Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-26-Speech-4-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001026.3.4-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, the rapporteur's report is very much to be welcomed because it highlights the problems associated with cross-border payments. After all, we expect credit transfers to strengthen economic integration in the European Union and not to throw a spanner in the works. That is what they are doing to this day, as we can see from the many complaints made by small and medium-sized businesses and the complaints made by the public about the high charges for transferring small amounts, which are quite simply very much in evidence. We even know of cases in which transfer fees for cross-border payments increased when the euro was introduced, and not only by a modest amount.
The monthly cheque to a daughter or son in another EU country, the cross-border transfers for books or services, hotels or trips are being subjected to additional charges, despite the fact that the logistics of cross-border trade are supposed to be less complex and less expensive. There is even talk of it being possible to reduce costs by 90%, although the financial services institutions impress on us time and again that the higher costs are linked to processing the transfers and not to the technicalities of making cross-border payments. Nevertheless, it would have been good if a TARGET system for small payments and retail payments had been introduced at the same time as the TARGET system for wholesale payments, because technically that would have been possible; it is just that there was not the same determination to do so as there was for wholesale payments.
In the European Parliament in our work in committee, we also very much regretted the fact that the offer made by the European Central Bank was not accepted. Here, too, we endorse the statement made by the European Central Bank that one day it should not be any more expensive to effect a cross-border transfer to another EU country than to transfer money within one single EU country.
For years we have been pressing for the efforts being made to be harmonised. After all, it is in fact very possible to set up a quick, secure and cheap system, and fortunately the financial services institutions have now also come on board; they are on the right track. But it would have been good if we had already made use of the transitional period. The many complaints made by incensed members of the public speak for themselves, and I have to say that particularly at this time these are, of course, not likely to increase public acceptance of monetary union.
The political objective is clear and is supported by the European Central Bank: what we need is a European payment area within which everything works just as smoothly as it does in a single EU country. Small customers are just as much part of the internal market as major customers; there should be no discrimination here. I believe, however, that there is also more that the governments must do, and I support the rapporteur's report. At the same time, the reporting requirement for balance of payment statistics should be abolished for small-value cross-border payments for amounts of less than EUR 50 000. Samples are actually sufficient. The European Central Bank could help by creating a single European data format for credit transfers and by supporting moves to create a uniform European bank sort code within the international IBAN system. It is important for all those involved to do what the European Central Bank is obliged to do as one of its tasks laid down in the Treaty, namely to promote the smooth operation of payment systems.
The European Commission does not have the right to set the level of bank charges, but it can use its influence to bring down transfer fees. In the Union, charges sometimes vary very considerably, but sometimes they are also very similar. They therefore play a part in restricting freedom of movement in the internal market. I think that the Commission needs to be much quicker than it has been up until now about finally tabling the results of its investigations into whether there are, in fact, restrictive agreements between the banks. What is becoming important – and the report rightly refers to this – is consumer preference for electronic payments, and here we call for progress to be made so that here too an interoperable multi-currency standard for electronic purses can actually be introduced. This initiative, which so far is operational in Luxembourg, France and Germany, needs to be extended to the rest of the EU.
I believe that this report is of central importance if we are truly to succeed in integrating the public and small and medium-sized businesses into the euro area and for increasing public acceptance of economic and monetary union. We need security, speed and also low costs. Living in the monetary union also means counting on a reliable cross-border credit transfer system – this is the battle cry for the remaining 432 days."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples