Proposition 52K2179

Projet de loi relatif aux services de paiement.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Sept. 30, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive banking consumer protection electronic money electronic banking financial instrument financial transaction international payment regulation of transactions

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo N-VA LDD FN

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 12, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Today, we are discussing the bill on payment services. The discussion was accompanied by a proposal for a resolution on the SEPA Directive by colleagues Lalieux and Burgeon.

As a reporter of this bill, I would like to point out that a second section of this bill will be discussed later. The first section, for which I am the rapporteur, focuses more specifically on consumer protection, a number of information obligations and the procedures for payment services.

This draft law sets the framework for the application of the European SEPA Directive, thus creating a European Integrated Area for Payment Services in Europe, and constitutes the application of that directive in Belgium.

As far as possible, the text of that directive was retained.

On one point, the directive was not followed. More specifically, at the request of the self-employed organisations, the gap for small enterprises was removed and left to their own negotiation capabilities, in order to apply the directive specifically to their sector.

In the discussion of this bill, a number of interesting elements were discussed, which I would like to briefly explain here on behalf of the various parties.

First of all, it is about timing and coordination. When can we apply this Directive in Belgium? When will it be fully effective? When will banks fully apply EU rules? That timing and that alignment will come. The Directive applies from 1 November 2009 and would apply three months after its publication in the Official Journal. A transitional arrangement is provided for all banks so that they are fully integrated within three years of approval.

The colleagues Plasman and Lalieux asked in the committee whether there is or will be provided sufficient information about that directive and about the changes for consumers in terms of payments, domiciliation, bank cards, and so on. The Minister responded affirmatively. There will be an information campaign by the FOD Economie and also by the National Bank, beginning next year.

Colleagues from other parties asked questions about the circular cheques. I also refer to the question of Mrs. Lalieux in this regard, who wondered whether the circular cheques would be removed in due course. The Minister said that this is not the case and that there is no substantial change to that by the draft.

In addition, an important aspect of that bill is that the domiciliation is reversed. Through that bill, it is the customer, the consumer, who orders a store or an entrepreneur to domiciliate his invoice. This is a reversal in relation to what exists now.

At the same time, it is an equalization with European regulations, which makes it easier to arrange domiciliations across Europe. This provision is important because the customer is protected in case of abuse. They are protected by the fact that they can get their money back up to eight weeks after the date, and in the case of fraud even up to three months. This is based on the legislation in the Netherlands.

There was also an amendment by colleague Plasman to Article 17 in connection with the termination of the framework contract that a customer has with a bank, with the aim of making the notice period start immediately and not only after one month. The purpose of the amendment was, it was said, to facilitate the transition between banks.

The government responded that an alternative to the immediate switching could be a kind of bank relocation service, allowing the customer to be guided, supported and assisted in everything related to switching between two banks. This relocation service is already included in an agreement with the banking sector, which is already in force and will be fully completed by 1 October 2010.

Another topic that was still discussed was the portability of bank accounts, so how to simply take your bank account number to another bank. A good idea, as it was said, but technically difficult to realize because in the European codes relating to bank accounts, part of it is linked to the bank itself and the account number therefore cannot be transferred without delay.

Finally, there were also discussions on the monthly provision of written information to the customer, on movements on accounts, on what should be understood by gross negligence in the loss of bank cards or credit cards and on the exchange date of transactions from the so-called law-Poty, which will be integrated into this new bill.

In the end, we came to the vote in which the bill was approved with 9 votes for and 2 abstentions, thus approving the first section of the bill on payment services and can now be submitted to the House for approval.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the commemorations around the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall remind us, if necessary, that the European Union finds its foundations, of course, in the peace restored, but also in the abolition of the internal borders of the 27 Member States. Today, 500 million citizens can move freely. This freedom of movement is also that of goods and services in a vast market without borders. Therefore, the creation of a unified European Payment Area is logically the next step.

The PS Group can only applaud the progress towards greater European integration. We can rightly consider the project presented to us this afternoon as a new piece of the puzzle building the full and complete European citizenship.

Nevertheless, integration must be made for the benefit of citizens and not just financial, commercial or banking institutions. Certainly, the bill contains positive effects, which we can congratulate. They were highlighted in my colleague’s excellent report: an obligation of information in the head of the provider; the obligation and responsibility enhanced in the head of the banks; new adapted systems of complaints and penalties; introduction of an eight-week period to challenge the charges and also of 36 months to file a complaint in case of fraud. All these more than positive aspects were highlighted during the discussions.

We must not forget the problem of homework. We will no longer order our operators, our companies to pay, but the banks will do it directly. In this regard, the public should be warned. Citizen information will be important at this time to check transfers and payments made by operators, as it is known how telecom operators sometimes get wrong in bills. As this will be done by office, the citizen will have to be properly informed.

On the other hand, the PS group considers the progress contained in this draft as a strict minimum and regrets that the discussion of the bill has not led to a wider debate on the consequences of the transposition of the SEPA directive on the most vulnerable audiences. I mean here pensions, social benefits, or even over-indebted people. I speak here of the absolute necessity of keeping circulating checks and postal assignments, of prohibiting compensation on insurmountable amounts and of evaluating the system of insurmountability that has been in place for a few years.

All this, I had asked in a resolution proposal attached to our work this afternoon, because for the most fragile of us, the law could be synonymous with social regression and not social progress.

Circular checks are a financial instrument still widely used by social security organizations and mutual funds. These have the advantage of being able to pay people directly from hand to hand regardless of whether they have a bank account or not.

Today, we already see that, especially in the provinces of Namur and Liège – Mr. Reynders, this latter province concerns you –, the majority of banking institutions benefit from the transposition of the SEPA directive to no longer pay circular cheques at the bank’s checkbox based on the principle that in the absence of a bank account, the payment of these cheques must no longer be made. This practice is completely illegal. But what can a person do when the employee of the bank refuses to make such a payment?

Again, people are sent back to the post offices and the Post Bank. However, we are witnessing a large number of closures of post offices; in doing so, it is difficult to take possession of money which is nevertheless due.

I repeat that we feel that banks are taking advantage of the SEPA Directive to no longer accept circular checks, in an unlawful manner.

Banking institutions should be reminded that circular cheques may continue to exist despite the aforementioned directive. Nothing in the latter prohibits such checks, even though I believe that this type of payment must disappear. That said, as long as it is necessary for a certain public, it must be guaranteed. This has been said and repeated by the Steering Committee, which believes that circular checks should be ⁇ ined in a number of cases. The same goes for postal assignments.

Another problem is bank compensation. We have had a very long debate in this forum on the problem of the insolvency of amounts paid to bank accounts and guaranteed by the Civil Code. We have obtained the insurmountability, traceability and guarantee of these amounts. However, today, banks can still compensate; in other words, they are the first creditors.

It is known, for example, that banks allow, even if this is not allowed, to go below zero for basic accounts. This compensation is therefore carried out automatically even when it comes to insufficient amounts. This is not the spirit of the law. I therefore ask the three ministers gathered here that, in parallel with the vote of this law, we proceed to the vote of the long-held bill concerning the prohibition of bank compensation on insurmountable sums. This is essential if we want people to more and more opt for non-paper transactions and for a bank account.

These are the questions that I still ask myself when transposing this Directive. But I have no doubt that the three ministers present in this homicide will make every effort to ⁇ non-compensation of banks and the maintenance of circular checks and postal assignments as long as this proves necessary.

As there will be the need for everything to be done by banking transaction, it will also be necessary to maintain many banking agencies and many distributors as money will be more and more virtual. Therefore, it is important to maintain a network of agencies in our country.

I am pleased that Minister Van Quickenborne is present here. There are currently three bills on the table to implement the so-called SEPA Directive. I will address the other two drafts in my presentation and our group will no longer intervene on the next item of the agenda.

These designs have a significant impact on the consumer and the confidence he may have in the payment services and in the way he performs his daily payments by transfer, domiciliation or when using payment cards. Meanwhile, the current financial crisis has affected both the functioning of the banking sector and the consumer confidence in that banking sector.

Given the dominance in Belgium of the Belgian major banks in the field of payment services, this Directive threatens the risk that it is purely theoretical that competition will play and new players will enter the market. Our group is wondering how far consumers will benefit from high-performance payment services at cheaper prices, which was the aim of the European Directive.

Both from the discussion in the Committee on Business, colleague Staelraeve has already given an explanation on this, as well as in the Committee on Finance, it is clear that SEPA in Belgium threatens to give rise to higher costs for consumers and traders. With regard to the traders, I would like to refer to the resolution of Mrs Lalieux. This resolution is not just about the circular cheque, but also about the disappearance of ATMs here and there, so small traders must invest in a bank contact system because otherwise consumers will have to walk too far to withdraw money. My baker in the corner also predicted that. I think this is the wrong direction, and not the direction that harmonisation should go. It seems to us everything but a good thing.

However, the Directive provides the possibility of pursuing subsidiarity. Each Member State can go further in favour of consumer protection. I think that’s where the shoe runs. Minister Van Quickenborne is so pleased with this bank transfer service, saying that we are going beyond Europe in transposing the directive. However, no amendment from us could be accepted because it could not be from Europe. I think of Article 17, where the consumer suddenly gets a one-month notice period on his board, while the law of 2007, where that was not included, was precisely aimed at improving mobility and thus also the competition between banks.

I see there, however, an inconsistency in this interpretation, including with the currency data. There is a substantial increase in the number of days, of the deadlines, which is a serious step backwards from the current situation. We do not understand why this must suddenly be so. We have received a technical explanation about this in the Committee for Business, but we do not understand that in the case of an electronic payment to another bank this must take a day longer. Why should we not let the interbank systems, which are now active twice a day, work four times a day? This cannot be such a problem.

We have had long discussions with colleagues about the gross negligence. This would, of course, add something new. Now we are often in the grey zone of who is to blame for losing a bank card. There we are now in the situation where the banks interpret who is the culprit and whether one is responsible for negligence or not. There is, of course, the judicial procedure, but we still think we missed a chance there. For all these reasons, we believe that the current consumer protection is undermined and our group will abstain.

Thank you and congratulations on your maiden speech, Mrs. Plasman.(Applause)

Madame Lalieux, as we said in commission, it is urgent to revise the 2004 gentlemen’s agreement. Together with my colleagues, Paul Magnette and Didier Reynders, we must examine what we can do more. An agreement was reached on a number of transactions that could be free of charge for the consumer. Your concerns should be discussed with the banking sector. We must go beyond the content of the gentlemen’s agreement and that, before the end of the year.

Colleague Plasman, of course we had an extensive discussion in the committee. You said you have your doubts about more competition. I don’t know if you followed the news. Then you have seen that a new card, PayFair, has arrived on the Belgian market. It was proposed only a few days ago. This shows that SEPA will give rise to more competition.

Of course, competition alone is not enough, there must also be sufficient supervision. This monitoring is also there. In the design, we determine exactly what the starting date is for that number of currency days. That was not stipulated in the law-Poty, so some banks now even counted much longer. I have also explained to you that it is technically impossible today that a transfer from one bank to another was carried out after ten minutes, simply because our systems are not adapted for that today. Of course, we will try to go further into that.

Colleagues, figures from the European Commission show that we are one of the cheapest countries for consumers to bank. I think we need to preserve that treasure. The transposition of the SEPA Directive into Belgian legislation will help us in this. Of course, good supervision is required by the competent ministers. I have also been involved in this committee and I want to do it again.

To complement what has just been said and reassure Ms. Lalieux, in addition to the update of the gentlemen's agreement with the sector that Mr. Lalieux has just mentioned. Van Quickenborne, with regard to available checkpoints, free withdrawals, etc., we will continue to consider the necessity of a legislative change to reassure on the issue of compensation. We will also ensure that the transition to SEPA does not affect consumer pricing, including by using the powers of the Price Observatory.

I would also like to reassure Ms. Lalieux by telling her that I share everything my two colleagues have just said.