I move amendment No. 97 :
To delete subsections (4) and (5).
A brief was circulated to members on this amendment. If subsection (5) is deleted, a person will not be barred after 12 years from making a claim against funds that have been lodged in court following dissolution.
It is being left to the ordinary statutes of limitation?
Yes, so far as they apply. Subsection (4) provides that funds remaining after seven years shall be paid into the Exchequer. There is no good reason for doing that, and the amendment would delete it.
Where will the funds be?
They should be allowed to accumulate under the control of the courts like other unclaimed court balances.
Has the Minister any information as to what sums of money are lying in the courts at present that have not been claimed for the past seven years?
This is a new provision.
What happens at present to unclaimed balances?
Some sort of procedure has been devised. The Company Law Reform Committee said:
The Irish Courts have found a convenient solution to this difficulty by holding that the liquidator is a trustee and is entitled to pay these moneys into Court under the Trustee Act but this involves delay and unnecessary expense.
The committee recommended that there should be some specific provision dealing with this in the Companies Bill. This is something which is also in the Six Counties Act and there is a similar provision in the British law.
Has the Minister any information as to what the approximate amount is over a year?
In Britain, the sums are very big.
Here?
At the moment we do not know how much money has been paid under the procedure mentioned by the Company Law Reform Committee. I should imagine that it would not be substantial.
Yes, I would imagine that it would not be substantial.
I am wondering about the deletion of subsection (4). I must say that in general I feel unclaimed money should be payable into the Exchequer and not left in the court doing no one any good.
What purpose is there for payments into the court except to fossilise the money? It would be much more useful to pay money of that kind into the Exchequer.
I seem to recollect from a reply to a question some time ago that unclaimed balances were considered not to be very substantial.
Would it not be better to put it to the use of the community rather than leaving it in the court? Perhaps the Minister would have another look at it.
Maybe a question of principle is involved. It does not apply under every section that there is payment to the Exchequer automatically after a period. In general, what happens is that after a period these unclaimed funds are earmarked for some deserving cause.
That is a recent development.
Could they not be paid into the Exchequer and used for some useful purpose.
There is nothing against that so long as the courts would be responsible for the claims of latecomers.
The Exchequer would cover that.
When I say " responsible ", I mean responsible for determining the validity of the claims of latecomers.
I think that it is provided in subsection (4) that on the order of the court the Exchequer would pay out the money to whoever it was directed.
I am prepared to put back subsection (4).
If the Minister is prepared to put back subsection (4), which I think is a good idea, would he consider having another look at the second last line of the subsection which says : ". . . shall issue such sum as may appear to him to be necessary . . . " I have an inherent distrust of phrases such as " may appear to him to be necessary ". I think it should be : ". . . such sum as may be necessary", without any discrimination or discretion on the part of the Minister.
Maybe the subsection should be reconsidered rather than put back.
I will reconsider it. I take it it is the wish of the Committee that any monies remaining in a company's liquidation accounts should, after seven years, be transferred to the Exchequer and that the Exchequer would be accountable for any claims in the courts afterwards.
With the provision that the Exchequer is ultimately responsible. Do you really need a provision of seven years?
If I may interrupt, I am told there might be some difficulty about a Financial Resolution. Whether it is possible at this stage to introduce a Financial Resolution, I do not know.
Would the Minister bear in mind the matter raised by Deputy Booth?
Certainly.
