The Committee took the view that the classification of ‘innovative products’ proposed by the Commission (‘bank-account-access’ and ‘electronic money’), while important for the purposes of regulation, was inadequate as it did not specify in which of the two categories prepaid bank issue cards should be placed. These allowed remote access to a bank account, even if such access were limited to the value-storage stage: in that respect, they would belong to the category of ‘bank-account-access products’. However, these cards did not allow any further access to the account in their use stage. On access to the account, the Committee pointed out that only once – with reference to the classification – did the Commission document refer to ‘accounts held at financial insti­tutions’. Whenever the subject was referred to subsequently, and in the Recommen­dation itself, the reference was simply to an ‘account’ which was not further specified. Since the collection of deposits, and hence the opening of accounts, was limited to properly authorised financial institutions, clarifi­cation was needed as to whether this omission was deliberate or whether ‘accounts’ was always meant to refer to those opened with financial institutions. This clarification was essential for understanding whether, when the document referred to cards allowing access to the account, it meant cards issued by banks or cards which might be issued by non-banking institutions as well. Given that it was, at least for the moment, illegal for the latter to raise funds, the Committee held to the first of these two interpretations. The Committee agreed with the approach of extending the 1988 Recommendation to reloadable electronic money products which could be linked with the account: in practice this meant, at least up to now, bank-type prepaid cards. The Recommendation’s scope therefore excluded single-use and non-reloadable prepaid cards such as telephone cards, motorway toll cards, etc. Such cards were very popular with consumers; their features were low unit value, which made loss or theft a financially tolerable event, anonymity in use, transferability (no PIN required) and low cost, made possible by the use of off-line devices. Even when possible disadvantages (e.g. demagnetisation of the strip) or certain abuses (e.g. date of expiry of the card and non-reimbursability) were taken into account, the Commission clearly considered that the practicality of this instrument and the low values involved meant that no regulation was required. The Committee accepted this approach, but called upon the European and national authorities and consumer organisations to take care to ensure that any disadvan­tages and abuses were eliminated on a case-by-case basis. As a result, it called upon the Commission to monitor the development of the market, deciding in good time whether or not to intervene with regulatory provisions. The article-by-article examination of the Commission’s Recommendation led the Committee to make a number of critical observations on the problems identified – lack of clarity in defining the scope, inconsistency in the terms and content, omission or exclusion of cards not giving access to a bank account, etc. In order to protect the consumer, the Committee proposed establishing a maximum limit on the loadable value (ECU 150) of prepaid cards. The Committee stressed, as it had done many times previously, the need to fight not only against counterfeiting and fraud but particularly against organised crime. The Committee felt the need to draw the Com­mission’s attention to the fact that nowhere in the Communication or Recommendation was it explained whether the previous Recommendation 88/590/EEC would remain valid for non-electronic payment instruments which were never mentioned in the document under consideration. To conclude, the Committee noted that the Recommendation was based on classifications: electronic payment instru­ments, remote access instruments, electronic money instruments. The existing products were sometimes diffi­cult to classify, but their differing characteristics required so many distinctions, exemptions and inclusions that a common regulation would be difficult to consult. The Committee wondered whether it would not be desirable to give greater cohesion and clarity to the whole matter by taking account of the specific nature of each type of instrument and drawing up separate rules for each of them. Given that each product had a name, it would be better to use this to identify it: the rules would thereby gain in clarity, to the advantage especially of the consumer for whom technical terminology had very little meaning.