Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-03-Speech-1-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060703.13.1-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, firstly I would like to thank Ms Wallis for her report. I agree that it is too early to draw conclusions; however, I would like to make a few observations.
The first is about solvency. Whether or not the company should be considered to have been solvent during the time leading up to the crisis has several consequences. That affects the policyholders’ possibilities of defending their rights and interests, but it also has an impact upon the responsibility of the UK authorities and, possibly, the Commission.
The UK authorities strongly emphasised that Equitable Life had never had any problems with solvency and always complied with EU law. The UK authorities also indicated that there are a number of different ways of valuing assurance companies. If there are several ways of calculating solvency, how is it possible to make a proper analysis?
It is clear that the directive seeks to ensure that an assurance company is not managed in such a manner that it may jeopardise the undertaking’s solvency in the long term. It is also clear that the directive obliges Member States to take such measures with regard to the undertaking, its directors or managers, or the persons who control as are appropriate and necessary in order to prevent or remedy any irregularities prejudicial to the interests of the assured persons.
I doubt whether this has happened. The fact that the UK authorities always considered Equitable Life solvent also had repercussions on customers and authorities in other Member States. It appears that both customers and authorities in Ireland and Germany were taken by surprise when the crisis broke out.
Another observation I have, which concerns the country of origin principle, is the question of monitoring and provision of information. The UK authorities, who were responsible for monitoring the activities of the company in other Member States too, never informed those Member States that there was a problem. Maybe it was because they did not want to recognise this. Frankly, in hindsight, it does not look as if the supervision has worked.
The second problem with the home country of origin rule is the lack of redress for consumers, who have been sent back and forth by the national authorities. Consumers who trusted that the European Union would guarantee them an equivalent position and safeguards if they bought assurance on the internal market as they would if they had bought on the national market found themselves in a situation where nobody would accept responsibility for their efforts to obtain damages for their losses.
From a consumer point of view, the home country of origin principle turned out to be a real ping-pong game. There seems to be a large vacuum in EU legislation here. The EU should take more measures to protect individual citizens."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Paul van Buitenen,"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples