Its members, individually and collectively, are publicly accountable for the way in which that responsibility is exercised. The supply-side agenda, under successive governments has inevitably been more diverse. It has included a strong commitment to free markets and competition as the motive forces for productive efficiency, and as the essential means of allocating financial and real resources. It includes an equally strong parallel commitment - both regionally within the European Union but also more broadly - to international free trade in goods and services and to the global free flow of capital. The supply-side agenda has included an extensive program of “privatisation”, bringing market disciplines to bear on commercial activities previously undertaken within the public sector, but often involving new forms of regulation in areas of activity that might otherwise be dominated by natural monopolies. It has included extensive deregulation - for example in relation to financial services, including banks and building societies, though this has been accompanied by improvements in the financial infrastructure and by enhanced prudential supervision. It has included measures of labour market deregulation and Trade Union reform. And it has included increased emphasis on education and training; measures to encourage business enterprise - especially among smaller businesses; and reforms to the welfare system to improve incentives to work. The list could go on.
In this regard, we are naturally supporting efforts by the French Treasury and insurers to improve the prudential treatment of long-term equity investments already during the 2018 review. On a topical note, I would add that it is crucial for supervisors to apply all prudential requirements with equal rigour. The string of failures by insurers doing business on the French market under the FPS, particularly in construction insurance, is a reminder of the importance of this. The ACPR is obviously working hard to deal with this crisis, which is affecting tens of thousands of French policyholders. But the requisite convergence of supervisory practices also needs to become a reality very soon. I know that Gabriel Bernardino and EIOPA are making this a priority. Finally, let me be clear: it is unreasonable to apply the new IFRS17 accounting framework right now, given the current state of the discussions. Aside from the complexities of creating a European governance framework for these standards, there is also an obvious issue of timing, and fortunately, the IASB appears to be reopening discussions on this. Implementing IFRS17, which will be costly and complex, will follow on from implementation of Solvency 2, a process that has kept insurers very busy. Beyond the question of timetabling, there are major substantive issues. We want an agreement on identifying groups of loss-making contracts. As it stands, the draft is unworkable. We also want to see completion of the discussions on the treatment of reinsurance contracts held.