Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-23-Speech-1-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070423.16.1-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, am I happy with this package? The answer is ‘not really’. Am I supporting it? Yes, because I believe it makes sense to have a European payments system to improve the single market and therefore it makes sense to take this step, far from perfect though it is.
I have been astonished at how difficult it has been trying to move out of the dark ages on payment times, capital regimes and electronic money. The question I have most often been asked about this directive is ‘Will it make payments cheaper?’, not ‘Will it make payments safer?’. But this is not a price-regulation directive, so the only way to make payments cheaper is through greater competition and through transparency, so that consumers know what they are getting.
We have achieved greater transparency, which I welcome, as I do the other useful safeguards for consumers. Hopefully, the payment service providers’ ability to passport will enhance competition, but I harbour fears that the ongoing capital regimes and especially the scaling factors of 0.5 and 0.8 for money remitters and mobile remittances respectively mean repeating the mistakes made in the E-money Directive.
A review of the capital regime after three years in the light of experience, and perhaps after the functioning of extremes of implementation of 20% flexibility, may, therefore, turn out to be interesting. It is certainly an essential backstop that allows me to give my support, as is the possibility of reviewing the scope after three years. It is quite a disappointment to me that the present scope does not extend to one-leg payments.
Finally, as regards Amendment 287, I persuaded my group not to table a similar amendment because, in addition to technical details, the data-protection issue is wider than this directive. That does not mean that the issue does not need addressing or, should it come to it, that a vote against the amendment is against the principle that it embodies, but I hope that another solution can be found that encompasses the idea without destroying the opportunity of this single-reading agreement."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples