Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-25-Speech-4-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030925.4.4-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his careful, accurate and detailed analysis of this case. While I am now reasonably content with the outcome of Mr Perry's report, I must, in the interests of balance, make some comments.
Mr Perry's explanatory statement does not give a fair and balanced account of the circumstances surrounding the underwriting losses of Lloyd's members in the 1980s. I would cite in particular its highly selective use of material and its failure to reflect the full findings of the UK Court of Appeal in the Jaffrey case, including its view that it was only with the benefit of hindsight that reserves established by syndicates for asbestos liabilities in the 1980s proved to be inadequate, given the unanticipated way in which those liabilities developed.
Of course I have tremendous sympathy for the Names who suffered these underwriting losses, among whom are a number of my friends, including the godparents of one of my own children. Yet, since I became involved in this case, I have been subjected to a torrent of abuse and vituperation, including anonymous abusive telephone calls to my home accusing me of being a paid agent of Lloyd's. Since 97% of the Lloyd's Names have accepted the renewal plan of 1996 and they have been able to reduce their liabilities by significant amounts, this issue has by and large been covered fully.
As stated in all the advertisements: you cannot guarantee that past profit is an indication of future gain.
The focus of Mr Perry's report and the real allegation of the petitioners is, as I understand it, that the UK Government failed to implement the terms of EU insurance law correctly in its supervision of Lloyd's. The UK Government denies this allegation. The real place to adjudicate, therefore, is in a court of law. That is exactly what is happening, as there is now such a case before the English High Court.
These are complex legal issues. Parliament should let the legal process run its course and allow the Court to reach a proper decision.
Meanwhile, I encourage the Commission to respond to those issues raised in this report and to reply as fully as possible. While we need answers as soon as is reasonable, I would caution against a rush to judgment.
In conclusion, I urge this House to support Mr Perry's amended report and, until the due process has been exhausted, go no further."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples