the widest possible network effects. we expect all insurers to support these arrangements. insurers who refuse to participate in this scheme will be looked upon unfavourably. we shall also take note of these recalcitrants ’ failure to participate for a common good. fourthly, insurers and takaful operators need to invest individually and collectively in creating a strong talent pipeline for the industry. we need to take stronger measures to professionalise the insurance workforce and foster the highest standards of conduct and competence. as the benefits of upskilling will accrue to the industry as a whole, talent development should also be a collective endeavour. only through collective effort can this be achieved. in this regard, i am pleased to announce the establishment of a talent development fund, funded by the industry that will be made available to support professional training and development initiatives for the sector. this will include the introduction of appropriate professional qualifications for key strategic and operational roles in the industry. finally, there will be deeper engagements with shareholders, boards and management of individual insurers and takaful operators on the development agenda for the industry. we will make clear the areas of development focus in the coming years. regular engagement with candid assessment of individual company ’ s performance will pave the way for companies to make more significant contributions to development objectives. and we shall rigorously measure insurers ’ performance. failure to register favourable achievements will have its own consequences. conclusion change is not an option. it is a constant. while global insurance growth is expected to remain healthy and will continue to be driven by emerging economies over the next few years, the quality of growth is equally important. we want growth that is sustainable and balanced where benefits are enjoyed by society at large via higher levels of meaningful protection for households and businesses. we must be responsive to the changes that are taking place in our society and economy. we need to take urgent action or risk becoming irrelevant. the rising awareness of insurance in our population is a golden opportunity for us to make an impact and change the way insurance is perceived and experienced. the heightened consumer expectations and disruptive forces of the new economy will mean that accomplishing this will require a steadfast commitment to the 4 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches values that are fundamental to the social mission of insurance. we must always act in the public interest for the long term benefit of our society. 5 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches

one hand and the eurozone on the other as is popularly supposed. it is in fact much more difficult to affect the exchange rate - directly through our domestic monetary policy than you might imagine. of course we do take full account, in our forecasts and in our policy judgements, of the implications of the exchange rate, and of the international environment more generally, for our own economy. that was why we moved aggressively to cut interest rates a year or so ago. sterling did not then fall against the euro as you might have expected - it actually rose. even though we could not change the international environment, we were able to cushion its negative effect on the economy as a whole by providing an offsetting stimulus to the domestic economy. had we not done so, we might well have suffered recession in the uk. but the situation now is very different with the economy as a whole has strongly recovered and is now once again, operating close to capacity and apparently continuing to grow at above trend. so, even supposing we could influence the exchange rate in the direction we would no doubt all like to see - the hard question for us in current circumstances is could we - and should we - attempt to do so, in order to try to shelter internationally - exposed businesses, if that were to mean putting our objective of sustained low inflation at risk. in fact i ’ ve not heard anyone argue openly for that - and i would be surprised if they did. the reality is that if we were to put the economy as a whole at any significant risk of accelerating inflation - notwithstanding our mandate - we would not succeed in providing the intended protection even to the internationally - exposed sectors, except possibly in the very short term ; and we would jeopardise the prospect of sustained growth in the economy as a whole further ahead. that very clearly was what happened when we sought to hold the exchange rate down against the dm for a time in the 1980s. there is no simple solution to this very real dilemma. and while i really do understand the pain that many internationally - exposed businesses are suffering, i ’ m afraid my vote must go with those who voted yes on the first ballot. now let me turn to the second - and quite distinct question - which relates to the practical operation of monetary policy. even if we could agree on the consistently low inflation objective of monetary policy, we can all perfectly well nevertheless disagree about the appropriate stance of policy - the appropriate level of interest rates - to deliver that objective. you