David Innes spoke at the ABI Solvency II conference to voice his frustration at the lack of clarity in the proposals and the overuse of the word preparatory, which he said was too ambiguous.
Speaking during a panel discussion on interim measures, he said: “The biggest question mark I have is what does the word ‘preparatory’ mean?
“Compliance has a certain bar to it, but where is that bar going to be? I have fears there will be 28 bars across Europe, which will create problems for insurers and customers.”
On finding a solution to this dilemma, Mr Innes said individual firms must communicate better with the regulators. He said: “It is up to the firms to work with the regulator to see where that bar should be and negotiate downwards from there.”
The head of economic capital at RSA, who expressed his scepticism at the concept of “one recipe” functioning harmoniously across Europe, also said one of the main causes of confusion stems from there being too many pages of documentation.
He said this issue of excessive paperwork, coupled with there being so many different regulators in place, has made it increasingly difficult to get a concrete and consistent understanding of Solvency II that can realistically be applied across the continent.