Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-13-Speech-4-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030313.1.4-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, it is a pleasure that this morning this House can have a diversion from the distant drumbeats of war to the needs of the citizen as consumer. Those needs are addressed in the consumer action plan 2002-2006 and in the Green Paper and its follow-up on consumer protection. I shall be introducing my own report and that of our distinguished colleague Mrs Patrie, who is unable to attend today.
Thirdly, the involvement of consumer organisations in EU policies is crucial for the enlarged Community. We need to know from the Commissioner how the necessary funding will be allocated this year when the existing funds have dried up for the accession states.
Finally, we added a new principle: the mainstreaming of consumer welfare in EU policy objectives. The point was forcefully made yesterday by a delegation from the European Bureau of Consumers' Unions which met with members of the Convention. The next three years will determine whether we can meet the needs of the consumers in an enlarged Europe. It needs the whole force of the Commission and the Member States to bring this about. At the moment only about half our citizens know their rights as consumers. An informed consumer is an empowered citizen. It is our duty and privilege to help to bring that about.
I now turn to the report by Mrs Patrie. I am speaking here from her own proposal and notes. On the Green Paper on consumer protection, which was first brought to us in October 2001, we have now finally come to the stage of an ambitious debate on these proposals for a genuine internal market for consumers. Through extensive consultation with the Member States, business and consumer organisations, the Commission has looked at which legal instruments could best guarantee a high level of consumer protection whilst also removing barriers to the development of intra-Community trade.
The Green Paper states that the fragmentation of rules has prevented the smooth functioning of the internal market. All of us agree with that. Experience shows that consumers' lack of confidence in cross-border transactions can be explained by the divergences between bodies of law and by consumers' lack of awareness of the legal guarantees available to them. From a consumer standpoint, the obstacles to the development of international trade lie primarily in the lack of certainty surrounding post-contractual relations. So we want to provide consumers once again with a simple, standardised legal framework, comprising a limited number of fundamental rules that are applicable whatever the nature of the transaction. The global approach of the Commission is, therefore, to be welcomed.
This approach should not result in a lowering of the level of consumer protection achieved under national arrangements. In this regard it should not be possible for the party's choice of applicable law to strip consumers of the protection afforded by the mandatory provisions of the law of the country in which they are resident, provided that was the country in which they took steps to conclude the contract and expect it to be honoured. Nor should the adoption of general rules preclude the possibility of specific rules. There is also going to be a need to provide consumers with special protection in certain sectors.
With this in mind the framework directive should set out the general principles governing the behaviour of traders at all stages of their commercial dealings, so that consumers' rights are effectively enforced. A general clause based on the requirement of fair commercial behaviour would seem better suited to this than the prohibition of misleading and deceptive practices, provided it is given a precise and workable definition.
In the interests of transparency it should be the duty of the trader to disclose to the consumer in advance information relating to aspects of goods and services offered. In this area, too, the application of general criteria should not be to the exclusion of the special provisions covering information provided to the consumer.
The Commission's attempt at defining a criterion governing behaviour based on 'consumers of average intelligence' is not particularly convincing. It is a very imprecise definition and the idea of measuring human intelligence in this way is liable to cause offence. It would be preferable to define types of behaviour that are deemed to be unacceptable and which constitute unfair practices. To this effect, the Commission could draw up a non-exhaustive black list of types of behaviour considered to be unfair.
Moreover, we have to protect consumers who are particularly vulnerable. This applies to persons suffering from a physical or learning disability that makes them more susceptible to aggressive or misleading commercial behaviour, and to children, adolescents and the elderly. It should be possible to penalise traders who violate their duty of fairness, not least by means of injunctions taken out by consumer organisations. It should also be possible to take legal action as a preventive measure in order to put an end to unfair commercial behaviour, which – were it allowed to continue – might be detrimental to consumer interests.
Finally, it is advisable to offer individual consumers a means of redress, not only for blatant and serious breaches of provisions – as the Commission suggests – but also whenever direct and certain damage arising from unfair commercial behaviour has been established. Whatever the benefits of the alternative methods of dispute settlement, the consumer should not be deprived of the possibility of a remedy.
A major debate is now under way about consumer policy. It is being aired at the Convention with doubts, which I share, about the apparent demotion of consumer priorities by an amalgamated Council, which also has to cover social affairs, employment and health. It is present in the financial anxieties which beset the one area – food safety – which we had intended to be freestanding and no longer part of these general debates. I share the concerns expressed about the funding – for which this Parliament has part of the responsibility – for the ESFA, at long last to set forth in an effective manner.
The Commission has not yet provided sufficient information for useful comment to be made about the contents of self-regulation and co-regulation procedures. In view of the diversity of national traditions and the uncertainties of the definition of the concepts, it is essential to continue consultations with the Member States and, at the same time, ensure the laying down of strict rules for the codes of conduct within the Community rules themselves.
There is an urgent need to establish an organisational framework for cooperation between the national authorities responsible for the application of consumer law. All too often unscrupulous traders are being tempted to exploit shortcomings in the field of European cooperation. It will be desirable to establish databases to facilitate the exchange of information and to create a warning system to enable Member States to take concerted action for all consumers where the need arises. I again commend these reports to the House and I apologise for the absence of Mrs Patrie, who was unable to attend because of other business.
It is also seen in our own differences over what kind of framework directive best regulates the business of consumer relationships and where and how unfair practices can be identified and redress sought.
For my own report I am indebted to the Commission, the shadow rapporteurs of all parties and all those who have worked with me to produce a consensual report, notably my own former researcher, Michelle Smyth, whose intermediary skills have now been transferred to our National Consumers' Association.
My approach to the priorities set out in the action plan has always been to keep it simple and focused. I shall be referring to amendments which have somewhat blurred matters by trying to bring other debates into what should be a clear statement of priorities. I have discouraged amendments which loaded other good causes on to our own report. That is why in my response today I have been unable to accommodate, any more than I could at the committee stage, some of those on either the Left or the Right who wish to make this also a debate about eco-labelling, the virtues of organic produce or, on the other side, the virtues and provability of GM technology. As the Commissioner well knows, there are other places where these things will be discussed. Indeed, he will be introducing proposals along those lines very shortly and they will be welcome.
I can, however, accept the one other new amendment by Mrs Thyssen, whose report we are also discussing and who has played a very constructive part in these debates. I cannot accept that we should go further from the area which was laid down in the very extended debates in committee.
Some people have queried one or two other amendments, notably the original paragraph 15, which was an amendment put to the committee by Mrs Thyssen. Some in her party have asked why that should be there. I am sure Mrs Thyssen – if she speaks later – will explain its merits so that her own group can understand it.
I shall turn now to the broad principles of the action plan we are deliberating. They were set out as a threefold proposal. Firstly, a high level of consumer protection. All the reports before you agree on that and on the need to strengthen the legal base in the Treaties for it to be achieved. They also agree that on the important issue of minimum or maximum harmonisation we should be looking sensibly at a case-by-case basis.
Secondly, on effective enforcement of consumer protection rules, again we agree – perhaps from slightly different standpoints. Only five States out of 15 have met the Barcelona targets for implementation. We need to show the accession states that we can do better than that and help them to do the same."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples