Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-19-Speech-1-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040419.6.1-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, honoured visitors, I would like to start by thanking most warmly all those who have played their part in drawing up this report, which is a very complex and comprehensive one. We were, unfortunately, obliged to consider a Commission proposal that was not entirely consistently thought through, that was sloppily worded and had not taken account, above all, of the serious consequences it would have for consumers, for example on their access to credit. We in the committee therefore had to propose extensive changes to this directive, achieving the sad record of 650 amendments to what have to date been 38 articles, but your concentrated collaboration means that it has now been possible to assemble all this into a genuinely consistent whole.
Nor must I let this opportunity go by without very warmly thanking Parliament’s Bureau and the groups’ secretariat, not to mention my own staff, for the endless hours they devoted to this project.
I can tell the House that what the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market wishes to do by means of this proposal is to send out three signals. One carries the message that the European internal market needs the best possible consumer protection. We will achieve this if we combine the European Union’s minimum standards with the legislation of individual states, but if, on the other hand, we were to take the approach of harmonising everything or as much as possible, that would amount to only the minimum of protection for the consumer. This is where I want to express my disagreement with what Commissioner Byrne had to say.
The fact is that I get the impression that what matters most of all to the Commission is that consumer law in this area should be completely centralised, with the European Union alone being entitled to do anything that has to do with consumer protection. That would not, however, be objectively reasonable, as the national markets still differ to a large extent, and it is there that there must be a rapid and flexible response when improper business practices crop up.
Secondly, we are sending the message that financial markets need to be opened up to individual consumers too. We want the standards of protection not only to enhance public confidence in
commerce and in buying by mail order, but also to encourage the public to seek out offers throughout the internal market in order, eventually, to find credit on favourable terms.
Thirdly, we are signalling our opposition to over-regulation and bureaucracy, for there is, quite simply, no sense in deluging ordinary customers – responsible adults though they may be – with a flood of information that they cannot read, let alone understand; hence our proposal for clear technical information that will provide consumers with the key facts on their loans at a glance.
We also made it our concern to maintain access to credit facilities particularly for the man and woman in the street and for the vulnerable members of society. It is these sectors of the population who need short-term loans simply to stay on top of day-to-day life. The end result of the Commission proposal would have been that the only people who could get credit would be those who had no need of it.
There are two more specific points I would like to address briefly, and these are still subject to discussion between the groups. The first has to do with the entitlement to early repayment. One position on this is that this should generally be permitted, and without any additional costs being incurred, whilst the other is that consumers should be allowed to choose between fixed-term loans and those capable of being repaid early. In view of the fact that we have still not yet come to an agreement on this, let me draw still closer to the Group of the Party of European Socialists; you will have seen that I have already tabled a compromise amendment, Amendment No 173, in which I propose that, where loans are taken out for a period of over three years, it should be possible to repay them at any time. I would now like to add to that by combining it with Amendment No 96 as recommended by the committee, whose effect is to bring about a commensurate reduction in costs in this case.
Even though there are some points from today’s debate that I wanted to mention, let me bring this speech to a close. I see this package of reports – Mrs Gebhardt’s, Mrs Ghilardotti’s, and my own – as the culmination and conclusion of our legislative work in the field of consumer law. We have always managed to discharge our responsibilities in a state of tension between the demands of the internal market and those of consumer protection, and what we have put before you I see as being a single piece of mature legislation. Whatever our differences about the details, then, I hope that they will receive the general support of the House."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"e-"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples