Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-23-Speech-1-086"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20070423.16.1-086"6
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Thank you, Mr President, and well done, Mr Gauzès. We have waited a long time, but we have finally got there. Well done! Importantly, the payment services directive opens up the payments market to non-banks. Barriers to entry and the stifling of innovation have been addressed, at least to some extent, through a mix of waivers for smaller players and flexibility for Member States on electronic money and other new means of payments, such as the money purse. However, I feel that there are some aspects where we have had an opportunity to make bigger inroads towards competition but have not gone nearly far enough. Non-banks do not need such comprehensive capital requirements as have been agreed with the Council. Payment services companies such as remitters, bill payers and companies offering card-based payment services do not take deposits and therefore do not need the same financial underpinning as deposit-taking commercial banks. One suspects that this is more a matter of protecting traditional banks from new competitors than of protecting consumers. Secondly, in this age of instantaneous communication surely even one day is more than should be necessary to move money from one end of the earth to the other, let alone from Strasbourg to Freiburg. And why are the banks afraid to be transparent about the cost of their services instead of charging by stealth in the form of unjustifiably long float times? Surely, in the spirit of Lisbon, we should be leading the world in applying today’s technology to money transfers. They should be instantaneous, with no delay at all. The service provider should then openly display its full charge for the service. So this directive, as finally and tortuously agreed, is a step in the right direction towards providing Europeans, both individuals and SMEs, with a modern, efficient and reasonably-priced money transmission service. But it is not all we should expect. Hopefully there will be further steps, Commissioner."@en4
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Thank you, Mr President, and well done, Mr Gauzès. We have waited a long time, but we have finally got there. Well done! Importantly, the payment services directive opens up the payments market to non-banks. Barriers to entry and the stifling of innovation have been addressed, at least to some extent, through a mix of waivers for smaller players and flexibility for Member States on electronic money and other new means of payments, such as the money purse. However, I feel that there are some aspects where we have had an opportunity to make bigger inroads towards competition but have not gone nearly far enough. Non-banks do not need such comprehensive capital requirements as have been agreed with the Council. Payment services companies such as remitters, bill payers and companies offering card-based payment services do not take deposits and therefore do not need the same financial underpinning as deposit-taking commercial banks. One suspects that this is more a matter of protecting traditional banks from new competitors than of protecting consumers. Secondly, in this age of instantaneous communication surely even one day is more than should be necessary to move money from one end of the earth to the other, let alone from Strasbourg to Freiburg. And why are the banks afraid to be transparent about the cost of their services instead of charging by stealth in the form of unjustifiably long float times? Surely, in the spirit of Lisbon, we should be leading the world in applying today’s technology to money transfers. They should be instantaneous, with no delay at all. The service provider should then openly display its full charge for the service. So this directive, as finally and tortuously agreed, is a step in the right direction towards providing Europeans, both individuals and SMEs, with a modern, efficient and reasonably-priced money transmission service. But it is not all we should expect. Hopefully there will be further steps, Commissioner."@cs1
"Hr. formand! Tak hr. formand og fint arbejde, hr. Gauzès. Vi har ventet længe, men nu er vi endelig fremme. Fint arbejde! Det er vigtigt at understrege, at direktivet om betalingstjenester giver andre foretagender end banker adgang til betalingsmarkedet. Problemerne med adgangsbarrierer og kvælning af innovation er i det mindste til en vis grad blevet løst gennem en række forskellige dispensationer til mindre aktører og fleksibilitet i medlemsstaterne med hensyn til anvendelse af elektroniske penge og andre nye betalingsmidler som f.eks. e-purse. Jeg mener imidlertid, at vi på visse områder har haft mulighed for at øge konkurrencen yderligere, men at vi ikke er gået langt nok. Det er ikke nødvendigt at pålægge andre foretagender end banker de strenge kapitalkrav, som man er nået til enighed om med Rådet. Selskaber, der udbyder betalingstjenester, f.eks. remittenter, selskaber, der betaler regninger, og selskaber, der tilbyder kortbaserede betalingstjenester, modtager ikke indskud, og der er derfor ikke behov for samme sikkerhed som i forbindelse med kommercielle banker, der modtager indskud. Man får mistanke om, at dette mere handler om at beskytte de traditionelle banker mod nye konkurrenter end om at beskytte forbrugerne. I denne tidsalder med øjeblikkelig kommunikation er selv én dag desuden helt sikkert mere end rigeligt til at overføre penge fra den ene ende af kloden til den anden, for slet ikke at tale om fra Strasbourg til Freiburg. Hvorfor er bankerne bange for gennemsigtige priser for deres tjenester, samtidig med at de pålægger skjulte omkostninger i form af uberettigede lange afviklingsperioder? Vi bør vel i tråd med Lissabon-strategien indtage en global førerposition og anvende moderne teknologi i forbindelse med pengeoverførsler, der bør være øjeblikkelige og uden forsinkelser overhovedet. Tjenesteudbyderen bør desuden udvise fuld åbenhed omkring tjenestens samlede omkostninger. Dette direktiv, som der endelig er opnået enighed om ad omveje, er et skridt i den rigtige retning hen imod at sikre de europæiske borgere og SMV'er en moderne, effektiv pengeoverførselstjeneste til en rimelig pris. Vi bør imidlertid ikke stille os tilfreds hermed. Hr. kommissær, der vil forhåbentlig blive truffet yderligere foranstaltninger."@da2
"Danke, Herr Präsident, und Glückwunsch, Herr Gauzès. Es hat lange gedauert, aber wir haben es schließlich geschafft. Gut gemacht! Wichtig ist, dass die Richtlinie über Zahlungsdienste den Zahlungsmarkt für Nichtbanken öffnet. Zugangsschranken und die Behinderung von Innovationen wurden, zumindest in gewissem Umfang, mit einem Mix aus Freistellungen für kleinere Akteure und Flexibilität für die Mitgliedstaaten bei E-Geld sowie anderen neuen Zahlungsmitteln wie der „money purse“ oder Geldbörse geregelt. Allerdings gibt es meiner Meinung nach einige Aspekte, wo wir im Hinblick auf den Wettbewerb mehr hätten erreichen können, aber bei Weitem nicht alle Möglichkeiten ausgeschöpft haben. Bei Nichtbanken sind solch umfassende Eigenkapitalanforderungen, wie sie mit dem Rat vereinbart wurden, nicht notwendig. Zahlungsdienstleister wie Zahlungstransferleister, Unternehmen, bei denen die Zahlung mit Hilfe eines Wechsels oder einer Karte erfolgt, nehmen keine Einlagen entgegen und benötigen daher auch nicht die gleiche finanzielle Abfederung wie Kreditinstitute, die Einlagen entgegen nehmen. Es liegt die Vermutung nahe, dass es hier mehr um den Schutz der herkömmlichen Banken gegenüber neuen Wettbewerbern als um den Schutz der Verbraucher geht. Zweitens ist in der heutigen Zeit der Sofortkommunikation ja selbst ein Tag mehr, als nötig sein sollte, um Geld von einem Ende der Welt zum anderen, ganz zu schweigen von Straßburg nach Freiburg zu bewegen. Weshalb haben außerdem die Banken Angst davor, die Kosten ihrer Leistungen offenzulegen, statt heimlich in Form von nicht zu rechtfertigenden langen Ausführungszeiten Gebühren zu erheben? Im Geiste von Lissabon sollten wir doch wohl bei der Anwendung modernster Technologie bei Geldüberweisungen eine führende Rolle in der Welt spielen. Sie sollten sofort erfolgen, ohne jegliche Verzögerung. Dann sollte der Zahlungsdienstleister seine vollständige Gebühr für die Leistung offenlegen. So ist diese Richtlinie, wenn sie schließlich nach einem langwierigen Verfahren gebilligt wird, ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung, nämlich den Europäern – sowohl Einzelpersonen als auch KMU – eine moderne, effiziente und bezahlbare Dienstleistung für Geldüberweisungen zu bieten. Aber wir würden mehr erwarten. Hoffentlich werden weitere Schritte folgen, Herr Kommissar."@de9
"Σας ευχαριστώ, κύριε Πρόεδρε, και τα συγχαρητήριά μου, κύριε Gauzès. Περιμέναμε πολύ καιρό, αλλά τελικά τα καταφέραμε. Μπράβο σας! Η οδηγία για τις υπηρεσίες πληρωμών ανοίγει ουσιαστικά την αγορά στους μη τραπεζικούς φορείς. Έχουν αντιμετωπιστεί οι φραγμοί εισόδου και η αποθάρρυνση της καινοτομίας, τουλάχιστον σε ορισμένο βαθμό, μέσω ενός συνδυασμού παρεκκλίσεων για τους μικρούς παράγοντες και ευελιξίας για τα κράτη μέλη όσον αφορά το ηλεκτρονικό χρήμα και άλλα μέσα πληρωμών, όπως τα χρηματικά κεφάλαια. Πιστεύω, ωστόσο, ότι υπάρχουν ορισμένες πτυχές ως προς τις οποίες είχαμε την ευκαιρία να σημειώσουμε μεγαλύτερη πρόοδο προς την κατεύθυνση του ανταγωνισμού, αλλά δεν προχωρήσαμε αρκετά. Τα μη τραπεζικά ιδρύματα δεν χρειάζονται τέτοιες εκτεταμένες κεφαλαιακές απαιτήσεις όπως συμφωνήθηκε με το Συμβούλιο. Οι εταιρείες υπηρεσιών πληρωμών, όπως οι αποστολείς εμβασμάτων, οι πληρωτές λογαριασμών και οι εταιρείες που παρέχουν υπηρεσίες πληρωμών μέσω καρτών, δεν δέχονται καταθέσεις και, συνεπώς, δεν χρειάζονται την ίδια χρηματοδοτική υποστήριξη με τις εμπορικές τράπεζες που δέχονται καταθέσεις. Υποθέτει κανείς ότι πρόκειται περισσότερο για την προστασία των παραδοσιακών τραπεζών από τους νέους ανταγωνιστές παρά για την προστασία των καταναλωτών. Δεύτερον, σε αυτήν την εποχή της στιγμιαίας επικοινωνίας ασφαλώς ακόμη και μία ημέρα είναι χρονικό διάστημα πολύ μεγαλύτερο από ό,τι θα έπρεπε να είναι αναγκαίο για τη μεταφορά χρημάτων από τη μία άκρη της γης στην άλλη, πόσο μάλλον από το Στρασβούργο στο Φράιμπουργκ. Και για ποιον λόγο οι τράπεζες φοβούνται να είναι διαφανείς όσον αφορά το κόστος των υπηρεσιών τους αντί να χρεώνουν μυστικά υπό τη μορφή αδικαιολόγητα χρονοβόρων διαδικασιών μεταφοράς; Ασφαλώς, στο πνεύμα της Λισαβόνας, θα έπρεπε να ήμασταν παγκόσμιος ηγέτης στην εφαρμογή της σημερινής τεχνολογίας στις μεταφορές χρημάτων. Θα πρέπει να είναι στιγμιαίες, χωρίς καμία καθυστέρηση. Ο πάροχος υπηρεσιών πρέπει, συνεπώς, να αποκαλύπτει ανοικτά το πλήρες αντίτιμο της υπηρεσίας. Συνεπώς, αυτή η οδηγία, όπως εγκρίθηκε τελικά και διά της πλαγίας οδού, αποτελεί βήμα προς την ορθή κατεύθυνση για την παροχή στους Ευρωπαίους, τόσο ως ατόμων όσο και ως ΜΜΕ, μιας σύγχρονης, αποτελεσματικής και με λογική τιμή υπηρεσίας μεταφοράς χρημάτων. Δεν ανταποκρίνεται όμως πλήρως στις προσδοκίες που έπρεπε να τρέφουμε. Ευτυχώς, θα υπάρξουν περαιτέρω βήματα, κύριε Επίτροπε."@el10
"Gracias, señor Presidente, y buen trabajo, señor Gauzès. Hemos tenido que esperar mucho tiempo, pero al final hemos llegado. ¡Buen trabajo! La Directiva sobre servicios de pagos abre el mercado de los pagos a las entidades no bancarias, y esto es importante. Se ha abordado el tema de las barreras al acceso y el freno a la innovación, al menos hasta cierto punto, mediante una combinación de concesiones a los agentes menores y flexibilidad para los Estados miembros en cuanto al dinero electrónico y otros nuevos medios de pago, como la tarjeta monedero. Sin embargo, creo que en algunos aspectos hemos tenido la posibilidad de avanzar más en el terreno de la competencia, pero no hemos llegado muy lejos. Las entidades no bancarias no necesitan unos requisitos de capital tan amplios como los que se han acordado con el Consejo. Las compañías de servicios de pago, como las agencias de transferencia, los pagadores de facturas y las empresas que ofrecen servicios de pago basados en tarjetas no aceptan depósitos y, por lo tanto, no necesitan el mismo apuntalamiento financiero que los bancos comerciales que sí aceptan depósitos. Sospecho que es más una cuestión de proteger a los bancos tradicionales de los nuevos competidores que de proteger a los consumidores. En segundo lugar, en esta era de comunicaciones instantáneas, incluso 24 horas es seguramente un plazo superior al necesario para enviar dinero de un extremo a otro del planeta, por no decir de Estrasburgo a Friburgo. ¿Por qué los bancos tienen miedo a ser transparentes en lo tocante al coste de sus servicios en vez de cargar furtivamente en forma de períodos de tránsito injustificadamente largos? Sin duda, siguiendo el espíritu de Lisboa, deberíamos dar ejemplo al resto del mundo y aplicar la tecnología moderna a las transferencias de dinero. Deberían ser instantáneas, sin ninguna demora en absoluto. El proveedor de servicios podría entonces exponer abiertamente todo lo que carga por el servicio. Por eso esta Directiva, tal como ha sido tortuosamente acordada, es un paso en la dirección correcta para proporcionar a los europeos, tanto personas físicas como PYME, un servicio de transferencia de dinero moderno, eficiente y a un precio razonable. Pero eso no es todo lo que cabía esperar. Espero que haya más pasos adelante, señor Comisario."@es21
"Thank you, Mr President, and well done, Mr Gauzès. We have waited a long time, but we have finally got there. Well done! Importantly, the payment services directive opens up the payments market to non-banks. Barriers to entry and the stifling of innovation have been addressed, at least to some extent, through a mix of waivers for smaller players and flexibility for Member States on electronic money and other new means of payments, such as the money purse. However, I feel that there are some aspects where we have had an opportunity to make bigger inroads towards competition but have not gone nearly far enough. Non-banks do not need such comprehensive capital requirements as have been agreed with the Council. Payment services companies such as remitters, bill payers and companies offering card-based payment services do not take deposits and therefore do not need the same financial underpinning as deposit-taking commercial banks. One suspects that this is more a matter of protecting traditional banks from new competitors than of protecting consumers. Secondly, in this age of instantaneous communication surely even one day is more than should be necessary to move money from one end of the earth to the other, let alone from Strasbourg to Freiburg. And why are the banks afraid to be transparent about the cost of their services instead of charging by stealth in the form of unjustifiably long float times? Surely, in the spirit of Lisbon, we should be leading the world in applying today’s technology to money transfers. They should be instantaneous, with no delay at all. The service provider should then openly display its full charge for the service. So this directive, as finally and tortuously agreed, is a step in the right direction towards providing Europeans, both individuals and SMEs, with a modern, efficient and reasonably-priced money transmission service. But it is not all we should expect. Hopefully there will be further steps, Commissioner."@et5
"Kiitos, arvoisa puhemies. Mainiota, jäsen Gauzès! Olemme odottaneet pitkään, mutta lopultakin olemme saavuttaneet päämäärämme. Todella hienoa! Merkittävää on se, että maksupalveluja koskeva direktiivi avaa maksumarkkinat maksupalveluntarjoajille, jotka eivät ole pankkeja. Ehdotuksessa on ainakin jossain määrin käsitelty markkinoillepääsyn esteisiin ja innovoinnin tukahtumiseen liittyviä kysymyksiä pieniin toimijoihin sovellettavien poikkeusten ja jäsenvaltioille sallitun joustavuuden avulla sähköisen rahan ja muiden uusien maksuvälineiden, kuten ladattavien rahakorttien osalta. Mielestäni on kuitenkin joitakin kysymyksiä, joissa olisi voitu tehdä enemmän kilpailun lisäämiseksi mutta joissa ei ole edetty läheskään tarpeeksi pitkälle. Kun on kyse maksupalveluntarjoajista, jotka eivät ole pankkeja, ei tarvita niin kattavia pääomavaatimuksia kuin ne, joista on sovittu neuvoston kanssa. Maksupalveluyhtiöt, kuten rahansiirtopalvelujen tarjoajat, laskunmaksupalvelujen tarjoajat ja yhtiöt, jotka tarjoavat kortteihin perustuvia maksupalveluja, eivät ota vastaan talletuksia eivätkä sen vuoksi tarvitse samanlaista rahoitusperustaa kuin talletuksia vastaan ottavat liikepankit. Herääkin epäilys, että kyse on pikemminkin perinteisten pankkien suojelemisesta uusilta kilpailijoilta kuin kuluttajien suojelemisesta. Toiseksi toteaisin, että nykyaikaisessa erittäin nopeiden viestintäyhteyksien maailmassa jopa yksi päivä on varmasti pitempi aika kuin tarvitaan rahan siirtämiseksi maailman toiselta puolelta toiselle puolelle saati sitten Strasbourgista Freiburgiin. Entä miksi pankit pelkäävät avoimuutta palvelujen kustannusten esittämisessä ja sen sijaan veloittavat vaivihkaa tuomittavan pitkien toteuttamisaikojen avulla? Meidänhän olisi Lissabonin hengen mukaisesti oltava maailmassa johtavassa asemassa nykyaikaisen teknologian soveltamisessa rahansiirtoihin. Siirtojen olisi oltava erittäin nopeita, täysin viiveettömiä. Palveluntarjoajan olisi esitettävä avoimesti palvelun kokonaiskulut. Näin ollen tämä direktiivi, josta on lopultakin ja monien mutkien jälkeen sovittu, on askel oikeaan suuntaan eli siihen, että Euroopan unionin kansalaiset ja pk-yritykset saavat käyttöönsä nykyaikaiset, tehokkaat ja kohtuuhintaiset maksujen välityspalvelut. Meidän olisi kuitenkin odotettava vielä enemmän. Arvoisa komission jäsen, toivottavasti vastaisuudessa toteutetaan lisätoimia."@fi7
"Merci, Monsieur le Président, et bravo, Monsieur Gauzès. Nous l’attendions depuis longtemps, mais finalement nous l’avons. Bravo! Surtout pour le fait que la directive sur les services de paiement ouvre le marché des paiements aux opérateurs autres que les banques. Dans une certaine mesure du moins, elle remédie au problème des obstacles à l’entrée et des freins à l’innovation, moyennant une combinaison de dispenses pour les petits opérateurs et d’une marge de flexibilité pour les États membres en matière de monnaie électronique et autres nouveaux moyens de paiement, comme le porte-monnaie électronique. Toutefois, je pense qu’il y a certains aspects où nous avions la possibilité de faire beaucoup mieux pour favoriser la concurrence, mais où nous ne sommes pas allés assez loin. Les établissements non bancaires n’ont pas besoin d’exigences aussi importantes en matière de capital que ce qui a été convenu avec le Conseil. Les sociétés de services de paiement, telles que les expéditeurs de fonds, les payeurs de factures et les sociétés offrant des services de paiement basés sur une carte, ne prennent pas de dépôts. Elles n’ont donc pas besoin des mêmes garanties financières que les banques commerciales de dépôt. On soupçonne qu’il s’agit davantage de protection des banques traditionnelles face à de nouveaux concurrents plutôt que de protection des consommateurs. Deuxièmement, à notre époque de communications instantanées, un seul jour est sûrement plus qu’il n’en faut pour transférer de l’argent d’un bout à l’autre de la planète, à plus forte raison de Strasbourg à Fribourg. Et pourquoi les banques ont-elles peur d’être transparentes en matière de coût de leurs services, au lieu d’imposer subrepticement des frais sous la forme de délais d’une longueur injustifiable? Au nom de la stratégie de Lisbonne, nous devrions montrer l’exemple au monde en appliquant les technologies actuelles aux transferts de fonds. Ils devraient être instantanés, sans aucun délai. Le prestataire de service devrait alors afficher ouvertement le prix qu’il facture pour l’exécution de l’opération. Cette directive, telle qu’elle a été convenue finalement et laborieusement, constitue une avancée dans la bonne direction en vue de doter les particuliers et les PME européens d’un service de transmission de fonds moderne, efficace et d’un coût raisonnable. Mais nos attentes ne se limitent pas à cela. Nous espérons, Monsieur le Commissaire, qu’il y aura d’autres progrès."@fr8
"Thank you, Mr President, and well done, Mr Gauzès. We have waited a long time, but we have finally got there. Well done! Importantly, the payment services directive opens up the payments market to non-banks. Barriers to entry and the stifling of innovation have been addressed, at least to some extent, through a mix of waivers for smaller players and flexibility for Member States on electronic money and other new means of payments, such as the money purse. However, I feel that there are some aspects where we have had an opportunity to make bigger inroads towards competition but have not gone nearly far enough. Non-banks do not need such comprehensive capital requirements as have been agreed with the Council. Payment services companies such as remitters, bill payers and companies offering card-based payment services do not take deposits and therefore do not need the same financial underpinning as deposit-taking commercial banks. One suspects that this is more a matter of protecting traditional banks from new competitors than of protecting consumers. Secondly, in this age of instantaneous communication surely even one day is more than should be necessary to move money from one end of the earth to the other, let alone from Strasbourg to Freiburg. And why are the banks afraid to be transparent about the cost of their services instead of charging by stealth in the form of unjustifiably long float times? Surely, in the spirit of Lisbon, we should be leading the world in applying today’s technology to money transfers. They should be instantaneous, with no delay at all. The service provider should then openly display its full charge for the service. So this directive, as finally and tortuously agreed, is a step in the right direction towards providing Europeans, both individuals and SMEs, with a modern, efficient and reasonably-priced money transmission service. But it is not all we should expect. Hopefully there will be further steps, Commissioner."@hu11
"Grazie, signor Presidente, desidero esprimere un encomio all’onorevole Gauzès. Abbiamo atteso a lungo, ma finalmente ci siamo riusciti. Ben fatto! In particolare, la direttiva sui servizi di pagamento apre il mercato dei pagamenti alle istituzioni non bancarie. Le barriere all’accesso e i freni all’innovazione sono stati affrontati, perlomeno in una certa misura, attraverso un di deroghe per gli operatori più piccoli e mediante la flessibilità concessa agli Stati membri sui pagamenti elettronici e altri mezzi di pagamento, come il borsellino elettronico. Tuttavia, ritengo vi siano alcuni aspetti su cui avevamo la possibilità di avanzare maggiormente sul fronte della concorrenza, ma non siamo stati abbastanza audaci. Le istituzioni non bancarie non hanno bisogno di requisiti patrimoniali così completi come quelli che sono stati definiti con il Consiglio. Le società di servizi di pagamento che offrono servizi basati su carte di credito non prendono depositi e quindi non hanno bisogno della stessa base finanziaria delle banche che invece li richiedono. Viene il dubbio che sia in atto un tentativo di proteggere le banche tradizionali dai nuovi concorrenti piuttosto che una misura di protezione verso i consumatori. In secondo luogo nella presente epoca di comunicazioni simultanee di certo un giorno è più che sufficiente per trasferire il denaro da un capo all’altro della terra, figuriamoci da Strasburgo a Friburgo. E perché allora le banche temono la trasparenza in relazione al costo dei propri servizi e alzano invece gli oneri di nascosto attraverso tempi di trasferimento eccessivamente lunghi? Di sicuro nello spirito di Lisbona dovremmo essere i primi al mondo nell’applicazione della tecnologia moderna ai trasferimenti di denaro. I pagamenti dovrebbero essere istantanei, non deve intervenire alcun lasso di tempo. Il prestatore del servizio dovrebbe indicare apertamente la tariffa complessiva richiesta per il servizio. Di conseguenza, questa direttiva, infine tortuosamente concordata, è un passo nella giusta direzione per garantire agli europei, sia ai cittadini che alle PMI, un servizio di trasferimento del denaro moderno, efficiente e al prezzo giusto. Tuttavia ci potrebbe essere di più e speriamo che siano compiuti ulteriori passi in avanti, signor Commissario."@it12
"Thank you, Mr President, and well done, Mr Gauzès. We have waited a long time, but we have finally got there. Well done! Importantly, the payment services directive opens up the payments market to non-banks. Barriers to entry and the stifling of innovation have been addressed, at least to some extent, through a mix of waivers for smaller players and flexibility for Member States on electronic money and other new means of payments, such as the money purse. However, I feel that there are some aspects where we have had an opportunity to make bigger inroads towards competition but have not gone nearly far enough. Non-banks do not need such comprehensive capital requirements as have been agreed with the Council. Payment services companies such as remitters, bill payers and companies offering card-based payment services do not take deposits and therefore do not need the same financial underpinning as deposit-taking commercial banks. One suspects that this is more a matter of protecting traditional banks from new competitors than of protecting consumers. Secondly, in this age of instantaneous communication surely even one day is more than should be necessary to move money from one end of the earth to the other, let alone from Strasbourg to Freiburg. And why are the banks afraid to be transparent about the cost of their services instead of charging by stealth in the form of unjustifiably long float times? Surely, in the spirit of Lisbon, we should be leading the world in applying today’s technology to money transfers. They should be instantaneous, with no delay at all. The service provider should then openly display its full charge for the service. So this directive, as finally and tortuously agreed, is a step in the right direction towards providing Europeans, both individuals and SMEs, with a modern, efficient and reasonably-priced money transmission service. But it is not all we should expect. Hopefully there will be further steps, Commissioner."@lt14
"Thank you, Mr President, and well done, Mr Gauzès. We have waited a long time, but we have finally got there. Well done! Importantly, the payment services directive opens up the payments market to non-banks. Barriers to entry and the stifling of innovation have been addressed, at least to some extent, through a mix of waivers for smaller players and flexibility for Member States on electronic money and other new means of payments, such as the money purse. However, I feel that there are some aspects where we have had an opportunity to make bigger inroads towards competition but have not gone nearly far enough. Non-banks do not need such comprehensive capital requirements as have been agreed with the Council. Payment services companies such as remitters, bill payers and companies offering card-based payment services do not take deposits and therefore do not need the same financial underpinning as deposit-taking commercial banks. One suspects that this is more a matter of protecting traditional banks from new competitors than of protecting consumers. Secondly, in this age of instantaneous communication surely even one day is more than should be necessary to move money from one end of the earth to the other, let alone from Strasbourg to Freiburg. And why are the banks afraid to be transparent about the cost of their services instead of charging by stealth in the form of unjustifiably long float times? Surely, in the spirit of Lisbon, we should be leading the world in applying today’s technology to money transfers. They should be instantaneous, with no delay at all. The service provider should then openly display its full charge for the service. So this directive, as finally and tortuously agreed, is a step in the right direction towards providing Europeans, both individuals and SMEs, with a modern, efficient and reasonably-priced money transmission service. But it is not all we should expect. Hopefully there will be further steps, Commissioner."@lv13
"Thank you, Mr President, and well done, Mr Gauzès. We have waited a long time, but we have finally got there. Well done! Importantly, the payment services directive opens up the payments market to non-banks. Barriers to entry and the stifling of innovation have been addressed, at least to some extent, through a mix of waivers for smaller players and flexibility for Member States on electronic money and other new means of payments, such as the money purse. However, I feel that there are some aspects where we have had an opportunity to make bigger inroads towards competition but have not gone nearly far enough. Non-banks do not need such comprehensive capital requirements as have been agreed with the Council. Payment services companies such as remitters, bill payers and companies offering card-based payment services do not take deposits and therefore do not need the same financial underpinning as deposit-taking commercial banks. One suspects that this is more a matter of protecting traditional banks from new competitors than of protecting consumers. Secondly, in this age of instantaneous communication surely even one day is more than should be necessary to move money from one end of the earth to the other, let alone from Strasbourg to Freiburg. And why are the banks afraid to be transparent about the cost of their services instead of charging by stealth in the form of unjustifiably long float times? Surely, in the spirit of Lisbon, we should be leading the world in applying today’s technology to money transfers. They should be instantaneous, with no delay at all. The service provider should then openly display its full charge for the service. So this directive, as finally and tortuously agreed, is a step in the right direction towards providing Europeans, both individuals and SMEs, with a modern, efficient and reasonably-priced money transmission service. But it is not all we should expect. Hopefully there will be further steps, Commissioner."@mt15
"Dank u, mijnheer de Voorzitter, en mijn complimenten, mijnheer Gauzès. We hebben lang moeten wachten, maar eindelijk zijn we waar we zijn moeten. Mijn complimenten! Het is belangrijk dat de richtlijn betreffende betalingsdiensten de betaalmarkt openstelt voor niet-banken. Door middel van een combinatie van ontheffingen voor kleinere spelers en flexibiliteit voor lidstaten inzake elektronisch geld en andere nieuwe betaalmiddelen, zoals de chipknip, is er, tot op zekere hoogte, in ieder geval iets gedaan aan de belemmeringen voor de markttoegang en voor innovatie. Ik denk evenwel dat we op enkele onderdelen op het gebied van concurrentie veel meer hadden kunnen bereiken dan we hebben gedaan. Het was niet nodig geweest om voor niet-banken zulke uitgebreide kapitaalvereisten met de Raad overeen te komen. Betalingsdienstaanbieders zoals geldtransactiekantoren, betalers en bedrijven die kaartbetalingsdiensten aanbieden, nemen geen deposito’s in ontvangst en hebben dus niet dezelfde financiële basis nodig als commerciële banken die deposito’s in ontvangst nemen. Het wekt het vermoeden dat hier eerder wordt geprobeerd om traditionele banken tegen nieuwe concurrenten te beschermen dan om consumenten te beschermen. Ten tweede is in deze tijd van snelle communicatie één dag al meer dan nodig is om geld van de ene kant van de wereld naar de andere te versturen, laat staan van Straatsburg naar Freiburg. En waarom durven de banken niet transparant te zijn over de kosten van hun diensten en verdienen ze de kosten liever ongemerkt terug door middel van onverdedigbaar lange overboekingstijden? In de geest van Lissabon zouden wij de wereld toch zeker het goede voorbeeld moeten geven door de moderne technologie toe te passen op geldovermakingen. Geldovermakingen moeten snel plaatsvinden, zonder enige vertraging, en de dienstaanbieder moet zijn kosten in verband met de verleende dienst openbaar maken. Deze richtlijn, zoals die uiteindelijk met veel omwegen is overeengekomen, is dus een stap in de richting van een modern, doelmatig en redelijk geprijsd betalingssysteem voor alle Europeanen, zowel particulieren als KMO’s. Maar hier moeten we het niet bij laten. Hopelijk zullen er nog meer stappen worden genomen, commissaris."@nl3
"Thank you, Mr President, and well done, Mr Gauzès. We have waited a long time, but we have finally got there. Well done! Importantly, the payment services directive opens up the payments market to non-banks. Barriers to entry and the stifling of innovation have been addressed, at least to some extent, through a mix of waivers for smaller players and flexibility for Member States on electronic money and other new means of payments, such as the money purse. However, I feel that there are some aspects where we have had an opportunity to make bigger inroads towards competition but have not gone nearly far enough. Non-banks do not need such comprehensive capital requirements as have been agreed with the Council. Payment services companies such as remitters, bill payers and companies offering card-based payment services do not take deposits and therefore do not need the same financial underpinning as deposit-taking commercial banks. One suspects that this is more a matter of protecting traditional banks from new competitors than of protecting consumers. Secondly, in this age of instantaneous communication surely even one day is more than should be necessary to move money from one end of the earth to the other, let alone from Strasbourg to Freiburg. And why are the banks afraid to be transparent about the cost of their services instead of charging by stealth in the form of unjustifiably long float times? Surely, in the spirit of Lisbon, we should be leading the world in applying today’s technology to money transfers. They should be instantaneous, with no delay at all. The service provider should then openly display its full charge for the service. So this directive, as finally and tortuously agreed, is a step in the right direction towards providing Europeans, both individuals and SMEs, with a modern, efficient and reasonably-priced money transmission service. But it is not all we should expect. Hopefully there will be further steps, Commissioner."@pl16
"Muito obrigado, Senhor Presidente, e bravo, senhor deputado Gauzès. Demorou muito, mas finalmente conseguimos. Bravo! Importante é o facto de a directiva relativa aos serviços de pagamento abrir o mercado dos pagamentos a entidades não bancárias. Os problemas das barreiras ao acesso e da resistência à inovação foram atacados, em certa medida pelo menos, com uma conjugação de isenções para os actores de menor dimensão e flexibilidade para os Estados-Membros no campo da moeda electrónica e de outros novos meios de pagamento, como o "porta-moedas". Todavia, penso que em alguns aspectos tivemos hipóteses de fazer progressos maiores na frente do alargamento da concorrência e ficámos muito aquém do que devíamos. No caso das entidades não bancárias não se justificam requisitos de fundos próprios tão elevados como os acordados com o Conselho. Companhias de serviços de pagamento, tais como instituições de envio de fundo, recebedorias e companhias que prestam serviços de pagamentos baseados em cartões não aceitam depósitos e, portanto, não carecem do mesmo suporte financeiro que os bancos comerciais, que aceitam depósitos. Suspeita-se que o objectivo seja mais proteger os bancos tradicionais de novos concorrentes do que proteger o consumidor. Em segundo lugar, nesta era de comunicação instantânea, um dia é um prazo que chega e sobra para movimentar o dinheiro de um extremo da Terra para o outro, quanto mais de Estrasburgo para Friburgo. E qual é o motivo que faz com que os bancos receiem ser transparentes no que respeita ao custo dos seus serviços, em vez de se fazerem pagar sub-repticiamente através de prazos de processamento injustificadamente dilatados? À luz do espírito de Lisboa, devíamos certamente estar na vanguarda mundial em matéria de aplicação das tecnologias actuais ao campo das transferências de dinheiro. Elas deviam ser instantâneas, sem diferimentos de espécie alguma. E o prestador devia explicitar o custo global do serviço de modo bem claro. Assim, a presente directiva, na forma finalmente acordada ao cabo de um tortuoso processo, é um passo na direcção certa com vista a proporcionar aos europeus, tanto cidadãos como PME, um serviço de transferência de dinheiro moderno, eficiente e a preço razoável. Mas fica aquém do que era de esperar. Esperemos que outros passos se lhe sigam, Senhor Comissário."@pt17
"Thank you, Mr President, and well done, Mr Gauzès. We have waited a long time, but we have finally got there. Well done! Importantly, the payment services directive opens up the payments market to non-banks. Barriers to entry and the stifling of innovation have been addressed, at least to some extent, through a mix of waivers for smaller players and flexibility for Member States on electronic money and other new means of payments, such as the money purse. However, I feel that there are some aspects where we have had an opportunity to make bigger inroads towards competition but have not gone nearly far enough. Non-banks do not need such comprehensive capital requirements as have been agreed with the Council. Payment services companies such as remitters, bill payers and companies offering card-based payment services do not take deposits and therefore do not need the same financial underpinning as deposit-taking commercial banks. One suspects that this is more a matter of protecting traditional banks from new competitors than of protecting consumers. Secondly, in this age of instantaneous communication surely even one day is more than should be necessary to move money from one end of the earth to the other, let alone from Strasbourg to Freiburg. And why are the banks afraid to be transparent about the cost of their services instead of charging by stealth in the form of unjustifiably long float times? Surely, in the spirit of Lisbon, we should be leading the world in applying today’s technology to money transfers. They should be instantaneous, with no delay at all. The service provider should then openly display its full charge for the service. So this directive, as finally and tortuously agreed, is a step in the right direction towards providing Europeans, both individuals and SMEs, with a modern, efficient and reasonably-priced money transmission service. But it is not all we should expect. Hopefully there will be further steps, Commissioner."@ro18
"Thank you, Mr President, and well done, Mr Gauzès. We have waited a long time, but we have finally got there. Well done! Importantly, the payment services directive opens up the payments market to non-banks. Barriers to entry and the stifling of innovation have been addressed, at least to some extent, through a mix of waivers for smaller players and flexibility for Member States on electronic money and other new means of payments, such as the money purse. However, I feel that there are some aspects where we have had an opportunity to make bigger inroads towards competition but have not gone nearly far enough. Non-banks do not need such comprehensive capital requirements as have been agreed with the Council. Payment services companies such as remitters, bill payers and companies offering card-based payment services do not take deposits and therefore do not need the same financial underpinning as deposit-taking commercial banks. One suspects that this is more a matter of protecting traditional banks from new competitors than of protecting consumers. Secondly, in this age of instantaneous communication surely even one day is more than should be necessary to move money from one end of the earth to the other, let alone from Strasbourg to Freiburg. And why are the banks afraid to be transparent about the cost of their services instead of charging by stealth in the form of unjustifiably long float times? Surely, in the spirit of Lisbon, we should be leading the world in applying today’s technology to money transfers. They should be instantaneous, with no delay at all. The service provider should then openly display its full charge for the service. So this directive, as finally and tortuously agreed, is a step in the right direction towards providing Europeans, both individuals and SMEs, with a modern, efficient and reasonably-priced money transmission service. But it is not all we should expect. Hopefully there will be further steps, Commissioner."@sk19
"Thank you, Mr President, and well done, Mr Gauzès. We have waited a long time, but we have finally got there. Well done! Importantly, the payment services directive opens up the payments market to non-banks. Barriers to entry and the stifling of innovation have been addressed, at least to some extent, through a mix of waivers for smaller players and flexibility for Member States on electronic money and other new means of payments, such as the money purse. However, I feel that there are some aspects where we have had an opportunity to make bigger inroads towards competition but have not gone nearly far enough. Non-banks do not need such comprehensive capital requirements as have been agreed with the Council. Payment services companies such as remitters, bill payers and companies offering card-based payment services do not take deposits and therefore do not need the same financial underpinning as deposit-taking commercial banks. One suspects that this is more a matter of protecting traditional banks from new competitors than of protecting consumers. Secondly, in this age of instantaneous communication surely even one day is more than should be necessary to move money from one end of the earth to the other, let alone from Strasbourg to Freiburg. And why are the banks afraid to be transparent about the cost of their services instead of charging by stealth in the form of unjustifiably long float times? Surely, in the spirit of Lisbon, we should be leading the world in applying today’s technology to money transfers. They should be instantaneous, with no delay at all. The service provider should then openly display its full charge for the service. So this directive, as finally and tortuously agreed, is a step in the right direction towards providing Europeans, both individuals and SMEs, with a modern, efficient and reasonably-priced money transmission service. But it is not all we should expect. Hopefully there will be further steps, Commissioner."@sl20
"Tack, herr talman, och bra gjort, herr Gauzès. Vi har väntat länge, men nu har vi äntligen nått vårt mål. Bra gjort! Det viktigaste är att direktivet om betaltjänster ger icke-banker tillgång till betalningsmarknaden. Man har, åtminstone i viss mån, försökt att lösa problem som hinder för tillträde och hämmande av innovation genom en blandning av undantag för mindre aktörer och flexibilitet för medlemsstaterna när det gäller elektroniska pengar och andra nya betalningsmedel, till exempel pengabörsen. Jag anser dock att det finns ett antal områden där vi hade möjlighet att göra större förändringar när det gäller konkurrensen, men där vi inte har kommit tillräckligt långt. För icke-banker behövs inte de omfattande kapitalkrav som man har enats med rådet om. Betaltjänstföretag som betalningsavsändare, fakturabetalare och företag som tillhandahåller kortbaserade betaltjänster tar inte emot insättningar och behöver därför inte samma ekonomiska understöd som kommersiella banker som tar emot insättningar. Detta tycks handla mer om att skydda traditionella banker från nya konkurrenter än om att skydda konsumenterna. För det andra borde det, i denna tid av omedelbar kommunikation, inte behöva ta en hel dag att överföra pengar från en del av världen till en annan, för att inte tala om från Strasbourg till Freiburg. Och varför vill bankerna inte visa vad deras tjänster kostar i stället för att ta betalt i smyg genom oacceptabelt långa överföringstider? Vi borde väl i sann Lissabonanda vara världsledande när det gäller att tillämpa den moderna tekniken på pengaöverföringar. De borde ske omedelbart utan någon som helst fördröjning. Tillhandahållaren av tjänsten borde sedan öppet visa den totala kostnaden för tjänsten. Detta direktiv, som vi nu efter många om och men har enats om, är ett steg i rätt riktning för att förse EU:s medborgare, både enskilda personer och små och medelstora företag, med ett modernt, effektivt och överkomligt system för pengaöverföringar. Vi bör dock förvänta oss mer. Förhoppningsvis kommer fler steg att tas, herr kommissionsledamot."@sv22
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"John Purvis (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