andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he can state the position of persons who are held liable to pay under workmen's compensation claims, and who hold policies with the Equitable Insurance Company Limited.
8.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Equitable Insurance Company Limited.
7.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if injured employees who were covered by policies with the Equitable Insurance Company Limited are being paid workmen's compensation; if not, what is their position; and if he will now consider State coverage for workmen's compensation.
I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
If, as appears to be the case, the Equitable Insurance Company Limited is unable to meet claims under policies covering workmen's compensation risks, the liability falls on the employer. The question of the taking over of workmen's compensation by the State was dealt with by the Commission on Workmen's Compensation, whose report is at present under consideration by the Minister for Social Welfare.
What is the position where a firm is unable to meet its commitments arising out of a workmen's compensation claim and an individual worker is disabled permanently? Has he any redress against the employer or the company?
The employer is ultimately responsible for the claims of workmen for workmen's compensation and the insurance policy merely indemnifies the employer against the risk. The actual liability is never removed from the employer. He is always fully liable and is still liable no matter what happens to the Equitable Insurance Company.
That is cold comfort.
An employer might not keep sufficient funds in hand to meet any claim and for that reason he is at a loss and the workman is at a loss.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce has indicated the position to all employers and has advised them to have regard to their position, in view of the state of affairs of the Equitable Insurance Company.
That is rather like closing the stable door after the horse has gone. Will the Minister not agree that this has pinpointed the need for a secure insurance for employers and will he ensure that when the Workmen's Compensation Commission report is being considered finally, the fact that an insurance company, which was supposed to be a reputable company, has fallen down will be taken into consideration?
That is an entirely separate matter.
It is not.
It is embodied in the question.
It does not a deduction.
arise from the question. It is purely
My question is No. 8 and I simply asked a supplementary on the terms of my question.
The Deputy can be assured that my colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, will take all relevant factors into account in his consideration of the report of the Commission
Has the Minister for Industry and Commerce any responsibility now in this matter?
There is no such thing as responsibility.
That is an entirely different matter.
I think he should because it was through him that this happened.
It was not.
Who is going to put up the £100,000?
9.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he has asked for particulars of dealings in the shares of the Equitable Insurance Company Limited within the last two years; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in respect of such dealings.
11.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether any shares were sold by Directors of the Equitable Insurance Company Limited within the last two years; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in respect thereof.
16.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the amount subscribed in cash for shares in the Equitable Insurance Company Limited, and the amount of free shares allotted in exchange for shares in the Tower Insurance Company Limited.
With the permission of An Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 11 and 16 together.
The affairs of the Equitable Insurance Company are in the hands of a liquidator appointed by the High Court. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on such matters as dealings that may have taken place in the company's shares. In any event, the supervision machinery set out in the Insurance Acts does not require any special information on these matters to be furnished to my Department and I could not have sought any information other than that available for public inspection in the Companies Registration Office or in the Register of Members maintained by the company itself.
Is it a fact that the shares of the Tower Insurance Company appeared in the balance sheet of the Equitable Insurance Company as being worth £80,000 and is it a fact that they are worth £80,000?
The duty of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and his function in this regard, is to receive reports and accounts of insurance companies properly certified by auditors and directors showing the company to be solvent. The Minister's function and duty was fully complied with in regard to this insurance company.
Surely under the section the Minister has further duty?
He has not.
Why did the Minister, under the section, write letters asking for further information?
I have no information as to that but the duty of the Minister with regard to accounts of insurance companies under the section is confined to what I said, to receive reports and accounts in the prescribed form, properly certified.
I do not believe that the Minister for Industry and Commerce wrote letters when he had no function.
They must not have been properly certified. They are not worth £80,000.
They were certified.
Surely there is no point in the Minister receiving if he is not going to pass judgment?
The statute passed by this House prescribes the Minister's duty in this regard and the Minister's duty is simply to receive these reports and ensure that they are duly certified as stipulated in the statute. That is all.
They were not duly certified.
10.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is now satisfied that the Equitable Insurance Company Limited was insolvent for a very considerable time; and why, in those circumstances, the Company was allowed by him to carry on business.
12.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce what steps, if any, were taken by him at any time during the past five years to investigate, or call for further information arising out of, the accounts filed by the Equitable Insurance Company Limited.
15.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce what steps were taken by him to verify each year the value of the investments returned by the Equitable Insurance Company Limited to his Department as part of their available assets.
17.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce what value was accepted by him in his scrutiny under the Insurance Act, 1936, for the shares belonging to the Equitable Insurance Company Limited, held in the Tower Insurance Company Limited.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take questions Nos. 10, 12, 15 and 17 together.
The statutory provisions relating to the supervision of insurance companies do not require my Department to do any more than see to it that the necessary returns are submitted in the prescribed form, that they are certified in the prescribed manner, and that they show the company to be solvent. The valuation of shares or other securities by public officials is not called for. As I indicated in reply to other questions on 28th May, 1963, the returns submitted by this company during my term of office, and also during the terms of office of my predecessors, were in order and insolvency was not indicated until the latest returns came to hand. I also made it clear on that occasion that there was no delay whatever on my part in putting the company into liquidation as soon as it became apparent that it was insolvent.
Is it a fact that the company asked for a prolongation of the statutory period?
The next question deals more specifically with that.
Is the Minister satisfied that the accounts showed that the company was solvent?
If the Deputy wishes, I will repeat the answer I have already read. That is precisely what is said in the reply.
Despite the Minister's reply to Deputy Governey, will the Minister permit me to ask does his reply mean that in regard to a question of insolvency under the Insurance Act, 1936, the Minister has no particular responsibility to establish to his satisfaction that the information presented to him is accurate?
His duty is confined to seeing that the accounts and report are properly certified and that they show that the company is solvent. In each case, that was the position until the latest returns came to hand and the Minister then proceeded without delay to put the company into liquidation.
If the accounts as certified indicate insolvency, the Minister has responsibility?
Exactly, and when the latest accounts, the only accounts which demonstrated the company to be insolvent, came to hand, the Minister took immediate action.
That was two days after the company went into voluntary liquidation.
Is it not obvious that the accounts were not properly certified?
That is a matter for the auditor.
That is what I want to get at. Who was the auditor?
Better get the legal adviser to advise on that.
Is there an answer to that?
13.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the respective dates on which (a) commercial accounts and (b) statutory insurance returns were lodged with him in each of the last five years by the Equitable Insurance Company Limited in pursuance of their obligations under the Insurance Act, 1936.
The statutory returns for the years 1958 to 1962 were lodged on the following dates: 6th January, 1959; 30th December, 1959; 14th February, 1961; 30th December, 1961; 3rd April, 1963.
A two years gap.
When the extension of the statutory period was requested by the insurance company, was any infortion supplied to the Minister as to why it was required?
This extension of three months may be allowed to insurance companies and is frequently asked for and granted as a matter of course. It is a maximum of three months.
My question is: was any information supplied, other than a simple request, or did the Minister ask for any explanation?
These extensions are requested by different insurance companies all the time. It is simply a formality of applying for a permitted maximum statutory extension of three months.
Did the Minister mis-read the last two dates?
The 30th December 1961 and 3rd April, 1963.
You are all right now. It is OK.
I shall have to bring in a ball frame.
It is a pity you did not bring in a ball frame to the insurance company.
If it is any consolation to the Deputy, one of my own personal policies is involved.
All mine are.
You are not alone there.
You should have consulted their solicitors.