best out of the lamfalussy process, there is a need for a strong commitment from all involved parties, and in primis by national supervisory authorities. this model could work effectively only if all authorities endeavour to allocate enough resources and contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of the level 3 committees. there is currently an on - going debate on how to better exploit all the potentialities of the lamfalussy approach, by further developing existing tools. i note that in some directives recently issued for the securities sector new methods of supervisory cooperation have been introduced, such as the possibility to delegate responsibilities ( in the prospectus directive ) and the role of level 3 committee joint forum, ageing and pension system reform : implications for financial markets and economic policies, september 2005. as mediator ( in the market abuse directive ). the potentialities of these new instruments have to be still tested, and it is under discussion whether some of them could be introduced in other financial sectors. i note that each one of the level 3 committees is at the moment mainly working - let me put it in this way - at a different level of the lamfalussy approach. to be more precise, the ceiops is currently focusing on finalising the advice to the commission for the preparation of the level 1 solvency directive ; cesr so far has been very busy with the preparation of the level 2 implementing measures in the securities field ; cebs is working hard mainly on finalising level 3 guidelines for the implementation of the eu capital requirements framework. therefore, given the different focus and orientation of its main stream of work, each sectoral committee might have different experience and possibly views as regards both limits and strengths of the lamfalussy approach. overall, i think that the experience gained so far by each committee may benefit the others as regards both the added value and the possible limits of the lamfalussy approach. thus i consider very important in the current discussion that all stakeholders share openly their concrete experience gained so far and benefit from each other ’ s views as to the potentialities and possible limits of the lamfalussy framework. i hope that the conference of today about the role of ceiops could bring important and thoughtful elements to the on - going debate. let me now express my considerations as regards your committee, the ceiops. i think that ceiops is presently at the same time in a very challenging and quite privileged situation. it is in a very challenging situation because it

some considerations on cross - sectoral issues. i have already mentioned the direct and indirect channels through which exposures in insurance sector may have an impact on financial stability. i note here that the blurring of boundaries between financial sectors in terms of financial institutions ’ activities, markets and financial instruments – which represents a major development of financial integration – constitutes an additional challenge for the authorities both for supervision and for financial stability monitoring. from the supervisory point of view, i note that in the last years there has been an increasing attention on a number of challenges affecting more than one financial sector, such as outsourcing, the development of hybrid financial products and credit transfer activity. it is very important to minimise potential inconsistencies in the supervisory treatment across the three sectors to avoid that allocation of risk would be decided simply on the ground of lower cost for compliance, and not for sound business considerations. therefore, close cooperation among sectoral committees and authorities is important to ensure an effective and consistent supervisory response. furthermore, close cooperation is required for the “ supplementary supervision ” of financial conglomerates. i note here that the three level 3 committees have recently made a proposal for carrying on the work needed to implement the financial conglomerates directive, without the need for establishing an ad - hoc level 3 committee. i just recall here the main principles underlining the lamfalussy approach, namely full transparency and accountability towards all political institutions and market participants, which should be always in the forefront and fully respected whatever arrangement is going to be put in place. as regard financial stability monitoring, in the ecb financial stability review, produced twice a year, the monitoring of risks to financial stability includes also a review of the relevant developments in the insurance sector. this assessment benefits extensively from the close co - operation between the escb banking supervision committee ( bsc ) and the ceiops, through mutual participations in the committees. the analysis of risks of a cross - sector nature is set to take advantage as well of the recent agreement among the level 3 committees to intensify their co - operation in a more organised way through a joint structure. 4. concluding remarks ladies and gentlemen, let me summarise my main messages today. first, insurance companies and pension funds play a positive role for financial stability. any new regulatory projects should recognise the long - term horizon of these institutions if we want them to remain the historically stable segment of the financial system and to enable them to act as possible shock absorbers. however, insurance companies