Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-19-Speech-1-066"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040419.6.1-066"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the fact that we can complete this part-session with a debate on three important consumer matters is not only symbolic; it also provides us with the opportunity of re-emphasising our genuine desire to reinforce the human character of the internal market, and it also affords us the opportunity of clarifying that the internal market is also there for the consumer and that we want to, and must, boost consumer confidence.
As far as the framework directive is concerned, our group’s guiding principle is that a high level of consumer protection is a prerequisite for the actual application of the principle of mutual recognition. We accept the restriction of the scope in respect of the industry-consumer relation. However, in order to clarify the connection between this framework directive and the competition-related aspects to everyone, we would still like to table amendments.
To our group, the average consumer remains the point of reference. We accept that further amendments will be tabled, but these amendments may not go so far as to fundamentally depart from the option. In addition, we remain adamant that it should explicitly be stated that the black lists of aggressive and misleading trade practices are exhaustive in character and that the directive’s harmonisation objective may not be undermined. If the black lists are amended, we believe this should be done by way of the codecision procedure. We also remain convinced that a double legal basis for the framework directive is not justified, not necessary and surplus to requirements. We will therefore follow the legal recommendation of our Legal Service and endorse the reasons that we have previously clarified in the various committees.
During this part-session, as in past ones, we have enacted much fine legislation on consumer protection, and it has only been thanks to Commission proposals that we have been able to do this. I would therefore echo everyone who wants to thank the Commissioner today for the proposal we have received, for without the Commission proposals we would not have been able to do the work. It is, of course, the case that, no matter how many fine laws we enact, legislation depends entirely on their effective implementation and enforcement. That is why I am a great fan of the Commission proposal to develop a network of administrative bodies that are responsible for the application of all those fine consumer directives. I very much welcome this Commission proposal.
I hope that the Members of this House will reconsider the amendments, because I know that there are people in our group who would very much regret it if we were to end up with a regulation that is all too bureaucratic and involving a great deal of red tape. We would regard that as indefensible. We should therefore ensure that we get a maximum number of votes to approve the proposal for a network. We should ask the Council to reconsider the matter. After all, it should not always be the case that we adapt to the Council’s position. We agree on a great many points. We should, for once, ask the Council to adapt to Parliament and respect democracy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples