Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-10-Speech-1-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050110.13.1-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Medina Ortega, for a report prepared to a very tight schedule.
The intention behind Amendments Nos 1, 5, 8 and 15 on trailers is unclear. Trailers, independently of their weight, are already expressly covered by the insurance directives within the definition of a vehicle and therefore are subject to compulsory insurance. Any problem relating to the identification or registration of vehicles cannot be solved within the framework of an insurance directive. It also appears that the problems concerning trailers do not exist in a number of Member States where untowed trailers are registered and separately insured. If it is helpful, the Commission would be prepared to examine this matter further as part of its review of the fourth motor insurance directive.
As for Amendments Nos 3 and 10, I am afraid these will lead to a reduction in the insurance cover. Indeed, a combination of EUR 1 million per victim and EUR 5 million per event would be less favourable than the text in the common position, which creates an option and refers to 'claim' rather than to 'event'. I therefore believe that the text of the common position is better.
Finally, I am not sure that Amendments Nos 6 and 12 are really needed. The possibility for victims of motor accidents to bring legal proceedings against the insurer in their Member State of residence is now covered in Recital 24 and Article 5 of the common position following the concern expressed by Parliament at first reading.
I believe that with further effort it will be possible to find common ground and avoid an unnecessary conciliation procedure. The Commission is ready to help and counts on your support to bring this matter to a successful close.
Let me recall that the area of motor insurance is a very good example of efficient cooperation between Parliament and the Commission. Parliament’s resolution of July 2001, prepared the ground for the Commission to bring forward its proposal for a fifth motor insurance directive. This shows very clearly that Parliament and the Commission are both aware of the practical importance of this legislation and I would like to thank Parliament for its support in improving the legislation in this area.
The proposal before us aims to introduce legislation that will affect millions of European citizens: drivers and potential victims of accidents, as well as, of course, insurers. It will make it easier for drivers to obtain insurance and will improve the protection of accident victims.
I would like to stress that the common position adopted by the Council is a balanced and coherent text that retains the key elements of the Commission’s proposal and meets most of the concerns expressed by Parliament at first reading. I therefore recommend that Parliament accept, insofar as possible, the common position as it stands. We have to realise that we cannot achieve everything now. This is the fifth motor insurance directive and it will not be the last.
Before 20 July 2005, the Commission must submit to Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation of Article 6 of the fourth motor insurance directive. As part of its review, the Commission could also examine other points which cannot be resolved in the context of the fifth motor insurance directive. It is in this spirit that I would like to respond to the amendments currently before Parliament.
The Commission could accept Amendments Nos 4 and 11, which improve the wording of the text. However, the Commission is not in a position to accept any of the other proposed amendments as tabled. Further work is needed before these amendments can be accepted and the Commission stands ready to discuss these amendments with you and the Council before your vote on Wednesday.
Let me explain the reasons why I see difficulties with the other amendments. The Commission already pointed to these at first reading. Amendments Nos 7 and 14, which aim to create a public Internet site in each Member State that would collect police reports of accidents, interfere with matters relating to police or judicial legislation. I understand the concern and welcome the efforts to improve the amendments by replacing the creation of a central body with an Internet site. However, as drafted, this proposal still goes beyond the specific scope and the legal basis of the motor insurance directives. It may also interfere with requirements governing the protection of personal data. The Commission is nevertheless ready to examine this matter further with a view to improving access by the parties involved in an accident to the official records of the accident, particularly if the accident occurs in a state other than the state of residence of the parties concerned.
With regard to Amendments Nos 2, 9 and 13, which aim to ensure that the cost of legal proceedings should be covered by compulsory insurance, we must bear in mind that this would overlap with the voluntary insurance regulated in the directive on legal expenses insurance (87/344/EEC). Moreover, making such insurance compulsory would increase the cost of insurance for all consumers and could encourage abusive lawsuits instead of an out-of-court settlement of accidents. This would increase the cost of insurance in a number of Member States.
However, the Commission recognises the need for insured persons to have access to legal redress if necessary. The costs of this could be prohibitive if not covered by an insurance policy. The Commission is therefore willing to consider the possibilities for making the offer of such insurance more widespread."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples