Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-19-Speech-1-126-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121119.21.1-126-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr President, the card payment market in Europe has high potential for savings and expansion, to say nothing of the potential for mobile and internet payments.
I support the Commission’s view that various payment methods should be promoted, made more secure and more user-friendly. The predominant focus in my own-initiative report is on card payments because I do not think it sensible to impose unnecessarily strict regulation on the mobile and internet payment markets at this stage: the markets are still developing and taking shape, and we cannot predict the payment innovations that the markets will develop over the coming months and years.
The reliability and cost-effectiveness of card, internet and mobile payments are also key to growth of European e-commerce and to the operation of the Digital Single Market. Factors associated with payment security should not have overriding importance, and we must not overemphasise security at the cost of user-friendliness because otherwise the payment systems will not attract users. Similarly we should note that the use of cash is not fully secure either.
One key topic in the preparation of the report was the cost of using payment cards. When the Commission outlines the next steps in the development of payment markets, I hope that, in the name of diversity, it will also consider the costs involved in the use of cash and cheques. When preparing this report, we have discussed Multilateral Interchange Fees, or ‘MIFs’. MIFs are, in some cases, too high in relation to the costs they engender, and they can sometimes obstruct competition.
There are currently no alternative financial models for card payment schemes, and for that reason we cannot, in my view, prohibit the existing business model. It is absolutely vital for the Commission to produce a basic impact assessment before we propose action in relation to MIFs, whether we propose restricting MIFs, gradually reducing them to zero or banning them completely. If we decided to try and ban MIFs, we would run the risk that the cost of maintaining the card scheme would be transferred directly to the card-holder, the consumer, in the form of a charge that might result in a decline in the use of payment cards contrary to the Commission’s original proposal.
I hope that operators other than banks will gain a foothold in the payment market. I do not, however, support third-party access to a customer’s banking information before the security and operation of the scheme can be fully safeguarded.
Finally, when seeking to achieve harmonised technical standards, the basic principle must be to ensure that standardisation removes barriers rather than giving rise to new barriers or to difficulties for market operators. This report is a natural continuation of the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) project: cross-border payments should be as easy as credit transfers in the SEPA area."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples