Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-11-Speech-3-481"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090311.42.3-481"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"− Mr President, first of all may I convey the regrets of Commissioner McCreevy for not being able to attend.
The Commission also supports the continued legal validity of existing national direct debit mandates under SEPA migration. However, this is a legal matter for national authorities to solve, for example, by using the opportunity provided by the Payment Services Directive’s implementation.
The fifth question related to how the Commission is tackling the MIF issue for card payments.
This work is progressing primarily through the Commission’s assessment under the competition rules of the two major international card schemes, namely MasterCard and Visa.
On 19 December 2007, the Commission decided that the MasterCard MIFs for cross-border card payments with MasterCard and Maestro branded consumer credit and debit cards were not compatible with the competition rules. MasterCard is appealing the Commission’s decision.
In March 2008, the Commission opened proceedings to establish whether Visa Europe’s MIF constitutes an infringement of Article 81. Discussions with Visa are ongoing as well.
The Commission seeks to maintain a level playing field for MasterCard and Visa Europe as well as for the other payment card schemes which might emerge in the future.
Your penultimate question asks if the Commission should propose a concrete solution to the MIF issue. In a market economy, it is incumbent upon industry to propose an appropriate business model. In relation to cards, as I have said, discussions are ongoing with Mastercard and Visa. In relation to SEPA direct debit, the Commission is willing to assist industry by providing urgent guidance within the framework of a sustained dialogue with the banking industry and on the basis of contributions by the relevant market actors. This guidance should be provided by November 2009 at the latest.
And your final question asks what specific measures the Commission intends to propose to make sure that SEPA migration does not lead to a more expensive payment system.
In the Commission’s opinion, this should not happen. Firstly, SEPA should foster competition and increase operational efficiency through economies of scale – both producing downward price pressure.
Secondly, SEPA should also increase transparency, which will limit cross-subsidisation and hidden pricing, although optically, some users may perceive the switch from high hidden pricing to low visible pricing as a price increase. Here, clear communication by banks will be important.
Well, this is indeed a long question but I believe both the question and the draft resolution on SEPA implementation correctly identify the key issues we need to resolve to make a success of SEPA.
Third, the Commission is carefully monitoring the impact of SEPA on customers by launching studies.
Finally, we agree that there is concern that efficient national debit card schemes may be replaced by more expensive alternatives. However, there are initiatives that could develop into a new pan-European debit card scheme and an overall backstop is provided by the existing powers of EU and national competition authorities.
Therefore, in conclusion, SEPA should result in a more efficient payment system and adequate safeguards under EU and national competition policy exist.
I therefore very much welcome this Resolution and Parliament’s strong support for SEPA.
The first question asks how the Commission intends to promote and foster migration to SEPA instruments.
SEPA is primarily a market-driven project, but given the substantial benefits to the wider economy, the Commission has sought to encourage SEPA migration, for example by acting as a catalyst to raise the political profile of SEPA through our SEPA Progress Report and by encouraging early migration by public authorities. And, also, by striving itself to be an early adopter of SEPA. And finally, as announced in last week’s Commission proposal ‘Driving European Recovery’, by coming forward with proposals to ensure that the full benefits of SEPA are realised.
The second question asks if a critical mass of payments will have migrated by the end of 2010. Clearly we favour rapid migration to keep extra costs during migration to a minimum. Although the SEPA Credit Transfer (SCT) has been successfully launched, less than 2% of payments have migrated. Furthermore, the Sepa Direct Debit will only be launched later this year. So the current pace of migration is too slow to attain critical mass migration by 2010.
The third question was on the necessity of a clear and binding end date. We see the strong merits of fixing an end date and, of course, 2012 does not seem unreasonable. However, for many Member States this remains a very sensitive question. We therefore favour establishing a clear process to examine this question, by collecting information on the impact of an end date on different stakeholders and launching a meaningful debate with them.
This could pave the way for some political endorsement and, if needed, a possible legislative proposal, for example, at the end of the year.
Your fourth question asks how to enhance legal certainty for the SEPA Direct Debit in relation to the MIF and existing mandates.
We need a temporary solution to the business model problem to provide legal clarity and get the SEPA Direct Debit successfully launched. That is why the Commission fully supports the efforts of Parliament and the Council to find a temporary solution within the context of the revision of the Regulation on cross-border payments."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples