Insurance Bill, 1964: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

The object of this Bill is to provide relief for the policy-holders of the Equitable Insurance Company Limited. As Senators are aware, I presented a petition to the High Court in May last year for the winding-up of this company on the ground that it was insolvent; shortly afterwards the necessary winding-up order was made by the court. Although the preparation of the Bill was prompted by the failure of this one company, Senators will observe that the arrangements which it is proposed to set up by enactment are of a general and continuing nature, so that there will also be suitable machinery for the relief of policyholders in the case of any future insurance insolvency. I need hardly say that at present there are no indications whatever that any other insurance company will become insolvent.

The legal position in relation to certain liabilities and assets of the Equitable Insurance Company is not clear and for that reason the liquidator of the company is unable to give any reliable indication of the sums of money required to meet claims under the various classes of policies. Very roughly, however, he feels that the net liabilities may amount to some hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Motor Insurers' Bureau, which is representative of all companies doing motor business here, will, under a longstanding agreement with the Minister for Local Government, meet certain liabilities under motor policies, but this will still leave a substantial amount of claims unsatisfied.

When news of the failure of the Equitable came to hand, it was hoped at first, that the other insurers would take over some, at least, of its liabilities, and I had discussions with the Irish and British companies with this end in view before I presented the petition for winding-up. The Irish companies indicated to me that they would contribute one-third of the amount needed to meet all debts in full, provided the balance was contributed by the British companies and/or the Government. The British companies refused, however, to make any contribution. These companies enjoy full facilities, on the same basis as our own native concerns, to conduct their insurance business here. In fact, they are to a certain extent shielded from excessive competition by virtue of the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1936. They take about 80 per cent of the non-life business arising here, as compared with 20 per cent for the Irish companies. Despite all this the British companies made it quite clear to me that they would not, in any circumstances, voluntarily contribute one penny towards meeting the claims on the Equitable. The explanation they gave me was that they are opposed in principle to any arrangements for bailing-out any company which gets into difficulty, as this might lead in the future to the adoption of reckless practices by other insurance companies and intermediaries.

It is quite clear from approaches which have been made to me and from appeals made by members of the Oireachtas that unless some special steps are taken the failure of the Equitable will give rise to serious hardships for its policy-holders, particularly in the case of persons who were insured with the company under employers' liability policies. It is clear also that the failure of an insurance company to meet its liabilities differs in many ways from the failure of an ordinary business concern. It is no secret that insurance companies act in concert in many matters, including the rating of risks and the determination of premiums. They all work on much the same principles, and exchange information one with the other. They are, furthermore, in a privileged position in that the insurance market here in Ireland is, to a large extent, reserved for the companies operating here. It must be borne in mind, too, that the law has, for many years recognised that the insuring public are deserving of special consideration and protection, within the limits of a free enterprise system. Taking all these matters into account, I have come to the conclusion that since the insurance industry itself will not voluntarily come to an arrangement under which the policy-holders of the Equitable can be assisted, then it will be necessary to impose such an arrangement on them by legislation. It also seems to me appropriate that any machinery provided by law should not relate specifically to the Equitable but should be available to deal with any other insurance insolvency situation which may arise, no matter how remote the possibility of any further failure may be.

The Irish and British companies have informed me that they are opposed to the introduction of legislation on these lines. For the reasons I have already given, however, I feel that it is right that, having failed to procure a voluntary scheme, I should introduce this Bill providing for a statutory scheme. I am satisfied that there should be no difficulty in so operating the proposed scheme, that in any given year the financial burden by way of contributions payable by individual companies will be quite small, and I believe that the arrangement envisaged by the Bill now before the House will not cause any serious financial problem for even the smallest company. I think it only right to say that I have a feeling that the insurance companies are not violently objecting to this Bill and I expect that in due course they will come round to the view that it is a necessary and reasonabe enactment.

I have been pressed with the contention that it would be unfair and illogical to require the insurance companies to meet claims under workmen's compensation in view of the decision in principle taken by the Government some time ago to expand the social insurance scheme by providing for payments to persons injured in the course of their employment. Although this decision has not yet been translated into legislation proposals, I feel that there is some validity in the point put by the insurance companies, and the Bill, accordingly, provides for a State contribution which will be roughly equivalent to the workmen's compensation liabilities of the Equitable.

The main features of the scheme as envisaged by the Bill are as follows:

(a) All non-life licensed insurance companies will contribute to the fund in accordance with their premium income. A non-repayable contribution of £30,000 will be made to the fund by the State with the object of covering the Equitable's workmen's compensation liabilities.

(b) The fund will be available to meet claims under policies issued by any insolvent insurance company which is being wound up by the High Court; the eligible classes of insurance will be those for which a licence is needed under the Insurance Acts, other than life; creditors other than those claiming under eligible policies will not have access to the fund.

(c) As the annual contributions envisaged will not be sufficient to discharge the liabilities of the Equitable within a short space of time, the Minister for Finance will make loans to the fund to enable it to cover all outstanding claims without delay; these loans will be repaid to the Minister for Finance in due course.

The insolvency of the Equitable Insurance Company prompted members of the Oireachtas and other persons to ask questions about the degree of protection afforded by the existing law for policyholders in this country. We will in my view, answer those questions most effectively by providing suitable statutory arrangements for meeting unsatisfied claims on insolvent insurance companies. As a further safeguard, however, I think it is desirable to revise the present statutory requirements in relation to the deposits made by insurance companies.

The existing provisions require that a deposit of £15,000 must be made in the High Court by each company doing motor business and a deposit of £20,000 by each company doing any one or more of the other controlled classes of business, except life and industrial business, where the deposit is £20,000 in respect of each. All authorities are agreed that these figures which were fixed in 1936, are now too low. The Bill provides, therefore, that a deposit of £100,000 shall be required from each insurance company, no matter how many classes of business it carries on. The share capital requirements set out in the Act of 1936, have also been examined but I am satisfied that it would not be feasible to do very much on this score, for the present at any rate. It should be borne in mind, in this connection, that statutory share capital requirements do not provide a very concrete type of protection for policyholders since share capital can be lost in the ordinary course of business. The making of a deposit is in an entirely different category, since this requires the placing of cash or its equivalent in the High Court which retains physical possession of it for the sole benefit of the appropriate claimants.

Certain licensing rights were provided by the Act of 1936 for Irish and foreign insurance companies, which were doing business here before it came into operation and there is a residue of these rights which has not yet been taken up. The failure of the Equitable Insurance Company has prompted me to look again at these provisions, and I am satisfied that some tidying-up is called for. The Bill proposes, therefore, to provide that no new licences may be issued to any company, Irish or foreign, except in the case of a newly established Irish-controlled company satisfying the share capital and other requirements of the 1936 Act.

The opportunity is also being availed of to make some changes in the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1938, in relation to the connection between the Minister for Finance and the Irish Life Assurance Company, Limited. I need hardly mention that these provisions have no connection whatever with the other provisions of the Bill; they were inserted in this Bill primarily to save the Oireachtas the time and trouble of dealing with a separate measure.

The enactment of these provisions will, I feel sure, improve the existing law relating to the insurance industry, and will answer a number of criticisms which have been voiced in the Oireachtas from time to time. So many people are affected in their everyday lives by this branch of commercial activity, that it is essential to see to it that adequate safeguards are provided to protect their interests. That is what I have in mind in introducing this Bill to the Oireachtas. I am satisfied that it will achieve the object to which I have referred and, accordingly, I have no hesitation in commending it to the Seanad.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I welcome this Bill but I regret very much the necessity for it. I welcome the Bill because it will save a great number of people from ruin or bankruptcy following the collapse of the Equitable Insurance Company, Limited.

People in this country for some years back regarded insurance as a giltedged business. In other words, they believed and I think were led to believe that it was impossible for an insurance company to collapse or to fail to honour its commitments to its policy-holders. The collapse of the Equitable Insurance Company, Limited, last year meant that very many people who effected policies with that company found themselves without any indemnity whatever and were faced with huge demands on them either under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or under Common Law. Therefore, I think the Government had no alternative but to come to the rescue of these policyholders.

The Minister has told us that the liability of the insurance company concerned amounts to some hundreds of thousands of pounds. Admittedly, some proportion of that would be looked after by the Motor Insurance Bureau under an arrangement of some years' standing — I shall not say of long standing — with the Minister for Local Government. But there were many other people who had workmen's compensation insurance, fire insurance and other types of insurance with the Equitable who found themselves without any indemnity whatever. To that extent, the Bill is to be welcomed and the Minister and the Government are to be thanked for facing up to their responsibilities in this matter.

I regret, and regret very much, the necessity for this Bill. Prior to 1936, the insurance business in this country had come to be regarded as a shady, doubtful business, particularly as far as Irish insurance companies were concerned. The Insurance Act, 1936, did a lot to build up confidence in Irish insurance companies. Until this particular incident, I think we had reached the stage where a person treated an insurance company as he would treat the bank or the State.

It did, then, come as a great shock to the insuring public in this country to realise that notwithstanding the fact that they paid premiums and effected insurance policies it was possible for them to find they were not insured and had no indemnity whatever. The collapse of this company has done a lot of harm to Irish insurance companies in general. People with experience of dealing with insurance companies and effecting policies can bear out my statement that people are now inclined to be careful as to where they will place their business.

I did not come in here to launch an attack on the Minister or on the Government but I say that quite a lot of responsibility for this situation must rest on the shoulders of the Minister and the Government. If the Government decide to control by legislation a particular business such as the insurance business and, by so doing, lead the public to believe that the State is keeping an eye on their interests, then there rests a heavy responsibility on the Minister concerned and on the Department concerned to keep up to date with the particular industry and to keep an eye on it and, in fact, to give to the public the protection which the Insurance Act, 1936, led the public to believe they had a right to expect.

One of the protections given to the public by the Insurance Act, 1936, was an obligation on insurance companies dealing, shall we say, in motor business to make a deposit in the High Court. In 1936 the deposit required from an insurance company doing motor business in this country was £15,000. In 1936, £15,000 was a sizeable sum of money. In the same year the number of motor cars on the roads in Ireland was trivial compared with the number on the roads at the present time. Damages being awarded in the courts at that time were very small. £1,000 awarded then was a very substantial sum of money. Down through the years circumstances changed and changed drastically. We have now, perhaps, by a gradual process, reached the stage where we find High Court juries awarding damages of £75,000 and £60,000. £20,000 is not uncommon and £10,000 and £15,000 is an everyday experience.

Despite this we find, nearly 30 years after the passing of the Insurance Act of 1936, the deposit still stands at £15,000. If the Ministers, all down through that time, were discharging their duties to the public, that deposit should have been altered, and substantially increased, because it is not now sufficient to pay what might be regarded as an everyday award. The Minister now sees fit to increase that deposit from £15,000 to £100,000. That is certainly a more realistic approach to it but I may be forgiven for saying that it took the collapse of the Equitable Insurance Company, with a consequent damage to the Irish insurance world, to bring about that change, which should have been apparent to the Minister several years ago.

There is also another protection in the Insurance Act of 1936 which takes the form of an obligation imposed on insurance companies to make a return to the Department every year. I understand, in the case of the Equitable Insurance Company its last return was very much overdue. In fact, I think the second return was due before the collapse. At any rate, I am accurate in saying that the auditor's return, which a company is obliged to make, accompanied by an auditor's certificate, to the Department of Industry and Commerce was substantially overdue by the Equitable Insurance Company.

That might be understandable in an ordinary case and it might be reasonable for the Minister to grant an extension of time to a company to put in the required certificate but one would not have to be a lawyer, or an accountant, to know that the Equitable Insurance Company, at best, was not a wealthy undertaking. A glance at the balance sheet of the Equitable Insurance Company for any particular year will show that its capital was limited, that its assets were not very considerable, even taken at face value. A substantial asset of the Equitable Insurance Company consisted of shares in another company, which were not, to say the least of it, well known on the stock exchange.

In those circumstances, there was an obligation on the Minister to take a special fatherly interest, if you like, in the Equitable Insurance Company. There was an obligation on him to take extra care. He owed that obligation to the general public, to the Irish insurance industry and to the policy-holders of the Equitable Insurance Company. The Minister did not act as quickly as he should have acted, having regard to the balance sheet of the company, and as a result this thing was allowed to drift on until the stage was reached when we find that the Equitable Insurance Company is insolvent to the extent of some hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The Bill is certainly welcome. It is necessary and any other steps that the Minister feels called upon to take to protect the policyholders of the company will certainly be approved of by this side of the House. I trust that increasing the deposit to £100,000 will be effective. Sometimes legislation comes before this House providing for legislation by ministerial order. Generally speaking, I am not in favour of that type of legislation but in this particular instance the House would feel justified in conferring on the Minister the power to regulate by ministerial order the amount of the deposit which an insurance company should make.

There is one other aspect of this matter I should like the Minister to deal with if he considers it relevant in his reply and that concerns the claims being made by the Equitable Insurance Company on the agents and policy-holders. Certain agents of the company found themselves indebted to the company perhaps in substantial amounts for premiums collected but not paid to the company at the date on which it went into liquidation. Most of these agents I understand did not pay that money over to the Equitable but instead expended it in effecting proper policies of insurance for their clients. My own personal view is that they were perfectly right in doing that and would be very wrong in paying it over to the company. I know that the liquidator of the company is pressing these agents and perhaps policy holders too for payment of the amount alleged to be due. Again, my personal opinion is that there is no liability whatever on these people to pay one penny to the company. Might I ask what would they be paying it for? They would be paying for a consideration which had wholly failed. They would be paying a premium for a policy of insurance which was completely ineffective and gave no cover whatever. If they paid the premium they would have to pay another immediately after to get proper cover.

If I am correct that there is no liability on these people in respect of these moneys I think that the liquidator should cease pestering the people concerned with demands for payment. If, on the other hand, there is some legal liability on the grounds that he holds the money in trust or something like that, steps should be taken to absolve the agent or policyholders from liability.

In my opinion the standard of efficiency, integrity and solvency of Irish insurance companies in general is very high. There are some excellent insurance companies entirely of Irish origin and control carrying on business here, giving good service and transacting their business in a most desirable way. That should be said and said again, and I sincerely hope that this catastrophe will not do any irreparable damage to the other Irish companies here. I think it perhaps is a pity that the Minister saw fit to put section 12 into this Bill, which is regarded by the country in general as the Equitable Insurance Company Bill no matter what we call it. I know it has nothing to do with it and the Irish Life Assurance Company is absolutely above reproach and is not asking for or seeking or requiring any assistance under this Bill. It is a pity to include in this Bill any mention of the Irish Life Assurance Company lest it might lead to misunderstanding.

With these remarks I repeat that I welcome the Bill but deplore the necessity for it.

Mr. Crowley

Inasmuch as this Bill is primarily intended to provide for a new and extended insurance compensation fund with specific relief for some of the innocent victims of the recent failure of the Equitable Insurance Company and an overdue revision of the statutory deposits which all insurance companies are required to maintain in court for the protection and security of their clients, in these respects the Bill can be commended to the support of every member of the House. In my personal opinion, however, the Bill has little else to commend it. It contains to my mind certain indications of a kind of panic thinking on the part of the Minister and his Department, and in its complete lack of any evidence of awareness on the part of the Minister and his Department of the actual legislative requirements of the insurance industry in this country today it does provoke and call for some constructive criticism.

It is in my view a good example of a type of ill-considered patchwork legislation, lacking in essentials and full of expedients, on which the substantial cost of legislative machinery should not be dissipated. I am aware that the Minister was under a certain obligation to ask both Houses of the Oireachtas to give their earliest approval to the primary purpose for which this Bill is intended. While with other members of the House I deplore the event and the circumstances which necessitated the introduction of a measure of this kind, I certainly wish to commend the primary purpose of the Bill to the support of all sides of the House. In saying that, however, I know no reason why the Minister could not have brought a straightforward request to the Oireachtas for the enactment of a measure which would have established an adequate insurance compensation fund and also have provided immediate relief for the Equitable Insurance Company claims while also increasing, in fact, the statutory deposits of insurance companies generally. He could have done all that without involving by a wholly unnecessary association the name or undermine the integrity of other companies.

I am not opposed to the establishment of an adequate insurance compensation fund. On the contrary, I would suggest to the Minister that by increasing the statutory deposits of all the companies registered here — I understand there are more than 60 of them — from £15,000 or £20,000 to £100,000 in that one step, which I wholeheartedly approve, the Minister has, in fact, created automatically a fund of £6 million on which he could take power at any time to draw to make good a deficiency of any one insurer at any time in the future.

The Minister and his officials must surely realise that recourse to such funds or reserves as this is surely tantamount to closing the proverbial door after the horse has fled. This Bill is at best a good expedient devised for the purpose of repairing the losses incurred by certain policyholders from an occurrence which should never have happened. In my view the fact that it did happen, can, to some extent at least, be attributed to the lack of adequate supervision and examination of the accounts of the insurance companies when those accounts are submitted, as they are required to be submitted by law, to the Department of Industry and Commerce. I submit that soon a more effective system of supervision and stricter control must be introduced over the operations and general activities of such companies.

In that respect this country is lagging far behind most other countries in Europe and the world at large today. Here in Ireland virtually no regulation or control is exercised over the conditions under which insurance companies are licensed to operate. I repeat there are virtually none. Unlike most other countries, the insurance companies here are free to carry on their business as they like, and to appoint what they call agents whose only function is to secure business at the cheapest possible cost, and without any regard to the actual interests or needs of the insuring public.

Some tentative steps were taken recently by the Minister to induce a better flow of investment by insurance companies inside this country, but there are foreign companies operating here which are not even obliged to invest here, so far as I know. This Bill does nothing whatever to remedy that ridiculous situation. I do not regard this Bill, the primary purpose of which is the establishment of an insurance compensation fund, as adequate protection for policyholders in the future. I am on record as saying in this House previously that all insurance companies, native as well as foreign, should be required by law to maintain within this country sufficient native investments or assets to cover all the liabilities they incur that affect insurance contracts of any type with insurance holders.

Similarly, I suggest that the interests of the insuring company should be protected by prohibiting the appointment of touts — I use the word advisedly because in my view that is what they are — as so-called agents. The Minister should insist either by licence or registration on some kind of bona fide agents.

I am rather concerned also to note that the Minister appears to take a very complacent view of the functions of the officials of his Department in their inspection of insurance accounts. In his reply to the debate in the other House as reported in the Official Report, volume 211, column 947 the Minister made the following statement:

As far as the Department are concerned, the accounts of insurance companies are not required to be audited by the officers of the Department. There is no provision in the Act requiring officers of the Department to evaluate the assets of an insurance company as a matter of course.

At that point he was interrupted by Deputy Sweetman who asked:

What about the doubtful solvency section?

The Minister replied:

But there has to be a doubt about solvency — that is the only case.

The operative word is "only". That does not convey to my mind an indication of a serious approach to the question of inspection on the part of the Minister and the Department.

The same type of attitude appears to be in operation in other aspects of the manner in which the Department deal with this matter. For the benefit of the House I should like to point out that the returns of insurance companies are published by the Department once each year. They contain a useful mass of information. They are quite detailed and could be a most useful source of reference for all sorts of purposes in the commercial life of the country. Let us see what happens.

On the title page of the latest return it is stated: "Summary of the Statements of Assurance Business deposited with the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Insurance Acts, 1909 and 1936, during the year ended 31st December, 1962." That return did not become available in this House or anywhere else until well into 1964. I purchase these returns every year, and I have had experience of asking for them as late as the month of May, for the period covering practically two years before that date. I do not say this is the fault of the Minister or his officials. I think the fault lies in the fact that this is the requirement prescribed by law. The trouble begins with the fact that the companies are not obliged to deposit this information, let us say for 1962, until whatever month suits them in 1963, right up to 31st December, 1963.

I do not have to tell the House that the meat, the essential information in the return, is advertised publicly by practically every insurance company operating in the country. Usually it is published in a matter of weeks or even in a matter of days after the close of one current year. I have seen advertisements published of the returns of more than one company in the first two or three days in January. I grant you that might be a bit early, but surely they could be expected to have the returns deposited sooner than 12 months after the year for which they are appropriate. That type of requirement is lacking here. There should be a much more realistic approach to the whole matter. That accounts for the delays to which Senators and Deputies referred which took place in ascertaining vital information in the case of the Equitable.

I should like to ask the Minister what is the purpose in insisting upon submission of accounts and data of that type if, in fact, every aspect of the accounts is not seriously and minutely studied by the Department. Surely there is an obligation on the Department to acquaint themselves with the information contained in the accounts and, if necessary to act on their own initiative in dealing with them.

To my mind the establishment of an insurance compensation fund, no matter what the amount of the fund may prove to be, is a very poor substitute for a more thorough examination of the accounts each year. The establishment of a fund may give some more security to policyholders in the future. Of course it will, but I want to point out that it will do so only at the expense of the insuring public. Already spokesmen for the insurance companies have indicated that quite clearly. I should like to quote now, if I may, a gentleman who is described as the honorary secretary of the Irish Insurance Association, an association, I understand, of most, if not all, of the Irish insurance companies.

Speaking, I think, in Cork, as reported in the Cork Examiner on Wednesday, 24th July, he said, in reference to this Bill, that, in effect, the Insurance Bill, 1964, now proposed to compel the companies to extend this voluntary agreement to all other classes of insurance schemes — the reference there is to the Motor Insurance Bureau. He said that such a fund is to be administered by the courts and not by the companies. It is certain that the companies must budget to pay a very considerable additional sum. The House may take it from me that if they have to budget to pay a considerable additional sum then no company, Irish or foreign, will provide that very considerable sum without recourse to their policyholders. Therefore, a very considerable sum — which the creation of this fund will involve, apparently — will inevitably result in higher premiums.

The Minister has informed us that some foreign companies have apparently refused to contribute voluntarily to this fund. I am not surprised to hear the Minister say that in some cases they have suggested that the existence of such a fund could provide a cloak either for further defalcations or the adoption of reckless practices. It is typical of the contempt in which certain British insurance companies seem to hold most if not all of our Irish institutions. It is common knowledge that a number of them, for instance, even deny the right of their staffs to organise and openly flout and even insult the findings of our Labour Court.

It is time we ceased genuflecting to such people. I am very glad to see that the Minister is taking power in this Bill to compel them to conform to his requirements. He has taken that step in the right direction. I hope it will be the first step in an advance along a road where much will be done to clean up the present state of the insurance industry in this country.

I should prefer to see the Minister take effective power in this Bill to compel British and other companies operating here to conform to better standards not only in dealing with the public but in the employment of their investment funds in this country and in their treatment of their staffs.

One of the most objectionable features of this Bill is the unwarranted association of the Irish Life Assurance Company, Limited, with the primary purpose for which this Bill is intended. I can assure the Minister that the inclusion of sections 12 and 13, neither of which has any relevance whatever to the primary purpose of this Bill, is very deeply resented. To my knowledge, it has given very serious cause for concern to many people, including both the management and the staff of the Irish Life Assurance Company, Limited. Was there any consultation with that company before these clauses were inserted? That, perhaps, might not be a fair question to address to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister for Finance would probably know more about it. I notice that these sections are included at the request of the Minister for Finance so perhaps we are dealing with the wrong Minister.

There never was any association of any kind between the Irish Life Assurance Company, Limited, and the Equitable Insurance Company, Limited. As Senator Fitzpatrick rightly said, I believe this Bill will go down in history as the Equitable Insurance Company, Limited, Bill. These two companies transacted two entirely different classes of business. They were registered under different sections of the Insurance Act. They had nothing whatever in common either to warrant or to justify the regrettable association of the name of the Irish Life Assurance Company, Limited, with the limited purpose of a Bill of this kind.

The financial stability of the Irish Life Assurance Company, Limited, is above question and beyond any dispute. Its resources are virtually impregnable. The assets of the company — I am alluding to their life funds — now actually exceed £40 million. The business of the company in both branches of life assurance is expanding at an unprecedented rate in this country.

The Bill itself specifically excludes all life assurance companies from the scope of sections 1 to 11. Why, then, associate the name of any company in the position of the Irish Life Assurance Company, Limited, with a Bill of this kind? It has caused unfounded gossip and unnecessary concern and anxiety to policyholders and staff. It has presented the company's less scrupulous competitors with gratuitous ammunition with which to swipe again at a sound and progressive Irish enterprise. There is further evidence here of the kind of thoughtless and irresponsible approach on the part of the responsible Department to which I have already referred.

Another inexplicable feature of this Bill, the introduction of which is again the function and the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is the inclusion in it of sections 12 and 13 at the request of the Minister for Finance. In section 12 the Minister is given power to purchase a limited number of shares — I understand it is considerably less than 10 per cent of the total shareholding — in the Irish Life Assurance Company, Limited, held by a small number of individuals other than the Minister for Finance. I understand that the Minister informed the other House that there is little or no prospect of these people selling their shares. Does the Minister for Finance, therefore, propose to resort to compulsory acquisition of the minority shareholding? On that, I would ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to be as specific as possible. Incidentally, a good case could be made for it but I am not making that case.

That is the precise difficulty in which I find myself. I do not wish to delay this Bill. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that many people are waiting on the Bill. The amendment I wish to put down is not in connection with sections 1 to 11. It deals with sections 12 and 13. There is no justification for those two sections, and certainly no justification for including them in this Bill. There is a specific Act which deals with the functions of the Irish Life Assurance Company and if any amendment is required that Act is the place for it, and not this Bill.

If I cannot get all Stages today we will have to come back in December next.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There seems to be agreement as regards sections 1 to 11. I suggest to Senator Crowley that he can put sections 12 and 13 to a vote which would probably meet the same fate as any amendment he has in mind.

Mr. J. Lynch

That is a good suggestion.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

We are not taking sections 1 to 11 as agreed without comment?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

No. They can be debated in Committee.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am much obliged.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 1 Jul 1964