Brussels, 23/03/2007 (Agence Europe) - Following the European Commission's presentation of its consolidated revised version of the “Television without frontiers” directive, the European Parliament's culture and education committee met on 21 March for an exchange of views. Ruth Hieronymi (EPP-ED, Germany), rapporteur on this dossier, welcomed the Commission proposal enthusiastically (it includes almost 2/3 of Parliament amendments). Nonetheless, she did say that some subjects still required a compromise with the Council: 1) the principle of the country of origin and its derogations. The Council is sticking to its overall approach of last November (EUROPE 9306), which was already the result of a difficult compromise. The Parliament has toughened up its position in this respect and only wants to allow derogations in the event of serious misdemeanours. Ms Hieronymi admitted “for the moment I don't believe that the positions are getting any closer, and a compromise will be difficult”. Ignasi Guardans Cambo (ALDE, Spain) hoped that the Parliament would “use all its competencies” to defend the country of origin principle. 2) The product placement question. According to Hieronymi, the opt-out system defended by the Parliament, is currently being imposed over the opt-in system defended by the Council (EUROPE 9330). The opt-out allows for product placement in a limited number of programmes. A warning to the viewer comes at the beginning and end of the programme. This solution has raised concerns among some MEPs. Lissy Gröner (PES, Germany) considers it as an “unsteady compromise” and regretted what she considered this as a move towards “a system we had warned against”. Henri Weber (PES, France) said that it would be “an authorisation of convenience” and called for a clear affirmation for the principle to be “a ban on product placement”. Giusti Catania (GUE, Italy) sees this decision as going down the road to “genuine liberalisation where the aim is not to broadcast programmes but show advertising in programmes”. 3) The independence of the media watch-dog. This point was opposed by a clear majority of countries (EUROPE 9330). Ms Hieronymi insisted that she had “strongly defended the Parliament's position on this point”. She said that this provision guarantees plurality in the media. 4) Code of conduct. Despite the Commission's support, drawing it up is still being opposed by the Council. 5) Video clips of big events. The Parliament wants remuneration at the same level of the technical costs incurred by provider. The Council opposes this provision. 6) Activity of the independent producer. Although the Commission definition is less ambitious than the Parliament's, Ms Hieronymi considers that this represents a “minimum of protection”. The ball is now in the Council's court. Its position is expected at the end of May. (gc)