Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-15-Speech-2-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080115.7.2-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it has emerged clearly in the debate that we have a common aim. In particular, I can unreservedly endorse what the Commissioner said in her introductory remarks. The only question is whether the draft that is now on the table can actually achieve our common objectives. I believe there are a number of defensible opinions on this issue.
The uniform annual percentage rate of charges certainly represents unmitigated progress, as does the common uniform right of withdrawal. Let me re-emphasise, however, that consumer protection is best served if we consider the whole picture, as the Commissioner rightly indicated, rather than tacking together all the provisions that apply anywhere in Europe. More statutory provisions do not mean greater protection of consumers.
On the subject of interest-rate differentials in Europe, I must point out that I should have welcomed the presentation of an analysis of the extent to which these differentials might be due to divergent legal provisions and complexities in particular countries and whether it might be the case that interest rates are lower where legal rules are simpler. I do not know the answer, but the question ought to have been examined. Competition and general consumer education also serve to enhance consumer protection, but excessively convoluted rules do not.
Let me say a brief word on the trialogue. I certainly held the view that we should thrash out our differences here in Parliament. Far be it from me to thwart an agreement. Nevertheless, since we always argue for transparency, particularly in the Council but in other forums too, I do not think it right that an informal body should hold these discussions behind closed doors. Instead, each institution should initially express its opinion, motions should be tabled, and a solution should then be found on that basis.
Let me repeat once again that the draft has been considerably improved in the course of more than six years of deliberations – I want to make that abundantly clear – and Parliament has played a crucial part in the improvement process. I also see this to some extent as an endorsement of my own work. In my opinion, however, the draft is simply not good enough. Be that as it may, it will enter into force. I have no hesitation in thanking my fellow Members, the Commission and indeed the Council – which, in point of fact, has always provided very straight answers and detailed information – for their contribution to the performance of what has generally been a thoroughly gratifying and pleasant task."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples