Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-03-23-Speech-3-257-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110323.21.3-257-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to join those who said that this has been an excellent debate. It has been a very constructive debate and, on behalf of the Hungarian Presidency and our experts, we would like to thank you for your support, and I hope that we will be able to continue further consultations in the same atmosphere. Let me address some specific questions that were raised in the debate. Many have urged for the regulation of the lists of unfair contract terms. We agree with the European Parliament in that there would be added value in having a list at European level. However, although the legislation in force contains an indicative list of examples, added value would in fact be in the creation of a single European list. There is not yet sufficient support for this in the Council, however, and this is one of the reasons why the Council decided to omit the issue.
There were some who asked, although Mrs Gáll-Pelcz answered this one for me, why it would be necessary for us to reach an agreement at first reading. As it has been said, we began negotiations in October 2008, during the French Presidency. Over the course of two and a half years we held more than sixty working party meetings, and we therefore consider that there are no more possibilities for adjustment in order to resolve the blocking minorities, and that is why we had to decide on a significant narrowing of the scope of the directive to distance and off-premises contracts. The narrowed scope and thus the targeted harmonisation will, I am convinced, lead to a more rapid agreement, and I do not see what added value could come forth from continuing and having a second reading.
The preliminary position of the European Parliament is in several respects close to the general approach of the Council, and I therefore believe that we should not, and urge us all not to waste this opportunity to have an agreement at first reading.
I liked Mr Harbour’s comment on whether the current situation is a stepping stone or a milestone. If we want to be realistic – and I am not a person who likes to exaggerate – I think it is a stepping stone, not a milestone. It could have been a milestone, but the conditions were simply not right. We can see it as a stepping stone when we consider the interests of our citizens and our consumers.
We all know that there are very different legal conditions in the Member States. Fuller harmonisation at this stage would not have been possible. It is much better to have a smaller scope and be able to have an agreement. This will really help increase consumers’ rights and therefore also help us move towards completion of the single market."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples