BNE Blog

Event Summary: ‘EIOPA and the future of insurance supervision in Europe’

By Phillip Souta

By Ariane Poulain

On 18 July, BNE and Aviva brought together a distinguished panel of speakers to discuss The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA). Nikki Tait, Financial Times journalist, chaired the panel which included Gabriel Bernardino, Chairman of EIOPA, Pat Regan, Chief Financial Officer of Aviva, Andrew Bailey, Executive Director at the Bank of England and Mary Trussell, Partner at KPMG. This was BNE’s third and final panel discussion in a series on the European Supervisory Authorities (ESA).

Gabriel Bernardino, Pat Regan, Nikki Tait, Mary Trussell and Andrew Bailey

At Aviva’s London Headquarters, John McFarlane, Aviva’s Chairman, welcomed speakers and attendees to the event which sought to examine EIOPA’s competencies, how it foresees using its powers in relation to national authorities, such as the UK’s Financial Services Authority, and more generally, how EIOPA will find its place in the new financial supervisory structure alongside the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Agency (ESMA).

Gabriel Bernardino began the discussion and stated that bringing stability to markets was crucial. He emphasised that whilst going from regulations to supervision was hard, the creation of the ESAs was a “landmark” and an important step in creating and fulfilling the European single market.

Commenting on EU policy-making in the insurance sector, Bernardino said that it is “a global business and needs to be viewed from an international perspective” and on pensions specifically, he noted they are “quite different from Solvency II and required a more risk-based framework.” Consumer protection, one of the five areas of EIOPA, is a priority at the European level and EIOPA was the first ESA to establish consumer protection guidelines, he added. On one of the other areas, oversight, Bernardino explained about peer review and he also outlined the issue of resources available to EIOPA as fundamental to its progress, mentioning that EIOPA only has 76 members of staff.

Pat Regan said that work on EIOPA is an “evolving landscape” and the question was really ‘how’ you regulate pensions across Europe. He stated that EIOPA has an important role in balancing all issues and concerns, from stimulating the real economy to health and education.  Regan also reiterated Bernardino’s comment that Solvency II has quite a different role to EIOPA itself; he emphasised that Aviva support for Solvency II continues and they are keen to see a timetable put forward which reflects the economic realities to prevent a more delayed Solvency II timetable.

Mary Trussell, Andrew Bailey, Nikki Tait, Pat Regan, Gabriel Bernardino

Andrew Bailey argued that insurance is an easy response to the crisis because whilst the EBA has a role in the new supervisory structure, EIOPA has the tools necessary to provide better supervision.  He said that, “supervision is how you apply the rules.” Agreeing with Bernardino, Bailey said there was too little reference to the need to preserve and enhance the single market and that its major benefits could be all too easily forgotten. The main issue to deal with and overcome is striking the right balance between clashing private and public interests.

Mary Trussell began by following up on Bernardino’s point about the importance of consumer protection in insurance alongside its role as a necessity. Trussell explained how she arrived earlier that day in London on a flight from the Netherlands and that her plane would not have taken off without insurance; Trussell used this example to highlight how there is not enough emphasis on the value of insurance and the significant contribution it makes to society during difficult economic times. She also noted the importance of providing transparency in regulatory frameworks to boost consumer accessibility. Across the insurance sector, and pensions specifically, Trussell believed that all would agree that greater consistency is vital, particularly as Solvency II moves towards implementation.

UK at “extreme risk” from eurozone crisis

By Phillip Souta

By Conor Brennan

A report released today by Maplecroft ranks the UK as the country most exposed to the Eurozone crisis. Covering 169 countries outside of the Eurozone, the report places the UK in the top “extreme risk” category. Maplecroft came to this conclusion on the basis of its “high level of economic integration with the countries using the Euro, together with its lack of domestic resilience to an economic slowdown.”

The UK also comes top of the risk chart because foreign direct investment (FDI) from the Eurozone accounts for 20% of the UK’s GDP and British banks are exposed to £380 billion in Eurozone bank and sovereign bonds.  That represents 27% of UK’s GDP.  They say that exposure could “enhance solvency problems for financial institutions.”

Maplecroft conclude that the situation is “compounded by a large and unyielding fiscal deficit of approximately 8% of GDP and net public debt over 80% of GDP, making the UK’s capacity for a fiscal response to further economic crises in the Eurozone severely limited.”

Figures also released today by the Office for National Statistics shows UK GDP shrank by 0.7% in the second quarter of 2012. This puts the UK in recession for three straight quarters and the deepest for 50 years.

The UK government has sought to blame this on the Eurozone crisis. If that is right, and views on whether it is differ, the UK has direct influence over these external factors.

Future negotiations in Europe regarding debt mutualisation and a European banking union give the government an opportunity to outline how they wish the EU to address the on-going crisis. David Cameron, the Prime Minister, has stated his readiness to use his veto once more for “the national interest.” The national interest, in this case, is not accepting European supervision of banks or contributions to a common European deposit guarantee system. Mr Cameron should not be afraid to publicise the benefits of a scheme which will play an integral role in recovery of the Eurozone and consequently the British economy.

Over 50% of foreign direct investment to the UK comes from EU member states and the single market adds €600bn a year to our economy according to the UK government. There is no doubt the EU has beneficially enhanced the competitiveness and export potential of British industry. It is not surprising the UK tops Maplecroft’s index of countries most dependent on the Eurozone.

The Maplecroft report also concludes that Sweden, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are at “extreme risk.”  Those countries are also more towards the economically liberal end of the spectrum when it comes to EU members.  The fact that there are so many members that share the UK’s concerns presents an obvious avenue for engagement.  The government’s current strategy of seeking to be as uninvolved in the negotiations on the future of Europe as possible risks squandering a chance to wield considerable influence over the outcome.

Photo: Maplecroft, 2012

David Cameron appears to accept his plan is “general election, renegotiation, referendum” at House of Commons Scrutiny Committee

By Phillip Souta

By Phillip Souta

A revealing exchange this afternoon at the House of Commons liaison Committee between the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and Bernard Jenkin MP.  The exchange gives further credence to the idea that David Cameron may be planning to announce that he is going to put  an undertaking to renegotiate the UK’s relationship with the EU and put the outcome of that to a referendum into the  Tory election manifesto in 2015.  He makes further reference to a speech in autumn (probably at the Tory party conference) where he will set his position out in “more detail.”

We include a full transcript of the exchange below.  The Prime Minister does not reject, indeed seems to accept in the tone of his answer, Jenkins’ “general election, renegotiation, referendum” point.

House of Commons Liaison Committee, 3 July 2012, c. 4.30PM

Bernard Jenkin: Prime Minister, I think you are proposing a very interesting and positive sequence of events – general election, mandate for renegotiation, leading to a referendum to address this status quo, or unsatisfactory status quo, issue.  But can I just test my understanding, I mean is the lack of safeguards for the City an example of the unsatisfactory status quo?

David Cameron: I think the lack of, um, safeguards, is, it’s a permanent battle we have with Commissioner Barnier about Single Market regulation; so far I think the Treasury’s done an excellent job of defending Britain’s interests over things like CRD4 and other such directives.  But what I think, the point I’m trying to make is, if another treaty comes forward that specifically concerns this area then the need for safeguards gets greater.

Jenkin: So you’re saying that as the eurozone federalises and generates the dynamic of integration that actually makes the status quo more difficult for the United Kingdom in the EU.

Cameron: Well it depends how they do it – I mean if you take for instance the banking union, I’m not trying to be evasive, this is very difficult – I spend a lot of time thinking about this

Jenkin: You’re being very candid.

Cameron: If the banking union – well that worries me to – but if the banking union [laughter] but if the banking union is done in a particular way through the ECB rather than the EBA which is an institution of the European Union and if there are safeguards as it goers under enhanced cooperation, there are safeguards to the Single Market, then that’s less worrying that the different way of doing things, so we have to see what instruments are brought forward, what the risks are and make our views accordingly.

Jenkin: But in addressing the unsatisfactory nature of the status quo, are you talking about nibbling back certain powers and competencies here and there or are we talking about what we might describe as a more fundamental change in our relationship with the EU?  Or is this something that you don’t feel able to decide at the moment?

Cameron: I’m going to obviously make this speech in the autumn, when I set this out in  more detail, but I’ve always felt that the powers over things like the social chapter, a lot of the Home Office legislation, those are areas that I think frankly the European Union shouldn’t have got into, but certainly Britain shouldn’t have got into with the European Union, so those are the ones that I would particularly highlight.

You have successfully signed up to the Business for New Europe newsletter.

close


* Required fields