Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-19-Speech-2-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070619.5.2-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur and colleagues on the committee who have worked so assiduously on this case, as well as the petitioners who are present here.
I am the appointed rapporteur for the House on Solvency II. Some of these points, particularly on home/host supervision, will not be lost in this debate. In fact, as I am sure most people know, this is one of the things we are taking forward. There are also considerable changes to the laws and to the apparatus of financial supervision which have occurred during the time of the Equitable Life crisis. Indeed, the company still exists today. It was not a failure as was first suggested in the report, but only a crisis – a crisis enough, which actually affected a million people.
But, as everyone knows, there is still a process to continue, which of course means that British, Irish and German claimants will be able to look to the Ombudsman’s report – as somebody has already said – later this year. I hope the issue of compensation and other issues will be settled there, where they should be.
Unfortunately, there were some errors in this report and it is not to my great pleasure to have to point them out. Firstly, there was no compliance – or little compliance – by the British Government as regards the issues surrounding whether or not it should appear before the committee. Ministers attended the meetings they said they could, not, as the report suggested, maybe by avoiding them. I was there. I met the British Ministers at the same time as everybody else. They even supplied correspondence which was missing from other governments, which frankly, in my opinion, should have been taken into account. Thirdly, I totally disagree that the implementation of this particular directive was a failure, if you look at the process. If it was a failure, then perhaps Sir Robert Atkins can explain how that failure actually occurred, which was when he was in government.
I am afraid that this report is weak where it should be strong and could deliver, and strong where it is unable to deliver. For example in the area of supervision, where it could do something and where it will do something. I, as the rapporteur in Solvency II, promise that we will be doing something on the coordination of home/host supervision across Member States, so that victims will never be bandied about pillar to post by regulators. I look to the Commissioner to help me on that issue."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples