Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-02-Speech-1-054"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010702.6.1-054"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Mrs Wallis' report is an important contribution to the debate on Community policy on out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes. I also commend her recommendations to this House, and indeed share her concerns.
We all know from our own experience that lengthy and costly litigation through the courts is losing its appeal as a means to resolve disputes. The notion that most people want judges, well-dressed lawyers and fine courtrooms as a setting to resolve their disputes is no longer correct. People with problems, like people with pains, want relief and they want it as quickly and as inexpensively as possible. The success of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms is beginning to create a cultural shift away from traditional litigation.
In a recent case in the UK, an eleven-month trial running into millions of pounds was replaced and resolved by mediation in a matter of days. We see examples of this across Europe. But if the single market is to grow, then we need to make it easier for consumers to shop across borders with greater confidence. This will only happen if consumers can buy goods and services and be confident and secure that if problems arise they can be resolved easily. Not in the first instance in court where the average cost for a cross-border case is EUR 2 500 and it takes between 23 and 29 months to resolve.
In reality, we know that consumers are not encouraged to shop on the Internet outside their own Member State and that national consumer organisations – including in my own Member State – are not advising consumers to go down this route because it is fraught with difficulties. My own personal experience with Internet shopping has not inspired me with e-confidence. After purchasing CDs from a renowned high street store, namely HMV, I received an incomplete order with a promise of further delivery. Most reputable shopping sites ensure that money is not taken from an account. Two months on I have still to receive outstanding items and my visa card has been debited the full amount. Yet the value of these items is small and court redress would be costly and nonsensical.
Consumers are also increasingly tempted to buy even more expensive items across borders, like washing machines, fridges, financial services and cars. ADR is a valuable way to access justice providing services and remedies which are appropriate to the cost of the item. But it is not the panacea to all consumer disputes. The consumer must still have the right to go to court as a last resort. In the absence of an agreement directly with the trader or the trading site, the consumer should be encouraged to look at the benefits of ADRs. It is vital, as Mrs Wallis, has said, that the consumer is aware and informed of this option.
In my own Member State, citizens advice bureaux are acting as a clearing-house. Consumers who make claims have, therefore, a local point of access and information. This is vital. For consumers in the UK there is an even bigger bonus as a by-product of boosting confidence in crossborder shopping on the Internet. We can shop in a larger market and often buy goods up to a third cheaper. This has to be a benefit in what we call "rip-off Britain", by driving down high prices in our own over-priced internal home market."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples