Brussels, 12/06/2002 (Agence Europe) - Presenting the Commission's communication on the follow-up to the Green Paper on consumer protection in the Union (see yesterday's EUROPE p.15) to plenary, Commissioner David Byrne stressed the need to pursue consultations before launching itself into the drafting of a framework-directive on fair trading practices. "Everyone considered that further consultations were necessary", he said, alluding to the desire of the Council that the Commission give priority to this issue. "In this communication, we draw the political conclusions of initial consultations, we define an action plan for later consultations and sketch out the major outlines of a framework-directive that is not a draft, but a package of working documents to pave the way for a clearer debate", he explained.
Speaking of the elements such a directive could contain, the Commissioner mentioned standards to be respected, the information to supply consumers to enable provide them with protection against unscrupulous traders, a general clause prohibiting unfair trading practices and specific rules applicable to the different categories of these practices, such as aggressive practices or the lack of an after-sales service. Then, they would define "specific rules applicable to the different sectors, together with non-binding guidelines to avoid divergent interpretations", Byrne stipulated. The creation of a group of experts, would, according to him, enable them to identify the common basis between the different national systems and the maximum level of alignment for consumer protection and the smooth running of the internal market, with a mutual recognition clause. David Byrne added that consultation meetings, organised in Brussels with all interested parties, should provide "the basis for a directive". "I hope for legislation focused on what is important. We have to avoid too detailed rules as they soon become obsolete. This directive should improve competition and play a constructive role in the daily lives of consumers in the Union", he declared. He then added: "answers received so far in response to the Green Paper give us confidence. We have a clear political mandate that enables us to move forward". Expressing regret at not having Parliament's opinion on the Green Paper, the Commissioner declared: "the follow-up consultation is only an additional step along the path on which we are engaged. We are waiting for Parliament's opinion on the green Paper and on the follow-up communication".
During the debate, Beatrice Patrie (French, Socialist Group) replied: "Parliament did not give you any mandate for any guidelines. How are you going to take account of its opinion?" David Byrne replied that the Commission was acting under pressure from the Council, but that Parliament would have "its full role to play" and that deeper consultations would enable the latter to issue a "more thought-out opinion". To Astrid Thors (Finnish, ELDR), who asked if the future framework-directive would exclude certain sectors, David Byrne replied that legislation relating to food safety would not be covered. To Malcolm Harbour (British, Conservative) who, on the one hand, wondered about the compatibility of this future legislation and Romano Prodi's proposals on the simplification of legislation, and, on the other, wondered whether the Commission still backed the draft regulation on the promotion of sales within the internal market, Mr. Byrne assured him that the framework-directive on trading practices would be perfectly compatible with current legislation and the exercise at simplification.
David Byrne rejects accusations in Nitrofen affair
MEPs grilled the Commissioner over the scandal of cereal contaminated by Nitrofen in Germany (the Standing Committee of the Food Chain is meeting again on Friday: : see yesterday's EUROPE p.15). Mr. Byrne assured them that the Commission "will discuss the issue with the federal authorities", and that the "Veterinary and Food Office of Dublin will intervene". To Ms. Smet and Mr. Staes who, comparing the contamination of turkeys with Nitrofen in Germany and the contamination of chicken with dioxin in Belgium, were furious at the inequality of treatment between "large and small Member States", Mr. Byrne replied that the situation was not "comparable in scale", the contamination in Germany represents only 1% of organic farming (2% of all German farming) "whereas in 1999, the new legislation of food safety not existing in Belgium, the multiplication of the risks of contamination were very great". Stating that Belgium was the only one to judge that the EU's response was inadequate, he concluded: "this accusation is baseless. We have turned to scientific data (…) without considerations linked to the size of the Member state". To Mr. Kindermann and Mr. Muller who wondered about the quality of controls in Member States, he replied that controls were a national responsibility, the Dublin Office being responsible to "inspect the inspectors" and not "examine each farm to see if legislation is being respected".