22 January 2003

EMAC meeting 20-21 January

-
Consumer Credit
A first exchange of views took part in EMAC Committee on the harmonisation of the Member States' legislation on credit for consumers. Mrs Beres, draft person of the EMAC Opinion to the Committee of Legal Affairs and Internal Market, said that she will concentrate on the possible economic impacts of the planned € 510 billion programme and the existing consumer protection laws. She will therefore focus on questions as regard to the responsibility of the lender, data protection and exchange of information, and false credit.

Mrs Villers pointed out that shifting all responsibilities to the lender would be wrong, and with regard to data protection one should stick to the currently existing rules. Mr Huhne made clear that, with the UK market being properly open to competition, the Directive must not lead to further legislation aimed to reduce the openness of the market. He was alarmed about the idea to grant the right to resign from a contract within 14 days without argument. Furthermore, Mr Androso stated that a punishment for advance repayments of credits should not be accepted.

A hearing on the Consumer Credit Directive will be held on 29 April. The report is planned to be adopted in September this year.

Pension Funds
A consideration of the draft recommendation for second reading of Mr Karas on Occupational Pension Requirements took place on Tuesday. Mr Karas made some 17 amendments to the Council Common Position, most of them concentrating on biometrical risks, information and registration requirements. The amendments have been reinstated from the first reading. The draft paper was welcomed by almost all Parliamentarians.

Mrs Kauppi stated that live insurances should be included into the Directive and that the information requirements especially the yearly information update does not make sense. In general it has to be ensured that the market is allowed to competition. Replying to her Mr Goebbels insisted, that a yearly update has to be guaranteed. He also pointed out that the pensions taker should have the freedom of choice of the pension system.

Mr Huhne criticized that a “verification” of the qualification of UK pension funds is nearly impossible due to the large number of institutions and the extreme bureaucratic efforts needed to assure that. Furthermore the intervention on national regulations does not make sense.

Mrs Villers finally reminded of the difficulties in finding a Common Position. Therefore the amount of amendments should be limited.

Draft Recommendation

© Graham Bishop