Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Insurance Industry Regulation

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 27 May 2014

Tuesday, 27 May 2014

Ceisteanna (1)

Michael McGrath

Ceist:

1. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance to set out his views on whether sufficient protection is in place domestically for Irish customers of insurance companies which are regulated here for conduct of business purposes while being prudentially regulated overseas; his further views on the fact that Irish insurance consumers are exposed to inadequate prudential regulation of insurance companies in other countries; his views on whether greater co-operation is required between national regulators in respect of the insurance market; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23187/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (6 píosaí cainte)

The collapse of Setanta Insurance, which left approximately 75,000 policyholders high and dry, has prompted this question. We already had a Topical Issue debate on the matter some weeks ago. My main concern is that Irish consumers and insurance policyholders are potentially exposed to serious risk because they are buying insurance services from firms that are not regulated by the Irish Central Bank. The purpose of my putting down this question is to gain a greater understanding and reassurance in respect of how consumers can be better protected.

The current legal and regulatory framework for the provision of insurance in the European Economic Area and the supervision of that activity is prescribed by European Union law in the life and non-life insurance directives. The provision of insurance throughout the EEA on a freedom of services basis and a freedom of establishment basis - that is, establishment of a branch - within this framework is predicated upon the absence of internal market frontiers and the mutual recognition of authorisation of insurance undertakings by member states.

The insurance directives specify particular roles for both the home member state supervisory authority - that is, the supervisory authority that grants an authorisation - and the host member state supervisory authority - that is, the supervisory authority of the member state where an insurance undertaking conducts business on a freedom of services or freedom of establishment basis - of an insurance undertaking. Insurance undertakings authorised under the insurance directives are subject to solvency and financial reserving requirements, the supervision of which is the sole responsibility of the home member state supervisory authority. The primary objective of these requirements is to ensure that claims made in respect of policies issued will be adequately provided for by the insurance undertaking. Under Article 20 of the third non-life insurance directive, the home regulator is required to notify the host regulator if the solvency margin of an undertaking falls below the statutory requirement. In such instances the home regulator should inform the host regulator of the measures it has taken to address the solvency deficit.

Where a non-life undertaking authorised in another member state goes into liquidation and policyholders in respect of risks in this state are affected, under the insurance compensation fund, ICF, the accountant of the High Court can make an application to the High Court on their behalf and, subject to certain exclusions, distribute sums due to such policyholders from the ICF.

Following negotiations completed at European level in November 2013, a new regime under the solvency II directive will commence on 1 January 2016. This will further strengthen the EU regulatory framework. The solvency II EU directive sets out new stronger EU-wide requirements on capital adequacy and risk management for insurers, with the key aim of increasing policyholder protection. The new regime will also ensure greater co-operation between supervisors.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Furthermore, EEA insurance regulators are members of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, EIOPA, and required to comply with the general protocol relating to the collaboration of the insurance supervisory authorities of the member states of the European Union. This general protocol statement was issued in 2008 and is under review by the EIOPA.

The recent liquidation of Setanta Insurance Company Limited emphasises the need for all EU member states to make a transition to the new solvency II regime to meet the January 2016 deadline. My Department and the Central Bank will be reviewing the circumstances relating to Setanta and reporting to me on what lessons can be learned and how the framework can be strengthened. The European Commission has also indicated that it will review whether any issue raised relating to the regulatory framework requires action.

The key issue is that under EU law insurance firms can be licensed to sell services in Ireland while being fully supervised by their home regulators, which in the case of Setanta Insurance Company Limited was the Maltese regulator. The firm collapsed, leaving more than 70,000 Irish policyholders high and dry and out of pocket. In a reply to a recent parliamentary question the Minister confirmed to me that 744 insurance firms were licensed to sell motor and general insurance in Ireland but that only 112 of these were fully regulated for prudential purposes by the Central Bank of Ireland. That leaves a figure of 600 plus firms. I am not an expert in this regard and do not know whether these are niche insurance service providers or, for example, IFSC operations, but the matter requires further analysis, given what happened in the case of Setanta Insurance. Do we have a handle on the 600 plus firms that are licensed to carry out insurance business in Ireland but not regulated for prudential purposes by the Central Bank? This poses a risk to consumers, as crystallised in the case of Setanta Insurance.

The role of the Department of Finance is to provide the legislative framework in accordance with EU insurance directives. Direct responsibility for regulation lies with the Central Bank which seems to be confident that it has, as the Deputy put it, a handle on the people trading in Ireland. I explained in great detail in replies to other parliamentary questions the position on Setanta Insurance. So far, however, no one has brought anything to my attention to suggest the authorities in Malta were tardy or did not fulfil their obligations. This seems to be another instance of a firm going under. I will ask the Central Bank - it is aware of my requirements - to inform us if anything untoward appears out of the Setanta Insurance situation, but so far that company seems to be a casualty in the system. There is no suggestion of culpability at the Central Bank as regulator or at the level of the Maltese regulator.

The real question is what lessons can be learned from the collapse of Setanta Insurance. Should we be making consumers more aware of the fact that certain firms licensed to sell insurance services in Ireland are not regulated in Ireland? It is mentioned in the small print and foot notes of the documentation provided, but people make a general assumption that a firm selling an insurance service in Ireland is regulated in Ireland when that is not the case. The Central Bank has confirmed to me that the ICF in Malta will not be available to Irish policyholders suffering as a result of Setanta Insurance's collapse. The Irish ICF will be available and will provide up to 65% of the amount due, but people will still be out of pocket. No one is blaming the Irish authorities, but something went wrong. A further 600 plus firms licensed to sell insurance in the State are not regulated in Ireland. I must admit this was news to me and believe it would be news to a great many consumers. I would like to see a profile of these 600 plus firms to know in which sectors they are operating. Perhaps they are not in the general business of selling insurance to consumers and are brass plate operations in the IFSC. I do not know, but we need to assess the matter further.

I do not disagree with the Deputy. The position on compensation vis-à-vis Ireland and Malta is as outlined by the Deputy. However, there is an internal market in Europe and there is a right to establish and trade. There is a free-flow of goods and services and insurance is one of the industries that benefits from the Internal Market. For example, some very large insurance companies operating here trade on the continent of Europe. Zurich is a huge employer here and trades very well. Even though its host regulator is the Central Bank of Ireland, it has various regulators where it trades. In general, the system seems to work.

In terms of the lessons to be learned, the principal lesson to be learned, as in all such situations, is caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. I would like brokers to have a more active role in advising customers because not only should they get the best deal for people who seek insurance through brokers, they should also provide a type of prudential service and advice on what they believe are sound companies and so on. Some brokers do this very well but others do not.

Barr
Roinn