prioritise delivering in line with, and making a strong contribution to, the evolution of the european supervisory framework. this remains a cornerstone of our approach to both business as usual supervision and changes driven by brexit. one area where greater regulatory convergence is needed is in relation to recovery and resolution. the central bank does not operate a zero failure regime. all firms can face difficulties. some may recover, but others may fail. where failure does occur, it should happen in an orderly manner without significant financial stability or consumer protection issues. an appropriate framework is necessary to ensure failure is managed in a manner that minimises the impacts on financial stability, policyholders and beneficiaries in both home and host member states. in banking, the recovery and resolution framework, while not perfected, is further advanced than in the insurance sector and lessons can be learned from this framework. in 2017, eiopa published an opinion calling for a minimum degree of harmonisation in the field of recovery and resolution for insurers6. in august, the esrb published its view that an effective recovery and resolution framework would reduce risks to financial stability from a failure in the insurance sector7. in 2018, eiopa will start to assess the need of a harmonised approach to national insurance guarantee schemes. i am supportive of these efforts in this area. 2 ) supervisory and regulatory priorities i will turn now to our supervisory priorities for insurance firms. the main, overarching objectives of prudential supervision of insurance firms is the safeguarding of financial stability and the protection of policyholders and beneficiaries. in the central bank, we are focussed on delivering an effective, intrusive, analytical and outcomes - focused approach to 2 / 7 bis central bankers'speeches supervision. this is risk - based and anchored by our prism8 supervisory methodology. these objectives, which are directly relevant to any consideration of the opportunities and risks relating to insurtech & innovation, require that insurance firms : have sufficient financial resources including under a plausible but severe stress ; have sustainable, capitally accretive business models, over the long - term ; are well governed, have an appropriate culture, with effective risk management and control arrangements in place, which are commensurate with their nature, scale and complexity ; can recover if they get into difficulty, and if they cannot, are resolvable in an orderly manner without significant externalities or taxpayer costs ; and fully meet reporting and disclosure requirements. observations so

john hurley : managing financial stability in ireland comments by mr john hurley, governor of the central bank and financial services authority of ireland, at the central bank of luxembourg on the occasion of the publication of its financial stability review, luxembourg, 28 april 2008. * * * it is a great pleasure to be here today at the launch of the financial stability review and on the occasion of the 10th anniversary this year of the creation of the banque centrale du luxembourg. i would like to thank governor mersch for the invitation to speak about arrangements for managing financial stability in ireland. as you may be aware, for the last five years, the central bank and an autonomous financial regulator have operated together in ireland within the one organisation – the central bank and financial services authority of ireland. there were various reasons behind this choice of structure. a key consideration was the sharing of responsibility for financial stability, realising the synergies that existed between the central banking and financial regulation functions. other advantages included optimising the use of technical skills, benefiting from economies of scale in the provision of shared services and promoting communication between both areas. a key consideration was the sharing of responsibility between the central bank and the financial regulator for financial stability. the new organisation was notable for two reasons. first, it established a single financial services regulator. the second notable aspect of the new organisation was the location of the financial regulator within the broader central bank and financial services authority of ireland. this reflected the fact that, prior to the re - organisation, the central bank had been the main locus of expertise in these supervision activities in ireland. the end result is an organisation that consists of two constituent parts, each with their own responsibilities. both sides are bound together, however, by integrated membership of the central banks ’ board of directors and the financial regulator ’ s corresponding regulatory authority. although both parties have their own responsibilities, there is a shared high - level objective of contributing to financial stability. the central bank has an explicit legal mandate, in both domestic legislation and under the maastricht treaty, to contribute to financial stability both in ireland and across the euro area. the financial regulator contributes to the work of the central bank in discharging its responsibility in relation to the maintenance of overall financial stability. it makes this contribution in two broad ways. first, it maintains confidence in the solvency and safety of individual institutions. second, it protects and informs consumers. although the central bank ’ s and financial regulator ’ s roles in contributing to financial