Document originated:	11 November 1996 (Corrigendum issued 28 January 1997).
Original language:	French
Forwarded to the Council:	12 November 1996
Circulated by the Council in the original language:	22 November 1996
Circulated by the Council in English:	25 November 1997
Deposited in Parliament:	12 March 1997
Department:	Department of National Heritage
Basis of consideration:	EM of 9 April 1997
Previous consideration:	None
Committee's assessment:	Politically important
Committee's decision:	Cleared

The Commission Green Paper

60.1  In this Green Paper, the Commission suggests that the achievement of the full potential of the information society[157] will depend on the right balance being struck between freedom of speech on the one hand and, on the other, "public interest considerations" such as the protection of minors and of human dignity. This will require a balance between policies to foster the emergence of new services and measures to ensure that the opportunities created are not abused by the few at the expense of the many.

60.2  This paper is designed to be complementary to another, presented at the same time, the Commission Communication on Illegal and harmful content on the Internet[158], in contrast to which it takes a longer term view and is more consultative in nature. Both are in response to requests from the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission points out that a number of policy initiatives already under way or under examination touch on these issues.

60.3  The paper describes some of the new services which will be available and the difficulties they pose, in that they are increasingly global and will provide considerable individual choice. A new, flexible, regulatory framework will be required and European and global solutions may have to be found, the Commission suggests. Existing legal and constitutional arrangements at European and national level are analysed. The paper points out that national arrangements in Europe are set against the background of the fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 10 of which guarantees the right of freedom of expression. However, this is subject to certain limitations for reasons such as the protection of health or morals, or the prevention of crime, and case law has developed the principle of proportionality. There is thus the basis for a common approach in Europe, but the actual arrangements in the Member States vary greatly and reflect differences in cultural and moral standards.

60.4  A number of problems in regulating the new services are identified, such as:

-    how to determine liability between the different operators (network provider, service provider, content provider) involved in the process, particularly when they are in different countries;

-    the protection of minors from exposure to material which is legally available to adults; and

-    the balance between freedom of expression and the freedom to provide services across the single market.

60.5  Some possible solutions are suggested as worthy of consideration:

-    rating the content of material available on the new services;

-    technical means of parental control (such as the V-Chip or other filtering mechanisms);

-    improving co-operation between Member States and the European Commission, in both the Community and in the Justice and Home Affairs frameworks;

-    co-operation with industry to encourage self-regulation, including codes of conduct;

-    education and information initiatives targeted at users, parents and minors, consumer associations, and others.

60.6  Nine questions are seen as key to defining future policies. They cover:

(a)  liability

(b)  restrictive measures

(c)  the balance between privacy (including anonymity) and liability

(d)  regulation and/or self-regulation

(e)  parental control systems

(f)  decentralisation of content rating, respecting individual, local and national sensitivities

(g)  standardisation of content ratings

(h)  administrative cooperation

(i)  which levels are appropriate, whether EU or international, for developing solutions

The Government's view

60.7  The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr Chris Smith), in his thoughtful and helpful Explanatory Memorandum (dated 23 June 1997), sets out the issues raised in the Green Paper, saying that they "...arise from the proliferation of new audiovisual and information services made possible by a number of technological developments." He explains that:

"The two key developments are: convergence of the previously discrete broadcasting, telecommunications and print media; and the increase in the number of sources of information available as a result of cable and satellite broadcasting and global information networks such as the Internet, due mainly to the adoption of digital technology.

"The developments will have important implications for the public, regulators, national Governments and international organisations and require a reappraisal of existing audiovisual regulation at national and international level. They present a number of challenges to existing regulatory frameworks:

"i  The rapid growth of the amount of material which is transmitted makes it increasingly difficult to monitor and to influence content.

"ii  The remit of regulators is commonly defined in terms of the medium they regulate. The increasing potential to transmit similar material across all media means that a regulatory framework organised in this way may no longer be appropriate.

"iii  Increasing internationalisation of the market presents difficulties for national regulation."

"...New technologies make spectrum scarcity less significant and reduce the barriers to new industry entrants. They thus provide scope for a greater variety of broadcasters representing a wide range of viewpoints. The provision of television services by subscription, and of individual transmissions by pay-per-view, creates a new relationship between broadcaster and viewer, which may result in viewers having more and better information in advance about programmes, and being able to make informed choices. Thus while the level of regulation which has previously applied may no longer be possible, the desired objectives may be achievable by lighter regulation than was necessary in the past, and indeed by self-regulation based on existing law.

"Technological change is taking place now, but its future pace and direction are difficult to predict. It will be essential therefore to monitor and, as far as possible, to anticipate developments in the sector to determine how the regulatory framework needs to be adapted.

"The issues raised by the Green Paper are extremely important and the Government would not wish to play down their importance. It is vital, however, in considering how best to address them, that we bear in mind that only a small fraction of the material available to the public poses a threat to the protection of minors or human dignity. It will be important, therefore, not to impose hasty regulation upon these new services and thereby constrain their development and the educational, commercial and social opportunities and other benefits they can engender.

"Furthermore, as the Green Paper notes, obscene material, child pornography and much of the offensive and harmful material found on the Internet and elsewhere is already subject to criminal law and other prohibitions at national level. This issue straddles the First (Community) and Third (Justice and Home Affairs) Pillars. There is already a considerable degree of co-operation between Member States in this field, and there is not, at this stage, a proven need for any European Community regulation.

"These issues, and others raised by the Green Paper such as liability, content rating and parental control systems are presently under consideration by the Government in the context of reviewing the framework of domestic media regulation. The Green Paper demonstrates that the European and international aspect of this work requires equally thorough consideration".

60.8  The Minister adds that, in preparing the Government's response, views have been invited from the principal UK broadcasters, regulators and advertisers, as well as from other interested organisations.

Conclusion

60.9  The way in which the questions raised in this Green Paper are handled by the Member States will have long term consequences for the citizens of Europe and the many firms involved in the information society. It is important that they should be given careful consideration, and they are not easily resolved. A debate on several documents concerned with the implications of the information society took place in European Standing Committee B on 17 December 1996[159]. It would be premature to recommend another at this stage, but these issues are of political importance and we may wish to recommend a debate on them when the Commission has developed its proposals further. Meanwhile, we clear this document. We should be grateful for a copy of the Secretary of State's response to the Commission.

158  (17588) -; see HC 36-iii (1996-97), paragraph 11 (13 November 1996). Back

159  Official Report, European Standing Committee B, 17 December 1996; The Information Society: Priorities and Implications. Back