Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.13.3-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as I have said in this Chamber on previous occasions, I have the privilege of working in a very interesting Legal Affairs Committee and being one of the few non-lawyers on the committee. Diana Wallis as a distinguished international lawyer has been the ideal person to work on this very complex file. I would like to thank her for the way she has done it and the way she has so freely shared her knowledge with us. I have certainly learned a great deal from it.
I want to pick up on what is a central point for me: we are, as my colleague Lord Inglewood said, trying to reflect a new world in which we want small businesses to take advantage of the most powerful, international marketing tool that they have ever been offered. There are many business that we want to use the network, the Internet, to sell to consumers all over Europe. Many of those small business will have no experience of exporting, they will not have a network of lawyers, they will be uncertain themselves about how they are going to deal with consumer complaints. The way that the committee has finally structured its approach strikes exactly the right balance.
Let us be clear, that what we have proposed in these alternative jurisdiction clauses is not something for the larger businesses. Large businesses, even medium-sized businesses, will have offices all over Europe, they will have lawyers, they will be able to deal with consumers in that respect. The basis of consumers being able to go to the court of their domicile to receive justice in the event of disputes still remains intact. Listening to some of the speeches you have heard this evening, you would think that option was under threat. We have had Mrs Ahern – I am sorry she is not here – saying it will be a disastrous outcome if the committee’s report is voted through. I fundamentally disagree with that.
What we have done is offer small companies the alternative of doing something else. They can offer consumers alternative jurisdiction but only under very specific conditions. A double lock is built in there, because they must agree to incorporate an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism before they can use the alternative clause and the terms must also be made very clear to the consumer concerned before he accepts them.
Let us think about this on-line world, ladies and gentlemen, and those of you who have shopped on-line will know that you are offered the conditions and you must positively accept them. You press the button, you move your mouse, you make a conscious decision. How many of you, when you last had your gas or electricity bill, turned it over to look at the small print – the conditions? How many of you realised that you were accepting them? In the on-line world, we must think differently. We are thinking in the old world here – some of our colleagues are thinking in the old world.
What we need to do tomorrow is to accept the committee’s report and move forward. That is our role as a grown-up legislator: to think about new ideas, encourage change and not necessarily, as Lord Inglewood said, go along with an accepted wisdom that has been with us for many years."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples