in good time. we need quasi - automaticity in the application of sanctions, based on clearly defined criteria and with less discretion over outcomes. and we need ambitious targets for the reduction of public debt towards the 60 % of gdp ceiling. the second key area is broader surveillance of macroeconomic policies in the euro area. we need a new system of mutual surveillance in the euro area, concentrating firmly on euro area countries experiencing sustained losses of competitiveness and large current account deficits as these countries face the greatest sustainability challenges. it should be determined by transparent and effective trigger mechanisms and specify clearly the sanctions in case of breach. and we need full transparency. the assessments of macroeconomic imbalances and recommendations for corrective action should be given broad publicity at all stages of the surveillance process. the effectiveness of these enhancements to the governance framework will in part be determined by the quality and independence of the economic analysis that underpins them. without reliable statistical data we cannot be certain that the governance framework will provide the quantum leap forward that is necessary. it is therefore extremely important that the commission services charged with conducting macroeconomic and fiscal surveillance for the euro area be sufficiently independent, ideally supported by a body of “ wise persons ” providing external assessments. conclusion let me conclude. the past 12 years have been very challenging, demanding and eventful years. the ecb has lived up to its responsibility and delivered what we promised to deliver : a stable currency, as credible and confidence - inspiring as the best previous currencies. the euro has also been a force of stability in what is now a more than three year period of economic and financial instability. as is the case in all major advanced economies which all, without exception, have to put under sharp review their previous surveillance framework and economic models, changes are needed in the euro area framework. not the kind of changes towards more unilateral action, with dangers of lack of cooperation, but changes towards greater cooperation, greater cohesion through a strengthened framework of economic governance. to sum up, more european unity, more responsible european unity. we must keep our sense of direction. we are now at a stage where we need to remain bold and enact those reforms that we envisaged when the crisis was at its deepest. it was then that we witnessed the clearest manifestation of risks and our judgement was sharpest. it would be a big mistake if, with gradually improving conditions, we fell back into accepting the status quo. i therefore call on all parties to

serve as a good lesson where innovation significantly outpaced the capacity of the regulatory environment to exercise prudential oversight, and prevent distress to the financial system. the environment within which branchless banking will flourish requires a great deal of innovation in terms of executing transactions, maintaining proper audit controls and ensuring fraudsters do not take advantage of unsuspecting customers. as regulators we are particularly concerned where deposits are accepted by non - bank entities, acting in the capacity of an agent to a financial institution. this is because while financial institutions need to comply with minimum prudential regulations, such as capital, liquidity and submission of financial data on a regular basis to the supervisory authorities, non - bank financial service providers are typically not subject to such requirements, and in the event of financial distress, depositors may be at risk. in order to address this concern, the regulators need to ensure a sound regulatory regime which is sufficiently accommodative to balance prudence and innovation. this not a simple issue, and this forum has been designed to explore critical aspects of achieving this fine balance. a second key policy concern relates to undermining confidence in the payment systems. as different intermediaries get involved, there is an increase in the risk of losing transaction integrity, corruption of data or breach of payment settlement terms. the loss of faith in the safety and security of transactions, in particular payment transactions, can result in widespread loss of consumer confidence. another area relates to policies governing competition as different players position themselves in the branchless banking arena? issues such as licensing, pricing, alliances with different financial institutions and compliance with prudential regulations need to be considered carefully. the public and consumers may lose confidence if there is no sense of order in how the payment system is evolving, or there is wide disparity in charges and fess. there is a need for the major stakeholders to align with some form of regulatory approach or framework which would provide a basis for assessing risks, and to implement regulations that are proportionate to the risks identified. in this forum, some of the key elements of such a regulatory framework will be dealt with, such as know your customer, compliance with anti - money laundering regulations, consumer protection and achieving greater levels of system interoperability amongst service providers. as such, branchless banking will require an inter - disciplinary approach given the different types of expertise needed to drive this important agenda. the third area of policy concern i would like to touch on relates to the issue of