Mr President, as long ago as the 1960s, I was fighting for equality between women and men and against any discrimination based on sex. I have been fighting since 1963 for equal treatment and opportunities between men and women, in women’s organisations, at national and at European level, and most of the time as president. I cannot, therefore, be accused of not promoting the implementation of the principle of equality between men and women by directives covering all fields. I also, therefore, believe that there is a real moral and legal obligation to support this proposal for a directive establishing equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services. In politics, however, nobody is forced to do what is impossible or absurd. Unfortunately, the Commission’s proposal does not take account of the fact that in the field of insurance there is a further directive that requires insurers set sufficiently prudent premiums, taking into account all future commitments. It is a fact that for certain risks, sex – I prefer to use the term gender – is an objective criterion that insurers must take into account in determining the level of liability that they are to accept. We cannot, therefore, prohibit insurers from taking sex into account on prudential grounds in the actuarial risk calculation, even if the premium does not eventually vary from one sex to the other. Given that all those insured, regardless of sex, are primarily interested in the financial viability of insurance, we have tabled amendments to take account of this concern. Like the Commission, we wish to lay down the principle that the use of sex as a determining and discriminatory factor in the calculation of premiums for insurance purposes must be prohibited for new contracts concluded after the directive has been adopted. We would not accept retroactive legislation to cover existing contracts. We would, however, allow sex to be taken into account according to objective, verifiable and transparent criteria, to be monitored by the Member States, inter alia for actuarial calculations. This makes sense and is in the interests of all insured parties, especially since, as the Commission says in its short justification, ‘there is little evidence of the existence of consistent discriminatory practices in the area of the access to or supply of goods and services’. The Commission says, in fact, that in the setting of rates, insurance companies should take into account criteria other than sex, such as lifestyle, behaviour or professional status. I doubt whether such practice would be compatible with respect for private life, quite apart from the fact that it would cause new and manifold forms of discrimination between men and women. Mr President, I do not see why we have to include provisions in this legislative text regarding sexual harassment. I really do not see how I could be harassed when buying a commodity or service. I do not believe, for example, that the chemist would harass me for buying condoms or Viagra for my husband or my boyfriend. I would not do this, as I do not have either, but let us drop all of these politically correct elements that are a waste of space in a legislative text.

Political group: PPE-DE