01 June 2012

バルニエ委員（域内市場サービス担当）：保険改革－欧州経済を持続的な成長軌道に乗せる

Barnier elaborated on the three major regulatory projects that are currently underway to assist insurers in their role of helping to get Europe back on track for sustainable growth: 

I – Solvency II

The three steps taken under Solvency II to recognise the role of insurers as long-term investors:

• Firstly, a reminder that the framework set out in the Directive was not designed to prevent insurers investing in certain categories of assets. On the contrary, they will have greater freedom to invest since the absolute limits by category of asset currently in force will cease to exist. In addition, the capital requirements will be reduced for insurers who diversify their asset portfolio.

• Next, Solvency II recognises that it is better for insurers offering policies with long-term guarantees to invest for the long term rather than the short term. For example, it seems logical for an insurer offering pension policies with guarantees lasting several decades to invest in very long maturity bonds. In such a case, the capital burden under Solvency II would be lower than if the insurer invested in short-term bonds. A very long-term investment of this kind could be used, for example, to fund infrastructure projects and thereby create growth. Thus, Solvency II allows asset-liability management, which is inherent to the insurance profession, to benefit the real economy.

• To strengthen insurers’ impact on sustainable growth in the real economy, it is therefore important to foster their ability to provide long-term guarantees. That is what we have been doing over the last few months in close cooperation with the insurance industry and governments in Europe. This has enabled us to come up with a set of solutions that take account of the concerns of several Member States. The discussions on the Omnibus II Directive now include these aspects and I hope the European Parliament, whose role is essential in this matter, will soon reach a balanced agreement with the Council on the issue of long-term guarantees. We are doing our utmost to ensure that the agreement contains various well-tailored solutions to address the concerns expressed by the insurance sector and to avoid certain markets or insurers being penalised by the new system. At the same time, we wish to see swift progress in the discussions as we need to stick to the timetable we have set ourselves.

While we are on the subject of the timetable, I would like to stress one point: in the Commission’s view it is important for Solvency II to enter into force as soon as possible. We have been working on this project with the industry for more than 10 years now.

What are we doing to ensure Solvency II applies from 1 January 2014? Although our proposal for the Omnibus II Directive was published at the very beginning of 2011, Parliament only took a position on the text at the beginning of spring 2012. This meant that the discussions between Parliament and the Council started quite late. Rapid progress has been made though and I am hopeful that a political agreement will be reached over the coming weeks. However, if nothing happens, there is a major risk that the Solvency II Directive will not be officially amended in time, that is before 1 November 2012.

That is why on 16 May 2012 we made a very targeted proposal to amend Solvency II on this point alone, in other words to change the date of implementation by the Member States. Parliament and the Council should, therefore, decide very shortly that Solvency II will apply from 1 January, 2014.

Once the Omnibus II Directive has been adopted, the system will be ready to be put in place very quickly and the Commission will then be able to table the implementing texts (‘Level 2’) completing the Framework Directive. Similarly, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) will be able to submit its draft technical standards to the Commission.

II – Directive on institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs)

I would like to insist on the need for this revision. We cannot allow ourselves to look only at the current situation. We also have to take into account the safety of future pensioners and their trust in the system! If we do not start the necessary reforms today, there will be no guarantee that the occupational pensions paid out in 10 or 20 or 30 years will be adequate. This is a matter of our common responsibility towards future generations.

But let me be very clear: contrary to reports in the press and as I have already said on several occasions – including at our Brussels conference on 1 March – we do not intend to apply all the Solvency II rules to occupational pensions institutions.

Nevertheless, European regulation of insurance companies is important for pension funds because of the legal link between the two. The pension funds Directive dating from 2003 currently refers to the applicable insurance legislation – namely, the Solvency I directives! The transition to Solvency II for insurers therefore raises the following question: how can pension funds also be made to benefit from more effective regulation that is better adapted to today’s challenges?

I believe it is important in regulatory terms to maintain a level playing field between insurance companies and pension funds when they supply similar and interchangeable products. I do not wish to penalise either of them.

We must remember that an occupational pension scheme is not an insurance policy. However, in so far as the risks underwritten by an insurance company or a pension fund are the same, I think the prudential rules should also be the same. This is necessary so as not to promote regulatory arbitrage in the single market.

I would stress though that we have not yet spelled out the new rules for pension funds. No final decision has yet been taken on this matter. The preparatory work is under way. Over the coming months, the Commission will continue to work closely with EIOPA and all the other stakeholders to ensure that the final text hits the right note. The Commission is mindful of the big differences between the pension systems currently in place in Member States. Those differences must be taken into account in our revision.

Given the complexity and importance of this issue, and particularly the need for first-rate quantitative impact assessments, I have decided to take a few more months to finalise the revision. We therefore expect to table the revised Directive before summer 2013, rather than at the end of 2012.

Although the current discussions on pensions are largely focused on pension funds, in my view insurance companies also have a key role to play in this area. The work on insurance products with long-term guarantees under Solvency II that I mentioned before is heading in the same direction. As I explained, this work will have a profound impact on the ability of insurers to invest for the long term. The same would also apply to pension funds if a similar approach is chosen.

III – Insurance mediation Directive (IMD)

As I have pointed out, to make the financial system fully serve the real economy, another crucial priority is the protection of investors and consumers of financial services. In this regard, we shall be proposing three key initiatives in the coming weeks:

• Firstly, we want to better protect consumers of packaged retail investment products (PRIPS) by introducing harmonised and transparent information requirements. These products are now so complex and obscure that too often consumers buy them when it is not in their interest to do so. In this context, I can assure you that the rules to be applied will take account of the specific nature of the insurance sector.
• Secondly, the Madoff fraud case in the United States, in which some Europeans lost money, has exposed the loopholes in regulating UCITS. Our aim is to provide better protection for those investing in such products by introducing stricter liability rules for the loss of financial instruments kept in a depositary bank.
• Finally, we want to protect consumers of insurance products, especially by creating a ‘level playing field’ between the different providers of these products. That is why the IMD Directive must include within its scope direct selling of insurance. We think that each policy-holder should be given the same level of information and protection, wherever they purchase their insurance guarantee. I will be submitting a text to Parliament and the Council that represents real progress in terms of transparency, including on remuneration, responsible risk management and removing conflicts of interest.

As regards restoring consumer confidence, I also have in mind the confidence insurers inspire when they work together to reduce the risk or limit the impact of the catastrophic consequences that can result from natural or industrial disasters. I intend to publish a green paper open to public consultation on the subject of insurance and disasters. It will be designed as a forum for the exchange of experience and good practice in the Member States. 

Full speech

© European Commission