Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-02-Speech-1-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010702.6.1-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I was struck today by an article in
; the subtitle read: "Why do America and Europe differ on the importance of consumer interests?" It went on to say, from a US point of view: "when it comes to putting the consumer at the center of its economic model, Europe remains stubbornly old-fashioned." E-commerce, of all types, still lags behind in Europe. By 2005, 11% of US retail sales will be online, only 6+% in western Europe. Our hope must be that this Commission initiative for a European Extra-Judicial Network will help build consumer e-confidence and force those European figures up. These were the problems that we wrestled with during the passage of the Brussels regulation: how to allow Europe's consumers access to cross-border justice without over-burdening business and yet, at the same time, exposing business to necessary competitive forces.
We must be clear that this is an attempt to deal with a large number of low-value cross-border consumer disputes, outside the normal legal system. Alternative means that almost replace the lower end of our traditional court systems will be introduced. This is a very ambitious project, and such an exercise needs to be seriously undertaken and properly funded. One of my greatest concerns about this initiative is its funding, both substantively and in terms of its publicity. Our citizens know where their local courts are, but will they know how or where to access the EEJ Net? From what I have seen, I am not over-optimistic.
Secondly, is the system coherent and efficient? At the moment, progress is very variable in the different Member States. The Commission must get tough in this respect, hence our suggestion of a service-level agreement with each clearing-house. Only such an arrangement will ensure that our citizens get the service that they really deserve.
This brings me to the amendments. We can happily accept Amendments Nos 2 and 3, but we have grave concerns about Amendment No 1. Not to allow the clearing-houses to give legal advice flies in the face of reality. Some of the centres already operating as Euroguichets, have trained lawyers on their staff. They could not function without that. We cannot offer our citizens a second-rate service. Good legal advice, or knowledge, at the outset of a claim is essential if it is not to veer off in the wrong direction, causing aggravation, disappointment and denial of justice.
Lastly, let us turn to the legislative method, ADR and the EEJ Net, are examples of soft law or co-regulation. If this is the way of the future, it is important that Parliament be fully involved from start to finish. For example, most of us would applaud the other sectoral initiative in this field, the FIN Net dealing with financial services for instance, but when was this initiative referred to Parliament? If we are replacing or enhancing our legal system and access to justice, these issues are key to civil society and they cannot and must not be tackled without the input of democratically elected Members."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples