Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Nov 1938

Vol. 73 No. 3

In Committee On Finance. - Insurance (Amendment) Bill, 1938—Money Resolution.

I move:—

That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to confirm and give statutory effect to an Agreement made between certain assurance companies for the transfer of their life assurance business and their industrial assurance business to a single company, to make provision for divers matters arising out of or consequential on the said Agreement, including the making of similar agreements by other assurance companies, and to amend the law relating to assurance business, it is expedient to authorise:—

(1) the issue and payment out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof of all sums payable by the Minister for Finance under such Act to the Terminating Company defined in such Act in respect of "the deficiency" referred to in such Act;

(2) the Charge on the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof of the principal of and interest on any securities issued by the Minister for Finance under such Act for the purpose of borrowing to meet payments as aforesaid; and

(3) the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of the amount of any stamp duties authorised by such Act to be refunded to the said Terminating Company.

On behalf of Deputy Norton, I move:—

In paragraph (1) to delete the words "issue and payment out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof" and substitute the words "payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas".

I think the reason for the amendment is obvious. The aim of it is to preserve the right of review by this House of the payments that have to be made. If the payments are made out of the Central Fund we will not be in a position to ascertain the amount, or have any method of exercising a check on them. I think in view of everything that has arisen in connection with this transaction, there is a special case for maintaining the power of this House over the payments to be made. It would be well that, from time to time, we should have the fullest information on this matter, and have an opportunity in this. House of expressing our opinion as to how the amalgamation was working, and, above all, of ascertaining the exact amount of the liability in connection with the amalgamation.

It is precisely on the grounds stated by the Deputy that, I think, the amendment must be refused. The one thing the House cannot do is to put itself in a position to reconsider its decision by taking power to refuse to vote the moneys contemplated. If the House wants to reject the scheme, now is the time to do it, but if they do not reject it now they cannot keep themselves in the position of being able to change their minds later. If the Bill is passed before the 31st December, the agreement, which is the Schedule to the Bill, will have statutory force and become binding on each of the four participating companies and on the Terminating Company. It will also be open to other insurance companies to adopt its provisions and to be bound by those provisions, subject to compliance with the procedure laid down in the Bill itself.

It would be unreasonable to ask that any of these companies should incur expenditure, or undertake other obligations or liabilities in connection with the agreement, unless it was clear beyond doubt and beyond question that the sum required to make good the deficiency would be forthcoming from State funds. The Oireachtas has its opportunity now of accepting or rejecting the proposed scheme of amalgamation, but if it does accept it, it must bind itself to contribute as laid down in the agreement. It must, in fact, divest itself of the right to change its mind hereafter, just as after the passing of the Bill the interested companies are deprived of the right to change their minds.

On the narrower ground of financial procedure, there is no question that the sum involved should be charged upon the Central Fund. Although the payment is not exactly a subscription for shares in the company, yet shares will be issued to the Minister for Finance in consideration of his having made the payment. It has always been the practice to charge on the Central Fund any payment made for shares. That was done in the case of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, the Industrial Credit Corporation, the Irish Sugar Company and other similar organisations. The amount to be paid out on account of the deficiency is not a variable amount but a definite sum to be ascertained in accordance with the explicit procedure laid down in the agreement. On these grounds I am afraid I must oppose the amendment.

I think the Minister has very skilfully evaded the reasons that have been advanced in support of this amendment. In effect, what he asks is that we should assent to shoulder a liability the extent of which we do not know. I think that very good reasons have been advanced for the amendment. We are not even sure that the liability on the State and on the country will end with this particular payment. Possibly, further payments will have to be made. Is it suggested that we should remain entirely in the dark as to the extent of the sums to be voted to subsidise this company?

That is not quite the case. We cannot give the precise amount, but the Dáil knows that it will not exceed £500,000, because there is a limit prescribed in the Principal Act. It knows the procedure by which the amount is to be determined. If Deputies object to that particular provision in the agreement, now is the time for them to voice their objection and to reject the agreement. If they accept the agreement and enact the Bill, they cannot change their minds later after the consequences which flow from the enactment of the agreement have begun to be felt. They can make up their minds now as to what action they are going to take on the agreement, but having made up their minds they must divest themselves of the right to change their minds, just as the companies who are concerned with the agreement will also be deprived of the power to change their minds.

There is no fear that they would change their minds.

Let us be clear on this. Every one of the operating companies concerned in this agreement was opposed to the passage of the Insurance Bill, 1936. They wanted to be let carry on. They still want to be let carry on. The Bill was carried by this House in the teeth of the opposition of every insurance company in this country. The insurance companies had two alternatives. One was to obstruct the Oireachtas and to refuse to operate in any way, or to tell the Minister that he would have to amalgamate them compulsorily because they did not believe in the policy that the State was sponsoring. The other line was, having made their representations to Dáil Eireann and having had their representations overruled by An Dáil, to take the Bill and do their best to give effect to it. They did consult the Minister and the officers in the Minister's Department. They sat down and drafted the scheme which the Minister now recommends to Dáil Eireann. The critics of the companies cannot have it both ways. The Oireachtas would not let the companies alone, but insisted on the companies drafting a scheme. Now the companies have drafted a scheme. They would much prefer if they had been allowed to carry on on their own. The Dáil having forced amalgamation on the companies, there is no use in anyone getting up and saying that the insurance companies are making a good thing out of it. They never did want an Insurance Bill. If the Dáil is prepared to repeal all the legislation relating to insurance passed during the last twelve months, the insurance companies will be delighted. It is ridiculous for their critics to want both ends of the stick, having forced an Insurance Bill on the companies, and to suggest that this scheme contains some hidden privilege for the insurance companies.

This scheme is the logical consequence of the Insurance Act that was passed. The House passed that in the full knowledge that money would have to be found to make up the actuarial deficiency which existed at the moment. The position of the insurance companies is that if you leave them alone the actuarial deficiency will disappear. The companies will become not only actually solvent but actuarially solvent. If you want to interfere now, you do so in the full knowledge that you are dealing with a situation where there is an actuarial deficiency, which must be made up if you want to secure actuarial solvency.

I take this occasion to underline the fact, that if you interfered with the strongest English companies in the insurance business, at the same stage of their careers, as you are interfering with the Irish companies, you would find that the actuarial deficiency was far greater in the great English companies than exists in the Irish companies to-day. The great English companies were not interfered with in the early stages, and they became some of the wealthiest corporations in the world. The Irish companies, if left alone, would become as wealthy as the circumstances of this country would permit. It is the choice of this House —not of the Irish companies—that Oireachtas Eireann should interfere with their business, and at this stage, take upon itself willingly, the liability for actuarial deficiency, which the insurance companies say would have disappeared if their business was allowed to go on in the normal way. There is no use saying now, because Oireachtas Eireann wanted to insist on doing so, that Oireachtas Eireann has something to complain of. If Oireachtas Eireann wants to repeal the Insurance Act, and to let the insurance companies go on as they were, they consent. If not, it is Oireachtas Eireann's own choosing if it wants to take on the actuarial responsibility at this stage.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Resolution."
The Committee divi ded:—Tá, 70; Níl, 10.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brasier, Brooke.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Cole, John J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McDavitt, Henry A.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • Munnelly, John.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Corish, Richard.
  • Davin, William.
  • Everett, James.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hurley, Jeremiah.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • Pattison, James P.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Corish and Keyes.
Question declared carried.
Resolution put and agreed to.
Top
Share