Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-10-Speech-1-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000410.5.1-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation.
The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments.
What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule?
This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples