Our inquiry
4. Our inquiry had a number of aims. First, we
sought to establish whether witnesses accepted the Commission's
justifications for the legislation. Second, we considered whether
full harmonisation would be likely to deliver the desired result.
Third, we examined some of the specific policy proposals with
a view to assessing their viability. Finally, we sought to highlight
some of the issues and tensions that might be considered by decision
makers in the months to come.
5. We are aware that the development of EU consumer
policy is closely intertwined with a parallel discussion on the
evolution of contract law in the EU. The 2004 Communication (see
paragraph 1) pursued the idea that a "Common Frame of Reference"
(CFR) for contract law terminology might be developed to improve
consistency of contract law across the EU. There is currently
a draft "academic" CFR and the Commission is due to
publish its own view by the end of 2009. The draft CFR was the
subject of a recent Report by this Committee.[10]
We heard that the Commission had not waited for the CFR to be
completed before reforming the consumer acquis and, although
drafts were available, the Commission's approach had been to view
it as "an authoritative but non-binding statement".[11]
While our inquiry on the draft Directive did not focus on the
CFR, we have taken it into account and it is referred to in the
course of the report.
6. In the course of our inquiry, it has become
clear that swift agreement on the proposal is unlikely and that
significant changes to the draft may be required before adoption
is possible. Against that background, we have drawn a number of
conclusions and made some recommendations but we will wish to
re-examine the proposal should its content change significantly
in the course of negotiations. One possible development in July
2009, which may affect those negotiations and which relates to
some of our conclusions and recommendations, is the publication
by the Commission of information comparing existing legislation
across Member States. We will therefore retain the proposal under
scrutiny.
7. The Members of our Social Policy and Consumer
Affairs Sub-Committee (Sub-Committee G) who conducted the inquiry
are listed in Appendix 1.
8. We are most grateful for the written and oral
evidence that we received for our inquiry; the witnesses who provided
it are listed in Appendix 2. In particular, we thank those witnesses
who gave evidence in person. The Call for Evidence we issued is
shown in Appendix 3, and the evidence we received in response
is printed in a companion volume to this report.
9. We acknowledge with thanks the expertise and
hard work of our Specialist Adviser for the inquiry—Professor Geraint
Howells[12], Professor of
Law at the University of Manchester.
10. We make this report to the House for debate
and retain the proposal under scrutiny.
1 
