Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on:

- the 'Communication from the Commission on the follow-up to the Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services including a Proposal for a Council Recommendation`, and - the 'Communication from the Commission and Proposal for a Council Decision adopting an action plan on promoting safe use of the Internet` (98/C 251/10)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication from the Commission on the follow-up to the Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services including a Proposal for a Council Recommendation () and the Communication from the Commission and Proposal for a Council Decision adopting an action plan on promoting safe use of the Internet ();

having regard to the decision of the Council of 26 January 1998 to consult the Committee of the Regions on the subject, under the first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of the COR chairman of 20 January 1998, confirmed by the bureau on 12 March 1998, to instruct Commission 7 for Education, Vocational Training, Culture, Youth, Sport, Citizens' Rights to draw up the Opinion;

having regard to the draft Opinion (CdR 54/98 rev.) adopted by Commission 7 on 1 April 1998 (rapporteur: Mrs Onkelinx),

unanimously adopted the following Opinion at its 23rd plenary session of 13 and 14 May 1998 (meeting of 14 May).

1. Introduction

1.1. Political convergence

1.1.1. The Committee of the Regions is pleased to note that questions related to safer use of the Internet command broad political support, both in terms of priority and guidelines, at the Commission, Council and European Parliament and in the Member States.

1.1.2. The Committee of the Regions endorses this general consensus, which is reflected in the proposal for recommendation and the proposal for an action plan, and welcomes the balance struck between cultural concerns and those of a more technical, telecommunications-related nature.

1.2. Complementarity of the documents

1.2.1. When in 1996 the Commission published its Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services and its Communication on illegal and harmful content on the Internet, it stressed that the two documents were complementary.

1.2.2. In its Opinion on the subject () the Committee of the Regions particularly stressed the need to achieve coherence.

1.2.3. This concern for complementarity is reflected in the relationship between the two documents currently under consideration. The Commission states that:

- the Council recommendation accompanying the Communication on the follow-up to the Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services is a legal instrument and is intended to establish common guidelines for the implementation of a self-regulation framework at national level to protect minors and human dignity;

- the action plan proposes specific measures to be financed from Community resources with a view to promoting an environment favourable to the development of industries related to the Internet.

2. General comments

2.1. Involvement of the regional and local authorities2.1.1. The Committee of the Regions considers the legal instrument proposed, a recommendation, to be appropriate to the extent that it sets out to promote the voluntary participation of all parties concerned in the drawing up, implementation and evaluation of measures to protect minors and human dignity.

2.1.2. The principle of subsidiarity has also been fully respected, as the recommendation stresses the need for measures at national level, with Community action aimed at ensuring the coherence and maximizing the efficiency of national measures by proposing common guidelines for self-regulation, coordinating work and encouraging cooperation at European and international level.

2.1.3. The problem of protecting minors and human dignity above all requires national responses. But in view of the international and decentralized nature of on-line and Internet services, these national responses will be fully effective only if a form of coordination and cooperation is established at European and international level.

2.1.4. The Committee of the Regions regrets however that neither the proposal for a recommendation nor the proposal for an action plan mentions the regional and local authorities, which are nonetheless involved in a variety of ways: thus they have a role in terms of raising awareness, particularly in view of their responsibility for education services, and in a more general sense by virtue of their closeness to citizens; they are also involved through their responsibility for local police, police training etc.

2.2. Participation of all parties

2.2.1. The proposal for a recommendation aims to promote the participation of all the parties concerned (users, consumers, businesses, public authorities) in the drawing up, implementation and evaluation of measures for the protection of minors and human dignity.

2.2.2. Stress should be laid on the participation of all parties, that is including the users of new information services. The example of countries which have already implemented national measures, such as codes of conduct and representative structures, has highlighted both the difficulty of involving users (as they do not necessarily have representative associations) and the importance of their being represented for the acceptability and credibility of the measures. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the national public authorities should intervene where necessary to ensure representativeness.

3. Specific comments

3.1. National self-regulation frameworks

3.1.1. The proposal for a recommendation sets out to complement the existing regulatory frameworks by encouraging the drawing up of national self-regulation frameworks applicable to on-line services, whilst respecting the principles and methods set out in the annex to the proposal.

3.1.2. The common guidelines set out in the annex are endorsed; these embody the four key elements of the national self-regulation framework:

3.1.3. The importance of the consultation and representativeness of the parties concerned, particularly users, has already been highlighted. It will be up to each Member State to organize the consultation process in accordance with individual national characteristics. Representativeness should however always remain a common European objective.

3.1.4. As regards the codes of conduct, it should be borne in mind that these are a useful preventive self-regulation mechanism guaranteeing the acceptability of standards and permitting rapid and flexible reaction to behaviour considered harmful or illegal. Self-regulation should not however compromise the principle of the responsibility of the parties concerned, but should, rather, make it possible to evaluate the efforts made by the parties to fulfil their obligations. It should be borne in mind that self-regulation arrangements are no substitute for a regulatory framework, but should always form part of this.

3.1.5. Apart from the basic rules mentioned in the annex, the codes of conduct could also provide information for each party concerned on the nature of the criminal, civil or administrative-law liabilities entered into under the national regulatory frameworks, and the nature of the sanctions which they risk incurring in the event of any infringement of regulatory standards.

3.1.6. Having said that, the idea of encouraging the adoption of common objectives for the drawing up of national codes of conduct has to be supported as long as these objectives remain a matter for the Member States. Respect for the diverse approaches and sensitivities of the various EU Member States does not preclude some form of coordination of national initiatives, which is necessary if the same pitfalls are to be avoided as occur in criminal law over the diversity of national standards.

3.1.7. The setting up of national representative bodies is clearly an important factor in facilitating cooperation at EU level. These representative bodies also have an important role to play in the implementation and evaluation of the codes of conduct.

3.1.8. The periodic evaluation of national self-regulation frameworks is fundamental to the effectiveness and credibility of the frameworks. Moreover, common European-level evaluation methods are needed if it is to be possible to compare diverse experience and to enable all EU Member States to benefit from this.

3.1.9. The first action line of the proposal for an action plan (Creating a safe environment) aims to promote the establishment of a European network of hotlines, and to help self-regulation organizations develop guidelines for codes of conduct at European level. This action line thus supports the annex to the proposal for a recommendation in implementing the common guidelines contained in the annex.

3.2. Television broadcasting services

3.2.1. As regards the television broadcasting services covered by the Television without Frontiers Directive, the European Council's position on the V-chip does not preclude encouraging experimentation on a voluntary basis with new ways of enabling broadcasting organizations to protect minors. Clearly, the advent of digital television opens the door to the use of parental control and information systems which are much more flexible than the V-chip of the analogue universe. It would be a very good thing for the proposal for a recommendation to encourage such experimentation.

3.2.2. Encouragement of such experimentation should not however absolve broadcasting organizations of their responsibility for content which might damage the physical, mental or moral development of minors. In any case, the rules on the subject aid down in the Television without Frontiers Directive and in the national regulatory frameworks continue to apply.

3.3. Cooperation between judicial and police authorities

3.3.1. This is needed if the dissemination of illegal content is to be effectively combated; cooperation should be organized within the framework of the third pillar of the European Union.

3.3.2. It is therefore important for a political signal in favour of cooperation to be given. The Committee of the Regions considers the proposal for a recommendation to be the appropriate framework for this.

3.3.3. It should be borne in mind however that cooperation does not eliminate the problem of divergences at national level in drawing the dividing line between what is illegal and what is not. There are regional cultural sensitivities even within the Member States themselves and these should be taken into account.

3.4. Educating users in the media and encouraging a sense of responsibility

3.4.1. The adoption of measures to develop minors' sense of responsibility in their approach to audiovisual and information services and to facilitate their access to high-quality content and services, e.g. in public places and educational establishments, clearly requires the mobilization of all the parties concerned. The role of parents and teachers in using suitable protection arrangements for access to the Internet at home or at school springs to mind, as does the role of firms in developing and promoting filter systems.

3.4.2. The Committee of the Regions regrets however that the proposal for a recommendation does not sufficiently stress the fundamental role of the public authorities, particularly regional and local authorities, in the field of media education, including the familiarization of teachers with new information technologies. The development of access for minors to new services at school is a necessary condition for their acquisition of skills in new technologies and their responsible use of these technologies; it will however also be a sufficient condition only if access is matched by a programme of education aimed at imparting to minors the knowledge they need to exploit the potential of the new technologies, and at giving teachers the training they need to educate minors in responsible use.

3.4.3. The proposal for an action plan provides support for actions to foster Internet awareness aimed at teachers and the general public. The communication accompanying the proposal states that these awareness actions will cover industrial initiatives in the field of self-regulation, filtering and rating, while at the same time aiming to boost the confidence of parents and teachers in the ability of children to use the Internet safely.

3.4.4. This proposal does not, any more than the proposal for a recommendation, tackle questions related to the Internet familiarization of teachers and children for educational purposes. Although this type of action is provided for in the action plan on learning in the information society, in particular in the actions on promoting training and support for teachers and trainers in integrating technology in teaching methods, and on informing all the players of the educational opportunities afforded by audio-visual equipment and multimedia products, the Committee of the Regions considers that the complementarity of these two instruments would be strengthened if links were clearly signposted.

3.5. Legal liability and labelling

3.5.1. The Committee of the Regions points out that a number of questions raised in the green paper are not mentioned in the communication and the proposal for a recommendation, e.g. operators' liability and the approach to labelling on-line and Internet services.

3.5.2. Questions relating to liability (type, operators affected) are important for the legal security of all operators, and thus for the development of on-line and Internet services.

3.5.3. The Committee of the Regions notes that the 'support actions` envisaged by the proposal for an action plan provide for a call for tenders for the assessment of legal questions raised by the content or the use of the Internet. But apart from needing exhaustive legal studies, we also need to know whether and how the Commission intends to follow up the work of the green paper on this subject, particularly as national responses are now beginning to come in (for example the principle of graduated liability introduced in Germany by the inter-state treaty on information services).

3.5.4. It is also regrettable that the problem of labelling on-line and Internet services is not tackled more explicitly in the proposal for a recommendation, except indirectly in the common guidelines on codes of conduct. The green paper in fact highlighted the PICS specification, which is at present the only specification capable of taking account of different sensitivities. Moreover, the consultation process has given rise to the concept of two-level labelling (descriptive and evaluative), which would enable different evaluation systems to be developed while at the same time providing an environment favourable to the development of large-scale site labelling.

3.5.5. Considerable Community 'added value` could be achieved in this area by implementing at EU level a common system of descriptive labelling. This common system would then permit the co-existence of different systems of evaluative labelling, both national and supranational, which would respect the diverse sensitivities existing within the European Union.

3.5.6. It should be mentioned that the action line for developing filtering and rating systems in the proposal for an action plan contributes to the realisation of this objective, first because it calls for proposals aimed at demonstrating the potential of filtering and rating systems, and secondly because it aims to ensure a coordinated contribution by Europe to international agreements on labelling protocols and systems.

3.5.7. In this context, it might also be appropriate for the proposal for a recommendation to call on the Commission to foster, in collaboration with all the parties concerned, the development of a common approach to the definition of on-line and Internet service filtering and rating systems.

4. Conclusions

4.1. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the political convergence in all the EU bodies on the way to tackle problems connected with safer use of the Internet. This has brought greater coherence to the way the European Commission approaches these problems.

4.2. The Committee points out that, within the limits of its competence, it has contributed in a significant and constructive way to the establishment of this consensus. It therefore greatly regrets that neither the proposal for a recommendation nor the proposal for an action plan highlights the important and fundamental implementing role of the regional and local authorities.

4.3. The Committee stresses the importance of full representation of the users of new information services on the national-level bodies responsible for drawing up, implementing and evaluating measures for the protection of minors and human dignity.

4.4. Although support, via the establishment of common objectives, for the drawing up of national self-regulation frameworks appears likely to promote the necessary cooperation between the Member States, the Committee of the Regions points out that self-regulation is no substitute for a regulatory framework, but should always form part of this.

4.5. The Committee of the Regions feels that the proposal for a recommendation should also open up the way to experimentation with new approaches to the protection of minors by broadcasting organizations, particularly in view of the advent of digital television.

4.6. The proposal for a recommendation should also provide an opportunity for the adoption of a standpoint on more far-reaching cooperation between judicial and police authorities than is currently the case under the third pillar.

4.7. The Committee of the Regions also regrets that more is not made of the problem of fostering user responsibility, particularly with regard to the acquisition of Internet skills by teachers and children for educational purposes.

4.8. Finally, the Committee of the Regions asks that the proposal for a recommendation also take account of important questions raised in the green paper, concerning the legal liability of operators and the process of labelling on-line and Internet services.

Brussels, 14 May 1998.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER

() COM(97) 570 final - 97/0329 (CNS).

() COM(97) 582 final - 97/0337 (CNS) - OJ C 48, 13.2.1998, p. 8.

() CdR 440/96 fin - OJ C 215, 16.7.1997, p. 37.