Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-23-Speech-1-083"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20070423.16.1-083"6
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I totally disagree with Mr Whittaker about MiFID and its consequences. I think MiFID will be a revolution for trading in European markets and it will deliver very good results in Europe. I think the Commissioner agrees with me on this. Overall, the Payment Services Directive represents a very positive step in internal market harmonisation. Like the Commissioner, I believe that with the present agreement we have reached a balance between banks and other service providers on the one hand and consumers on the other. This was an instance in which the market was not delivering the best possible results and regulation was really needed. I would like to raise three brief points of substance. Firstly, I very much agree with Mrs Bowles concerning capital regime. I would have favoured the EC’s original proposal on capital requirements. I think that it might not be enough of a level playing field, and new access-related barriers might appear especially for non-banks. I should have liked to see a more liberal competition regime in these aspects. Secondly, on the question of credit granted, especially by credit card companies which are non-banks, there are possible disadvantages for these credit card companies, but we can look at these issues again in our review in three years’ time. Thirdly, on the liability of payment service providers, I understand that there is an in-built flexibility in payment contracts on what, for example, the payer’s responsibility is in cases like Mr Radwan referred to, when the payment does not appear when it should. However, I think the strict definition on liability in the directive could be too rigid and inflexible and it should have been reformed. On the other hand, we can also go back to this in the review. Finally, concerning the single reading process, I think Parliament, the Commission and the Council interacted very well on this. However, we were put in a ‘take it or leave it’ situation and it would have been better if Parliament had been able to put substantial amendments in place before the vote in plenary. However, all in all the single reading is a good step towards modernising our legislative processes, but it is not an end in itself. We have a good compromise on this directive, but if this is not the case, the single reading should not be used."@en4
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I totally disagree with Mr Whittaker about MiFID and its consequences. I think MiFID will be a revolution for trading in European markets and it will deliver very good results in Europe. I think the Commissioner agrees with me on this. Overall, the Payment Services Directive represents a very positive step in internal market harmonisation. Like the Commissioner, I believe that with the present agreement we have reached a balance between banks and other service providers on the one hand and consumers on the other. This was an instance in which the market was not delivering the best possible results and regulation was really needed. I would like to raise three brief points of substance. Firstly, I very much agree with Mrs Bowles concerning capital regime. I would have favoured the EC’s original proposal on capital requirements. I think that it might not be enough of a level playing field, and new access-related barriers might appear especially for non-banks. I should have liked to see a more liberal competition regime in these aspects. Secondly, on the question of credit granted, especially by credit card companies which are non-banks, there are possible disadvantages for these credit card companies, but we can look at these issues again in our review in three years’ time. Thirdly, on the liability of payment service providers, I understand that there is an in-built flexibility in payment contracts on what, for example, the payer’s responsibility is in cases like Mr Radwan referred to, when the payment does not appear when it should. However, I think the strict definition on liability in the directive could be too rigid and inflexible and it should have been reformed. On the other hand, we can also go back to this in the review. Finally, concerning the single reading process, I think Parliament, the Commission and the Council interacted very well on this. However, we were put in a ‘take it or leave it’ situation and it would have been better if Parliament had been able to put substantial amendments in place before the vote in plenary. However, all in all the single reading is a good step towards modernising our legislative processes, but it is not an end in itself. We have a good compromise on this directive, but if this is not the case, the single reading should not be used."@cs1
"Hr. formand! Jeg vil gerne indledningsvis påpege, at jeg er fuldstændig uenig med hr. Whittaker om direktivet om markeder for finansielle instrumenter og dets følger. Jeg mener, at direktivet om markeder for finansielle instrumenter vil få revolutionerende indvirkning på handelen på de europæiske markeder, og at det vil skabe meget fine resultater i Europa. Jeg tror, at kommissæren er enig med mig på dette punkt. Direktivet om betalingstjenester er overordnet set et meget positivt tiltag til fremme af harmoniseringen af det indre marked. I lighed med kommissæren mener jeg, at vi med den nuværende aftale har sikret en balance mellem bankerne og andre tjenesteudbydere på den ene side og forbrugerne på den anden side. Der var her tale om en situation, hvor markedet ikke leverede de bedst mulige resultater, og det var virkelig nødvendigt at indføre lovgivning. Jeg vil gerne kort berøre tre vigtige punkter. For det første er jeg meget enig med fru Bowles med hensyn til kapitalkrav. Jeg ville have foretrukket EU's oprindelige forslag om kapitalkrav. Jeg mener, at spillereglerne måske ikke er tilstrækkelig ensartede, og der vil muligvis opstå nye adgangsrelaterede barrierer, navnlig for andre foretagender end banker. Jeg havde gerne set mere liberale konkurrenceregler på disse områder. Med hensyn til långivning, navnlig lån ydet af kreditkortselskaber, der ikke er banker, er der for det andet muligvis visse ulemper for disse kreditkortselskaber, men vi kan se på disse spørgsmål igen i forbindelse med revisionen om ca. tre år. Med hensyn til udbyderne af betalingstjenesters ansvar er jeg for det tredje opmærksom på, at der er indbygget en fleksibilitet i betalingskontrakterne f.eks. vedrørende betalerens ansvar i de tilfælde, som hr. Radwan henviste til, når betalingen ikke når frem til tiden. Jeg mener imidlertid, at den strenge definition af ansvar, der er fastlagt i direktivet, måske er for streng og ufleksibel, og den burde have været ændret. Vi kan på den anden side også vende tilbage til dette spørgsmål i forbindelse med revisionen. Med hensyn til førstebehandlingen mener jeg endelig, at Parlamentet, Kommissionen og Rådet har haft et vældig godt samarbejde. Vi blev imidlertid tvunget til at sige enten ja eller nej, og det ville have været bedre, hvis Parlamentet havde fået mulighed for at stille vigtige ændringsforslag inden plenarafstemningen. Det forhold, at vi kan nøjes med én enkelt behandling, er imidlertid overordnet set et positivt tiltag, der bidrager til moderniseringen af vores lovgivningsprocesser, men det er ikke et mål i sig selv. Vi er nået frem til et godt kompromis om dette direktiv, men når dette ikke er tilfældet, bør vi ikke nøjes med én behandling."@da2
"Herr Präsident! Ich möchte zunächst feststellen, dass ich ganz und gar nicht einverstanden mit dem bin, was Herr Whittaker zur MiFID und ihren Folgen gesagt hat. Meiner Ansicht nach wird die MiFID den Handel in den europäischen Märkten revolutionieren und sehr gute Ergebnisse in Europa bringen. Ich glaube, der Herr Kommissar ist da einer Meinung mit mir. Insgesamt ist die Richtlinie über Zahlungsdienste ein überaus positiver Schritt bei der Harmonisierung des Binnenmarktes. Wie der Herr Kommissar bin auch ich der Meinung, dass wir mit der vorliegenden Einigung ein Gleichgewicht zwischen Banken und anderen Dienstleistern auf der einen und Verbrauchern auf der anderen Seite erreicht haben. Hier haben wir einen Fall, wo der Markt nicht die besten Ergebnisse erbracht hat und eine Regulierung tatsächlich erforderlich war. Ich möchte drei kurze wesentliche Punkte ansprechen. Erstens stimme ich voll und ganz den Ausführungen von Frau Bowles zur Eigenkapitalregelung zu. Ich wäre für den ursprünglichen Vorschlag der EK zu den Eigenkapitalanforderungen gewesen. Meiner Ansicht nach haben wir möglicherweise nicht ausreichend gleiche Ausgangsbedingungen, und neue Zugangshürden könnten sich besonders für Nichtbanken ergeben. In dieser Hinsicht hätte ich mir liberalere Wettbewerbsbedingungen gewünscht. Zweitens, zur Frage der Kreditvergabe, besonders durch Kreditkartenunternehmen, bei denen es sich um Nichtbanken handelt, wo diesen Unternehmen möglicherweise Nachteile entstehen könnten, doch mit diesem Thema könnten wir uns bei unserer Überprüfung in drei Jahren nochmal befassen. Drittens, zur Haftung der Zahlungsdienstleister, besteht offensichtlich eine inhärente Flexibilität im Zahlungsverkehr, beispielsweise bei der Verantwortung des Einzahlers in Fällen, wie sie Herr Radwan nannte, wenn die Zahlung nicht termingemäß erscheint. Die Definition der Haftung in der Richtlinie könnte sich als zu starr und unflexibel erweisen und hätte meines Erachtens geändert werden müssen. Wir können aber auch bei der Überarbeitung darauf zurückkommen. Abschließend noch ein Wort zur Einigung in erster Lesung. Ich denke, dass das Parlament, die Kommission und der Rat hier sehr gut zusammengearbeitet haben. Allerdings wurden wir in eine Situation gebracht, in der wir es entweder akzeptieren oder sein lassen konnten. Es wäre besser gewesen, wenn das Parlament die Möglichkeit gehabt hätte, wesentliche Änderungen vor der Abstimmung im Plenum einzubringen. Insgesamt ist eine einzige Lesung allerdings ein positiver Schritt in Richtung einer Modernisierung unserer Gesetzgebungsprozesse, jedoch kein Selbstzweck. Bei dieser Richtlinie haben wir einen guten Kompromiss erzielt, doch wenn das nicht der Fall ist, sollte keine einzige Lesung erfolgen."@de9
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θέλω καταρχάς να επισημάνω ότι διαφωνώ απολύτως με τον κ. Whittaker για τη MiFID και τις συνέπειές της. Πιστεύω ότι η MiFID θα αποτελέσει επανάσταση για τις συναλλαγές στις ευρωπαϊκές αγορές και θα αποφέρει πολύ καλά αποτελέσματα στην Ευρώπη. Πιστεύω ότι ο Επίτροπος συμφωνεί μαζί μου επ’ αυτού. Γενικά, η οδηγία για τις υπηρεσίες πληρωμών αποτελεί ένα πολύ θετικό βήμα προς την κατεύθυνση της εναρμόνισης της εσωτερικής αγοράς. Όπως ο Επίτροπος, πιστεύω ότι με την παρούσα συμφωνία επιτύχαμε μια ισορροπία μεταξύ των τραπεζών και άλλων παρόχων υπηρεσιών, αφενός, και των καταναλωτών, αφετέρου. Ήταν μια περίπτωση στην οποία η αγορά δεν απέφερε τα καλύτερα δυνατά αποτελέσματα, οπότε η ρύθμιση ήταν όντως απαραίτητη. Θέλω να θέσω τρία σύντομα θέματα επί της ουσίας. Πρώτον, συμφωνώ πάρα πολύ με την κ. Bowles σχετικά με το κεφαλαιακό καθεστώς. Θα προτιμούσα την αρχική πρόταση της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής για τις κεφαλαιακές απαιτήσεις. Πιστεύω ότι ενδεχομένως δεν αρκεί για την επίτευξη ίσων όρων ανταγωνισμού, και ίσως εμφανιστούν νέοι φραγμοί όσον αφορά την πρόσβαση ειδικά για τα μη τραπεζικά ιδρύματα. Θα επιθυμούσα, πάντως, πιο ελεύθερο καθεστώς ανταγωνισμού σχετικά με αυτές τις πτυχές. Δεύτερον, όσον αφορά το ζήτημα της χορήγησης πιστώσεων, ιδίως από εταιρείες πιστωτικών καρτών μη τραπεζικού χαρακτήρα, υπάρχουν πιθανά μειονεκτήματα γι’ αυτές τις εταιρείες πιστωτικών καρτών, αλλά μπορούμε να εξετάσουμε αυτά τα θέματα εκ νέου κατά την αναθεώρησή μας σε τρία χρόνια. Τρίτον, όσον αφορά την ευθύνη των παρόχων υπηρεσιών πληρωμών, κατανοώ ότι υπάρχει εγγενής ευελιξία στις συμβάσεις πληρωμής όσον αφορά το ποια είναι, επί παραδείγματι, η ευθύνη του πληρωτή σε περιπτώσεις όπως αυτές που ανέφερε ο κ. Radwan, όταν η πληρωμή δεν εμφανίζεται όταν θα έπρεπε. Εντούτοις, πιστεύω ότι ο αυστηρός ορισμός της ευθύνης στην οδηγία θα μπορούσε να είναι πολύ άκαμπτος και ανελαστικός και θα έπρεπε να τροποποιηθεί. Από την άλλη πλευρά, μπορούμε επίσης να επανέλθουμε σε αυτό κατά την αναθεώρηση. Τέλος, όσον αφορά τη διαδικασία μοναδικής ανάγνωσης, πιστεύω ότι το Κοινοβούλιο, η Επιτροπή και το Συμβούλιο συνεργάστηκαν πολύ καλά. Εντούτοις, βρεθήκαμε ενώπιον του διλήμματος είτε να αποδεχτούμε το κείμενο ως είχε είτε να το απορρίψουμε· θα ήταν, λοιπόν, προτιμότερο αν το Κοινοβούλιο είχε τη δυνατότητα να καταθέσει ουσιαστικές τροπολογίες πριν από την ψηφοφορία της Ολομέλειας. Εντούτοις, γενικά η μοναδική ανάγνωση αποτελεί καλό βήμα προς τον εκσυγχρονισμό των νομοθετικών διαδικασιών μας, αλλά δεν είναι αυτοσκοπός. Έχουμε μια καλή συμβιβαστική λύση γι’ αυτήν την οδηγία, αλλά, εάν δεν ισχύει αυτό, η μοναδική ανάγνωση δεν πρέπει να χρησιμοποιηθεί."@el10
"Señor Presidente, quiero empezar diciendo que estoy totalmente en contra de lo que ha dicho el señor Whittaker sobre la MiFID y sus consecuencias. Creo que la MiFID será una revolución para el comercio en los mercados europeos y que dará muy buenos resultados en Europa. Creo que el Comisario está de acuerdo conmigo al respecto. En general, la Directiva sobre servicios de pago constituye un paso muy positivo en la armonización del mercado interior. Igual que el Comisario, creo que con el presente acuerdo hemos llegado a un equilibrio entre los bancos y los demás proveedores de servicios por una parte y los consumidores por otra. Era un ámbito en que el mercado no estaba dando los mejores resultados posibles y realmente hacía falta una reglamentación. Quiero plantear tres puntos breves respecto al contenido. En primer lugar, estoy totalmente de acuerdo con la señora Bowles en relación con los requisitos de capital. Yo habría votado a favor de la propuesta original de la Comisión Europea sobre requisitos de capital. Creo que tal vez no asegurara suficientemente la igualdad de oportunidades y que podrían aparecer barreras al acceso, sobre todo para las entidades no bancarias. Me habría gustado ver un régimen de competencia más liberal en esos aspectos. En segundo lugar, sobre la cuestión de los préstamos concedidos, sobre todo por las compañías de tarjetas de crédito que no son bancos, existen posibles desventajas para estas compañías, pero podremos volver sobre estos temas en la revisión que tendrá lugar dentro de tres años. En tercer lugar, sobre la responsabilidad de los proveedores de servicios de pago, entiendo que existe una flexibilidad intrínseca en los contratos de pagos, por ejemplo en relación con la responsabilidad del pagador en casos como el que ha mencionado el señor Radwan, cuando el pago no aparece cuando debería. Sin embargo, creo que la estricta definición de la responsabilidad en la Directiva podría ser demasiado rígida e inflexible, y quizás debería haberse reformulado. Por otro lado, podremos hacerlo también en la revisión. Finalmente, en cuanto al proceso de lectura única, creo que el Parlamento, la Comisión y el Consejo han cooperado muy bien en este sentido. Sin embargo, nos han puesto en una situación de «lo tomas o lo dejas» y habría sido mejor que el Parlamento hubiera podido presentar enmiendas de contenido antes de la votación en el Pleno. Con todo, la lectura única es un buen paso hacia la modernización de nuestros procesos legislativos, pero no es un fin en sí misma. Tenemos un buen compromiso respecto a esta Directiva, pero en caso contrario no debería utilizarse la lectura única."@es21
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I totally disagree with Mr Whittaker about MiFID and its consequences. I think MiFID will be a revolution for trading in European markets and it will deliver very good results in Europe. I think the Commissioner agrees with me on this. Overall, the Payment Services Directive represents a very positive step in internal market harmonisation. Like the Commissioner, I believe that with the present agreement we have reached a balance between banks and other service providers on the one hand and consumers on the other. This was an instance in which the market was not delivering the best possible results and regulation was really needed. I would like to raise three brief points of substance. Firstly, I very much agree with Mrs Bowles concerning capital regime. I would have favoured the EC’s original proposal on capital requirements. I think that it might not be enough of a level playing field, and new access-related barriers might appear especially for non-banks. I should have liked to see a more liberal competition regime in these aspects. Secondly, on the question of credit granted, especially by credit card companies which are non-banks, there are possible disadvantages for these credit card companies, but we can look at these issues again in our review in three years’ time. Thirdly, on the liability of payment service providers, I understand that there is an in-built flexibility in payment contracts on what, for example, the payer’s responsibility is in cases like Mr Radwan referred to, when the payment does not appear when it should. However, I think the strict definition on liability in the directive could be too rigid and inflexible and it should have been reformed. On the other hand, we can also go back to this in the review. Finally, concerning the single reading process, I think Parliament, the Commission and the Council interacted very well on this. However, we were put in a ‘take it or leave it’ situation and it would have been better if Parliament had been able to put substantial amendments in place before the vote in plenary. However, all in all the single reading is a good step towards modernising our legislative processes, but it is not an end in itself. We have a good compromise on this directive, but if this is not the case, the single reading should not be used."@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, haluan aloittaa toteamalla, että olen aivan eri mieltä jäsen Whittakerin kanssa rahoitusvälineiden markkinoita koskevasta direktiivistä ja sen vaikutuksista. Mielestäni kyseinen direktiivi vaikuttaa vastaisuudessa mullistavasti kaupankäyntiin EU:n markkinoilla, joten direktiivillä saavutetaan vielä hyviä tuloksia. Uskon, että komission jäsen on kanssani tästä yhtä mieltä. Kaiken kaikkiaan maksupalveluja koskeva direktiivi on erittäin myönteinen toimi sisämarkkinoiden yhdenmukaistamisen kannalta. Komission jäsenen tavoin olen sitä mieltä, että tällä sopimuksella saavutetaan toisaalta pankkien ja muiden maksupalveluntarjoajien sekä toisaalta kuluttajien välinen tasapaino. Tällä alalla markkinoiden omalla toiminnalla ei saavutettu parhaita mahdollisia tuloksia, joten sääntelyä todella tarvittiin. Haluaisin käsitellä lyhyesti kolmea asiaa. Ensinnäkin olen pitkälti samaa mieltä jäsen Bowlesin kanssa pääomavaatimuksista. Mielestäni Euroopan komission alkuperäinen ehdotus pääomavaatimuksista olisi ollut parempi. Mielestäni toimintaedellytykset eivät ehkä ole riittävän tasavertaiset ja esiin saattaa tulla uusia markkinoillepääsyn esteitä etenkin muille laitoksille kuin pankeille. Tältä osin kilpailujärjestelmä olisi mielestäni voinut olla liberaalimpi. Toiseksi toteaisin luottojen myöntämisestä, että ehdotuksesta aiheutuu mahdollisesti haittaa etenkin luottokorttiyhtiöille, jotka eivät ole pankkeja. Voimme kuitenkin tutkia näitä kysymyksiä jälleen kolmen vuoden kuluttua uudelleentarkastelun yhteydessä. Kolmanneksi tarkastelen maksupalveluntarjoajien vastuuta. Käsittääkseni maksupalvelusopimuksiin sisältyy joustavuutta esimerkiksi sen suhteen, mikä on maksajan vastuu sellaisissa tapauksissa, joihin jäsen Radwan viittasi, eli kun maksu ei ilmesty tilille silloin kun pitäisi. Direktiivin tiukka määritelmä vastuusta on mielestäni kuitenkin ehkä liian jäykkä ja joustamaton, joten olisi ollut tarpeen korjata sitä. Toisaalta voimme palata asiaan uudelleentarkastelun yhteydessä. Lopuksi toteaisin yhden käsittelyn prosessista, että parlamentin, komission ja neuvoston yhteistyö toimi hyvin tässä asiassa. Meidät asetettiin kuitenkin "ota tai jätä" -tilanteeseen. Olisi ollut parempi, jos parlamentti olisi voinut esittää huomattavia tarkistuksia ennen täysistunnossa toimitettavaa äänestystä. Kaiken kaikkiaan yhden käsittelyn periaate on hyvä askel kohti lainsäädäntöprosessin uudistamista mutta ei kuitenkaan itsetarkoitus. Tämä direktiivi on hyvä kompromissi, mutta jos näin ei olisi, yhden käsittelyn menettelyä ei saisi käyttää."@fi7
"Monsieur le Président, je souhaite commencer par dire que je ne suis absolument pas d’accord avec M. Whittaker au sujet de la MiFID, la directive sur les marchés d’instruments financiers, et de ses conséquences. Je pense que la MiFID va révolutionner les transactions sur les marchés européens et qu’elle donnera de très bons résultats en Europe. Je pense que le commissaire est d’accord avec moi sur ce point. Globalement, la directive sur les services de paiement représente une avancée très positive pour l’harmonisation du marché intérieur. Comme le commissaire, je pense qu’avec cet accord nous sommes parvenus à un équilibre entre les banques et les autres prestataires de service, d’une part, et les consommateurs, d’autre part. C’était un domaine où le marché n’offrait pas les meilleurs résultats possibles et où une réglementation était vraiment nécessaire. Je voudrais soulever brièvement trois points substantiels. Premièrement, je suis tout à fait d’accord avec Mme Bowles en ce qui concerne le régime en matière de détention de capital. Dans ce domaine, j’aurais préféré la proposition initiale de la CE. Je pense que les exigences en matière de capital pourraient ne pas être suffisamment équitables et que de nouvelles barrières à l’accès pourraient apparaître, surtout pour les opérateurs autres que les banques. À ce point de vue, j’aurais aimé que le cadre concurrentiel soit plus libéral. Deuxièmement, pour la question du crédit accordé, notamment par des sociétés de cartes de crédit qui ne sont pas des banques, il peut y avoir des inconvénients pour ces sociétés de cartes de crédit, mais nous pourrons réexaminer ces questions lors de notre révision dans trois ans. Troisièmement, en ce qui concerne la responsabilité des prestataires de services de paiement, j’admets qu’une marge de flexibilité soit intégrée aux contrats de paiement, par exemple relativement à la responsabilité du payeur dans les cas évoqués par M. Radwan, si le paiement n’apparaît pas quand il le devrait. Je pense cependant que la définition stricte de la responsabilité donnée dans la directive pourrait être trop rigide et trop inflexible et qu’elle devrait être assouplie. D’un autre côté, nous pouvons aussi y revenir au moment de la révision. Enfin, s’agissant de la procédure de lecture unique, je pense que le Parlement, la Commission et le Conseil interagissent très bien. Mais nous avons été placés dans une situation du type «à prendre ou à laisser» et il aurait été préférable que le Parlement ait eu la possibilité de déposer des amendements substantiels avant le vote en plénière. Cependant, la lecture unique représente, somme toute, une avancée sérieuse vers la modernisation de nos processus législatifs, mais ce n’est pas une fin en soi. Nous avons un bon compromis sur cette directive, mais si ce n’est pas le cas, la lecture unique ne devrait pas être utilisée."@fr8
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I totally disagree with Mr Whittaker about MiFID and its consequences. I think MiFID will be a revolution for trading in European markets and it will deliver very good results in Europe. I think the Commissioner agrees with me on this. Overall, the Payment Services Directive represents a very positive step in internal market harmonisation. Like the Commissioner, I believe that with the present agreement we have reached a balance between banks and other service providers on the one hand and consumers on the other. This was an instance in which the market was not delivering the best possible results and regulation was really needed. I would like to raise three brief points of substance. Firstly, I very much agree with Mrs Bowles concerning capital regime. I would have favoured the EC’s original proposal on capital requirements. I think that it might not be enough of a level playing field, and new access-related barriers might appear especially for non-banks. I should have liked to see a more liberal competition regime in these aspects. Secondly, on the question of credit granted, especially by credit card companies which are non-banks, there are possible disadvantages for these credit card companies, but we can look at these issues again in our review in three years’ time. Thirdly, on the liability of payment service providers, I understand that there is an in-built flexibility in payment contracts on what, for example, the payer’s responsibility is in cases like Mr Radwan referred to, when the payment does not appear when it should. However, I think the strict definition on liability in the directive could be too rigid and inflexible and it should have been reformed. On the other hand, we can also go back to this in the review. Finally, concerning the single reading process, I think Parliament, the Commission and the Council interacted very well on this. However, we were put in a ‘take it or leave it’ situation and it would have been better if Parliament had been able to put substantial amendments in place before the vote in plenary. However, all in all the single reading is a good step towards modernising our legislative processes, but it is not an end in itself. We have a good compromise on this directive, but if this is not the case, the single reading should not be used."@hu11
"Signor Presidente, per cominciare devo dire che dissento totalmente da quanto ha affermato l’onorevole Whittaker sulla direttiva MiFID e sulle sue conseguenze. Credo che MiFID abbia segnato una rivoluzione per gli scambi nei mercati europei e che porterà a ottimi risultati in Europa. Su questo punto credo che il Commissario sia d’accordo con me. Nel complesso la direttiva sui servizi di pagamento rappresenta un passo molto positivo nell’armonizzazione del mercato interno. Come il Commissario, ritengo che con il presente accordo abbiamo conseguito un equilibrio tra le banche e gli altri prestatori di servizi, da una parte, e i consumatori, dall’altra. Nella fattispecie il mercato non riusciva a esprimersi al meglio in termini di risultati ed era veramente necessario emanare una normativa. Desidero brevemente sollevare tre punti sulla sostanza. In primo luogo sono pienamente d’accordo con l’onorevole Bowles in materia di regime patrimoniale. Avrei preferito la proposta originale del Consiglio sui requisiti patrimoniali. Ma forse non sarebbe stata sufficiente per creare un quadro omogeneo e avrebbero potuto insorgere nuove barriere di accesso soprattutto per gli organismi che non sono istituti bancari. Avrei anche voluto un regime più liberista in materia di concorrenza in tale ambito. In secondo luogo, sulla questione della concessione di credito, soprattutto da parte delle società di carte di credito che non sono banche, sussistono possibili svantaggi per tali aziende, ma possiamo rivedere questi aspetti nella revisione prevista fra tre anni. In terzo luogo, sulla responsabilità dei prestatori di servizi, so che vi è una flessibilità insita nei contratti di pagamento, ad esempio, sulla responsabilità di chi effettua il pagamento come nel caso citato dall’onorevole Radwan, quando il pagamento non avviene come invece dovrebbe. Tuttavia, credo che la rigorosa definizione sulla responsabilità nella direttiva non debba essere eccessivamente rigida e inflessibile e quindi deve essere riformata. D’altro canto, possiamo riprenderla nella revisione. Infine, per quanto concerne la lettura unica, credo che il Parlamento, la Commissione e il Consiglio abbiano interagito molto bene. Tuttavia, siamo stati messi alle strette e sarebbe stato meglio se il Parlamento avesse potuto apportare emendamenti sostanziali prima della votazione in plenaria. Ad ogni modo, la lettura unica nel complesso rappresenta un passo positivo verso l’ammodernamento dei nostri processi legislativi, pur non essendo un fine in sé. Abbiamo raggiunto un compromesso positivo su questa direttiva, ma se così non fosse, non si dovrebbe ricorrere alla lettura unica."@it12
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I totally disagree with Mr Whittaker about MiFID and its consequences. I think MiFID will be a revolution for trading in European markets and it will deliver very good results in Europe. I think the Commissioner agrees with me on this. Overall, the Payment Services Directive represents a very positive step in internal market harmonisation. Like the Commissioner, I believe that with the present agreement we have reached a balance between banks and other service providers on the one hand and consumers on the other. This was an instance in which the market was not delivering the best possible results and regulation was really needed. I would like to raise three brief points of substance. Firstly, I very much agree with Mrs Bowles concerning capital regime. I would have favoured the EC’s original proposal on capital requirements. I think that it might not be enough of a level playing field, and new access-related barriers might appear especially for non-banks. I should have liked to see a more liberal competition regime in these aspects. Secondly, on the question of credit granted, especially by credit card companies which are non-banks, there are possible disadvantages for these credit card companies, but we can look at these issues again in our review in three years’ time. Thirdly, on the liability of payment service providers, I understand that there is an in-built flexibility in payment contracts on what, for example, the payer’s responsibility is in cases like Mr Radwan referred to, when the payment does not appear when it should. However, I think the strict definition on liability in the directive could be too rigid and inflexible and it should have been reformed. On the other hand, we can also go back to this in the review. Finally, concerning the single reading process, I think Parliament, the Commission and the Council interacted very well on this. However, we were put in a ‘take it or leave it’ situation and it would have been better if Parliament had been able to put substantial amendments in place before the vote in plenary. However, all in all the single reading is a good step towards modernising our legislative processes, but it is not an end in itself. We have a good compromise on this directive, but if this is not the case, the single reading should not be used."@lt14
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I totally disagree with Mr Whittaker about MiFID and its consequences. I think MiFID will be a revolution for trading in European markets and it will deliver very good results in Europe. I think the Commissioner agrees with me on this. Overall, the Payment Services Directive represents a very positive step in internal market harmonisation. Like the Commissioner, I believe that with the present agreement we have reached a balance between banks and other service providers on the one hand and consumers on the other. This was an instance in which the market was not delivering the best possible results and regulation was really needed. I would like to raise three brief points of substance. Firstly, I very much agree with Mrs Bowles concerning capital regime. I would have favoured the EC’s original proposal on capital requirements. I think that it might not be enough of a level playing field, and new access-related barriers might appear especially for non-banks. I should have liked to see a more liberal competition regime in these aspects. Secondly, on the question of credit granted, especially by credit card companies which are non-banks, there are possible disadvantages for these credit card companies, but we can look at these issues again in our review in three years’ time. Thirdly, on the liability of payment service providers, I understand that there is an in-built flexibility in payment contracts on what, for example, the payer’s responsibility is in cases like Mr Radwan referred to, when the payment does not appear when it should. However, I think the strict definition on liability in the directive could be too rigid and inflexible and it should have been reformed. On the other hand, we can also go back to this in the review. Finally, concerning the single reading process, I think Parliament, the Commission and the Council interacted very well on this. However, we were put in a ‘take it or leave it’ situation and it would have been better if Parliament had been able to put substantial amendments in place before the vote in plenary. However, all in all the single reading is a good step towards modernising our legislative processes, but it is not an end in itself. We have a good compromise on this directive, but if this is not the case, the single reading should not be used."@lv13
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I totally disagree with Mr Whittaker about MiFID and its consequences. I think MiFID will be a revolution for trading in European markets and it will deliver very good results in Europe. I think the Commissioner agrees with me on this. Overall, the Payment Services Directive represents a very positive step in internal market harmonisation. Like the Commissioner, I believe that with the present agreement we have reached a balance between banks and other service providers on the one hand and consumers on the other. This was an instance in which the market was not delivering the best possible results and regulation was really needed. I would like to raise three brief points of substance. Firstly, I very much agree with Mrs Bowles concerning capital regime. I would have favoured the EC’s original proposal on capital requirements. I think that it might not be enough of a level playing field, and new access-related barriers might appear especially for non-banks. I should have liked to see a more liberal competition regime in these aspects. Secondly, on the question of credit granted, especially by credit card companies which are non-banks, there are possible disadvantages for these credit card companies, but we can look at these issues again in our review in three years’ time. Thirdly, on the liability of payment service providers, I understand that there is an in-built flexibility in payment contracts on what, for example, the payer’s responsibility is in cases like Mr Radwan referred to, when the payment does not appear when it should. However, I think the strict definition on liability in the directive could be too rigid and inflexible and it should have been reformed. On the other hand, we can also go back to this in the review. Finally, concerning the single reading process, I think Parliament, the Commission and the Council interacted very well on this. However, we were put in a ‘take it or leave it’ situation and it would have been better if Parliament had been able to put substantial amendments in place before the vote in plenary. However, all in all the single reading is a good step towards modernising our legislative processes, but it is not an end in itself. We have a good compromise on this directive, but if this is not the case, the single reading should not be used."@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, om te beginnen wil ik graag kwijt dat ik het volkomen oneens ben met wat de heer Whittaker zegt over MiFID en de gevolgen ervan. Ik ben van mening dat MiFID een revolutie teweeg gaat brengen voor de handel op Europese markten en dat de richtlijn Europa veel zal opleveren. Ik denk dat de commissaris het op dit punt met me eens is. Over het geheel genomen is de richtlijn betreffende betalingsdiensten een positieve stap op weg naar harmonisering van de interne markt. Net als de commissaris, geloof ik dat we met de onderhavige overeenkomst een evenwicht hebben gevonden tussen banken en andere dienstenaanbieders enerzijds en consumenten anderzijds. Dit was een geval waarbij de markt zelf niet met de best mogelijke resultaten over de brug kwam en regulering echt nodig was. Ik zou graag drie korte inhoudelijke punten naar voren brengen. Ten eerste ben ik het roerend eens met mevrouw Bowles als het gaat om kapitaalregelingen. Ik was voorstander van het oorspronkelijke EU-voorstel over kapitaalvereisten. Ik vrees dat er onvoldoende sprake van een zal zijn en dat er nieuwe belemmeringen ontstaan die met name voor niet-banken de toegang bemoeilijken. Ik had in dit verband liever een liberalere concurrentieregelgeving gezien. Mijn tweede punt betreft de verstrekking van kredieten, met name door creditcardmaatschappijen die geen bank zijn. Deze creditcardmaatschappijen ondervinden daar mogelijk nadelen van, maar we kunnen deze zaken over drie jaar in onze evaluatie opnieuw bekijken. Ten derde, de risicoaansprakelijkheid van betalingsdienstaanbieders. Ik begrijp dat contracten voor betalingsdiensten enige flexibiliteit bieden, bijvoorbeeld ten aanzien van de verantwoordelijkheid van de betaler als de betaling niet op tijd plaatsvindt, zoals in de gevallen waar de heer Radwan naar verwees. Ik denk echter dat de strikte definitie van risicoaansprakelijkheid in de richtlijn te star en inflexibel is en dat die had moeten worden herzien. Maar ook daar kunnen we tijdens de evaluatie natuurlijk opnieuw naar kijken. Tot slot de eerste-lezingprocedure. Ik denk dat het Parlement, de Commissie en de Raad uitstekend hebben samengewerkt, maar ons werd wel te verstaan gegeven dat het een kwestie was van “graag of niet” en het zou beter zijn geweest als het Parlement vóór de plenaire stemming met uitvoerige amendementen was gekomen. Al met al is een overeenkomst in eerste lezing een goed stap op weg naar de modernisering van onze wetgevingsprocessen, maar het is geen doel op zich. We hebben een goed compromis over deze richtlijn bereikt, maar wanneer dat niet het geval is, moeten we de eerste-lezingprocedure niet toepassen."@nl3
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I totally disagree with Mr Whittaker about MiFID and its consequences. I think MiFID will be a revolution for trading in European markets and it will deliver very good results in Europe. I think the Commissioner agrees with me on this. Overall, the Payment Services Directive represents a very positive step in internal market harmonisation. Like the Commissioner, I believe that with the present agreement we have reached a balance between banks and other service providers on the one hand and consumers on the other. This was an instance in which the market was not delivering the best possible results and regulation was really needed. I would like to raise three brief points of substance. Firstly, I very much agree with Mrs Bowles concerning capital regime. I would have favoured the EC’s original proposal on capital requirements. I think that it might not be enough of a level playing field, and new access-related barriers might appear especially for non-banks. I should have liked to see a more liberal competition regime in these aspects. Secondly, on the question of credit granted, especially by credit card companies which are non-banks, there are possible disadvantages for these credit card companies, but we can look at these issues again in our review in three years’ time. Thirdly, on the liability of payment service providers, I understand that there is an in-built flexibility in payment contracts on what, for example, the payer’s responsibility is in cases like Mr Radwan referred to, when the payment does not appear when it should. However, I think the strict definition on liability in the directive could be too rigid and inflexible and it should have been reformed. On the other hand, we can also go back to this in the review. Finally, concerning the single reading process, I think Parliament, the Commission and the Council interacted very well on this. However, we were put in a ‘take it or leave it’ situation and it would have been better if Parliament had been able to put substantial amendments in place before the vote in plenary. However, all in all the single reading is a good step towards modernising our legislative processes, but it is not an end in itself. We have a good compromise on this directive, but if this is not the case, the single reading should not be used."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, quero começar por declarar que discordo em absoluto da opinião do senhor deputado Whittaker quanto à MiFID e suas consequências. Para mim, a MiFID vai revolucionar os mercados bolsistas europeus e produzir efeitos muito benéficos na Europa. Penso que o Senhor Comissário concordará comigo neste ponto. Globalmente, a directiva relativa aos serviços de pagamento constitui um passo muito positivo no processo de harmonização do mercado interno. À semelhança do Comissário, eu acredito que, com o presente acordo, alcançámos um equilíbrio entre os bancos e outros prestadores de serviços, por um lado, e os consumidores, por outro. Trata-se de um exemplo de uma situação em que o mercado não estava a produzir os melhores resultados possíveis e era realmente necessária regulação. Sucintamente, gostaria de suscitar três pontos de fundo. Primeiro, discordo francamente da senhora deputada Bowles no que se refere ao regime de provisões de capital. Eu preferia a proposta original da CE, em matéria de requisitos de capital. Penso que talvez não se tenha garantido suficientemente a igualdade de concorrência e que poderão surgir novas barreiras ao acesso, especialmente para as entidades não bancárias. Gostaria que se tivesse enveredado por um regime de concorrência mais liberal nestes aspectos. Segundo, quanto à questão da concessão de crédito, especialmente por companhias não bancárias emissoras de cartões de crédito, possivelmente envolverá desvantagens para as ditas companhias, mas essas questões poderão ser reequacionadas na revisão a empreender dentro de três anos. Terceiro, no que se refere à responsabilidade dos prestadores de serviços de pagamento, compreendo que é próprio dos contratos de pagamento envolverem certa flexibilidade no que respeita, por exemplo, à responsabilidade do pagador em casos como os citados pelo senhor deputado Radwan, quando o pagamento não é feito na altura devida. Contudo, considero que a definição estrita de responsabilidade que consta da directiva é capaz de ser excessivamente rígida e inflexível e deveria ter sido reformulada. Por outro lado, é uma matéria a que poderemos voltar também na revisão. Finalmente, quanto ao processo de leitura única, sou de opinião que o Parlamento, a Comissão e o Conselho souberam interagir muito bem neste assunto. No entanto, fomos postos numa situação de "pegar ou largar" e teria sido bom que o Parlamento tivesse tido possibilidade de introduzir alterações substanciais antes da votação em plenário. Vendo bem as coisas, contudo, a leitura única é um bom passo no sentido da modernização dos nossos processos legislativos, mas não constitui um fim em si mesma. Esta directiva é um bom compromisso, mas, se assim não fosse, não se deveria recorrer à leitura única."@pt17
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I totally disagree with Mr Whittaker about MiFID and its consequences. I think MiFID will be a revolution for trading in European markets and it will deliver very good results in Europe. I think the Commissioner agrees with me on this. Overall, the Payment Services Directive represents a very positive step in internal market harmonisation. Like the Commissioner, I believe that with the present agreement we have reached a balance between banks and other service providers on the one hand and consumers on the other. This was an instance in which the market was not delivering the best possible results and regulation was really needed. I would like to raise three brief points of substance. Firstly, I very much agree with Mrs Bowles concerning capital regime. I would have favoured the EC’s original proposal on capital requirements. I think that it might not be enough of a level playing field, and new access-related barriers might appear especially for non-banks. I should have liked to see a more liberal competition regime in these aspects. Secondly, on the question of credit granted, especially by credit card companies which are non-banks, there are possible disadvantages for these credit card companies, but we can look at these issues again in our review in three years’ time. Thirdly, on the liability of payment service providers, I understand that there is an in-built flexibility in payment contracts on what, for example, the payer’s responsibility is in cases like Mr Radwan referred to, when the payment does not appear when it should. However, I think the strict definition on liability in the directive could be too rigid and inflexible and it should have been reformed. On the other hand, we can also go back to this in the review. Finally, concerning the single reading process, I think Parliament, the Commission and the Council interacted very well on this. However, we were put in a ‘take it or leave it’ situation and it would have been better if Parliament had been able to put substantial amendments in place before the vote in plenary. However, all in all the single reading is a good step towards modernising our legislative processes, but it is not an end in itself. We have a good compromise on this directive, but if this is not the case, the single reading should not be used."@ro18
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I totally disagree with Mr Whittaker about MiFID and its consequences. I think MiFID will be a revolution for trading in European markets and it will deliver very good results in Europe. I think the Commissioner agrees with me on this. Overall, the Payment Services Directive represents a very positive step in internal market harmonisation. Like the Commissioner, I believe that with the present agreement we have reached a balance between banks and other service providers on the one hand and consumers on the other. This was an instance in which the market was not delivering the best possible results and regulation was really needed. I would like to raise three brief points of substance. Firstly, I very much agree with Mrs Bowles concerning capital regime. I would have favoured the EC’s original proposal on capital requirements. I think that it might not be enough of a level playing field, and new access-related barriers might appear especially for non-banks. I should have liked to see a more liberal competition regime in these aspects. Secondly, on the question of credit granted, especially by credit card companies which are non-banks, there are possible disadvantages for these credit card companies, but we can look at these issues again in our review in three years’ time. Thirdly, on the liability of payment service providers, I understand that there is an in-built flexibility in payment contracts on what, for example, the payer’s responsibility is in cases like Mr Radwan referred to, when the payment does not appear when it should. However, I think the strict definition on liability in the directive could be too rigid and inflexible and it should have been reformed. On the other hand, we can also go back to this in the review. Finally, concerning the single reading process, I think Parliament, the Commission and the Council interacted very well on this. However, we were put in a ‘take it or leave it’ situation and it would have been better if Parliament had been able to put substantial amendments in place before the vote in plenary. However, all in all the single reading is a good step towards modernising our legislative processes, but it is not an end in itself. We have a good compromise on this directive, but if this is not the case, the single reading should not be used."@sk19
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I totally disagree with Mr Whittaker about MiFID and its consequences. I think MiFID will be a revolution for trading in European markets and it will deliver very good results in Europe. I think the Commissioner agrees with me on this. Overall, the Payment Services Directive represents a very positive step in internal market harmonisation. Like the Commissioner, I believe that with the present agreement we have reached a balance between banks and other service providers on the one hand and consumers on the other. This was an instance in which the market was not delivering the best possible results and regulation was really needed. I would like to raise three brief points of substance. Firstly, I very much agree with Mrs Bowles concerning capital regime. I would have favoured the EC’s original proposal on capital requirements. I think that it might not be enough of a level playing field, and new access-related barriers might appear especially for non-banks. I should have liked to see a more liberal competition regime in these aspects. Secondly, on the question of credit granted, especially by credit card companies which are non-banks, there are possible disadvantages for these credit card companies, but we can look at these issues again in our review in three years’ time. Thirdly, on the liability of payment service providers, I understand that there is an in-built flexibility in payment contracts on what, for example, the payer’s responsibility is in cases like Mr Radwan referred to, when the payment does not appear when it should. However, I think the strict definition on liability in the directive could be too rigid and inflexible and it should have been reformed. On the other hand, we can also go back to this in the review. Finally, concerning the single reading process, I think Parliament, the Commission and the Council interacted very well on this. However, we were put in a ‘take it or leave it’ situation and it would have been better if Parliament had been able to put substantial amendments in place before the vote in plenary. However, all in all the single reading is a good step towards modernising our legislative processes, but it is not an end in itself. We have a good compromise on this directive, but if this is not the case, the single reading should not be used."@sl20
"Herr talman! Låt mig först säga att jag inte alls håller med John Whittaker om MiFID och dess konsekvenser. Jag anser att MiFID kommer att revolutionera handeln på EU:s marknader och ge mycket goda resultat. Jag tror att kommissionsledamoten instämmer. På det hela taget utgör direktivet om betaltjänster ett mycket positivt steg i arbetet med att harmonisera den inre marknaden. I likhet med kommissionsledamoten anser jag att vi genom denna överenskommelse har uppnått en balans mellan banker och andra tjänsteleverantörer å ena sidan och konsumenterna å den andra. Marknaden gav inte de bästa möjliga resultaten på detta område och behovet av regler var stort. Jag vill i korthet ta upp tre innehållsmässiga saker. För det första delar jag till fullo Sharon Bowles uppfattning om kapitalsystemen. Jag hade föredragit ekonomiutskottets ursprungliga förslag om kapitalkrav. Det finns en risk för att alla inte får lika villkor och att nya hinder när det gäller tillgången uppstår, framför allt för icke-banker. Jag skulle ha velat se ett mer liberalt konkurrenssystem i dessa avseenden. För det andra, och när det gäller beviljade krediter, särskilt från kreditkortsföretag som inte är banker, kan detta medföra vissa nackdelar för dessa företag, men vi kan ta upp dessa frågor igen när vi ser över direktivet om tre år. Min tredje punkt gäller det ansvar som tillhandahållaren av betaltjänsten har. Det finns tydligen en inbyggd flexibilitet i betalningskontrakt, till exempel för betalarens ansvar i sådana fall som Alexander Radwan talade om, när betalningen inte kommer in i tid. Jag anser dock att den strikta definitionen av ansvar i direktivet kanske är för strikt och stelbent och borde ha formulerats om. Å andra sidan kan vi återvända även till detta om tre år. När det slutligen gäller förfarandet med en enda behandling anser jag att parlamentet, kommissionen och rådet har samarbetat på ett mycket bra sätt. Vi hamnade dock i en ”allt eller inget”-situation och därför skulle det ha varit bättre om parlamentet hade utarbetat konkreta ändringsförslag före omröstningen i plenum. På det hela taget är dock förfarandet med antagande vid första behandlingen ett steg framåt för att modernisera vår lagstiftningsprocess, men det är inte ett självändamål. Vi har nått en bra kompromiss om just detta direktiv, men om så inte är fallet bör förfarandet med en enda behandling inte tillämpas."@sv22
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE ). –"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