Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-22-Speech-3-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090422.4.3-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, as far as Solvency II is concerned, that is a reform that was launched well before the crisis and that the latter has shed new light on. As legislators, we have hesitated: did this agreement need to be concluded at first reading?
Finally, the last point concerns the transposition, in this sector, of what we are going to put in place for the banking sector, namely retention mechanisms in relation to securitisation.
On that basis, I hope that, in future, we will be able to learn from the lessons of this crisis in order to guarantee European citizens an insurance sector that represents for them a real guarantee of …
In the end, the determination of the negotiators will have enabled us to reach a compromise which, I believe, has at least two virtues: firstly, it forces the insurance sector to assess its risks better, a process which, until now, still involved relatively old mechanisms that were without doubt unsuitable for the reality of what the insurance sector had become; and, secondly, it emphasises the need for supervision mechanisms to adapt to what insurance companies have become, in terms of both their multitude of consumer-focused products and offers, and their transnational set-up.
As legislators, we were very keen to take account of the reality of this market, that is to say of a market where, for example, in certain countries there are life insurance mechanisms that account for a substantial share of this sector and where, in the light of the crisis, we had to take account of the effect of pro-cyclicality when applied to the insurance sector.
We also had to ensure that the adoption of this legislation did not disrupt the architecture of the insurance market and, in particular, that it enabled mutual associations to occupy a place within this legislation. However, it is quite clear that this is just one stage, and I should like to mention six points, in relation to the sector, on which we shall have to resume our work immediately in future.
The first is obviously taking on board the conclusions of the de Larosière report and the need to ensure that equality and harmonious conditions exist among the various colleges of supervisors, and, to this end, the need to strengthen the European authority responsible for monitoring insurance companies.
The second point – many of my fellow Members have mentioned it – is to implement this infamous group support mechanism, and, on this point, I do not share the view of Mr Lipietz. Of course we would have preferred to have had group support, but what is unclear about the fact that it is difficult today for countries in which 80% or 100% of the insurance sector is in the hands of foreign companies, without any solid legal basis, to accept this mechanism? We need to make progress in this area.
The third stage for the future is harmonisation between what we are doing here and what is happening with pension funds. How can we conceive of having to improve solvency in insurance terms, but not of asking ourselves the same question where pension funds are concerned? This is an absolutely huge challenge.
The fourth task for the future concerns the installation, the creation, the establishment of a deposit guarantee mechanism, as we have today in banking, and which is still lacking in the insurance sector.
The fifth point concerns the marketing of insurance products and the guarantee that the way in which insurance intermediaries offer products to the insured makes it possible to accommodate their interests and protection requirements."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples