From: Susie Colley, Steve Hoskin, George Connelly, Penny O'Nions, Zig Malendewiez and other AMII mem...
From: Susie Colley, Steve Hoskin, George Connelly, Penny O'Nions, Zig Malendewiez and other AMII members
To: the editor
The article, Network firms are exempt from AMII, in December's issue of COVER is slightly misleading as AMII has agreed to admit network members, but on a non-voting associate basis.
It is normally expected that the content of AMII's closed session discussions be kept within the membership. However, now that the Chairman has aired his, and the Executive Committee's view, it is only fair that the other side of the argument should be put forward.
We can understand that the Chairman might find the result of the motion disappointing. However, with only a short period of time after the motion was proposed for members to examine the ramifications of accepting network members to full membership, there should be little surprise that there was strong feeling that the members were being rushed into a decision.
The justification to admit network members to full membership appears to be partly based on finance and partly because some members who were General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) members, might decide to join networks and would therefore be 'downgraded'.
The industry has known for two years that Financial Services Authority (FSA) regulation was coming. Some members have decided not to seek FSA authorisation and that is entirely their decision and is not to be criticised. There have always been AMII members who have operated with teams of sub-agents under the GISC. These sub-agents have never been accepted for full AMII membership. Therefore nothing has changed.
It is to the credit of the membership that enough of those present felt strongly enough to resist the move. They did so for the following reasons:
Firstly, to quote directly from the FSA: "Because the Principal is authorised and has agreed to accept responsibility, the appointed representative (AR) does not need to be authorised by us. Instead, the AR is exempt for authorisation. The AR will appear on the FSA's register as an exempt firm."
One of AMII's primary roles has been to speak to regulatory bodies and insurers on behalf of its members. Therefore, those members who are 'exempt' from direct regulation can have no input into the manner in which AMII responds or contributes to discussions.
Secondly, members of networks must use only the agencies which that network has negotiated with insurers, together with any special products, discounts and enhanced commissions that go along with that agency. Does the word 'independent' apply in this situation?
Finally, we would urge AMII's Executive Committee to continue to act on behalf of its members, but in a way that involves them more in discussions and proposals of such importance. Earlier advice about their thinking might well have avoided this situation.
