Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-19-Speech-1-184-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121119.24.1-184-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report deals with implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive. Parliament adopted this in 2008 by an overwhelming majority, and it deals essentially with loans of EUR 200 to EUR 75 000. It has two basic objectives: firstly, simplification of Member States’ laws on consumer credit and, secondly, better and comparable information on credit, with the aim of guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and strengthening the internal market in cross-border consumer credit.
I am firmly convinced, however, that we need consistent parameters. If it is true that take-up of cross-border credit is less than 2 %, then I think it is a matter of urgency that we concentrate first on implementing the rules we already have, before we start thinking about new and different rules that go further still.
We should take time to gather experience. Only in this way can the banks learn what they need to do, only in this way can consumers see what they can trust. I am sure we shall then have a chance of improving on that 2 %.
The definitive harmonisation of some key aspects of credit law has significantly raised the level of consumer protection in Europe. However, there has been little increase in the cross-border take-up of consumer credit: less than 2 %, with 20 % of it done online. This may be because only very few financial institutions offer cross-border consumer credit and because the market as a whole has been in decline in recent years as a result of the financial crisis. Also, it seems that the lack of any personal relationship with the financial institution concerned, rather than legal considerations, has discouraged the take-up of cross-border consumer credit.
The transposition deadline of two years was a particular problem. The procedure is very complex and involved both national legislators and financial institutions. The time allowed was perhaps too short; in future, it would be preferable to set a three-year transposition deadline.
Some of the Directive’s provisions were substantively challenged. For example, the standard information sheet providing the consumer with precontractual information. The information sheet was criticised as too detailed, difficult to understand. Another example was calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge. The Commission has put forward guidelines on this, but they are not legally binding.
It would be desirable for the provisions on calculating the annual percentage rate of charge to be applied uniformly in all relevant EU legal instruments. Lastly, I should mention the period allowed for consumers to withdraw. The issue of when the withdrawal period starts to run was problematical.
The existence of problems in transposing the Directive was identified by the Commission in its 2011 review of 562 consumer credit websites (SWEEP). Summing up, one can say that the Directive is a significant factor in consumer protection in Europe. The Commission should now review the way the Directive has been transposed and urge the Member States to apply it correctly.
Stakeholders should then be given time to get used to the new rules and gain experience of the way they are applied. Thereafter a detailed assessment should be carried out of the legal and practical impact of the Directive and, on that basis, consideration given to what amendments, if any, are required.
Those were the main points of my report. A total of 29 amendments were tabled. At this point, may I thank the shadow rapporteur most warmly for the frank and, to my mind, very fair and open discussion we had on the amendments.
I was very grateful for more concrete detail on a number of aspects, also for new insights on, for example, foreign currency loans or exchange-rate fluctuations. We were not able to accept amendments which went beyond the scope of the Directive, thereby suggesting a revision of it, or which properly belonged in other areas – for example mortgage loans or the supervision of financial markets."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples