14 Amendments of Sven GIEGOLD related to 2011/2010(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
– having regard to the final report of 23 May 2007 of the Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (A6-0203/2007),
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas insurance companies profited strongly from the support of the ECB and the EFSF to member states and the banking system,
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to come forward with proposals for a minimum harmonisation directive establishing a coherent and consistent pre funded cross-border framework for insurance guarantee schemes (IGS) across Member States; calls on the Commission to assess whether a minimum harmonisation could establish such a scheme;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Supports the adoption of the ‘home’ country principle – whereby all policies written by an insurer, regardless of location of sale, are covered by the ‘home’ IGS – recognising both that: A) under Solvency II the cross-border provision of insurance services will increase; and, B)on condition that insurance guarantee schemes are established in all Member States that offer truly equivalent consumer protection and a level playing field for members of the schemes; acknowledges that the failure of an insurer will be linked to the inadequacy of supervision by the ‘home’ supervisor, and thus the burden of responsibility for failure should be borne by the ‘home’ IGS;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Insists that the model of funding for national IGS be a matter of subsidiarity, reflecting the ‘home’ country principle of supervision and the divergence of models used by existing IGS; urges the Commission against advocating an ex-ante approach to funding given the absence of compelling arguments in favour of such an approach and the disruption it could causeUrges the Commission to investigate, how an optimal ex-ante approach to funding could be implemented, potentially in combination with ex-post funding and portfolio transfer mechanisms to ensure an appropriate level of consumer protection;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges that subsidiarity in relation tothe choice of ex-ante or ex-post funding models canwill result in competitive distortions between Member States; believes that such distortions are of secondary concern compared with unless steps are taken to ensure equivalent levels of protection of the IGS different Member States ; believes that it is necessary to avoid such distortions to ensuringe consumer and taxpayer protection and that the Commission should take a cautious, long-term approach to addressing such distortionson an equal level in Europe;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that the ‘home’ country approach to IGS can only be credible from a consumer perspective if there is consistency of consumer experience; calls on the Commission to require a single own-language process and point of contact for consumers within their national supervisor for all insurance guarantee claims regardless of the location of the ‘home’ IGS; recommends that EIOPA develop and enforce a harmonised approach for policyholder compensation claims on the basis of simplicity and best practice, if necessary through binding technical standards;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that ‘home’ and ‘host’ supervisors should cooperate fully to ensure minimised disruption for the policyholder in a ‘host’ country in the event of the failure of an insurer, acting through the college with the participation and oversight of EIOPA to ensure consistency of approach between schemes;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Requests that the Commission clarify the role played by IGS in relation to intermediaries;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Insists that new EU legislation should not result in the dilution of protection offered by existing IGS in Member States, and that consumers should not face any losses as a result of regulatory failure to adequately supervise insurers or intermediaries; calls consequently on the Commission to ensure that a European framework for IGS compensates policyholders for losses in full and without exception for all types of insurance products, in the event of an insurer bankruptcy, for losses, including those resulting from claims following legal judgements in the case of insurer or intermediary mis- selling, or fraud, within a set period of time, consistent throughout Member States;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recognises that market concentration issues could place strains on the ability of an IGS to absorb all policyholder claims resulting from the bankruptcy of one or a number of insurers; believes that in order to avoid taxpayer exposure to such claims it is incumbent upon the responsible ‘home’ supervisor to ensure the robustness of the national IGS, if necessary employing additional supervisory standards to account for additional risks, which may include establishincreasing anthe ex-ante component of IGS or additional capital requirements for certain insurers; Requests the Commission to assess the specific risk of systemically relevant members of IGS and consider the possible requirement of increasing the contributions made by those members; foresees an oversight role for EIOPA in coordinating market-specific stress testing by national authorities and in conductingensuring the effective implementation of adequate Europe-wide stress testing of IGS, issuing recommendations where appropriate, and in conducting regular peer reviews to ensure sharing of best practice approaches;