Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-14-Speech-3-342"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011114.12.3-342"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, as Mrs Peijs stated a moment ago, I was standing on the same spot in this House in October last year, talking about the same issue, namely the establishment of a common payment area. The Commission had just published its fourth or fifth communication on that subject and in it, it was stipulated that the internal market and the single currency had to be accompanied by a common payment area.
On the one hand, I do not dispute the fact that time will be needed to set up this infrastructure, but on the other hand, we should not make a mountain out of a molehill. After all, for years, banks have claimed that cross-border payments only account for 1% of the total transfers. Consequently, the entry into force of the Regulation in 2003 will not involve insurmountable additional costs, and if our expectations are fulfilled and if it transpires that the price reduction results in a greater use of this means of payment, then there will be even more reason to go full steam ahead with the activities.
The report by Mrs Peijs contains sixteen amendments, seven pertaining to the recitals and nine to the articles. One single amendment is not acceptable, namely Amendment No 9 on the suspension of the Regulation which I mentioned a moment ago. One amendment constitutes a legal problem, namely Amendment No 4 on the rise in costs for domestic payments. It concerns a political statement which although I fully endorse it, does not fit in a legal document.
Moreover, in this connection, I should like to refer to the last speaker, Mrs Thijssen, who asked me whether it is possible for banks to compensate for the losses incurred with regard to international payments by national payments. As has been rightly noted, this proposed Regulation is not a price measure: indeed, the charges for transfers are not specified, and that means that, in theory, the charges for national payments could increase.
This Parliament then levelled criticism at the Commission for being too passive. I remember this well. Mrs Peijs wondered when the Commission would spring into action. Well, the Commission has listened carefully to Mrs Peijs and has acted accordingly, no one will be able to deny this now. The Commission has submitted a draft Regulation which is based on a simple principle, namely that each payment in euro is to cost the same, irrespective of whether the payment is national or cross-border. This is of the utmost importance to the citizens, as has been noted by many Members of this Parliament. Today, the euro is a virtual currency, especially for the citizens, but on 1 January 2002, the currency will become tangible, for from that date onwards, 300 million Europeans will be using the same bank notes and coins.
Today, European citizens still accept that a cross-border payment costs more than a national one. The reason is that different currencies are involved, but after 1 January, that will no longer be the case. The citizens will then question the usefulness of the euro if cross-border payments are still as expensive as they are now.
In this connection, I should like to remind you that our latest study into the cost of cross-border payments has yielded baffling results. It transpired that in the year 2001, a cross-border payment of EUR 100 costs no less than EUR 24 on average. We carried out a similar study in 1993 and unfortunately, we had to establish that no progress at all had been made in eight years. That is why the Commission has decided to introduce a Regulation as a tool. The market itself has failed to come up with solutions to the posed problem, and with this interventionist measure, the legislator wants to force the economic operators to set up the infrastructure which the market requires.
As Mrs Peijs knows, I am a staunch Liberal, and I regret the fact that I had no choice but to propose such a binding document for the banks. However, it is the only way to persuade the economic operators to take great pains over the new systems which are vital for the smooth running of the internal market. It is therefore with satisfaction that I have noted that the first results are rolling in. In one section of the bank sector, the plan is now being put forward to set up a new system for cross-border payments. And that proves that the present proposal for a Regulation is also realistic. After all, the saying ‘where there is a will, there is a way’ also applies to the bank sector.
What took me rather by surprise is the idea of the bank sector that since they, as banks, have committed to implementing the plan, we, as Commission, can withdraw our proposal for a Regulation. Firstly, we should not overlook the fact that this plan can only count on a proportion of the bank sector. Indeed, there are three European pressure groups for banking and only one of those has written to me to propose this plan. That is an important fact. After all, a payment system is a network, and a network develops at the rate of the slowest members that belong to it. All it takes is for a few members of a network to refuse to develop any further, and that will throw a spanner in the works for the other members. That is, in fact, one of the reasons why in the past ten years, no progress has been made whatsoever.
Secondly, the proposed plan is too late. It was only announced in a press release two weeks prior to the discussion of the proposal in Parliament. However, the Commission has been asking for this matter to be looked into for the past eleven years, but in all that time, too little progress has been made, and for those reasons, the Commission is unable to give a positive response to those MEPs who proposed to grant the bank sector a certain level of self-regulating authority. The bank sector has had sufficient time, and it, at least a section of it, is now coming up with a proposal. It is too little, too late, and that is why the Commission must resort to the proposals of a Regulation. It is therefore illogical to demand withdrawal of the proposal just before the first benefits are becoming visible. Accordingly, the idea to suspend the Regulation, as proposed in Amendment No 9 by Mr Maaten, seems unacceptable to me. I repeat what I have said a moment ago: the proposals for self-regulation are too late.
Any call from the Commission to the banking world is being, or has been, backed by this Parliament, which is encouraging. In this connection, I would praise many MEPs and particularly the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, who has worked tenaciously to achieve the goal, namely to reduce the cost of transfers. In this respect, Mrs Peijs is the mouthpiece of the citizens and illustrates the great significance for industry, not least the small- and medium-size enterprises. The Commission proposal specifically embodies what is referred to as the Europe of the citizens.
I should like to turn to yet another bone of contention, namely the date on which the present draft Regulation should enter into force. Some MEPs have in this connection referred to the opinion of the European Central Bank which states that the ECB is in complete agreement with the objectives which we aim to achieve with our proposal, but that we, the Commission, are said to go too fast and are too demanding. The bottom line in the ECB’s argument is that the banks need more time to set up the necessary infrastructure and logistical provisions. That is why the European Central Bank proposes 1 January 2005 for the Regulation to come into force."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples