Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-10-Speech-1-096"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000410.5.1-096"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, may I begin by expressing the heartfelt thanks of the Commission for the work that has been done by Mrs Kauppi. We are most appreciative of that work and of her report because it concerns a matter which is of importance, not so much to governments, but in particular to the private citizens of the European Union, as Mrs Randzio-Plath said a little while ago. May I also express the appreciation of the European Commission for the continuing support from this Parliament for the e-money initiative and, indeed, for all the Commission's e-commerce initiatives.
The Commission has noticed the high level of cooperation between Parliament, Council and Commission in reaching an early agreement on the e-money proposals. As evidence thereof perhaps I may cite the high number of amendments put forward by Parliament, amendments which were then accepted by the Council and by the Commission. We certainly have taken due cognisance of the wishes expressed by this Parliament, and we have done our best to integrate them in the proposals that are now in front of you, as noted by Mr Huhne.
May I, however, express the Commission's disappointment that Mrs Kauppi's initial report could not be accepted. That report recognised the high level of cooperation between Council, Commission and Parliament as well as the delicate nature of the common position.
In relation now to the specific amendments, I should like to say the following. The first two that deal with redeemability at par value introduce unnecessary legal uncertainty into the text. The provision on redeemability, which was proposed by this Parliament at the first reading – a first reading which took place almost a year ago – and was accepted by the Council, is clear. It means that e-money must be redeemed for cash on request minus any deductions for legitimate costs in carrying out the transactions. It seems to me that is a perfectly reasonable position.
The recognition of allowing the deduction of reasonable costs conflicts with an obligation to redeem at par value. On this basis, and for this reason, I cannot regrettably accept the first two amendments. Amendments Nos 3 and 4 propose substantially to limit the circumstances in which Member States may waive the application of some or all of the provisions of the directive to certain limited electronic money schemes; here I am concerned because of a misunderstanding on the waiver provisions. These provisions are optional, they are limited in their application to specific identifiable schemes and they are on a case by case basis.
May I add that schemes which benefit from any waiver will not benefit from the European passport. They will continue to be credit institutions and therefore fall within the monetary control of the European Central Bank in the euro-zone. Therefore, the justification for their deletion on the basis of monetary policy concerns is unfounded. They continue to report to the competent authorities on a periodic basis.
While on this point, I should like to say that I am a little intrigued by questions put and remarks made by Members of this Parliament on monetary stability and monetary supply. As stated by Mr Skinner, under the e-money procedure the customer first pays in his money and then gets the equivalent amount of electronic money. In other words, in the whole process not an iota of money is created. Therefore considerations of monetary supply or monetary stability – as one Member put it, e-money as a vector of credit – simply do not apply. E-money does not mean that money is created. It means that money is paid into an institution and received in another form, but it is the same amount of money. Therefore I should like to lay these apprehensions to rest. There is no possibility that monetary instability will arise from the phenomenon of e-money.
Returning to the waiver provisions, if the directive should fail because of deletion of the waiver provisions – and Parliament originally proposed they should be extended – there is a very real possibility that it will prove very difficult, if not impossible, to harmonise e-money rules in the future. We want those rules. We want them to be harmonised, not least because the citizens of the European Union want that. If these two directives fail it will be detrimental to European consumers, businesses and the whole e-commerce initiative. If there are legitimate concerns or if issues which have not yet been identified arise in the next few years, they can always be taken into account in the review of the application of the directives. The Commission is committed to a review, which will take place three years after the coming into force of the directives.
Regrettably, therefore, I cannot accept Amendments Nos 3 or 4. As far as the Commission is concerned we would like them to be rejected by Parliament, in the same way as Amendments Nos 1 and 2 will hopefully be rejected. Turning to Amendment No 5, which amends the text so as to prohibit Member States from waiving the redeemability requirement but does not limit in any other way the provisions of Article 8 allowing Member States to waive the provisions of the directive in respect of certain limited schemes, the Commission's view of this amendment is somewhat less unfriendly than it is regarding Amendments Nos 1 to 4. Still, we would support the view expressed by Mrs Kauppi, who said that it would be best for all concerned, if all five amendments were rejected. In the light of these considerations, I ask Parliament most earnestly to reconsider its amendments for fear that the directives will be lost and deformed in the conciliation process."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples