Activities of Ashley FOX related to 2012/2040(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments’ PDF (230 KB) DOC (143 KB)
Amendments (16)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European market for card, internet and mobile payments is at present still fragmented across national borders and only a few big players are able to operate on a cross-border basis;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Green Paper does not tackle the cost of cash payments in comparison with card, internet and mobile payments, thus preventing an comparative analysis of the economic and welfare cost of payments by cash;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas successful SEPA migration can be expected to give an impetus to the development of innovative pan-European means of payment;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Expresses concern at unduly tight regulation of internet and mobile payment markets at this stage because such payment methods are still in the process of development; considers that any regulatory initiative in this field risks to be characterised by an undue emphasis on already existing payment instruments and may thus deter innovation and distort the market before it has developed; asks the Commission to adopt a radically different and appropriate approach to these newinternet and mobile payment methods in any future proposal, if any;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that common technical standards, on an open access basis, would not only enhance the competitiveness of the European economy and the functioning of the internal market but would also foster interoperability and bring security-related advantages in the form of common security standards, which would benefit both consumers and merchants;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that further standardisationalignment on practices is needed to promote cross- border acquiring, an arrangement which would increase competition and the choices available for merchants and could result in more cost- efficient payment methods for customers;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Urges that solutions to facilitate cross- border acquiring be actively sought, in view of its advantages to the internal market; expresses concern at existing barriers, such as some licensing, which should be abandoned terms;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that MIFs can currently be justified as a means to finance interbank services in the four- party card payment systems; notes that the level of MIFs is sometimes higher than what the financing of the four-party payment system requirshould be strictly linked to the cost of providing such services;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls on the Commission to consider negotiating with relevant industry representatives a MIF setting methodology for cards, after conducting a full impact assessment;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that there are crucial differences between the three-party and four-party payment schemes and that each scheme should be treated according to its specificities, though ultimately in an equal manner in order to ensure a level playing field and foster competition and transparency for consumers and merchants;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that co-badging could be beneficial to consumers as it would result in fewer cards and a wider range of choices, and would encourage competition; highlights however that mandatory co- badging may reduce competition and present some security and liability risks, arising from constraints on a card scheme to contract freely with business partners of their choice;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls that the final responsibility for security measures relating to different payment methods cannot lie with customers, but that they should be informed about security precautions; and have a responsibility in keeping personalised security features safe as per Article 56 of the Payment Services Directive;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Believes that providing third parties with data on the availability of funds in bank accounts entails risks; notes that one of the risks is that consumers may not be fully aware of who has access to their account information, and in the context of which legal framework, and which operator is responsible for the payment services the consumer is using;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that regulation could lower these security risks and could make payments through non-bank PSPs as safe as payments directly from bank accounts, as long as secure systems are available in practice and the legitimacy of such access and the organisations asking for such access are clearly defined;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Does not, therefore, support third-party access to a customer's bank account information before secure systems are developed, built and thoroughly tested; notes that in any future regulation third- party access should be limited to binary ('yes-no') information on availability of funds and special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights; considers, in particular, that it should be clearly specified which parties can have access to wthichs information and under which conditions the data can be stored;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Welcomes the consultation being undertaken by the European Commission with stakeholders as part of the green paper on the subject of SEPA governance as per recital 5 of Regulation 260/2012 and is looking forward to the proposal it intends to put forward on the subject at the end of this year; underlines that the immediate priority of all SEPA stakeholders has to be the preparation for SEPA migration as per the conditions laid down by Regulation 260/2012 so as to ensure a smooth transition from the use of national to pan-European payment schemes;