealistic in thinking that the money would be enough for some 17 years, without the addition of further resources. We must also be clear that the figure of two to three million potential jobs - which has been used in arguing the case - is, unfortunately, not a realistic one, given the rationalization that is taking place in the audiovisual media as a result of new technologies and organizational concepts. It is all the more important to activate this political catalyst, and to draw on the political will of the Member States to ensure that it actually works. To recap, therefore: we shall support the motion, but we should be under no illusions - we have not yet achieved the decisive breakthrough. Leperre-Verrier Mr President, can finance and economics come to the aid of culture? This is to some extent the question which should be answered by the establishment of this European Guarantee Fund to promote cinema and television production. For how can a strong, dynamic audiovisual sector be developed, when this sector has certain weaknesses which are directly attributable to underinvestment? The Commission is now proposing this Guarantee Fund, designed to share the risks run by financiers when they invest in the audiovisual sector. Under this mechanism, based on similar experiments in France and Spain, it should be possible, in the long term, to cover 50 % of the risks incurred by the projects selected. However, as Mrs Guinebertière states in her excellent report, although this scheme will provide vital support for a fully-fledged audiovisual industry, a number of points need further clarification. I am thinking in particular of the role of the European Investment Fund, a partner in the scheme, as well as the problem of project selection and how to reconcile cultural interest with profitability. Furthermore, the financial framework should be specified. Indeed, I find it somewhat hard to believe that the budget earmarked for the launch of the scheme - counted in tens of millions of ECU - will be enough to give it any real impetus. We know how reluctant banks are to invest in what is seen as a high-risk sector: how then can they be expected to join in establishing a Fund with a turnover of less than ECU 110 million? What is more, we are well aware of the imperfections in the organization of production companies in European countries and the need for streamlining. Since they are too small, they find it difficult to compete with American producers, which are huge and still expanding. So will the Fund be able to pump sufficient oxygen into this sector for it to forge ahead and restructure? If it can, then perhaps this Guarantee Fund will enable the David of Europe to triumph over the Goliath of Hollywood! De Coene Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament is delivering its opinion on the establishment of a European Guarantee Fund just as a study by the EIF has appeared, indicating that a guarantee fund could be an ideal instrument. It would operate for 17 years without any further injection of Community capital, and within ten years could be helping to finance around 630 cinema and television films and the compilation of some 60 catalogues. We in the Socialist Group would urge that this Fund be set up without delay, for a number of reasons. First, there are cultural reasons. As you know, we support the introduction of a quota in the review of the television without frontiers directive. Opponents say that there are better ways of promoting Europe's film culture, and recommend a defensive approach. They talk about alternatives, such as the Fund. We are now taking them at their word. Are the governments prepared to help fund an operation which will pump new life into European culture? There are also economic reasons. Are the governments prepared to provide funding to expand an industry which is finding it difficult to withstand the tide of American violence? And there are social reasons too. Making and distributing these hundreds of productions will create a good many jobs, but the question is whether the governments are prepared to invest in this type of new employment. We are asking these questions because we are not happy about them. The Council has already shown itself to be rather pessimistic about this Fund. A number of questions raised have, in our opinion, been answered perfectly adequately by the EIF report. Parliament, through its rapporteur Mrs Guinebertière, has also shown a great deal of flexibility and a very positive approach in order to give the Fund the best possible chance of success. For all these reasons, we hope that the Council will be prepared to promote the European film industry by giving the Fund the green light on 15 December. All Parliament can do now, unfortunately, is stand and watch. Perry Mr President, I too add my thanks and congratulations to Mrs Guinebertière, although I speak from a slightly different perspective than other Members who have spoken. In considering this proposal I start from a position of believing that we need to be aware that public subsidies, by possibly featherbedding and insulating an industry from genuine market forces, can actually do more harm than good. We need to be careful of the nostrum that problems can be solved by simply throwing money at them. Certainly I am dubious that national or European civil servants are capable of judging what makes a good film and whether public money should be spent on one film or another. That said, the European film industry is important, both as a vehicle of European culture and as an important wealth and employment creator. In the television without frontiers debate, I am firmly opposed to the concept of output quotas, which I see as a gross distortion of the market. But I am prepared to look more positively at the Guarantee Fund provided that two important conditions are observed. There must be minimal bureaucratic interference and the decisions on which films to back must be based on sound objective, financial and cultural criteria. I hope that the advisory committee and other mechanisms proposed will satisfy this condition but it is a matter that will need regular review. The other condition is that the fund must not create an open-ended drain on Community funds. Projections suggest on a worse-case scenario that the fund will be self-supporting for many years - I hope so. I particularly commend the amendment from the Committee on Budgets that where a film is successful and produces a surplus, then some of that surplus should be paid into the fund. I note that even the executive vicepresident of Polygram - one of Europe's leading film-makers - supported this proposal when he suggested 2 % of net profits from successful films should pass back into the fund. It goes without saying that there needs to be maximum transparency and probity in the allocation of guarantees, to ensure money is spent fairly, effectively and is in no way abused. With these criteria, I consider the Community can and should offer practical and positive support to this important European industry. Papayannakis Mr President, the exemption of cultural products from GATT does indeed allow us to create policy instruments. However, the instrument we have created and which our colleague has explained so clearly and astutely, though it may be appropriate in terms of quality, because it would be foolish to believe that the free market will concern itself with cultural development, covers too small a range. I am talking about money, Mr President, there is not enough of it, it has been siphoned off from elsewhere - from MEDIA - and I do not think this beginning responds to the concept of critical mass. We will support it, at any rate, and I hope all goes well. If the Council is listening, I will stress three points, Mr President. First, I hope that what is agreed will be kept to and that the absurdities of the 'television without frontiers' directive will not be repeated, which two-thirds of our governments ignore. I hope Ecofin stays out of it. It has shown itself to be incapable, lacking in inspiration and devoid of spirit or any ideas whatsoever for development in Europe - I need only remind you of the trans-European networks. Thirdly, we all know that for the audiovisual sector to develop, other things too are needed, but there is a lack of political will, which the rapporteur very rightly described as lukewarm. Caudron Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the battle we are waging here, ahead of the second reading of the television without frontiers directive, is helping to defend and promote European culture, and I know that this is an aspiration shared by a large majority in the House. In very much the same vein, we have a proposal today for a European Guarantee Fund to promote cinema and television production in Europe. The proposal aims to develop this sector by reducing the risk for investors and encouraging them to back a greater number of European productions in the future. Our cinema industry is in fact facing a fearsome adversary, the United States, which can only be confronted with ample resources and, above all, a united approach to banking circles, which often have distinctly cold feet in this area. Our colleague's report was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media. This demonstrates that Parliament as a whole favours the development of European cinema and television, and personally I am delighted by that fact. I fear, however, that the Council is once again playing a double game, though it is putting forward the idea of a European Guarantee Fund as an essential complement to the television without frontiers directive and the MEDIA II programme. But at the same time, it seems to be planning a reduction in the budget for MEDIA II. The budget lines are of course different, but the Council does not seem prepared to provide the funding needed to carry out its objectives; it appears to be shifting, by sleight of hand, a few million ECU from one budget line to another. The risks involved in cinema production will certainly not be reduced by accounting moves alone. If my suspicions were to prove correct, we would once again be reminded of the gulf between the Council's words and its deeds, and I hope that I am proved wrong. Having said that, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am in favour of the report, and I support the establishment of this Guarantee Fund because audiovisual production must be assisted. This is vital for Europe, and there can be no doubt that more finance, more funding, is required. Añoveros Trias de Bes Mr President, first of all I should like to congratulate Mrs Guinebertière on her magnificent work. Although her proposal has been approved unanimously this does not mean that it has been easy to get there. Therefore her merit is two-fold since, on one hand, she has shown skill in overcoming all of the obstacles along the way and, on the other, she has achieved a brilliant result. I should also like to thank the Commission and the Commissioner. The film industry is subjected to considerable commercial risk and the main objective of this fund is to offset that risk. However, the novelty of this proposal lies in the fact that the fund is not an interventionist one, but will enable aid to go to viable productions so that they can develop in the best possible conditions. Another novelty is a financial one. The fund does not call for the creation of a new administrative structure but calls for it to be integrated into the European Investment Fund, whose aim is to offer banking guarantees. By means of the fund we will make it possible for European film-makers to produce commercially viable films and, at the same time, we shall be supporting European culture as a whole with special protection for minority languages and cultures. The cinema and television industry is based on a solid production system but its survival depends on the commercial distribution of its product. The conflicts that take place in the arts world come into their own in the field of distribution. Therefore, the European Parliament has included in the Guarantee Fund the distribution of films and television programmes. I shall conclude, Mr President, by pointing out that this project combines flexibility and decentralisation with a cultural policy and economic efficiency, showing that Europe can create transparent instruments that are close to its people. Oreja Aguirre Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish first of all to thank you for the help which you have given us and I should like to congratulate you on the excellent work you have carried out over these last months. You know very well what the Commission programme has been. You know that, in addition to the Television Without Frontiers Directive - dating back to 1989 - and the MEDIA Programme, a programme aimed at 'reproduction' - i.e. anything to do with the development, distribution and training, with a sizeable budget of 310 MECU - we also felt that we had to find an extra means of acting and, after much thought, we decided that the best way would be to create a guarantee fund with the features which we have proposed; we have, of course, relied on the support of the European Parliament - and, therefore, we are very much reassured by what you have said here today this afternoon. But we also need the support of the Council, the other legislative arm, which is scheduled to meet on 16 December 1996. I want to tell you that we are going to take your ideas very seriously. In particular, any reference to launching the fund for a trial period because that is exactly what we intended to do. We do not want to take any risks and we want to try and find out how this fund might operate; that is why we shall be operating it for a few years to see how it goes. We must also take into account - and this is a concern of many Members of the European Parliament - special arrangements for the small countries. This fund must not help only the bigger countries and big producers but the smaller countries too. That is why we must bear in mind co-production between different countries so that the knock-on effects of the fund can be really effective for production and distribution alike. I would like to reserve very special congratulations for the rapporteur, Mrs Guinebertière. I would like to tell her that I fully go along with what she has told us here today. The idea that the fund should support co-productions, stimulate intra-European circulation of films, help co-production between countries with the smallest film-making capacity, and the five-year trial period, all of which, I think, sums up the main points made by Mrs Guinebertière - and I must say that, from the Commission's point of view, we are fully in agreement. This means that the European Parliament and the Commission have to join forces in order to try and convince the Council to make progress on this score. I will conclude by telling you that the Commission can accept 21 of the 33 amendments tabled, in full, in spirit or in part. We accept in full Amendments Nos 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12 and 14. We accept in spirit Amendments Nos 5, 6, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 36. We accept in part Amendments Nos 11, 28, 30 and 35. We cannot accept Amendments Nos 7, 17, 20, 21, 24-27, 29, 31, 32 or 33. The amendments which we cannot accept refer to the subject of flexible machinery or else certain problems which are simply ones of wording or presentation. However, as you can see, we have accepted most of the tabled amendments either in full or in spirit. I think that, bearing in mind all of the European Parliament's proposals which undoubtedly enrich the Commission's presentation, all I now need to do is thank this Assembly very much and very sincerely for its cooperation. President The debate is closed. The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. Ariane President The next item is the recommendation for second reading (A4-0308/96) on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, on the common position adopted by the Council (C4-0377/96-94/0189(COD)) with a view to the adoption of a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing a support programme in the field of books and reading (Ariane) (rapporteur: Mrs Mouskouri). Mouskouri Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with great relief and after a long wait we received the Council's common position concerning the ARIANE programme for the promotion of books and reading. Frankly, however, it is a pity that such a programme, with a very limited budget and a content which does so much to enrich knowledge and to contribute towards the preservation of our respective cultures, encountered so many difficulties in achieving an outcome more quickly. This demonstrates to us yet again the extent to which the requirement for a unanimous vote is undesirable in a procedure of collective decision. The Council's common position substantially reformulates the content and structure initially envisaged by the Commission. There are four important changes: First of all, the programme's duration has been reduced from five to two years - 1997 to 1998 - but in Article 8 of the decision there is provision for the European Parliament and the Council to adopt a new programme if the Commission's assessment report on the ARIANE programme is in fact positive. As for the budget, this has been cut from 34 million ECU over 5 years to 7 million ECU over 2 years, while a budget of 2.5 million
{'language': 'en'}