Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-23-Speech-1-080"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20070423.16.1-080"6
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."@en4
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated 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."@cs1
"Hr. formand! Er jeg tilfreds med denne pakke? Svaret er "egentlig ikke". Støtter jeg den? Ja, fordi jeg mener, at det er fornuftigt at indføre et europæisk betalingssystem, der forbedrer det indre marked, og det er derfor fornuftigt at gennemføre dette tiltag, selv om det er langtfra perfekt. Det har overrasket mig, at det har været så vanskeligt at bringe os ud af den mørke middelalder med hensyn til betalingsfrister, kapitalkrav og elektroniske penge. Det spørgsmål, jeg som oftest er blevet stillet i forbindelse med dette direktiv, er "Vil betalingsomkostningerne blive reduceret?", og ikke "Vil betalingerne blive mere sikre?" Der er imidlertid ikke tale om et prisreguleringsdirektiv, så betalingsomkostningerne kan kun reduceres gennem øget konkurrence og gennemsigtighed, således at forbrugerne ved, hvad de får. Vi har skabt større gennemsigtighed, hvilket jeg hilser velkommen sammen med de andre nyttige beskyttelsesforanstaltninger til gavn for forbrugerne. Forhåbentlig vil udbyderne af betalingstjenesters mulighed for at tilbyde tjenester i de øvrige medlemsstater øge konkurrencen, men jeg frygter, at de nuværende kapitalkrav, herunder navnlig justeringsfaktorerne på 0,5 og 0,8 for henholdsvis remittenter og udbydere af mobile betalinger, er en gentagelse af de fejl, der blev begået i forbindelse med direktivet om e-penge. Det kan derfor blive interessant at gennemgå kapitalkravene efter tre år på grundlag af indhøstede erfaringer og evt. efter gennemførelse af den yderste fleksibilitetsgrænse på 20 %. Det er helt sikkert en afgørende bagstopper, der gør, at jeg kan støtte forslaget, hvilket også gælder for muligheden for at tage anvendelsesområdet op til revision efter tre år. Jeg er meget skuffet over, at ensidige betalinger ikke er omfattet af det nuværende anvendelsesområde. Med hensyn til ændringsforslag 287 overbeviste jeg min gruppe om ikke at stille et lignende forslag, da spørgsmålet om databeskyttelse ud over de tekniske detaljer rækker ud over dette direktiv. Det betyder ikke, at det ikke er nødvendigt at behandle dette spørgsmål, eller at en eventuel forkastelse af dette ændringsforslag er en forkastelse af det bagvedliggende princip, men jeg håber, at der kan findes en anden løsning, hvor dette princip fastholdes, uden at muligheden for at nå til enighed under førstebehandlingen ødelægges."@da2
"Herr Präsident! Bin ich mit diesem Paket zufrieden? Die Antwort lautet: „Nicht wirklich“. Unterstütze ich es? Ja, weil ich der Meinung bin, dass es sinnvoll ist, ein einheitliches europäisches Zahlungsverkehrssystem zu haben, um den Binnenmarkt zu verbessern, und dass es deshalb sinnvoll ist, diesen Schritt zu tun, auch wenn er keineswegs vollkommen ist. Ich finde es schon erstaunlich, wie schwer es war zu versuchen, die mittelalterlichen Zustände bei Zahlungsfristen, Eigenkapitalregelung und E-Geld zu überwinden. Die Frage, die mir im Zusammenhang mit dieser Richtlinie am häufigsten gestellt wurde, lautete: „Werden Zahlungen damit billiger?“ und nicht: „Werden Zahlungen damit sicherer?“. Aber bei dieser Richtlinie geht es nicht um eine Preisregulierung, so dass die einzige Möglichkeit, Zahlungen billiger zu machen, im verstärkten Wettbewerb und in der Transparenz besteht, damit die Verbraucher wissen, was sie bekommen. Wir haben mehr Transparenz erreicht, was ich begrüße, so wie ich auch die sonstigen nützlichen Schutzbestimmungen für Verbraucher gutheiße. Ich hoffe, dass der grenzüberschreitende Zahlungsverkehr den Wettbewerb fördern wird, befürchte jedoch, dass die weiterhin geltenden Eigenkapitalanforderungen und insbesondere die Skalierungsfaktoren von 0,5 and 0,8 für Finanztransferdienstleister bzw. mit Hilfe eines Mobiltelefons vorgenommene Zahlungsvorgänge bedeuten, dass wieder die gleichen Fehler wie in der E-Geld-Richtlinie gemacht werden. Eine Überprüfung der Eigenkapitalanforderungen nach drei Jahren anhand der gemachten Erfahrungen und vielleicht nach dem Funktionieren von Extremen bei der Umsetzung einer 20 %-igen Flexibilität könnte sich daher als interessant erweisen. Auf jeden Fall stellt es einen wesentlichen Schutz dar, so dass ich meine Unterstützung geben kann, was auch für die Möglichkeit gilt, den Geltungsbereich nach drei Jahren zu überprüfen. Ziemlich enttäuscht bin ich darüber, dass nur in eine Richtung gehende so genannte „one-leg“-Zahlungen nicht in den gegenwärtigen Geltungsbereich fallen. Was schließlich Änderungsantrag 287 betrifft, so habe ich meine Fraktion überzeugt, keinen ähnlich lautenden Änderungsantrag einzureichen, weil neben den technischen Einzelheiten die Frage des Datenschutzes umfassender als diese Richtlinie ist. Das bedeutet nicht, dass wir uns mit diesem Thema nicht befassen sollten, oder, wenn es dazu kommen sollte, dass eine Ablehnung des Änderungsantrags gegen den ihm zugrunde liegenden Grundsatz gerichtet ist, aber ich hoffe doch, dass eine andere Lösung gefunden werden kann, die diesem Gedanken gerecht wird, ohne die Möglichkeit einer Einigung in der ersten Lesung zunichte zu machen."@de9
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, λέτε να με χαροποιεί αυτή η δέσμη μέτρων; Η απάντηση είναι «όχι και τόσο». Την υποστηρίζω; Ναι, επειδή πιστεύω ότι είναι σκόπιμη η θέσπιση ενός ευρωπαϊκού συστήματος πληρωμών για τη βελτίωση της εσωτερικής αγοράς και, συνεπώς, είναι σκόπιμο να ληφθεί αυτό το μέτρο, αν και απέχει πολύ από το τέλειο. Εξεπλάγην για το πόσο δύσκολη υπήρξε η απόπειρα απομάκρυνσης από τον μεσαίωνα όσον αφορά τις προθεσμίες πληρωμών, τα κεφαλαιακά καθεστώτα και το ηλεκτρονικό χρήμα. Η ερώτηση η οποία μου τίθεται συχνότερα σχετικά με την εν λόγω οδηγία είναι αν «θα καταστήσει φθηνότερες τις πληρωμές», και όχι αν «θα καταστήσει ασφαλέστερες τις πληρωμές». Δεν πρόκειται όμως για μια οδηγία για τη ρύθμιση των τιμών· συνεπώς, ο μόνος τρόπος να καταστούν οι πληρωμές φθηνότερες είναι μέσω του μεγαλύτερου ανταγωνισμού και μέσω της διαφάνειας, ώστε οι καταναλωτές να γνωρίζουν τι λαμβάνουν. Έχουμε επιτύχει μεγαλύτερη διαφάνεια, την οποία θεωρώ ευπρόσδεκτη, όπως και τις άλλες χρήσιμες διασφαλίσεις για τους καταναλωτές. Ευελπιστώ ότι η ικανότητα διακίνησης των παρόχων υπηρεσιών πληρωμών θα ενισχύσει τον ανταγωνισμό, φοβάμαι όμως ότι τα τρέχοντα κεφαλαιακά καθεστώτα και ειδικά οι συντελεστές κλίμακας του 0,5 και 0,8 για τους αποστολείς εμβασμάτων και τα ευέλικτα εμβάσματα συνεπάγονται αντίστοιχα την επανάληψη των λαθών που διαπράχθηκαν στην οδηγία για το ηλεκτρονικό χρήμα. Μια αναθεώρηση του κεφαλαιακού καθεστώτος μετά από τρία χρόνια βάσει της αποκτηθείσας πείρας, και ίσως μετά τη λειτουργία του μέγιστου της εφαρμογής της 20% ευελιξίας, μπορεί, συνεπώς, να αποδειχθεί ενδιαφέρουσα. Αποτελεί ασφαλώς ένα απαραίτητο στήριγμα το οποίο μου παρέχει τη δυνατότητα να δώσω την υποστήριξή μου, όπως είναι η δυνατότητα αναθεώρησης του πεδίου εφαρμογής μετά από τρία χρόνια. Μου προξενεί ιδιαίτερη απογοήτευση το γεγονός ότι το ισχύον πεδίο εφαρμογής δεν περιλαμβάνει τις πληρωμές μεταξύ κρατών μελών της ΕΕ και τρίτων χωρών. Τέλος, όσον αφορά την τροπολογία 287, έπεισα την ομάδα μου να μην καταθέσει παρεμφερή τροπολογία επειδή, εκτός των τεχνικών λεπτομερειών, το θέμα της προστασίας δεδομένων είναι ευρύτερο από την παρούσα οδηγία. Αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι το θέμα δεν χρήζει αντιμετώπισης ή, σε περίπτωση που συμβεί αυτό, ότι η καταψήφιση της τροπολογίας αντιβαίνει στην αρχή την οποία περιλαμβάνει, ελπίζω όμως ότι μπορεί να βρεθεί μια άλλη λύση η οποία θα περιλαμβάνει την ιδέα χωρίς να καταστρέφει την ευκαιρία αυτής της συμφωνίας κατόπιν μίας μόνον ανάγνωσης."@el10
". Señor Presidente, ¿me siento satisfecha con este paquete? La respuesta es «no del todo». ¿Lo apoyaré? Sí, porque creo que tiene sentido tener un sistema de pagos europeo para mejorar el mercado único y, por lo tanto, tiene sentido dar este paso, por muy imperfecto que sea. Me ha sorprendido que haya sido tan difícil intentar salir del mundo de las tinieblas en lo tocante a plazos de pago, requisitos de capital y dinero electrónico. La pregunta que más he escuchado en torno a esta Directiva es: «¿hará que los pagos sean más baratos?» y no «¿hará que los pagos sean más seguros?». Pero no es una Directiva que regule los precios, por lo que la única forma de que los pagos sean más baratos consiste en que haya más competencia y transparencia, de modo que los consumidores sepan lo que reciben. Hemos conseguido más transparencia, y me complace, al igual que me complacen otras salvaguardias útiles para los consumidores. Esperemos que la capacidad de los proveedores de servicios de pago para traspasar fronteras mejore la competencia, pero me temo que los requisitos de capital continuo y sobre todo los factores de escalado de 0,5 y 0,8 para las agencias de transferencia de dinero y las oficinas móviles, respectivamente, signifiquen una repetición de los errores de la Directiva sobre dinero electrónico. Una revisión de los requisitos de capital al cabo de tres años, a la luz de la experiencia, y quizás después de funcionar los extremos de implementación del 20 % de flexibilidad, podría, pues, resultar interesante. Realmente es una protección esencial que me permite expresar mi apoyo, al igual que la posibilidad de revisar el ámbito de aplicación al cabo de tres años. Me parece decepcionante que el ámbito actual no abarque los pagos en los que solo una de las partes implicadas pertenece a la UE. Finalmente, en relación con la enmienda 287, estoy convencida de que mi Grupo no presentará una enmienda similar porque, además de los detalles técnicos, el tema de la protección de datos es más amplio que esta Directiva. Esto no significa que la cuestión no deba abordarse o, si se diera el caso, que un voto en contra de la enmienda se dirija en contra del principio que encarna, pero espero que se pueda encontrar otra solución que incluya la idea sin destruir la oportunidad que representa este acuerdo de lectura única."@es21
"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."@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, olenko tyytyväinen tähän ehdotukseen? Vastaus on, "en oikeastaan". Tuenko ehdotusta? Kyllä, koska mielestäni on järkevää, että on olemassa EU:n maksujärjestelmä yhtenäismarkkinoiden toiminnan parantamiseksi. Näin ollen tämän direktiivin hyväksyminen on järkevää, vaikka ehdotus onkin kaukana täydellisestä. Minua on hämmästyttänyt se, kuinka vaikeaa on ollut jättää taakse pimeän keskiajan käsitykset maksuajoista, pääomavaatimuksista ja sähköisestä rahasta. Minulle tästä direktiivistä useimmin esitetty kysymys on ollut "Halpenevatko maksut?" eikä "Tuleeko maksuista entistä turvallisempia?". Tämä ei kuitenkaan ole hintoja sääntelevä direktiivi, joten ainoa tapa tehdä maksuista entistä edullisempia on lisätä kilpailua ja avoimuutta, jotta kuluttajat tietävät, millaisia palveluja he saavat. Avoimuus on lisääntynyt, mistä olen iloinen, samoin kuin muista hyödyllisistä kuluttajia suojelevista säännöksistä. Toivottavasti maksupalveluntarjoajien mahdollisuus toimia kotimaansa ulkopuolella lisää kilpailua. Pelkään kuitenkin, että jatkuvaa pääomaa koskevat vaatimukset ja etenkin skaalauskertoimet 0,5 rahansiirtopalvelujen tarjoajille ja 0,8 langattoman rahansiirron tarjoajille merkitsevät sitä, että toistetaan sähköistä rahaa koskevan direktiivin yhteydessä tehdyt virheet. Pääomavaatimusten tarkastelu uudelleen kolmen vuoden kuluttua saatujen kokemusten valossa ja ehkä sen jälkeen, kun täytäntöönpanossa sallitun 20 prosentin joustavuuden äärivaihtoehtoja on sovellettu, voi näin ollen osoittautua hyvin mielenkiintoiseksi. Se on varmasti ainakin tärkeä suojaverkko, jonka ansiosta voin tukea ehdotusta, samoin kuin mahdollisuus tarkastella uudelleen direktiivin soveltamisalaa kolmen vuoden kuluttua. Minusta oli melkoinen pettymys, ettei nykyinen soveltamisala käsitä maksuja, joissa vain yksi maksutapahtuman osapuolista on sijoittautunut Euroopan unioniin. Lopuksi toteaisin tarkistuksesta 287, että sain oman ryhmäni luopumaan samanlaisen tarkistuksen jättämisestä, koska teknisten yksityiskohtien lisäksi tietosuojakysymykset ovat liian laajoja tämän direktiivin yhteydessä käsiteltäviksi. Tämä ei tarkoita, etteikö asiaa olisi tarpeen käsitellä tai että tarkistusta vastaan äänestäminen mahdollisessa äänestyksessä olisi kannanotto tarkistuksen ilmentämää periaatetta vastaan. Toivon kuitenkin, että löydetään jokin muu ratkaisu, joka sisältäisi saman ajatuksen tuhoamatta mahdollisuutta päästä sopimukseen ensimmäisessä käsittelyssä."@fi7
". Monsieur le Président, suis-je satisfaite de ce paquet? La réponse est «pas vraiment». Est-ce que je lui apporte mon soutien? Oui, parce que je pense qu’il est judicieux de se doter d’un système européen de paiement pour améliorer le marché unique et, par conséquent, j’estime que cette démarche est bonne, bien qu’elle soit loin d’être parfaite. J’ai été étonnée de constater à quel point, en matière de délai d’exécution des paiements, de régime en matière de capital et d’argent électronique, il a été difficile de tenter de sortir de cette période sombre. La question qu’on m’a posée le plus souvent concernant cette directive, c’est: «Est-ce qu’elle rendra les paiements moins chers?», et non pas: «Est-ce qu’elle rendra les paiements plus sûrs?» Mais ceci n’est pas une directive de réglementation des prix, donc la seule manière de rendre les paiements moins chers consiste à intensifier la concurrence et à augmenter la transparence, pour que les consommateurs sachent ce qu’il en est. Nous sommes parvenus à une plus grande transparence, ce dont je me réjouis, de même pour les autres sauvegardes utiles pour les consommateurs. J’espère que la capacité des prestataires de services de paiement à agir améliorera la concurrence, mais je crains que les régimes en matière de capital permanent, et surtout les barèmes de 0,5 et 0,8 applicables aux expéditeurs de fonds et aux opérateurs de télécommunications mobiles respectivement, ne signifie une répétition des erreurs commises dans la directive monnaie électronique. Réviser le régime en matière de détention de capital au bout de trois ans à la lumière de l’expérience, et peut-être après avoir laissé fonctionner les extrêmes de mise en œuvre de 20 % de flexibilité, pourrait donc s’avérer intéressant. Cela représente certainement un filet de sécurité essentiel qui me permet d’apporter mon soutien, de même que la possibilité de réviser le champ d’application au bout de trois ans. Mais je suis très déçue que les paiements UE-pays tiers ne soient pas inclus dans le champ d’application actuel. Enfin, en ce qui concerne l’amendement 287, j’ai convaincu mon groupe de ne pas déposer d’amendement similaire parce que, outre les détails techniques, la question de la protection des données dépasse l’objet de cette directive. Cela ne veut pas dire que la question ne doit pas être traitée ou que, si elle l’était, un vote contre l’amendement serait contre le principe qu’elle incarne, mais j’espère qu’on pourra trouver une autre solution englobant l’idée sans détruire l’opportunité de cet accord en lecture unique."@fr8
"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."@hu11
". Signor Presidente, mi posso ritenere soddisfatta di questo pacchetto? Non del tutto. Lo sostengo? Sì, perché credo sia opportuno dotarsi di un sistema europeo di pagamenti per migliorare il mercato unico e quindi è bene compiere questo passo, per quanto sia lungi dall’essere perfetto. Sono stupefatta per come sia stato difficile tentare di uscire dal medioevo in materia di tempi dei pagamenti, regimi patrimoniali e denaro elettronico. La domanda che mi è stata rivolta più spesso su questa direttiva è stata: “I pagamenti costeranno meno?”, e non “Saranno più sicuri?”. Ma questa non è una direttiva sulla disciplina dei prezzi, quindi l’unico modo di rendere meno cari i pagamenti è attraverso una maggiore concorrenza e attraverso la trasparenza in modo che i consumatori abbiano consapevolezza di quello che comprano. Siamo riusciti a infondere una maggiore trasparenza, che giudico positivamente, come ritengo positive le altre opportune salvaguardie a beneficio dei consumatori. E’ auspicabile che l’autorizzazione per i prestatori dei servizi di pagamento intensifichi la concorrenza, ma temo che, per quanto concerne i regimi patrimoniali operativi e soprattutto i fattori scalari dello 0,5 e dello 0,8 rispettivamente per le società che prestano servizi di pagamento e per i pagamenti effettuati mediante cellulari, possano ripetersi gli errori compiuti nella direttiva sui pagamenti elettronici. Una revisione del regime patrimoniale dopo tre anni alla luce dell’esperienza maturata e forse dopo aver raggiunto gli estremi dell’attuazione con una flessibilità del 20 per cento potrebbe quindi rivelarsi interessante. E’ certamente un paletto essenziale che mi consente di accordare il mio sostegno, cui si aggiunge anche la possibilità di rivedere il campo d’azione dopo tre anni. E’ assai deludente che il campo d’azione attuale non si estenda ai pagamenti . Infine, per quanto concerne l’emendamento n. 287, ho convinto il mio gruppo a non presentare un emendamento analogo, poiché, oltre ai dettagli tecnici, la questione della protezione dei dati va oltre la portata di questa direttiva. Ciò non significa che la questione non debba essere affrontata o, se ci dovessimo arrivare, che un voto contro l’emendamento sia un voto contro il principio che esso incarna, ma spero che si riesca a trovare un’altra soluzione in cui sia presente questa idea senza distruggere la possibilità di raggiungere un accordo con un’unica lettura."@it12
"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."@lt14
"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."@lv13
"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."@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, het antwoord op de vraag of ik blij ben met dit pakket, is: niet echt. Toch steun ik het pakket, omdat ik het verstandig vind dat er een Europees betalingssysteem komt dat tot een betere interne markt leidt. Daarom is deze stap zinvol, al is hij verre van volmaakt. Ik sta er versteld van hoe moeilijk het is gebleken om ons aan de middeleeuwen te ontworstelen als het gaat om betaaltermijnen, kapitaalregelingen en elektronisch geld. De vraag die me het meest is gesteld over deze richtlijn is: “Worden betalingen er goedkoper door?” en niet: “Worden betalingen er veiliger door?”. Maar het draait in deze richtlijn niet om prijsregulering, dus de enige manier om betalingen goedkoper te maken is door middel van meer concurrentie en transparantie, zodat consumenten weten wat ze krijgen. We hebben meer transparantie gecreëerd en dat juich ik toe, evenals de andere nuttige beschermingsmaatregelen voor consumenten. Hopelijk leidt het vermogen van de betalingsdienstaanbieders om grensoverschrijdend te opereren tot meer concurrentie, maar ik vrees dat de bestaande kapitaalregelingen en met name de schaalfactoren 0,5 en 0,8 voor respectievelijk geldtransactiekantoren en overmakingen met behulp van een mobiele telefoon zullen leiden tot een herhaling van de fouten die we in de richtlijn inzake e-geld hebben gemaakt. Een evaluatie van de kapitaalregeling na drie jaar ervaringen en nadat misschien is gebleken tot welke verschillen de flexibiliteit van 20 procent in de tenuitvoerlegging hebben geleid, zou dus interessant kunnen zijn. Het is in ieder geval een veiligheidsvoorziening die maakt dat ik mijn steun kan uitspreken, en dat geldt ook voor de mogelijkheid om het toepassingsgebied na drie jaar te evalueren. Ik vind het zeer teleurstellend dat het huidige toepassingsgebied zich niet uitstrekt tot betalingen die maar met één been in de EU staan. Tot slot iets over amendement 287. Ik heb mijn fractie weten over te halen om geen vergelijkbaar amendement in te dienen omdat de kwestie gegevensbescherming, naast de technische bijzonderheden, breder is dan deze richtlijn. Dat betekent niet dat we ons niet over de kwestie moeten buigen of, als het daarop aan komt, dat een stem tegen het amendement een stem is tegen het beginsel waar het voor staat, maar ik hoop dat er een andere oplossing kan worden gevonden waarin dit idee is opgenomen zonder dat we de kans verspelen om in eerste lezing tot overeenkomst te komen."@nl3
"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."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, este "pacote" satisfaz-me? A resposta é "nem por isso". Apoio-o? Sim, porque considero que faz sentido termos um sistema de pagamentos europeu que aperfeiçoe o mercado único e, portanto, faz sentido dar este passo, a despeito de todas as deficiências que encerra. Fiquei atónita com a dificuldade de que se tem revestido a tarefa de nos fazer sair da Idade Média em matéria de prazos de pagamento, requisitos de capital e moeda electrónica. A pergunta que mais me fizeram a propósito desta directiva foi, "Vai embaratecer as operações de pagamento?", e não "Vai tornar os pagamentos mais seguros?" Mas não se trata de uma directiva de regulamentação de preços, pelo que o único meio de as embaratecer é por via do aumento da concorrência e da transparência, para que os consumidores saibam o serviço que lhes é prestado. Conseguimos garantir uma maior transparência, que eu saúdo, como saúdo outros mecanismos úteis de salvaguarda do consumidor. Esperemos que a capacidade dos prestadores de serviços de pagamento para ultrapassar as fronteiras potencie a concorrência, mas temo que os requisitos mínimos permanentes de capital e, sobretudo, os coeficientes de 0,5 e 0,8 para as instituições de envio de fundos e as transferências através de redes móveis, respectivamente, constituam uma reedição dos erros cometidos no quadro da directiva relativa à moeda electrónica. A revisão dos requisitos de capital ao fim de três anos, à luz da experiência acumulada, eventualmente com recurso a uma margem de ajustamento dos valores-limite de 20%, pode, por isso, vir a revelar-se interessante. É, sem dúvida, um respaldo essencial, que me permite dar o meu apoio, tal como a possibilidade de revisão do âmbito ao cabo de três anos. É para mim uma grande decepção que o actual âmbito não abranja os pagamentos em que apenas um dos prestadores de serviços de pagamentos se localiza na Comunidade. Finalmente, no que toca à alteração 287, dissuadi o meu grupo de apresentar uma alteração similar, porque, pormenores técnicos à parte, a questão da protecção de dados tem um âmbito mais lato que a presente directiva. Isso não significa que não precise de ser abordada ou que um eventual voto contrário à alteração, a acontecer, seja dirigido contra o princípio que ela consagra, mas espero que se possa encontrar outra solução, que contemple a ideia sem deitar a perder a oportunidade de acordo à primeira leitura."@pt17
"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."@ro18
"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."@sk19
"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."@sl20
"Herr talman! Är jag nöjd med detta paket? Svaret är ”inte särskilt”. Stöder jag det? Ja, för det är förnuftigt att ha ett europeiskt betalningssystem för att förbättra den inre marknaden och därför är det också rimligt att ta detta steg, trots att det är allt annat än perfekt. Jag är mycket förvånad över hur svårt det har varit att finna moderna lösningar för betalningstider, kapitalsystem och elektroniska pengar. Den vanligaste frågan som jag har fått om direktivet är om betalningarna kommer att bli billigare, inte om de kommer att bli säkrare. Men detta är inget prisregleringsdirektiv, utan det enda sättet att göra betalningar billigare är genom ökad konkurrens och insyn, så att konsumenterna vet vad de får. Vi har ökat insynen och det välkomnar jag, och jag välkomnar även de andra användbara säkerhetsmekanismerna för konsumenter. Förhoppningsvis kommer betaltjänstleverantörernas möjlighet att flytta ut att öka konkurrensen, men jag är rädd att de nuvarande kapitalsystemen och framför allt graderingsfaktorerna på 0,5 och 0,8 för betalningsförmedlare respektive mobila förmedlingstjänster innebär att vi upprepar misstagen från direktivet om elektroniska pengar. Därför kan en översyn av kapitalsystemet efter tre år mot bakgrund av inhämtade erfarenheter, och kanske efter införandet av 20 procents flexibilitet, visa sig bli intressant. Det är utan tvekan tack vare en ordentlig stötdämpare, och möjligheten att se över tillämpningsområdet efter tre år, som jag stöder betänkandet. Jag är besviken över att tillämpningsområdet inte omfattar betalningar där den ena parten finns utanför EU. Slutligen övertygade jag min grupp om att inte lägga fram ett ändringsförslag som liknar ändringsförslag 287, dels på grund av tekniska detaljer, men också därför att frågan om skydd av uppgifter omfattar mer än detta direktiv. Det betyder inte att frågan inte behöver tas upp eller att en eventuell omröstning mot ändringsförslaget strider mot den princip som förslaget gäller, men jag hoppas att vi kan finna en annan lösning som innefattar idén utan att förstöra möjligheten att nå en överenskommelse vid första behandlingen."@sv22
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Sharon Bowles,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
"on behalf of the ALDE Group"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Czech.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Danish.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Dutch.ttl.gz
4http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
5http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Estonian.ttl.gz
6http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
7http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Finnish.ttl.gz
8http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/French.ttl.gz
9http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/German.ttl.gz
10http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Greek.ttl.gz
11http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Hungarian.ttl.gz
12http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Italian.ttl.gz
13http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Latvian.ttl.gz
14http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Lithuanian.ttl.gz
15http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Maltese.ttl.gz
16http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Polish.ttl.gz
17http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Portuguese.ttl.gz
18http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Romanian.ttl.gz
19http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Slovak.ttl.gz
20http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Slovenian.ttl.gz
21http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Spanish.ttl.gz
22http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Swedish.ttl.gz
23http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph