Mr President, even at this unreasonably late hour, I am honoured to submit for your consideration the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on insurance mediation. In my opinion it is a good proposal, on which the Commission should be congratulated. Above all, it is a proposal that manages to find a balance between the various interests concerned. In the area that it is intended to regulate, these interests include those of intermediaries, of insurance companies, and also, and this must not be forgotten, the interests of consumers, although these usually put less pressure on Members than the aforementioned interested parties. All of these interests should be taken into account, and when I say that this proposal is a balanced one, I am referring to the fact that there is a balance between all of the various interests concerned. Not to mention that the amendments tabled by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs must aim to uphold this balance that the Commission has scrupulously maintained. There are also other interests which are, in my opinion, less worthy of consideration. I am talking about sectors whose main aim is to uphold the status they currently enjoy in their respective countries, which will be impossible to sustain when we attempt to produce a harmonisation standard. If the aim of each country, or of each sector in each country, is that the forthcoming directive should not in any way affect the status quo, the only possible solution will, therefore, be not to have a harmonisation standard, or if it is required in an area such as this, that there should be no internal market in the specific sector in question. This aspiration can disguise an attempt for the harmonisation standard to respond exclusively to the current model in a specific country; or, put in more favourable terms, to suggest that Member States should not apply important parts of the directive. Ladies and gentlemen, do you not think that these exceptions could render the harmonisation standard meaningless? Do you not realise that taking this route will cause problems for the internal market? The proposal for a directive included certain exceptions, and it is true that the report enlarges on some of these, but I think that these exceptions are within the bounds of what is reasonable. The idea that those who sell insurance on behalf of travel agencies or veterinary surgeons have to be registered intermediaries should be excluded, for this falls within what is reasonable. Even now, I firmly believe that the further extension of exceptions could end up in nullifying the effect of the directive or, to put it differently, could end up by limiting, to a certain extent, the creation of an internal market in insurance mediation. I still insist, and please forgive me for doing so in this way, that the resultant report includes several special features that certain countries have to ease the adoption of the directive. For example, amendments relating to the tied agent that were designed to find a solution to ease the adaptation of legislation in those countries in which there is currently no regulation in this field. There are, evidently, other formulas, and one of these was the one set out in the Commission proposal, and another that consists of my personal viewpoint stated in my original report. However, neither the original formula nor my original proposal would be completely satisfactory to a good number of my fellow Members, who hold different positions, which is why compromise amendments had to be tabled that, I think, should resolve the problem reasonably clearly. I would like you to be aware, ladies and gentlemen, that the result that is being submitted for your consideration is the outcome of a compromise between different points of view that, when seen as a whole, are acceptable. It is only for this reason and out of respect for this compromise that the Group of the has decided not to table any more amendments, with the exception of three that are simply of a technical nature, that aim to correct inconsistencies in the text. Clear proof of this fact is the refusal to table any amendments such as those tabled by the Group of the , that were subsequently defeated at committee stage and with which I personally agreed, because these are not only in line with the main points of my original proposal, but they also seek to provide better consumer protection, something with which I will always agree.

Political group: PSE