Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-302"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.8.3-302"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the European Parliament and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Berenguer Fuster, for their judicious and efficient handling of this matter. After the second reading in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, only 18 amendments were submitted to plenary. This is evidence of the balanced quality of the common position text which Mr Berenguer Fuster mentioned to the committee last week. It was not just a compliment. Indeed, the common position to a large extent follows the line taken by Parliament at first reading. It took account of the most important amendments adopted, which improved our initial proposal.
Amendment No 16, which refers to an objective analysis, is along the same lines as the common position and may improve the text.
The last amendment that I wish to discuss is Amendment No 14, which provides, in the case of immediate cover, for a derogation to the principle that the information requested by the directive must be given in writing. That would jeopardise the objective of a high level of consumer protection. The common position already takes account of the spirit of Amendment No 44 proposed at first reading. Accepting this new amendment would deprive the consumer of written confirmation of the information required by the directive. The same reasoning also applies to Amendment No 18, which reduces the obligation on insurance intermediaries to specify the demands of the customer.
The action plan for financial services identified insurance intermediaries as a priority objective. Insurance intermediaries are indeed confronted with obstacles which prevent them from taking full advantage of the freedoms of the Treaty. This hinders the proper functioning of the internal market.
The directive following the text of the common position will ensure that, once registered in his home Member State, which is responsible for checking professional and financial requirements, an insurance intermediary will be able to conduct his activities throughout the internal market. That will improve the functioning of that internal market in insurance, particularly as regards retail markets. At the same time, the directive will guarantee the protection of customers by setting appropriate information requirements.
The Council common position now submitted to this Parliament is fully consistent with the essential objectives pursued in the Commission's proposal. The Commission supports this text. But it is vital to ensure that the difficult balance reached in the common position is not put in jeopardy by amendments which would not be compatible with its fundamental objectives.
Let me now turn to the amendments which were submitted to plenary. The Commission can accept the following amendments: Amendments Nos 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16. With regard to Amendment No 17, which aims to clarify the scope of the directive, the Commission can accept it, even though it considers that minor redrafting is needed in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
The Commission is not, however, in a position to accept the following amendments: Amendments Nos 2, 9, 13, 14 and 18, for the following reasons: firstly, Amendment No 2, on which Mr Berenguer Fuster, Mr Tannock and Mr Schmidt have spoken just now. That amendment aims to exclude from the scope of the proposal a large number of insurance intermediaries, such as car dealers selling motor insurance, travel agencies, veterinary surgeons, captive intermediaries of industrial firms and some bank insurance activities.
Such exclusions would affect the sale of a large number of insurance products involving important risks. They would deprive the directive of a major part of its content. Furthermore these excluded intermediaries would not be able to make use of the advantages provided for in the directive. Should these intermediaries be excluded from the benefits of the internal market, I very much share Mr Berenguer Fuster's concern about that amendment. The Commission cannot accept it.
Amendment No 9 introduces a transitional provision aiming to facilitate the application of the directive to those intermediaries already carrying out activities before the date of adoption of the proposal by the Commission, namely September 2000. The Commission already welcomed this idea at first reading, but, as Amendment No 15 better meets the concerns of the directive, the Commission would prefer it to be adopted rather than Amendment No 9.
While a fundamental element of the proposal and the common position is to ensure a high level of consumer protection by providing customers with appropriate information and advice, Amendment No 13 would devalue that requirement. It provides that the advice given by an intermediary has to be based on the best possible advice principle. The Commission cannot accept that amendment. It would imply enormous difficulties for the work of any insurance intermediary. It would also lead to great legal uncertainty and may be a source of legal conflict. Last, but not least, it would increase the costs of insurance mediation. The text of the common position already contains a balanced provision which makes it mandatory to provide appropriate advice on the basis of a fair analysis of the insurance contracts available on the market. That provision fully ensures a high level of consumer protection."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples