Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 13 March 2003 - Strasbourg

1. Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

- (A5-0023/2003) by Mr Whitehead, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Commission Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the "Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006" (COM(2002) 208 – C5-0329/2002 – 2002/2173(COS))

- (A5-0423/2002) by Mrs Patrie, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the implications of the Commission Green Paper on European Union Consumer Protection for the future of EU consumer policy (COM(2001) 531 – C5-0295/2002 – 2002/2151(COS))

- (A5-0054/2003) by Mrs Thyssen, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the prospects for legal protection of the consumer in the light of the Commission Green Paper on European Union Consumer Protection (COM(2001) 531 – C5-0294/2002 – 2002/2150(COS))

  Whitehead (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, it is a pleasure that this morning this House can have a diversion from the distant drumbeats of war to the needs of the citizen as consumer. Those needs are addressed in the consumer action plan 2002-2006 and in the Green Paper and its follow-up on consumer protection. I shall be introducing my own report and that of our distinguished colleague Mrs Patrie, who is unable to attend today.

A major debate is now under way about consumer policy. It is being aired at the Convention with doubts, which I share, about the apparent demotion of consumer priorities by an amalgamated Council, which also has to cover social affairs, employment and health. It is present in the financial anxieties which beset the one area – food safety – which we had intended to be freestanding and no longer part of these general debates. I share the concerns expressed about the funding – for which this Parliament has part of the responsibility – for the ESFA, at long last to set forth in an effective manner.

It is also seen in our own differences over what kind of framework directive best regulates the business of consumer relationships and where and how unfair practices can be identified and redress sought.

For my own report I am indebted to the Commission, the shadow rapporteurs of all parties and all those who have worked with me to produce a consensual report, notably my own former researcher, Michelle Smyth, whose intermediary skills have now been transferred to our National Consumers' Association.

My approach to the priorities set out in the action plan has always been to keep it simple and focused. I shall be referring to amendments which have somewhat blurred matters by trying to bring other debates into what should be a clear statement of priorities. I have discouraged amendments which loaded other good causes on to our own report. That is why in my response today I have been unable to accommodate, any more than I could at the committee stage, some of those on either the Left or the Right who wish to make this also a debate about eco-labelling, the virtues of organic produce or, on the other side, the virtues and provability of GM technology. As the Commissioner well knows, there are other places where these things will be discussed. Indeed, he will be introducing proposals along those lines very shortly and they will be welcome.

I can, however, accept the one other new amendment by Mrs Thyssen, whose report we are also discussing and who has played a very constructive part in these debates. I cannot accept that we should go further from the area which was laid down in the very extended debates in committee.

Some people have queried one or two other amendments, notably the original paragraph 15, which was an amendment put to the committee by Mrs Thyssen. Some in her party have asked why that should be there. I am sure Mrs Thyssen – if she speaks later – will explain its merits so that her own group can understand it.

I shall turn now to the broad principles of the action plan we are deliberating. They were set out as a threefold proposal. Firstly, a high level of consumer protection. All the reports before you agree on that and on the need to strengthen the legal base in the Treaties for it to be achieved. They also agree that on the important issue of minimum or maximum harmonisation we should be looking sensibly at a case-by-case basis.

Secondly, on effective enforcement of consumer protection rules, again we agree – perhaps from slightly different standpoints. Only five States out of 15 have met the Barcelona targets for implementation. We need to show the accession states that we can do better than that and help them to do the same.

Thirdly, the involvement of consumer organisations in EU policies is crucial for the enlarged Community. We need to know from the Commissioner how the necessary funding will be allocated this year when the existing funds have dried up for the accession states.

Finally, we added a new principle: the mainstreaming of consumer welfare in EU policy objectives. The point was forcefully made yesterday by a delegation from the European Bureau of Consumers' Unions which met with members of the Convention. The next three years will determine whether we can meet the needs of the consumers in an enlarged Europe. It needs the whole force of the Commission and the Member States to bring this about. At the moment only about half our citizens know their rights as consumers. An informed consumer is an empowered citizen. It is our duty and privilege to help to bring that about.

I now turn to the report by Mrs Patrie. I am speaking here from her own proposal and notes. On the Green Paper on consumer protection, which was first brought to us in October 2001, we have now finally come to the stage of an ambitious debate on these proposals for a genuine internal market for consumers. Through extensive consultation with the Member States, business and consumer organisations, the Commission has looked at which legal instruments could best guarantee a high level of consumer protection whilst also removing barriers to the development of intra-Community trade.

The Green Paper states that the fragmentation of rules has prevented the smooth functioning of the internal market. All of us agree with that. Experience shows that consumers' lack of confidence in cross-border transactions can be explained by the divergences between bodies of law and by consumers' lack of awareness of the legal guarantees available to them. From a consumer standpoint, the obstacles to the development of international trade lie primarily in the lack of certainty surrounding post-contractual relations. So we want to provide consumers once again with a simple, standardised legal framework, comprising a limited number of fundamental rules that are applicable whatever the nature of the transaction. The global approach of the Commission is, therefore, to be welcomed.

This approach should not result in a lowering of the level of consumer protection achieved under national arrangements. In this regard it should not be possible for the party's choice of applicable law to strip consumers of the protection afforded by the mandatory provisions of the law of the country in which they are resident, provided that was the country in which they took steps to conclude the contract and expect it to be honoured. Nor should the adoption of general rules preclude the possibility of specific rules. There is also going to be a need to provide consumers with special protection in certain sectors.

With this in mind the framework directive should set out the general principles governing the behaviour of traders at all stages of their commercial dealings, so that consumers' rights are effectively enforced. A general clause based on the requirement of fair commercial behaviour would seem better suited to this than the prohibition of misleading and deceptive practices, provided it is given a precise and workable definition.

In the interests of transparency it should be the duty of the trader to disclose to the consumer in advance information relating to aspects of goods and services offered. In this area, too, the application of general criteria should not be to the exclusion of the special provisions covering information provided to the consumer.

The Commission's attempt at defining a criterion governing behaviour based on 'consumers of average intelligence' is not particularly convincing. It is a very imprecise definition and the idea of measuring human intelligence in this way is liable to cause offence. It would be preferable to define types of behaviour that are deemed to be unacceptable and which constitute unfair practices. To this effect, the Commission could draw up a non-exhaustive black list of types of behaviour considered to be unfair.

Moreover, we have to protect consumers who are particularly vulnerable. This applies to persons suffering from a physical or learning disability that makes them more susceptible to aggressive or misleading commercial behaviour, and to children, adolescents and the elderly. It should be possible to penalise traders who violate their duty of fairness, not least by means of injunctions taken out by consumer organisations. It should also be possible to take legal action as a preventive measure in order to put an end to unfair commercial behaviour, which – were it allowed to continue – might be detrimental to consumer interests.

Finally, it is advisable to offer individual consumers a means of redress, not only for blatant and serious breaches of provisions – as the Commission suggests – but also whenever direct and certain damage arising from unfair commercial behaviour has been established. Whatever the benefits of the alternative methods of dispute settlement, the consumer should not be deprived of the possibility of a remedy.

The Commission has not yet provided sufficient information for useful comment to be made about the contents of self-regulation and co-regulation procedures. In view of the diversity of national traditions and the uncertainties of the definition of the concepts, it is essential to continue consultations with the Member States and, at the same time, ensure the laying down of strict rules for the codes of conduct within the Community rules themselves.

There is an urgent need to establish an organisational framework for cooperation between the national authorities responsible for the application of consumer law. All too often unscrupulous traders are being tempted to exploit shortcomings in the field of European cooperation. It will be desirable to establish databases to facilitate the exchange of information and to create a warning system to enable Member States to take concerted action for all consumers where the need arises. I again commend these reports to the House and I apologise for the absence of Mrs Patrie, who was unable to attend because of other business.

  Thyssen (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Although we are not dealing with any legislative proposals on this occasion, the importance of this debate should not be underestimated.

The Green Paper on Consumer Protection – and I will confine myself to that during my first five minutes and move on to Mr Whitehead’s question in the remaining two minutes – is not only of legal and economic importance, it is also politically significant. It can help us to refute the myth that the internal market is something that is only for business and that the consumer has nothing to gain from it. Good consumer law is an outstanding instrument to bring the European Union closer to its citizens and it is up to all of us to work toward that.

Another misunderstanding that I would like to help to rid the world of is the alleged opposition being whipped up between realising the internal market and achieving a high level of consumer protection. Both are objectives of the Treaty and each can support the other. It is our job to apply ourselves to this, but unfortunately I have to say that the division of responsibilities between the Parliamentary committees does not always help us with this. I think this is a matter that we should re-examine in the next legislature.

Then, thirdly, there is another deep-rooted idea that I would like to get away from, that is the widely held conviction that consumer law and regulations on fair trading practices are areas that are totally isolated from each other from a competition perspective. Well, ladies and gentlemen, in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market we believe that these are often two sides of the same coin and this is why we are asking for a thorough impact study of both business-to-business relations and business-to-consumer relations. That will bring us more justice, certainly as far as SMEs are concerned, more legal certainty and more stability in the legislation, all things we are all striving for.

Commissioner, we in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market agree with your analysis of the state of affairs in consumer law and we also think that the time is ripe for an evaluation and possibly for a new approach. Let us not be over-confident, however. After all, not everything that the consumer keeps on his own home market constitutes a barrier to the internal market that needs to be eliminated. There are still natural limits to market integration – they are summed up in my report – and we must accept them. What it comes down to is identifying genuine barriers and concentrating on them, then we will not miss our target.

The new approach, if it comes, must, in the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, be geared towards a high level of consumer protection – an objective of the Treaty – sufficient flexibility, simplicity and transparency of legislation and also legislation of a high legal quality. That is why we support the suggestion in the Green Paper to ensure that an efficient and affordable procedure for settling disputes is included for consumers, because that is how it should be.

Nor do we reject the idea of a framework directive, Commissioner, but as responsible legislators we want to satisfy ourselves beforehand that such a framework directive with all that involves really would lead to greater simplicity, more legal certainty and, also, a more effective consumer policy. That is why we are asking you to give us the full picture beforehand, that is to say both the framework directive and the proposals for directives that go with it.

For the sake of legal certainty we would prefer a general clause based on a prohibition on unfair trading practices. Of course that prohibition must be well defined. We recognise the usefulness of the instrument of maximum harmonisation, but, like Mr Whitehead in his report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, we ask for caution and that we proceed on a case-by-case basis, otherwise we run the risk of leaping far too far ahead. In any case, we in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market are also convinced that maximum harmonisation is not possible as long as a high level of consumer protection has not been reached, unless harmonisation is geared towards that.

A high level of consumer protection is, in our view, also a condition for fully implementing the principles of mutual recognition and for implementing the country of origin principle.

Commissioner, we say ‘yes’ to a statutory basis for a European code of conduct provided the conditions in section 17 of my report are met, but, because no-one has anything to gain from a false impression of legal certainty, we are against any kind of bureaucratic approval mechanism that can only provide a questionable assumption of legality. To the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market it is simple logic that obligations entered into in codes must be enforceable.

Ladies and gentlemen, you will see that the Patrie Report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy differs on many of these points from what we in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market have said. We in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market have done our best to concentrate on the legal aspects of this matter. We have made choices based on considered legal grounds. I would therefore like to ask the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and other members of Parliament to have another good look at this before deciding how to vote and I would ask them to support these points of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market.

Finally, Mr President, it only remains for me to thank colleagues for their very constructive cooperation and I can say to Mr Whitehead that I will answer his specific question in the two minutes I will be given soon.

  Byrne, Commission. – Mr President, let me commence by thanking and complimenting the rapporteurs Mr Whitehead, Mrs Patrie and Mrs Thyssen for their dedicated hard work of such high quality.

First of all I would like to say a few words about the new consumer policy strategy, which was adopted by the Commission last May and the purpose of which is to give a clear sense of political direction covering the next five years.

It has three key objectives. The first is to achieve a high common level of consumer protection. The second objective is to make sure that there is effective enforcement of consumer protection rules. The third objective is to provide for the involvement of consumer organisations in EU policies.

I would like to stress that these three objectives have been designed with the three following cross-cutting ideas in mind: To help achieve integration of consumer concerns into all EU policies, such as competition policy, transport and justice; to maximise the benefits of the single market for consumers – this is a result which should benefit business and consumers alike; and, last but not least, to prepare for enlargement. All three objectives of the strategy – a high common level of consumer protection, effective enforcement of consumer protection rules and proper involvement of consumer organisations – were very much designed with the perspective of new and future countries joining the EU shortly and in the future.

The action plan on consumer protection and the Green Paper on consumer protection put forward a number of options and raised a number of questions on the future of EU consumer protection policy. They suggested, in particular, the idea of a framework directive on unfair commercial practices.

The Commission also suggested the development of a legal instrument for cooperation between enforcement authorities.

The favourable response to the consultation exercise encouraged us to continue working on this idea of a framework directive. However there was a general feeling that more information, clarification and consultation on the content of any such framework directive was needed. The follow-up communication of June 2002 responded to this need.

We also recognised the need to complete the evidence of existing problems and opportunities. Both Mrs Patrie’s and Mrs Thyssen’s reports recognise this need. We therefore commissioned three major studies. First, a survey of 16 000 consumers looking at consumer experience of, and attitudes towards, cross-border shopping. Second, a parallel survey asking similar questions to nearly 3 000 businesses, mainly SMEs, that advertise and sell to consumers. This gives us a clear sense of what the impact of a framework directive will be on small and medium-sized companies. Third, we commissioned an independent consultant to carry out an impact assessment of the legislative options set out in the Green Paper.

The conclusions of this impact assessment and surveys can be summarised as follows. Eighty million Europeans would shop more across borders if they felt as secure as they do when shopping at home. Forty-six percent of companies expect the proportion of their cross-border sales to increase with harmonisation. Only 1% of companies expects a decrease. Sixty-eight percent of European businesses said that harmonisation in this area is an efficient way of facilitating cross-border sales. The impact assessment concluded that a framework directive based on full harmonisation would be the most effective way to remove barriers to cross-border retail trade.

In addition, my services have been working on the nature of the legal barriers faced by business and consumers. First, we have been working with a group of national governmental experts to examine and compare national laws on unfair commercial practices. Second, we set up a team of academics who are currently completing a comprehensive comparative legal study. And third, we have organised a two-day workshop on several key issues, with all stakeholders.

This very thorough consultation and research process has enabled the Commission to gain a comprehensive understanding of the various nuances of national rules on unfair trading and the concerns of all stakeholders. I hope it has also enabled us to build a broad consensus on a workable framework directive.

The view of the European Parliament plays a very important part in the Commission’s deliberations. I therefore very much appreciate the constructive reports by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market confirming a growing consensus on the way forward. I hope today’s debate will enable us to reconcile the remaining points of divergence between the two reports. I look forward to hearing your views in this debate.

  Glase (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission communication and Mr Whitehead's report on the Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006 are quite crucial documents. In the EU's Member States, people are relying on Parliament constantly upholding the protection of consumers, which they regard as a very important, indeed crucial, element in the EU's internal market. In our homelands, the standard of consumer protection is an important yardstick for measuring the effectiveness of our work.

Various committees have delivered their opinions. The Committee on Budgets had the task of examining and evaluating the financial statement for this Consumer Policy Strategy. Whilst it adopted the Commission communication, it proposed to the lead committee a number of regulatory adjustments. The Committee also regrets the fact that no attempt had already been made to evaluate or qualify the effects that the measures proposed by the strategy as submitted would have on our finances or on the Budget.

The Committee furthermore points out that, if the measures envisaged in the strategy are, on being incorporated into the proposal for a new legal framework, to extend beyond 2006, the finances will have to be confirmed, either by an agreement on a new Financial Perspective, or by annual Budget resolutions. I therefore hope that time can still be found to make the necessary adjustments or to allow the proposed amendments to influence practical implementation.

  Radwan (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I am glad that we are able to have a debate today on this important subject, for the Spring Summit is about to be held, at which, every three years, we can give renewed consideration to how Europe can become the most competitive and the most innovative region in the world.

The importance of consumer protection as a subject is not a matter of dispute. What we have to do is get to grips with how we put it into practice. I will appeal to the Commission's rigour in saying that I am, though, firmly convinced that consumer protection does not run counter to these criteria. On the one hand, for example, we are pursuing the objective of a reduction in bureaucracy in Europe. I get the impression, though, that we are creating ever more bureaucracy, thus taking ourselves that extra bit further away from the goal of reducing it.

I would also like to take this debate as an occasion to address the image that we have of consumers and the public. I am a great believer in transparency in the field of consumer protection – by which I mean giving the public the information they need – but, at the end of the day, politics must not, piecemeal, deprive the public of their rights and responsibilities. I am referring here to a quite specific example from an area with which I have been concerned, namely the Consumer Credit Directive, by means of which the Commission is accomplishing a shift that I regard as not entirely justifiable, by abandoning a standard of minimal harmonisation and mutual recognition in favour of maximum harmonisation. This it is achieving, for example, by adopting an inverse burden of proof for banks, which will no longer be required to check with the utmost rigour to what extent a borrower is able to repay the credit.

It goes without saying that this is in the interest of everyone who gives credit and of everyone who sells goods on a hire purchase basis, but there is, at the end of the day, such a thing as the individual's own responsibility. In the final analysis, this is also, in terms of our interest in becoming the world's most competitive region, about what forces we unleash in the economy and among small and medium-sized enterprises.

That is why I am glad of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs' ability to make a contribution in the form of opinions that may be slightly contrary, but that are no less important for that, and also glad that the Commission will in future be united in the line it follows in pursuit of this objective.

(Applause)

  Thyssen (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – (NL) Mr President, actually I can be brief here and thank Mr Whitehead. We in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market have done our best to concentrate on the legal aspects of the strategic document on consumer policy and Mr Whitehead and the other members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy evidently respected or appreciated that, as I see that almost all the points of our advice have been adopted in the Whitehead Report. I can only express my thanks for that.

So it merely remains for me to respond to the comment or question from Mr Whitehead just now regarding section 15 of his resolution which is based on an original section in my report. Section 15 deals with international private law. I tried in my opinion to say that when aspects of international private law come up in consumer law, we should be able to regulate them under Article 95, the article that concerns the internal market. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy added Article 153 to this and as far as I am concerned that can stay. I do not think there can be many problems with that, Mr Whitehead. I suspect that is a translation problem rather than something about which there can be a great deal of discussion. I hope this clarifies things somewhat and I am eager to give half a minute back to the President to make up for speaking a bit too long just now.

  Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. – (NL) Mr President, I will speak for two minutes on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities and the rest of the time I will speak about the report by Mrs Patrie and the report by Mrs Thyssen. Mr President, it gives me pleasure to begin with the strategy for consumer policy and to respond to what Mr Whitehead has written.

As rapporteur for the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities I am grateful to Mr Whitehead for the fact that many of our amendments have been included in the – as always, may I say, Phillip – thorough report you have produced. What the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities wants is for vulnerable groups to be closely involved in consumer policy and I think this is expressed very well. Special attention must be given to consumers and consumer organisations in the applicant countries, as we think that the internal market can only function at its best when the parties in the market are of equal standing. This means that we need to equip the consumer to make considered choices.

The consumer organisations in the applicant countries are not yet, if I may put it like this, ideally equipped for their role as representatives of consumers. The need to pay special attention to this is justified and we have asked for this very often. So I can find in the main points of the 2002-2006 strategy: a high level of consumer protection, effective enforcement of the current regulations and a role for the consumer organisations. I have already mentioned that specifically.

Mr President, now I come to the Green Paper. The aim of the Green Paper is to arrive at a framework directive for consumer policy. I am, if a number of conditions are met, for such a framework directive. Present legislation is indeed too fragmented and a framework directive can help to bring clarity to the situation. I think it is excellent that the provision of information needed to make choices before the sale of a service or product, the sale itself, after sales, service, complaints procedures and access to law are brought together in the framework directive. Unfair trading practices must be the starting point for this and so I feel very comfortable with Mrs Thyssen’s report.

The legislation of this framework directive must not and cannot come on top of the existing forest of regulations. That would make everything even more confusing, not only for the consumer but certainly also for the business world. I am therefore strongly arguing that, when we present this framework directive, we also at the same time immediately repeal the various vertical directives the water framework directive is a good example. In that sense we think that the framework directive would solve something. It is very important with this kind of horizontal framework, in our view, that the same obligations apply all over Europe, not only for business but also for consumers. That makes things clear and provides more opportunities, especially for smaller businesses, to make use of the opportunities offered by the internal market.

Mr President, I would also like to say that this framework directive should assume a high level of protection of the consumer, but that it should also be based on the principle of maximum harmonisation, but linked to the high level of protection. I think this is necessary, because if this does not happen confusion will remain. We want the internal market to function well, we want to get good service throughout Europe, we want good services to be sold and for everyone to know exactly where they stand. In that sense we can vote for a framework directive. I also hope that the amendments submitted by our group to the Patrie Report, which we hope will bring that report more into line with Mrs Thyssen’s report, will be supported. I think this will help us to reach a very good demarcation. I wish the services of the Commission a lot of luck and ask them to please involve us, and the stakeholders, in drafting the new legislation.

  Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am delighted that this morning we are debating three strong reports on consumer protection and that they straddle so many different committees. That is right and proper. Consumer policy issues should not just be the prerogative of one particular committee, they should be fundamental to all our work.

The comments I shall make will in essence be confined to the Whitehead report, although they will clearly have implications for some of the other reports too. Adam Smith declared that the sole end and purpose of all economic activity is consumption. The consumer is king and we in Parliament – and indeed in the Commission – would do well to remember this.

The Commission report 'Consumer policy strategy 2002-2006', and indeed the Whitehead report, are both extremely positive steps in this direction. I am not one of those who automatically congratulates every rapporteur, especially, dare I say, if they come from the PSE Group, but on this occasion I am delighted to give my unqualified congratulation and support to this rapporteur for an excellent piece of work.

In his usual modest way he has also said that amendments from other groups and colleagues have made it better still, and he has indeed accepted amendments from a large number of colleagues from different political groupings and other committees. I am certainly grateful for his ready acceptance of some of my own amendments, for example that a key strand of consumer policy must be the maximisation of consumer choice, that the completion of the single market is therefore a priority for consumers and not just business, that the package travel directive should be included as a priority for a review, and that countries that flout consumer protection laws should be more rapidly and thoroughly penalised.

I would also draw attention to the whole series of paragraphs, starting at paragraph 5, addressing Objective 1, a high level of consumer protection, in which he notes his concern about the proposal to move from minimum harmonisation to full harmonisation measures. This point has already been picked up by Mrs Thyssen and Mr Radwan from two other committees. I totally agree this should be done on a case-by-case basis, a point he explicitly amplifies in paragraph 13 about the principles of subsidiarity, necessity and proportionality. I hope the Commission takes these points on board.

I particularly admire the way the report is not just filled with good intentions. It calls for sensible, practical and concrete steps to be taken to create better consumer protection throughout the European Union. I hope the Commission will allow me to draw attention also to paragraph 44 about the dangers of passive smoking, although it might be a surprise for this to appear in this particular report. It is a basic consumer right that consumers should be able to breathe fresh air. I hope that he personally, along with the Quaestors, will play his role in ensuring this.

Finally, I expect the Whitehead report to carry overwhelming support in the vote this morning. Such a verdict would indeed be well-deserved. I hope that it will also be embraced with equal fervour by the Commission and the full Council. The consumer must reign everywhere. Long live the king!

  Corbey (PSE). – (NL) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Consumers, it has just been said, are one of the reasons for the existence of the European Union. Better and cheaper products and more choice are the mainsprings of the internal market. Consumers have not been given full recognition for this before now. Some consumer rights stop at national borders. So I also warmly applaud a general initiative and framework directive for consumer policy. I also support and compliment the rapporteurs Whitehead, Patrie and Thyssen.

There are four points I would like to emphasise. First, it is about fair trading practices, a high basic standard that must apply throughout Europe, and in bringing this about European rules must not be allowed to detract from national achievements. Information about rights and supplementary codes of conduct is needed.

Point two, the right to information. Information about products and production methods is crucial. Of course, not every consumer will walk into the manufacturer’s premises to ask about production methods. Research shows that only 10% of consumers are interested, but that 10% set the trend, certainly when they are supported by strong consumer organisations. This 10% have ensured, for instance, that more attention is paid to animal welfare in the agricultural sector and to working conditions in the textiles sector, and this 10% will also contribute to pushing globalisation in an acceptable direction.

Point three, give consumers a voice, support consumer organisations, especially in applicant countries, and search for new ways to make consumers less anonymous. Experiment with public forums too where consumers can contribute ideas about the development of new production techniques and production methods.

My final point concerns political responsibility. A strong consumer policy must, of course, contribute to the development of a situation in which consumers are the touchstone for European policy, from chemicals to e-commerce.

A great deal is done in the name of the consumer in Europe. Liberalisation of public services is supposed to offer consumers cheaper and better services. Splendid of course, but what has it achieved? Throughout Europe passengers are complaining about the deteriorating quality of public transport. Prices on the telephone market have become obscure and confused and few consumers in the end are queuing up to choose between electricity suppliers. What exactly has ten years of the internal market delivered for the consumer? Or take the euro, another example. The euro was supposed to make everything cheaper. Meanwhile we know that the euro has caused significant price increases. Of course, things can go against us. Every consumer understands that. But if liberalisation, the euro and the internal market do not have the desired effect, what can consumers turn to then? Can consumers turn to European politics, their national governments, business and industry? Or nowhere in fact?

Consumers must have rights, but they must also be able to get political redress. In short, we must stop making vague promises about and to consumers. Objectives for consumers must be concrete and clear and it must be clear who bears the political responsibility. Thank you very much.

  Maaten (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, we are dealing here with three important reports of course. It is true that it is not legislation, but I look forward with interest to the legislation that will follow these reports. I do that with a great deal of confidence, because on this point too we have every confidence in this Commissioner. I am curious as to whether he can indicate how long it will be before we can expect the various proposals for this legislation.

The challenge, of course, is to properly coordinate consumer policy and the completion of the internal market. Consumer policy must not be allowed to be an excuse for erecting trade barriers. I also think that the figures that the Commissioner gave just now on the benefits that we all gain from harmonisation speak volumes as far as that is concerned.

Consumers benefit from free trade because they can buy cheaper and better products and of course we must achieve a high level of consumer protection. Confidence is the engine of economic growth. Consumers must have confidence in products or they will not buy them. Industry must have confidence in the internal market and consumers must have confidence in suppliers. We can kill two birds with one stone. We must work towards a situation where it no longer matters to consumers whether they buy their products in the Netherlands or Greece. That is not easy.

Consumers often do not know what their rights are. Consumer organisations can help with this. Consumer magazines are widely read and contain useful tips. People have a lot of confidence in these organisations. So I think and I am glad that the Commissioner is also working for this that the Union must involve these organisations closely in the preparatory work for future policy.

Besides, unfair trading practices damage confidence in the market. A dishonest car salesman can spoil the market for his competitors. Dishonest traders must therefore be tackled forcefully, which is why it is good that the choice has been made to adopt a European approach to tackling undesirable commercial practices. Of course we need to be clear about what constitutes undesirable trading practices. For me that is not only taking advantage of physical or mental vulnerability or the use of physical or moral pressure, obstructive behaviour must also be included. For example, making it difficult for consumers to change their service provider. Only when you can switch easily from one service provider to another, do you have optimum competition resulting in lower prices and better quality. Just think about changing your bank. They make it terribly difficult for you. You cannot take your account number with you and I think these are artificial barriers.

Finally, Mr President, I think that the Commission should use Article 153 of the Treaty more often as the legal basis for consumer protection. We did not create this Article for nothing and it will benefit both the consumer and the internal market.

  Caudron (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, speaking this morning on behalf of my group in the debate on consumers and consumer protection, I, like many of my fellow Members, would like to say once again that, although we can adhere to the European Commission’s objectives in this area – high level of protection, effective application of rules and effective participation of consumer organisations – we must once again point out that the proposals made are still far too vague and not specific enough.

That is why I fully agree with the proposals made by Mr Whitehead and Mrs Patrie, in particular with regard to safety, transport, chemical substances, e-commerce and the provision of prior information in all cases in order to allow, where necessary, appropriate and effective defence and recourse mechanisms to be activated. I would also like to mention specifically the readability of the ecolabel and, in particular, the need for highly comprehensive information on GMOs which, as you are all aware, are a contentious issue for us. Lastly, I would like to stress the need for the Toys Directive and control of the CE mark.

As I was rapporteur on these issues a few years ago, I know that the Toys Directive needs to be revised urgently and that, due to insufficient controls, the CE mark has in many cases become devoid of all meaning. I have also written to the Commission several times on this matter, but I regret to say that I have not received a satisfactory response. Incidentally, at this stage of the debate on consumer protection and policy, I would also like to express very clearly two concerns in the form of basic criticisms. My first concern is that, whatever their advantages, consumer protection policies are too closely linked to, and therefore overly dependent on, the objective of accelerated creation of a single market. These policies are only rarely objectives in themselves and tend, for the most part, to be a result of free competition. My second concern is that these policies are frequently, if not always, a pretext for erasing, suffocating, or even abolishing the concept of public service, even though this is far broader than consumer protection as it applies in the long term, which involves solidarity and land use planning, in particular through pricing and access conditions. In some countries and some political groups, the best upholders of consumer protection are often those who do most harm to public services, acting in the name of free competition and the dominance of the private sector.

This morning, I therefore wanted to point out these fundamental differences or even divergences, while welcoming the efforts made by the European Commission and supporting our rapporteurs’ proposals.

IN THE CHAIR: MR PACHECO PEREIRA
Vice-President

  Rod (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, the Green Paper presented by the Commission and the reports presented this morning are along the right lines. We should indeed establish all the elements that guarantee consumers a high level of protection without delay. They must feel sure that their rights are fully and equally respected everywhere. In order to achieve this high level of protection, it is therefore vital to involve representative consumer organisations in drawing up both Community and international policies.

As a number of significant changes are currently taking place in terms of trade, it is essential to consult our citizens. They must be able to take part in debates and influence decisions that primarily concern them. Consumers must play an active part through their consumption, which should no longer be uninformed. Instead, consumers should be able to make informed choices. They must therefore be protected, but also kept informed. In order to achieve this, they must be able to have access to all the information they consider essential, for example with the opportunity to find out about production processes, including employees’ working conditions. Community-level logos relating to fair trade or to companies that observe a social charter, are therefore valuable, effective instruments, as are those representing organic farming.

If we want to see ethical, fair trade, we need to restate our preference for quality products that do not endanger human dignity, in areas as varied as coffee or children’s toys, and that fulfil all the criteria of the precautionary principle. In this context, traceability of GMOs seems, once again, to be one of the most basic factors. In particular, we must not, as implied by some amendments, allow consumer confidence in GMOs to increase. On the contrary, our duty is to protect consumers and provide them with accurate, comprehensive information that will enable them to make fully informed choices, what they feel are the right decisions for themselves and for their children. We should also emphasise the need for citizen participation in establishing a sustainable model of society. We must not reduce the citizens to mere consumers. Quite the opposite, citizens must play a full part in identifying their needs, so that society itself chooses to develop in a way that can respond to them.

  Nobilia (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, although different, Mrs Patrie, Mrs Thyssen and Mr Whitehead’s reports appear to express a faint, common feeling of disappointment which – if it is actually there – we endorse, as we do the content of the reports. Indeed, the Commission’s statements to the effect that the fragmentation of European and national rules on consumer protection prevents the smooth functioning of the internal market cannot be disputed, nor can the fact that many consumers’ lack of confidence, for example in cross-border transactions, is caused by the existence of divergences between bodies of law and, to an even greater extent, maybe, by lack of awareness of the protection available. Similarly, therefore, an indisputable need arises for a simple, standardised legal framework comprising a limited number of fundamental rules that are applicable whatever the nature of the commercial transaction and provide protection throughout the cycle, including in post-contractual and after-sales relations.

We therefore welcome the line taken by the Commission as regards the need for a global approach to the issue which, on the one hand, seeks to set out obligations, starting with fair commercial behaviour, and, on the other hand, is based on objective criteria in order to avoid different interpretations by the Member States. However, although all this makes sense, it is impossible not to notice inconsistent behaviour on the part of the Commission itself occasionally, starting with but not confined to an excessive acceleration of the rate at which we are addressing the issue. As we know, the 2001 Green Paper on Consumer Protection, for example, opened a period of widespread consultation and a valuable debate on the future of Community consumer law. Yet, even before the results of the consultation process are known, the Commission has presented a proposal for a regulation on sales promotion in the internal market, which, on the one hand, pays little attention to the views of the European Parliament on the global approach, and, on the other, gives the absurd impression that we would prefer to continue to take a sectoral approach.

Again, the different approaches to issues which are ultimately similar such as – by way of another example – the issue of labelling, in which the presence of identical substances is being regulated differently only a few months later, fall short of the ideal. We believe that there is no cause for objection where preparations primarily intended for healthcare applications are used in other fields. A recent example is that of cosmetics and detergents.

To stay in this context for a moment longer, we believe that consumers need to be informed of the products used but we also believe that, to this end, they need to have access to useful information, information which can put them in a position where they can make choices, not least ‘political’ choices themselves. That does not mean we do not value – for we greatly appreciate it – the major work carried out by consumer protection organisations.

However, if the idea is to pursue a high level of protection while seeking, at the same time, to achieve acceptable harmonisation of internal market rules, there appear to be two courses of action, one of which will follow on from the other. The first is that mentioned by Mr Whitehead, when he states that a case-by-case analysis would be appropriate to assess whether, when amending existing legislation or developing new legislation, minimum or maximum harmonising provisions are more suitable. Once this has been determined, the other is the correct transposal and practical enforcement of Community law by the Member States. Here, once again, the Commission has a decisive role, although it is true that, from a general perspective, only five States have thus far met the targets set by the Barcelona European Council on implementation rates.

  Bernié (EDD). – (FR) Mr President, as well as the legal protection of consumers, we are addressing a broad, ambitious project that will have to lead to a high level of protection. A high level does not necessarily imply uniform protection. We believe it is essential to observe the principles of subsidiarity, necessity and proportionality.

I personally am in favour of minimal harmonisation, leaving each Member State free to establish the legislation best suited to its way of doing things. I also support the idea of systematically using Article 151(3) of the Treaty, which should become the sole legal basis for legislating. We must stop systematically using Article 95, which only concerns the single market. Guaranteeing all citizens universal, affordable access to high-quality services is one of our main requirements. We must demand that the WTO does not dismantle our public services. Similarly, I agree with WTO labelling as an instrument for providing information on origin and production methods. On the other hand, I have reservations concerning the creation of a European consumer centre which would duplicate the role of the national organisations, which are effective and would benefit from working as a network.

I am also concerned about the content of the Thyssen report: asking the Commission for an impact assessment on the possibility of maximum harmonisation seems unrealistic. Similarly, a link should be established between consumer protection and regulation of sales promotion. As for establishing codes of conduct, the idea as its currently stands does not seem to me to be an option we should pursue. What would be the basis for the legitimacy of these codes of conduct? How could we ensure their durability? All these questions are an indication that this would be the wrong course of action.

  Ilgenfritz (NI). – (DE) Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.

  President. – Thank you very much, Mr Ilgenfritz, I have a request to speak on a point of order from a Member who has a placard in front of him, which the Bureau has already asked him to remove. This is a matter of showing respect for the Bureau and for his fellow Members, which I believe should take precedence over any request to speak.

The Bureau has already asked the honourable Member to remove the placard and it is common practice in this House that when the Bureau asks Members to remove placards or banners that they have put up, these are removed immediately out of respect for the Bureau and for the House. If the honourable Member wishes to raise a point of order – the only thing the Rules of Procedure allow him to do – he will have to show respect for the Bureau and for the House and remove the placard he has in front of him.

  Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI). – Mr President, at this moment all over the Basque country demonstrations are being held -

(The President cut off the speaker)

  President. – Mr Gorostiaga, this is supposed to be point of order concerning the order of business. The Bureau will not allow any type of speech other than a point of order.

  Grossetête (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, I believe that, today, we should welcome this debate on the Green Paper and the strategy proposed to us by the Commission on consumer policy. We should welcome it because, with enlargement and, thereby, the extension of the internal market, it is clearly important to improve harmonisation of Community legislation relating to consumers. We are also aware of the role that consumerism plays in the economy, and heaven knows we need it at the moment!

Studies have shown, however, that, outside the border areas, European consumers do not know how to make use of the advantages provided by the European Union. Why is this? Quite simply, because they still lack confidence, because they do not always have access to the relevant information on products and services and because they do not always have the means of ascertaining the quality of products or price references, and because, particularly in the event of litigation, they do not know which authority will be competent. All this means, therefore, that consumers do not take advantage of the possibilities offered by Europe and are in need of knowledge and information, although they are fully prepared to act responsibly, respecting ecolabels and suchlike.

In order to remedy this, we therefore need to harmonise legislation and establish genuine European consumers’ rights while guaranteeing the flexibility required for application in the Member States. We are therefore in favour of better information for consumers. This should be clear and written in the consumers’ mother tongue so that they can make fully informed choices. Developing a framework strategy for consumers also means ensuring their legal protection, putting an end to disputes relating to unfair practices on the part of companies and protecting the companies themselves too.

We therefore agree on a high level of consumer protection and on transparency achieved through associations and we expect a great deal from the Commission. We can guarantee, Commissioner, that we shall be looking over your shoulder to ensure that this consumer policy is followed through.

  McCarthy (PSE). – Mr President, in today's world it is clear that consumers are more informed and more demanding. They have higher expectations and are not always after the cheapest price. They want quality and after-sales service and they want to be clear about their rights and remedies for redress.

In an ideal world, responsible businesses would respond to consumer needs. Some would say that the vast majority do, and if that were the case, then we would not need to legislate. But we need to protect the consumer from the cowboy operators, those who engage in sharp practice, and the rip-off merchants. The legislators' dilemma is to produce good effective law which protects the consumer, while allowing business to thrive in a dynamic and competitive environment.

The current corporate social responsibility debate offers business the opportunity to improve its consumer protection as a good business model and selling point, to help business gain the competitive edge and bring commercial benefits, while providing added value to the consumer.

If we want the internal market to work we need flanking measures to promote consumer confidence, particularly in cross-border shopping, and we know that in online shopping consumers still have a tendency to buy in their own home market.

In introducing a general clause on fair trading, the detail of the directive will be vital if it is to work for the benefit of consumers and not to be perceived by businesses as more red tape and bureaucracy. We need simple, better-focused legislation which is easier to enforce. As you know, Commissioner, the concept of fairness differs between Member States, depending on their different legal systems. In those countries which operate a general clause, we also know that operates differently. This presents you with the challenge of finding a common approach. I know that, as a skilled lawyer, you are committed to ensuring legal certainty for both business and consumers. We need to ensure that the impact of any future directive furthers rather than fragments the internal market as Member States interpret, implement or enforce such a directive to fit in with their own different national approaches. The consumer is already faced with fragmented regulations and enforcement.

The bottom line is that consumers need to know what redress they can expect if they are the victims of sharp practice or rip-offs, while business needs to operate in a competitive world. Businesses need to be clear about the standards and practices they must aspire to in order to be able to deliver on this directive. I personally favour cracking down on misleading and deceptive practices rather than attempting to achieve a common definition of fair commercial practice.

I welcome the Commission's proposal of establishing codes of conduct and self-regulation, not as a soft touch, or replacement for legislation, but as a means of enabling us to respond quickly to sharp practice when it occurs faster than the law can keep up.

As Commissioner Prodi has said, all European institutions need to step up their commitment to simplify regulations in order to reduce the cost of doing business in Europe and increase legal certainty for citizens. In the Thyssen report Parliament has made it clear that it wants to see an extended impact study in this area.

Commissioner, you have mentioned three studies and you have been very clear about the benefits of this directive. You have been less clear about the potential cost of this directive to business. It is important that we explain to business what its obligations are and what it has to do to achieve your consumer protection objectives.

  Wallis (ELDR). – Mr President, I wish to address my remarks to Mrs Thyssen's report, which I welcome, and I congratulate her on such a balanced piece of work. We know well the dilemma in dealing with a report that has to straddle the interests of business and consumers.

We have before us very good innovative ideas from the Commission – an overarching policy, a framework directive – something we need if we are really to make the internal market work and to make a success of eEurope. However, to achieve all of that we have to build confidence in our consumers. The one area that concerns me is in paragraph 17 of the report, which I endorse completely. It concerns this linkage between codes of conduct, legal certainty and enforcement and how we get those three to really work together to protect consumers.

This year I shall be drafting a report on the monitoring of Community law and therefore feel very passionately that in moving to codes of conduct we have to ensure we still have legal certainty and enforceability or we fragment the very gains we have made in the internal market.

I shall try to illustrate that with an example. Yesterday I received a letter from a constituent who had bought a property in another Member State. Something had gone wrong with the purchase: money had been wrongly deducted from money he had handed over. He applied to the appropriate overarching professional body. He wrote in his own language, English. He received a reply in their language that stated that they were unable to deal with his complaint unless he wrote to them in their language. If we really want to do business across Europe together we have to be fair and reasonable with one another. Codes of conduct have to be properly enforced.

  Fiebiger (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, any decisions taken with regard to consumer protection must pay due attention to the expectations and hopes, and also the fears, of the 425 million consumers in the enlarged Union. In its legislative acts, Parliament has the duty of taking the complexities and future effects of consumer protection into account, as well as the risks associated with it.

The reports on the future of European consumer protection policy meet this demand whilst also demanding that an end be put to the lack of discipline in relations with consumers. Many people see the provisions in the areas of food safety, services, health and safety as having already lost their moral innocence in the face of market developments.

There is a great need for action, for example, in order to put a stop to abuses in the area of telecommunications and for reforms in competition law and in the field of financial services to protect consumers. Giving life to the right of initiative for the consumers' benefit demands that a permanent place be found for consumer protection in the public advice and consultation system, as well as education and, above all, more information.

Consumer protection has to protect people against fraud, health hazards, and financial loss. The principle of effectiveness applies to consumer protection as much as it does to anything else, but there must be no gain in efficiency to the detriment or disadvantage of consumers. I therefore endorse the demand that complete harmonisation of the legal provisions be restricted to what are manifestly special cases, subject, however, to the condition that this principle is not misused and that minimum standards will be deregulated.

  Breyer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I found absent from the Commissioner's speech this morning was something quite essential, by which I mean the need for us to re-establish a clear order of precedence, according to which this self-evidently has to be about safety and consumer protection, but also about transparency. I see the subject of transparency as having had far too small a part to play in this morning's debate as a whole. Commissioner, I would like to urge you in quite specific terms to make a real effort to enact a directive on consumer information analogous to the directive on the freedom of access to information on the environment. If, for example, there are problems, there should be real disclosure enabling all to see which businesses are causing them. We must also use this to introduce incentives to get entrepreneurs to really plan for safety.

We need all these things. Parliament's resolution contains many lines of approach for the introduction of precisely this consumer information directive. It is not enough simply to call for greater freedom of choice or more information; on that I agree with all those who have already criticised that idea. This is not about mounting a lot of campaigns in support of the genetic engineering industry, but what matters is that a directive on consumer information should be produced, laying down in very clear terms not only the consumer's right to information, but also the enterprises' duty to disclose breaches when they occur. I would then like to urge you, as a matter of urgency, to enact the Toys Directive a good deal sooner.

I cannot restrain myself from making a final comment in view of the warning issued by the gentleman from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs about the provisions on the giving of credit. It goes without saying that I am in favour of minimum harmonisation, and at a high level, but for as long as there are scandals such as that in Germany with the Berliner Bank, with, outrageously, members of the CDU accepting illegal donations, there will, I believe, be a real need for credit institutions to have rules applicable to them. Let nobody try to tell me that that is obvious!

  Blokland (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, in studying the three reports on consumer protection I asked myself whether this is not more about promoting consumerism. The internal market is already a corollary of the commandment "thou shalt consume". Evidently we now need to add the commandment "thou shalt consume throughout Europe". Mr President, you will understand that I am rather critical of this. We cannot deny that language, distance and cultural differences are the most significant barriers for consumers. This is completely ignored when we look for the cause in unfamiliarity with regulations in other EU countries. What is more, this assumes that the consumer is familiar with the regulations in his or her own Member State.

If we want to invest in consumer confidence we must above all invest in the reliability of products and services. I take the view that well-informed consumers can make their own choices. There needs to be a balance between protecting the consumer and the consumer’s own responsibility. I do not think we need a uniform legal framework. Let us first begin with minimum standards in the cases where there are real problems. It is artificial to generate legislation based on Article 153, because this has only been applied as a legal basis in practice on one occasion. I do not have any anxiety about discriminating against Treaty articles because we make less use of them than other Treaty articles.

  Borghezio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, I am not wholly convinced by certain aspects of the Whitehead report, in that I cannot accept some of the priorities laid down for consumer protection measures while I feel that others are not given enough emphasis or are even absent from the document before us.

In this regard I would put forward a number of proposals which I feel to be urgently necessary for a genuine policy protecting the wide range of consumer interests. First of all, the need to set up a European monitoring centre to monitor consumer price trends and public service trends in the different Member States, to monitor the extent of increases and the procedures used and, in particular, to take stock of the situation in the wake of the introduction of the euro. Then, as regards the sensitive issue of public services and banking and insurance services, there is an essential need for a heading for opening up the boards of directors of the public companies which manage these services – bank lending agencies, insurance companies and public services companies – to proper representation of the wide range of interests of users. The European Union must adopt the necessary measures to achieve the participation of consumers in the management of this activity, if it wants to achieve genuine economic democracy.

In addition, I do not feel that the proposals for protecting young people, in particular, from the serious dangers of smoking are adequate or sufficient. The spread of the habit, particularly among young people, is mirrored by the increasing, truly appalling figures representing the geometric increase in cases of lung cancer, which calls for much greater determination from Europe to implement the measures already planned. It is time for Europe to declare war on the dangerous habit of smoking, introducing more effective awareness campaigns and maximum harmonisation of Member States’ legislation in order to eliminate the evil of smoking.

  Santini (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, a debate analysing three reports on consumer issues together is a rare, precious occasion after years of lukewarm interest from Parliament and the Commission in this area. The first report is, as we have heard, on the Green Paper on European Union Consumer Protection, the second on the consumer policy strategy for 2002 to 2006, and the third, a very weighty tome, on the legal protection of the consumer. The strategy proposed by the Commission lays down these three medium-term objectives, which are to be achieved through a programme implemented immediately and to be subject to periodic checks carried out by the Commission and recorded in documents certifying progress made.

Achieving a common level of consumer protection means harmonising not just the safety of goods and services but, first and foremost, the different legal procedures through which the consumers exercise their role as guarantors in commercial transactions on the internal market. If consumer policy is to be genuinely implemented, consumers must be accorded the same importance as an identical guarantee covering the whole of the Union’s territory.

The programme also provides for a plan of priority actions through which consumers can decide with the Member States on monitoring and, where necessary, appeal procedures, thanks to a system of genuine administrative cooperation. Consumers and their various networks must have the capacity and the necessary resources to promote their actions on an unrestricted level playing-field within the internal market, and to do so in all areas, in respect of companies and the various production organisations.

The principle of minimum harmonisation of consumer protection policy is enshrined in the Treaty, moreover. It is now important that there is a more effective, comprehensive policy to win support for minimum harmonisation across the board. To this end, we need new rules which are endorsed and, above all, which supersede the previous rules.

  Myller (PSE). – (FI) Mr President, I want to thank all three rapporteurs. It has been said here that this is not a matter of legislation, but in my opinion these issues must be dealt with right at this stage while we are discussing with the Commission what we expect from future legislation. For that reason I myself wish to focus on those principles that I think should be incorporated into EU legislation on consumer protection.

The main principle, one which has been raised here very often, is that levels of consumer protection must be as high as possible. It therefore follows that when the Commission proposes legislation that is harmonised as fully as possible in the EU, I agree with this basic standpoint only if that means these very highest levels of consumer protection are implemented though harmonisation. I do not agree with harmonisation, however, if it means even one Member State having to forsake higher levels of consumer protection. For this reason I am pleased with the view expressed by Mr Whitehead in his report, that each act should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

This same principle must also apply to mutual recognition. Account here must also be taken of the notion that not one Member State, neither a current nor a future one, should downgrade its standards of consumer protection. The advantage of minimum harmonisation from the point of view of consumer protection at least is that nationally one can go further in terms of legislation if the European Union does not attain that level. It is also necessary that existing consumer protection legislation should be fully implemented so that consumers can be really confident that they can engage in commercial transactions and fulfil themselves as consumers throughout the entire internal market area.

Future legislation must also be sufficiently clear and must take the principles of subsidiarity, necessity and proportionality into consideration. I also think it is important that we do not enact too much detailed legislation but concentrate on realising our goal, which is these highest possible levels of consumer protection. If we have too much detailed legislation those who do not want to adopt these principles will focus their energy on looking for loopholes and this will create problems for court hearings.

  Paulsen (ELDR). (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, an incredible amount could be said about the EU’s future consumer policy, but in the short time available I shall try to confine myself to a single point concerning Mrs Patrie’s report.

We are all agreed that the prerequisite of a free and fair market is that consumers have access to helpful and correct information. That is relatively simple to provide for when it comes to the ‘old’ consumer requirements in terms of the link between price and quality. It is also all right when it is a case of declarations of content, washing labels and so on. The modern consumer is, however, a different type of citizen. That also applies of course at the time of purchase. This means that today’s consumers demand many different types of information. When they go shopping, they want answers to questions concerning ethical, ecological and social matters. In addition, there is now a host of different health claims of varying significance.

How are we to manage to guarantee legislation that fulfils all these requirements for odd labels – requirements that are nonetheless subjects of the debate and that must be respected? We no doubt need to make use of the principle known in Swedish legal parlance as the honesty principle, whereby it is permissible for people to make claims about their products as long as they are fully able to substantiate these. I believe that this is the only way of coping with this new type of labelling. The general rule is, do as you like but on no account lie.

  Piétrasanta (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, I welcome the in-depth work carried out by Mr Whitehead, Mrs Patrie and Mrs Thyssen concerning the implications of the Green Paper on consumer protection. We agree with the request to establish simpler, more targeted legislative measures in order to facilitate the implementation of the legislative arsenal applicable to the internal market which, in our opinion, lacks transparency and is too fragmented to instil confidence in consumers. We have seen with satisfaction the concept of citizen-consumers appearing and I would point out that their fundamental rights are the right to safety, information, free choice, representation, avenues of recourse, satisfaction and an unpolluted environment.

Consumption in future must take account of the three pillars of sustainable development, the economic, environmental and social factors, although the latter two are all too often neglected. I propose that we consider the feasibility of a general directive on the environmental quality of consumer services and products, giving particular consideration to the need for a European label and for a high degree of protection. We believe citizen-consumers must play an essential part, not just as customers but as decision-makers too, as proactive consumers concerned at an ethical level with the product they are consuming. In this regard, they will become one of the main, essential players in this development, which we would like to be long term.

  Hager (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much.

I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.

  Schnellhardt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have spent over twenty-five years working on protection for European consumers, and not a Parliamentary sitting goes by without consumer issues being discussed. I know I am disagreeing with some of those who have spoken today when I say that the rules that have worked for years have proved their worth and that their effects live on, even though they ended up as a legal package of which nobody could get an overview, and there are still some loopholes. The Commission is therefore right, by means of the proposals on consumer protection, to seek ways out of the confusion and suggest what some of those ways might be.

I want to put the case for a framework directive with a comprehensive clause founded on the principles of sound business practice. More and more frequently, the internal market ends up being handicapped as a result of the lack of regulations or the leeway left by the directives. It is particularly in view of enlargement that measures need to be taken to remedy this as soon as possible, and there is a need to combat not only unfair business practices that affect consumers, but also those used by all participants in the internal market on each other.

This latter category would include the attempts made by some Member States to use the protection of consumers or their health as a shield with which to protect national markets and industries from competition. There are also those who call themselves campaigners for consumers' rights who allow themselves to be engaged in this cause and help to drive competitors from the market. That is why I believe it necessary to make greater use of the legal form of a Regulation in order to achieve greater legal certainty. That will also lead to harmonisation, and that is what we need in the internal market. The Commission has drawn up a comprehensive list and appended it as an annex. All the points in it are important, but the new priorities in the Whitehead Report introduce a succession of others, ranging from important to less important. What Mr Whitehead has said today has actually contradicted this order of priorities.

Consumers can avail themselves of their rights only when they know what those are. Work on consumer protection should make information policy a priority. Consumers' associations have an important part to play in this, and governments must support them in it. It is because of their failure to do this that we have to set up these consumer centres in our Member States if we are to make progress in this area.

  Koukiadis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, the Commission’s new consumer protection strategy is a highly ambitious strategy which symbolises quality of life of consumers by protecting them against unfair practices and reducing unwarranted price differences between one country and another, as well as giving consumers the confidence to access a market of 350 million people and safeguarding the credibility of consumer organisations.

The Commission deserves our congratulations on its detailed research, as of course do our rapporteurs on their proposed amendments. However, the path is not strewn with roses. The obstacles and technical difficulties are manifold. First and foremost, we need to convince the business world and a number of colleagues that a regulatory framework is not incompatible with the competitive ethos and is one of the basic prerequisites to healthy competition.

Secondly, everyone must realise that just listing business to consumer relations or even business to business relations does not amount to integrated consumer protection, especially if our common objective is a more efficient market and greater consumer protection. For example, the Green Paper proposals also need to address the proposed regulation on sales promotions.

As for the approach, opting as a matter of priority for a coherent framework directive containing a number of principles, such as a ban on immoral practices, the principle of good faith and the principle of fair trading practices, is the right approach. This approach does in fact reduce the need for detailed regulation, allowing a rapid response to be made to the increasing number of unfair practices and devices. Even legislators in central Europe, which are well accustomed to detailed regulation, are relying increasingly on general clauses in order to adapt legislation to changing circumstances. This approach has proven to be valuable and has allowed legislation to be updated.

We shall be unable to avoid specific regulation in the end, but it should play a complementary role. Besides, the flexible approach of a framework directive is also in keeping with the policy of increased self-regulation, to which priority should be given, but on two conditions: first, there must be a general time frame within which interested parties are required to agree and, secondly, there must be a common framework for determining who is responsible for honouring the obligations provided for in self-regulation.

Another problem is choosing between maximum harmonisation and minimum harmonisation. It is a difficult choice because, first, we do not want harmonisation to result in a lower level of protection and, secondly, maximalist proposals usually obstruct attempts to harmonise. I think that we should proceed on the basis of maximum harmonisation and should only take selective recourse to minimum harmonisation in individual instances.

I should like to close with a couple of words about the special attention which needs to be paid to consumer organisations. We need to ensure they are representative and transparent because consumer organisations are currently a consumer protection problem in themselves.

  Flemming (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied.

The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.

I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward.

In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.

  Scheele (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, even though we are near the end of the debate, I would not want to speak without thanking Mr Whitehead in particular, especially for the focussed approach to which he referred at the outset, which has enabled us to dispense with a number of issues that would otherwise certainly have been on the agenda.

We have seen how the discussion so far has demonstrated our unanimity as regards the objective of achieving a uniformly high standard of consumer protection. It is getting harder to achieve unanimity when it comes to clarifying where this objective ranks among the other policy objectives, and one Member said that we should support all measures that tend to promote sales. When it is consumer policy strategy that is under discussion, I think the only thing we can say to that is that our esteemed colleague is on the wrong track, at any rate where consumer policy is concerned. Consumer policy is about informing consumers, giving them freedom of choice as well as protecting them.

It has also already become harder to reach unanimity on the subject of what minimum or maximum regulation should be like. This is where I am right behind our rapporteur Mr Whitehead in his approach and where I would also like to underline that this examination of specific cases must of course involve seeing whether there are in the individual states tried and tested measures that harmonisation would do away with. I believe it to be apparent from all the reports and from everything that has been said, that we are a very long way away from our goal of a high standard of consumer protection in our Community, and that this makes it coherent and logical to enquire whether the country-of-origin principle and the principle of mutual recognition should remain applicable in future. I would like to conclude by saying that I attach great importance to item 18 in the Whitehead Report, namely access to affordable and high-quality services of general interest.

  Harbour (PPE-DE). – Mr, President, first of all I want to pay tribute to our three rapporteurs. Parliament is very fortunate in having distinguished Members who are experts in their field and that is reflected in the quality of the work they presented to us.

I want to speak from the perspective of the rapporteur on internal market strategy for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I was very pleased that colleagues endorsed this report so soundly in the last plenary session. We all share the view that confident, well-informed consumers, empowered to make choices, are at the foundation of a successful internal market. We want those choices to reward companies that provide quality, value and outstanding customer service and we want to make sure that the framework of regulation does not discourage innovation; it must actually encourage innovative companies.

We also want to encourage responsible and successful businesses to adopt regulation to help themselves, to look at codes of conduct, to drive out irresponsible businesses. That is the framework in which we must all judge your proposals. I hope you will agree with me that it is of no value whatever to consumers to penalise successful and responsible businesses with excessive bureaucratic costs when the rip-off merchants simply ignore the legislation and go scot-free. Enforcement of regulation must be something that you will look at.

I am pleased that you explained to us the range of studies that you have commissioned, including impact assessment. I want your assurance today that the impact assessment is looking at the costs imposed on business and making sure the results are proportionate and delivering real consumer benefit.

In conclusion, I would like to say on behalf of all my colleagues in the Internal Market Committee, that we are really interested in consumer policy. We would like to see more of you in the Internal Market Committee because we think that some of the proposals you have sent to us are not delivering benefits to consumers in the way that we would like to see.

I say to you in generous terms, please get out more, come and spend more time with us and together let us build a real consumer-driven internal market.

  Moreira da Silva (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I wish first of all to congratulate the three rapporteurs on their excellent work and say that enormous progress has been made in recent years at European level in the field of consumer protection, with the emphasis, of course, on food safety. It is true that too many food scandals had to occur for this to happen, but even so, we have reasons to be proud of the EU’s legislative work in this field.

Now that we are beginning to draw up solutions for resolving other consumer protection issues, many people have expressed doubts as to the need to find common solutions in the EU. It should be recalled that the success of the European Union’s food safety policy both in protecting the consumer and in balancing the internal market, has not been achieved only through more restrictive rules being established for food for human and animal food consumption. This success is also the result of these rules being communitarised. Consequently, given the enormous fragmentation and even incompatibility of trade and consumer protection rules in the Member States, which simply distort competition, bring down quality standards and undermine consumer confidence, I am in favour of all consumer protection legislation being harmonised to the highest possible degree.

With a view to this effort to harmonise, I believe that the European Union must start by defining a framework directive on commercial practices that clearly defines business operators’ responsibilities to consumers. I believe, however, that there are other areas in which the European Union and the Commission must pursue their work, in particular on legislation to protect human health against the effects of electromagnetic fields, especially those created by mobile phones. The fact that the largest mobile phone companies are European should not prevent us from doing so.

  Byrne, Commission. – Mr President, I wish to begin by saying how much I welcome this constructive and lively debate and how pleased I am at the extent to which the views of the Commission have been supported consistently across the House. Not only I, but also my staff and collaborators who have worked so hard on this proposal, take satisfaction from that.

I will start with the points relating to the framework directive and then I will address some points on the action plan.

A number of Members mentioned full harmonisation. As you know the Commission is determined to complete the internal market, and making the single market work for business and producers is just one side of the story. Internal market rules should also promote the confidence of consumers to buy goods and services without being put off by national borders that may lie between buyer and seller.

I reject the idea that you can have one without the other. The Treaty requirements on consumer protection and the internal market are entirely compatible.

The history of EU consumer protection is largely one of minimum harmonisation that leaves the Member States free to go beyond the basic level of harmonisation if they so wish. This has led to legal fragmentation. It has also created obstacles to the smooth functioning of the internal market.

Recent surveys reveal that only 13% of EU consumers made a cross-border purchase in the last 12 months. And, as I indicated before, harmonisation of consumer protection regulations was cited by 68% of businesses as one of the most efficient of a number of options in facilitating cross-border sales.

We need, therefore, to strive for simpler and more common rules and practices to promote consumer confidence in cross-border transactions. The importance of this is further heightened by enlargement. If neglected, fragmentation of consumer protection rules would significantly increase.

We have, more specifically, to overcome the real barriers arising from national laws and national case law on unfair commercial practices. For example, take the benchmark consumer – against whom misleading advertising is assessed. This, according to the ECJ case law – for instance the Clinique case – is the average consumer, reasonably well informed and circumspect.

But this test is not applied consistently across the EU. For instance, in the Saint-Brice case of 2000, the Belgian Cour de Cassation ruled that the benchmark consumer against whom misleading advertising should be assessed is the vulnerable consumer. In the Scanner advertising case, the German highest court ruled that the benchmark consumer is the casual observer instead of the reasonably circumspect consumer. Therefore it is our intention to provide for full harmonisation of rules on unfair commercial practices and codification of the average consumer test, thus removing significant barriers.

I turn, briefly, to mutual recognition. The framework directive will provide full harmonisation of the laws on unfair commercial practices. This convergence and the effective level of consumer protection achieved should set the political conditions to make the principles of mutual recognition and country of origin acceptable.

The overall level of protection will be increased within the EU since a number of Member States do not at present have a comprehensive regulation on unfair commercial practices.

Naturally, we recognise that the framework directive must deliver an effective high level of consumer protection. This does not mean the lowest common denominator of existing national regimes. Nor does it mean a compilation of all the stringent existing national provisions. We need to strike the right balance between the interests of consumers to receive protection from rogue traders when they shop across borders and the interests of businesses to reduce their marketing and legal compliance costs.

A number of Members raised the issue of simplification. The Commission will try to incorporate as much as possible of the acquis in a framework directive. Those elements of the acquis that were included in a framework directive would be repealed. Of course, this will not include contract law provisions, which will be addressed in the context of the action plan recently adopted by the Commission. The framework directive will simplify the regulatory environment on unfair commercial practices by repealing the predominant business-to-consumer provisions of the misleading advertising directive and by repealing, for example, the inertia-selling provisions in the distance-selling directive. These matters, which are currently subject to minimum harmonisation rules, will be fully harmonised by the framework directive. In addition, the general clause in the directive will replace all the divergent general clauses in the Member States and so create a more uniform regulatory environment. I know people are calling for it. It is an important aspect of this proposal and will make it generally more acceptable to business and consumers alike.

On the question of 'fair and unfair', the framework directive would hinge on a general clause prohibiting unfair commercial practices. The central question is, of course: 'What is unfair?' This was one of the main issues for consultation. The results of the consultation, our work with national governmental experts and the legal study we commissioned made it clear that it would be easier to define what was unfair rather than what was fair.

The definition of what constitutes an unfair commercial practice should lead to more legal certainty. Businesses trading fairly will not have to change the way they do business. To help achieve this legal certainty, a non-exhaustive list of unfairness categories and a list of examples of banned commercial practices will supplement the general clause.

A number of Members mentioned codes of conduct. Different positions have emerged in the light of the EU consultation on the idea of endorsement of codes at EU level. Some have argued in favour, others have argued against. Mrs Patrie’s and Mrs Thyssen’s reports reflect these differing positions. I want to encourage responsible businesses to treat their customers fairly and recognise that voluntary codes of conduct may play a key role towards this aim in their particular sectors. Any endorsement process should be voluntary. A code owner would choose whether to apply for endorsement, and a firm would, therefore, choose whether or not to join this code.

On the question of vulnerable consumers, this is an issue of some complexity. We are looking at this. There are a number of different aspects. We will make our minds up before we draft the legislation which I hope will be brought forward in the very near future.

I turn to Mr Whitehead's question on funding. I want to stress that it is as important to improve the quality of expenditure as its quantity. This is an issue we are also taking into account.

Finally, I thank Members again for their constructive comments and the rapporteurs for their reports. I look forward to taking into account the views expressed here this morning in the final drafting of the legislation, which I look forward to presenting to Parliament in the very near future.

  President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner Byrne.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at noon.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

President. – Two members have asked to speak on points of order. Mr Knolle will speak first.

  Knolle (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, there is something I would like to have done in this House. I noticed today that there are banners hanging in the Parliament's courtyard. I do not want to discuss what is on these banners, but it has no place in this honourable House. If this precedent is followed, Parliament will soon end up looking like an advertising pillar or a hoarding full of posters, and that would be detrimental to the honour of the House. I therefore ask that these banners be removed.

(Applause)

  President. – I have taken note of this and I shall inform the competent services.

  Evans, Robert J.E. (PSE). – Mr President, I am delighted to see that Commissioner Byrne is here this morning because, as Chairman of the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals, I was very disappointed to receive a letter from Commissioner Byrne saying he was unable to come and meet our intergroup in the next three, four, five or six months to discuss issues concerning animal welfare, in particular the live transport of animals. I hope the Commissioner will reconsider this and find some space in his obviously very hectic diary.

  President. – Mr Evans, I think you would find it difficult to cite the rule that allows you to raise a point of order such as this. I hope, nevertheless, that this has enabled the rest of the Members to return to their places, because I have a statement to make.