Madam Chair,
Mr President and rapporteur of the Committee on Cultural Affairs and Education, ladies and gentlemen,
We are here today for the second reading consideration in public of the bill on creative freedom, architecture and heritage. After first reading in the Assembly and consideration by the Senate, we are all fully aware of its issues.
This legislation, beyond the amendments and provisions we will be discussing, affirms the specificity of culture and why it requires the protection of the legislator. Theatre, books, cinema, heritage, archaeology, architecture or song, all these expressions of human genius must be exempted from the laws of market or laissez-faire alone. They are not commodities or commodities.
Because we must protect their diversity, rebalance unfavourable power relations, guarantee the creation of livelihoods, propose a long-term vision and take into account the historical depth and diversity of our territory, The arts seek the force of law.
Malraux said one very simple thing about art: "It’s the only thing that resists death." Gilles Deleuze took up this idea at a conference, where he said, “Think… So yes, what resists death? No doubt, it is enough to see a statuette from three thousand years before our era to find that Malraux’s answer is a rather good one. So you could say … art is what resists. Hence the close relationship between the act of resistance and art, and the work of art,” before concluding, “Every act of resistance is not a work of art, although in some ways it is. Every work of art is not an act of resistance, yet in some ways it is.”
If this definition of the act of creation concerns us today, it is because we have entered a society where it is found that it is more difficult to dialogue, where creation, by its transgressive nature, is sometimes less well received and is more difficult to be together. Yet it is one of the last spaces in which to live this relationship with the other, one of the last legitimate spaces capable of making these ties live.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to briefly review the principles of this act and its context.
The first principle is to protect creative, broadcast and programming freedom. However, this freedom is not absolute and must be reconciled with other fundamental principles, including the rejection of incitement to hatred. But the artist, by nature, disturbs, because he sees what is discarded and expresses what is repressed. That is why we need to protect creative and programming freedom. The defence of this freedom goes hand in hand with the reaffirmation of an ambitious public service policy, notably through networks of structures labelled by the State, carried out jointly by the latter and the local authorities.
The second principle is to promote transparency and consultation in the cultural industries. The law defines for the cultural industries the conditions of new equilibrium, made necessary by new usages and new economic models, giving priority to consultation, that between the organizations representing publishers and authors for the book, between performers and producers of phonograms for music, but also paying attention to the balance of power and the need to always support the author, the creator.
Third principle: clarification, protection and responsibility. That is the purpose of the section on preventive archaeology, heritage and the wealth of professions in this field. I will come back to that in detail.
Fourth principle: innovation and experimentation with the architecture that shapes our daily lives.
This law comes before you in a context that gives it meaning: an increased budget for the second consecutive year, in order to support artistic creation but also the access of all to culture, especially that of children; a constant attention to employment in this sector, with the renegotiation of the unemployment insurance agreement and the employment fund; finally, a willingness to implement a partnership policy with local authorities that make the choice of culture.
I am pleased that the Committee on Cultural Affairs and Education of your Assembly has been able to improve the drafting of certain articles. It significantly enriched, without distorting, the text transmitted by the Senate. Article 2, based on the rapporteur’s proposals, reaffirms the public service character of policy in favour of artistic creation. It values cultural action and arts education. This is a major responsibility for us.
Article 3 enshrines labels as a real policy tool for the performing arts and reinforces the structuring network formed by the scenes of cultural decentralization.
Reinstatement of Article 6 bis has made it possible, in accordance with the principle of technological neutrality, to restore the fair remuneration system, which is now applicable to radio stations, to all radio stations broadcast on the Internet in continuous flow. I’m glad you did.
With respect to private copying, the Senate introduced a measure that would make copy services offered by publishers and distributors of television services subject to compensation for private copying. It is about enabling them to modernize their model in the age of digital video recorders. The work in committee made it possible to simplify the reform, by targeting it on the providers' field and by providing a provision in line with the spirit of private copying. The system thus adopted makes it possible to modernize it, while preserving the exclusive right that remains the basis for the protection of copyright and related rights.
As regards the articles relating to the obligations of television channels in relation to the financing of audiovisual creation, I am pleased that your committee has abolished the arrangements introduced in the Senate. While calling our attention to the subject, they risked failing, if they persisted, in the process of renegotiating relations between broadcasters and producers. We must allow ourselves to move from regulation to regulation.
The law must set out the main principles, such as that of a contribution of the chains to the independent production of works. But all subsequent provisions, although they take on a regulatory form, must as far as possible be the result of agreements involving all producer and author unions with the various television channels and other broadcasters. The amendments adopted in committee allowed the current negotiations to resume calmly, after the agreements that have already been found for France Télévisions, in December 2015 and even more recently for Arte.
The new version of Article 11 ter on the obligations of radio stations in terms of music helps to strengthen musical diversity. It finally makes quotas effective. In cultural matters, following demand is a mistake. We must develop the offer and give all audiences the opportunity to discover and love what they do not yet know.
The proposed system penalizes radio stations that broadcast a very small number of titles and rewards those that, on the contrary, make concrete commitments to diversity. It introduces more transparency in control and creates a regime adapted to music discovery radios. However, they will have to significantly increase their programming of French-language works.
I think this is a balanced approach. However, I have heard the concerns expressed by some members of the commission. We have therefore clarified how the mechanism voted in committee will be implemented and its impact on diversity.
Articles 17 and following reinforce the organisation of specialised courses. They strengthen artistic higher education institutions in good cooperation with general higher education. In addition, they confirm the creation of a National Council for Higher Education and Research – CNESER – art and culture, the real Parliament of our schools, whose specificities must be recognized, especially that, major, to have artists and professionals for stakeholders.
On preventive archaeology, your committee chose to return to the substance of the text of the first reading – a text that was the result of amendments from your committee and the Government. Preventive archaeology allows us to trace the course of our history and a heritage that is that of humanity. You reaffirmed the role of the State in the scientific control of the public policy of preventive archaeology, which is based on multiple competences, while recognising the role of the archaeological services of local authorities and that of private operators of preventive archaeology.
This text now seems well balanced. It remains at the service of preventive archaeology, which must be built in permanent link with the territories, elected officials and all developers, but under the vigilant scientific control of the State.
On the issue of protected spaces, which is central to the heritage part of the bill, we are getting to the point. You took over the text resulting from the work of the Senate, which had been the subject of an agreement between the Government and the senators. The merging of the three types of protected space into a single category is now taking place. This new space will benefit from two levels of protection: a plan to enhance architecture and heritage or a plan to safeguard and enhance.
I am particularly pleased that this important element brings together most members of Parliament and senators. I will propose a common name for these spaces, under the name of “remarkable heritage site”, after the debate in committee on our various proposals.
As regards Articles 26 and following, architecture must be placed back at the heart of the construction of everyday life. Unfortunately, we have too often to deplore her absence. She has for too long been considered a superfetish. The Senate had reviewed the articles in favour of architecture in a questionable way, in my opinion. While two major points were retained – the architect’s intervention threshold and experimentation – several provisions adopted by the Assembly at first reading had been deleted. Your commission reinstated them. I am delighted because we must develop the presence of architecture for everyone and for the everyday living environment, beyond the only great architectural gestures that we also appreciate.
In the field of books, the articles we will examine are the translation of provisions desired by the actors of the sector. They provide for a report to Parliament on the progress of consultation on improving contractual relations between authors and publishers. This has already progressed well, under the control and watchful eye of the Government.
In addition, as an extension of the first reading vote, it was necessary to create the possibility for the author to terminate his contract within the framework of a simplified procedure not requiring recourse to the judge in case of non-payment of his rights by the publisher.
Regarding the general examination of the text in public session, the Government will present some amendments. On amateur practice, in order to promote it with respect for professional employment, I will be moving an amendment to Article 11a, which the committee has fortunately reinstated in the terms voted on at first reading, to further clarify, if necessary, its framework. I will do so in the light of the last consultations that have taken place, which I believe make it possible to propose a balanced text whose application will then have to be clarified by decree.
On the resale right, a provision was introduced by the Senate so that foundations could benefit from a legacy of the resale right on the works of artists. In committee, the Government wished to extend the benefit of this legacy to all types of people, where the Senate limited this protection to certain foundations. The Government will introduce an amendment to improve this article, so that people who have the responsibility to make live the work of an artist, ensuring its dissemination or preservation for example, may benefit in an appropriate way from the resources offered by the inheritance of the resale right.
With regard to protected areas, you gave an indicative opinion on several proposals: protected heritage site, remarkable heritage site, remarkable site and heritage site. I am pleased that the name “Remarkable Heritage Site” has won. I hope it will please you and the Senate. This name reminds us that it is a heritage policy and not just a label; at the same time, it is a name that speaks for itself, which can also be a vector of attractiveness, especially for tourism. It combines the spirit of protection with the notion of site. Finally, it names heritage and the fact that its characteristics call for protection, and thus sometimes also constraints, which will be better understood and therefore accepted. The Government will present the many necessary amendments to take into account this new name.
Ladies and gentlemen, the text is now in your hands.
I am of course prepared to continue to improve it as the debate progresses, but I especially hope, on behalf of the Government, that this bill will prove to artists, to the professionals and to our fellow citizens that national representation carries a strong cultural ambition for the country.
I hope that the legislator will take full control of this, that all the benches of the House will show that they share this ambition as I believe.
Thank you.