|
|
In a position paper, the Occupational Pensions Stakeholder Group and the Insurance and Reinsurance Stakeholder Group said both groups had undertaken “considerable work and provided valuable, broadly based and relevant input to EIOPA on a range of insurance and pensions issues by way of consultation responses and own initiative statements”.
The comment is part of the groups’ response to a report from the European Commission, published in August 2014, on the operation of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and the European System of Financial Supervision.
EIOPA is the only ESA to have two stakeholder groups, a unique feature it and industry members have defended after the European Commission suggested it should only have one group. The argument for EIOPA to retain separate stakeholder groups for pensions and insurance is captured in the OPSG and IRSG response to the Commission’s 2014 report.
The Commission is due to publish a White Paper on the ESAs’ funding and governance this quarter.
In its position paper, the EIOPA stakeholder groups take issue with the Commission’s view that “the impact of Stakeholder Groups has been limited and the resources required to set them up and run them are extensive”.
Instead, the OPSG and IRSG represent “good value for money”, they said, with EIOPA information indicating that running both groups cost €135,000 in 2015, or 0.68% of the total budget.
The impact of the SGs’ work “is difficult to measure”, according to the groups. In their position paper, they note that, although there is evidence EIOPA does take on board detailed comments from the SGs, “there is a feeling from the SGs that, when an SG expresses a strong disagreement with or concern about an EIOPA proposal, while the concern is listened to, the ability to impact EIOPA’s direction is limited”.
Full article (IPE subscription required)