President. – The next item is the report (A5-0281/2001) by Mr Ruffolo, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, on cultural cooperation in the European Union [2000/2323(INI)].

  Ruffolo (PSE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this motion for a resolution has arisen from some simple but not obvious observations.

The first observation concerns a lack of coordination among the cultural programmes of the Union, especially between those included in Culture 2000 and those in the programmes financed by the Structural Funds. The second observation is especially that there is a gap between the programmes managed at Union level and national cultural policies, based purely and simply on the reciprocal provision of information.

A positive response to these two observations depends on the recognition of two points: first, the principle of subsidiarity not only does not exclude cooperation but demands it. It must not be understood in terms of sectarian cultural protectionism, but in a positive and active sense as a fertile encounter of diverse cultures.

The second point to recognise is that the richness and specific character of European civilisation lies in the diversity of its national and regional cultures. Therefore, the expression ‘unity in diversity’ has been chosen as the motto of the report. European culture is clearly not a homogeneous unit: it is a collection of diverse cultures, each with its own historical roots and its area of radiation; I might almost say it is a symphony in the technical musical sense of the word, in that it develops through consonance and dissonance: a symphony not created by a single composer, however, but resulting from the course of history, through dramatic conflicts and occasional religious, nationalist and ideological massacres.

Nonetheless, today, at last, there is a convergence on common humanistic values of liberty, equality and, if not fraternity – which would be too much to ask – then at least mutual tolerance. These are values which are recognised in a common area; they are distinguished both from distinctly consumer cultures and from fundamentalist ones, and are based upon the great traditions of Christianity, liberalism and socialism.

A common European culture was, besides, recognised at the time of Thomas More and Erasmus of Rotterdam, when Erasmus rode to Oxford on a mule to take his friend In Praise of Folly. There was a lingua franca but no monetary union, and so on his return his honestly earned pounds sterling were confiscated from him.

Today there are no more journeys on mule-back because we use aeroplanes, there is no longer a lingua franca but we have our wonderful simultaneous interpreters. In short, all the material conditions are in place for a European culture to spread its message of peace and civil order throughout the world, because Europeans can tap into a rich vein of cooperation in the cultural field. Such cooperation is affirmed, or rather invoked in the Treaties and official speeches, but funding does not follow as it could and should do. Instead, concrete decisions end up loudly contradicting the solemn declarations, decisions and non-decisions, like the unfortunate one at Nice which paralysed European cultural policy.

This motion for a resolution is an attempt to react to this paralysis, to pragmatically encourage cooperation among European countries in the field of culture, beginning with the obvious requirements of adopting a common vocabulary, comparable statistics, the reciprocal provision of information, systematic comparisons, a selection of best practices and the opening up of areas in which it seems most suitable and appropriate to adopt common approaches and policies.

I ardently hope, Mr President, that the Commission will match its efforts to the aims and give the resolution the attention it deserves, placing the problem of culture and cultural cooperation at the centre of the great European project.

We are different and united at the same time: this is an opportunity to show it!

  Graça Moura (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Ruffolo’s report seeks to achieve better and deeper cooperation between the Member States, with regard to their respective cultural policies. It also makes another good point that should be highlighted: the Commission’s cultural policy, specifically in its implementation of the Culture 2000 framework programme, should prevent a degree of fluctuation in the criteria for the selection of candidates.

The Commission is swamped every year with a huge variety of proposals, but the resources available to it are ridiculously limited and there are many agents and operators whose valid proposals are passed over as a result of these limitations. The Commission is currently trying to come up with procedures that will, in its opinion, provide a better response to these problems. The follow-up to Culture 2000 will soon be studied and we shall make a statement on it.

Using the instruments described in Mr Ruffolo’s report will ultimately provide the Commission with more precise data on the cultural policies of the Member States and on the cultural requirements they feel they have. A cultural policy at European level must take these factors into consideration when defining its objectives and outlining its criteria for selecting candidates. We should not forget that we are talking about a European cultural policy and not about national policies. These, incidentally, are also covered, to a great extent, by the Structural Funds, and it therefore makes sense to take account of the dual nature of the resources involved. Nevertheless, we must methodically separate the scope of a European cultural policy, on the one hand, from the range of national policies, on the other.

At European level, therefore, the institutions should concern themselves mainly with the implications of the cultural heritage common to all of Europe and avoid confusion with national policies developed by the Member States without prejudice, of course, to stimulating multilateral dialogue between the contemporary creations of these States. A European cultural policy must contribute to actively placing Europe’s huge and multifaceted cultural heritage within the grasp of its citizens.

  O'Toole (PSE). – Mr President, I welcome what I believe we will all agree is an exemplary piece of work. We now have a comprehensive blueprint for the way in which cultural policy could operate in the Union. The rapporteur has worked particularly well with the initiator of policy and legislation in the European Commission. I should like to make a few points.

First of all we have to acknowledge in this House and beyond that the creative and knowledge industries have become a driver in our new global economy and that the skills that we need therein have become vital to our performance in the European economy. More than this, the social and philosophical needs that we have in mastering the cultural question become central to ensuring that we have stability in our globalised world.

This means that we have to recognise the importance of funding for cultural activities. We have to face some very difficult questions: for instance, an increasingly small part of our economy in the new global world is agriculture. The common agricultural policy, as we all know, takes a vast amount of our funds. If we are to recognise the primacy of the knowledge and information economy in the new global economy then we have to face the reality of looking at different priorities for our fundings. All the measures in the Ruffolo report are deliverable, but in order to deliver we must ensure that we have cooperation across institutions and at different levels of government.

This means that we must look, for instance, at the structural funds and the way in which we monitor the amount of money that is spent on cultural activities. Recently a Commission official said to me that we could not do this. I have to inform him that all he needs do is to go to any of the municipalities in the Union and they will tell him how to do it. That is what officials are employed to do. He could even look at the Single Programming Documents in order to do this. It is possible to do it when we need to.

I say this not to slight the Commission or their staff but to say that cooperation is needed in order to achieve what Mr Ruffolo, in such an exemplary manner, has set out.

  Andreasen (ELDR). – (DA) Mr President, I want first of all to thank Mr Ruffolo for all the dedicated work he has done on this report. Allow me to remind you that it was also at Mr Ruffolo’s request that a statistical comparison of the Member States’ cultural activities was made. This was a very interesting and relevant document. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party has no doubt that culture is a fundamental component of the EU’s identity. Our group believes that respect for, and promotion of, cultural and linguistic diversity and of the common cultural inheritance is an essential factor in integration and the promotion of human individuality. We want to see a European cultural policy which is not in any way aimed at uniformity but which offers the kind of identity that arises in the encounter of differences – a policy which contributes to social cohesion and which is essential to the sense of being a European citizen.

Cultural policy is one of the EU’s small policy areas, and that is the way it should be, too. The EU must expend its energies on the key areas: the internal market, economic policy, foreign policy and asylum and immigration policy, and that is why we must also be very cautious about otherwise well-meaning initiatives in the area of cultural policy. Allow me also to remind you that people want decisions to be taken as close to themselves as possible. That was what the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, emphasised here in the House earlier today. The EU must not be involved in governing Europe in detail. That is best left to the Member States. That is why the ELDR Group has tabled amendments designed completely to remove conclusions 8 and 10. We believe that these are conclusions intended to broaden the scope of Article 151 of the treaty, and that is not something we want to be a party to. We also believe that the proposals are contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, something we take very seriously. Finally, we do not consider that the time is ripe for extending the economic framework of the EU’s activities in the area of cultural policy, something to which the proposal also refers. The ELDR Group cannot support the report if conclusions 8 and 10, or the compromise amendments to these, are adopted.

  Echerer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, a very good evening and welcome to Europe's first culture channel. But joking apart, what can I say to you in just a minute? Perhaps I should try to take the wind out of the sceptics' sails. This is not about intervention, it is not about interfering in national cultural policy, no new wave of harmonisation is being started; on the contrary, it is about bringing sermonising politicians down to earth and saying, could you please stop using subsidiarity as a veto. It is about saying, if you really mean that culture is one of the most important models for the peaceful integration of Europe, then you must put your money where you mouth is. We try to join forces in so many areas; why should culture go it alone? Joint investment by Europe in culture – I like that expression better than subsidy, it is not just a question of financial support – is long overdue.

May I run over time slightly in order to pay my respects and offer my thanks to all the members who have patiently fought to make headway here over the years, long before my arrival here. I should like to thank them for every millimetre of ground won and I too shall fight for more, millimetre by millimetre.

  Fraisse (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, the nicest compliment that can paid to Mr Ruffolo, I think, is to ask a question which, to my mind, is the most significant, the question of the budget. If he tells us that 0.1% of the Community budget is set aside for culture, when we know full well that a Europe of Culture is advancing, how much is coming from the European Structural Funds, as Mrs O'Toole stated?

What I would like to know, and I think Mr Ruffolo would also like to know, is what are the European Structural Funds set aside for culture, what this represents and what this means for a Europe of Culture currently under construction. If this Europe of Culture is effectively under construction, then let us take on board all of Mr Ruffolo’s proposals: it could be that he is proposing to change the Treaty by proposing a cultural observatory. Perhaps we could also propose a cultural policy, and I would really like to know your feelings on reinforced cooperation, on the extension of the qualified majority, in short, on all that could be used to build a cultural policy in Europe in a concrete and non-abstract fashion.

Mrs Echerer told us no long debates, and I agree with her, of course, but I must say that as far as I am concerned there should be a clear description of budgetary expenditure on culture. We know very well that wherever we go in Europe, we find out that it is not such and such a programme that provides the appropriate financing but these often talked about Structural Funds. Why can we not find out what is happening with these Structural Funds? This would perhaps be the best proof and the best argument if those Members who are not interested in culture are to support us in our cultural project.

  Pack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to offer Mr Ruffolo my warmest thanks for taking the initiative because, without such an effort on his part, we would have no own initiative report and we would not be able to talk about it today or ask for funds from the budget. So my warmest thanks. The report was adopted with a broad consensus, it has come at the right time and it represents a political challenge for everyone involved in it. And I hope that means a lot of people at all levels.

Setting up an observatory for cultural cooperation and the proposed three-year cultural cooperation plan will, in the final analysis, be a gauge of just how seriously politicians at all levels are trying to maintain and develop a European area of culture. I am also delighted that two points have been included which I addressed in my report on the status of artists in 1992, Mrs Echerer. I called at that time for greater support for patrons, including through greater tax incentives. I called then – as I do now – for a long overdue study to be drafted on the approximation of taxes on works of art and the work of artists.

Because we have social cohesion and are citizens of Europe, we need a European cultural policy and our amazing diversity must be highlighted time and time again. Project Europe shed its economic and technical orientation a long time ago. We desperately need to draft a common cultural policy and common education policy if we are to rekindle the soul of Europe, which has been choked by economic expediency and covered in a thick layer of bureaucratic dust at all levels, regional, local, national and even European, for far too long.

Our citizens today simply want more beautiful things. More beautiful things will reawaken their enthusiasm for Europe and more culture costs a bit more. So please let us add something to the budget now.

(Applause)

  Aparicio Sánchez (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, we have before us a great own-initiative report which is so important that, in my opinion, it could easily have been called ‘Bases for a common cultural policy’, because this is what they could be if the Council takes a sensitive approach to our requests.

Our cultural identity is being protected all the time and this is right and proper because it is an important part of Europe’s cultural heritage. The rapporteur himself, in a cogent phrase, defined the situation in Europe as the unity of diversities. But do the Members of the Council not think that it is also time that we discussed what is common to all our cultures, to seek it out, to cherish its common components, ways of life, customs, shared values, knowledge, art and scientific development? Do they not think that it is time to state that a European culture does indeed exist, to develop joint cultural policies and to set common objectives for all our member States?

In a globalised world and given the danger of passively adopting one particular dominant culture, cultural convergence within the European Union represents a powerful political bulwark that we should not reject. To those nationalists who, from within or from outside the Union, reject the future of the European Union because, according to them, we do not share a common identity, we must reply with the words of Levy Strauss, who said: “We do not need one, because we have something much stronger: a common destiny”.

The purpose of my words, Mr President, is to congratulate Mr Ruffolo for having reminded us so brilliantly of the path that we must take in the field of culture.

One final comment. The request that a work of art be installed in infrastructures and installations financed with Community funds seeks not only to protect and to spread art in Europe, but to ensure that the public knows and remembers that this airport, that motorway, or such-and-such railway line, comes from the Community, a fact of which today, unfortunately, people tend to be unaware.

  Gargani (PPE-DE), Chairman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. – (IT) Mr President, this resolution is Parliament’s first legislative initiative in cultural matters based on Article 192 of the Treaty and is distinguished from the other resolutions approved by Parliament in the field of culture not only in its content but also in its procedure, certainly the most authoritative yet allowed under the Treaty.

The resolution has come at a delicate time for the European Union, on the eve of major institutional reforms; it is therefore seen as an indication and a contribution from Parliament to the debate on the future of Europe. If all this is true, you will of course allow me, Mr President, sincerely, in my capacity as committee Chairman, to congratulate the rapporteur in advance this evening – something that we generally do as a matter of course when we vote – because I really believe this is a step forward, a major revolution that Parliament is on the point of making.

Actually, the lack of coordination at the level of cultural programmes, which the rapporteur has highlighted, is in my mind the most important fact in being able to make Europe grow and, as Mr Ruffolo has said, culture has until now had a much lesser role than the economy. With the Maastricht Treaty conditions improved but it remained marginal; then in Nice it was held paralysed in the bonds of unanimity. All that shows how Europe can be made, Commissioner, not just through the economy, but through a major cultural initiative, of which Parliament should take full note.

Precisely because this resolution is wanted and has, I believe, been passionately discussed by the committee until they reached unanimity – wanted by the rapporteur and discussed and wanted by the committee as a whole – I believe it really shows a difference, a diversity, a new reason for this Parliament, as part of a strategy that must, at a cultural level, lead us to unity in the cultural diversity that this great Europe has, in order for there to be a future in a real strategy over the coming years.

  Reding, Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur for his report, not merely for form’s sake but from the heart, because it provides a timely opportunity to renew our discussion of the future of cultural cooperation in Europe.I regret, Mr Ruffolo, ladies and gentlemen, that the discussion on this report is taking place at almost midnight, in front of an empty chamber, not qualitatively, but quantitatively so, for I think that what we are talking about – and I am not only saying this as the Commissioner responsible for this dossier – is the future of Europe. In fact, the future of Europe, even if current themes centre around the euro and our economic development in a globalised environment, will depend on the following question: how will we know how to deal with culture, our cultures, our cultural diversity, founded on common roots, that has so much in common and is so diverse, united in the construction of a common European cultural unit? It is therefore the ideal moment to talk about it and to act.

You will all know very well that the move to qualified majority voting for Article 151, that Parliament and the Commission had requested, has not been included in the Treaty of Nice. Therefore, we have to face facts, we have to make realistic policies. We did not get the qualified majority, we therefore have to act without it and try to create a situation in which we can evolve. That is the merit, by the way, of the Ruffolo report, which takes us away from what seemed to be an impasse. I see Mr Graça Moura here, who is currently preparing another report on the evaluation of the "Culture 2000" programme, which will, I suppose, be similar in nature. So, Parliament is taking the initiative. Parliament is attempting to break this deadlock and it is Parliament that has also, and I thank you for this, I thank your Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr President, put forward very sturdy budgetary proposals. Now, it has to be said that this will not be easy because, given our institutional situation, with unanimity, making budgetary innovations is a delicate and difficult matter. Yet together, I am sure that we will get there.

Mr Ruffolo has asked all the right questions: what should the objectives of our cooperative action be? What values should they defend? These questions should serve as the basis for the revision of the "Culture 2000" framework programme. I would also like to underline the interest of the study of national cultural policies in Member States which has provided the basis for this report. I would like to say to the rapporteur that incidences of convergence, as he says, are many in number, both in terms of definitions in the cultural field and in terms of the objectives of national policies. It is also important, as has been revealed by the numerous MEPs present at the debate this evening, that this leads to a more profound awareness of the fact that, in order to make advances in national policies, there needs to be convergence and collaboration at European level.

I would now like to react point by point to the fundamental elements of the motion for a resolution, Mr President. With regard to points 1 and 2, the importance of culture and cultural cooperation for European identity, a lengthy explanation is not necessary. We are in agreement, culture is an intrinsic value for the peoples of Europe, it is the essential element of European integration. It contributes to the affirmation and vitality of the European social model as well as the influence of Europe on the international stage. This recognition of culture as a vehicle for European identity should be shared not only by the European Parliament and the Commission, but also by the Council, currently discussing a motion for a resolution from the Belgian Presidency on the role of culture in Europe. I really hope that Parliament and the Commission will do everything necessary for this resolution to succeed.

Point 4: culture and the information society. You will already be aware of the Commission’s numerous initiatives: e-Europe for audiovisual material, e-content, and, for educational material, e-learning. I would quite simply like to thank you for having tried, through a budgetary action, to strengthen the Commission’s efforts in this direction and I would also like to tell you that the Belgian Presidency is very interested in this dossier. It has presented a motion for a resolution that aims to improve access to culture via the Internet and we are going to organise, with the Belgian Presidency, a seminar entitled "Culture and Internet" on 22 September. This seminar will facilitate the development of an electronic European cultural network and the presence of culture on the Internet.

Points 5, 8 and 10: strengthening cooperation. Parliament is hoping to strengthen cultural cooperation using a three-year plan for Member States and through the creation of a European Observatory for cultural cooperation. These two proposals open up new perspectives and I am delighted that the amendments set out by Mr Ruffolo, Mrs Pack and Mr Graça Moura in the name of the two main groups in this Parliament allow the Commission to lift its reservations, which were not fundamental reservations, but formal reservations which called for these two proposals. We are therefore in agreement on the basis. In fact, by strengthening cooperation between Member States and between cultural institutions, we can develop improved knowledge of the cultural world with all that that implies. Some honourable Members have said this with a great deal of commitment and much talent.

So, in concrete terms, I want to tell you this. The Director-General of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture regularly brings together the Directors-General of Culture of the Member States. The objective of these meetings is to strengthen cooperation. They know each other, they know what each other are doing, they can work together, they can think of common actions to take in cooperation with one another, and how to apply them in practice.

On the same subject, the Commission is hoping to strengthen the visibility of the European Community’s numerous cultural actions. I will return to this subject. This is the reason why a portal devoted to all Community actions linked to culture will be opened in a few months time. This will not only have an influence upon the actions initiated by my Directorate-General: it will also encompass that taking place in other Directorates-General. It goes without saying, Mr President, that your Parliament will be invited to the inauguration of this portal because I am also counting on you. It is very important that the cultural actors from your Member States and your constituents know that it exists and that it works. You will be one of the important outlets for spreading the word about this portal.

I would also like to thank the Culture Committee for having requested that a budget heading be set up for the creation of a European Observatory or an equivalent structure. You voted for this, Mr President, and I hope you will be followed by the Committee on Budgets.

Point 9: Structural Funds. We have decided to devote EUR 167 million to the "Culture 2000" programme over five years – a cause for some jealousy, perhaps. I would like to give you a few figures on the investment of Structural Funds in culture whilst pointing out that there is no automatic element in this process. In fact, Member States and regions have to ask for these investments, without which the Structural Funds cannot be effective on the ground.

The Commission has precise information available for countries that have decided to devote a proportion of Structural Funds to cultural actions. I will cite three: Greece, Portugal and Italy. Portugal, for example, has voted for a budget of EUR 327 million for culture for the 2000-2006 period. The European Community contributes up to EUR 237 million. This is a question, for a small country – a great country in terms of culture, of course, but a small Member State all the same – of a sum that goes way above that which is available, for fifteen Member States, for the "Culture 2000" action. In Greece, the total Community contribution for culture will rise to EUR 414 million and in Italy, we will also contribute by participating in seven regional operational programmes and in devoting a large budget to culture in which Structural Funds constitute more than EUR 1 200 000.

Even if we only take the example of these three countries, that is to say not all fifteen, Mr President, we see that in one year Structural Funds invest more than EUR 250 million in culture. You will therefore have an idea that this involves amounts that are very much higher than those we have available as European politicians responsible for culture.

Point 11: The Observatory. You have adopted the steps necessary for the introduction of two new budget headings in the 2002 draft budget. I am delighted with this initiative.

Point 12: the contact points. An examination of the role of the contact points and their finance contract is being undertaken. It should also be concluded this year. We will keep you informed of the conclusions of this examination. Let me in any case draw your attention to the fact that these contact points should remain information structures used in the decision-making process that will have been taken by the political authorities.

Points 13 and 14: the Cultural Forum. On 21 and 22 November, the second forum on cultural cooperation in Europe will take place and the President and the rapporteur have already been informed.

(FR) I have also asked Mr Graça Moura to speak during this forum in order to have direct contact. Mr Gargani, Mr Graça Moura and the rapporteur, Mr Ruffolo, have received an invitation to participate, to have direct contact with the major players and to tell them what Parliament wants, what Parliament decides and what this implies. It will be the ideal opportunity to be able to explain Parliament’s position on cultural policy issues directly to the operators on the ground.

Points 15 and 16: patronage. I am completely in agreement with your analysis of the importance of patronage. I know that Mrs Pack, present here today, put forward this proposal in 1992, and I regret that, almost ten years later, we still have no policy on this matter. Strong from the experience we have gained, we are going to look into this question. We will not abandon the European authorities without having achieved this objective. Together, we shall get down to the job. National and European budgets are ever “tighter”. Now, we have an extraordinary capacity on ground level: the private sector, the institutions, the organisations, the industries. These need to be mobilised, we need to give incentives for them to invest in culture. I would like us to think about a "patronage" action that includes a study of the possible harmonisation of VAT on works of art and artistic work, in such a way that all these elements are indissociable. With all the national resources that are available to us, we should favour investment in culture and the participation of cultural players. As you can see, I have been very positive up to this point.

Point 18: the cultural percentage, that is to say the principle of cultural endowments for works financed by the Structural Funds. I am not very much in favour of a system of quotas in this field, for this risks introducing an element of rigidity in an intervention system based on subsidiarity and the initiative of local and regional authorities.

I think that, on the other hand, governments and regions should be encouraged to ask for more investment in culture by the Structural Funds.I find it remarkable that Mr Barnier, my colleague responsible for Structural Funds, has, since assuming his responsibilities, decided to open up these funds even more to culture – that is to say to you who work at ground level in close relation with cultural players and communities – and to encourage municipalities and States to submit more applications for Structural funds for this purpose.

With regard to the WTO, I cannot be more clear: at the time of the next negotiations, the European Union will undertake to guarantee, as in the Uruguay round, the possibility for the Community and its Member States to maintain and develop their capacity to define and implement their cultural and audiovisual policies for the preservation of cultural diversity.

This is a matter of principle, a prerequisite, a general approach and a position decided on by the Fifteen, on which there can be no question. In other words, we shall maintain our cultural diversity and the mandate for negotiation expresses the desire of the European Union to strengthen competition in the European audiovisual industry by means of appropriate policies. I will present you also in the forthcoming weeks with a report, a programme on cinema that will really allow this policy to be established, not in the sense advocated by the WTO, but in the sense of the reinforcement of audiovisual policies.

It is also worth noting that the application of competition law alone, in particular the prohibition of the abuse of a dominant position, would not guarantee the preservation and development of cultural diversity. This is why the Community and the Member States remain fundamentally attached to their freedom of action to develop and adapt their cultural policy.

As you can see, nothing has changed. The credo remains. We are going to defend it together, with you and with the Member States.

Mr Ruffalo, I hope that I have answered your questions, even if I have taken far too long at this late hour. I thought it was important to give my response for these are questions that are sometimes considered by the public to be of minor importance. In my opinion, they are fundamental. In effect, Europe wants to move forward and must one day be judged on her cultural dimension, which is a human, civil dimension. I think it is normal for Parliament to be committed to constructing this Citizens’ Europe and I thank you for it.

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.⁽¹⁾

(The sitting was closed at 12.10 a.m.)