Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-14-Speech-3-331"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011114.12.3-331"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, in 1990, the Commission issued a Green Paper on payments, and that marked the beginning of talks with banks about cross-border payments, among other things. Initially, the banks expressed objections, with good reason, and we have worked for years to accommodate those objections. We now have an international bank account number, the IBAN, we have a bank identifier code, the BIC, the reporting requirements to the Central Bank have been lifted when amounts up to EUR 12 500 are involved, and that coincides with the permitted maximum of the money-laundering directive. There is a format to transfer payments fully automatically. To my disappointment, this resulted only in ever more expensive transfers. At the end of 2000, Mr Bolkestein and myself were in this plenary when the Commissioner promised on that occasion that he would take measures if nothing had changed in the first six months of this year. In July, the Commission and Parliament established, each following their own extensive inquiries, that nothing had changed. Quite the reverse, in fact: the situation had deteriorated. The Commissioner kept his promise and presented his Regulation, and I realise that the banks have simply missed two opportunities. In November 2000 and even in July of this year, there would have been enough time to set up a substantial self-regulation scheme, something which all parties would have preferred to this wrap over the knuckles. The European Banking Association has made a manful attempt to set up a cheap payment structure, step one followed by step two, for which they also received praise by the European Central Bank in its 2000 annual report. I would endorse this, but would at the same time express my astonishment about the fact that only a very small number of banks have joined the initiative.
Much to the delight of Parliament, the Council in Ghent expressed its approval of the Regulation, and we hope that this will impact positively on the Internal Market Council.
I will now turn my attention to the amendments. I am unable to support Amendment No 9 on self-regulation. As I have already stated, although we welcome the idea of self-regulation, the proposal should have been backed by all banks. It should be accompanied by monitoring, guarantees, sanctions, etc. However, the liberal amendment creates confusion about the date of entry into force and in strict legal terms, something like that cannot be provided for in this Regulation. The other new amendments are the result of the sound cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. I should like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for this sound cooperation. I now have high hopes for the Internal Market Council reaching agreement on 26 November, something which the Ghent Summit called for. The changes I would propose with regard to the Commission position are as follows.
First of all, I have suggested changing the date of entry into effect from 1 January to 1 March, by which date all countries will have completed their transitional periods. Moreover, at this rate, we will not make 1 January with the notification in the Official Journal practically speaking. I would propose a few amendments, namely 10, 13 and 16 with regard to cheques. I do not want cheques to fall within the principle of equal costs as referred to in Article 3, because an increasing number of banks would actually like to do away with the cross-border cheque. Guarantees concerning cheques are very different in all countries. The cheque does remain within the scope of the transparency section of the Regulation, which is stipulated in Article 4.
Another proposal for change concerns the obligation to communicate with the banking country by using the IBAN and BIC codes. Some banks, such as the Postbank and Internet banks, have their own codes and should not, therefore, be forced to use the IBAN and BIC codes.
Finally, I should like to turn to Mrs Torres Marques’ earlier amendment. Some Member States had difficulty coming to terms with yet another institution, and that was never our intention. We have solved the matter with a consideration for redress procedures and an article about sanctions, something which we happen to attach great importance to.
I should like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for his courage and for the fact that he kept his promise. His offices were always available for consultation, and all this could well result in this Regulation ending its march through the institutions on a positive note. Parliament is expected to provide broad support."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples