Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-25-Speech-4-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030925.4.4-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, in 1997, an English lady, who is so fearful that she still has to remain known as Madam X, submitted a petition to this Parliament. She simply questioned whether the British Government was properly regulating Lloyd’s of London in accordance with Insurance Directive 73/239/EEC. The same question or allegation has subsequently been made in other petitions, some signed by hundreds of Names and several on behalf of thousands.
Since being appointed rapporteur I have come to know Madam X and she has told me her story. She recognised that by investing with Lloyd’s and becoming a 'Name' – I should explain, for non-Anglophone listeners, that means a passive external investor whose affairs were managed by Lloyd's as approved agents – she recognised that she was exposing herself to
. But she told me that she only took on that risk because she believed Lloyd’s was regulated in accordance with British and European rules.
Earlier this year Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to the EU, sent a strongly-worded letter to Mr Gemelli, Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, effectively seeking to block this Parliament’s right to get to the facts. I am pleased that our own legal services – who say Parliament must be very wary of attempts from representatives of other institutions to limit our powers – have confirmed that there is nothing in the rules to stop us having a parliamentary inquiry, so long as the terms of reference differ from any question before the courts in a Member State.
Commissioner Bolkestein will speak for himself, but what he has said to the Petitions Committee, and his actions, clearly indicate that he has concerns about the regulation of Lloyd's. He sent long questionnaires and received responses. Unfortunately, those letters and responses have never been made public or made available to the Petitions Committee or to Parliament.
The key question that the petitioners pose is this: does Lloyd’s have the reserves to cover their liabilities, as Directive 73/239/EEC requires? Answering that requires an audited statement of the reserves and an authoritative estimate of the liabilities. Perhaps the Commissioner can give us the figures – in particular with reference to the old liabilities at Lloyd's that they sought to separate in the scheme known as Equitas.
The petitioners are not questioning this Parliament about the present regime, which the Commissioner now thinks may be satisfactory. They have asked us about the period from 1978, when the directive should have taken effect, to 2000, when they submitted their petitions – or, in Madam X's case, 1997. Was the directive being applied then? The Commission so far is seeking to remain silent about that period, a period when the assets of the petitioners were being seized and some were being made bankrupt, when policy-holders were at risk if the reserves were not there and when other insurance undertakings across Europe were having to comply with the directive, a period when the English courts in various rulings said that Lloyd’s did not have a system in place for making proper reserves. In 2000 Mr Justice Cresswell pointed out that the catalogue of failings and incompetence in the 1980s by underwriters, managing agents, members' agents, and others was staggering and brought disgrace on one of the City’s great markets.
I do not ask the Commissioner to take action against the British Government for any failings in that period. He has to bring a Member State into compliance. I simply ask for an authoritative answer
or
Between 1978 and 2000 was the British Government correctly applying EU Insurance Directive 73/239/EEC? I respect the Commissioner, I know him to be an honest man. I hope that we will be able to get a straight answer.
There has been great pressure applied by the British Government, but this must not be a case where a big country is let off the hook. If the Commission can assure us and explain how the regulation respected the directive, that is an answer we can give to the petitioners. However, if the Commission believes that, prior to the adoption of the Financial Services Act, the British Government was not in compliance, it must say so. We need to get to the truth of what happened and why thousands were ruined.
I hope the Commission will give formal answers. There should be no need to have a committee of inquiry. That is why I have tabled an amendment giving the Commission six weeks to give a full, authoritative and written answer to this House. However, failing that, Parliament must reserve its right to have the fullest inquiry into this lamentable case."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"no."1
"unlimited liability"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples