Mr President, please allow me to begin with a few words in my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Rarely have I felt as proud of my position as I am today in relation to this report, due to the work that has been carried out in committee over the last year. The fact that it has taken a year does not mean that Parliament has not been interested. On the contrary, there has been intense and fruitful debate between the members of the Committee, as well as people from the academic world and all the interested parties. I warmly congratulate Mrs Wallis on having made this work possible, as rapporteur, and of course I thank the secretariat of the Committee on Legal Affairs for the work they have done and, in particular, as Mrs Wallis has also mentioned, the work of Mr Bray. We have had disagreements, Mr President, but I am sure that whatever the result achieved in this House tomorrow, the work of the Committee on Legal Affairs will have moved this issue forward significantly. I shall now continue, Mr President, on behalf of the PPE. As you well know, and as the rapporteur has reminded us, the main question being debated deals with judgments by the competent court on contracts concluded with consumers on the Internet. I would like to say once again how proud I am at the balanced and detailed nature of this report. It proposes pragmatic solutions, which are likely to increase consumer protection and at the same time allow businesses, in particular small- and medium-sized ones, which make up the social fabric of Europe, to offer their services and products to consumers resident within the internal market. The internal market must be a genuine domestic market, both for businesses and for consumers. As for the consumer, it is proposed that the scope of the special system be extended to those who sign contracts at a distance within the internal market with no distinction whatsoever between directed and undirected activities and, as the rapporteur has highlighted, it incorporates the extrajudicial resolution of disputes into the regulation. With regard to the promotion of cross-border electronic commerce, it is proposed to allow businesses, under certain very specific and very restricted circumstances, to insert jurisdiction clauses which the consumer could accept. Mr President, I am convinced that Parliament’s opinion will have a real impact on the Justice and Home Affairs Council. In fact, as Mrs Wallis has said, Parliament has done what neither the Commission nor the Council has dared to do, which is to hold a realistic debate on the basic question, on the protection of consumers in the 21st century, not the protection of consumers in the 19th century, nor the 20th century, with all the interested parties and taking account of all the interests involved. When we examine the history of this issue, we realise that the Commission, in making its proposal, has limited itself to a draft review of the Brussels Convention, carried out by a committee of experts before the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, i.e. when this was an intergovernmental matter, very close to international public law. Furthermore, Mr President, that committee worked alone, with no transparency, with no interministerial consultations and without consulting the interested parties. It is clear that the Justice and Home Affairs Council expected that, given the weak institutional powers of this Parliament in this field, even after Amsterdam, the final adoption of the regulation by the Council would be a mere formality. The clear unwillingness of the Justice and Home Affairs Council to open a debate on this question indicates that in recent times Parliament has been subject to every type of pressure. After more than one year of discussion in the Committee on Legal Affairs, I can say simply that the arguments levelled against its report lack foundation and are more the result of intimidation and demagoguery than of basic reasoning. Let us look at this briefly. Some people are trying to politicise the debate, hoping that that will create a left-right division, trying to take the consumer hostage, saying that the report would prejudice their protection. This argument is both demagogic and unjustified and is ultimately based an antiquated form of protection, which is ineffective and grounded in a nationalist view that runs counter to European construction. The solutions that have been adopted offer much more protection than those proposed by the Commission or – and here I disagree with Mrs Wallis – those presented to Parliament, which in reality limit the protection solely to consumers targeted by an Internet site, by a business. Pseudo-legal arguments have also been put forward, such as the supposed incompatibility with the directive on abusive clauses or with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice. Well, there is no incompatibility with that or with anything else and allow me to quote the report, issued by the SANCO Directorate-General on 20 September 1999, which says, and I quote in French because it is the only version that exists: “The jurisdiction clauses are therefore possible and legal, within the meaning of this proposal, provided that certain conditions are guaranteed”. It continues: “It is therefore necessary for the consumer to be clearly informed before signing the contract”. It is precisely for this reason, Mr President, that the Committee on Legal Affairs requires strict conditions of transparency. It is therefore not true that this report goes against an intended Community objective. Lastly, and perhaps this is the most cynical of the arguments, people say: “Well, this creates difficulties for small- and medium-sized businesses, but they should be insured”. That is like saying: “There should not be firemen in towns or cities. If a house burns down, the owners should be insured”. We must create good legislation, which is balanced for everyone. To end, I disagree with Mrs Wallis’ solution, despite the fact that we have shared this adventure, because I believe that at the end of the day her solution does not offer more protection to the consumer, since it only protects the consumer which a company has targeted. A lawyer could spend years and years pondering which jurisdiction should apply in the case of active or passive sites or directed or undirected activities. In conclusion, Mr President, it seems to me that in this field of judicial cooperation Parliament must send a clear signal to the Council and the Commission that it will not accept being sidelined or manipulated by dogmatic arguments that represent purely nationalist interests. Instead, by dint of its thorough work, Parliament has here a great opportunity to demonstrate that pragmatic and reasonable solutions can be found to rebalance this proposal whatever the result tomorrow in this House. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE