Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-04-Speech-3-211"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080604.24.3-211"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it is a real pleasure for me to join you here today to talk about the Commission’s review of, and views on, the Pitella report.
SEPA is still new, and competition is needed for it to function fully: I particularly agree with Parliament on this. But I am confident it is working as well as we could expect at this point.
The area where there seems to be disagreement – as mentioned earlier – is the request to the Commission to issue guidelines on Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIFs). I have to be honest with you and say that I am not convinced that creating guidelines would be the right move at this stage and, based on our experience in this matter, I shall try to explain why.
The call for guidelines and ‘clarity’ from the Commission – and I understand the question of the rapporteur and his team – is a predictable follow-on from our MasterCard case. However, that decision – the MasterCard decision – was based solely on the specific facts of that case. With only one case to base such guidelines on, we would risk making bad guidelines that undermine our efforts to help consumers (that is again something we have in common: we – Parliament and the Commission – want to help consumers). One case is not the basis of a magic solution.
Other reasons guidelines might not work are because there are payment card systems in the EU that operate with a MIF, and others without a MIF. Decisions about a card scheme’s business model and financing mechanisms should be taken by the schemes themselves. Obviously, the Commission cannot prescribe specific business models. The assessment of the MIF of a developed system like MasterCard and the assessment of a MIF which new entrants in the market may wish to apply in order to start competing are not necessarily the same. At this stage the Commission has only assessed the MIF in systems like Visa and MasterCard. In the new framework laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, it is the responsibility of the parties to assess the legality of their behaviour under EC competition rules.
A non-confidential version of the MasterCard decision is published on our website, so we are transparent and we are clear. The Commission’s assessment of the MasterCard MIF can be used by other payment card systems as guidance, even if the assessment in the decision relates to MasterCard’s MIF and not to all possible MIFs. But there is a suggestion I make to assist the market as this issue develops – that is a gesture from my side. My services stand ready to further discuss with market participants and all stakeholders, and indeed they are already in close contact with the payment industry on this matter.
But allow me conclude in a positive way. The Commission very much welcomes Parliament’s clear support for the need for measures to improve the level of efficiency and functioning of the retail banking sector, which remains fragmented along national lines.
I am committed to working with you to address the issue of the MIFs. I hope that we can just conclude that the future is ours.
But first let me congratulate both Mr Pitella and Mr Karas on a wonderful job and thank Parliament for its interest in this issue.
We share many views on this issue, and that is a good starting point. Along with my dear colleague Charlie McCreevy and the Internal Market and Services DG, my services and I have put much effort into being students of retail banking and, like you, we are asking ourselves what could be improved. It would of course be stupid to say that everything is perfect, so ‘What could be better?’ is our main line of approach to this issue.
In our sector inquiry the EUR 1 350 billion a year card-payment-systems market gained much of our attention. That is not coffee money – EUR 1 350 billion on a yearly basis. We also looked at improving credit registers, helpful and unhelpful cooperation between banks, and bank fees.
In response specifically to a key point in the Pittella report, I may conclude that we have many points of agreement and one point of difference. On customer mobility: the ball is now in the industry’s court. It needs to develop a code of conduct, and it may face legislation if it does not take this opportunity and this challenge.
On consumer information and transparency: price comparison and product disclosure information is critical for consumers. But industry heavily contests suggestions for change so I fear that there might not be any progress. My colleague Commissioner Kuneva is collecting evidence on retail banking fees as part of one of her Consumer Market Scoreboard follow-ups. She will certainly be able to assess the diversity and transparency of banking fees and the corresponding level of consumer awareness. This fact-gathering is the first step for change.
On credit registers I have good news. The first meeting of the expert group on credit histories is planned in September 2008, which is not long now. Experts should present their recommendations to the Commission by 1 May 2009.
Credit intermediaries, such as mortgage brokers, are a growth industry with many vulnerable customers, so the Commission’s study of them will be of great interest. The results of that study are expected to be available in October 2008.
Concerning cooperation between banks, the Competition DG is still doing further fact-finding for our sector inquiry, so it is too early for me to make detailed comments on this matter at this stage."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples