Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-167"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.12.3-167"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the Commission for bringing this paper to Parliament so speedily and for informing us about its strategic intentions in such detail.
Finally, let me say something about that old chestnut “Do we want more harmonisation or do we want mutual recognition?” You really have to answer that question on a case-by-case basis. The principle of mutual recognition often has advantages. But in cases where it is no longer practical because the systems are just too different, the only way forward is then harmonisation. So it is not possible to settle this issue as a matter of general principle – a decision really has to be made in each individual case depending on what is at stake.
Although it is a very general paper, it is still important. The internal market itself is a wonderful thing, and has enabled us to make a lot of progress in Europe but, as Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi said earlier, it has not been such a success with consumers and the public as it should have been. That is why there really is scope for improvement in our internal market policy.
In particular, I consider it to be very important – and this is also made clear in a motion for a resolution which we have submitted today – that in future, internal market legislation should be more coherent than it has been in the past. In my experience over the last five years in this House, the approach adopted has, unfortunately, always been a rather piecemeal one, failing to recognise links with other legislative issues. In my experience this has also applied, particularly so in fact, to consumer protection legislation, where there have very often indeed been discrepancies between various directives, between various pieces of legislation at European level. For instance, this applies to specific cancellation deadlines and periods of protection for consumers: these have frequently been different. In some cases there are deadlines or periods of seven working days, and in others just seven days. In the end nobody knows where they stand any more. This is just one example of a lack of consistency where more needs to be done.
In any case, I believe that it was a mistake that at the beginning of the last parliamentary term the old Commission did not continue with the work on a European Contract Law – which Mr Lando and his commission had begun – despite the fact that Parliament had made funds available for this.
We very often have a problem with internal market legislation these days in that there is no framework, no common structure for legislation. I think that a process of rational, scientific advance preparation would have helped to ensure far more coherent internal market legislation today. I therefore very much welcome the fact that the Commission has addressed the issue of coherence in its paper. Commissioner Bolkestein drew attention to the need for this at the joint meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in Strasbourg.
I also feel that the special attention being paid to improvements in judicial cooperation is extremely important. Without better judicial cooperation, and if consumers are unable to have their rights guaranteed within the internal market, the internal market loses half its potential value.
I am not enthusiastic about everything in this paper and in the motion for a resolution before us today. For example, let us take the case of the requirement in the paper that a package leaflet should in future be used to remind consumers of their rights. I think that is rubbish, to put it mildly! There is a big difference between going into a chemist’s and buying a medicine there, with a full explanation of any risks, and simply buying a normal product on the market. I do not think it makes sense to explain every consumer’s rights in a package leaflet.
I would also like to make a few comments about the amendments tabled on this motion for a resolution. The Socialist amendments are largely unacceptable to the PPE Group, in some cases purely and simply because they are very Socialist! Amendment Nos 7 and 8 are just two examples of this. I think that not even Gerhard Schröder or Tony Blair would be very enthusiastic about these amendments. Neither are we!
In addition, there are also any number of amendments that look reasonable at first sight, but which we actually consider to be out of place in this paper on internal market strategy, as they relate to social issues and should be dealt with elsewhere. For that reason, we will not be voting for those amendments either."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples