Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-19-Speech-1-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040419.6.1-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I thank you for your valuable interventions on these three issues. I know that there is much common ground between Parliament and the Commission. Allow me to respond to some of the points that have been made during the course of the debate and to indicate the Commission's position on the key amendments.
Credit intermediaries should only be submitted to national supervision. Registration requirements would no longer be foreseen. Provisions already covered by existing legislation can in general be deleted; for instance, provisions on door-step selling. The same applies to matters covered by national civil law, such as the provisions on repossession and sanctions. However, as I said before, this directive also aims at guaranteeing a high level of protection for consumers in the area of credit. I cannot, therefore, accept amendments that would lead to a reduction in the level of consumer protection.
Regarding small loans or overdrafts, it is possible to submit credit unions to a lighter regime principally based on the provision of information. I am always interested to hear Sir Neil MacCormick tell the stories of his constituents and his recent experience in his constituency. I am sure he would be happy to hear that I have been invited to my own home town of Monasterevin in County Kildare, a small country town, to open a credit union within the next couple of weeks, where I will be emphasising these points.
On mortgages, the Commission recognises that there are a number of important practical and legal problems, principally related to the fact that such loans are secured by a mortgage on immovable property. We should not, however, lose sight of the fact that increasingly consumer spending and consumer credit arrangements are financed through loans secured by a mortgage on immovable property through so-called equity release mechanisms.
The legal issues surrounding such contracts are indeed complicated, but the risks associated with consumers putting up their family home as collateral for consumer spending merit the attention of regulators and consumer protection provisions are warranted. Questions surrounding mortgage-backed credit are being discussed in the forum group on mortgage credit which is due to present a preliminary report in June 2004.
The Commission will also take account of the discussions of this group in formulating its revised proposal. In this respect I also wish to note that the Commission is ready to accept the ceiling proposed. Credits for amounts above this ceiling would fall outside the scope of the directive. Typically, credits for such amounts typically are secured by a mortgage. Concerns have been expressed about the fact that the Commission's proposed regime on joint and several liability will lead to a significant reduction of protection in a number of Member States. The Commission confirms that this is not the intention and believes the directive should not undermine the relevant national regimes.
Regarding the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices, I am pleased to say that the Commission can accept many of the amendments proposed in Mrs Ghilardotti's report, subject to minor changes in some cases. I will therefore focus on the areas where the main difficulties arise. Under the proposal any practice which is misleading or aggressive automatically meets the criteria for unfair practice under the general prohibition. The Commission cannot therefore accept Amendment No 32 because this would require the tests of the general prohibition to be reapplied to misleading or aggressive practices. This would reduce legal certainty. Amendment No 58 is also not acceptable because it will break the connection between the Article on aggressive practices and the tests in the general prohibition.
The Commission is prepared to adjust the specification of the benchmark consumer which would be used to assess the impact of commercial practices.
Following our consultation we have taken a measured approach to the disclosure of information. The proposal focuses on the essential information which, if not given to consumers, or apparent from the context, is likely to mislead. While some of the proposed adjustments are acceptable, others would upset this balance either by removing key information or by adding extra requirements which would impose costs without bringing any real benefits to consumers. Amendments Nos 46 and 49 to 57 are therefore not acceptable.
The measures in the Annex have been selected because they are not in all circumstances unfair and so can be prohibited up front. But they are arrived at by applying the tests of the general clause and must fall within the scope of the proposal.
I am also against the idea of a double legal base which some people have proposed. I know that some speakers hope for the inclusion of Article 153. However Article 153(1), makes a cross-reference to Article 95, which is the legal base for this piece of legislation, and Article 153(4) refers to legislation which can only be used in areas where you have minimum harmonisation. That is not our ambition. I therefore urge Parliament to follow the draft and to follow the advice of Parliament's Legal Service which, I understand, is of the same view as me.
Firstly, enforcement cooperation. On this regulation the Commission can accept all the amendments tabled in the plenary by the rapporteur as they reflect the compromise reached with the Council towards a first reading adoption of the regulation. Amendments that are not part of the compromise package are not supported by the Commission. Prolonging discussions beyond the compromise reached with the Council will not bring material improvements to our capacity to better enforce consumer protection rules. It would, however, provide rogue traders with more time to exploit the absence of effective cooperation between the enforcement authorities in the Member States. The compromise represents a reasonable balance between the enforcement traditions of the Member States.
In conclusion, I only referred to a number of specific amendments or themes. A full listing of the Commission's position on each of the amendments on the three reports discussed in this joint debate is being made available to Parliament's secretariat and I trust this will be included in the verbatim report of proceedings for the joint debate.
The most important question in these discussions has been the public nature of the network proposed. The thinking behind the Commission's proposal was that only public authorities can deliver adequate guarantees on effectiveness and confidentiality. In a minority of Member States effective enforcement is fulfilled by financing private consumer organisations to take action on behalf of the public interest.
Amendment No 76 successfully reconciles both traditions. Those Member States with a strong tradition of private consumer bodies would be able to delegate a fair number of cross-border cases to them. In the cases which involve confidential information or which require significant investigation, in other words the most serious rogues, a public authority will be lacking.
The reference to comitology was inserted at the request of those MEPs who support delegation by Member States. For a Member State prevented by another Member State from delegating to a private body, it provides a useful opportunity to air grievances.
Amendment No 29, removing 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c), will be completely unacceptable to Council and the Commission. Both have argued that 8(2) is a package and cannot be touched. I therefore commend that particular approach to the House.
I am happy to be debating the Consumer Credit Directive here today. It is now a little over 19 months since the Commission sent this proposal to Parliament, just a few weeks less than the gestation period of the elephant, and I suppose it is not surprising therefore that we have this weighty tome from the rapporteur. I am sure the rapporteur will understand if I do not accept all of his amendments, although I am trying to adopt a compromise approach to his position and to his report.
Many of the amendments proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and discussed today can be accepted by the Commission. Some can be accepted partially or with limited changes. I also note that more than 200 amendments were tabled for this plenary sitting which, together with the comments from the various speakers, demonstrates that opinions are very divided. This reflects the divide in approach to consumer credit throughout the European Union. I am nevertheless heartened by the fact that on the two principal objectives, namely ensuring a high level of protection and the creation of a genuine single market for consumer credit, there is a broad consensus.
Given the number of technical issues that have been raised, it would lead me too far astray to comment on all of them. I will therefore focus on some of the main issues. I wish to reiterate that full harmonisation will not lead to a reduction in the level of consumer protection. Full harmonisation will apply to the areas for which the directive provides for such harmonisation, namely those areas most relevant to the operation of the single market. The Commission is willing to consider excluding areas from the scope of the proposal that would not affect the single market. For these areas, Member States can maintain their national provisions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples