THERE's a nice irony in the name of the Television without Frontiers directive. It reminds one of the preposterous obstacle courses of the TV game show Jeux Sans Frontieres - except, as any MEP will tell you, this one appears to be never ending game. But it's also a game that has seen one, of the most intensive commercial lobbying operations on MEPs ever.
In November, after months, of acrimonious discussions the" Council of Ministers basically gave up on its attempts to amend the 1989 TV directive. The French, backed by Ireland, wanted to tighten its quota, requirement to broadcast over 50 per cent European produced programmes by removing the key let out words "where practicable" from the directive.
Others, led by the British, argued that quotas were an artificial and unworkable way of protecting the European TV and film industries from US competition and wanted them done away with. The fact was, they said, that film goers were indicating in cinemas across the EU that they preferred the Hollywood output to their own home grown and "often second rate" product. The anti interventionists have preferred to put their faith in a guarantee, fund of £320 million being proposed by the European Commission to assist investment in the industry.
Deadlock. And an unhappy agreement is reached, more or less, to leave the 1989 directive intact. But the problem won't go away - there is another party to the EU legislative process - the European Parliament.
Now, in theory, the Council of Ministers should not have worked out its final position until the MEPs had given their opinion of the legislation. But, frustrated by the delays, the council pressed ahead while parliament dithered.
This week the MEPs have been working in committee on over 200 of their own amendments to the proposed amendment to the directive under a new "streamlined" process known as the Hughes procedure. This allows a "lead" committee to process amendments to legislation being sought by other committees. The result goes to the plenary meeting of parliament in Strasbourg in February, where it is quite likely that many of the amendments will be re debated, such is the level of interest generated by the measure.
The legislation then returns, to the council to see if it can accept the MEPs' amendments - but as the Ministers have already decided on their position on the key questions, a standoff between parliament and council is likely.
In that event the laborious process of conciliation between the two bodies begins to see if a deal can be brokered - in this case, given the likely time scale, the council delegation will almost certainly be chaired by a representative of the Minister for Arts, Communications and the Gaeltacht, Mr Higgins. Some task!
And even if the conciliation teams reach agreement, there is no guarantee that the parliament will back its negotiators, as indeed it refused to do on a compromise proposed on legislation last year on biotechnology. The directive fell.
Not surprisingly MEPs and council members are frustrated by the process. Ms Mary Banotti, a member of the Culture Committee, complains that the enormously complex legislation "tended to try and cope with the problems of the film, industry within the TV directive." It might have been more sensible, she point out with some justice, to do the latter separately. The reality is that while 80 per cent of cinema film showings are US produced, TV has always shown a willingness for commercial reasons to show a far higher proportion of locally produced material.
Although sceptical of attempts to use quotas, Ms Banotti has backed unsuccessful attempts by the Swedes to restrict advertising aimed at children. To the considerable relief of the commercial TV industry MEPs accepted their arguments that to do so would cause unfair loss of revenue and even jeopardise jobs. On this issue Ms Banotti finds herself on the opposite side of the argument to her daughter, a lobbyist for some of the TV channels.
Indeed the World Federation of Advertisers were so concerned about the proposals they called their own press conference here this week. "The current political climate in Brussels and Strasbourg has become increasingly hostile towards advertisers", the group warned, not only on the issue of advertising aimed at children, but on restrictions on tele shopping and ad time limits. "What legislators tend to forget is that advertisers provide the economic lifeblood to the Community, generate jobs, offer consumer choice as well as the vital resources to fund both the traditional and news media." Lobbyists were also successful in blocking proposals for a "V" chip which would allow parents to filter out programming classified as unsuitable for children.
MEPs have, however, tightened the 51 per cent transmission quota rule by removing the "where practicable" opt out. They have also inserted an amendment giving "thematic" channels (such as Sky Movies) the option of instead investing in production five per cent of their turnover or 25 per cent of their programming budget.
Whether any of the amendments make it into the final legislation, or whether, indeed, the latter ever finally reaches the statute books, is another matter. I wouldn't put money on it.
