1. Have new insurance guarantee scheme arrangements been introduced in your Member State or is the situation currently under review?

Transcription

1 SUBMISSION OF THE IRISH FINANCIAL SERVICES REGULATORY AUTHORITY (FINANCIAL REGULATOR) TO EUROPEAN COMMISSION CONSULTATION SEEKING VIEWS ON THE NEED FOR, DESIGN AND OPERATION OF INSURANCE GUARANTEE SCHEMES IN THE EU GENERAL COMMENT The Financial Regulator is of the view that the completion of the single market for retail financial services necessitates the establishment of EUwide standards in the area of insurance guarantee schemes.

2 Consultation Question 1. Have new insurance guarantee scheme arrangements been introduced in your Member State or is the situation currently under review? 2. Given that neither the current nor the future solvency regime create a zero-failure environment and that many MS have not established IGS, which is your preferred option? a. The status quo, i.e. adopting a caveat emptor approach possibly linked with enhanced policyholder information b. Case-by-case intervention as and when problems arise c. Mandating the establishment of IGS in all Member States d. Introducing a single EU-wide IGS that covers all relevant policies written and purchased within the EU e. other options 3. Do you agree with the conclusion that, costs can to a certain extent be adjusted through scheme design and that if properly designed, introducing an IGS can be pro-competitive and improve the operation of the market? Proposed Response No new insurance guarantee scheme arrangements have been introduced in Ireland. An Insurance Compensation Fund was established by statute in 1964 for non-life insurance. This is described in Appendix 1.6 of the Oxera report. There is no scheme in place for life insurance. While we believe that there is merit in establishing a single EU-wide insurance guarantee scheme (IGS) for non-life insurance, we note that the Oxera report concluded that a single EU-wide scheme was unlikely to present a feasible and politically acceptable option in light of the insurance supervisory framework and the differences in national market conditions. In these circumstances, the option to mandate the establishment of IGS in all Member States is the best practical solution. Yes, an appropriately designed IGS should not put any one firm at a competitive disadvantage; should enable consumers to be confident with other EU insurers; and should facilitate cross-border business and competition in general.

3 4. Do you consider the presence or absence of IGS to be an important factor in the development of cross-frontier insurance business in the single market and, in your view, which aspects of the current uncoordinated situation already or potentially constitute obstacles to the further development of the single insurance market? The absence of a co-ordinated approach to IGS is a barrier to crossborder insurance business in the single market. The collapse of Independent Insurance in the UK, and the absence of any compensation arrangements for Irish policyholders with that firm prompted Irish authorities to raise the need for an EU wide response to insurance compensation. 5. Which are the key considerations (for and against) in the trade-off involved in the decision on whether or not to establish an IGS and what relative weight do you attach to these key considerations? Although there is a scheme in Germany similar to an IGS, Irish insurers writing business in Germany either through a branch or on a freedom-of-service basis, cannot join that scheme. Anecdotally, brokers are reluctant to recommend the products of such insurers. We believe that an EU wide approach to IGS would benefit competition, protect policyholders in the event of failure and minimise the contribution costs because of wide participation. However, the manner in which such a scheme would be funded is a significant issue and the issue of whether such a scheme is pre or post funded would require careful analysis and consideration of its impact on the industry. The costs and benefits associated with the establishment of IGS in Member States should be examined as part of the impact assessment

4 6. Is the case for establishing an insurance guarantee scheme in insurance weaker than in the banking and securities sectors and which lessons, if any, can be learned from the banking and securities sectors? 7. What should be the geographic scope of the IGS i.e. should the national IGS be based on the home or the host state principle? for any legislative proposal. The case for establishing an IGS is stronger for Non-life insurance than for Life insurance and similar schemes in banking and securities. Compensation would be payable to all claimants e.g. accidents to individual consumers; damage to property or business; general liability. While in the event of banking failures depositors may lose a significant amount of money, in the event of insurance failures not only policyholders, but innocent third party claimants can potentially lose their livelihoods. In the case of an IGS, policyholders should be covered by the scheme in which the issuer is authorised (i.e. the Head Office). 8. Should subsidiaries participate in and be covered by the IGS of the Consideration should be given to having opt-in provisions for such Member State in which the group supervisor is located under the group subsidiaries. support regime under Solvency II? 9. What degree of harmonization across Member States would be required between national IGS and which features of IGS should be harmonised? Should they be harmonised, please indicate your preferred approach. a. Geographic scope (home v host state principle) a. National IGS should be harmonised in order to give consumers

5 confidence that no matter where the insurer is located in the EU the protection afforded is the same. Home State principle, for the reasons already outlined. b. Organisational structure (single or multiple IGS, cooperation with insolvency practitioners and supervisory authority, staffing arrangements/outsourcing) b. Separate national IGS for Life and Non-life to reflect the distinct nature of each sector. c. Funding arrangements (in particular ex ante or ex post funding, risk-weighted contributions and contribution limits)) d. Policies covered - What classes of insurance should be covered by the IGS and which insurance classes could be excluded? c. Serious consideration needs to be given to funding arrangements. Potentially, schemes can be pre-funded, postfunded or be a combination of both. d. In principle all classes of policies. e. Claimant eligibility - Which claimants should benefit from the IGS, and which claimants could be excluded? f. Protection amounts and limits (caps or maximum compensation levels, deductibles, etc.) e. We would not propose that any valid claimants be excluded. f. While it may be appropriate to limit cover in certain circumstances, a minimum level of compensation should be available. For non-life insurance, it may be appropriate to cap the level that may be claimed, perhaps based on a percentage of

6 g. Nature of intervention (in particular the payment of compensation or portfolio transfer) h. Payout timing and information to policyholders/beneficiaries a claim. In the case of Life cover only, we would not propose any limits. However, in the case of investment policies with a Life wrapper, consideration would have to be given to capping the investment element of the policy. g. Every effort should be made to find the most economically efficient method of compensation. This may include portfolio transfer, administration (run-off) or compensation. h. If properly administered, payout should be no different than a standard claim allowing, of course, for potential delays that may arise depending on the decisions taken at g above.

7 EU & International Unit 4 th Floor 6-8 College Green Dublin 2 Ireland T: euandinternational@financialregulator.ie