|
|
Sir, As the legislator in the European Parliament responsible for Solvency II, I was astonished to read the suggestion, in “Labour backs insurers over EU changes”, that Solvency II is the same thing as the proposed pension legislation (Directive on Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision: IORP). It is not, and making the direct link is confusing and creates another myth.
The original letter from the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury and the shadow business secretary leaked to the Financial Times told a different story, that the impact of extending insurance capital requirements into the pension sphere could be catastrophic. This is something that has successfully been avoided so far, but pressure needs to be maintained; lobbying is intense in this area.
Furthermore the threat that the triple-B infrastructure investment grade limit may be severely restricted has been addressed in negotiations between the European Council and parliament. Crucially, a mechanism to allow for annuity business to continue has been agreed. In addition, my proposal to stop the European Commission driving towards equivalence with the US without a care for the consequences means that many stakeholder concerns have been directly addressed. Negotiations between the parliament and the Council are ongoing but much has moved in the right direction.
The UK government continues to undermine its own role in negotiations. When “Brussels” hears only speeches from David Cameron made outside the EU (Mexico for example) attacking the institutions of the EU, then you have to wonder whether they are in a fit place to negotiate much! I think it’s a problem of the government trying to face both ways on Europe and not having any traction in either direction – which is more of a threat to British interests than proposed legislation from the EU.
Full article (FT subscription required)