Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission has presented two proposals for directives with a view to changing the legislation governing life and non-life insurance companies. I would like to comment on both proposals at the same time, as the two have a great deal in common. By means of these two proposals, which are part of the Action Plan for Financial Services adopted in Lisbon and to be implemented by 2005, the existing legislation on non-life insurance dating from 1973 and on life assurance dating from 1979 are to be strengthened and improved. The solvency margin is the additional capital reserve that insurance companies have to create as a buffer against unforeseen events. The general aim of the proposals is to provide improved protection for policyholders by increasing the capital resources of insurance companies and by ensuring more efficient state supervision of insurance companies. Higher solvency margins or risk buffers not only increase confidence in the performance of insurance companies, they also generally reduce system-related risks on the financial markets. Efficient, viable insurance companies do much to enable the opportunities of the single market to be perfected and exploited to the full. These directives establish a basic framework of binding stipulations and checks and allow national legislators to adopt provisions going beyond that degree of regulation. This approach is understandable, bearing in mind subsidiarity and the considerable cultural differences reflected in the laws governing supervision in the Member States, and from a consumer policy standpoint is to be welcomed. One point especially worthy of note is that national insurance supervisory authorities will be empowered to intervene as soon as danger looms, even if this is not a classic early warning system. The same preventive supervision is likewise set out in 'Basel II'. This document was put forward by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision of the Bank for International Settlements. The Commission proposals relating to smaller mutual associations should be endorsed. Although the upper limit for exemption from these directives, expressed in terms of annual contribution income in the last three years, is to be raised from the present EUR 500 000 to EUR 5 million, the provisions will not result in these associations being forced out of the market. These mutual associations in many cases operate purely at local or regional level, and they will be able to continue these activities. However, if these associations require a pan-European concession to become active at international level, it will be sufficient to send a simple communication to the national supervisory authority to the effect that they are willing to subject themselves to the provisions of the solvency directive on a voluntary basis. This will absolutely guarantee that these associations are able to survive, and it will be for individual associations to extend their area of business or otherwise. Both proposals for directives are to some extent interim measures chiefly involving changes of a technical nature. The Commission will be submitting a further 'Solvency II' package in which it will revise overall regulation of this sector in the longer term. Things will no doubt hot up then! The 'Solvency I' package before us today should therefore be endorsed, particularly as this is in the interest of the public and of policyholders. The sooner we can implement these interim measures the better. For that reason I have endeavoured as rapporteur to give a high profile to informal explanations of the views of the Council and of the Commission under the fast-track procedure, and to work towards a compromise between the Council, the Commission and Parliament. The reports before us therefore already reflect the common position so that it would be possible to adopt both directives at first reading. I hope that will be possible – it depends on your steadfastness and your capacity for raising objections, Commissioner. Permit me to make one final observation on the procedure itself. This particularly applies to fast-track codecision procedures. This procedure requires flexibility, something that has largely been absent, chiefly at Council level. This is not the first time I have had to say that. Codecision means more than just one side having to be flexible. This criticism applies not only to the Council, but also to you, Commissioner, although somewhat less so in this case, and somewhat more in the previous one. This kind of attitude towards codecision in this sector can only impair the deepening of the European Union or integration. We also need to reflect upon the ability of our decision-making processes to function properly. Certainly we need to do some thinking in the wake of the Irish referendum. With those concluding remarks, I urge you to vote for both reports.

Political group: PSE