asked the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism if he has undertaken any investigation into the circumstances in which a statement was issued in June 1982, by the then Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism regarding the solvency and performance of the PMPA Insurance Company at a time when auditors were already investigating the company; if he accepts that shareholders in the PMPA may have been given a false impression of the company's position as a result of the statement; if he is aware that many people left their money in the PMPA as a result of the Minister's statement; if he accepts that the Government have a moral obligation, in view of that statement to see that these people are compensated; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - PMPA Insurance Company.
I am aware of the circumstances which gave rise to the issue on 5 July 1982 of a statement by the then Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism regarding the PMPA Insurance Company Ltd. The statement was issued following a press report which could have seriously damaged confidence in the company and hence the interests of their policyholders.
I do not accept that the statement was misleading. Indeed, I would refer the Deputy to the statement, which clearly shows that final audited accounts were then awaited and that, as in all cases, examination of the material furnished may require further explanations on particular matters. I do not accept that the Government have a moral obligation of any kind arising from the statement.
The subsequent appointment of an administrator to the PMPA Insurance Company Ltd. in October 1983 was designed to safeguard the interests of policyholders and claimants on insurance policies of the company. Unfortunately, because of the serious losses of the PMPA, the shareholders have no prospect of recovering their investment. However, this is a normal consequence of business failure and is a risk which shareholders in any company must consider when making an investment in share capital.
I am sure the Minister of State is aware that the investors he is talking about are in many cases people who merely have savings to invest and not the normal investors in the Smurfit Group or the Tony O'Reilly group. Can the Minister of State confirm that the viability of the PMPA was questioned as far back as 1975 and also that in 1982 when the Minister said that the company were quite safe and solvent the Minister at that time had requested Coopers and Lybrand to investigate the accounts of the company?
My Department when they consider it necessary and appropriate engage outside consultants to examine any aspect of a company's returns and account to my Department. They do so on the basis of confidentiality, and it would be most inappropriate of me to make any statement regarding the appointment of consultants to examine any of the insurance companies.
The question as to whether consultants were appointed to the PMPA at the time the Minister was denying that a question mark was hanging over the solvency of the PMPA is very important because——
A question, Deputy.
——It brings into question the moral obligation of the Government to recompense the investors who were misled at the time. In these circumstances will the Minister of State not confirm that the consultants, Coopers and Lybrand, were investigating the company at the time that the Minister stated the company were quite solvent?
The then Minister stated then, and I quote: "The Minister is awaiting the final audited accounts from the company". He went on in the course of his statement to indicate that "the examination of this material may require further explanation on particular matters by the companies in question". He was making a general remark. That was the position in July 1982. My Department took the necessary action on foot of the information they received which, unfortunately, resulted in the appointment by this House of an administrator over the PMPA. That was unfortunate, but it was because of the vigilance of the Department over a period that the decision was made to do so. It was done to protect the policy holders and claimants on policies.
Would the Minister indicate whether he and the Government propose, through the administrator, to take any steps to recover the investment of people who put their money into the PMPA and the PMPS?
That seems to be a separate question.
There seems to be no prospect of recovery of moneys invested by shareholders in the PMPA. The PMPS is a separate question.
Would the Minister agree that statements can on occasion be quite irresponsible, particularly that concerning a major gas find last week? New information indicates that it will not be a success and this shows how irresponsible the Tánaiste was in hyping up this matter for purely political reasons.
We have been dealing with Question No. 5.
This is an indication that Ministers should not make statements that are unfounded.
That is a separate matter. Question No. 6.
Groundless statements have been made which are now being shown to be false.
The Tánaiste refuted this allegation yesterday and the matter being raised by the Deputy is completely irrelevant to the question before the House.
It is very relevant to what is going on with this Government.
It is unfortunate that the Opposition are so depressing in their comments.