. you have the direct contact and you are best placed to inform them. naturally, public authorities have to play a role in disseminating information and we will continue to do so. but what is crucial, at this point in time, is more effective communication about sepa from the banks to the user level. in my opinion, communication is a core task for the epc ; not to take over national responsibilities, but to support the national communication efforts with clear messages for the different target groups. 4. cash issues let me also say a few words about cash. the ecb welcomes the continuous dialogue between the escb banknote committee and the epc cash working group and – more specifically – the cooperative spirit of the discussions. work is progressing regarding the implementation of the “ roadmap for more convergence of ncb cash services ” and the development of the second series of euro banknotes is on its way. the european commission has set up a special working group consisting of – inter alia – the epc, eurosystem representatives and the commission to tackle the issue of cross - border transport of cash on the road. no single euro cash area will exist without having solved this issue. furthermore, we took note that the epc raised strong concerns regarding the commission ’ s proposal to amend regulation 1338 dated 2001. this regulation deals with measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting. certain concerns on the part of the epc are in line with the concerns raised by the ecb in its formal opinion and i would like to ask the commission to take a careful look at the matter. conclusion : strong governance role of the epc is needed today, i have mentioned a number of issues that are vital in order to make sepa a success. all this can only be achieved – and i would really like to underline this – if the epc continues to fulfil its role as the banks ’ governing body in charge of payment issues. a strong coach and diligent training are crucial for any athlete ’ s success. what the epc has achieved so far should not be the end of the story. the sepa schemes are in place or ready to be put in place. but sepa needs to develop further. further improvements to the rulebooks are under way, which will help to make the core schemes even more attractive. another road to pursue is the development of innovative services, which will pave the way for a highly efficient euro payments business

be applicable to the sepa direct debit scheme too. this would ensure the necessary level playing - field in the national context for the sepa direct debit scheme and the national legacy direct debit schemes that i mentioned before. given that most direct debits will initially still be conducted at the national level, the vast majority of direct debits would thus be treated in the same manner. customers, in particular creditors, would not need to be afraid of prices increasing. banks would not see their business model change. i would like to reiterate that this is only a temporary solution, for i understand that at the end of the interim period, there would no longer be any transaction - based mif, neither at the national level nor at the cross - border level, neither for sepa direct debits nor for legacy direct debits, which would anyway have to be phased out. however, nothing prevents banks from devising other forms of compensation for the future. there are different models conceivable, or already in use, in order to cover costs and to provide incentives for those involved to offer and to use direct debits. if this compensation is based on a proper calculation and methodology, it should also be acceptable to competition authorities. both sides are important here, demand and supply, banks should not only want to offer sepa direct debits, but customers should also want to use them. 2. we need a migration end - date what is also crucial for sepa to be ultimately successful is to have a firm plan after when the sepa instruments would replace the national payment instruments. all studies carried out on this subject in the past showed the same result : it is inefficient, it is costly, and it will not generate economies of scale, if two schemes continue to run in parallel for a long period of time. in short, it will prevent stakeholders from fully reaping the benefits of sepa. let me be clear on this : the national payment instruments will have to be phased out at some point in time if we are really serious about creating a single euro payments area. maintaining national instruments means maintaining fragmentation. right now, with sepa credit transfers already up and running, a migration end - date should be defined soon. there is no rationale for keeping national and sepa credit transfers running in parallel for an indefinite period of time. for the sepa direct debit scheme, we are investigating whether it would be