I refer to your leader of 25 October ("Merely adding an `I'?"). I am clearly one of very few people to have thoroughly read the Competition Commission Appeal Tribunal (CCAT) ruling.Were it not such an august body, one might question its impartiality. The ruling was so one-sided that, for the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) and the British Insurance Brokers' Association (Biba) to still blame Andrew Paddick and the Institute of Insurance Brokers (IIB) for their woes, one must place their grasp on reality in some doubt. Instead of blindly accepting what is said by interested parties, I urge everyone to download the ruling and read it for themselves.
The fact that many intermediaries are now unregulated is the fault of the GISC, not the IIB. Had certain GISC instigators not been so determined to exclude the IIB and its director general, but accepted that a competing body would receive wide support and worded F42 appropriately, I doubt there would have even been an Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) appeal in isolation.
IIB Registration Council (IIBRC) supporters are not against regulation. Why would we have voluntarily submitted ourselves to the rigours of the Insurance Brokers' Registration Council (IBRC) for more than 20 years if this was the case? We are in favour of choice and, while the UK remains a democracy, this should be encouraged. Accountants have two regulatory bodies and brokers should have the same.
The best way to ensure Treasury intervention and, ultimately, regulation by the FSA, which we can all do without, is for the GISC and its supporters to continue their bleating to the Treasury. Rather, they should accept what has happened and talk to the IIB who will be pleased to support a suitably modified F42 to allow so-minded firms to seek their regulation through IIBRC.
Time to sell ourselves
Can the London insurance market survive the current downturn and the knock-on effects of September 11? Yes it can.
Firstly, by recognising the robustness of the insurance industry (AM Best believes the industry as a whole will be able to meet its commitments) and, secondly, by focusing on the genuine added value it provides, which is so often overlooked both within and outside the insurance sector.
Insurers and their intermediaries must sell themselves as partners in risk and as providers of the security that enables businesses not only to survive, but also to actually operate. Insurance oils the wheels of commerce and industry.
Inevitably, premiums will increase and this will give rise to accusations of capitalisation on recent events.
It is vital, therefore, that insurers articulate the real value they add and the necessity for increased premiums to replenish a now severely emptied pot.
This will ensure the survival of the insurance industry, without which many companies would cease to operate.
Insurers must take the lead in restoring client confidence. One component must be to reaffirm their readiness to meet their obligations and pay all valid claims promptly and without debate.
They must also demonstrate their willingness and ability to provide solutions in these difficult times.
This is a time of opportunity for those with the vision, nerve and capital to trade on. Those with the right skills will dominate the market by capturing clients desperate for reassurance and the right insurance.
Effective Image Strategic Presentation Consultants
It is not for me to defend AXA following their expressed wish to renegotiate the contract for insuring the World Cup, but for Tony Banks to criticise them beggars belief ("AXA's Cup move shabby'", Insurance Times, 18 October).
This man was, for a time, sports minister in a government which contributed to the mess-up of the Wembley Stadium project, reneged on the commitment for the athletic stadium at Picketts Lock and broke many promises about the Millennium Dome.
My granny taught me people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Perhaps Mr Banks did not listen to his granny.
I was surprised to see the inaccuracies in the "Risk managers in sex discrimination row" story (Insurance Times, 21 August) and wish to have them corrected.
Firstly, I did not resign two weeks after returning from leave.
I resigned on 29 March while still on maternity leave.
I was left in an untenable situation due to a report being given to the chairman by IRM staff, of which the chairman's wife is one. I subsequently learned this report contained a number of issues to which there wasn't any substance.
A meeting date was suggested, at very short notice, almost three months after my resignation had been submitted. The meeting did not take place after mutual advice from both parties' legal advisers.
Maureen B Gibbins