directorate-general for research...european parliament directorate-general for research working...

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH

WORKING PAPER

WORK OF THE COMMITTEE ON CULTURE,

YOUTH, EDUCATION, THE MEDIA AND SPORT

1999 - 2001

Education and Culture Series

EDUC 110 EN

This study was requested by the European Parliament's committee on culture, Youth, Education, theMedia and Sport.

This paper is published in the following languages:EN (original), FR

Authors: Raquel Santos Pérez, Alja Van Wilsem

Responsible Official: Pernille WintherDivision for Social and Legal AffairsTel.: (00352) 4300 22688Fax: (00352) 4300 27720E-mail: [email protected]

Manuscript completed in May 2002.

Paper copies can be obtained through: Publications serviceTel.: (352) 43 00-24053/20347Fax: (352) 43 00-27722E-mail: [email protected]

Further information on DG4 publicationscan be accessed through: www.europarl.ep.ec./studies

Luxembourg, European Parliament, 2002

The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do notnecessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source isacknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH

WORKING PAPER

WORK OF THE COMMITTEE ON CULTURE,

YOUTH, EDUCATION, THE MEDIA AND SPORT

1999 - 2001

Education and Culture Series

EDUC 110 EN

7 – 2002

PE 315.0393

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DETAILS OF THE COMMITTEE ON CULTURE, YOUTH, EDUCATION,THE MEDIA AND SPORT

MEMBERS ..........................................................................................................................8

RESPONSIBILITIES ...........................................................................................................9

PUBLIC HEARINGS. ........................................................................................................10

LIST OF ADOPTED REPORTS ..........................................................................................11

SUMMARY OF THE POSITIONS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT .....................14

1. CULTURAL AFFAIRS … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...16

2. YOUTH… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .21

3. EDUCATION … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...23

4. MEDIA… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..32

5. SPORT… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...39

PE 315.0394

5 PE 315.039

Abbreviations used for political groups

PPE-DE Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and EuropeanDemocrats

PSE Group of the Party of European SocialistsELDR Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform PartyVerts/ALE Group of the Greens/European Free AllianceGUE/NGL Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green LeftUEN Union for Europe of the Nations GroupEDD Group for a Europe of Democracies and DiversitiesNI Non-attached Members

Abbreviations used for Member States

B Belgium L LuxembourgDK Denmark NL NetherlandsD Germany A AustriaGR Greece P PortugalE Spain FIN FinlandF France S SwedenIRL Ireland UK United KingdomI Italy

6 PE 315.039

7 PE 315.039

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON CULTURE, YOUTH, EDUCATION, THE MEDIA AND SPORT1

-Chairman

Gargani

-Vice-chairmen

Graça Moura Livari Ruffolo

-Members

1 As at 31 December 2001

??aß????(Alavanos)

AndreasenAparicio SánchezDe SarnezDe VeyracFormentiniFraisseGrönerHeaton-HarrisHieronymi

de La PerriereManiscoMartensMauroMenneaOkkingO'ToolePackPerryPretsRidruejo

RoureSanders-tenHolteSichrovskyVan BremptVander TaelenVeltroniWhiteheadWynZabellZissener

-Substitutes

???sa?d?????(Alyssandrakis)

ArvidssonBerendCelliEchererEsclopéEvans RobertJ.E.FourtouGawronskiGollnischGutiérrez-CortinesHoff

IlgenfritzJunkerKarasKarlssonKirkhopeKlamtLageLynneMennittiObiols i GermàPacheco PereiraPoignantRies

RutelliScallonSkinnerStocktonSyllaUcaVattimo?a??????(Xarchakos)

???µp?(Zorba)

..............

..............

8 PE 315.039

Responsibilities of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport1

This committee is responsible for matters relating to:

1. the cultural aspects of the European Union, and in particular improvement of theknowledge and dissemination of culture, the conservation and safeguarding of culturalheritage, cultural exchanges and artistic creation (Article 151 of the EC Treaty);

2. the European Union's education policy (Article 149 of the EC Treaty), in particular:- the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States;- student and teacher mobility;- fostering cooperation among educational establishments;- the development of distance education and life-long learning;- the development of the European University and promotion of the system of

European schools;

3. youth policy: exchanges of young people, with the exception of young workers, theEuropean voluntary service and other measures designed to involve young people in theEuropean integration process, such as the European Youth Forum for example;

4. the audiovisual industry and cultural and educational aspects of the information society;

5. information and media policy and informing the public about the activities of the EuropeanUnion;

6. the development of a sports (Declaration No 29 of the Amsterdam Treaty) and leisurepolicy;

7. cooperation in the areas of culture and education with third countries and the competentinternational organisations, in particular the Council of Europe;

8. the monitoring and the implementation of current expenditure for which it hasresponsibility, on the basis of periodic reports provided by the Commission.

1 Rules of Procedure of the EP, Annex VI, August 1999 (OJ L 202/99, p. 90)

9 PE 315.039

Public Hearings of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport1999 – 2001

23 March 2000 Joint hearing between the European Parliament and the ParliamentaryAssembly of the Council of Europe on "Media Education - programme"

24 May 2000 Public hearing on "Radio in the digital age: sphere of activity of the EuropeanUnion"

24 April 2001 Public hearing on "Youth"

25 June 2001 Public hearing on "Reading and electronic books"

26 November 2001 Public hearing on "Culture in the candidate countries"

10 PE 315.039

11 PE 315.039

LIST OF REPORTS

ADOPTED BY

THE COMMITTEE ON CULTURE, YOUTH,

EDUCATION, THE MEDIA AND SPORT

1999 - 20011

1 Listed in the order of EP document numbers for the first reading.

12 PE 315.039

1. CULTURAL AFFAIRS

A5-0026/99 First framework programme for Culture 2000-2004, communication. Cultural cooperation:financing instrument (GRAÇA MOURA Vasco)(2nd reading)

A5-0009/00 First framework programme for Culture 2000-2004, communication. Cultural cooperation:financing instrument (GRAÇA MOURA Vasco)(3rd reading)

A5-0099/00 Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council: European Year of Languages 2001(GRAÇA MOURA Vasco)

A5-0382/00 Application in the EU countries of the Convention for the Protection of the World Culturaland Natural Heritage (DE VEYRAC Christine)

A5-0122/01 Export and return of cultural objects (implementation of Regulation 3911/92/EEC andDirective 93/7/EEC) (APARICIO SANCHEZ Pedro)

A5-0281/01 Cultural cooperation in the European Union (RUFFOLO Giorgio)

A5-0428/01 European Capital of Culture 2005 (GARGANI Giuseppe)

2. YOUTH

A5-0023/99 Inclusion of Turkey among the beneficiary countries of the Socrates and Third Youth forEurope programmes (GARGANI Giuseppe)

A5-0038/99 Youth: Community action programme (GRÖNER Lissy)(2nd reading)

A5-0100/00 Youth: Community action programme (GRÖNER Lissy)(3rd reading)

3. EDUCATION

A5-0097/99 Education, training, youth programmes for the period 2006: implementation (SOCRATES)(PACK Doris)

A5-0185/00 Quality of school education: European cooperation in evaluation (recommendation)(SANDERS-TEN HOLTE Maria Johanna)

A5-0199/00 Education and training: SOCRATES programme and the socio-economic background ofErasmus students (HEATON-HARRIS Christopher)

A5-0200/00 European Year of Lifelong Learning 1996: results (Decision No 2493/95/EC)(GUTIERREZ-CORTINES Cristina)

A5-0255/00 Education, training and young people: mobility of teachers and students in the Community(EVANS Robert J.E.)

13 PE 315.039

A5-0299/00 Education and training: innovation and new technologies (ALAVANOS Alexandros)

A5-0302/00 Education and training: teaching and learning – towards the learning society (implementationof the White Paper) (PERRY Roy)

A5-0375/00 Quality of school education: European cooperation in evaluation (recommendation)(SANDERS-TEN HOLTE Maria Johanna)

A5-0028/01 Relations between the EC and the USA: renewal of the cooperation programme in highereducation (PERRY Roy)

A5-0027/01 Agreement between the EC and Canada on higher education and training (ZORBAMyrsini)

A5-0115/01 Education, training and young people: mobility of teachers and students in the Community(EVANS Robert J.E.)

A5-0152/01 Education and training: e-learning and new technologies for tomorrow’s education (MAUROMario)

A5-0322/01 Lifelong Learning (VAN BREMPT Kathleen)

4. MEDIA

A5-0024/99 Community participation in the European Audiovisual Observatory (GARGANI Giuseppe)

A5-0186/00 Audiovisual industry: Media-Training and Media-Plus (2001-2005) (HIERONYMI Ruth)

A5-0209/00 Audiovisual policy: media and digital technology (VELTRONI Valter)

A5-0258/00 Parental control of television broadcasting, protection of minors (Directives 97/36/EC and89/552/EC) (ANGELILLI Roberta)

A5-0005/01 New frontiers in book production: electronic publishing and printing on demand(O’TOOLE Barbara)

A5-0351/01 Better distribution of European films in the internal market and the candidate countries(VANDER TAELEN Luckas)

A5-0286/01 Application of Directive 89/552/EC: “Television without Frontiers” (HIERONYMI Ruth)

5. SPORT

A5-0208/00 Safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social function of sport (Helsinkireport) (MENNEA Pietro-Paolo).

A5-0203/00 Community plan to combat doping in sport (communication) (ZABELL Theresa).

EP Positions

14 PE 315.039

SUMMARY

OF THE EP POSITIONS1

1 Main source: Legislative Observatory (OEIL), DG I, European Parliament

(http://wwwdb.europarl.ep.ec/dors/oeil/en/default.htm)

EP Positions

15 PE 315.039

EP Positions

16 PE 315.039

1. CULTURAL AFFAIRS

EP REPORT RAPPORTEUR TITLE + COMMISSIONDOCUMENT(S)

ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE

A5-0026/992nd reading

28 October 1999(OJ C 154/00, p.125)

A5-0009/003rd reading

Mr VascoGRAÇAMOURA(PPE-DE, P)

Single financing and programminginstrument for cultural cooperation(Culture 2000 programme)

COM(98)0266 (initial proposal)COM(98)0673 (modified proposal)COM(99)0629 (opinion 2nd reading)

3 February 2000(OJ C 309/00,p.61)

EP and CouncilDecision No.508/2000/EC(OJ L 063/00, p. 1)

The original proposal from the Commission was adopted by the EP at first reading on 5 November 1998subject to amendments (OJ C 359/98, p. 28). (See also Directorate-General for Research: Working Document 1994-1999– Education and Culture Series – EDUC 105 EN, p. 45) The proposed “Culture 2000” programme aimed to rationaliseand improve the effectiveness of the Community action in the field of cultural cooperation using a single instrument forfinancing and programming which would replace the three existing programmes Kaleidoscope (performing arts), Ariane(literature) and Raphael (cultural heritage). The suggested budget of the programme was 167 million euros for a five-yearperiod (from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2004).

The main amendment proposed by the EP in its first reading was related to the budget to be increased to 250million euros.

Second reading: A5-0026/99Following the common position of the Council accepting 11 of the 31 amendments adopted by EP in its first

reading, the EP confirmed its previous position by resubmitting a significant number of the amendments. In budgetaryterms, it maintained its position on the increase of the budget to 250 million euros. Another amendment referred to thereport on the results of the programme to be drawn up by the Commission no later than 31 December 2002, emphasisingthe socio-economic consequences of the Community’s financial support. Furthermore, the EP stressed that the programmeshould allow the participation in culture of the wider public and not only those actives in the cultural sector. In addition,it made certain amendments to the annexes of the proposal, in particular, that the annual Community support of projectscarried out in partnership or in the form of networks should involve operators from at least three Member States, that thesupport for cultural cooperation agreements in view of implementing important quality projects with a European dimensionshould involve at least five Member States, and, that cultural cooperation agreements for the co-production of culturalevents, promotion of cultural sites, study or research projects should cover a maximum period of three years. The EP alsointroduced also some technical provisions for the implementation of these cultural cooperation agreements. It specified thatfor the financing of multiannual agreements receiving Community support, a summary of the activities undertaken and ofthe expenditure of each activity should be submitted to the Committee at the end of each year.

Third reading: A5-0009/00The Council was not able to approve all the EP’s amendments. Therefore the Conciliation Committee was

convened. The main dispute concerned the amendment related to the increase of the budget to 250 million euros proposedby the EP. During the two meetings of the Conciliation Committee (25 November and 9 December 1999) an agreementwas reached.

The central elements of the agreement included a global budget of 167 million euros and a number ofcompromise amendments on other budgetary questions, including a possible revision of the programme and its financialframework. In this sense, the European Commission compromised to present a report on the results of the programme andits possible revision by 30 June 2002. The joint text was approved by the EP in its third reading.

Community Measure: EP and Council Decision No. 508/2000/EC

EP Positions

17 PE 315.039

The Culture 2000 programme adopted for the period 2000-2004 seeks to promote cooperation betweencreative artists, cultural operators and institutions in Member States and to encourage creativity, greater movement of artistsand creations, cultural diversity, new forms of cultural expression, the mutual knowledge of European cultural history andheritage, intercultural dialogue and the improvement of access and participation in culture for as many citizens as possible.

EP REPORT RAPPORTEUR TITLE & COMMISSIONDOCUMENT(S)

ADOPTEDBY EP

COMMUNITYMEASURE

A5-0099/00 –1st reading

Mr VascoGRAÇAMOURA(PPE-DE, P)

European Year of Languages 2001

COM(99)0485 (initial proposal)COM(00)0321 (modified proposal)

13 April 2000(OJ C 040/01, p. 430)


First reading: A5-0099/00The main purpose of the Commission’s proposal was to establish a European Year of Languages in 2001 with

a view to raising awareness among the EU population of the advantages of understanding and speaking other languagesand of the richness of linguistic diversity within the Union. Some of the main objectives were draw the attention of thewidest possible public the advantages of acquiring competency in a range of languages and of the lifelong learning oflanguages and related skills by all persons legally residing in Member States, and to collect and disseminate informationabout the teaching and learning of languages.

The EP endorsed the proposal in its first reading although a number of essential amendments had to beadopted. Firstly, the EP emphasised the cultural dimension of learning languages as it considered that actions taken underthis Decision should also be consistent with Community action and initiatives in the field of culture (Culture 2000programme) due to the great importance of languages included among the cultural aspects under Article 151 of the Treaty.Another reference was also made to the advantages of competency in several languages as being a key element ofprofessional, as well as personal development. The EP insisted on the importance of language learning as a way ofenhancing awareness of cultural diversity and multilingualism and the equality in value and dignity of all Europeanlanguages. It also stressed the importance of encouraging language learning by all persons residing in Member States.

With reference to the actions designed to meet the objectives of the European Year of Languages, the EPamended the Commission’s proposal by specifying, among other things, that the Year should be used to encourageinnovation in the sphere of language teaching and learning methods, that the use of a common logo and slogans should bemade in collaboration with the Council of Europe, that the Community-wide information campaign should include thesetting up of an interactive Web site, that applications for co-financing actions should contain information enabling theoutcome to be assessed on the basis of factual criteria and that the calls for proposals should be made in sufficient time andcirculated as widely as possible. According to the EP, Member States should be able to designate more than one appropriatebody to organise its participation in the Year. Lastly it esteemed that there should be evaluation studies on the effectivenessand impact of the European Year of Languages and stressed the necessity for the Commission’s report for 31 December2002 to contain detailed factual information.

The Commission amended the initial proposal endorsing in full the 37 amendments put forward by the EP.Without debate, the Council subsequently agreed to these and, therefore, for the first time, agreement was reached after afirst reading under the co-decision procedure.

Community measure: EP and Council Decision No. 1934/2000/ECThe European Year of Languages was decided for the year 2001 with a total budget of 8 million euros.

EP Positions

18 PE 315.039


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE

A5-0382/001st reading

Ms Christine DEVEYRAC(PPE-DE, F)

Application in the EU countries of theConvention for the Protection ofthe World Cultural and NaturalHeritage

EP own-initiative report

16 January 2001(OJ C 262/01, p.48)

First reading: A5-0382/00By own-initiative, the EP adopted a resolution on the application of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection

of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, by which sites of outstanding universal value may be included on the worldheritage list and thus enjoy special protection.

The EP began by pointing out that the EU was over-represented on the list of World Heritage Sites (accountingfor 30%) and recommended Member States to encourage non-European countries to complete the lists of their natural andcultural heritage assets and to provide practical assistance to those countries under Unesco and, within the existingprogrammes, to developing countries which are facing problems with the recognition, description and conservation ofcultural assets. The EP also condemned the plundering of archaeological finds in such countries and urged Member Statesto stamp out the growing illegal trade in such finds within the EU.

In addition, EP noted that historic towns and religious buildings were also over-represented compared withother categories and called for the natural and architectural urban and rural heritage to be regarded as an indivisible whole,requiring joint protective measures. It also considered the importance of visual impact on artistic heritage and thecountryside which needs to be taken in account when environmental policies are being implemented, as stipulated in theEnvironmental Impact Assessment Directive (Article 3).

The EP encouraged Member States within the Council of Europe to study the possibility of a Europeanclassification system and a recognisable European label to identify cultural, linguistic and natural heritage sites of more thanmere national interest without aspiring to world status. It also drew attention to the situation of conservation professionalsand called on the Commission to encourage Member States to organise this profession at various training levels with theaim of ensuring the quality of heritage restoration work, paying particular attention to arts and crafts and the preservationof rare professional skills in this field. The EP considered this as providing a sound basis for the promotion of new jobs inthe EU.

Lastly the EP asked the Commission and Member States to study, in cooperation with Unesco and the Councilof Europe, the viability of an international legal and fiscal framework, which would facilitate forms of sponsorship relatingto this field.

EP Positions

19 PE 315.039


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Mr PedroAPARICIOSANCHEZ (PSE,E)

Export and return of culturalobjects (implementation ofRegulation 3911/92/EEC andDirective 93/7/EEC)

COM(00)0325

12 June 2001(OJ C 53/02, p. 125)

Council Resolutionof 21 January 2002(OJ C 32/02, p. 3)

First reading: A5-0122/01The Commission forwarded a report to the Council, the EP and the Economic and Social Committee on the

implementation of Council Regulation 3911/92/EEC on the export of cultural goods and Council Directive No 93/7/EECon the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. Both texts seek to reconcile thefundamental principle of free movement of cultural goods with that of the protection of national treasures, introducing theRegulation uniform controls for the prevention of exports of cultural goods at the external borders of the Community andproviding the Directive mechanisms for restoring national treasures unlawfully removed from a Member State.

The EP, convinced that the situation of the illegal trade in cultural goods was continually getting worse,expressed the view that the Council Directive and Regulation were inadequate for tackling this problem and therefore calledfor a tightening up of both pieces of legislation. The EP specified that this could be done, for example, by obtaining publiccatalogues from the owners of cultural goods, by making the granting of a licence conditional to a preliminary applicationto the cultural object’s State of origin or by introducing a mandatory accompanying document certifying the origin of theobject. In addition, the EP considered the need for better coordination between the relevant institutional bodies of the EUand between commissioners for the internal market and justice and home affairs and greater police and judicial cooperationbetween Member States. The EP also asked the Commission to conduct a campaign in Member States and candidatecountries with the aim of raising public awareness about the adverse effects of illegal trade in cultural goods and suggestedthe possibility of standard multilingual forms containing descriptive information of unlawfully removed objects to be madefreely accessible on an Internet site.

Finally, the EP asked the Commission to draw up a Green Paper or Communication by the end of 2001 on theillegal trade with a view to obtaining, among other things, in depth analysis of the effects of the Regulation and Directivein question and of the probable implications of the accession of new Member States.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Mr GiorgioRUFFOLO(PSE, I)

Cultural cooperation in theEuropean Union


5 September2001(OJC 72/02, p. 142)

First reading: A5-0281/01Understanding culture as an essential component of EU identity and the need to strengthen cultural cooperation

in Europe as a substantial way of contributing to its capacity for integration and cohesion were some of the main conclusionsin the EP resolution on cultural cooperation in the EU.

The EP firstly called on the Member States to set the allocation of at least 1% of total public funds as a commonobjective in order to stimulate creation, expression and dissemination of arts in Europe. As on previous occasions, the EPexpressed its dissatisfaction of the unanimity requirement in Article 151 and called for an extension of qualified majorityvoting in cultural matters in any future revision of the Treaty. In addition, the EP urged the Commission to submit a proposalfor a decision to draw up and carry out a three-year cultural cooperation plan. This plan should incorporate targets, withan active contribution from Member States, such as establishing telematic networks and services in order to connect cultural

EP Positions

20 PE 315.039

institutions, improving cooperation between cultural authorities and operators and exchanging best practices on twining.The EP also proposed the setting up of a European agency to monitor cultural cooperation linked to the Commission andnational contact points in the “Culture 2000” programme. In its review, the EP considered that national contact pointsshould be upgraded and that a second Cultural Forum should be convened in order to redefine the values, objectives andforms of cultural cooperation in Europe. Finally, the EP stressed the importance of sponsorship for artistic creation andcultural events and referred to the possibility for Member States to grant tax benefits to patrons of the arts. In this sense,the EP requested the Commission to study the possibility of approximating the principles governing the tax arrangementsat Community level for works of art, particularly regarding VAT.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Mr GiuseppeGARGANI (PPE-DE, I)

European capital of culture 2005


11 December2001(not yetpublished)

First reading: A5-0428/01Following Article 2(3) of the EP and Council Decision 1419/1999, which allows the EP to forward its opinion

on the designation of the European capital of culture, the EP by own-initiative adopted this Resolution with the aim ofcalling on the Commission and the Council to support the nomination of the city of Cork as the “European Capital ofCulture” for the year 2005.

With regard to the report made by the selection panel, the EP approved its statements on the need for thenominated city to take appropriate steps in order to enhance its European dimension in its preparation of the event. Inaddition, it called on the Commission to draw up a report evaluating the results of that event and, in particular, make thenecessary adjustments of the nominations procedure with a view to forthcoming enlargement.

EP Positions

21 PE 315.039

2. YOUTH


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Mr GiuseppeGARGANI(PPE-DE, I)

Participation of Turkey in the Youthfor Europe III programme

COM(96)0199 (initial proposal)SEC(99)1180 (assessment)

28 October 1999(OJ C 154/00,p.137)


The aim of the Commission proposal was to amend EP and Council Decision No. 818/95 on the “Youth forEurope” programme in order to include Turkey among its beneficiary countries. In its first reading on 25 February 1999,the EP proposed that the purpose of such participation should be the provision of the means for genuine mutual exchangesbetween young people and the staff accompanying them while respecting their linguistic, educational and cultural diversityand, at the same time, bearing in mind the need to guarantee a fair representation of minorities. The EP also considered itnecessary to undertake preparatory or publicity measures in view of full participation of Turkey under the currentprogramme and also under the future 2000-2004 Community framework programme on youth.

Second reading: A5-0023/99In its common position the Council approved the majority of the amendments proposed by the EP. The only

amendment not accepted by both the Council and the Commission was the one referring to the respect for the rights ofminorities as both institutions felt this might convey the unwanted idea of specific quotas. In its second reading, the EPapproved the common position established by the Council and emphasised the clear expression of political will of thisdecision in view of the fact that the programme “Youth for Europe” was being replaced at the end of the year 2000.

Community measure: EP and Council Decision No. 69/2000/ECA final decision was adopted so as to include Turkey among the beneficiary countries of the third phase of the

“Youth for Europe” programme at the earliest date and, thus enable young Turks and Europeans to establish closer linkswhich is considered to be an essential part of the pre-accession strategy.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


28 October 1999(OJ C 154/00, p. 132)

A5-0100/003rd reading

Ms LissyGRÖNER(PSE, D)

Youth: Community ActionProgramme 2000-2004

COM(98)0331 (initial proposal)COM(98)0695 (modified proposal)SEC(99)1204 (assessment)COM(99)0659 (opinion 2nd reading)SEC(01)1621 (follow-up doc.)

13 April 2000(OJ C 040/01,p.429)


The European Commission originally proposed a five-year action programme, to run from 2000 to 2004, oncooperation policy in the area of youth based on informal education and training and aimed at integrating the previous Youthfor Europe and European Voluntary Service programmes. The main amendments the EP proposed in its first reading on5 November 1998 related to an increase of the budget to 800 million euros instead of the suggested 600 million euros, theage range for participating in the programme (to be 14-27 instead of 15-25) and the guarantee of social protection andmedical care of participants.

EP Positions

22 PE 315.039

Second reading: A5-0038/99The Commission accepted, in full or in part, 36 of the EP’s 61 amendments. Following the reduced budget

proposal by the Council of 350 million euros, the EP considered, as did the Commission, that this amount was inadequateto meet the objectives of the programme and called for the programme to be extended from 2000 to 2006 and to be givena budget of 980 million euros. The EP proposed the age range for access to the programme to be adjusted taking accountof the specific circumstances of each project. The EP also insisted on the need for Member States to guarantee socialwelfare and medical assistance to the participants of the projects, to adopt coordinated measures to remove legal andadministrative obstacles preventing young people from access to the programme and to facilitate recognition of thespecificity of young volunteers. The EP expressed its wish for equal access to the programme and for the need of actionsto be adequately publicised so that participation would not be restricted only to those initiated or belonging to youthorganisations. Other amendments referred to the setting up of a “Young People in Europe” Internet site and to studiesrelated to the programme. In this sense, the EP considered that priority should be given to studies concerning the paths takenby less-favoured and marginalised young people and also to comparative studies of measures designed to promote the spiritof initiative and their impact on local development. Finally, the EP called on the Commission to submit a report byDecember 2002 on the results achieved.

Third reading: A5-0100/00The Commission was only able to approve 10 out of the 13 amendments approved by the EP. Therefore the

Conciliation Committee was convened. The main dispute concerned the amendment related to the increase of the budgetto 980 million euros proposed by the EP and the flexibility clause for the financial framework. At the ConciliationCommittee an agreement was reached which resulted in a joint text for the youth programme. The main terms of theagreement involved a budget allocation of 520 million euros and a review clause on the programme’s financial framework.A compromise was also achieved so as to ensure social protection to the participants of the European Voluntary Service,access to health for all programme participants and a more flexible age range. At its third reading, the EP approved the jointtext agreed at the Conciliation Committee.

Community measure: EP and Council Decision 1031/2000/ECThe “Youth Community Action Programme” was decided for the period 2000 to 2006 with the aim of

providing young people with knowledge, skills and competencies, as a foundation for their future development, so as topromote the exercise of responsible citizenship for young people and their active participation in society. The mainobjectives of the programme are to promote an active contribution of young people to European integration, to strengthentheir sense of solidarity, to encourage young people’s initiative so as to reinforce cooperation in the field of youth relatedwork. The actions envisaged to achieve these include Youth for Europe, European Voluntary Service, youth initiatives, jointactions and support measures. One of the main innovations of this programme is the intention of focusing measures onyoung people who find it most difficult to participate in a Community programme.

EP Positions

23 PE 315.039

3. EDUCATION


ADOPTEDBY EP

COMMUNITYMEASURE

A5-0097/99 3rdreading

Ms. Doris PACK(PPE-DE, D)

'Socrates' Education-, training-,youth- programmes for the period2000-2006


15 December1999(OJ C296/00, p.093)

EP and Council Decision No.253/2000/EC (OJ L028/00,p.001)

The initial Commission proposal was adopted at first reading on 5 November 1998 and the second reading on25 February 1999, during the fourth legislative term. The proposal had the goal of establishing a second phase of theSocrates programme. Socrates II aims to promote the quality of education through cooperation and increase mobility, it alsoaims to support lifelong learning and the development of a European dimension in al sectors of education. The programmewas extended to include the Eastern European- and other applicant countries and the EEA countries.

The EP introduced some important amendments. The EP called for the budget to be increased to €2 billion from€1.4 billion. The EP also wanted the programme to focus on five actions rather than eight, and suggested the name Minervafor distance education and the use of multimedia instead of Atlas. The Commission accepted 34 of the 54 amendments butrejected the amendments concerning institutional aspects and budgetary matters.

The Council in its common position decided on an increase in the duration of the programme to 7 years andan increased budget for the Socrates programme (€1550 million). The EP approved the common position subject to certainamendments. The most important of these included an increase in the funding to €2250 million and the creation of a“European educational area”. Most of the amendments proposed by the EP were accepted in full or in part by theCommission. (please refer to Directorate-General for Research: Working Document 1994-1999 – Education and CultureSeries - EDUC 105 EN, p. 61)

After the EP’s second reading it was decided to convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee. The maindispute concerned the amendments related to the budget; the Council offered €1650 million, whereas the EP wanted abudget of €2400 million. A compromise was reached based on the idea that Socrates will lead to the development of “aEuropean dimension in education and training” instead of an “educational area”. In the second meeting of the ConciliationCommittee a breakthrough was reached on the budget issue, securing funding of €1.85 billion and a binding review clause.The EP was also successful in simplifying the selection procedures, so that schemes cannot be held up by disagreement ofMember States for more than two weeks. The delegation to the Conciliation Committee recommended that the EP adoptthe joint text.

Third reading: A5-0097/99The EP approved the joint text. Additionally, the EP called for an evaluation report analysing the practical

results of the programme.The EP attached a compulsory revision clause to the proposal in the event of enlargement. Thisclause allows the financial consequences of enlargement to be determined through codecision.

Community Measure:The Socrates programme will aim to strengthen the European dimension in all sectors of education, promoting

cooperation and removing obstacles to cooperation in the field of education and encouraging innovation. The objectivesare still to be attained through the eight actions, including the renamed Atlas action, which is now known as Minerva,following the EP suggestion.

EP Positions

24 PE 315.039


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


6 July 2000(OJ C121/01, p.442)

A5-0375/00 2nd reading

Ms. Maria Johanna(Marieke)SANDERS-TENHOLTE(ELDR, NL)

The quality of School education:European cooperation inevaluation (recommendation)

COM(99)0709 (initial proposal)COM(00)0523 (modified proposal) 16 January 2001

(OJ C 262/01, p.044)

EP and CouncilRecommendationNo.2001/166/EC(OJ L060/01, p.051)

First reading: A5-0185/00The initial Commission proposal emphasised the diversity of European education and training systems, and

stated that Community action in this field could have added value, as exchange of information and experience could putnational systems in a new perspective and could inspire innovation. The Commission recommended that Member Statesimprove their quality of school education by: supporting or establishing quality systems to encourage school self-evaluation,developing external evaluation systems, encouraging the involvement of all stakeholders in evaluation and supportingtraining in the field of evaluation. Furthermore, the proposal supports the promotion of European networking. A database,which will be available on the internet, will be established to facilitate these developments and the Commission will alsoprovide triennial progress reports.

The EP’s major amendments in its first reading included: a call for Community funding from several EUeducation programmes for supporting the proposed strategy, a request for the initiative to include women and girls andgroups at risk of exclusion and a request for emphasis to be placed on the use of new information and communicationtechnologies for information exchange. The amendments also added some specific measures on quality evaluation such asthe requirement for an inventory of instruments and strategies for evaluation currently in use in Member States. In addition,the EP mentioned that associated countries should be allowed to participate in the development of evaluation methods andstressed the importance of the involvement of all stakeholders to promote shared responsibility for improvements.

Second reading: A5-0375/00The Council’s common position accepted, in full or in part, all of the amendments made by the EP in the first

reading. Therefore the EP, in its second reading approved the Council’s common position.

Community Measure:The Recommendation on European cooperation in quality evaluation in school education will allow the use of

resources, within existing Community programmes, to incorporate experience gained into these programmes and to developexisting networks. There will also be triennial, detailed reports on the basis of contributions from Member States relatedto the implementation of this Recommendation.

EP Positions

25 PE 315.039


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Mr. ChristopherHEATON-HARRIS(PPE-DE, UK)

Survey into the socio-economicbackground of Erasmus students

COM(00)0004

6 September2000(OJ C135/01, p.186)

First reading: A5-0199/00The purpose of the Commission document was to indicate the results of a survey into the socio-economic

background of Erasmus students. The survey was conducted at the end of 1998 and covered almost one quarter (20 000)of the students that took part in the Erasmus programme in 1997-1998. The findings of the survey confirmed thatCommunity programmes in the field of education play an important role. For instance, there is a high degree of satisfactionwith the outcome of the period of study abroad, both academically and socially/culturally, although the differences betweeneducational systems in the Member States may be a detrimental factor to the good working of the programme.

The EP approved the report drafted by Mr. Heaton-Harris, but called upon the Commission to submit a reporton the low participation of students (only 50 % of the available places were used) in the Erasmus framework. Furthermore,the EP would like Member States to coordinate between national student financial support and Erasmus grants in order toensure the widest possible take-up of the Erasmus programme and to promote more social equality concerning access tothe programme. Finally, the EP called on the Commission to consider, within the existing budget for the scheme, differentforms of indirect support (fare-reductions, accommodation allowances, systems for loans etc.), in addition to the existingErasmus grants. The latter would make the programme more effective, as the Survey drew attention to the fact that morethan 57 % of Erasmus students had financial problems.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Ms. CristinaGUTIERREZ-CORTINES(PPE-DE, E)

European Year of LifelongLearning (1996): results

COM(99) 0447

8 September2000(OJ C135/01, p.304)

First Reading: A5-0200/00The report by the Commission had the purpose of presenting the results of the implementation of the European

Year of Lifelong Learning. The Commission reported the 1996 Year of Lifelong Learning a success in that it stimulateda debate and raised awareness of this topic, which had previously been unfamiliar in many Member States. According tothe report the initiative has improved the situation in Member States and has had a lasting result. Many initiatives werelaunched in the framework of the European Year, including major reforms of education and training systems.

The EP stressed that Lifelong Learning cannot merely be seen in terms of supply and demand, it is also crucialto social integration and participation in democratic processes. The EP regretted the slow start of activities in the EuropeanYear and emphasised the importance of lifelong learning in the implementation of other EU educational programmes.Regarding the budget, the EP regretted the fact that the budget for the European Year was only ECU 8.4 million for theMember States and the three EEA partners. Nevertheless, the fact that cofinancing brought the total budget to ECU 34million proves how much interest there is for these types of European initiatives. The EP also called on the Commissionto define the concepts of vocational training and LLL more precisely in future programmes, to provide clearer terms ofreference for projects seeking funding, and to encourage relations between formal education, vocational training and LLL.

EP Positions

26 PE 315.039

In addition, the Parliament called upon the Commission to create European networks related to vocational training and toensure that priority projects include vocational training in sectors where innovation is most needed.


ADOPTEDBY EP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


5 October 2001(OJ C178/01,p.221)


Mr. Robert J.E.EVANS(PSE, UK)

Education, training, young people:Mobility of teachers and studentsin the Community


15 May 2001(OJ C34/02, p. 107)

EP and CouncilRecommendationNo.2001/613/EC(OJ L215/01, p.37)

First Reading: A5-0255/00The proposal for a Recommendation on freedom of movement for students, trainees, young volunteers, teachers

and trainers had the objective of getting Member States to remove obstacles regarding the mobility of these groups ofpersons. Member States were also asked not to penalise mobile persons by reducing or withholding social security rights.

The EP amended the proposal to include research workers. The EP also mentioned that language and culturalbarriers need to be reduced, for instance by encouraging the learning of at least two Community languages, and thatfinancial constraints should be abolished. Furthermore, the EP included a provision for the reduction of bureaucraticobstacles for residence in the host country. Other amendmends were introduced on mutual recognition of qualifications andthe involvement of the candidate countries.

Second Reading: A5-0115/01The EP accepted that researchers cannot be included in the Recommendation, because of the legal basis.

Researchers will be covered in a specific document on the “European Research Area”. The EP welcomes the Action Planon Mobility, which was agreed by the Council and which complements the proposal for this Recommendation on mobilityfor students etc. The amendments by the EP intended to clarify what follow-up action (the nature of the reports) wasexpected of both the Commission and the Member States, to take account of the Action Plan on Mobility and a referenceto the Nice European Council. There were also two amendments to remove the temporal restriction from the Council’s text,which stated that temporary stay in the host state would be limited to “one year in principle”.

Community Measure:The Member States were invited to draw up, within two years of the adoption of this Recommendation and every

two years thereafter, an evaluative report on the actions undertaken in response to the Recommendation and the Action plan.The Commission will submit an analytical summary of these two and a half years after the adoption of this Recommendation(and every two years thereafter) and will include an indication of the areas of activity where complementary Communityaction might be needed. The Commission was invited to set up a group of experts, representing all Member States as wellas the officials responsible for coordinating the implementation at national level and the European Forum inter alia, in orderto facilitate the exchange of information and experience related to the implementation of measures. The procedures forintroducing a pass for schoolchildren/students/trainees/volunteers within the Community, granting the holder concessionsduring the period of mobility will also be investigated. The Commission is also invited to draw up proposals for improvedcooperation in promoting the transparency of qualifications, particularly for making the EUROPASS available to thirdcountries participating in Community programmes. Lastly, procedures for the exchange of information on opportunities foreducation, training or voluntary work, or providing training or teaching in other Member States will be investigated.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE

EP Positions

27 PE 315.039

A5-0299/00 1st reading

Mr. AlexandrosALAVANOS(GUE/NGL, GR)

Education and training: Innovationand new technologies(ICT)

COM(00)0023

15 May 2001(OJ C 34/02, p. 143) )

First Reading: A5-0299/00The report from the Commission: “Designing Tomorrow’s Education: promoting innovation with new

technologies”, followed a resolution by the Council of Education Ministers on 06/05/1996, relating to educationalmultimedia software, which in turn was followed by the Council’s Conlusions on education, ICT and teacher training forthe future. The report takes stock of progress since this date, in order to prepare a new stage in European cooperation toface the challenges posed by the impact of ICT. The report examines, among other things, the conditions conducive to amore harmonious development of actual practice and technologies, and recommendations for the creation of theseconditions. The report states that ambitious initiatives are needed to incorporate ICT in education and that concerted effortsare needed to plan future education and to use ICT to improve the quality of education.

The EP shared the Commission’s concern that Europe was lagging behind the United States regarding the use ofICT and stressed that access to these technologies should be open to citizens from all sections of society and all age groups.According to the EP the report ignored the role played by lifelong learning for adults and people outside the traditionallearning environment and the EP recommended several measures to address some of the shortcomings of EU policy in thisarea. These concerned the assessment and monitoring of the use made of ICT in educational establishments, minimumrequirements for hard- and software and compulsory continued ICT training for teachers. The EP also recommendedmeasures for the encouragement of knowledge mobility, networking between educational establishments and tax incentivesfor multimedia equipment suppliers who offer special rates to educational establishments.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Mr. Roy PERRY(PPE-DE, UK)

Education and training: Teachingand Learning – Towards thelearning society (implementationof the White Paper)

COM(99)0750

15 May 2001(OJ C 34/02, p. 149)

First Reading: A5-0302/00In its report, the Commission aimed to describe the progress in implementing the five objectives laid down in

November 1995. The objectives were to encourage the acquisition of new knowledge, to bring schools and the businesssector closer together, to combat exclusion, to promote proficiency in three Community languages and to treat capitalinvestment and investment in training on an equal basis.

EP Positions

28 PE 315.039

The EP mentioned that no real additional funding had been provided to attain these goals and that the Commissionhad failed to provide a clear overall picture showing whether the objectives financed had led to any practical results. TheEP also pointed out that it is essential to assist applicant countries in developing their educationa and training systems. TheEP regretted that insufficient attention had been paid to training in information technology and stated that greater investmentin this area was needed. It called for further efforts in bringing schools and the business sector closer together and itacknowledged the importance of the aim of treating capital investment and investment in training on an equal basis. Finally,the EP mentioned the distinct lack of information concerning money spent. It made a request for future reports to includean assessment on a value for money basis and contain clearly defined objectives and a demonstration of the “Europeanadded value”, as well as clear timetables for reporting to the budgetary authority on the implementation of White Papers.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Mr. Roy PERRY(PPE-DE, UK)

EC/United States Agreement:Cooperation Programme in highereducation and training, 2001-2005

14 February 2001(OJ C276(01), p. 119)

COM(00)0656

Council DecisionNo. 2001/196/EC(OJ L071(01),p.007)

First Reading: A5-0028/01The cooperation that took place under the former Agreement was described as very successful by the Commission,

and as a highly positive component of Transatlantic relations. The aim of the proposal is to promote joint projects run bymultilateral EC/USA consortia. The objectives of the programme are to promote a closer understanding between thepeoples of the EC and the USA, improving the quality of human resource development, including the acquisition of skillsnecessary to meet the challenges of the knowledge-based economy. The projects will also involve an improvement of thequality of Transatlantic student mobility and encourage the exchange of expertise in e-learning. In addition the programmeaims to create or enhance partnerships among higher education and training institutions and other appropriate associationsin the EC and the US. The area of vocational training is to be strengthened and more importance is to be given torecognition of qualifications and periods of study. Moreover an EC and US value added dimension is to be reinforced andbilateral programmes between the Member States and the US will be complemented.

The EP approved the conclusion of the Agreement renewing the EU-USA cooperation programme without debate.

Community Measure:The Agreement, should reinforce a EC-US dimension to Transatlantic cooperation in higher education and

vocational education and training. In 2001 thirteen EU/USA projects were selected, covering areas such as architecture,social science, environment and commerce.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE

EP Positions

29 PE 315.039


Ms. MyrsiniZORBA(PSE, GR)

Agreement between the EC andCanada on higher education andtraining: 2001-2005

COM(00)0655

14 February 2001(OJ C276(01), p. 118)

Council Decision2001/197/EC(OJ L71(01), p.015)

First Reading: A5-0027/01The cooperation that took place under the former Agreement was described as very successful by the Commission,

and as a highly positive component of Transatlantic relations. The aim of the proposal is to promote joint projects run bymultilateral EC/Canadian consortia. The objectives of the programme are to promote a closer understanding between thepeoples of the EC and Canada , improving the quality of human resource development, including the acquisition of skillsnecessary to meet the challenges of the knowledge-based economy. The projects will also involve an improvement of thequality of Transatlantic student mobility (through the promotion of transparency, mutual recognition of qualifications andperiods of study and training and where appropriate, portability of credits). The Cooperation Programme also seeks toencourage the exchange of expertise in e-learning and to create or enhance partnerships among higher education andtraining institutions and other appropriate associations in the EC and Canada. Moreover an EC and Canada value addeddimenstion is to be reinforced and bilateral programmes between the Member States and Canada will be complemented.A Joint Committee shall review the cooperative activities and report biennially to the parties on the cooperative activities.Financing will be on the basis of an overall matching of funds between the Parties. Each Party shall provide funds for theirown citizens or persons recognised as having official status as permanent residents.

The EP approved the conclusion of the Agreement renewing the EU-Canada cooperation programme withoutdebate.

Community Measure:The Agreement, should reinforce a EC-Canadian dimension to Transatlantic cooperation in higher education and

vocational education and training. In 2001 six EU/Canada university cooperation projects were selected, covering a broadspectrum of academic areas.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Mr. MarioMAURO(PPE-DE, I)

Training and education:e-Learning, new technologies fortomorrow's education

COM(00)0318 (initial proposal).COM(01)0172 (complementarybasic document)

15 May 2001(OJ C 34/02, p. 153)

CouncilResolutionOn e-Learning (OJ C204(01), p. 3)

First Reading: A5-0152/01The Commission presented its Communication on e-Learning – Designing tomorrow’s education, which outlines

four main lines of action of the e-Learning initiative. The first action concerns equipment: where efforts are needed toimprove the access to digital networks. The second concerns training at all levels, focusing on the development of skillsrequired for using new technologies. This training should be an integral part of (continued) training for every teacher andtrainer. The third concerns, the development of good quality multimedia services and content, so as to allow access toinformation on training opportunities in new technologies and other skills for everyone. The fourth concerns thedevelopment and networking of centres for acquiring knowledge which entails the transformation of teaching and trainingcentres to centres which are versatile and accessible to everyone.

The funding involves a coordinated and coherent use of existing budgetary resources. Certain activities in Member

EP Positions

30 PE 315.039

States are co-financed, which will support them to implement the initiative. Special emphasis is placed on the recognitionof qualifications, language learning, education in communication and the media, and virtual mobility. The Commissionproposed the 2001 Action Plan, which covers the period 2001-2004 and presents ways and means of implementing the e-Learning initiative.

The EP regards the e-Learning initiative as a top priority in the field of education and considers it important toensure that both access and quality “content” is available to all. In addition, Member states were urged to devise prioritymeasures for minorities and women and to reduce the cost of access to new technologies and the internet. The Lisbon targetof providing all schools with Internet access by the end of 2001 should be reached, teachers should also have an emailaddress by 2002 as well as every pupil or student. Teaching establishments should be able to get flat-rate internet access.Moreover, the EP urged the Commission to continue its support for European networks, such as European Schoolnet andto draw up indicators to monitor the progress of the initiative. Lastly, the EP requested the establishment of a system forthe mutual recognition of qualifications in IT.

Community Measure:The Council adopted a Resolution on e-Learning. It invited the Member States to continue their efforts regarding

the integration of ICT in education and training systems, as an important part of the adaptation of these systems requestedby the Lisbon European Council. The Council also invited Member States to exploit the communication potential of ICTto foster European awareness, exchanges and collaboration between educational establishments.

The Commission was invited to continue its support for European portals, to encourage the development of otherportals and to facilitate access to educational content and to stimulate European networking at all levels. It was also invitedto implement support actions at European level (especially sharing experience and information on products and servicesin the field of multimedia educational software) to foster virtual mobility and transnational virtual campus projects andundertake strategic studies on innovative approaches in education. Furthermore it should support the development ofEuropean multilingual educational resources, platforms and services and report back to the Council on the results of theseactivities by December 2002 at the latest.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Ms. KathleenVAN BREMPT(PSE, B)

Memorandum on:Lifelong learning (LLL) andtraining

SEC(00)1832

23 October 2001(OJ C 112/02, p. 89)

First Reading: A5-0322/01The Commission’s Memorandum on Education and Lifelong learning, aimed to open a debate and lay the

foundations for a LLL strategy. The two objectives of LLL are the promotion of active citizenship and the promotion ofvocational skills in order to adapt to the demands of the new knowledge-based society and to allow full participation insocial and economic life. The Memorandum contained six key messages: to allow people to acquire or refresh the skillsneeded for participation in the knowledge-based society, to raise levels of investment in human resources, to give priorityto Europe’s principal asset – its people, and to introduce innovations by developing effective methods for the continuumof lifelong learning. At the end of 2001 the Commission planned to present an Action plan with specific objectives andconcrete areas for action.

Although the EP supported the strategy of initiating a broad debate on LLL, MEP’s called for concrete policymeasures to be based on the following principles: democratisation and equality, individual personality development, theindividual right to LLL, personal responsibility and a holistic approach to learning. The EP also noted that LLL may requirea radical change in policy on education, training and the labour market. It suggested that supporting measures, such as therecognition and certification of experience and abilities acquired in informal learning contexts and recognition forexperience acquired abroad might also be needed. The EP stressed the importance of adequate funding to promote and setup LLL programmes (under ESF, ERDF, Structural Funds, EIB etc.) and of redistributing financial resources to promotelifelong education and training.

EP Positions

31 PE 315.039

The EP mentioned that the efforts of the EU, the Member States and the regions must be aligned by the opencoordination method. Furthermore, it called upon the social partners to ensure that binding agreements were reachedconcerning the right to LLL at European level. Lastly, the EP advocated certain measures to promote LLL at an individuallevel and supported the system of “individual learning accounts”, as used, for instance, in the UK and Sweden.

EP Positions

32 PE 315.039

4. MEDIA


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Mr. GuiseppeGARGANI (PPE-DE, I)

Community participation in theEuropean AudiovisualObservatory

COM(99)0111

28 October 1999(OJ C 154/00, p. 138)

Council DecisionNo.1999/784/EC (OJ L30/(99,p. 61)

First Reading: A5-0024/99The purpose of the proposal was to provide a legal base for the Community’s involvement in, and contribution

to the European Audiovisual Observatory. The Observatory was established in 1992 on the initiative of 29 membercountries (including the EU 15), to improve the transfer of information, to promote a clearer view of the market and greatertransparency. In the first instance, the Observatory was to focus on the main categories of information requested by theprofessional.

The Commission is a member of the Observatory and has contributed to its budget according to a financialweighting which puts it on a par with the larger Member States. Several Member States and the EP have called on theCommission to put forward a proposal to establish a legal basis for its contribution to and participation in the observatory.This was largely motivated by the ECJ’s decision of 12 May 1998 on legal bases, which sought to provide a harmonisedframework for the Member States’ efforts in order to reap the full benefits of synergy.

The EP approved the proposal concerning the participation in the Observatory, although it called on thisorganisation to improve the information it prepares for SMEs working in the audiovisual sector. The EP also requested theCommission to represent the Community in its relations with the Observatory and to get involved in the promotion ofinformation on the activities of the Observatory. The EP also aimed to ensure better control of the taxpayers’ money byreducing the period during which a guaranteed subsidy would be granted to the Observatory to three years instead of five.Community Measure:

The main mission of the European Audiovisual Observatory is to establish a Community statistical infrastructurerelating to the industry and markets of the audiovisual and related sectors. The objective of this decision is to formallyassociate the EU with the Observatory by creating an ad hoc legal measure, institutionalising this participation. Theappropriations required for the EU’s contribution to the Observatory’s operating budget will be authorised by the Budgetaryauthority. Furthermore, before the end of the third year following the year of adoption, the Commission will present a reporton its implementation. The entry into force was on 22 November 1999 and the Decision will apply until 31 December 2004.

EP Positions

33 PE 315.039


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


6 July 2000(OJ C121/01,p.418)

2nd reading

Ms. RuthHIERONYMI(PPE-DE, D)

Audiovisual industry: MEDIA -Training and MEDIA Plus(2001-2005)

COM(99)0658 (initial proposal).COM(00)0579 (modified proposal) 13 December

2000(OJ C232/01, p. 145)

EP and Council Decision No.163/2001/EC (OJ L026/01, p. 1)

First Reading: A5-0186/00The initial proposal had the purpose of implementing a training programme for professionals in the European

audiovisual industry (MEDIA - Training). The development of digital technologies is creating a rapid growth in the rangeof audiovisual programmes on offer, however the expected developments in the contents industry, can only generateemployment if professionals in the sector have qualifications compatible with the needs of the market. The proposal set upa vocational training programme for the period 2001 to 2005, which will involve continuous training of professionals inthe audiovisual industry, particularly in the fields of new technologies, economic, financial and commercial managementof audiovisual projects and scriptwriting techniques. The financial framework for its implementation is €50 million

The EP’s main amendments concerned the emphasis on continued vocational training, the increase of the financialframework should be increased from €50 million to €70 million and the establishment of a joint committee, managementand advisory for implementing the programme. It also called for the consolidation of the monitoring and evaluationmechanism and the inclusion of measures to ensure transparency in the implementation of the programme. Furthermore,the EP felt that the inclusion of information on the networking of training centres and the exchange of good practicesbetween them was necessary, as well as the inclusion of new technologies by extending their application to the broadcastingof audiovisual programmes. It also included a reference to training in relation to the development of new types ofaudiovisual programmes. Lastly, the EP suggested that professionals must be informed of all support arrangements availableunder EU policies.

Second Reading:In its common position the Council adopted, in full, in part or in essence, 32 of the amendments proposed by the

EP. Even though the Council had not adopted the EP’s amendment related to the increase of the budget, the EP approvedthe common position in second reading.

Community Measure:In addition to the main provisions of the programme, particular attention would be paid to the opportunities for

distance learning and pedagogic innovation offered by the development of online technologies. Cooperation between variousplayers in the audiovisual industry is encouraged and cooperation and the exchange of know-how and best practice throughnetworking between the partners responsible for training is envisaged. The financial framework for the implementation ofthis programme is set at €50 million and the programme entered into force on 1 January 2001.

EP REPORT RAPPORTEUR TITLE & COMMISSION ADOPTED BY COMMUNITY

EP Positions

34 PE 315.039

DOCUMENT(S) EP MEASURE


Audiovisual industry: MEDIA Plus- Development, distribution andpromotion of works, (2001-2005)

COM(99)0658

6 July 2000(OJ C121/01,p.427)


Council DecisionNo.2000/821/EC (OJ L336/00, p. 82)

First Reading: A5-0186/00The Commission’s proposal had the purpose of establishing a programme to encourage the development,

distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus). The European programme industry should beable to seize the opportunities opened up by the development of digital technologies and take account of the internationaldimension of the market. The European market is at risk of being dominated by imported programmes, particularlyAmerican ones and this could be exacerbated by the new dissemination methods. The programme is intended to addressthe lack of investment in development, the obstacles to transnational distribution and the lack of aid for promotion andmarket access. The proposed financial reference amount for the 5 year Programme was €350 million, the Programme willrun from January 2001 to December 2005.

The main amendments by the EP were related to two central issues: the legal basis and the funding of theprogramme. The EP felt that it should be fully involved via codecision rather than consultation. It expressly called uponMember States to incorporate the culture and audiovisual industries expressly in Article 151 of the Treaty at the next IGC.It also wished to increase the financial reference amount from €350 million to €480 million, and to seek other sources offinancing including risk capital. The EP mentioned the high cost for SME’s wishing to participate in the programme andcalled for the tightening of disbursement and application procedures, as well as facilitating accessibility of information forprofessionals about all funding possibilities. In addition, the EP wanted the needs of the audiovisual sector in countries withlower audiovisual capacity and/or restricted geographic and linguistic areas to be considered. Lastly, the emphasis onsupport for European cinema was increased.

Community Measure:The financial reference amount for the MEDIA Plus Programme was not increased and remained €350 million.

The specific objectives in the development field are: to promote the development of production projects, such as dramasand animated films for television or cinema, creative documentaries and works exploiting the audiovisual andcinematographic heritage, submitted by independent enterprises, particularly SME’s by providing financial support. In thefields of distribution and dissemination, the specific objectives include strengthening distribution in the field of cinema byencouraging distributors to invest in the production, the acquisition and marketing and promotion of distribution rights. Inthe field of promotion and market access, one of the aims is to facilitate and encourage the promotion of Europeanaudiovisual and cinematographic works at trade shows, fairs and audiovisual festivals, as such events may play an importantrole in the promotion of European works and the networking of professionals.

EP Positions

35 PE 315.039


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE

Mr. ValterVELTRONI(PPE-DE, D)

Audiovisual policy: Media anddigital technology

COM(99)0657

6 September2000(OJ C135/01, p. 181)

A5-0209/001st Reading

First Reading: A5-0209/00In its Communication the Commission presented the principles and guidelines for the Community’s audiovisual

policy in the digital age. Digital technologies are bringing about major changes, which require the adoption of a regulatoryframework and various support mechanisms for this sector. This Communication was intended to contribute towards a clearand predictable policy environment which benefits the operators in this sector in their planning of investment anddevelopment of strategies for their businesses. Technological developments call for ongoing evaluation of the means andmethods used to ensure their proportionality to the objectives that are to be achieved. The Commission proposed separateapproaches to the regulation of infrastructure and content. With regard to support mechanisms, the principles ofcomplementarity between national and European levels, Community added value and adaptability should apply and theseare incorporated in the MEDIA Plus Programme. Coordination between this and other Community actions, such as the FifthFramework Programme for R&D and the eEurope initiative are ensured. Furthermore, in external relations and concerningtrade negotiations in the WTO, it is vital for the Community and the Member States to maintain their freedom of action inthe audiovisual sector if they are to retain their cultural and linguistic diversity. Similarly it is important that the accesssioncountries implement the Community acquis in the audiovisual sector quickly. Particular areas for attention will be theTelevision without Frontiers Directive, ensuring access to audiovisual content which reflects Europe’s cultural andlinguistic diversity, the protection of minors and consumer protection in advertising.

The EP called for an early revision of the Television without Frontiers Directive, by 2002 at the latest andsuggested that the rules governing the new digital services offered reflect the specific nature of audiovisual servicescompared to other services of the information society. The EP mentioned that the importance of universal services shouldbe recognised as a means of preventing social exclusion by ensuring that consumers have affordable access tocommunication services and called on all the parties concerned to step up experiments with systems for filteringprogrammes and other methods of parental control. It wanted private and public television broadcasters to be required toallocate part of their revenue to the production and acquisition of European audiovisual programmes, but believed that ingeneral regulation should be confined to the strictly essential, with the market left to operate in accordance with the ruleson competition. The EP also suggested that Europe-wide coordination between the national regulatory authorities and theaudiovisual sector regulators should be ensured. It mentioned that steps should be taken to safeguard the balanceddevelopment of the digital audiovisual sector and the European music and digital broadcasting sectors. Furthermore, a studyshould be carried out on the socio-economic impact of radio in Europe. Regarding financing, the EP sought to encourageadditional financing for European cinema, including the establishment of a guarantee fund.

EP Positions

36 PE 315.039


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE

Ms. RobertaANGELILLI(UEN, I)

Parental control of televisionbroadcasting, Protection of minors

COM(99)0371

5 October 2000(OJ C178/01, p. 279)


First Reading: A5-0258/00The Commission presented its Communication on a study on Parental Control of Television Broadcasting, which

was carried out as required in the Television without Frontiers Directive. The study reaffirmed the importance of theprotection of minors. The most important conclusions were: the explosion in the number of channels in Europe, many ofthem cross-border, in a multi-set digital era makes it more difficult for regulators to monitor broadcasters’ compliance withprogramming standards. The adoption of V-chip technology is not technically feasible in Europe, in any event, digitaltechnology could be used to develop more secure filtering systems. A harmonised approach to rating audiovisual contentis excluded because of the cultural diversity of the European market, although the study does approve the drawing up ofcommon descriptive criteria, leaving the evaluation of content to competent national authorities.

The EP believed that measures to protect young people from violent and other harmful material should includeall types of multimedia channels. It called for more teaching of media skills to children and for television filtering devicesto be available at prices affordable for all. It also stressed that the availability of filtering systems should not be used as anexcuse to avoid responsibility for the content that is supplied. Furthermore, it felt that all television operators should agreeon a code of self-regulation in respect of the protection of minors, and called upon the Commission to conduct another studyto identify ways in which all persons can be prepared for coping with the growing volume of television offerings in thedigital age.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE

Ms. BarbaraO’TOOLE(PSE, UK)

New frontiers in book production:Electronic publishing andprinting on demand

EP own initiative report

1 February 2001(OJ C267/01, p. 83)


First Reading: A5-0005/01The EP took the view that cultural policies should take into account the specific nature of electronic publishing.

It stressed that small providers of electronic publishing services should be subsidised by the Commission in order to createa counterweight to media conglomerates. The EP felt it was essential to uphold a number of principles, such as theseparation of the regulatory regime for providers and infrastructure from that of the content provided, as well as theneutrality between different means of delivering the same content. The Commission was asked to propose a legislativeframework for e-publishing and to support inprovements in authenticity protection and the rights of right holders. Thepermitted methods of remunerating authors should be sufficiently flexible and support should be given to emerging authors.The EP felt that Member States should consider applying special VAT arrangements to publications downloaded from theinternet, and they should also ensure that VAT exemptions or reductions granted to educational and cultural institutionswere extended to include the purchase of electronic publications. The Commission was also urged to take measures to foster

EP Positions

37 PE 315.039

creative European content in e-publishing in all languages. In addition it was asked to ensure that EU vocational trainingprogrammes and provisions address the need to offer opportunities to workers in publishing and book-retailing industries,as well as to authors, to adapt their skills to new technologies, while also ensuring that traditional publishing skills andoccupations are not forgotten. Lastly, the EP called on the Commission to designate 2003 the “European Year of Booksand Literacy”, in order to increase awareness of the importance of books and electronic publishing in the knowledge-basedeconomy.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE

Mr. Luckas VANDER TAELEN(Verts/ALE, B)

Better distribution of Europeanfilms in the internal market and thecandidate countries

EP own initiative report

13 November2001(not yetpublished)


First Reading: A5-0351/01In the year 2000, the market share of European films in EU cinemas fell to its lowest recorded level, 22.5%, as

compared to 73.7 % for the USA, although Europe produced more films than the USA. In the same year European filmsonly achieved 26 % of their box office takings from sources outside their country of origin, largely due to the imperfectionsin the distribution system and the lack of funding for marketing and promotion. The EP adopted a resolution which calledfor a plan above and beyond the MEDIA programme to make the European film industry more competitive.

Furthermore it urged to focus in particular on funding for transnational distribution channels for European films, whenimplementing the i2i initiative, which is intended to support the film and broadcasting industries and called on theCommission to research into digital film distribution and projection techniques (e-Cinema) to enable several languageversions of a film to be produced easily. When revising the Television without Frontiers Directive, the Commission hasbeen asked to look into the desirablility and feasibility of requiring TV broadcasters to devote a minimimum proportionof air time to promoting European films, to programme a minimum number of non-national European works and to investpart of their turnover in the film industry. It also proposed breathing new life into the European Film Awards and settingup a European Cinematic Heritage Foundation.

The EP expressed that the institutions involved in the i2i initiative need to pay attention to the infrastructurerequirements of smaller independent cinemas (which show many European films) the structural needs of European SME’s(which produce independent films and are generally undercapitalised) and the structural needs of European cinema festivals.It also asked the Commission to provide for the creation of an executive European agency for cinema and audiovisualmatters and urged Member States to invest in the modernisation and expansion of art cinemas in economicallydisadvantaged regions, when using money from the ESF. Moreover, educational curricula at primary and secondary levelshould aim at teaching young people to adopt a more critical approach to material in the visual media and to be more opento a wide diversity of film cultures. Lastly, it called for a budget for the restoration of film works with a great social andartistic significance, which present a valuable heritage for the EU.


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE

EP Positions

38 PE 315.039


Application of Directive89/552/EEC “Television withoutFrontiers”

COM(01)0009


14 October 2001(OJ C 87/02, p. 221)

First Reading: A5-0286/01The Commission submitted the third report on the application of the directive 89/522/EC, as amended by directive

97/36/EC. It described and analysed the most important facts relating to the application of the directive since it wasamended in July 1997 until the end of 2000. The report made no proposal for amending the directive, as a review of itsprovisions is scheduled for the end of 2002. The Commission continues to hold consultations, especially on howtechnological developments might affect various fields covered by the directive. The results of studies and the publicmeetings, attended by representatives of Europe’s audiovisual industry, provide important feedback for its review. Thereport emphasised the need to arrive at a consistent position on balancing the need to safeguard European cultural diversitywith the demands of the global market In its conclusion the Commission stated that the directive functions effectively asa means of ensuring the freedom to provide television services in the Community.

The EP welcomed the positive assessment of the directive, and urged the Member States and the candidatecountries to strengthen their commitment in applying it. It called for the target date, for reviewing the directive, to be broughtforward as much as possible. It also mentioned that the climate in which the television industry operated had changedconsiderably, with new services using new technologies and a huge increase in the number of broadcasters, therefore it feltthat the scope of the directive should be broadened to include these. The EP called on the Commission to take into account,in its review, the new developments, such as webcasting on the internet, Electronic Programme Guides, interfaces (API)and intellectual property issues. Furthermore, it felt that the transition to digital technology should be facilitated. The EPalso noted with concern the continuing imbalance between material produced in Europe and that imported from the USA.Finally, it stressed the need to harmonise the complex system of rules and practices related to the protection of minors.

EP Positions

39 PE 315.039

5. SPORT


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Mr Pietro-PaoloMENNEA(ELDR, I)

Sport: Safeguarding currentstructures, maintaining socialfunction. Helsinki report

COM(99)0644

7 September 2000(OJ C 135/01, p. 274)

First reading: A5-0208/00The European Commission presented a report (Helsinki report) on safeguarding current sports structures and

suggesting ways in which the social, educational and popular dimensions of sport may be maintained within the Communityin reconciliation with its economic dimension.

The EP, concerned with the imbalances of the sport/business equation, welcomed the Commission’s statementsregarding the significant educational and social functions of sports. The EP assessed that sporting associations should beencouraged, especially those supporting amateur sports and the less advantaged sections of society. In addition, it urgedMember States, also through Community programmes, to pay particular attention to the development, funding andpromotion of sport for disabled people, both physically and with learning difficulties, to safeguard their special needs andto establish a sporting federation for them. Regarding the improvement of the situation of women in sport, the EP calledon sports organisations to share out responsibilities in sport between women and men, to strengthen women’s role in thedecision-making process and to develop gender equality plans for their members. With regard to the educational dimensionof sport, the EP called on the Commission to involve the work of the European Network of Sport Sciences in HigherEducation (ENSSHE) and to include vocational training and qualifications for sports persons in the EU Socrates andLeonardo programmes together with the reintegration of sports persons in the labour market at the end of their sportingcareers. The EP also highlighted the importance of sport education at school and urged Member States to give dueimportance to the teaching of physical education in the curricula of all schools.

Lastly, the EP called on the Intergovernmental Conference to include an explicit reference to sport in Article151 of the Treaty so that the EU can recognise sport as a cultural, economic and social phenomenon and also urged theCommission to take account of the positive aspect of sport with regard to health within the development of a Communityhealth policy.

EP Positions

40 PE 315.039


ADOPTED BYEP

COMMUNITYMEASURE


Ms TheresaZABELL(PPE-DE, E)

Sport: Community support plan tocombat doping. Communication

COM(99)0643

7 September 2000(OJ C 135/01, p.270)

First reading: A5-0203/00The purpose of the Commission communication was to present the adopted and future measures set out to

combat doping in sport. The EP, concerned with the severity of this practice, approved the Commission report and beganby pointing out the need for action at EU level as confirmed by the European Court of Justice and, therefore, called for theinclusion of a legal basis for sport in the Treaty. The EP welcomed the Commission’s plan to mobilise the EuropeanCommunity education, vocational training and youth programmes to inform young people about the hazards of dopingproducts and the provision under budget line B3-2020 of funding for pilot projects to assist campaigns with this aim.However, it urged the Commission to undertake information campaigns with well-known athletes based on setting goodexamples and to include information about the dangers of “nearly-doping products”. Moreover, the EP called on theCommission, within the fifth Framework Programme, to enhance research in this area and urged multinationals associatedwith sport to reinvest part of their profits in the fight against doping.

In addition, the EP claimed for greater coordination of policies on doping in sport between the Member Statesand believed the European Community should accede as soon as possible to the Council of Europe Anti-Doping Conventionas to formalise its active and effective participation in the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). In particular, the EP urgedthe Commission to press WADA to give priority to establishing ISO standards, harmonised procedures for collection ofsamples, protection of minors, out-of-competitions controls, a single list of banned substances, uniform and effectivesanctions as well as a harmonised disciplinary procedure in order to protect the rights of athletes.

directorate-general for research...european parliament directorate-general for research working...

Documents