Regarding certain amendments now tabled, I have advised that the Bill be recommitted in respect of these amendments. I understand the Minister desires to recommit the Bill in respect of all the amendments tabled.
Insurance Bill, 1935—Second Recommittal.
Ordered: That the Bill be recommitted in respect of the amendments.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, section 3, to delete all words from and including the word "a" in line 64 to the word "conduct", page 8, line 2, and substitute the words "any document or other writing by which any contract of assurance is made or agreed to be made or which is evidence of any such contract".
The definition of "policy" is in substitution for that given in Section 3, which the Minister agreed was too wide. It is the same as the definition of "policy" given in the Stamp Act, 1891.
Is the Minister satisfied in his mind that the extract which he takes from the Stamp Act is superior to the draft submitted by Deputy Costello in amendment No. 2?
That is my information. It is stated that the adoption of the same definition in the two Acts is convenient and might, in fact, prevent the occurrence of certain anomalies.
It occurred to me that, of course, insurance has developed in a good many particulars since the passage of the Stamp Act. Deputy Costello's amendment is drafted in the light of the situation as we at present find it. Frankly, I am not in a position to offer an opinion as to which is best. The Minister, having consulted his advisers, would be best able to judge, and, provided he is satisfied that the one extracted from the Stamp Act is superior to Deputy Costello's I am prepared to withdraw Deputy Costello's amendment.
I am satisfied.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendment No. 4 should precede amendment No. 3.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, between lines 23 and 24, Section 3, to insert the following words —"the word ‘syndicate' means any group of underwriters who are members of Lloyd's and who are certified by the Chairman of the Committee of Lloyd's to have formed themselves into a syndicate for the purposes of this Act."
The purpose of the amendment is to provide the necessary definition for certain groups of Lloyd's underwriters who are carrying on insurance business here in compliance with the Act of 1909, as amended by the Road Traffic Act, 1933. It has been represented that these underwriters are anxious to be allowed to continue their business here. In order that they may conform to the general requirements of the Bill, certain amendments are being proposed which apply to them the provisions of the Bill in similar terms to those affecting foreign companies, but adapted to the peculiar circumstances of Lloyd's organisation. The effect of the proposed amendments is that these syndicates of Lloyd's who are in a particular class or classes of insurance business, other than life, industrial and bond investment business, will be authorised by licence to continue to transact such business. On behalf of these syndicates a deposit of £15,000, in respect of mechanically-propelled vehicle insurance, and another of £20,000, in respect of the other classes of insurance business, is required to be made by the Committee of Lloyd's. No additional syndicates will at any time be licensed but, in the event of an existing syndicate ceasing to do business, the Minister in his discretion may transfer the licence to another syndicate similarly situated. The constitution of a licensed syndicate may not be substantially varied. These provisions give effect to the general policy that, except for the separation of the business of composite companies, those who are carrying on business should be allowed to continue and, at the same time, prevent any increase in foreign insurers.
The first question that will arise is whether this proviso will enable Lloyd's to carry reinsurance business in so far as that business is rejected by the Insurance Corporation of Ireland. Secondly, the Minister says that no additional syndicates will be allowed other than those which are operating on the appointed day. The machinery of Lloyd's is highly technical and it is one on which I do not profess to be an expert. As I understand, Lloyd's consists of a number of individuals bound together in a very peculiar form of association. If I desire to negotiate a contract of reinsurance with a body of members of Lloyd's my contract of reinsurance might very well be with one group of those members in 1936, and in 1937 with a group which might include some or all of the 1936 members and additional members. I am very doubtful as to whether it will be practicable to restrict the issue of licences, particularly for reinsurance business, to the groups existing on the appointed day.
It has to be borne in mind that our reinsurance offices are divided into two classes—tariff and non-tariff offices. The tariff offices have their contracts of reinsurance with other insurance companies. The non-tariff offices must negotiate their reinsurance contracts with whomever will take them and, ordinarily, they negotiate them with groups of Lloyd's underwriters. If any such rigid provision were in operation as to exclude the licensing of any new groups of Lloyd's underwriters after the appointed day, non-tariff companies in this country may find it impossible to get the reinsurance accommodation which they require. This insurance legislation, while it restricts any company from carrying on life and general business at the same time, does not restrict a group of Irish nationals from setting up in the general insurance business after the appointed day. Let us assume that the Irish companies which were in the general insurance business on the appointed day were all tariff companies. They might very well be in a position to prevent any new Irish company from getting tariff facilities, whereupon that new Irish company would be driven to Lloyd's for its accommodation. If it were confronted, when it approached Lloyd's, with notification from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that he would not issue any licence to a new group in Lloyd's to do reinsurance business it would mean that the new Irish company would have to close down. It would put in the hands of the existing tariff companies the power to prohibit any new party from entering the general insurance business in this country at all.
I feel that the general trend towards monopoly in this country is sufficiently rapid. The Minister has stated in regard to life assurance business and industrial assurance business that he is going to effect a complete monopoly in the hands of one company, that that is his policy. Are we to understand now that the fire and general business is to be made a monopoly by depriving any independent company of facilities for reinsurance? If so, does the Minister not think that he ought to tell us if that is part of his policy? And if it is not part of his policy, perhaps he would indicate to us how a non-tariff company will set up in business after the appointed day, and get the reinsurance accommodation which is essential for the carrying on of fire and general business in this country.
Due possibly to the fact that I have not been acquainted with the preceding stages of this Bill and have only taken up duty for the Minister for Industry and Commerce—I feel that it is not, perhaps, altogether attributable to that circumstance—I find myself rather at a loss to follow Deputy Dillon. The Minister, in dealing with this Bill in the first instance, explained to the House, I think in reply to a question, that it was not at that time covering the question of Lloyd's. The amendments, which we are now discussing, propose to bring Lloyd's into the Bill on conditions as closely akin as possible to the conditions on which other assurance companies transacting business in October are being brought in. The amendments are designed to bring Lloyd's into the different sections of the Bill which cover insurance companies, and I am quite at a loss to understand what Deputy Dillon's point is.
With regard to reinsurance there is I understand, at present, an arrangement by which the tariff offices here intend to bring in a reinsurance pooling scheme. In fact, the scheme is about to be put into operation, and, so far as the tariff offices are concerned, that scheme appears to be satisfactory. I think it is the intention of the Minister, if, in his opinion, the scheme be satisfactory, to take up the position that it will justify him in leaving Part VI of the Bill inoperative. There are certain other insurers, not being members of the tariff, who are not within the pooling scheme, and if Part VI is not put into operation some other means are necessary to control the placing of their reinsurance business. It is hoped that these reinsurers will take the necessary steps to carry out the spirit of Part VI. If such steps are not taken, then amendment No. 132 gives the Minister the necessary power to deal with the situation.
I do not clearly understand what the Deputy has in mind with regard to Lloyd's. If he can show me, when we come to discuss the amendments on the Order Paper, that in some way Lloyd's are not being treated, in so far as we can arrange for it in the Bill, in precisely the same way as other companies are being treated, we can look into the matter. He has made a general statement that, possibly, Lloyd's may be able in some way to increase the number, let us say, of their syndicates. I think that is specifically forbidden to them in one or other of the amendments which are now tabled. They will continue to carry on business as they have been carrying it on, and there are definite provisions to prevent them, as I pointed out in my opening statement, from increasing the size of their syndicates. With regard to the reinsurance accommodation, I entirely fail to see how the amendment which we are discussing affects the situation.
Before Deputy Dillon pursues the line of argument that he has started here, and which I think the Minister has not answered so far as I have been able to follow it, I would like to put a specific question to the Minister. The question is this: Why are Lloyd's being brought into the Bill at this stage? The Minister has stated, I think, that Lloyd's are being brought into the Bill because it was the intention of the Minister that all existing companies that were carrying on insurance business in this country, prior to the initiation of these proposals, should be entitled to carry it on after this Bill becomes law. Now, if that was his intention this Bill ought to have been framed differently, and Lloyd's ought to have been brought in long prior to this stage. During the discussion on Committee Stage and on Recommittal, I put a very specific question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself. It was this: Were Lloyd's intended to be brought within the scope of this Bill, and were they, in fact, and in law, if this Bill became law, within the scope of the Bill? His reply to that very specific and very clear question was equally specific and equally clear. He said Lloyd's were not in the Bill, and were not intended to be brought within the scope of the Bill.
I would like if the Deputy would quote the Minister's statement that it was not intended that Lloyd's should be brought into the Bill.
I am speaking from recollection, but I can get the reference if necessary. I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the clear and specific question: Were Lloyd's to be brought within the scope of the Bill and he said "No." I then asked him if he was sure, and he said "Yes."
He may have said that Lloyd's were not then in the Bill, but that is entirely different from making a statement which would seem to be inconsistent with the bringing in of these amendments now. I say that there is no inconsistency. The position at all events since the Bill was introduced was, that if Lloyd's could make arrangements by which they could be brought under the Bill, there was no intention to exclude them.
The Minister may put that interpretation, if he likes, on the statement which the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself made to me. It was certainly understood by me and, I believe, by the Minister for Industry and Commerce—my question to him was very definite and clear —that he intended to exclude Lloyd's from the scope of this Bill. I say further that it was the policy of this Bill, when it was introduced, that Lloyd's should not be within the scope of it. I may say, if it allays the Minister's fears in any way, that I am not opposing Lloyd's being put into the Bill. I am looking for information. I want to know the real reasons for what I believe and submit is a change of front. The Minister said that there were certain groups or syndicates carrying on business here in the City of Dublin who represented Lloyd's. I would like to know if Lloyd's were only represented here through agents or brokers, or if they had anything in the nature of a business office here, and if, in fact, Lloyd's really carried on business as insurers in the Irish Free State other than through brokers or agents. I believe that they did not. I notice that, in later amendments, certain conditions are attached to the granting of licences to those syndicates that are to be set up. One of them is that they have complied with the provisions of the Act of 1909. When we come to that I intend to ask the Minister for particulars. I say that no such syndicate or committee of Lloyd's carried on business here.
What I am now pressing for is the real reasons for what I believe to be a change of front. It was certainly the view of the Irish insurance companies that Lloyd's were definitely excluded from the scope of this Bill. It was quite obvious, from the terms of the Bill, that Lloyd's could not be brought within the scope of it as a matter of pure construction. In order to make that position absolutely clear, I put the question to which I have already referred to the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself, and he stated in answer to me that Lloyd's were not within the scope of the Bill. I certainly took it at that time as a statement not merely of what he believed to be a fact, but, being a fact, of his intentions in reference to Lloyd's. If it had been any part of the Minister's proposals to bring Lloyd's within the scope of the Bill, I believe that he would have taken the necessary steps to have brought them in long prior to this stage. We had two Committee Stages and a long Second Reading Stage on this Bill. The whole basis of the discussion on all these three Stages went on the assumption that Lloyd's were not in this Bill. In order to make the thing absolutely sure and certain, I put the question to which I have already referred and got a very specific and clear reply. It certainly came as a surprise to me, when I got these amendments, to see that Lloyd's were being brought within the scope of the Bill.
It may be that it is a desirable thing that Lloyd's should be brought in. At the moment I have an open mind on that, but at the same time I think that the House is entitled to get the real explanation as to why Lloyd's are being brought in at the present moment because, as I have said already, it was the policy of the Bill, and the Bill was so framed, that Lloyd's should be excluded. All the Irish insurance companies that I have consulted were clearly of the opinion that Lloyd's were definitely excluded, and to that extent they thought that they had, at least, got some advantage out of the provisions of the Bill.
It seems that Deputy Costello has no objection to the inclusion of Lloyd's.
I did not say that; I said that I had an open mind on it.
The Deputy has an open mind on it. As he has not raised the question, I do not know whether it would be proper for me to explain the reasons why Lloyd's are considered to be on the same basis as other companies. I might first say that, not having seen the statement, I am still of opinion that even if the Minister said that the Bill did not cover Lloyd's, if representations were made by Lloyd's that did not preclude him from taking steps to see that they should be included. There was nothing whatever, in my opinion, in any statement the Minister made to prevent him taking steps to bring in Lloyd's. If the Deputy can show us that we are giving Lloyd's any particular concession or privilege that we are not giving companies that were carrying on business here, then we can go into that matter.
In my opinion Lloyd's are getting precisely the same treatment, so far as we can arrange for it, as other companies. We cannot discriminate against them by keeping them out. If they make representations to us that in a certain way they should be brought under the Bill, I fail to see why we should discriminate against them, when it is one of the fundamental principles of the Bill that there should be no discrimination. Lloyd's are a most important body from the point of view of insurance. They conduct motor business on a large scale, and they undertake business in connection with certain types of risks which it might be difficult for an Irish insurer to get a home company to undertake. There is no question that, from the point of view of the insuring public, it is valuable that Lloyd's should be there and, from the competitive point of view, the fact that they are still in operation here will exercise a healthy influence on insurance business.
The reasons that have just been given by the Minister would or might have been very cogent reasons for the inclusion of Lloyd's in the original Bill or for the insertion of some amendments designed to fill up the gap which was subsequently discovered in the Bill. They do not convince me in the least that there has not been some change of front in reference to Lloyd's. The Minister said that if Lloyd's were left out of the Bill, that would obviously indicate discrimination against Lloyd's. With that statement I entirely agree. It reinforces the point that I have been endeavouring to make. It was clear from the Bill when it was first circulated, and it was clearer still during the course of discussions on this measure, that Lloyd's were outside the Bill and that they were being discriminated against. It was the view of the Irish insurance companies that that was put in as a benefit to them. They acted on the assumption that at least they would get something out of the wreck.
If the leaving out of Lloyd's in the original Bill was obviously a discrimination against Lloyd's—I submit that it was—we may take it that Lloyd's, who are probably the biggest insurers in the world and who have been watching this Insurance Bill and observing how their interests were being affected by it, knew perfectly well that they were being discriminated against. I will not accept, without considerable proof, that Lloyd's did nothing from the circulation of this Bill until a month or two ago to get themselves within its provisions or to make protest of some type. I am convinced that Lloyd's were left out of this Bill originally, and they were not put in until the last moment. There must be some reason for that, and I am pressing the Minister to give the reason, whether it is good or bad. The Minister said it is of benefit to the insuring public that Lloyd's should be in. Possibly it is a benefit to the insuring public that competitive prices should rule and that Lloyd's who are capable of carrying very big risks and are equally capable of carrying big losses for a while, in order to gain ultimately, should be allowed to operate freely in the Irish Free State against Irish insurance companies.
That may be good argumentation; but it was equally good argumentation when the Bill was introduced. It was good on the Committee Stage, which was devoted exclusively to Government amendments, and it was equally good when the Bill was recommitted. Why it should be now advanced on the last operative stage of the Bill as if it was a thing that required no explanation, passes my comprehension. I think the House ought to press the Minister for some reason why this provision is being put in at the last minute. Lloyd's were previously being discriminated against. Everyone knew that. The Irish insurance companies thought some benefit would accrue to them by reason of Lloyd's having been left out. I got the impression from the Minister's replies to me that it was definitely intended to leave Lloyd's out of the Bill. I agree with the Minister that the fact that he said that at the time does not preclude him from changing his mind. But if he is going to change his mind on a very fundamental matter, at least very cogent reasons should be advanced before we are asked to accept the position. I submit that the Minister has not given any reason for what I call a change of front at the last minute.
I wonder could we be told how it is, if Lloyd's were not here already as Deputy Costello has said, they were discrimated against by being left out of the Bill?
The Minister says that if they are left out it is discrimination.
The Deputy asserted that Lloyd's were discriminated against, that that was common property. He says that Lloyd's were not here and he doubts if they are here at the present time.
I think Deputy Moore is a little more confused mentally than he usually is in reference to this matter. Lloyd's have been carrying on business in this country.
The Deputy asserted that they are not here now.
I did not say anything of the sort. I threw doubt on the suggestion that appears to be contained in a further amendment. Of course they were carrying on business here and I think Deputy Moore knows it. If Deputy Moore will address his mind to two points, one carrying on business and the other complying with the requirements in reference to foreign companies, it might be better. There is a distinct difference between what I said and what the Deputy thinks I said.
I cannot agree, even if it were common talk amongst Irish insurance companies and generally understood amongst them that Lloyd's were excluded, and even if the Minister said the Bill at a particular stage did not include Lloyd's or that it was not intended to include them, that that is any reason why we should not introduce them now, having had representations made to us to the effect that they should get the same treatment as the other foreign companies. I think we are bound, if we adhere to the principle that there should be no discrimination, to make reasonable provision for them. I contend that the provision which is being made is reasonable. It is no more and no less than the provision we are making for other companies in so far as we can accomplish it.
With regard to the Minister changing his mind, in my opinion he did not change his mind, because, even if the Minister made the reply to Deputy Costello that he has suggested, the Minister was well aware that the question of Lloyd's was there and would have to be dealt with in some way or other. I am not in a position to say what the Minister's intention in his own mind was. I want to have quoted to me here any public declaration of intention on his part to deprive Lloyd's of the advantages of coming in under this Bill. I do not think it is correct to say that the Minister has changed his mind, but, even if he has, that in itself will scarcely appeal to the Dáil as being a sufficient reason for a refusal to accept those amendments, if that is the contention. There is no ulterior reason, if that is the suggestion, for bringing Lloyd's in at this stage. Naturally there were representations made, as I have said, and a certain amount of time elapsed before the necessary amendments which would cover the particular position of Lloyd's could be drafted and made satisfactory to the Department. That having taken place, I see no reason whatever why the amendments should not be introduced.
I have got the actual reference to Lloyd's in the Official Debates. We were dealing with the question of the Act of 1909 being repealed, and I said: "I want to test him on that." As reported at column 1482 of the Official Debates of 2nd June, 1936, I asked:
"What fuller and better provision is being made in the Bill by reason of the repeal of sub-section 2 of Section 28 of the Act of 1909? I will tell him what it is about; it is about Lloyd's insurance. The Minister need not pretend that he has read it; we will assume that he has read it. Will he tell us what better and fuller provisions are made in this present Bill for Lloyd's underwriters than were made by Section 28 (2) of the Act of 1909?",
the argument being that Lloyd's were clearly outside the Bill. The Minister for Industry and Commerce replied:
"There are no provisions being made in the Bill for Lloyd's underwriters."
There are now.
That is not the point. The Minister rather threw doubt on my recollection of what happened.
I did not.
I now quote that very specific statement of the Minister:
"There are no provisions being made in the Bill for Lloyd's underwriters."
Further on he says:
"As the Bill stands at present, Lloyd's underwriters would not be entitled to carry on any of the classes of insurance business to which the Bill relates."
I am quoted as saying: "I am quite sure of that." The Minister now wants me to quote for him any public intention on the part of the Minister to deprive Lloyd's of the benefit of carrying on business in this country after this Bill becomes law. I quoted the Minister's own words:
"There are no provisions being made in the Bill for Lloyd's underwriters."
It would not have been necessary for me to have quoted the Minister's own words in order to give that public declaration of intention which the Minister now desires; it would have been sufficient for me to refer him to the Bill as it stood and as it stands at the present moment. As it stands at the present moment, as a matter of law and as a matter of construction, it is quite clear that Lloyd's underwriters are outside the scope of this Bill, and were so intended to be by reason of the repeal of the section which I referred to in the previous debate, and also by reason of the general provisions of the Bill itself. There was no possible shadow of doubt about the fact that Lloyd's were out of it.
The Minister says even if I am right in my contention that the Minister's intentions were to leave Lloyd's out, that does not furnish any reason why Lloyd's should not be brought in at the present moment. Possibly not, but if the Minister has changed his mind, as I suggest he has, that may not deprive him of the right to come to this House even at this stage and put those proposals before the House, but neither does it deprive the House of asking the Minister and pressing him to give cogent reasons for that change of front and that radical change of intention. That is what I am pressing for. I want to know why did the Minister change his mind? It is certainly no satisfaction to me and carries no conviction to my mind that the Minister should bring forward certain reasons—I think he advanced three or four in the course of the two or three short statements he has made—why Lloyd's should be brought into this Bill. That is not the point. It may be that it is a matter of justice that Lloyd's, who carried on business here before the initiation of those proposals, should be entitled to carry on after the Bill becomes law. That may be right as a matter of justice, or it may not be right as a matter of justice or as a matter of policy. What I want to know is why those reasons, which existed equally when the Bill was framed, when it was introduced, when it was circulated, when it was read a Second Time, when it was committed and when it was recommitted, are only now advanced for the first time? The Minister also stated that Lloyd's had made representations to him. That emphasises and underlines my observations here. I am perfectly certain that Lloyd's made representations long before the last month or two, after the passing of the Committee Stage of this Bill. I want to know why those representations, which impressed the Minister to the extent of bringing in those radical proposals at the last Stage of this Bill, did not commend themselves to the Minister when he introduced the Bill, on the First Committee Stage of the Bill, or on the Second Committee Stage of the Bill, and particularly if he knew them on 2nd June, 1936, when Lloyd's were being discussed here in this House, and he made that very clear and specific statement: "There are no provisions being made in the Bill for Lloyd's underwriters"? Why, since 2nd June, 1936, has he been so far impressed by the justice of Lloyd's case that he has brought in those proposals at the last moment? What difference is there between the justice of the case now and the justice of the case as it existed when those proposals were first initiated? I certainly have got no plausible, not to say cogent or satisfactory, explanation of those proposals.
I do not question that the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated on 2nd June that there were no provisions being made in the Bill for Lloyd's underwriters. I know that the Minister, as I have stated, has had representations made to him, either before or after 2nd June, with reference to the inclusion of Lloyd's in this measure. I think that it is unnecessary to deal further with the point than to say that representations were made; that they were examined carefully in the Department, and the Minister decided that those amendments should be accepted. In doing so, he acted in the belief that Lloyd's should be placed on the same basis, as far as possible, as foreign companies which are operating here. I think he probably also had in mind that certain facilities are required for the insuring public here which may not be available to them through any other agency than Lloyd's; that Lloyd's, being the type of organisation it is, is able to carry on business in a wide variety of matters, and is able, as I have said, to take risks on business which would not appeal to and would not be accepted by the ordinary Irish company.
I think I can state, a Chinn Comhairle, that the inclusion or exclusion of Lloyd's is important to our existing insurance business. If certain facilities are looked for by the insuring public, and they are not obtainable through our home companies, it would be a preposterous position if an agency which is carrying on business here already, and is prepared to grant those facilities, were to be excluded from so doing. So long as the amendments are in line and in consonance with the general principles of the Bill, and so long as the position is that Lloyd's are getting substantially what other companies have got and are not getting any special privileges or concessions, I think we have to recognise that position. If Lloyd's were an ordinary company they would have been dealt with under the provisions of the Bill. They are a special type of organisation, and, therefore, special provisions have to be designed to meet their case, but it is a well-known fact that they have undertaken a very large variety of business, and that it would be a very serious matter for the Irish insuring public if they were to be deprived of the facilities that Lloyd's now grant. I think that, having made representations, and suggestions having been put up as to how they might definitely be brought within the four corners of the Bill, subject to the same restrictions as the other foreign companies are subject to, it would be very hard indeed to defend the action of the Minister if he attempted to discriminate against them and to exclude them from the terms of the Bill. What, as I say, was in his inner mind on the occasion when he stated that, as the Bill stands at present, Lloyd's underwriters would not be entitled to carry on any of the classes of insurance business to which the Bill relates, does not alter the conviction that I have that the Minister would even then contemplate that it might be possible under arrangements with Lloyd's to bring them within the provisions of the Bill.
I regret, Sir, that I have to press this matter a little further still. The Minister has spoken, but he has not given one single reason as to why these proposals, which were not introduced before, are now brought in at this last stage. The reasons he has given for the introduction of this proposal now are reasons that existed equally at the time when the Bill was introduced into this House, and the Minister says that he would find it very hard to defend the action of the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he had allowed Lloyd's to be excluded. How, then, does he defend the action of his colleague in deliberately, as I say, excluding Lloyd's from the provisions of this Bill until the present stage? I want a specific answer from the Minister to that very specific question. How does he defend the action of his colleague in having allowed Lloyd's to be left out of this Bill — deliberately, as I say — on the construction of the Bill itself, and in view of the very words of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in answer to me on the question of the effect of the repeal of sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act of 1909? The Minister has carefully refrained from answering that question.
I have every sympathy with the Minister in handling this Bill because it is not his measure and this is the last stage. At the same time, however, I feel sure he is in a position to obtain the information I want, but he has endeavoured, in every statement he has made, simply to sidetrack the point I am putting to him. Every point and every argument and every statement that the Minister has made in this connection were equally cogent when the Bill was introduced. Why, then, did the Minister for Industry and Commerce say, on the 2nd June, 1936: "There are no provisions being made in the Bill for Lloyd's, underwriters"? On that occasion the Minister used the words: "There are no provisions being made in the Bill for Lloyd's underwriters." If that is not the clearest indication of an intention never to make any provision for Lloyd's in this Bill, I do not know what the meaning of the English language is. The Minister says now that it is necessary for Lloyd's to be operating here because they carry on classes of business that are not handled by the existing insurance companies, whether Irish, English, Scottish or any other insurance companies carrying on business here. I wonder does the Minister wish to have facilities for the taxpaying public to insure against a rise in income-tax next year? We know that Lloyd's have recently undertaken to take that class of business. Is that the reason why Lloyd's are being brought into the provisions of this Bill at the last stage — that it has become likely that there will be an increase in income-tax next year or that so many tariffs will be put on between this and the next general election that somebody should have some source from which to provide themselves with an indemnity against loss as a result of a rise in income-tax or the indiscriminate use of tariffs?
Is the Deputy thinking of having any speculation?
No. I have not sufficient money to speculate with in that respect, and I have a little more self-respect. At all events, whether Lloyd's carried on a particular type of business not carried on by other foreign companies in this country, is the Minister relevant in making that point if they were doing the same thing 12 months ago when this Bill was first adumbrated? I want to know the reasons — and I press again for them, Sir—why the representations, which must have been made prior to the 2nd June, 1936, were not effective prior to that date, and why they suddenly became effective between June and July of this year. This is a very specific question to which I should like to have an equally specific answer, but to which I have got no reply at the moment. The Ceann Comhairle has been very indulgent to me, and this is the last statement I shall make in connection with this. The last statement I shall make is that we can draw our own conclusions from this if we get no reply upon it from the Minister.
Does it not strike the Deputy that perhaps Lloyd's have agreed to conform to the regulations laid down by the Bill, and that that is one reason for it?
Nothing strikes me, but I want something from the Minister that will be striking as a result of the explanation he has just given. Does the Minister suggest that the explanation he has given is the real reason why Lloyd's were not brought in before? If that is his statement, I am prepared to accept it, but he has carefully refrained, in the particular phraseology he has used —"does it strike the Deputy," and so on — from stating that definitely. It does not strike me at the moment, but it strikes me that it is not the reason.
If the Deputy wants to draw his own conclusions, anything I might say would have no effect on him apparently.
But the Minister is carefully refraining from saying anything.
Well, Sir, that hare having been chased over the horizon without any catch having been effected, I propose to dig up my particular hare again and see if we can do better with that one. The Minister used the words "no additional syndicate of Lloyd's will be licensed after the appointed day provided for in this Bill." I believe that he is admitting Lloyd's in order to carry on a brokerage business that has been carried on in this city for some time, and when he admitted Lloyd's for that purpose he has overlooked the fact that, in addition to this brokerage business that has been carried on for many years in the city, there is also reinsurance business carried on. Now, the brokerage business would be carried on with an individual here in Dublin who represents a particular group of members of Lloyd's and, therefore, it would be practicable in his case to continue the relations with a particular group; but the reinsurance business has never been carried on on the brokerage principle. When an Irish insurance company, which did not belong to the tariff ring, desired to negotiate a new reinsurance treaty for a coming financial year, a representative of the company went to London and, at the Royal Exchange there, negotiated, with a group of Lloyd's men who were prepared to take his reinsurance, a treaty for a given year. If we are to lay down rules that the Irish non-tariff company will never be allowed to make a treaty with any other group of Lloyd's except the group with which their representative happens to have a treaty on the appointed day, we are going to make his position extremely difficult, and I want to know if that is the Minister's intention. It is not expressed in the amendment, but it is the declared policy of the Minister in introducing the amendment to the House. Now, has the Minister considered this amendment in the light of reinsurance contracts, and, if not, has he any observation to offer on the dilemma which I submit to him?
Perhaps the Deputy would refer me to the particular section and the particular amendment to which he referred? I know that definite provision has been taken to limit Lloyd's in taking more business than they have been accepting. I do not see where there is any interference with the course of business, nor do I see where the Deputy thinks there will be interference with the reinsurance business. Will he refer me to the section he has in mind?
The Minister has announced his intention to admit Lloyd's to operate in this country in introducing amendment No. 4, and, in the course of his observations, he said "the word ‘syndicate' means a group of underwriters who are members of Lloyd's and who are certified by the Chairman of the Committee of Lloyd's to have formed themselves into a syndicate for the purposes of this Act." He then said "it is not our intention to permit the creation of new syndicates after the appointed day." That means that the only syndicates which will receive licences to carry on business in regard to Saorstát Eireann insurance are those syndicates of whose existence the Minister will be notified by the Chairman of Lloyd's on the appointed day. If that is so, how is the independent fire and general insurance company in this country, which wants to carry its reinsurance contract with Lloyd's from year to year and with different groups of Lloyd's members in each given year, going to carry it on, because the Minister says he will not licence any new syndicates of Lloyd's members after the appointed day?
A syndicate of Lloyd's members carrying a given company's reinsurance on a given day might refuse to carry it the following year, and the Irish fire and general company would have to go to the Royal Exchange, and open negotiations with a new group of Lloyd's men to carry this treaty, and, having got that group, when they applied through the Chairman of Lloyd's for registration with the Minister, the Minister will say: "We will not license any new group." The Irish general insurance company would then find itself in the position that it could not get reinsurance from Lloyd's; it could not get reinsurance from the tariff ring; and the Irish reinsurance corporation, if it was then in existence, would only take one half of its treaty risk. What is that independent company then to do? My submission is that it has nothing to do but to close up and get out of business.
Until Part 6 of the Act is brought into operation non-tariff offices can reinsure where they like.
Can they reinsure with Lloyd's?
Yes.
With anybody in Lloyd's?
Yes, with the underwriters who will be permitted to insure under these amendments—the syndicates which have been carrying on business on 31st October. They will be entitled to carry on business with them.
Does the Minister not see that the syndicates which he describes are small groups of Lloyd's men who are at present in existence, and are, in fact, in daily touch with individual brokers in the City of Dublin? The men who carry a reinsurance treaty are an altogether different class of broker who are doing the ordinary business of the hazard that comes to Lloyd's. They have no permanent relationship with any broker in Dublin and what happens is that the representative of the Irish insurance company goes to Lloyd's and calls men from the hazard to take this risk. They might be different men in every given insurance year. The Minister will not permit that class of insurance to be done by an Irish national in Lloyd's. In future, an Irish national desiring to do business with Lloyd's has to do it with a registered syndicate of Lloyd's?
Yes.
There is no registered syndicate doing this treaty of reinsurance business, and the Minister is admitting Lloyd's for certain purposes, but is apparently determined to exclude them for other purposes. All I want to know is whether the Minister has considered that. Does the Minister mean that there is to be no reinsurance done with Lloyd's, because if he does mean that, he means that there is to be no new Irish fire and general office created in this country after the appointed day provided for in the Bill, because they will be absolutely unable to get the reinsurance facilities which they must have if they are to carry on?
I should like to know how the Minister justifies his statement that no new syndicates will be allowed to be carried on after the passing of this Bill. Amendment No. 24 sets out:—
Any alteration in the membership of such syndicate shall be notified by the Chairman of Lloyd's to the Registrar of Companies within the prescribed time.
A syndicate is not a term of art.
They take the place of other syndicates which have ceased to do business.
It may be a different group of people that will be carrying on. "Syndicate" means nothing but a group of individuals, and it is clear from that particular amendment that those individuals may be changed, and, of course, they will be changed by Lloyd's from time to time. When insurance is effected with Lloyd's as I think anybody who has seen a policy will know, it is effected, not with a company, not with a syndicate, but with named individuals, and in order to sue on such a policy, you have to find out who the persons named are and their addresses. I was engaged in a case in which we had almost to employ a private detective before we could find out who they were. That clearly shows that there can be a change of syndicate. Amendment 28 provides that a syndicate may transfer its licence to another syndicate. In that set of circumstances I should like to know how the Minister justifies his statement to Deputy Dillon that it is not intended to have any more than existing syndicates.
The Minister, in his absolute discretion, if he is satisfied that a particular syndicate has ceased to do business and that the other syndicate satisfies the conditions, having regard to all the circumstances, may license the new syndicate so that the business of the syndicate which has ceased to do business will be transferred to them. If Deputy Dillon is complaining of a restriction in the facilities for reinsurance, there may be a restriction. Amendment 22, for example, which is perhaps the fundamental one, enables syndicates which were carrying on business on 31st October, 1935, to continue to carry it on. I think it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to cover the particular circumstances of Lloyd's except under provisions of this nature referring to syndicates. We know that "syndicate" is a very loose term of organisation, but I am advised that in so far as it is possible to do so, we are putting the same restrictions upon these syndicates as on companies, and I fail to see where the Deputy has a grievance if we license the same syndicates to carry on business now as were doing business last year. It may be that there will be questions of individuals transferring from one syndicate to another and so on. All I can say is that these provisions have been made in connection with representations from Lloyd's. They are based upon discussions between Lloyd's and the Department, and the Department is satisfied that, generally speaking, the objects of the Bill are retained by these amendments. If the Deputy can let me know in a more specific manner what is the particular limitation to which he objects, we can go into the matter. I think, as I have said, there probably is a limitation on Lloyd's, seeing that a syndicate, as Deputy Costello has pointed out, is not really in the same category as a company or a society. It is a very loose type of organisation, but it is the only method we have been able to devise which would enable us to cover this loose type of organisation.
I am not surprised that in the short space of time that was available to the Minister to deal with Lloyd's he has not been able to devise a good system enabling this to work. I sympathise with him in the short space of time he had to do so — less than a month. The word "syndicate" was defined as a group of underwriters who are members of Lloyd's, and who are certified by the Chairman of the Committee of Lloyd's to have formed themselves into a syndicate for the purpose of this Act. How is that certificate to be proved? Are we to take judicial notice of Lloyd's, that he is Chairman of the underwriters, and that his signature is so well known that it will be taken judicial notice of by the courts? As the amendment stands, there is no machinery to provide whether the Minister is to be deemed to know who Lloyd's Chairman is, except that his signature comes along purporting to be the signature of the Chairman of Lloyd's. As the amendment stands it is simply ridiculous.
There may be some legal reasons for not accepting the Chairman of Lloyd's, but the Department is quite satisfied that the arrangement is satisfactory and that in general it safeguards the interests they have in view. The Deputy will probably find that the Committee of Lloyd's, though not a statutory body, are in the position of being recognised in regard to matters as to the security and guaranteeing of the members. They are recognised as a body in which the fullest confidence can be placed.
Am I to understand that if this is passed into law in this way we will have to bring over the Chairman of Lloyd's to prove the signature?
Not at all. It will be necessary when anyone goes to court and if the officials of the Minister's Department are not satisfied. Everyone must bow to that.
Is not the position that we will have to bring over the Chairman of Lloyd's in order to prove a signature of that kind?
It may be necessary.
Does not the Minister think it would be more expeditious and efficient if he took some statutory precautions to ensure that the seal or some official act of the Chairman of Lloyd's would be sufficient evidence to show that the certificate was genuine? Would the Minister consider that?
He has not time to do so. This is the last time that the Bill will be here. He had only a fortnight to do it.
We must take the only choice we have, seeing that this Bill will affect hundreds of people and upset the whole insurance apple-cart. We have scuttled the Seanad, which was a useful body for dealing with these matters.
Not under this Bill.
But this is the Third Committee Stage we have had. We ought to have another.
Even if we had the Seanad, they do not know what should be put in.
It is manifest that when on the Third Committee Stage 60 amendments come forward on matters which many are of opinion should be in the Bill, we ought to have two or three more Committee Stages. The Minister must realise that it must be highly inconvenient to refer to the certificate of the Chairman of Lloyd's upon which a question might suddenly arise, and on each occasion that it falls to be proven he must be brought to prove it, when two lines would make it possible to prove it by the production of the seal or some similar sign.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 8, before Section 6 to insert the following new section:—
The Minister shall as soon as possible after the expiration of each year prepare and present to each House of the Oireachtas a report of his proceedings under this Act during such year.
This Government has been in the habit of bringing in a good deal of legislation seeking powers to do certain things by regulation, without furnishing any report or taking into consideration the views of Deputies in regard to important matters affecting financial State interests. This Bill may involve the taxpayers in large sums of money, and it is only reasonable that on matters of such importance the Minister concerned should make a report each year, so that the House, if it thought fit, might review the work of the Minister or his responsibility on a measure of this kind. Members of the Labour Party look upon this as an important amendment, and they are not prepared to give the Minister the powers that he seeks as the section stands. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.
How many reports does the Deputy visualise?
Twice as many.
There is an annual report under the Act of 1909, and the publication of that report will continue. It will set out in summary form additional reports and a statement required to be made under it. It is not considered desirable that a detailed report covering the procedure of the Minister under this Act should be published, but, as the Minister stated on the Committee Stage, the proceedings and the more important activities will be dealt with. I cannot give a promise. I do not think the Dáil should make it a statutory provision that the Minister should be compelled to issue a report dealing with all his activities, having regard to the fact that we have this annual report, which gives a summary, and that the balance sheet and the statement of accounts of the companies will be available. If the State cames in under the amalgamated company or gives financial aid, the matter can be brought up in the House. That should satisfy Deputies. I am advised that I should not accept the amendment. Generally speaking, I agree that it is advisable to have all the publicity possible, but if there are specific matters upon which information is required, which are not fully covered in the report, there will be an opportunity of getting that information.
In case the State might be involved in financial liability, would the Minister indicate at what period of the year the matter could be discussed?
I think the Minister for Finance would be bound to make a statement to the House and to bring under its notice the fact that he has certain liabilities in these matters. I cannot say if there is a specific provision to that effect in the Bill.
Is it a fact that such an opportunity would be afforded only on the general discussion of the Budget?
I do not see what is to stop a Deputy from raising the question at any time in the House. If he wants information about a particular matter he can raise it. If the position is this, that the Minister for Finance, for example, might not give the House sufficient information, I think he is bound to give certain information, though I cannot say in what particular form or period of the year he should give it.
The Minister has very wide powers under the section to commit the State, which means the community, to take up shares in a company, and to advance money for the purchase of these shares out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof. By sub-section 2 he is empowered to advance money. He may borrow and, for the purpose of such borrowing, may create and issue security bearing interest, and may provide for conditions as to repayment, redemption, or otherwise of the securities which he created. Principal and interest on any securities are to be made a charge on the Central Fund. The Minister is empowered to buy shares and to borrow money for the purpose of purchasing such shares. He can commit the Central Fund to the advance of substantial sums to engage in the business of promoting the establishment or the expansion of an insurance company. He is empowered to create securities, to fix the rate of interest on these securities and to provide for the repayment and redemption of such securities.
I think the Minister will have no hesitation in realising that these are very wide powers to give a Minister. In the course of his financial activities under Section 32, the Minister may become in fact a State stockbroker carrying on a wide range of financial activities in connection with insurance business. What we ask in amendment No. 3 is that the Minister shall as soon as possible after the expiration of each year prepare and present to each House of the Oireachtas — and even that obligation is now halved — a report of his proceedings during such year. In other words, he is asked to tell the Dáil what he has done under Section 32, how many shares he has bought, what is the value of the shares and what kind is the security he has created, what rates of interest he proposes to pay and what provision there is for the redemption of the securities and generally what is the value of his holding in these companies. That is not a great obligation to impose on the Minister. As a matter of fact, I regard that as the least burdensome portion of the Bill. When I asked the Minister to do that, he gives us the excuse simply that he should not be asked to discharge that simple responsibility which any Minister should owe to the House. The security of the State is pledged under Section 32 and we ought to have an adequate picture and know in what way the State is interlocked with State insurance companies of this kind.
The Minister may recollect that there was a company established and financed with a substantial portion of State capital some years ago, known as the Industrial Trust Company of Ireland. If the Minister will look up the files in the Department of Finance, he will see that that company had a rather short and chequered existence. In the end it was wound up. Its shares which were nominally value for £1 could be bought for less than 1/- in the end. The State lost a considerable amount of money in that transaction. Should we not have some information so that the House may know in future whether the Minister is entering into something which may end in another Industrial Trust Company of Ireland transaction? Should we not know in what way the capital of the State is invested? Should we not know whether the Minister is prudent in his administration of Section 32? Should we not generally have a picture of the manner in which the Minister is discharging his duty so that we may have an opportunity of judging of the capacity of the Minister in dealing with matters of this kind? I think that there is a very substantial case for the amendment and the Minister has not given us one reason why it should not be accepted.
I should like to support the statement of Deputy Norton that the Minister has not given a single reason why the amendment should not be accepted. Beyond saying that he should not be asked to give effect to this amendment, he gave no reason for not accepting it. He referred very vaguely to the provisions of the Act of 1909 under which the Board of Trade — in this case the Department of Industry and Commerce — were asked to lay certain returns on the Table of the House. I would draw the Minister's attention, and also the attention of Deputy Davin and Deputy Norton, to the fact that Section 27 of the Act of 1909 has nothing to do with the type of proceedings that will be carried on under this Bill when it becomes an Act. The Minister is only bound to put before the House the returns that are required under the Act of 1909. Other things are required under this Bill when it becomes an Act. Section 27 of the Act of 1909, which will still be allowed to remain the law, is somewhat inconsistent with at least some of the provisions of this Bill. All the Minister is asked to bring before the House in that section is the accounts, abstracts, balance sheets and other documents under this Act. So in fact the returns to be made under the Act of 1909 will be perfectly useless for the purposes of this Bill. I suggested — and I should like to have an answer to this point — at the recommencement of the Committee Stage that the Act of 1909 should be completely repealed and that such portions of it as were intended to be completely operative should be inserted under this Bill. The Minister undertook to look into that point. Perhaps the Acting-Minister will now tell us what the intention in the matter is. He now takes refuge in Section 27. Is it intended to allow Section 27 of that Act to stand as it is at the moment?
Yes.
The returns to be given under that section will give no information whatever of any value to any person having regard to the provisions of this Bill. Deputy Norton referred to one particular section under which Deputies would require some information. I should like to refer to the provisions dealing with the Reinsurance Company of Ireland. The Minister has power to become a shareholder or even the managing director of this company. The Minister for Finance has power to guarantee certain reinsurances and no action can be brought in reference to him. How are Deputies or persons who are affected, if the Minister refuses to honour his guarantee, to test the question? I should like to know from the Minister how Section 27 is going to give any information whatever in connection with the Minister's activities under the proposals contained in this Bill. Section 27 is no use whatever for that purpose in my submission once this Bill becomes law. It gives no information whatever of any value to persons interested in the insurance problems of the country.
I think that what the Deputy has stated, that the information given under Section 27 would be so technical and would be couched in such technical form that it would be of very little use to the public, applies to all returns of this kind which have to be made to the House. In connection with legislation dealing with accounts, balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, there are well-known forms which, although they may not convey very much meaning to the ordinary citizen, convey a great deal of information to those who have acquaintance with the business concerned. Those who have financial experience and who are interested in the matter can generally glean a good deal of information from these accounts. I do not agree, therefore, that the accounts will not give the public a substantial amount of information. I notice that the Department may append to such accounts, balance sheets or documents any note they may wish to include or any correspondence in relation thereto. We believe that the expense of publishing a detailed report covering all the proceedings of the Minister in connection with the Act during the year would not be justified. I cannot quite follow the contention of Deputy Norton that something is likely to happen, that the Minister for Finance is likely to do something rash, which will not come sufficiently soon to Deputy Norton's notice.
He is not insured against rashness.
If loans, for example, are being made to a company, they will probably be made under Section 6 of the Trade Loans Act, which did not cover the industrial company. Under that Act a statement will be made every three months giving particulars of all guarantees or payments made out of the Exchequer. The Minister for Finance will have, in the Finance Act each year, to give particulars of moneys paid out of the Exchequer. The amalgamated company, under Section 38 of the Bill, will furnish its balance sheet, profit and loss account and revenue account in respect of each class of business carried on by it, so that there is adequate information from these sources to satisfy any ordinary person. The public will certainly be safeguarded, because there will be sufficient publicity for any transactions into which the State may enter in connection with insurance.
The Minister makes a case in opposing this amendment which any ordinary innocent layman might make, but he ignores the reason why the amendment is put forward. The House is giving very drastic and very generous powers under Section 32 and other sections to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and he can, if he so desires, commit the taxpayers to very large sums. I am sure it is as clear to the Minister as it is to anybody else that the purpose of this amendment is to give the House a yearly opportunity of reviewing, in a definite way, the activities of the Minister in connection with the financial provisions of this Bill. I questioned the Minister, and he evidently was not sure as to the way in which the House would be given information or how an opportunity would be afforded of discussing this matter. The only way I can see in which that opportunity would arise would be as a result of some statement made by the Minister for Finance in his Budget. A reference by the Minister for Finance in his Budget to the financial operations under this Bill would not give the House a definite opportunity of saying whether they approved or disapproved of the actions of the Minister. The purpose of the amendment is to give the House that opportunity. The Minister pretends he is very anxious about the cost of publishing and circulating such a report. He also talks, in his very innocent way, about the methodical and technical manner in which members of the House are furnished in the Library with particulars of operations of certain concerns financed in an indirect way by the taxpayers. One would require to be a Fellow of the Society of Chartered Accountants, with an honours degree, clearly to understand the report which is submitted, say, by the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company or the Electricity Supply Board, or other bodies of that type which have been given indirect financial assistance by the State. I take the trouble sometimes to read the returns which railways and transport companies are obliged to furnish to the Ministry under certain rail and transport Acts. I have some little experience in connection with railway accounts work, and no ordinary person could thoroughly understand these returns owing to the way in which they are presented by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. They are presented in such a way as to confuse the ordinary layman and prevent him, if possible, from obtaining the information he is endeavouring to discover.
I want Deputies to ignore the small amount which would be involved in the publication and circulation of information relating to financial operations under this measure — information to which Deputies are rightly entitled. If this information is furnished, it may prevent the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance from being ridiculed, as their predecessors were, for not acting more carefully in connection with the activities of the Industrial Trust. If proper information had been furnished yearly of that dead body, it would not have died as quickly as it did during the lifetime of the last Government. If some precaution had been taken such as that which we are now suggesting, Deputies who were here during the lifetime of that organisation might have kept the Government right, and the taxpayers might have been saved a considerable amount of money by having certain things which were happening at that period pointed out here. I do not think the Minister is in the least concerned about the expense of publishing and circulating this annual report. The expense would be very small compared with the great loss that might be incurred by taxpayers if members of this House, belonging to all Parties, did not keep a watchful eye on the operations of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance under Section 32 of this Bill. The Acting-Minister is not tying himself down to what was said by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the Committee Stage. The Acting-Minister has brought in alterations which the Minister would not listen to during the Committee Stage. I refer to the matters thrashed out here by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Costello. I hope, therefore, that the Acting-Minister will see the desirability of accepting the amendment in the names of Deputies Norton and Murphy.
Matters arising out of the operations of the Industrial Trust have no analogy to the present circumstances. A number of companies will be carrying on negotiations in the future in which the Minister may possibly be involved. I cannot see any reason why, without being asked for such information, a statutory obligation should be placed on the Department to give detailed accounts of these negotiations. The Deputy seems to think that that would be a safeguard. I suggest that the fact that this Insurance Bill is now being passed through the House and that public attention is focussed on the question constitute a sufficient guarantee that we shall not forget all that we are now doing within a very short period. The matter will be fresh in our minds. I made a mistake in suggesting that moneys put into the amalgamated company would be advanced under the Trade Loans Act. They will be directly invested by the Minister for Finance, who must bring the matter to the notice of the House. I cannot agree with the Deputy that no opportunity — say on the Finance Bill — will be given for raising the matter. If the Deputy is not satisfied with the opportunity provided by the Finance Bill, he can create opportunities for himself. The amendment is not at all clear as to what is required. Deputies have a vague idea that the statutory returns are not sufficient. At all events, they are statutory and they are well recognised and well understood.
By whom?
By people interested in insurance. Even if you got a report, you might not get the information you required. If Deputies are really looking for a check on the Minister for Finance and on the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I suggest that the financial statement of the Minister for Finance and any statement which he may make regarding these investments will afford sufficient opportunity for check. I am not absolutely convinced at all, though I do not wish to use that as an argument, that, unless we feel that it is absolutely necessary, we should go out of our way to invite discussions on these matters or to publish information which might be in some way harmful. At the same time, I quite agree that full publicity should be given. In Great Britain the procedure laid down is considered satisfactory, and I cannot see why we should go beyond that. I submit that Deputies have not really established their case that there is information which would be withheld in any way from them, and that the only way in which that information can be secured is through the publication of the annual report. Even the annual report would not be an absolute safeguard. I suggest that without this amendment there are ample opportunities of getting any information required by Deputies.
If you, Sir, gave the Minister permission to make ten speeches here this evening we might then get the real reason why the amendment is not acceptable to him. We are getting it by instalments and rather remarkable instalments now. In his first speech the Minister said that there was no need for this report at all. There are lots of reports issued under Section 27 of the Act of 1909. If Deputies did not get information through that medium, then the Minister said they could ask a question in the Dáil or they could raise the matter on the Finance Bill. That is the first defence put up by the Minister. The second defence was that he did not want to accept the amendment because of the cost of printing the report. I am sure this amendment has received detailed examination from the Minister and his advisers, and now if the element of cost comes in I ask to what proportion or to what fraction of the working of the Insurance Acts would the printing of the report amount? Now, the Minister comes on to the third attempted defence against accepting the amendment. He is not quite sure that it is wise to publish the information. We were told first that under the section of the Act of 1909 we would get all the information we want, and now we are told that we will not get all that information because the Minister is doubtful if it would be wise to publish that information.
What is the real object of the amendment? I never saw the Minister at such real disadvantage in resisting an amendment as he has shown himself in this case. The Minister has grabbed at any excuse to show that this amendment is unnecessary, whereas I have no doubt if he were on the other side of the House he would be convinced that it was a desirable amendment so that the House might have a report of what the Minister had done under Section 32 of the Bill, so that the House would see how much State money had been invested in private insurance companies, so that the House could learn how many shares are held by the Minister from time to time, what is the general manner in which the Minister has performed his duties as shareholder under Section 32 of the Bill; what kind of securities he has created, and in what way he has used the powers conferred upon him in Section 32. All this is information on which it would be easy for the Minister to supply a report. If he were the secretary of a public company he would be expected to supply that information to the shareholders.
The community in this case are the shareholders who are going to invest their money in this insurance company and are going to do so at the discretion of the Minister for Finance. The community are entitled to be told what has become of the money and how the matter stands at any particular time. Surely that is a very simple obligation to put on the Minister. Yet he tries to find all sorts of excuses for refusing to accept an amendment which is eminently reasonable. We want to get a comprehensive report on the Minister's general activities under Section 32. We want to know whether he has been a wise investor or whether he has been a thriftless investor. We want to see what activities he is carrying on, and it is by means of the report that we will be in a position to judge of these activities. I submit there is no case against the amendment.
I want to direct the Minister's attention to Section 27 of the Act of 1909. He has given that as one of the reasons for not accepting this amendment. Section 27 deals with the report of the activities of insurance companies. That is not what Deputy Davin wants. He wants a report of the Minister's activities. Therefore, Section 27 of the Act of 1909 is not relevant to what we are discussing at the moment. It does not give and cannot give the type of information required in this amendment. He is objecting to the amendment, and the reason he has given is only a subterfuge. It is not the real reason. The Minister said the information could be got by questions in the House. He spoke of the cost of publishing a report. I would like to know if the Minister has taken into consideration the cost of the innumerable questions on the Order Paper because of this fact that the information was not available in some such form as required in the amendment?
Deputy Norton is astonished that I gave three good reasons for not accepting this amendment. The Deputy gave no reason for putting it down. The only reason he adduced is that he would like to have full details of our financial transactions in connection with these companies. The Deputy has been told that the Minister for Finance is bound to make a statement as to the transactions with which he is concerned here. Therefore it is not the Minister for Finance with whom the Deputy is concerned but the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and in order to guide his erring ways the Deputy would like to get the fullest possible information of the activities of the Department. Is there any precedent for putting down a proposal that the Minister, in respect of any matter, shall give a particularly full report of all his activities? To what are we committing ourselves? Surely when one asks for information with regard to an insurance company or anything else one defines headings (1), (2), (3) and the particulars required.
The only particulars in which Deputy Norton is interested are particulars regarding financial transactions. Information on these will and must be given to the House. With regard to the other activities of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I am quite sure that any member of the House will have ample opportunity of raising questions regarding the Minister's policy. I have assured the Deputy that it is the intention to give summaries of important proceedings in connection with the Act. There is nothing, I take it, under the 1909 Act to prevent the Minister from giving such information in the annual report as he may consider desirable from the public point of view to give. I think we can rely on the Minister to see that full publicity is given. We have a strong hold on the Minister for Finance; with regard to the Minister for Industry and Commerce I see no reason to doubt that he will give the House whatever information is required. I think it would be a mistake to establish this precedent of compelling a Minister to do something that we do not fully appreciate or understand. We certainly do not understand to what exactly it commits us. In any event, even if the amendment were more clear than it is, I would not be prepared to accept it as I do not feel it is necessary.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 41.
Tá
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Keyes and Everett; Níl: Deputies Smith and T. Crowley.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 8, before Section 6 (d), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) any business which is the insuring against risks arising out of or in connection with the use of aircraft.
The purpose of the amendment is to exempt from the provisions of the Bill all insurance in connection with aircraft. As this is a new and highly-specialised form of insurance, it is thought that it should not be confined at the present juncture to licensed insurers.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 8, before Section 6 (d), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) any business which was, on the 31st day of October, 1935, lawfully carried on by a trade union not registered in Saorstát Eireann under the Acts relating to trade unions and which is for the time being carried on by such trade union under and in accordance with a permit in that behalf granted by the Minister.
The purpose of this amendment is to extend to trade unions which are registered outside Saorstát Eireann, and not capable of registration here, the same exemption as is accorded by this section to trade unions registered in Saorstát Eireann. Before such exemption can be extended to any foreign trade union, a permit must be obtained from the Minister.
What the Minister has said in support of the amendment about trade unions registered outside Saorstát Eireann is clear enough. There are, however, trade unions comprised exclusively of members in Ireland and controlled by members in Ireland, with offices here, that have no cross-channel connection whatever, but the position is that they are not registered here because some trade unions take the view that there are, in fact, no real benefits to be derived from registration. I take it that an unregistered trade union here will be affected by this amendment in the same way as an outside trade union which was not registered here but was, in fact, registered elsewhere?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 9, line 3, Section 7 (1), to delete the words, brackets and figures "sub-section (2) of Section 28," and in line 6, to delete the words "and the Eighth Schedule."
This is consequential on the inclusion of Lloyd's.
The Minister blandly remarks that this amendment is consequential on the inclusion of Lloyd's. This was the particular part of Section 7 that we were dealing with when the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave his specific answer to my query as to Lloyd's being outside the scope of the Bill. I do not want to reopen all that discussion again on this amendment, but I do want to ask the Minister if he has anything to tell me about the undertaking that was given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself to look into the question as to whether or not he would have this Bill a comprehensive Bill dealing with insurance in this country. I pointed out at that time that there were various inconsistencies between the Act of 1909 and this measure, and I want to know if the Minister can give me any information as to whether that proposition has been considered in accordance with the undertaking given to me.
I do not remember having heard that the Minister promised to examine the question, but at the same time I do not wish to put the Deputy to the trouble of looking up the references again. Assuming that the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated that he would go into the question, I do not know whether the Deputy means that new legislation should be introduced. We are carrying on with the present measure, and we are informed that a consolidating measure of insurance is not really necessary.
I will give the Minister the reference. It is the 2nd June, 1936, the magic date on which Lloyd's were excluded. The reference is in columns 1356-7. I asked:—
"Would the Minister consider putting in such parts of the 1909 Act as he wishes to have clearly made the law of this country at the present moment, so that the one Act will form the one code under which people dealing with insurance matters in this country will operate, and will be enabled to know clearly and precisely what their duties and their rights are, without having reference to a previous Act which was passed prior to this State being established? Would it not be a simple matter for the Minister to select, with the aid of the Parliamentary draftsman, those provisions of the Act of 1909 which he wished to operate, and put them in on Report or another stage, so as to have one Bill dealing with insurance law in this country?
Mr. Lemass: I will give the matter consideration, but I am not quite sure what difficulties will arise in that connection."
That was the undertaking, and what I wish to know is if it is being carried out. I would suggest to the Minister, arising out of this amendment and his definition of the word "syndicate," that that introduces a new element of complication in trying to reconcile the Act of 1909 and the present Bill.
I dare say that it may be necessary, even arising out of the present measure, to bring in amending legislation. I am advised, however, that consolidating legislation is not really necessary at the moment. I think the Deputy will realise that, even if we were to consolidate the existing legislation under the present Bill, it might still have to be amended. It is not as if we were working on measures that had a certain experience behind them and were a certain number of years in operation. Deputy Dillon raised a question on the Committee Stage — I do not know if it is covered by the point that Deputy Costello has raised — as to whether any inconsistency as between this Bill and the existing insurance law might not have to be attended to. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is satisfied that there is no need to introduce specific provisions dealing with that inconsistency, if there be any inconsistency. We are told that there is no need for such a provision.
Arising out of this amendment which the Minister has proposed, I desire to draw his attention to one matter which I think is a very serious one. The proposal in this amendment is to do away with the Eighth Schedule. The underwriters of Lloyd's, instead of making the statutory deposits which they were required to make under a section of the earlier Act, were given certain privileges of making certain different kinds of deposits as set out in the Eighth Schedule. If this amendment is passed, that Eighth Schedule goes. What is the provision that is going to compel these syndicates to make the necessary statutory deposits, or is it intended that they should be exempt from making any deposits? Under the Act of 1909 they had to make some deposit under the Eighth Schedule that is now going. In future, what is going to force them to make a deposit? Is that one of the things that will be provided for by this amending legislation which the Minister is already envisaging before this Bill itself is passed?
We are restoring the Eighth Schedule under this amendment and not deleting it.
If the Minister is restoring it, that is clear. May I point out to him what we are restoring. Here are the very words: "Requirements to be complied with by underwriters, being members of Lloyd's or any other association of underwriters, approved by the Board of Trade." That is what we are restoring in our Irish Act of Parliament. Now, why leave the words "Board of Trade" in that section, to start with?
Why leave any portion of the Act?
Precisely. That is my contention. Why leave any portion of the Act of 1909? Why not put in the provision that you want in this particular measure, and leave out the provisions that you do not want, so that people will know where they are? Here are you requiring that such deposits shall be made as the Board of Trade may direct. I am aware, of course, that the Adaptation of Enactments Act has operated on this particular statute, and not merely has the Adaptation of Enactments Act operated on it, but a special Order was made as a result of a decision in the courts specially to adapt this Act. What I am objecting to is that the Adaptation of Enactments Act was not sufficient to enable this Act of 1909 to operate properly in this country. A special Order of the Executive Council had to be made adapting this Act. My point is that instead of making the thing right and proper in accordance with our own phraseology, we are leaving the Act as it stands, plus the Adaptation of Enactments Act, plus an Order made under the Adaptation of Enactments Act, and that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs which should not be allowed to continue.
The Eighth Schedule is being put back, and presumably, therefore, the section will apply to these underwriters being members of Lloyd's. What about the definition that we have already passed as to the meaning of the word "syndicate"? The word "syndicate" does not appear in the Act at all; it is not to be found in the Act of 1909. How is the Eighth Schedule going to operate in reference to this new entity, if you can call it that, that is being created by the present Bill — I refer to the syndicate? How are you going to get the Eighth Schedule operating in regard to the syndicates? I suggest it is a matter of extreme doubt as to whether the Eighth Schedule will operate at all. Section 28, I contend, does not make any reference to a syndicate. It sets out that it shall not apply to a member of Lloyd's or any other association of underwriters approved by the Board of Trade provided that there is compliance with the requirements set forth in the Eighth Schedule. That section cannot operate at all in reference to this new legal entity that is created under this Bill. Under the amendment passed a few moments ago this measure will allow a syndicate to operate. Section 28 (2) applies to a member of Lloyd's and not to a syndicate. How is the Minister going to suggest that these new syndicates are bound to make the deposits and comply with the requirements of that section?
How are they being compelled at the present time? It seems to me there is nothing to prevent a particular syndicate from carrying out the provisions of the Eighth Schedule. They would have to carry them out in any case in connection with their English business, and because they are to carry out a different set of provisions in this country I cannot see that any difficulty arises. We have set out provisions which seem to be suitable to the conditions here, and, in order that there should be full security, we are leaving the Eighth Schedule in. I do not quite follow the Deputy that there is any contradiction. I think until we are absolutely satisfied that there is some contradiction and some impediment we should allow the Eighth Schedule to remain, because it provides valuable security.
The Minister has, of course, completely missed the point. I ask him to tell me how this Bill will operate to compel the syndicates to whom a licence will be given to carry on assurance business to comply with the provisions of the Eighth Schedule. I have made no reflection on the Schedule. I want to know how the Bill will compel the syndicates to make the deposits. We are using the expression "syndicate" as a technical phrase to which a particular definition is given. The word "syndicate" does not appear anywhere in the Act of 1909. The Eighth Schedule will only apply to a member of Lloyd's or any other association of underwriters approved by the Board of Trade. How does the word "syndicate" come in there?
The fact that it is a member of the syndicate does not mean that it is not a member of Lloyd's. I cannot see where the contradiction is.
The Minister is under a wrong impression if he thinks it is a question of contradiction. There is no question of contradiction. It is a question that the Schedule does not apply at all if the Minister goes on with this present proposal.
Under Section 89 we are altering the Schedules:
The Minister may, after consultation with such assurance companies as he thinks fit or with any association representing assurance companies, by order alter (by addition, omission, or variation) — (a) all or any of the Schedules (other than the Ninth Schedule) to the Act of 1909, or (b) all or any of the Schedules to this Act.
The Eighth Schedule is out of that.
I can only conclude that the Department have satisfied themselves that the Eighth Schedule is necessary and that it can be operated.
I think it is vitally necessary, but my point is that the Minister will find, if he passes the Bill in the way in which it is drafted at the moment, that he will be faced with the position that the Eighth Schedule is not operative in so far as the syndicates referred to in the Bill are concerned, for the reason that Section 28 (2) has no application.
That position will be dealt with when it arises. If we find the position is as stated by the Deputy, we can then repeal the application of the Eighth Schedule.
Are we to assume that it is the Minister's intention to wait until he finds out the mistake in the course of the administration of the measure and then he will bring in a new Act of Parliament? Is that the suggestion?
There is nothing to stop us considering whether new legislation would be necessary or desirable.
So the position is that the Minister, when proposals are submitted here and we are discussing whether these proposals are adequate to carry out the intentions of all Parties, blandly declares that he does not know whether they actually carry out the intention, but if they do not he will introduce a new Act of Parliament.
I am advised that the proposal submitted does carry out the intention until the licensing provisions are in operation and that the Eighth Schedule is necessary until then. After that the provisions with regard to syndicates will operate and we can take further steps, if necessary.
Further steps being a new Act of Parliament?
Possibly.
But if you find you are making a mistake now, which you are not prepared to acknowledge——
I am not acknowledging that there is a mistake.
I am contending that there is a mistake, but you will not acknowledge it. Naturally enough, the Minister had not an opportunity of completely mastering the details of the Bill, but I draw his attention to a possible difficulty and I suggest the method of dealing with that difficulty and I would ask him not to regard it as merely obstructive or a reflection on the officials, but to give it some attention, because I suggest it requires attention. I realise, of course, that the Minister having brought Lloyd's in so quickly has not had time to consider the implications of his actions and to make provisions for all requirements.
The Deputy is not correct in suggesting to the House that Lloyd's were brought in as an afterthought. If I have not made it sufficiently clear, I should like to emphasise that the question of Lloyd's has been there since the time the Bill was introduced. It has been there to be dealt with in one way or the other.
It was dealt with on the 2nd June when the Minister said that Lloyd's were outside the Bill.
The Deputy has no right to assume that the matter was not under consideration because a satisfactory solution has only been reached. The Deputy is not justified in saying that the Department suddenly made up its mind after the 2nd June to bring Lloyd's in. The question of Lloyd's has been under consideration the whole time.
The Minister has ridden off on the question as to whether or not the Minister had any intention of bringing Lloyd's into the Bill, and he has dodged on that point the real question that arises here, namely, under the proposals as they stand at the moment, is he going to try and make absolutely certain that those new syndicates which he is going to license — and incidentally must license under the provisions of the Bill in accordance with the requirements laid down by himself — must make the necessary deposits under the Eighth Schedule? As the matter stands at the moment, as a matter of drafting and construction, there is grave doubt that the Eighth Schedule can be held to apply, because the word "syndicate" is not mentioned in Section 28 of the Act of 1909. It is only to the particular persons mentioned in the Act of 1909 that the schedule applies, and the word "syndicate" is not mentioned there. Are we to get any explanation from the Minister or any assurance that this difficulty will be adverted to?
Section 89 (2) says "The Minister may, after consultation with the Committee of Lloyd's"— that is an amendment —"by order alter (by addition, omission or variation) the Eighth Schedule to the Act of 1909". I was under the impression that the provision was in the Bill, but it is only in the amendments. We have an amendment down to cover the point. I do not know whether or not that satisfies the Deputy?
Of course it does not, because it has nothing whatever to do with the point I am making. That amendment, which is further on in the paper, assumes that the Eighth Schedule will be applicable to those new syndicates. I am suggesting that that assumption is not or may not be well grounded, by reason of the fact that he ought to have stated in this Bill that the Eighth Schedule would apply to the new syndicates. He has not said that. What he has done is merely to restore the position as it exists at the moment before this Bill is passed into law, namely that the Act of 1909 is law. Section 28 does not apply to syndicates.
Why does the Deputy say that the restoration of the Schedule does not apply to syndicates?
Because the word is not mentioned in the Act of 1909, and a special meaning, by statute, when this becomes law, will then attach to the word "syndicate". How can you get Section 28 operating in regard to syndicates, the word "syndicates" having been given a special meaning in the Act?
Does it not apply to each member of the syndicate?
If the Minister will not see my point, I am not going to waste further time telling him about it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 9, line 6, Section 7 (1), after the figures "34" to insert the words and figures "and in Section 35 the words ‘originally established more than twenty years before the commencement of this Act'."
This is the amendment which exonerates the trades unions, to which Deputy Norton was referring?
From the provisions of the Bill.
Those unregistered trades unions?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendments Nos. 9 and 10:—
9. In page 9, line 7, Section 7 (2), immediately before the word "Section" to insert the words "The Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896, and", and in line 7, to delete the word "is" and substitute the word "are".
10. In page 9, to delete Section 7 (4).
Those are drafting amendments which are necessary in order to defer the repeal of the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896, until Part V is brought into operation.
What will you do when you bring Part V into operation? Would you have to introduce a Bill to repeal the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896?
It is thought they should be continued——
What will stop them?
——until this portion of the Bill is brought into operation.
When you do bring it into operation, will you have to introduce an amending Bill specifically to repeal the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896? You have apparently made up your mind that when Part V comes into operation that statute ought to be repealed. Now you simply want to postpone the date of repeal until Part V comes into operation. What your amendment actually does is to take the repealing clause out of this Bill altogether. Amendment No. 10 deletes Section 7 (4), which is the section repealing the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896.
My information is that it is merely deferred until after Part V is brought into operation.
If you look at amendment No. 10 on the paper you will see that it says, "On page 9, to delete Section 7 (4)". Sub-section (4) of Section 7 reads as follows: "The Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896, is hereby repealed". When you delete that sub-section, you leave that Act in operation.
We bring it in at the beginning of sub-section (2).
You have a subsequent section enabling you to repeal it by order?
No. Sub-section (2) reads: "That Section 36 of the Act of 1909 is hereby repealed as on and from the commencement of Part V of this Act".
I see. You bring back sub-section (4) to the commencement of sub-section (2).
Amendments agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 9, before Section 10, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) This section shall apply to every person who is at the time of the passing of this Act carrying on any trade or business and who has received or who shall hereafter at any time receive any loan or grant from public funds, including the funds out of which grants or loans may lawfully be made by a local authority, or any loan or grant from or through the Industrial Credit Company, Limited, for the purpose of or in connection with the said business.
(2) It shall not be lawful for any person to whom this section applies to effect or to endeavour to effect any contract of assurance relating to fire insurance business or accident insurance business with any assurance company other than a Saorstát Eireann company.
(3) Every person who effects or endeavours to effect any contract of assurance in contravention of this section shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £50.
The object of this amendment is to provide that in the case of any person carrying on any trade or business, who has received or who may in the future receive loans or grants from public funds, including loans or grants from public authorities, or loans or grants under the Industrial Credit Company, in connection with their business, shall be required to place their fire insurance or accident insurance business with an insurance company registered in Saorstát Eireann; in fact that a Saorstát owned company should be the body with which a person or institution of that kind will transact fire and accident business. We were told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the Second Reading that the object of this whole Bill was to strengthen, and as far as possible to consolidate and solidify, the general position of insurance business here. In this amendment I am seeking to ensure that in the case of bodies which have been assisted out of State funds, either by loan or by grant, they shall be required to recognise the assistance which the community has given to them in the form of grants or loans, and to reciprocate by placing their insurance business with a company owned and registered in Saorstát Eireann. I think the principle of the amendment is sound. I think it makes for the consolidation of Irish companies, and I think it is one of the ways in which the State can place a very definite premium on supporting Irish companies which have the capacity for transacting insurance business of this kind.
This is a type of amendment which has already been discussed on the Committee Stage. I see no reason to alter the attitude which was then set out by the Minister — that we are not placing distinctions or discriminations between foreign companies which we are enabling to carry on business here, and native companies. I think that the particular method of discrimina tion which has been selected by the Deputy and put forward in his amendment is rather objectionable: because certain people received aid from the State it is to be made a punishable offence in their case to effect any policy of fire or accident insurance with a foreign company. I think that that is not the proper way to approach the question of building up the Irish companies, making them more respected and consolidating their position. I think that it is much better to take general steps, such as are outlined in the Bill, to strengthen the companies, to increase their prestige in the eyes of the public, to give them State aid in order to strengthen that position and let them then seek for business in the ordinary way. I feel quite convinced that, in the ordinary way, Irish companies will receive a certain amount of preference from Irish insurers and that it would be very difficult to defend making it a punishable offence for persons or groups, such as the Deputy refers to, to insure with other companies if they find that they have to do it and that, in their circumstances, it suits them to do so.
When the Minister adopts the attitude of not desiring to discriminate against foreign companies, the British Administration, apparently, do not take the same benevolent view of Irish companies. Recently, an Irish insurance company here wrote to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in London and asked to be placed on the official list of approved guarantee societies for the purpose of issuing customs and excise bonds to the Governments of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and were informed, in reply, by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in London that as the Irish insurance company concerned seemed to be incorporated in the Irish Free State they were unable to consider its inclusion in the list of approved companies to act as security to custom and excise bonds in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So that here we have a company incorporated in the Irish Free State which will not be accepted for the purpose of issuing guaranteed bonds under customs and excise regulations to the British or Six County Governments. That contrasts rather strangely with the benevolent attitude which the Minister, in resisting this amendment, now adopts to companies now incorporated in Great Britain.
I think there is nothing unreasonable in saying that, if the community here is going to assist its own nationals by grants or loans, there should be an obligation placed on those nationals to place their insurance business with an Irish company. That, I think, will be agreed to be a desirable development, particularly in view of the strengthening which Irish companies are likely to receive in their general financial structure under this Bill. There is a stronger case, I think, now for doing that than could have been made in the past, and if it is desirable that insurance business of that kind should be placed with Irish companies, there is no more effective way in which you can do it than by legislating in a manner to ensure that it will be done under penalty in this Bill. If the Minister concedes that it is desirable that these companies or persons should reciprocate and place their business with Irish companies, then the most effective way to ensure that, if the Minister desires to ensure it, is to include a provision of this kind in the Bill.
I regret that I cannot see my way to accept the amendment. As there is another amendment on the Paper of the same type, Sir, I may as well state what has already been stated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and that is that the principle of the Bill is to exclude foreign companies after a certain date. If the Government felt that they could take up a stronger position and that Irish companies would be able here and now, without any time to make preparation to deal with the greatly increased business satisfactorily, I am sure the Government would have taken such steps. Having examined the question, however, we decided that that was not possible, and we have therefore limited, perhaps, those advantages to which the Irish companies consider they are entitled and which they might have expected from the Government. Although as a natural corollary to that, we are allowing foreign companies which have been in business here to continue, I think that with the aid we are giving them they should be able to do satisfactory business and gain increased business for themselves. The fact that a British Department at this particular stage has refused a permit to an Irish company is really beside the question. The thing fundamentally comes down to the question of whether our Irish companies are, in existing circumstances, able to cater for the entire business of the Free State if all foreign insurance companies were excluded. We do not think they are, but we think that in the course of time they may reach that position. They cannot reach it now, however, and I think it would be a mistake to proceed on the lines that the Deputy suggests.
Might I put it to the Minister that under amendment No. 11 there is a relatively limited class of potential insurers affected. It refers only to persons who have received grants or who may in future receive grants or loans from public funds. That is a relatively limited class. It is not likely at any time to be a very extensive class, and the object of the amendment is to insist that these persons should place their fire and accident business with a Saorstát Eireann company. I do not believe — and the Minister has said nothing which upsets my belief in the matter — that Irish companies could not hold that business or could not in any case take the business, subject, of course, to the usual set-off by them if they thought the risks were altogether beyond their capacity to bear. I think, however, that there should be a definite obligation to offer the business to an Irish company and in that way to extract from the community, so helped by grants and loans, the obligation which, I think, should be discharged by them, to insure with an Irish company.
They are getting increased business and, in my opinion, will continue to get further business, and there is no necessity for this type of procedure.
I am afraid, Sir, I shall have to press this amendment to a division, and let it govern amendment No. 12.
Question put.
The Committee divid ed: Tá, 18; Níl, 38.
Tá
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robart.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Brian, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers: — Tá: Deputies Keyes and Corish; Níl: Deputies Smith and T. Crowley.
Question declared lost.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 9, line 45, Section 10 (2), after the word "which" to insert the words "or a person (wherever resident or carrying on business) who".
This is a drafting amendment. These words are being inserted so as to make it quite clear that an unlicensed individual will not be empowered to issue policies of insurance without coming within the provisions of the Bill.
How will this affect persons who are acting for a syndicate?
This will cover them if they are unlicensed. The unlicensed underwriter will be covered by this amendment.
This section operates to prohibit a person operating a policy of insurance without a licence?
Yes.
And is it now proposed to add to the words "a foreign company" the words "or a person (wherever resident or carrying on business) who"? The sub-section will then read:
A foreign company which or a person (wherever resident or carrying on business) who issues (otherwise than in the course or by way of reinsurance) a policy, bond, certificate or other instrument of insurance to a person ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann....
Does that not operate to bring the person referred to in this amendment within the prohibitions contained in Part II of the Act?
The Deputy proposed this amendment on the Recommittal Stage, and the Minister promised to see whether it was necessary to insert it.
Yes, and I proposed it in order to clarify the position of persons who would be acting as brokers for foreign companies and covering up foreign companies. That was proposed in the light of the fact that the Minister said that Lloyd's was not provided for in this Bill. Now we have put Lloyd's in, and they do all their business in Saorstát Eireann through this very type of broker whom it was designed to exclude. The purpose on recommittal was to provide that any person who did insurance business here would have an office here, would be registered here, and would come within all the provisions of the Act, so that there would be no evasion by getting a person to carry on insurance on behalf of an outsider who was not himself within the scope of the Act. Now we have made special provision for certain classes of persons to do that very type of business on behalf of a syndicate of Lloyd's underwriters. Having brought Lloyd's in, and authorised brokers to act on behalf of Lloyd's, does the inclusion of these words in the section prevent a broker who acts for a Lloyd's syndicate issuing a bond or policy of insurance in Saorstát Eireann?
It prevents him, if he has not got a licence.
Who is going to represent the syndicate in Saorstát Eireann?
This will cover the underwriters in the syndicate.
Does this amendment make it illegal for a broker to issue a policy of insurance?
Yes.
The Minister is aware that the syndicates he has in mind are represented in Saorstát Eireann by brokers?
Yes.
With this amendment the brokers will not be allowed to issue a policy of insurance on behalf of the syndicates. How will the Lloyd's syndicate in fact effect a policy of insurance in this country if they cannot act as brokers?
The syndicates are recognised in Section II. Any syndicate may secure an insurance licence. The amendment suggested by the Deputy makes the matter clearer. I do not see how the question of the syndicate is affected. We give the syndicate a definite licence. It is not the broker is in question, it is the syndicate. The broker as distinct from the syndicate does not apply.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 9, line 48, Section 10 (2), before the word "person" to insert the word "such".
This is a drafting amendment, required to limit the application to persons resident ordinarily in the Saorstát.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18: —
In page 10, line 1, Section 11 (1), after the word "company" to insert the words "or any syndicate".
In page 10, line 7, Section 11 (2), after the word "company" to insert the words and brackets "or syndicate (as the case may be)".
In page 10, line 10, Section 11 (3), after the word "company" to insert the words "or syndicate".
In page 10, line 29, Section 11 (6), after the word "company" to insert the words "or any syndicate", and in line 30, after the word "company" to insert the words and brackets "or syndicate (as the case may be)".
These are consequential amendments on the inclusion of Lloyd's.
Amendments agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In page 10, line 37, Section 11 (7), after the word "prescribe" to insert the words:—"not exceeding however the sum of ten pounds for all classes of assurance business transacted."
Has the Minister anything to say on this amendment? Does he intend to accept it?
No, but I may be able to meet the Deputy.
That is something. The Minister is becoming a little more pliable. Perhaps he could tell us how far he can go.
The intention is that there should be only one fee for each licence, irrespective of the types of insurance business covered by the licence and that is not to be an annual charge. We do not think £10 would be sufficient, but probably £25 would be.
At all events, it is something to know that there is only going to be one fee for the whole ambit of the business carried on by a company. When discussing this matter on a Committee Stage the Minister for Industry and Commerce indicated that he did not want to have this fee used for the purpose of producing revenue. Can the Minister say if the Department has fixed on a fee of £25, and, if so, will it not have the effect of producing revenue, or will it merely cover the expenses that the Minister indicated on a Committee Stage? Why £25? It seems a large amount.
In view of the nature and importance of the insurance business £25 is not excessive. £25 was the figure agreed upon by the Department concerned.
With itself?
Yes.
The Department has agreed with itself to charge £25. Certainly that is one on me. At all events it is quite clear that the Minister has given an assurance that there will be only one fee in respect to all classes of business.
Yes.
There will not be a separate fee for each? Has that been agreed upon with itself by the Department?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 10, before Section 12 (3), to insert three new sub-sections as follows:—
(3) Whenever an application is duly made in accordance with this Act by a Saorstát Eireann company which on the 31st day of October, 1935, carried on in addition to life assurance business or industrial assurance business or both such businesses any other assurance business for an assurance licence to carry on such other assurance business, the Minister may grant, such application if, but only if, he is satisfied that the assets of such company are sufficient to enable such company to carry on such other assurance business.
(4) Whenever an application to which one of the two next preceding sub-sections of this section applies is made by a Saorstát Eireann company for an assurance licence to carry on assurance business or businesses of a class or classes mentioned in that sub-section in addition to assurance business or businesses of a class or classes mentioned in the other of the said two next preceding sub-sections, the Minister may grant such application if he is satisfied that such company complies with the conditions set forth in whichever of the said two next preceding sub-sections applies to such application and that such licence is required by such company only pending the completion of arrangements for the transfer of the assurance business or businesses to which the application relates to some other Saorstát Eireann company or companies licensed under this Act to carry on such business or businesses.
(5) Where the Minister grants an assurance licence under the next preceding sub-section of this section the Minister may (without prejudice to any other power of revocation conferred on him by this Act) revoke such licence on the completion of the arrangements for the transfer of the assurance business in respect of which such licence was granted and shall, in any event, revoke such licence at the expiration of nine months after the date of the grant thereof.
On recommittal the Minister agreed to reconsider an amendment providing for the granting of a licence to non-Saorstát companies. I understand he said that if the necessary scheme were put up to him he would introduce an amendment to deal with it. No scheme has been submitted, but it is considered desirable that there should be a provision by which permission might be given, in the event of a suitable scheme being put forward. The Minister has to satisfy himself that the assets of the company are sufficient to enable it to carry on the classes of business proposed, and a licence may be granted on condition that the life and industrial business is to be the subject of amalgamation.
Is the Minister satisfied that the amendment carries out the intention expressed? On reading the amendment it does not appear to me to meet the Minister's intention.
The intention is to make the promise of the Minister a statutory provision in the Bill.
To provide machinery by which the Irish companies, in the event of an amalgamation scheme being entered into——
To carry on non-life business.
This gives the Minister power to issue a licence to a Saorstát Eireann company to carry on general business and life and industrial business for a period of nine months after the appointed day?
Yes.
It is providing an Irish company with an opportunity of divesting itself of fire and general business, if it so desires, and to carry on life and industrial business.
Yes.
I want to repeat an inquiry I made before. Could the Minister tell me how an Irish insurance company is to get rid of its fire and general business, if there is not inserted in the Bill some proviso for valuation and transfer of the business to some other company? When this Bill comes into operation there are going to be in existence in this country two fire and general insurance companies, the Hibernian Fire and Accident Company and the Irish Insurance Corporation, which is owned by the Government, and has Government security. The Minister knows that.
No.
The Minister ought to know that the Irish Insurance Corporation is owned by the Government, because the Industrial Credit Corporation, which is controlled by the Government, has a majority of the shares. The remaining Irish companies which are composite companies are to be acquired within nine months after the appointed day and to divest themselves of fire and general business. How are they to do that? If they go to the Hibernian Company or the Irish Insurance Corporation, asking them to buy their business, in justice to their shareholders these will ask: "Why should we buy something that is going to fall into our laps at the end of nine months? Persons insured with you must insure with someone." The only companies they can insure with are the Hibernian Company or the Irish Insurance Corporation. The good-will of general insurance business of this character is considerable, and the expense of acquiring and building up that business is very large. Because in the initial stages of building up a premium income in the fire and general insurance business, companies frequently have to suffer bad risk experience, and it is only after 10 or 15 years when they get their feet pretty squarely set under them, that they are in a position rigorously to pick and choose risks which they are prepared to accept. These Irish insurance companies are getting to the point where they are making the fire and general insurance business pay dividends. They are informed now that they must divest themselves of that business nine months from the appointed day. If the Minister were on the board of an Irish insurance company, has he any idea of how he would go about disposing of a fire and general insurance business to another company in view of the fact that fire and general insurance business is founded on an annual contract which has to be renewed at the beginning of every year? If the Minister is not prepared to outline some feasible method of transferring this business, the terms of this amendment and of the principal section amount to confiscation.
If the amalgamated company is brought into being, presumably this company in which the Deputy, I take it, is interested, will transfer its life business to the amalgamated company.
What does the Minister say?
If the amalgamated company is established, this company will transfer its life business to the amalgamated company. It can then divest itself of its general business. I do not know whether the difficulties of the small number of companies that are in question are so great. We hope that they will discuss these matters of amalgamation and transfer of business from one to another between themselves. It should not be impossible for them to effect an understanding.
I do not wish to seem unduly contentious, but I think the Minister and I are talking at cross purposes. The question of amalgamating life companies does not arise here. The question under this amendment is the obligation on certain Saorstát companies to divest themselves of fire and general business. The Minister says these companies should be able to settle that between themselves. Suppose I came to the Minister to-morrow morning with a pound of tea and said: "The statute law of Ireland requires that I either sell this pound of tea to you for £1 5s. now or make you a present of the pound of tea on the 1st September," would the Minister give me the £1 5s. or would he say: "I am going to wait until the 1st September and then you will have to give me a present of it"? That is precisely what this legislation says. You have composite companies going around with a pound of fire and general business and saying to their neighbours: "Will you buy this now at a valuation or will you wait for nine months until the statute law compels us to give it to you for nothing?" Does the Minister perceive that?
They can continue to carry on their life business if they have sufficient resources, can they not?
As I see it, only for a period of nine months. Sub-section (5) of amendment No. 20 says:—
Where the Minister grants an assurance licence under the next preceding sub-section of this section the Minister may ...revoke such licence on the completion of the arrangements for the transfer of the assurance business in respect to which such licence was granted and shall, in any event, revoke such licence at the expiration of nine months after the date of the grant thereof.
What is a composite company to do in the light of that?
The Minister does not appear to understand this section or the amendment. I confess I do not, and if it is passed into law I think the insurance companies will not know where they stand. The whole proposal appears to fall within a description I heard in reference to another matter —driving nails into a fog. That is what we are engaged on here—driving nails into a fog. We do not know what is going to happen these insurance companies which have been carrying on a composite business, a fire and general business. Are they to be allowed to make some profit or put in a position to sell to somebody for valuable consideration their general business or are they to be put into the position of having to drop the whole of their general business for the benefit of some of the existing insurance companies that are carrying on? That is the position at the moment.
Sub-section (3), it seems to me, should be taken as somewhat separate from sub-sections (4) and (5). I do not see any limitation on the Minister granting the application of a company to carry on other insurance business provided he is satisfied that the assets are sufficient. The other sub-sections seem to refer to the period of the transfer and the manner by which, if an application is made to him, he will extend the period for at least nine months. I suggest to Deputy Costello that under sub-section (3) it is quite clear that the Minister may grant an application to carry on the business without any other qualification than that he has to be satisfied that the assets of the company are sufficient.
May I point out to the Minister that so far as the Minister for Industry and Commerce is concerned he is taking no risk? There is no concession, in other words, to the company. It is a perfectly solvent institution. Its assets must be able to meet any possible draw there may be upon them. Notwithstanding that fact he says to them on a particular day, nine months after he has given them this licence: "You have got to go out of business." After nine months they are placed in this position. They have got to treat with either of the two companies that have been mentioned, the Irish Insurance Corporation or the Hibernian Company. Alternatively they can do this. These four companies which I believe are in existence — the Irish Life, the New Ireland, the National and a fourth, the name of which I cannot recall at the moment — must come together with an amalgamation proposal. It has to be of the type that the amalgamated company is to have a capital paid up of £100,000. They have not got the Government behind them. The Government was to some extent behind one of the other two companies now in existence. They have only to pay a scrap value for the four companies in respect to which one licence has been granted because the assets are sufficient to meet all liabilities. Either the Hibernian or the Irish Insurance Corporation can bid for the amalgamating company. Assume they bid £10,000 for it and that the other bids £15,000. It is open to the amalgamating company to offer £20,000, but the amalgamating company must find £80,000, in addition, to start a new company. Meantime, there is, apparently, some property, due to some person or bodies of persons, in these four companies. That is to be bought by either of two possible competitors, with a chance of a third. With only three competitors in a case of that sort, does not the transaction amount to something just a little less than confiscation? Surely no one of these companies is going to give them £ for £ value for their property. It does not appear to be good business for the Hibernian or the other Irish company to pay hard cash for something which, in all the circumstances of the case, they might be fairly satisfied would come to them for nothing. If people have put money into any or all of these four companies, it is scarcely fair to wipe that capital out. But we do more than that. We are presenting whatever assets there are to the other two companies. That does not appear to be equitable, fair or just in any respect to the shareholders or owners of the property.
Is not the position under the proposals contained in the amendment that an Irish company can carry on either fire and general business or life business — that there is power to carry on fire and drop life or to carry on life and drop fire? In any event, there will be a loss. If the company elects to carry on fire and general business, then it must lose its life business and its life connection. There is no provision in the Bill to enable it to get any valuable consideration from any other company. If, on the other hand, it elects to retain its life and industrial business, then it must drop its fire and general business. In that event, it is going to lose its connection in that respect and a valuable asset, so that, under the proposal before us, whichever way an Irish insurance company carrying on a composite business prior to the passing of this Bill turns, it is going to lose something. That appears to be the intention of the Government even under the proposals contained in the amendment.
The statement of the Deputy would carry more conviction to me if I were not of opinion that they are already losing something by carrying on both classes of business. Whether they are or not, the principle laid down in the Bill is that there should be a division. In order to safeguard the policy holders, we have decided that there should be a definite partition of the two classes of business. In order to meet the points raised by Deputies on Recommittal, these amendments have been tabled. The position may now be described in this way: Composite companies may elect to do either life or non-life business but, for non-life business, they must have adequate funds. The question of the nine months only arises when a company has applied for a licence to carry on one class permanently and the other class temporarily, pending transfer. To tell us that the companies are going to lose, is to deal with a very small side of this question. We could say that if the Government were not to interfere now with a view to reinforcing the companies, they might lose a great deal more in the long run, or we could say that some of them may be losing even under present conditions. The Deputy has not approached the question as to the basis on which these companies should be enabled to carry on non-life business. I suggest that he has given no great attention to the interests of the insuring public. Surely the Minister must satisfy himself — it is a very modest requirement—that if these companies, having divested themselves of their life business, are going to carry on a non-life business, they should have sufficient funds at their disposal to do so. It is a matter between the companies whether they can effect arrangements as to the transfer of business from one to the other.
If Deputy Costello's point were carried to its logical conclusion, it would mean that we should allow the present state of affairs to continue because we are going to create certain difficulties for the companies by the provisions in the Bill. We are going to create certain difficulties for the companies but the companies have had difficulties already and we feel we are doing by far the best thing even from the narrow point of view of the interests of the directors of the companies. We are doing a thing which will enable them to go to the public and say "This Bill has been passed into law; we are carrying out its provisions; we are strengthening our position and we are going to look for increased business." That, I suggest, is the proper way to look at the question. If we are simply going to discuss this matter from the point of view of the difficulties — admittedly, they may be substantial — that are going to be placed in the way of the companies because they have to comply with the requirements of the Bill, we are not going to get anywhere. We should look at the advantages. Even though they may not come in the immediate future, there are certain advantages.
Why not tell us a few of them?
The main advantage is that they will get an increased amount of business from this time forward and it is quite possible that they will secure the greater portion of Irish business in the future.
I want to make a case here for an Irish insurance company that is not only solvent but has a surplus on both its funds. Let us approach the question from the point of view of such a company. That company is now required to go into the market-place with its fire and general business and announce to all-comers that it is going to be compelled to get rid of that part of its business at the end of nine months, whether it gets anything for it or not. That is a profit-making end of its business — an end which pays a substantial part of its general overhead, headquarter expenses. When it comes to sell the goodwill of that business for whatever it is worth, it has only two potential customers.
What is to prevent them from keeping the business or forming a new company?
They cannot keep it.
They would keep it if they were satisfied that it was the more profitable business.
They are not satisfied that it is the more profitable business. They are satisfied that their life business is much more profitable. But their fire and general business is a growing business, and a business which is already paying a profit and carrying a substantial part of the overhead, headquarter charges. Its ability to do that contributes to the solvency and profitableness of its life and industrial business. Now they are fixed with notice that they must get rid of that fire and general business. They have offices designed to accommodate the two classes of business. Portion of these offices, which were adequate to deal with the two classes of business, is going to become a white elephant. They are fixed with notice that they are to dispose of that fire and general business to one or two potential purchasers, both of whom are aware that if they do not buy that business for valuable consideration now, they will get it for nothing in nine months' time. That is the situation. Is it fair? If this Parliament orders a citizen of this State to part with his property, surely this Parliament ought to provide that that citizen will get some compensation for the property of which he is being divested. If that is not done, then it is confiscation of the property. No one will challenge the right of these two potential purchasers to take all the advantage they can of the law of the land, and I have no doubt about it they will. But when we bear in mind that one is an independent company and that the other is owned by the Government, surely we should expect some consideration from the Minister responsible for this Bill. I say if the Minister stands for amendment No. 20 he ought to take the responsibility of valuing and transferring the fire and general business from these composite companies at a valuation.
It may have been the original intention, before this Bill was brought in, to try to bring about such a scheme as that. But the conditions at the present stage were so complicated, the bringing about of amalgamation was so difficult, that we have to leave this matter now largely in the hands of the companies, and if they can advance to a certain position, the Minister has promised not to bring that part of the Bill into operation. I cannot see why the company in question should be confined to sell to existing companies, for in due course the amalgamated company having taken over their life business they will then be able to carry on the other business. The only qualification is that they must have sufficient resources to satisfy the Minister. I do not see why the Deputy objects to that if he admits that the principle of amalgamation is one to which we should look forward.
I do not admit any such thing.
We see the difficulties of the State coming in. Probably after the Bill becomes law there will be an amalgamation scheme. Then I say again that the Deputy's company is not in such a great state of disability as he leads us to believe.
Would the Minister direct his attention to the fourth last line of this sub-section (3), which provides that the Minister "may grant such application if, but only if, he is satisfied that the assets of such company are sufficient to enable such company to carry on such other assurance business". There is no compliment there. There is no concession there. There is no use in introducing into this discussion the question of companies not being in a position to honour policies they have undertaken and to pay for risks concerned. Here is a case in which a company satisfies the Minister with regard to its assets, and satisfies him that it is in a perfectly sound financial position. That company has some interest in the property concerned. There are, as Deputy Dillon said, two competitors, two companies to bid. There is the third alternative, amalgamation. Amalgamation is limited to this extent, that the company must have £100,000 paid-up capital, a pretty considerable sum.
For the amalgamating companies?
Yes, a pretty considerable sum. The Minister is, I presume, aware of the fact that the company which has been started under favourable auspices was not able to collect a moiety of that amount — even though the best business men in Dublin are on its directorate. With that information present to the Minister's mind, he now makes a condition that amalgamation must take place, amalgamation of some "sound," and some, to use the Minister's own expression, "not quite sound" companies—in fact, companies in such a position that the very existence of this Bill is an excuse to separate them from their present habitations. In these circumstances, is it likely that the new amalgamated company is likely to get £100,000? We are not concerned with the companies which find themselves in a difficult financial position. That is the Minister's task.
We are concerned with property which is at the moment solvent, valuable property, which is contributing towards business generally. The Minister, I presume, will act fairly towards the public, because in that proposal he is more than interfering with those that are non-solvent. He is interfering also with the solvent companies. Is it necessary to give blows and kicks at the same time? He may give a blow at the companies that are sound. But what is he doing in the case of the companies that are not so sound? They are going to be allowed nine months if, and only if, the assets of such companies are able to carry on other insurance business. Does not the Minister see plainly that there is no equity in that proposition? If there were a proposal in this Bill that the Government would undertake to provide a sufficient sum of money for the non-solvent companies to enable an amalgamated company to be formed, there would be some excuse for its action. There would be an excuse if the property which was going to be terminated after nine months would be paid for, but only if it is paid for. It is manifestly unjust to destroy the company in this fashion.
If the Government were not satisfied with the reason which they have given for introducing this Bill — that it seeks to strengthen the position of the Irish companies, to enable them to take additional business and to make it clear that they are in a sound, strong position, they could fall back on the additional reason that it is high time that they should take steps to see that if any unforeseen circumstances should arise, the policy-holders would not be left in the lurch. One would imagine from the statement of the Opposition that there are no interests concerned in this but the interests of the companies. The companies are only secondary interests. The main interest is the protection of the policy-holders and the safeguarding of their interests. Deputies may talk until Doomsday about the favourable position in which some of our insurance companies find themselves. Some of our insurance companies are run very satisfactorily. Some of them give satisfaction to everyone. But unfortunately they are not all in that position. If they were, then the Deputies could query the Government's interference in this matter. But I think they cannot query the policy which has prompted the Government to step in. I think it was generally admitted that it was necessary and opportune for the Government to take these steps. Apart from the aid that the Government is giving in this Bill, and to put beyond question the fact that our Irish companies will get facilities to take over completely, as far as they can, the insurance business in the Saorstát, there will always be strong preference for Irish companies. There must have been some serious reason why the Irish companies are not in as strong a position to-day as we would like them to be. It must be that patriotic fervour is not strong enough. You have to be in a position that the business is well carried out and that it satisfies all reasonable demands as to the security of the policy-holders. Deputies forget that completely. I think that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in putting this amendment on the paper, has gone quite a way to meet Deputies. He has made it quite clear that if a company should join the amalgamated company it will then be one which satisfies him that it has sufficient resources to carry on the business. There is no question as to the amount of capital that will be required. I think that in that matter, as in other matters connected with the Bill, the Minister will have regard to all the circumstances. But I think it is absolutely essential that the main principles of the policy laid down in the Bill should be carried out. They cannot be carried out if we are going to go back to this question of whether insurance business should be divided or should not be divided. It has been laid down by the Minister that it should be divided, and I see no reasons against it.
I cannot see any proposition that has been put up to show us how, otherwise, policy-holders are going to be safeguarded. It may be that we are at the moment a little in advance in certain matters, in what we are trying to do in this Bill, of our friends across the water, but at the same time we are in the position, as has been pointed out frequently, that, after all, our companies are comparatively young. They are only in their infancy. If there is any common interest between them, this Bill will, I hope, make them realise that common interest, if they have not done so up to the present, and they ought to be able to come together and form this amalgamated company. When they do that, any company in which any of the Deputies is interested, once it satisfies the Minister that it has sufficient resources to carry on non-life business under the Bill, can do so.
I do not see how the Minister can go further. The amendment has been put in to meet the wishes of Deputies. If they are not satisfied with it, they ought at least tell us in what respect it is lacking. All we have heard from them is that we are inflicting certain disabilities upon certain Irish companies. Unfortunately, we are. But with regard to the three composite Irish offices, if we do not insert this amendment I suggest that we are only weakening their position and that no case has been made to show that, in fact, with the amount of time that will be given, they have not ample facilities under these new sub-sections to put their house in order.
There is no necessity for introducing any personal question into this matter. Every Deputy is perfectly entitled to have either an interest or investment in any business in this country. It so happens that I have not any interest in any Irish insurance company at the moment, so that I can speak, I presume, with just as much purity as the Minister on the matter. Secondly, let us be clear on business matters. Non-business men can sometimes lecture business men or men who have experience in business, but there are no non-business men in the Government capable of speaking about business to business men or men who have experience of business. When we speak of a company, what does it mean? On the company's strength depends the strength of the policy holders in the company. If the company goes down, the policy holders go down. Is it necessary for us, in connection with every speech made here, to go into every possible detail of business in order to impress the Minister with the strength of a case? This introduction of a line drawn between the company and the policy holders shows the very elementary knowledge of the matter possessed by the Minister or his Department.
It was the Deputy who was drawing the line, not the Minister.
From the commencement, I dealt with the companies as such. The Minister, with his peculiar flair for popularity, introduces the policy holders and wants to know what our interest is in them. Our interest in the policy holders is bound up with the progress, success, and prosperity of the company. If the company's property is diminished in value, then the security of the policy holder diminishes accordingly. Obviously if the company is going to be prosperous and make money, particularly in life business, the profits will flow, and should flow to the policy holders as such. The Minister should deal with the question before us and not bring in these extraneous matters for the purpose of bolstering up what the Minister knows is a weak case. The Government interfere with this business, the same as they interfere with every other business, and everywhere they have interfered they have done damage.
If there are unsound companies, deal with them. What necessity is there for interfering with and injuring sound companies? We say that they are injuring sound companies here. Immediately, the Minister stands up and asks us how we are going to protect them. That is not our business. The Minister has his experts. If he has not experts here he can get them. He has employed experts from elsewhere and they ought to be in a position to tell him. This particular machinery is going to interfere with Irish companies, with Irish money invested in them, and with Irish policy holders who have taken out policies in these companies. If the Minister does not know that, he will learn it.
The Minister has asked a question at any rate that goes to the root not merely of this section but of the whole Bill. Deputy Cosgrave is perfectly sound when he says that nobody in this House has been thinking of the shareholders in any of these insurance companies while neglecting the rights and the safeguarding of the policy-holders. When this Bill was talked of first, there were supposed to be two things before the Government. One was that weak companies, no matter what their origins were, were to be prevented in some way or other from carrying on business, or if their weakness seemed to be only a temporary phase, that they would be helped over the waiting period until such time as they got to a sound position. The second point that was supposed to be occupying the Government's attention was that Irish insurance companies were to be in some way preferred to others, and that, if a case occurred where an Irish insurance company was doing badly because of inability to get business in an economic way, it would be helped, if necessary, by some sort of preferential treatment, or even by prohibition of other companies, and that that native company would be put in a position to recapture, or for the first time to achieve a good position.
What does the Bill do? Let us separate entirely from this consideration the question of dealing with insolvent companies. That can be done quite apart from and completely independent of this matter of dividing the business. If there are insolvent companies, whether native or foreign, they are going to be dealt with by later sections of the Bill, and we can leave them entirely out of consideration. In so far as care for the policy holders has driven the Ministry to take action which will be very adverse to certain existing Irish insurance companies, they could justify themselves on the ground that they are safeguarding Irish policy holders. That is definitely away from this particular section and the amendments which are being discussed. Insolvent companies are going to be dealt with. Companies that are not sufficiently strong are going to be handled by the Ministry, and just what the result of that handling is we will see and know more about in a little while. If we are to judge from Ministers' experience of handling good business, their intervention in bad business is going to be catastrophic.
What about the division of business? The Minister tells us that if this amendment is not passed it will weaken the scheme. That is an interesting admission, because this amendment, in so far as the three sub-sections mean anything, is an amendment which was forced on the Government by arguments stressed here. What does the amendment do? It leaves a choice to companies who, in the course of business, decide that it would be profitable for them to carry on two lines of work. They may make up their minds that one side is more profitable than the other and that they will carry on the more profitable rather than the less profitable one. That is a welcome change, because the Bill, as it stood previously, imposed on them the necessity to drop a certain side of business whether it was the more profitable end or not.
The Minister talks about the help given to insurance companies. The insurance companies have for a long time been left in the dark as to what the advantages are. They do not seem to realise that there are any advantages for them in this measure. The Minister is not able at this moment to say that any Irish insurance company desires this. Certainly, he cannot say that all the Irish insurance companies, as a group, desire this separation of business. The Minister talked about our being in advance of our friends across the water. A man who is running away from a more powerful fellow may think that he is in advance of him if he is just able to keep a little distance, ahead, but that would not be called progress. Is the Minister really fleeing from the bigger interests in this, or trying so to strengthen the Irish companies that they will be able to stand up to the people who are in pursuit of them? As far as the Irish companies are concerned, they think that this is making them run away, and that they are going to be in a weaker position after this to withstand the competitive efforts against them.
We challenged the Minister on the last occasion to give us examples as to where this division of business had been insisted on, and, after a great deal of trouble, we had quoted to us one or two remote countries, and no country with comparable circumstances to our own. We do know that when this matter was inquired into in England in circumstances somewhat similar—and in so far as they are not similar they do not weigh in favour of the introduction of this division of business here— there was no recommendation in favour of a division of business. When the matter was discussed here it failed to find a recommendation that the business should be divided. All that was insisted on, and this is a matter of agreement pretty generally where insurance business is discussed, was that certain funds should be kept apart.
The Ministry here, believing that they are in advance of the times, insist on a separation of business. I do not know how it is going to strengthen the Irish companies. The Minister says that our companies are young. That is a rather peculiar reason to put forward for making them shoulder bigger burdens than the older companies are made shoulder in other countries. The Minister is face to face with this fact that certain companies in this country, and the good companies amongst them, decided to carry on mixed business. They are ready and willing to submit to any instruction given to them, or to any Act of Parliament passed against them to separate, and keep separate, certain funds and certain assets, but they object unanimously to this compulsory division of business. They are the best judges surely on the question of profitable business. If the companies in this country that are not so stable are inquired into it will not be found, in the main, that they have failed to reach a good position because they carried on a mixed business or a joint business. It will be found that their position is due to completely different circumstances. In face of the opposition of all the Irish companies and in face of the opposition of those companies individually—the good companies having proved that it is better for them to carry on two sides of a profitable business than to be made carry on one—the Minister, relying on some sort of a theoretical, academic argument, introduces this compulsory division of business. There has been no argument, founded on business considerations, brought forward yet in favour of it, and there is no argument capable of being brought forward founded on the recommendation of anybody who has seriously considered this matter in circumstances comparable to ours. In spite of all that we have been told, that the Irish companies have vehemently asserted that there will be a deprivation of profits to them, the Minister insists that this is going to strengthen them.
Was the Minister aware when he spoke earlier this afternoon on this section with reference to the solvency or insolvency of certain companies and to the desirability of meeting that problem by this means, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated on the last stage of this Bill that the principle of partitioning the business of all the Irish companies had no relation whatever to the problem that exists in this country as to the solvency or alleged insolvency of Irish companies? That was the Minister's view on the last occasion, that the alleged insolvency of some Irish companies had nothing to do with this principle of partitioning business. Why does the Minister now drag that point in for discussion here? Does he differ from his colleague?
I object to the suggestion that the Ministry are introducing this Bill for the sake, or almost for the sake, of interfering with Irish companies which are carrying on their business in a satisfactory way. Of course, that is not a true picture of the situation and the Deputies opposite know very well that it is not. They discard all responsibility by telling us that their only concern is for the companies that are in a fairly strong position, and that those companies which may be described as being in a weaker position are not their concern, but I would point out to the Deputies opposite that such companies are the concern of the Dáil and of the Legislature as well as of the people who hold policies with them. No other solution has been put up.
Solution for what?
As to how the problem that faces us in putting our Irish insurance business on a proper basis is to be solved.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce said on the last stage of the Bill that this principle had nothing whatever to do with this problem: that it was a good principle in itself.
And it is. It is a good principle because the life funds should, as far as possible, be kept separate——
And so they can.
——and should be there as a guarantee for the policy holders.
We are all agreed on that.
But the Deputies opposite have not made any suggestion or any proposal as to how that can be accomplished: as to how the policy-holders can be absolutely safeguarded by any arrangement of the accounts or otherwise.
It is a pity that the Minister was not here for the Committee Stage of the Bill.
I read the whole debate, and so far as I could see, no definite proposal was made. The Deputy attacked this proposal on the ground that it proposed to cast a disability on certain Irish companies at the present moment, but he has not made any definite suggestion. If the Deputies opposite, or those for whom they speak, can assure the Minister that they are able to carry on business, then the difficulties can be got over. The whole question is whether or not they are sufficiently strong, and I do not think it is finding any fault with the Irish companies, or doing them any injury, to suggest that, in view of the comparatively short period in which they have been carrying on business. They cannot, of course, be compared to their rivals across the water. As regards the contention of the Deputies opposite, that the division of business is injurious to the Irish companies, I would like them to satisfy themselves, first of all, that all the Irish companies are finding it profitable to carry on both kinds of business, and that all the Irish companies are able to pay dividends to their shareholders from both kinds of business. In any event what is the particular virtue in permitting a company to carry on all kinds of business? Is there not enough room in Saorstát Eireann for three companies doing non-life business? I believe there is, and I can see no reason why three companies cannot get sufficient business here to enable them to go ahead.
The Minister said that he had read all the debates on this Bill. I would like to refer him to the debate that took place on the 3rd of June last, at columns 1595-6, when I put this statement to the Minister for Industry and Commerce:—
"Do I take it the Minister's intention is to secure by an appropriate amendment that one of the courses open to Irish composite offices is to transfer existing general business to an existing Irish company without the necessity for amalgamation?"
The Minister for Industry and Commerce answered "Yes." The Minister is not carrying out that.
If the Deputy suggests that the Minister made any suggestion that he was not fully in favour of amalgamation and anxious to pursue it—that is what I see here in column 1596.
There is a very specific statement put by me. I was drawing attention to the possible effects of the phraseology in Section 12 (4) (b). The Minister then made the statement reported in column 1595:
"I explained to the Deputy that the phraseology of that paragraph may require revision."
Incidentally, he must have changed his mind, because he has not revised it.
"I do not wish to be put in the position of having, in relation to an Irish company, of the solvency of which there can be no question, greater powers in that respect than I would have in relation to a foreign company doing the same class of business."
I then put this query:
"Do I take it the Minister's intention is to secure by an appropriate amendment that one of the courses open to Irish composite offices is to transfer existing general business to an existing Irish company without the necessity for amalgamation?"
And the Minister's answer was "Yes." That is what we were contending for, that when there is this division of assets effected, the Irish company should be in a position to transfer to some other existing Irish company. The Minister said that that was his intention and he proposed to ensure that by an appropriate amendment and he has not done so.
I am surprised that the Deputy did not read out the statement which begins with "Yes." The Minister proceeded from that point:
"Again I want to qualify my statement, because I am anxious to secure an arrangement in relation to these matters which may enable the intention of the Government to be fulfilled while at the same time meeting quite reasonable objections which the companies have to put forward."
Then he goes on to point out the advantages of the amalgamation:
"I think amalgamation is a good thing for everybody concerned, the companies, the insured persons and the public. I would like to see that amalgamation effected.... We are not taking powers under this Bill to create that position compulsorily, but I hope that as a result of forces that will be set in motion consequent on the passage of the Bill, the tendency will be in that direction..."
I think it is quite clear the Minister had in view the question of amalgamation there.
My question was very specific.
What does "Yes" mean?
I asked the Minister if it was his intention to secure that one of the courses open to Irish composite offices was to transfer existing general business to an Irish company without the necessity of amalgamation and he said "Yes".
That was a definite assent.
If "Yes" meant what Deputy Costello takes it to mean, it would mean that the provisions in the Bill would go west, so to speak, dealing with amalgamation.
What other meaning than one can we give to the word "Yes" used by the Minister, whether it goes west, south, east or north?
It would be a difficult task of interpretation to make "Yes" mean something else than what it really does mean.
I think it is quite customary, as the Deputy knows, for the Minister to say "Yes" and then go on to explain or qualify the statement.
I never would have said anything as bad about him—to say "Yes" and not to mean it.
Not necessarily.
We want that promised amendment.
Do you want to have this amendment withdrawn?
We want the amendment that was promised. How can we ever carry on Parliamentary business if a Minister makes a specific statement about the introduction of an appropriate amendment and then fails to bring it in? Where can there be for the future any reliance on the promises made during the stages of a Bill?
If the Minister bound himself to introduce that amendment, he also bound himself to see that his amalgamation proposals were going to be carried out.
Let him do that.
The Minister definitely promised an amendment.
If the word "Yes" does not mean "No," then it was his intention that the existing Irish companies could transfer their business to an existing Irish office. If the word "Yes" means "No," I agree that I am talking up in the air.
There was a specific promise about an amendment. Has it been carried out?
I understand the amendment has been drafted to suit the Irish composite companies.
They were not talking in this House. There was a definite question put in the House. What are Parliamentary pledges? What do they mean?
If Deputies do not wish to have the amendment, I can withdraw it. It was put in to meet them and now, apparently, it does not satisfy them.
Was this put in as the fulfilment of the pledge?
It was.
Does the Minister now believe that it fulfils the pledge?
It is quite obvious that it does not.
As regards the Minister's intention, here is what he was asked:—
"Do I take it the Minister's intention is to secure by an appropriate amendment that one of the courses open to Irish composite offices is to transfer existing general business to an existing Irish company without the necessity for amalgamation?"
The answer was "Yes." Now, is that fulfilled? Is the amendment before us?
Does the Deputy wish me to read the three or four columns of discussion that followed?
No, because the reading of it would not get the Minister a suitable explanation. The word "Yes" stands out there. Where is the amendment?
We are not discussing the word "Yes." We are discussing an amendment and if the Deputy is not satisfied with it, why has he not suggested how it can be improved?
I am suggesting that one improvement is to establish the Minister's good faith by bringing in the amendment specifically promised in that discussion. That is what we want.
And he might turn the months into years, and that will make the other companies pay a decent price—nine years instead of nine months.
Had not this better be taken back to the Minister who made the promise?
Will the Minister look into the undertaking his colleague gave to me on the phraseology of the section? I pointed out that while this amalgamation was pending, a number of people who held policies in the company would be very prejudicially affected if the Bill remained as it was at that time, and the Minister agreed with me. I took the case of a workman who was employed by a person who had a policy of insurance with one of these Irish companies. This workman was injured seriously, and the result was that he was entitled to compensation lasting for the rest of his life. His security is not his employer, who may go out of business, become bankrupt, or have no money; his security is the assets of the Irish insurance company. I pointed out that that security was swept away by the provisions of this Bill. The Minister undertook to look into that aspect of the case. There is nothing in this amendment dealing with that matter.
The Minister raised other points. I wonder could we clear these weak companies out of the way, in so far as they are blocking the way in this discussion? The weak companies are our concern, he said. They are. We may not approve of the proposals for dealing with the weak companies, but there are proposals for dealing with them, and this particular division of business was not put up to the House as the way in which to deal with the insolvent or the about-to-become-insolvent companies. It had other meanings, a totally different aim about it. If the weak companies are our concern, and if the Minister thinks the proposals for dealing with the insolvent companies are not sufficient, he can amend them. But the insolvent companies occupy a particular part of this measure, and it is not this section. The Minister previously in charge of the Bill said he separated the two matters and there was no impact of the insolvent Irish companies upon this particular section.
If the Minister had read the debate in a little bit more detail he would have found that there was complete agreement in the House on one of the proposals which he mentioned here recently—that life funds should be kept separate from other funds. There was absolute agreement on that in the House. As far as anybody who spoke in the debate was concerned, there was not the slightest sign of an objection against that principle. It was the extension of that principle into this division of the business that was objected to. We sat here through a number of days, and waited for any hint of an argument from the Government Benches as to why, having accepted the principle of the separation of funds, it was necessary to go on to this matter of the division of the business. The two points were never joined in an argument. The Minister says that there was no suggestion made as to how to deal with the problem, the problem presumably being that upon which we were all agreed — agreed first of all that it was a problem, and agreed on the answer given in regard to it, that the funds should be separate. There were many suggestions put up; the most comprehensive suggestion put up was contained in a series of arguments founded upon quotations from the report of the Commission in England which considered this point amongst others, and which definitely recommended—having found that the 1909 Act was deficient in certain respects—a way out of those difficulties.
The only answer which the Minister then dealing with the measure found it possible to make to those arguments was that the Committee, in recommending certain things, had used the phrase that in such a complex matter they could not have a guarantee that their proposals would meet all the difficulties, but they put their proposals forward as, at any rate, an attempt to meet them and in the hope that the difficulties would be met. That, I think, shifted the onus. It was then for the Ministry to show that the proposals suggested in that report, and suggested from this side of the House, as an attempt to meet the difficulty would not achieve what was desired. No argument was made on that point. The only attempt at an argument was to say that, since those expert people who considered this matter had themselves said they could not guarantee that their suggestions would reach the objective, they must therefore be misleading or they must be deficient in some regard. But concrete proposals were put up to the Ministry, and there was no suggestion from the Ministry that they were likely to be deficient in the circumstances which prevailed here. The Minister wants to know what is the virtue in allowing a company to carry on all businesses together. The virtue is that they themselves discovered it to be a virtue in practice. They found it was profitable. They decided to carry on different types of business. They thought it was good business, and there has been nothing urged against their practical experience which convinced them that their experience was wrong, or which coerced them into agreeing with the Ministry that in order to achieve the separation of funds one must have a division of the business.
The Minister believes it is a counter argument to the points raised here to ask have we investigated and found that all the companies are able to carry on both types of business. I do not know whether they are or not, and I am not concerned as to whether they are or not. What I am objecting to is this compulsion on all companies to refrain from carrying on the joint business. If there are certain companies who have not been able to carry on all classes of business, they probably will not enter into it now. If there are some who, while carrying on business of different types, found one end not profitable, they are likely to drop that now. But the objection to the Bill is founded on the fact that the Ministry are making it obligatory on all companies, whether they found it good business to carry on mixed business or not, to separate their business, and for the future to engage in only one type of activity. That is being supported here and pushed through the Dáil by a majority vote, without the Government having been able to convince the people in the business that it is good for them, and without any argument being suggested here which would convince anybody interested in the matter, and not materially interested in the business, that it is a good proposal.
If the Minister recurs to the argument about insolvency, let him read the end of the Bill which he is discussing. There are proposals there dealing with insolvent companies, and there is no inter-action as between that part of the measure and the part we are discussing. The Minister previously in charge of the Bill specifically said that Section 12 was not intended to embody the insolvent companies' position and had nothing to do with that particular end of the matter.
I think I should refer, A Chinn Comhairle, when Deputy McGilligan tells us we have no example or no precedent for this kind of legislation regarding the separation of life and non-life classes of business in countries comparable to ours—I presume he had Great Britain in mind — to the fact that in a great many continental countries this is the rule. It may not appeal to the Deputy, but I see no reason why it cannot be adduced as an argument in favour of the usefulness and worthiness of the principle. It is also possible that he has not adverted to the fact that the English companies carried on only one type of business for a considerable time until they were strongly established, and had established themselves in the eyes of the people. I think it is not too much to say that it is quite possible that all our Irish companies at present are not equipped to carry on both types of business. Deputies may say what they wish with regard to the amendment, but again, A Chinn Comhairle, I wish to say that if they do not think it meets their point of view they should have put up some alternative. It has been put in definitely to meet the position of the three composite Irish companies. We have not had any representations from them, during the time that this amendment has been before the public, to show that it is not satisfactory, and in my opinion there is no way in which it can be improved.
On a point of order or procedure arising out of the discussion, the Minister now says that it was our duty to suggest an alternative proposal. I want to ask for a ruling on this matter. In regard to the procedure in this House, I understood that, when matters are discussed in Committee and the principle of an amendment suggested by the Opposition is accepted, the general practice is to wait for the Government to put forward an amendment on the point, and then if it is not satisfactory the Opposition seeks another opportunity to raise the matter in a different way. As far as this is concerned, Deputy Costello on the last occasion asked this question: "Do I take it to be the Minister's intention to secure by an appropriate amendment that one of the courses open to Irish composite offices is to transfer existing general business to an existing Irish company without the necessity for amalgamation"? The answer was "Yes." The Minister now in charge of the Bill tries to prove that that "Yes" does not mean "Yes." There is there a specific promise of an amendment. The amendment was not forthcoming. I suggest the procedure has always been, when an amendment of that type is promised, that the Government tables an amendment of the sort, variations to which may then be suggested by the Opposition.
That is my recollection of the procedure.
I thought so. I suggest then that, the Chair having assented to the course of procedure which I have outlined, this section should be brought back to the Minister who made that specific promise — we may discuss the Bill, holding this over —so that he may give the Minister now in charge of the Bill some reason why that specific promise has not been fulfilled.
The Chair has no power to compel the Minister to make any such statement.
I understand that. But the Minister has raised a point about no alternative suggestion having been made from this side. I suggest that the ordinary course is that, an amendment having been promised, it is the Opposition's privilege to wait until it makes its appearance, and then to suggest variations. The amendment has not appeared; procedure sanctioned by many years' practice in this House has been broken — broken contrary to a very specific promise given by the Minister who was in charge of the measure. I suggest that this should be held over for his consideration.
I am satisfied, Sir, that the amendment meets the position which the Minister had in mind and I have not the intention of putting forward a new amendment.
I asked the Minister to consider this: that an amendment was promised to secure that one course open to an Irish composite office was to transfer its general business to an existing Irish company without amalgamation. Is that now in the section?
Yes.
Is it open to a composite company to transfer its general business to an existing Irish company without the necessity for amalgamation, and, if so, where is it in the section?
It is not anywhere.
It is in sub-section (3). The company may carry on its business once the Minister is satisfied that the assets are sufficient to enable it to do so.
That is dealing with carrying on its business. We are dealing with transfer of its business.
We are dealing with transfer of its business to an existing company without the necessity for amalgamation. That is more precise.
Where is the reference to amalgamation in the amendment?
Have I to read that promise again? The promise is that a company will be allowed to transfer its general business to an existing Irish company without the necessity for amalgamation. Where is that?
Are they not enabled to transfer under the Bill as it stands?
Well, where are they?
There is no prohibition, in fact, against their transferring business at the present time.
Without the necessity for amalgamation?
Yes. This part of the Bill will only come into operation when Part II. is implemented and that will probably be one of the final stages of the Bill coming into operation as a whole.
The Minister promised to introduce an appropriate amendment to secure a certain thing. Where is the appropriate amendment?
This is it.
This is it? Does the Minister mean that some part of this amendment, on page 3 of the amendment sheet, allows an Irish composite company to transfer its general business to an existing Irish company, and, if so, which part of the amendment allows that?
Sub-section (3).
Where does sub-section (3) refer to transfer?
It says that the Minister may grant an application to enable the company to carry on business if the Minister is satisfied that the assets of the company are sufficient to enable it to carry on such other business.
Yes, to carry on; but we are talking about transfer.
To carry on such other business.
Where is the transfer? Surely, Sir, it is clear that this amendment should be taken back?
Arising out of this, Sir, again I want to refer to the fact that the Minister has not dealt with an additional point made by me. It is quite clear, of course, that he cannot deal with the point made by Deputy McGilligan. That specific "Yes"— unless it means "No"—has not been implemented by the Minister. Now, in column 1575 of the Debates of the 3rd June, I drew the attention of the Minister to certain consequences that might ensue from these proposals on the policy-holders for whom the Minister purports to be acting or on whose behalf he is really most anxious, and I drew the attention of the Minister to certain consequences that would ensue as a result of certain of these proposals about partitioning business. The Minister agreed with me that these consequences might conceivably arise if the phraseology of the Bill were to remain as it then stood, and he undertook to have the matter looked into. What does the Minister propose to do in regard to that particular matter in so far as it affects the rights of the people he is so anxious about?
The amalgamation is voluntary and the rights of the policy-holders will be protected.
It is really almost impossible to get the Minister to appreciate a point. This has nothing to do with amalgamation. It is pending amalgamation that the rights of policy-holders may be affected, as set out in column 1575, and the Minister then agreed with me and said he would have it looked into. Obviously he has not done so.
May I say, Sir, in reply to Deputy McGilligan's point, that there is nothing to prevent the companies from transferring their business under the 1909 Act?
May I again say, Sir, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, apparently, was not of that view? He said that he would introduce an appropriate amendment, and the purpose of the amendment was to enable what I am asking for to be done. I suggest that he would never have talked about introducing such an amendment if he thought it was possible to do it already under the Bill. Where, then, is the amendment? There has been a complete breach of the promise given, and anybody who reads that debate and sees that promise knows that that is a fact—that it is a complete breach of that undertaking—and I do not know how Parliamentary procedure is going to be carried on if that type of conduct is to be allowed. A man says "Yes" and then does not fulfil what the "Yes" stands for. There is no reason for that attitude unless it is to excuse his own ignorance.
Question—"That the new sub-sections be therein inserted"—put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In page 11, to delete Section 12 (4).
The purpose of this is merely to delete a sub-section. I think it is consequential on the preceding amendment.
On the fulfilling of the old promise!
And no advertence to the difficulties referred to in column 1575.
Would the Deputy quote to me where there is this promise? The Minister, on the occasion referred to, said:—
"I am disposed to agree with Deputy Costello that it is desirable that we should discuss the principle of the division of business on the section rather than on this amendment, although the amendment has more direct relation to it."
He then goes on to say that there are questions of phraseology and that the phraseology of the section might require to be recast. These amendments were put in hands before I took over the Minister's duties. They were already in the hands of the draftsman, and I think the Minister has examined all the amendments. As far as the knowledge of the amendments is concerned, he had knowledge of what was being done.
Had he knowledge of what he promised?
Amendment No. 21 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In page 13, at the end of Section 12 to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(12) Whenever an application is duly made in accordance with this Act by a syndicate for an assurance licence to carry on one or more than one class of assurance business other than life assurance business, industrial assurance business, or bond investment business, the Minister shall not (without prejudice to any other power of refusal conferred on him by this Act) grant such application unless he is satisfied that —
(a) such syndicate on the 31st day of October, 1935, carried on in Saorstát Eireann such one or more than one class of assurance business other than life assurance business, industrial assurance business or bond investment business, and
(b) the members comprising such syndicate on the said date complied with the provisions of the Eighth Schedule to the Act of 1909, and
(c) such syndicate has filed with the Registrar of Companies—
(i) a list (certified by the Chairman of Lloyd's) of the names and the addresses of the members who form such syndicate, and
(ii) the names and the addresses of one or more persons resident in Saorstát Eireann who are authorised to accept on behalf of such syndicate service of any notice, documents, or legal process.
This is consequential on the amendment dealing with Lloyd's.
I am almost getting tired of drawing the Minister's attention to flaws in this Bill. I shall draw his attention to this one again—this one about Lloyd's. Of course, again I realise that in the short space between June and July there really must be some mistakes with regard to the provisions in reference to Lloyd's. This amendment says:—
Whenever an application is duly made in accordance with this Act by a syndicate for an assurance licence to carry on one or more than one class of assurance business other than life assurance business. ...the Minister shall not grant such application unless he is satisfied...
and then it goes on to state that the Minister must be satisfied that certain conditions have been fulfilled. One of the conditions is that such syndicate, on the 31st day of October, 1935, carried on in Saorstát Eireann the classes of business mentioned therein. Now, look at the definition of the word "syndicate" that we have inserted in this Bill to-day. According to this amendment, unless a syndicate, as defined in this Bill, carried on business on the 31st of last October, the Minister cannot grant a licence. The definition of "syndicate" which we have just passed in amendment No. 4 is "any group of underwriters who are members of Lloyd's and who are certified by the Chairman of the Committee of Lloyd's to have formed themselves into a syndicate for the purposes of this Act." How on earth could they have been carrying on business as insurers in 1935 for the purposes of this Act?
Is that the point?
I do not expect the Minister to understand it, but that is the point.
I think the Parliamentary draftsman is capable of dealing with that.
If he was, was he capable of making the Minister understand it?
That is a point.
It is hardly a point but we can discuss it.
How could a syndicate formed for the purposes of this Act have carried on business in 1935?
Not merely that, but certified to have been formed for the purposes of this Act. Unless we are going to make the chairman of the Committee of Lloyd's certify something which is not true, there is a difficulty. If Lloyd's come in here, they should come with clean hands and not with a false certificate.
Do we understand this amendment is going into the Bill with the position as I have indicated? Are we to hold ourselves up to ridicule merely because the Minister will not accept the point or get advice on it?
The draftsman considered the point and adheres to his view.
The draftsman considered the point before I raised it? Is that the Minister's suggestion?
Yes. Possibly he adverted to it even before the Deputy raised it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In page 14, at the end of Section 13, to insert the following word and new paragraph:—
and
(e) the Registrar of Companies shall, if required by any person and on payment to such Registrar by such person of whichever of the following fees is the lesser, that is to say, a fee of six pence for every folio of seventy-two words, or a fee of one pound, issue to such person copies (certified by such Registrar to be true copies) of any of the matters required by this Part of this Act to be filed with such Registrar by any such company and all such copies when so certified shall be prima facie evidence of the contents thereof and it shall not be necessary to prove the signature of such Registrar or that he was in fact such Registrar.
This is to enable companies to obtain certified copies of documents which will be accepted by the courts.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In page 14, before Section 14, to insert a new section as follows:—
Whenever an application has been duly made in accordance with this Act by a syndicate for an assurance licence to carry on one or more than one class of assurance business other than life assurance business, industrial assurance business, or bond investment business, or whenever an assurance licence has been granted to a syndicate to carry on one or more than one class of assurance business (other than as aforesaid), the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) any alteration in the membership of such syndicate shall be notified by the chairman of Lloyd's to the Registrar of Companies within the prescribed time, and
(b) any notice, document or legal process may (save as may be otherwise required by or under any rules of court or an order of a court or judge) be served by being left with the persons resident in Saorstát Eireann specified for that purpose by such syndicate under this Part of this Act or by being sent by prepaid ordinary post to such persons at their addresses as so specified by such syndicate, and
(c) the Registrar of Companies shall, if satisfied that such syndicate has filed with him the matters required by this Part of this Act to be so filed by it, issue a certificate under his hand certifying that such syndicate has so filed the matters which it is so required to file, and
(d) every such certificate shall be prima facie evidence of the matters stated therein and it shall not be necessary to prove the signature of the Registrar of Companies or that he was in fact such Registrar, and
(e) the Registrar of Companies shall if required by any person and on payment to such Registrar by such persons of whichever of the following fees is the lesser, that is to say, a fee of sixpence for every folio of seventy-two words, or a fee of one pound, issue to such person a copy (certified by such Registrar to be a true copy) of any of the matters required by this Part of this Act to be filed with such Registrar by such syndicate and every such copy when so certified shall be prima facie evidence of the contents thereof and it shall not be necessary to prove the signature of such Registrar or that he was in fact such Registrar.
This provides for the furnishing by the syndicates of necessary information to the Registrar of Companies. The particulars are similar to those required from the companies, modified to suit the special circumstances of the syndicates.
May I again draw the Minister's attention to certain requirements that should be inserted here in relation to these syndicates? I feel that I am really wasting time in drawing the attention of the Minister to the points that are arising in this Bill. However, nobody can say afterwards that we did not draw attention to them, and I have great hopes that we will reap a rich harvest in the legal profession from the provisions that are being allowed to pass in this Bill. At all events, nobody can say that we, as an Opposition, did not draw attention to them as they were going through. Under the Act of 1909, every assurance company defined as the definition runs in the Act of 1909 has to make certain deposits. It is an obligation under the Act of 1909 and the only persons exempt from that are Lloyd's, under Section 28. It is only by reason of the fact that there is special exemption in the Act of 1909 that Lloyd's are exempted, but the only persons who are bound to make the deposits are assurance companies as defined by the Act. When we pass this Bill, Lloyd's will not be bound to make any deposit nor to comply with the provisions of the Eighth Schedule because they are not an assurance within the meaning of the 1909 Act.
By an earlier amendment which we have passed to-day we have taken precautions to ensure that there will be a difference between an assurance company and a syndicate. We have inserted an amendment providing that the word "syndicate" is to be added to a section after the words "assurance company". Therefore, it is quite clear, if it was not abundantly clear otherwise, that there is a difference in this Bill between assurance companies and syndicates. It is only assurance companies that are bound to make a deposit under the Act and Lloyd's are not bound to make a deposit under Section 28, except for the purpose of getting out of obligations that might be imposed by the Act of 1909. There is no obligation on a syndicate, and there will be no obligation on them to make deposits or to comply with the Eighth Schedule.
Of course, there is no obligation as the Bill stands, but I think amendment No. 35 covers the point.
That has nothing to do with it. It does not answer the point I make at all, because, even assuming that Section 14 will read as it is proposed under this amendment, the Minister is not to grant it unless they have made the deposit they are required to make. If they are not required to make any deposit, as I suggest is the case under the Bill at the moment, that section is meaningless.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In page 14, line 12, Section 14 (1). after the word "company" to insert the words "or a syndicate", and in line 15, after the word "company" to insert the words "or the Committee of Lloyd's (as the case may be)".
This is consequential on the introduction of Lloyd's.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In page 14, before Section 15 (b), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(b) the Minister shall be named as respondent in any application to the High Court under the next preceeding paragraph of this section.
This is brought in in fulfilment of a promise, which, I hope, is satisfactory.
Breaking all precedents.
Amendments agreed to
I move amendment No. 27:—
In page 15, to delete Section 16 (b) and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—
(b) if granted to an assurance company, state the name of such assurance company, and if granted to a syndicate, state the names and the addresses of the members constituting such syndicate, and
and in paragraph (c) in line 8, immediately after the word "company" to insert the words and brackets "or syndicate (as the case may be)," and in paragraph (d), in line 10, before the word "to" to insert the words and brackets "or syndicate (as the case may be)."
This again is consequential on the introduction of Lloyd's.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28a:—
In page 15, before Section 17 (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Whenever a syndicate, which is the holder of an assurance licence for the time being in force, ceases to carry on in Saorstát Eireann the class of assurance business to which such assurance licence relates, the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, on the application of some other syndicate, transfer the said assurance licence to such other syndicate, and for that purpose amend the said assurance licence by substituting therein (by correction or endorsement) such other syndicate as the licensee thereunder.
This gives continuity to the idea of a syndicate, in so far as the Minister has power to license the transfer of an assurance business to another syndicate.
That will be another syndicate many years hence.
I suppose so.
If Deputy Costello is right in his reading of the definition, it means some other syndicate which will be certified by the Chairman of Lloyd's to have been formed for the purposes of the Act.
I am informed that the draftsman is quite satisfied with the phraseology. I leave it to the lawyers.
Is he satisfied with the whole report?
Yes.
Is he not satisfied with all the amendments?
He adverted to that point.
The answer goes so far, that the draftsman is satisfied and the Minister is satisfied, then why have a Report Stage?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:—
In page 15, before Section 18, to insert the following new section:—
Any agreement or covenant whether made or entered into before or after the passing of this Act and whether contained in a lease, contract of tenancy, fee farm grant or contract or agreement of any kind providing for the insurance of property of any kind in a foreign company or in a company to be approved of shall be deemed to be validly and effectively fulfilled if such insurance is or has been effected with a Saorstát Eireann company to which an assurance licence has been granted under this Act.
The Minister must be familiar with the position where persons take a lease of a house, or are prepared to build a house on certain land, and the owner of the house or land, as the case may be, in many cases provides that it shall be a condition of the fulfilment of the lease that the property shall be insured for a certain sum with a particular insurance company, and not unfrequently the company selected is incorporated in Great Britain. Cases have occurred where persons who owned large tracts of land allowed it to be built upon, but insisted on inserting in the lease a provision that the lessee should insure with some of the British companies. It is a nationally offensive requirement for an owner of land to stipulate that a house must be insured with a company incorporated outside the country. I have known cases where persons were told that their leases were void because of a breach of a covenant, because they had insured with an Irish company instead of a British company. Ground landlords' interests are adequately safeguarded particularly in this Bill, and if a lessee insures with an Irish company for whatever sum is provided, if there is such a provision in the lease, since we are dealing with insurance legislation, and as many cases arise where there is natural bias against Irish companies, we ought to lay it down that the covenant will be fulfilled if the property is insured with an Irish company. It frequently happens that the owners of land have agents who are also appointed as agents for British insurance companies, and, as they are vested with power to let land, they often stipulate the amount of insurance to be placed on the property with companies for which they are agents. It is well known, particularly in connection with large holdings which are used for building purposes, that British companies have been quite willing to appoint persons of that class as agents if they can undertake that the property will be covered with them. This is an eminently reasonable amendment and, having regard to the general purport of the Bill, I hope the Minister can see his way to accept it.
I am advised that the effect of the amendment, if accepted, would be to interfere with existing contracts. It is a practice for lessors to lay down conditions in leases specifying certain insurance companies. It would be a definite interference with contracts if the amendment were accepted. In any event, it seems to be discriminatory, and we have already discussed at great length the question of discriminatory provisions against foreign companies. The principles of the Bill are definitely against discrimination of this kind. I cannot accept the amendment.
Is there not discrimination there already? I move the amendment to remove discrimination.
This is not the way to remove it.
Apparently the Minister does not desire to remove it.
Yes.
There is no amendment to remove discrimination against Irish companies. Apparently the Minister is quite content to allow persons who are granting leases to prescribe that property or land shall be insured with non-Saorstát companies. In other words, a person is tied, if he takes a house or land on lease, to insure with British companies and is prevented from insuring with Irish companies. Is there not something obviously wrong in a position where a man who owns land leases it to a person who wishes to erect a house on it, but stipulates that the building must be insured with companies incorporated outside?
He may consider that necessary for the protection of the property.
He may. One might say that in the past he could urge that he was not convinced to the contrary. This is an Insurance Bill which we were told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce is designed to consolidate and to regularise the position of Saorstát companies, so that no company that is in a financially doubtful position will be allowed to continue in existence. According to Section 32 the Central Fund will be drawn on as a basis of guarantee of the solvency of any company whose financial existence may have been somewhat cloudy. If we are to believe the statements that were made in favour of this Bill, it is to strengthen and consolidate Irish companies so that fears regarding them that existed in the past will be groundless.
I suggest that while the amendment may appear to be an interference with contracts, these contracts contained a provision which was nationally offensive, and the Minister should take power, so that if a person wishes to insure property with an Irish company that is solvent he should not be prevented from doing so by any clause in a lease. There is no case for landowners insisting on this money being continually exported. If the Minister does not like this amendment, will he say what he intends to do to remove such an objectionable clause?
The Deputy's amendment is not the proper way to deal with it. I suggest that in the course of time, if the Irish companies prosper, as we hope, and secure the respect of the insuring public, the position will solve itself.
That means that the Minister will not be prepared to accept this amendment? I am not discussing its desirability at the moment. The Minister would not be prepared to accept the amendment even if it related only to agreements entered into after the passing of the Act?
That is a different question.
The Minister's argument was directed against the amendment as it stands. Would he be equally against an amendment of the kind I have suggested?
I do not know what justification there would be for putting in a provision of this kind or for picking out this particular way of purporting to help Irish insurance companies, unless there are abuses in the matter or some situation of which I am not aware.
Even if it were accepted that the insurance could be effected at Lloyd's?
Do I take it that the Minister's position is that he knows there are cases——
I do not.
——where ground landlords insist on property on their land being insured with British companies and where they will not recognise a policy of insurance with an Irish company as a fulfilment of the terms of the lease and that the Minister proposes to do nothing in the matter? Is that the Minister's position? If it is, of course, it is plain that the Minister does not want to do anything to remedy such abuses as exist at the moment. It is clear that the Minister does not intend to interfere in cases of that kind. He feels happy and comfortable in a situation where landlords insist that their property in this country must be insured with a company outside this country. I venture to say that if the codes and practices of land legislation in European countries were examined, you would probably not find another instance of that kind. Yet the Minister is perfectly content to allow that situation to continue, this piece of national offensiveness against Saorstát companies.
I think that it is a bad principle to interfere with these existing contracts and that is what the amendment purports to do. If it were the situation that there were no objections to this amendment on other grounds, we have no proof that Irish companies would be able to undertake all the business granted to them. Even if that were established, I do not think this is a proper way to deal with this question to help Irish companies.
On the question of interfering with contracts, surely the Minister recollects that we wrote down the capital of the railways from about £27,000,000 to £11,000,000? Was that not interference with contracts? For the Government to plead that this amendment interferes with contracts, after it has passed a Bill which wrote down the capital of Irish railways from £27,000,000 to £11,000,000 is absurdly inconsistent.
The example I was going to give was somewhat different from that mentioned by Deputy Norton. I was going to welcome the argument put forward by the Minister as indicating a new line of policy but it comes very badly from a Ministry which has interfered not merely with contracts and with arrangements that have been made, but which has also introduced measures with retrospective effect to upset court decisions in such matters.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 45.
Tá
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormae.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Coneannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Corish and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Smith and T. Crowley.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 30:—
In page 16, at the end of Section 19 (2) (c), line 8, to insert the following word and new paragraph:—
"or
(d) in the case of a syndicate, that the constitution of the syndicate is varied by such an increase in the membership of such syndicate as in the opinion of the Minister to be unreasonable having regard to the number of the members constituting such syndicate at the date of the issue of the assurance licence to such syndicate."
Section 19 deals with the revocation of licences, and this amendment brings syndicates under the section. It is designed to prevent the undue expansion of syndicates, which might upset the basis on which it has been decided to license the existing syndicates.
What is the objection to a syndicate increasing its personnel?
Dr. Ryan
I suppose it is well to have some power to limit it.
What is the objection to numbers in the syndicate?
Dr. Ryan
We know what a syndicate is.
Do not go too fast as regards that. We have been discussing that question.
Dr. Ryan
It is well that the Minister should have this power, so that a syndicate may not completely change its character.
This amendment refers to an increase in membership. Why should a mere increase in membership be "unreasonable"?
You have an example in the Party opposite. When it was a small Party it was all right.
Dr. Ryan
When it was a small Party you were all right.
What is the objection to an increase in numbers?
Dr. Ryan
The objections are hypothetical.
Rather, they are enigmatical.
Have you any idea of what the Minister will consider "unreasonable"?
Dr. Ryan
I could not say.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 31:—
In page 16, line 10, at the end of Section 19 (2), to add the words and brackets "and the grounds on which he intends to consider such suspension or revocation (as the case may be)."
On the Recommittal the Minister agreed that it would be reasonable to state reasons for giving notice of cancellation or revocation. These words are introduced to provide for that.
Taken in relation to the last amendment, the grounds will simply be that the numbers are so increased as to be unreasonable.
Dr. Ryan
I take it that that will be so.
That is not a heap of information.
Dr. Ryan
If it is statutory, it will be all right.
That is self-sufficiency with a vengeance.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 32:—
In page 16, line 15, Section 19 (3) (a), to delete the word "seven" and substitute the word "twenty-one."
On Recommittal, the Minister was asked if he considered seven days' notice sufficient. He promised to reconsider the matter and this amendment provides for 21 days' notice.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 33:—
In page 16, before Section 20, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister shall cause a register of licences (in this section referred to as the register of licences) to be kept of all assurance licences.
(2) Whenever an assurance licence is granted, the Minister shall cause to be entered forthwith in the register of licences the following particulars, that is to say:—
(a) the grant of such licence, and
(b) the date on which such licence was granted, and
(c) in the case of an assurance company the name and the address of the registered office or other principal place of business in Saorstát Eireann of the assurance company to which such licence was granted, and, in the case of a syndicate, the names and the addresses of the members of such syndicate together with the names and the addresses of the person or persons resident in Saorstát Eireann who are authorised on behalf of such syndicate to accept service of any notices, documents or legal process, and
(d) such other particulars of or relating to such licence as the Minister shall from time to time direct.
(3) Whenever an assurance is altered, revoked, or transferred, or becomes forfeited, there shall be entered forthwith in the register of licences such particulars as the Minister shall from time to time direct of such alteration, revocation, transfer, or forfeiture, as the case may be.
(4) The register of licences shall be in such form and shall be kept at such place in the County Borough of Dublin as the Minister shall from time to time direct.
(5) Any person may inspect at such times as the Minister may appoint the register of licences on payment of such fee not exceeding one shilling as the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance shall from time to time direct.
(6) All fees payable under this section shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct.
(7) The Public Offices Fees Act, 1879, shall not apply in respect of any fees payable under this section.
It is provided in this amendment that a register of licences shall be kept and be open to the inspection of the public on payment of a fee of 1/-, so that the public may be in a position to verify whether a particular insurer is licensed or not.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 34:—
In page 16, line 56, Section 20 (1), to delete the word "carrying" and substitute the words "which carries on or proposes to carry," and in line 57, before the word "keep" to insert the words and brackets "shall (while such company so carries on the class of assurance business to which any sum deposited under this section relates)."
This amendment is intended to make clear that the deposit can be made before the assurance business is actually carried on. Otherwise it might be impossible to know whether the company should make the deposit first or start business first.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 35:—
In page 17, before Section 21, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Whenever and so long as there is or are a syndicate or two or more syndicates carrying on in Saorstát Eireann any assurance business other than life assurance business, industrial assurance business, bond investment business, mechanically propelled vehicle insurance business, and glass insurance business, the Committee of Lloyd's shall deposit and keep deposited with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice the sum of £20,000.
(2) Whenever and so long as there is or are a syndicate or two or more syndicates carrying on in Saorstát Eireann mechanically propelled vehicle insurance business, the Committee of Lloyd's shall deposit and keep deposited with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice the sum of £15,000.
(3) Every sum deposited under this section shall be invested by the Accountant of the Courts of Justice in such securities for the time being authorised by law for the investment of money under the control or subject to the order of the High Court as the Committee of Lloyd's may select, and the said Accountant shall pay the interest on such securities to the said Committee.
(4) Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 2 of the Act of 1909 shall apply in relation to the deposit of sums under this section in like manner as they apply in relation to the deposit of sums under the said section.
This is to provide for deposits with regard to syndicates. It is considered proper that the requirements should apply to syndicates similar to insurance companies. It is not considered practicable to have a deposit from each individual office. A full deposit of £15,000 or £20,000 is already required for motor insurance. If the Committee of Lloyd's makes its deposit it is possible for the syndicate to carry on the business.
Amendment No. 35 agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 36:—
In page 18, line 17, Section 21 (2) (a) to delete the words "fourteen days" and substitute the words "one month".
On the other stages of the Bill it was argued that the company should get more time to bring the deposit up to the full amount. The Minister has agreed to the extension now, and one month has been substituted for 14 days.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 37:—
In page 19, before Section 24, but all from the word "to" in line 46 to the word "company" in line 51 and substitute the words "or a syndicate," and in line 52 immediately after the word "company" to insert the words and brackets "or syndicate (as the case may be)," and in line 54 to delete the words and brackets "(as the case may be)," and in line 53 and also in lines 55/56 to delete the words "Minister, body, or," and in line 57 after the word "company" to insert the words and brackets "or by the Committee of Lloyd's (as the case may be)."
This amendment carries out the Minister's promise on a former stage of the Bill to limit the operation of the sub-section to policy holders and it also brings the licensed syndicates within the operation of this section.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 38:—
In page 19, line 2, Section 22 (3), after the word "company" to insert the words "or by the Committee of Lloyd's," and in line 8, after the word "company" to insert the words "or such Committee (as the case may require)."
This is a consequential amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 39:—
In page 19, line 11, Section 22 (4), after the word "company" to insert the words "or to the Committee of Lloyd's," and in line 13, immediately after the word "company" to insert the words "or the Committee of Lloyd's," and in line 17, after the word "company" to insert the words and brackets "or the Committee of Lloyd's (as the case may be)."
This is a consequential amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 40:—
In page 19, before Section 24, but in Part II, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) If, at any time while the Committee of Lloyd's maintains in pursuance of this Part of this Act a deposit of twenty thousand pounds with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice, there is no syndicate carrying on in Saorstát Eireann any assurance business other than life assurance business, industrial assurance business, bond investment business, mechanically-propelled vehicle insurance business, or glass insurance business, the Committee of Lloyd's may apply in a summary manner to the High Court on notice to the Minister for such order as is hereafter mentioned in relation to such deposit.
(2) If, at any time while the Committee of Lloyd's maintains in pursuance of this Part of this Act a deposit of fifteen thousand pounds with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice, there is no syndicate carrying on in Saorstát Eireann mechanically-propelled vehicle insurance business, the Committee of Lloyd's may apply in a summary manner to the High Court on notice to the Minister for such order as is hereinafter mentioned in relation to such deposit.
(3) If, on an application to the High Court under this section by the Committee of Lloyd's, the High Court is satisfied that there is no syndicate carrying on in Saorstát Eireann any relevant assurance business (as defined in the next following sub-section of this section) and that either the liabilities within Saorstát Eireann of every syndicate which formerly carried on in Saorstát Eireann any relevant assurance business have been met or discharged or security for the payment of such liabilities has been given to the Accountant of the High Court to his satisfaction, the High Court shall order the Accountant of the Courts of Justice out of the investments and money representing the deposit to which such application relates to pay such costs (if any) as the High Court shall direct and, if the said money is not sufficient to meet such costs, to sell so much of the said investments as shall be sufficient (after paying the costs of such sale) for that purpose and to transfer the said investments or the residue thereof (as the case may be) to the Committee of Lloyd's and to pay the said money or the residue (if any) thereof to the said Committee.
(4) In the foregoing sub-section of this section, the expression "relevant assurance business" means —
(a) in the case of an application in relation to a deposit of twenty thousand pounds made by the Committee of Lloyd's in pursuance of this Act — any assurance business other than life assurance business, industrial assurance business, bond investment business, mechanically-propelled vehicle insurance business, and glass insurance business, and
(b) in the case of an application in relation to a deposit of fifteen thousand pounds made by the Committee of Lloyd's in pursuance of this Act — mechanically-propelled vehicle insurance business.
This is a new section which applies to the conditions applicable to the release of deposits of insurance companies and it makes the same conditions applicable to the syndicate.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 41:—
In page 19, line 52, Section 24 (1), immediately before the word "whether" to insert the words "notwithstanding anything contained in the articles and memorandum of association of such companies," and in the same line to delete the word "they" and substitute the words "such companies."
In cases where it is impossible for companies or illegal for companies to amalgamate owing to clauses in its memorandum or in its articles of association, this amendment will remedy that disability. The alteration of the memorandum or articles of association would otherwise be an expense on the company as these alterations would require the consent of court.
Is this to meet only cases where the memorandum and articles of association contained prohibition with regard to amalgamation with another company?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
It has nothing to do with a new company taking over business which the articles of association of the old company do not allow it to carry on?
Dr. Ryan
That is so.
Amendment No. 41 agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 42:—
In page 19, line 55, Section 24 (1), before the word "referred" to insert the words "and in the First Schedule to this Act."
This is merely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 43:—
In page 19, line 59, Section 24 (1), to delete the word "assurance" and substitute the words "Saorstát Eireann."
This amendment is put forward because it is desirable that a Saorstát company should not be transferred to a foreign company.
This is to prevent a transfer from an Irish company of fire and general business to a foreign company?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
This pleasing situation emerges:—a Saorstát company must divest itself of its fire and general business if it wants to remain a live company; an extern company must do the same thing, but an extern company can dispose of its fire and general business to any insurance company operating in the Saorstát. We have it now that an Irish company must dispose of its business to a Saorstát company. It means that while an English company has the whole of 52 composite companies to which it can sell its business, an Irish company must sell it to the Insurance Corporation or to the Hibernian Company. The position will be that both these companies can sit back and wait for that business to fall into their lap without paying anything for it. Would the Minister explain to the House why it is that an extern company can sell its business to anybody while an Irish company must sell it to either the Insurance Corporation or to the Hibernian Company? If you are to introduce that principle of compelling every Irish company to sell to these two companies you are discriminating against the Irish companies. Why?
Dr. Ryan
One reason is that those who were insured with an Irish company, because it was an Irish company, must have their interests considered and they have a right if the transfer must take place to be transferred to another Irish company. I do not know whether there will be any great difficulty in meeting the point that the Deputy has raised — that is where it is necessary for a foreign company to transfer its financial business that it should be transferred to an Irish company. I imagine that it might be difficult to cope with the amount of business that would be there to transfer if it were to come suddenly upon the market requiring a purchaser.
The Minister knows just as well as I do that it is a wholly unreasonable thing to force the Saorstát companies to offer their fire and general business to one of two companies, both of which are fixed with notice in advance that if they only wait long enough they will get this business in any case. Does not the Minister see the injustice of that?
Dr. Ryan
That is not the only alternative.
What can they do?
Dr. Ryan
They can amalgamate.
What could they do then — set up a new company?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
What would the amalgamating company give for it?
Dr. Ryan
The value, of course, the same as the existing company.
But why give preferential treatment to British companies?
Dr. Ryan
Preferential in regard to having a wider market?
Yes.
Then the people who were not patriotic enough to invest in an Irish company have a chance of marketing their lack of patriotism.
We are speaking here on behalf of solvent Irish companies who are prepared to carry on as they are doing at present and submit themselves to the most rigorous examination by the Department of Industry and Commerce. Under the terms of this Bill they will submit to every test that the Government thinks desirable for insurance companies in this country. On their behalf I ask why are they compelled to sell their insurance in a limited market while wealthy British companies can sell the insurance of which they have to divest themselves to any one of fifty companies? The Minister knows what is going to happen. What will actually happen is that the British company will set up an amalgamated company to take over their fire and general business. They will then be an amalgamated company. The Irish Insurance Corporation and the Hibernian Insurance Company, two fire and accident Irish companies, have to make another amalgamation, and they will find themselves confronted if they do create a fourth insurance company with the combined resources of the British companies. Does the Minister seriously suggest to me that any two Irish composite companies could put up an amalgamation for fire and accident business which will be able to compete ab initio with these British units?
Dr. Ryan
It would not be ab initio.
It would be ab initio from the amalgamation.
Dr. Ryan
Ab initio under a new name, but the business is there.
Take it the business is there. Have they not to buy premises? Can they take over the premises of some other company?
Dr. Ryan
Perhaps not.
Where will they get them?
Dr. Ryan
There may be existing premises.
Can the Minister tell us of one case where there are existing premises that can be separated by a wall? There are not any.
Dr. Ryan
Not in that way.
Then they must get premises and the overhead charges will begin to pile up.
Dr. Ryan
If there are three composite companies and they amalgamate their fire and accident business and life business, there will be three premises then for two companies.
That is so.
Why does not whatever Minister is responsible for the Bill come out plainly and do what he wants to do by statute? What the Minister is doing is this: he is making it impossible for companies to carry on. Then he says: "If it is impossible for you to carry on, you know what you can do." The Government have no right to do that. If they have a scheme in mind by which they want to force amalgamation, then their business is to come before Parliament and say: "We want to force amalgamation." The danger is that the hopelessly insolvent companies will submit to the dilemma under which the Government thrusts them, and will take up the attitude of sauve qui peut because they know they cannot hold out. But the solvent company which says: “This means the ruin of our business; we must try and hold out at all costs,” is going to find itself crushed because it has remained solvent. It seems to me to be an extravagant proposal that this House should propose legislation to penalise heavily every person who has maintained his business in a condition which would stand investigation and which he is proud of, and the only thanks for doing that from the community is that he is to be destroyed.
The Minister has some knowledge of this business himself. He knows that there are solvent companies in this country, and if they are to suffer a serious loss it may seriously jeopardise the whole structure. There are at least two companies in this country to whom the loss of their fire and general business for no consideration will be a very material injury. The Minister knows the existing circumstances. Can he imagine, under the existing circumstances, if this Bill remains as it is, that these two companies will not lose their fire and general business? It is absolutely ineviatable. Unless the Government are prepared to come forward and place an obligation on whatever companies they licence to carry on the fire and general business to buy at a valuation the fire and general business of the companies which were hitherto composite companies, then the solvent Irish composite companies are going to be crushed. The insolvent companies are going to be taken on to the Government's back and carried by them, and the wealthy British corporations are going to remain in the advantageous position which they at present occupy. I say that is not fair.
Will the Minister admit, as a matter of business activity, that the more restricted the market is in which one has to sell, the less chance there is of getting value?
Dr. Ryan
Generally speaking, that is true.
Apply that ordinary principle here. In so far as there are outside companies who are going to be affected by this at all, if they propose to sell their business other than life business, they have something for which they should get good consideration. They have a very big number of people who may purchase. Surely the bidding, at any rate, is going to reach some point where value will be given for the assets and goodwill and everything taken over. Contrast that with the position of the Saorstát companies. If they are forced to act under this clause they will be bound to sell to a Saorstát Eireann company. Envisage the new situation. What companies will there be left to buy — how many? What is the chance of people who have to transfer business getting value? I think the application of the ordinary business rule will show clearly that this is definitely going to defeat a Saorstát company from getting a fair price for what it is handing over, whereas the British company will be left the ordinary chances of bargaining and the possibility of getting a good price. In addition to that the Minister may not have heard of the pledge given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. On the last stage Deputy Costello put this question to him: "Do I take it the Minister's intention is to secure by an appropriate amendment that one of the courses open to Irish composite offices is to transfer existing general business to an existing Irish company without the necessity for amalgamation?" and the answer to that was "Yes." Is that being fulfilled here? It was not fulfilled in an earlier part. That was the promise given.
Dr. Ryan
That promise is being fulfilled all right.
Where is it? We asked that before and we could not get any indication of where it is being fulfilled. Is it stated that it is fulfilled here? "Without the necessity for amalgamation," is one of the phrases in it.
Dr. Ryan
There is no compulsory amalgamation.
In this? Read it.
Dr. Ryan
Even in this there is no compulsory amalgamation.
There cannot be a movement under this clause without amalgamation. Amalgamation is part of the clause.
Why are the Government hostile to Irish insurance companies?
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy knows that they are not hostile.
There is intense hostility in this measure.
Dr. Ryan
If Deputy Cosgrave drops politics and wants to solve this problem, how can he say anything like that? We are not going to solve the problem by using language of that kind.
I will justify what I am saying. This measure is introduced to make still more difficult the carrying on of insurance business by Irish companies. In the first place, as regards life business, there are additional obstacles being put in the way of Irish companies, and additional checks, additional inspection, and so on, being imposed on them. There were certain profits that English companies entered into possession of in the earlier years of their life which are cut off from them. Irish companies have been operating under great difficulty for the last ten years in connection with life, fire and general insurance. Now we are told they are to be divided. It is not division, but amputation. Those of them who are prosperous and who did well are now told, "You have to cut off that and start again and you will do better." It is the usual story of the interference of the Government in all business. They think they know the business and can do it, and they interfere in every way, and every time they interfere they cause damage. All through this measure, whatever the Minister may say, there is absolute hostility disclosed on the part of the Government towards the Irish insurance companies.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy does not believe that.
I can take my oath on it.
Dr. Ryan
There was a commission set up by Deputy Cosgrave's Government which made recommendations.
Did they recommend the division of business?
Dr. Ryan
They made recommendations which are carried out in this Bill, which the Deputy referred to as restrictions which we are putting on, and which the Deputy probably, for political reasons, if he was in office, although recommended by his own commission, would not carry out.
My Government is not in office.
Dr. Ryan
It was there for ten years.
We did not close up any insurance companies. We gave them a chance.
Dr. Ryan
You tried to let them go wallop.
A great many British companies would have been closed up if this business had been started on them in their earlier years.
Dr. Ryan
Not at all.
You will not admit that English companies were practically insolvent in their earlier years?
Dr. Ryan
They were, but they got every encouragement under your régime.
My Government is not in office.
Dr. Ryan
They were in office.
No injustice was done by them to any Irish insurance company.
Dr. Ryan
Except that you kept them out.
They operated under great difficulty. In the first place, they had inexperienced boards of management.
Dr. Ryan
They were not fit to do any Government business when you were there.
There is one thing certain, that the prosperous ones were not interfered with.
Dr. Ryan
They were not allowed to do Government insurance.
They were. Does the Minister state that there was a prohibition on Irish companies from all types of Government work?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
The Minister says that. I say it is a falsehood.
Dr. Ryan
What business did they get?
The Minister says that when the last Government were in office there was a prohibition against Irish companies doing Government work.
Dr. Ryan
Will the Deputy tell us what business they got?
They may not have got it, but that is not an answer to my question. I asked the Minister was there a prohibition against Irish insurance companies doing Government work during our time?
Dr. Ryan
They did not get it anyway.
I assert that there was not, and I defy contradiction on that.
I do not see what relevancy this has to the amendment.
The Minister said there was a committee set up which made recommendations and that the recommendations were not carried out.
Dr. Ryan
That is right.
About what?
Dr. Ryan
The regulation of insurance.
Does the Minister say that the committee which was set up in 1923 and reported in a particular way was confined to industrial insurance?
Dr. Ryan
Part of this Bill deals with that.
The Minister said that it was. Does the Minister say that the report anywhere mentions the division of business?
Dr. Ryan
No.
Does the Minister say that the report asked that certain things should be done to Irish insurance companies which would not be imposed on British companies, such as the division of business, and the prevention of Irish insurance companies from selling in a free market the same as British companies are allowed to do? Was there any recommendation in regard to industrial insurance in the recommendations of the committee? Not one. So that what the Minister has said on that is as fair, accurate and truthful as his statement about Irish insurance companies being prohibited from doing Government work during our time.
We never by statute gave Lloyd's a standing here.
Dr. Ryan
You gave no one a standing.
Is the Minister suggesting that the English companies were favoured?
Dr. Ryan
They got all the business anyway.
Through Government intervention?
Dr. Ryan
I say the Government gave them all the business, and you can make what you like of that.
Did the Government that preceded the present one put impositions upon the Irish companies that were not put upon the English ones?
Dr. Ryan
They got no business.
Was that due to Government intervention?
Dr. Ryan
It must have been.
The Minister thinks that there should not have been a fair field, but that there should have been activity preferentially in favour of the Irish insurance companies?
Dr. Ryan
They would not expect that from you.
Are they getting it now?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
In our time there was a fair field and no favour, but there is not even a fair field now for the Irish insurance companies. That is the new situation. Not one amendment that has been proposed or suggested to give the Irish insurance companies a better chance has been accepted by the Minister. With regard to the Irish insurance companies and what happened them in our time, let me put this definite question and have an answer to it: was there any Irish insurance company found to be worse off in 1930 than it was in the years 1922-23 when the Government first got in touch with them?
Dr. Ryan
What does the Deputy mean by that?
Were they not all nursed and was not a certain amount of risk run in connection with them?
Dr. Ryan
Who nursed them?
The Government of the time.
Dr. Ryan
What did it do for them?
It did not bring in a measure like this to declare them insolvent and to wipe them out. If it had done that there would have been lamentations and weeping from the Minister.
Dr. Ryan
No.
But the Minister are doing it now. It may be a good thing to do. But if these proposals had been directed against them then there would have been a bigger scope for a swing of the axe, and certain companies would have been crushed out of existence, companies which the Government cannot crush out now. Some of those companies were brought above the level of insolvency by good careful management and nursing.
Dr. Ryan
By the companies themselves.
Possibly, but under the auspices of the last Government, and there was nothing done against them.
This Bill would have put them in the ditch had it been passed in 1923.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy was the Minister concerned, and he did nothing for those companies, hoping that they might fail, and that he might wash his hands of them.
I did this: I risked my political life for them and kept them going.
Dr. Ryan
How?
By nursing them. If there had been an investigation of their assets in the first five years some would have been declared insolvent, but we kept them going and did not give the British companies preferential treatment against them as the present Government are doing.
Dr. Ryan
I never felt the influence of your nursing.
Possibly not. We gave them the chance of standing on their own feet and of getting into good health. What they are getting now is the lethal chamber.
Does Deputy McGilligan suggest that none of the Irish companies was insolvent during his period as a Minister?
I say that if this Bill had been in operation in 1922-23 that more of the Irish companies would have been knocked out as insolvent than will be now.
Will the Deputy answer the question?
I have answered it. I have said that there would be more declared insolvent in 1922-23 than there will be now, and what makes the difference? The treatment that they got in the interim.
What was the position in 1930?
That there were more insolvent earlier than in 1930, and that the reason why some emerged from the insolvent to the solvent stage was because of the good treatment they got in the interim.
Dr. Ryan
Does the Deputy hold that the total deficiencies amongst all the companies had lessened during his term of office?
I declare that certain of the companies were brought to a better state in my period.
Dr. Ryan
I am quite sure that some of the companies did improve, but it is quite likely that some disimproved.
I do not accept the Minister's statement that "it is likely that some disimproved." I do not know of any. I only know of one with which there was considerably difficulty, one which I threatened to report.
Dr. Ryan
At any rate, while the last Government were nursing the business, as the Deputy says, I never saw any great evidence of it. This Government, at any rate, is prepared to put £500,000 into the business.
This Government is prepared to stop the nursing and to kill them. I would not have taken the risks that I did in carrying on but for this: that, in the interests of the State, if a crash came, the Government would have to stand behind it. That was the security we had. We avoided that by getting the bad companies brought along.
Dr. Ryan
By doing nothing.
If we did nothing, at any rate they improved by our doing nothing.
Dr. Ryan
I do not know if they did.
I assert that they did.
Dr. Ryan
I do not think it is true.
The Minister cannot say that. I say that insurance as a whole improved—that most of the bad companies improved. There may have been one company that wavered backwards and forwards, but I say that in the end there was a better position than there was in 1922-23. Is that precise enough?
Dr. Ryan
Did the Deputy see the valuations?
I am not indulging in any vague nonsense of that sort. If what I have stated is not true, will the Minister show it to me?
Dr. Ryan
Not now.
Why not argue the point now?
Dr. Ryan
Because I am not sure that the Deputy is right.
I could also say that the Minister was generally telling falsehoods, but I would not do that unless I had some basis for it. Why should he make vague allegations? Why not confine himself to the facts or else leave the argument?
Does the Minister admit that in disposing of their business the Irish companies will be in a worse position owing to the fact that they will have a lesser market? I understood the Minister to say, in order to get out of the argument, that their market will be lessened, that they have the remedy of amalgamation open to them.
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
That is the remedy?
Dr. Ryan
Amongst other things.
To escape a closed market the remedy of amalgamation is open to them! Later on the Minister said there was no compulsory amalgamation. This looks precious like it, not in name, perhaps, but in practice, yes. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I was hoping the time would come when the Minister would refute certain things. One is the charge that the Irish companies, by this particular section, are in a worse position as regards disposing of a certain portion of their business. He has not made an attempt to refute that charge. I think he accepted it to a large extent. If so, will he justify his attitude? If he cannot refute that charge, will he justify the unfavourable position in which he is putting Irish companies? To a person who has listened to the debate that seems to emerge, and I think the Minister will admit that he has not met that case.
Dr. Ryan
I think Deputy Dillon made the case that all the companies were to amalgamate into one fire and accident company. If that is so, then this amendment only excludes them from going to one particular company. They have amalgamation open.
That is, they have a hypothetical remedy. It depends not on what the Minister thinks, but on what Deputy Dillon thinks may happen. Surely the Minister has to justify what he is doing to the Irish companies, and it should not depend on the prophecy of a member of the Opposition as to what may occur. That is not a justification for a positive piece of legislation. Will he not pay some attention to the case made by others, whether or not the Irish companies have the same market open to them under this Bill that other companies have? That is a plain question that can be answered yes or no.
Surely they have not?
Dr. Ryan
No, they have not.
Does that then put them in a worse position?
Dr. Ryan
No, it does not.
Will the Minister justify that?
Dr. Ryan
The justification of this amendment is that if the business is in Irish hands, let us keep it in Irish hands. That is sufficient justification without going any further. I am sure Deputies would agree with that argument — if we have got business into Irish hands, they would be prepared to keep it there.
Irrespective of the price paid?
Dr. Ryan
Not absolutely irrespective.
It is irrespective.
Dr. Ryan
I do not agree at all. There are two or three Irish companies that are anxious to get more business. They are probably the best buyers in the market, comapnies building up like that. These composite companies have an opportunity of forming a new company in order to take over the business of the existing companies, and the fact that they are prohibited from selling to one individual foreign company is the only disadvantage that is there.
But the Minister will recognise that he has not shown that he is not putting them at a disadvantage. He has shown that because they are Irish, in order to keep them Irish you must put them at a disadvantage. He has not shown that he is not putting them at a disadvantage. That is the case I asked him to deal with. His answer goes to show that because they are Irish and the people have put money in them, you should keep them Irish even though you penalise them by doing so. That is his answer.
I do not claim to be an expert in regard to the contents of this Bill, but I have listened very carefully to most of the discussion, and I believe a dishonest attempt is being made by Opposition Deputies to make it appear that Irish companies are going to be wiped out to the advantage of foreign companies. I think I am sensible enough to realise that the Bill presupposes amalgamation or absorption of insolvent or semi-insolvent Irish companies and the transfer of their business to other Irish but not foreign companies. Does Deputy McGilligan admit that?
I will talk on that subject when we come to the relevant section, but that is not what we are dealing with now.
Does the Deputy admit that?
That is not here. I will talk about it later when we come to the appropriate section.
If Deputy McGilligan admits that is the policy, will he say what reasons he has for opposing the Bill on that ground?
I do not oppose that at all.
There is too much talk about the companies as distinct from the insurable population.
The Deputy is rambling. The matter under discussion deals with fire and accident business.
Yes, but all this other stuff has been dragged into the discussion. I have been listening to the discussion.
If the Deputy will only sit down and wait until we come to the insolvent section, he will hear a great deal more about it.
Deputy McGilligan has been dragging fire and accident and other matters right through this discussion, and for the forty-first time he has got the same stuff in upon every section. He definitely alleges certain things. Nobody knows more than he does about this matter. He knows more than he is prepared to tell, and I agree it would be very undesirable that he would tell all he knows.
Is that the Deputy's way of challenging me to tell it?
It would be very undesirable, in the interests of the insurable population, that the Deputy should tell all he knows. I am only concerned with protecting the rights of the insured population.
That has absolutely no relation to Section 24, good, bad, or indifferent.
Perhaps Deputy Dillon will set a good example by talking upon the amendment——
Like yourself.
Yes, and not be introducing irrelevant matter——
This is glorious.
These people all try to waste time.
I presume I am in order in following along the lines Deputy McGilligan was allowed to travel.
The Deputy should endeavour to confine himself to amendment No. 43.
There are ways of doing it, but the Deputy has not got the knack.
If Deputy McGilligan would get away from the word "companies" and talk about rights of the insurable population, we would be in a better position to get along the road to make this Bill a better one. All this evening Deputy McGilligan, Deputy Costello, and Deputy Cosgrave have been speaking about the rights of the directors and the shareholders.
I never mentioned a director to-day.
All that thing is at the back of your mind. You are thinking about them instead of the rights and the protection of the insurable population.
I never thought of a director to-day.
I challenge the Deputy to say here and now whether he is opposed to the amalgamation or absorption into Irish companies of insolvent or semi-insolvent Irish companies or British companies.
I would like to have Deputy Davin's life insured in the company that will be formed by the amalgamation of all the insolvent Irish companies.
I want to direct the attention of the House to this fact, that whenever the Ministry are hard pressed——
We are going to get the gospel now.
——they take refuge in protracted and repeated references to insolvent Irish companies, apparently to create in the public mind the impression that the Irish insurance industry is hopelessly insolvent. That suggestion is not true. There are Irish insurance companies which can compare favourably with any similar British company for solvency.
Did I say anything to the contrary?
There are Irish companies operating in the Irish insurance industry which are insolvent, and everybody knows that. My objection to much that is being done in this Bill is that the solvent Irish insurance companies are being treated exactly as if they were insolvent. They are being wiped out with the same ruthlessness as if they had betrayed the trust that was reposed in them, and I object to that.
On a point of order, did not Deputy Dillon object to my travelling along this line?
I did not.
The net point here is that a solvent Irish company, which has a fire and accident business to sell, is put in a position less advantageous than that of a solvent British company which has a similar fire and accident business to sell. That is not fair, and the Minister knows it. The Minister justifies it on one ground, and on one ground only—that where there is insurance business in Irish hands it ought to be kept there. If that is the policy of the Government, then the Government ought to pay for their own patriotism. It is noteworthy that they do not go on to say "where Irish insurance is to be transferred from the company which at present holds it to some other company, let it be transferred into Irish hands." The British company which has Irish insurance can transfer their business where they like, to the person who will offer them the best price for it. An Irish company which has business that must be transferred under this Bill has to sell it to one of the two existing companies, which are fixed with notice that if they wait and do not buy they will get the business at the end of this year for nothing. That is a simple fact which no amount of talk seems adequate to hammer into Deputy Davin's head.
Have you any evidence to produce in support of it?
I have ample evidence.
Produce it.
It has been produced here for the last hour, and the Deputy would not listen to it. That is the whole case.
An hour has been spent in a futile effort to make Deputy Davin understand that one and one make two. If I cannot make him understand that by the use of the King's English, I have no doubt that I will have no greater success if I resort to Irish or to Greek.
Plain English will do. I will leave it to you to talk English to the King.
The King's English is the most standard product I know, and I have consistently used it in an endeavour to make Deputy Davin understand the situation, but I solemnly believe he is as wise now as when I began.
That is a tribute to you.
It may be a tribute to me, or it may be a reflection on the work of the Creator. I prefer to imagine that it is due to some shortcoming on my part. Far be it from me to suggest that Deputy Davin is wholly incapable of understanding, but so far he has not made much progress. Will the Minister make any defence, other than the one of pseudo patriotism, for putting Irish companies in this disadvantageous position?
Dr. Ryan
Is the Deputy going to vote against it?
Yes.
It is a very difficult task, but I should like to attempt to make Deputy Davin understand.
Is this Report or Committee procedure?
Committee procedure.
If Deputy Davin will look at Section 24 of the Bill he will find that it contains certain proposals with regard to amalgamation schemes for insurance companies. In specific terms it has nothing to do with insolvent companies. The insolvent companies sections are 15 sections ahead. Let us leave the matter of insolvent companies until we come to it. This is dealing specifically not with insolvent companies but, on the other hand, with companies which are solvent. They are going to be made split their business. The Deputy probably approves of that, but, if he is asked why, he will probably ramble about something in regard to insolvency. Insolvency has nothing to do with this. It was proposed in the measure as it first emerged from the draftsman's hands that two or more Saorstát Eireann companies which carried on a life business or industrial business, or both such businesses, might submit to the Minister a scheme in writing for amalgamation into one company as far as the life and industrial end was concerned. That is easy to understand; if they want to amalgamate they can submit a proposal about amalgamation.
Then the section continues, "and the transfer to some other assurance company" of the other classes of assurance business that they might have been conducting. That is where the crucial point emerges. It is now proposed not to let them transfer to "some other assurance company" but to some other Saorstát Eireann company, and that is the net point we are discussing. When two companies want to amalgamate they have got to submit a scheme of amalgamation, and the scheme must include transfer to another Saorstát Eireann company. That is the point we are on; should they be allowed to transfer to some other assurance company, or must they be confined, on their transfer, to a Saorstát Eireann company? Patriotism is pleaded; if people who are in that Saorstát Eireann company want to act on patriotic motives let us insist that they hand over to a Saorstát Eireann company. British companies, if they fall under this, will have open to them a bigger field. They may transfer to other assurance companies, including Saorstát companies; they will go to the highest bidder. I am not thinking of directors; I hate the directors of insurance companies. I am not even thinking of the shareholders. I am thinking of the policy-holders, whose only guarantee for the carrying out of their policy is that the company has assets, funds, and good business behind them. Some of the Irish policy-holders who have involved themselves in Saorstát Eireann companies find that the business of those companies which they have patriotically supported must be split up. Part of the splitting up involves transfer. They are allowed to transfer only to Saorstát Eireann companies. There will be only a couple of companies, possibly only one, in existence when this comes about.
Does Deputy Davin think that the policy-holders will get better consideration for the transfer of their business if the people who may buy from them are limited to one or two? Will they get as good consideration for their assets as if they had half-a-dozen people bargaining and bidding for them? It is a simple business proposal. Surely Deputy Davin understands. Is he going to allow this flag of patriotism waved about his head to distort his clear business outlook on such a point as that? Does he think it right to make the Saorstát policy-holders suffer a diminution in the consideration they will get for the assets which will be handed over because they are only entitled to go to other Saorstát companies, of which there will only be one or two, for that consideration? There is no insolvency question. There is no need to get a rush of patriotism to the head, or anything like that. There is simply a business proposal, and the Bill is so drafted as to let those Saorstát companies, on the forced transfer, look to the highest bidder. It is now proposed to limit that to only one or two bidders, and the Minister has admitted that that will put Irish companies at a disadvantage. That is what we object to. A man may vote against the present amendment and still be a patriot. Deputy Davin wants to preserve his national record all the while, but he can preserve that and still vote against this amendment on the grounds that it is not good business for the Irish policy-holders. Let us leave the directors to look after themselves.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 44; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkerry, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Tadhg Crowley; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Nally.
Amendment carried.
I move amendment No. 44:—
In page 20, before Section 25, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Every scheme submitted to the Minister under this Part of this Act save as is otherwise provided in this section shall provide in relation to the employees of the promoting companies as follows:—
(a) that so far as practicable every existing employee of the promoting companies upon the scheme coming into force shall be transferred with all the rights and privileges in relation to salary or wages, tenure and conditions of service acquired by him to the services of the amalgamated company;
(b) that every existing employee of the promoting companies for whom employment on conditions as favourable to him as those he enjoyed in the service of the promoting company is not provided by the amalgamated company shall be entitled to compensation which shall consist of a gratuity calculated at the rate of two months' salary or wages for each completed year of service with the promoting company by which he was last employed;
(c) every existing employee of a promoting company transferred to the amalgamated company whose employment is terminated by such company otherwise than on the grounds of misconduct within five years of the date of amalgamation shall for the purpose of this section be treated upon such termination as if he had not been so transferred;
(d) that such gratuity shall become payable by the amalgamated company upon the scheme of amalgamation becoming operative;
(e) that in addition to any other compensation to which he may be entitled under this scheme every collecting agent of a promoting company having goodwill interest in a collecting book shall if his services are not retained by the amalgamated company be entitled to be paid by the amalgamated company by way of additional compensation a sum equal to the amount which a willing buyer would pay for the goodwill interest in such book.
(2) Whenever the Minister approves a scheme under this Part of this Act and it becomes apparent to him that any employee of the promoting companies will not obtain employment in the service of the amalgamated company on terms as favourable to him as those enjoyed by him in the service of the promoting company by which he was last employed the Minister shall do all or either of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) cause a provision to be inserted in every assurance licence issued by him requiring the company to which such licence is issued to give preference of employment to persons deprived of their employment by reason of the operation of the scheme of amalgamation;
(b) require the Reinsurance Company of Ireland, Limited, to give preference of employment to persons deprived of their employment by reason of the operation of the scheme of amalgamation;
(c) by regulation prohibit the employment by any assurance company of spare-time agents.
(3) For the purpose of this section an existing employee of a promoting company means any person employed otherwise than in a temporary capacity by such promoting company at the commencement of this Act.
The object of this amendment is to endeavour to provide certain protection for the employees of companies which may be amalgamated under this Bill. The deliberate object of the Bill is to provide for the amalgamation of certain companies where any insolvency is feared, and there is an obligation on the company whose financial structure is not of the soundest to take steps to have itself merged in another company. Of course, a merging of that kind inevitably brings certain redundance, and inevitably means a certain dislocation of the entire staff organisation of the companies which participate in an amalgamation scheme of that kind. Here in this Bill, we are deliberately setting out with the object of trying to induce amalgamations, and, even to compel amalgamations, and, if we do that, I think we must have regard to the position of employees of the companies which may be amalgamated.
It has been a recognised feature of legislation passed through this House that in the case of employees who lose their employment as a result of legislation enacted here, provision has usually been made for a recognition of the rights which they formerly held and for the payment of compensation or transfer on something like comparable terms to the new situation which may be offered to them. The object of this amendment is that in the case of an employee of a promoting company, he shall be transferred to the new amalgamated company with all his rights and privileges in relation to salary, wages, tenure and conditions of service; that if there is no comparable position available for him in the amalgamated company, compensation shall be payable to him; and that if he is dismissed for reasons other than misconduct within a period of five years from the date of amalgamation, he shall be deemed not to have been transferred, and entitled to the compensation which would be payable if he had not been transferred. In cases where a person's services have not been retained by the amalgamated company, the amendment seeks to ensure that he shall be paid compensation. In other sections of the amendment, an endeavour is made to ensure that the Minister by the machinery of licensing which is vested in him under the Bill will endeavour to place these persons in employment with other companies, and, in that way, try to ensure that the minimum of dislocation is caused to these persons.
Generally, the object of the amendment is to ensure that where the Minister has before him proposals for amalgamation, he shall insist that in any scheme providing for amalgamation provision shall be made in relation to the employees of the promoting company in the manner here suggested. When other Bills of importance were going through this House—Bills, for instance, dealing with the railways, with the electrical undertakings which were taken over under the Shannon scheme, and the Transport Acts generally—provision was made for compensation, somewhat on the lines suggested in this amendment, and I think it is not merely desirable from the standpoint of equity, but imperative in the interests of the employees who will be affected that we should endeavour to make provision for them in the manner suggested. There are 2,500 employees of Saorstát companies. Many of these fear that they will lose their employment as a result of amalgamation proceedings under this Bill, and if they are going to lose their employment because this House takes definite steps to compel amalgamations, the least the House can do is to provide that adequate compensation will be payable in such circumstances.
I want to understand this amendment and to understand what would result if it were fixed in the Bill in its present position. So far as I read Section 24, which is the foundation for Part III of the Bill, amalgamations may only take place, if and when the promoting companies of the amalgamation are Saorstát Eireann companies. So far as I can make out also, the Bill, whether it specially limits amalgamation to Saorstát Eireann companies, certainly contemplates in the main the amalgamation of Saorstát Eireann companies, and of no others, so far as this part of it is concerned. Deputy Norton ties his amendment to the scheme and he inserts it between paragraphs 24 and 25. The scheme referred to is the amalgamation of the type set out in Section 24 dealing with two Saorstát companies promoting amalgamation. I am not sure that it allows other companies to be brought in. By an amendment we have just passed, the business which is not amalgamated must be transferred to a Saorstát Eireann company, so that, therefore, your amalgamation and transfer proposals now seem to be confined entirely, and certainly mainly, to Saorstát Eireann companies. These proposals in a sense I should like to support, with certain reservations, but I think it would be undesirable to have these proposals with regard to the taking over of all the employees applicable only to Saorstát Eireann companies, and to any amalgamation of Saorstát Eireann companies that takes place, and not applicable to the others, because again it will mean a definite handicap even on the amalgamated Saorstát Eireann companies. They will be fixed with either a number of redundant employees or with the necessity of paying compensation. If there are amalgamations between outside companies, they will not be fixed with the necessity of paying compensation in cases where employees are discovered to be redundant. That is one point. That handicap could be avoided by applying this section to all amalgamations, if there are any other types of amalgamations possible.
Does the Deputy think there are likely to be amalgamations other than amalgamations of Saorstát companies?
The Minister is going to compel them.
They are undoubtedly being looked for. The possibility of such happenings is being investigated, and "investigated" is a mild word to put on it. Even if that were not the case, there is a new situation. It will mean that existing companies will carry on with their staffs. The amalgamated company, which, by the amalgamation, would seek to get some economies in its working, would then have to shoulder either the burden of compensation or the burden of keeping on a certain number of employees. I would have objected strenuously to that some years ago, but I no longer object so strenuously to it. If that inequality were out of the way, I would complain that Deputy Norton's amendment is likely to be ineffectual because it opens with this: "Every scheme submitted shall provide in relation to the employees as follows:—that so far as practicable every existing employee shall be taken over." What is going to be the ruling on "practicable"? Supposing there is no place for an employee in the separated company, the amalgamated company. I suggest it is not practicable then to take him over. The Government might easily accept the amendment and the Deputy might find afterwards that it was of no avail. The provisions in Acts that try to provide for redundancy and compensation generally start off with some such lines as this, that the employees on a particular date found in a certain company were deemed to be existing employees, that every existing employee was taken over. Then if an existing employee, who was transferred to the new amalgamated company was displaced, if that displacement was through the amalgamation scheme, compensation had to follow. If it was due to the ordinary impact of trading conditions, naturally, as the employees were not secured, they could be removed.
The substance of the amendment is the same.
No. In order to qualify that man for compensation the provisions of the ordinary Acts take the line that you get the man into the position of being employed in the new company, and if it wishes not to continue him in that employment, then he will get compensation, unless it can be shown that he was dismissed for misconduct or by pressure of economic conditions. The amendment does not say that. It says that the new company shall "so far as practicable" take over these employees. Supposing a company finds it can run the business with 1,000 employees, and that the number to be taken over from a group of absorbed companies is 2,000, it can be said that it is not practicable to find posts for the 2,000 when there is only work for 1,000, and I am very much afraid the opening words would not carry over these employees. Clause (b) only becomes effective, at least so I understand from the ordinary run in these matters, and a person does not qualify for compensation until dismissed from employment, but he cannot be said to be dismissed if he was not taken over. The clause reads:
"...every existing employee of the promoting companies for whom employment on conditions as favourable to him as those he enjoyed in the service of the promoting company is not provided by the amalgamated company, shall be entitled to compensation..."
But (a) will be run in contradistinction to that. If (a) was not in (b) would operate by itself. Clause (a) is the overriding provision by whoever interprets it, and (b) only operates in regard to people who have not got the same conditions of employment. On this matter generally, from seeing amalgamation and absorbed conditions, and working from another angle than from that viewed through a Government office, I have certainly come to this conclusion, that no scheme ought to be allowed for the future in this country unless people who have passed a certain minimum number of years in a particular business which is absorbed on amalgamation are taken over in their entirety. I had no knowledge of the conditions of certain people who had lived their operative lives under certain conditions, and then suddenly found that by Government action that was stopped as future employment. I had no such realisation of the impact it has on the working classes until recently, and it seems to me quite unreasonable and inequitable that a Government should be entitled to come in and to stop a particular branch of employment, which was previously open to men who definitely availed themselves of the opportunity provided, and then midway in their lives, when it was impossible to turn and train themselves for any other situation, they are thrown out, and the best that the Government can do in regard to compensation is a very meagre and inadequate reward for having stopped that continuity of employment.
I recant anything I ever said with regard to the other argument on that point, and I simply—if I make a confession of that sort—justify myself in my attitude on these grounds; that I have a better realisation of the impossibility of working men in this country who have lived 25 or 30 years at a particular occupation, getting other occupation, when they find their occupation closed to them. The compensation given is no reward. I have seen men under a variety of Acts, the Electricity Act and the Railways Act, given the best compensation that these Acts allowed, and instead of getting £200 or £300 a year —not a very huge sum when one considers the people they have to provide for—they were thrown out at £2 or £1 a week, which would be above the average compensation awarded.
Certainly until we leave the present situation as regards unemployment, there is no reason why a Government, if by its intervention it stops people getting occupation at which they were trained, should not say that if these people are going out it would insist on one of two things, that, at least, if its intervention was the cause of their employment failing, it should say to the new company: "You carry on with every man of the amalgamated staffs. You can allow the ordinary process of wastage to take place. Deaths will occur, and men will go out under different circumstances, but you need not recruit to fill these places until you get your establishment to what you consider to be normal. You have to carry the redundant people until some time when in the ordinary course of wastage the numbers are reduced." Alternately, what the Government should say to the company is: "We are overloading you with employees. It is unfair to give you the task in the new business of providing full wages for these men. We will pay the wages bill." Between these two alternatives I see no reasonable medium. I have definitely come to the conclusion that there is no case to be made for any amalgamation scheme in this country, if the fruits of amalgamation, in the way of economies, are derived from putting men out and giving them instead of the wages they were getting, some compensation at the rate of £1 a week.
There is no reduction in an amalgamation scheme the economies on which are dependent entirely in getting men thrown out of work, or saving the company weekly wages after some annual payments. These schemes should not be permitted any longer until there is such a field of occupation open to men, who, although they were trained for 20 years in one occupation, may nevertheless turn to some other occupation. I am entirely in favour of that if it could be brought in, although it is completely contrary to proposals that I brought in but, in spirit, is an enlargement of other proposals that I stood for in this House. I am definitely in favour of this amendment, if it could be acceded to. My only fear is that the words Deputy Norton has used will not succeed in getting him his objective. I do not think he will find that the words make a case for people carried over. I think "so far as practicable" will rule out numbers, and that the clause will be run in opposition to clause (a) and that there will be no transfer of the old staff to the new company. If he can achieve his point, or if the Minister will allow further time to look at the amendment, I will vote wholeheartedly in favour of making new companies take over every employee of the old group and to retain them at full wages, as being fully occupied, until such time, in the natural process of things, they disappear. I do not think these compensation clauses are adequate return. They are no solution of the problem that will arise on amalgamations where staffs become redundant.
Is the Minister accepting the amendment?
Deputy McGilligan told the House how anxious he is that redundant employees should be kept on by the amalgamated company. He stated definitely in the Dáil that he believes there is redundancy in connection with the insurance industry here, and while I am in thorough sympathy with the amendment, and would like to see the employees getting every fair play, it is only right that we should recognise that there is this redundancy, perhaps more in connection with the insurance business than any other business. In Great Britain I understand that, when amalgamation takes place as between companies, the question of staffs is generally satisfactorily arranged. In this country too, when an amalgamation scheme is brought in, it is the intention that fair compensation or fair provision should be made for the employees. The Minister has already stated that it is his intention that the employees should be fairly dealt with. He has gone further and stated that in connection with any amalgamation scheme put forward there should be an obligation on the company putting forward the scheme to submit proposals as to how it will deal with the problem of its staffs. I think I might add to that that no amalgamation scheme is likely to be considered satisfactory by the Minister unless he is satisfied that staffs are being equitably dealt with.
I do not think that we can put into the Bill the exact provision by which compensation may be secured or provision made for redundant employees. The Deputy, for example, has not made any distinction as between part-time and whole-time employees, as far as I can see. There are a great number of questions regarding the amount of business, the length of service and the peculiar circumstances which may attach to individual cases, which would not be covered by an amendment of this kind, even if, as Deputy McGilligan pointed out, it had not the defect that, apparently, the employees are not first definitely made employees of the new company. All I can state is that, while I am not prepared to accept the amendment or to embody such provisions in the Bill, it is not because the Government would not be satisfied to use its influence to see that the employees get a fair deal, but because we see the difficulty of determining in advance, in connection with an amalgamation scheme which has not yet reached the stage of considering this question, what exactly the provisions are going to be. We have to bear in mind that we are dealing with companies that are in a special position. Our companies are not in the same position as the big English companies. I think also that the Government would be disposed to give special attention to the points Deputy McGilligan has raised, that we should endeavour as far as possible, to see that employees who might otherwise be considered redundant, would be retained by the new company.
I think it is a gross exaggeration to suggest, as has been suggested, that this legislation is likely to lead to wholesale dismissals and wholesale displacements of agents or employees in the insurance industry. I feel that when the question of an amalgamated company comes up for consideration every effort will be made to ensure that as far as possible employees, who might otherwise become redundant, will be retained. I am satisfied that the contention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that there will be an increase of business to the Irish companies which will enable them in some measure to retain these employees or to justify their maintenance is well-founded. The aim of an amalgamation scheme ought not to be to displace staffs, although undoubtedly we have to admit that the object of amalgamation is ultimately to reduce expense, more particularly because it is recognised that the benefit of any reduction in expenses will go to the policy-holders. Those who are really interested in insurance from the social point of view take the attitude that every reduction in expenses means an advantage to the policy-holders. We have to face that position in this country but I think that there is general agreement here that we ought to endeavour to get fair treatment for the employees. All I can do in reply to the speeches made here is again to assure the House that it will be the Government's aim to see that every consideration is given to this matter when the amalgamation scheme is under consideration.
Surely the Minister ought to be able to come down a little nearer to tin-tacks on this matter. This matter has been repeatedly discussed already and every second day the Minister in charge of this Bill sings the same song on the subject of the displacement of employees as a result of amalgamation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce himself said in this House that he knew there was going to be considerable displacement of staffs and that the economies which it was necessary to effect would require that a number of redundant persons should be got rid of. He said that it was well known that there were too many people employed in the insurance business in this country. I emphatically endorse what Deputy McGilligan has said here tonight, but I want to make this point: While I entirely agree that sums of money by way of compensation are very inadequate, particularly when you are dealing with men who have reached middle-age, and that the obviously desirable thing is to require the amalgamated company to keep all these employees in their employment and trust to the ordinary operation of wastage to bring staffs down to normal proportions, I do say it is the duty of the Government to make some contribution towards the expense of solving the redundancy problem in that way. If you amalgamate Irish companies under existing circumstances and charge them with the maintenance of a considerable number of persons who have been rendered redundant by a Government scheme, then it is the duty of the Government to assist that amalgamated company in bearing the increased burden. Of course, the expense from the point of view of the Treasury would be trivial. The benefit viewed from the standpoint of the redundant employees would be immense. It is all the difference between shattering a man's whole life and letting him carry on in the ordinary way.
I want to warn the House most categorically that they should not be persuaded that the effect of this amalgamation proposal will not be the displacement of staffs. The immediate effect of the amalgamation proposals contained in this Bill will be to render redundant considerable numbers of present whole-time employees. If the Minister will ask his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, who has some practical experience of the management of an insurance company, he will confirm what I say. The immediate result of the proviso contained in Section 24 requiring the transfer of fire insurance business from composite offices will result in the displacement of five to six whole-time employees in every headquarters office where that transfer is effected. The amalgamation of four or five life and industrial companies will result in the immediate displacement of a very substantial number of men from permanent employment unless steps are taken to make it possible for the new amalgamated company to carry these men on its staffs by getting some kind of assistance from the Government. I want to remind the House of the fact that when these companies are amalgamated you have to consider two solvencies. The company has to be solvent vis-a-vis its policy-holders and it is entitled to be solvent vis-a-vis its shareholders, if certain constituent members of that company were solvent vis-a-vis their shareholders before they went into the amalgamation. You are, therefore, not entitled to put a mandatory burden on the amalgamated company which will make it impossible for that company to pay a reasonable dividend to its shareholders or which would jeopardise the solvency of its funds.
I urge most strongly on Deputies not carelessly to sponsor a scheme for putting the whole burden of compensation or maintenance of redundant employees on the funds of the insurance company because, in attempting to do that, they may defeat their own end. It is clearly the duty of the Government, if they think it to be in the public interest to put this scheme through, to assist in the solution of this problem of redundancy that the Government itself is creating. Subject to that proviso, I entirely agree with Deputy McGilligan that the only genuine solution of the problem is the retention of employees in whole-time employment where they had been whole-time employees in the past. I am glad to take a lead from him away from the principle of giving men in middle age a sum of money or a weekly pittance and telling them to go and earn their living in some other way. I gladly herald the disappearance of that practice from our legislation in the future and I think most Deputies will concur in what Deputy McGilligan has said to them here in regard to that general matter.
I desire to give all the support possible to the suggestions made by Deputy McGilligan. We all know that the fruits of amalgamation in the past have been the loss of employment to a class less able to bear that loss than other classes. If one takes into consideration what happened on the amalgamation of National Health Insurance societies, one finds that a large number of employees were paid a small amount of compensation, although they had given their best years to the business. They were practically fired from their offices and told to get employment elsewhere. I think that every member of this House has had, at some time or other, a former employee of a National Health Insurance society calling on him and asking him to help him to get employment. The small sums which are given to employees in no way compensate for the service they have rendered. Deputy Dillon has suggested to the Minister that employees should be retained for a definite period so as to give them an opportunity of finding employment with the new companies, which is their only hope. The Minister stated that he is in thorough sympathy with the employees and with those who are putting forward their claims. But the giving of lip service in the way of sympathy to the claims of these people is no good. The time has come when we, in this House, should ask for definite and practical evidence of sympathy for those who are about to be victimised.
We all remember that, when the Transport Bill was under consideration, a clause was introduced giving compensation to those who had five years service or over in the transport industry. A company by the name of Dooley was blotted out of existence under that Act. Most of Dooley's men had only four years and nine months' service, and were disqualified from receiving a halfpenny compensation under the Act. Their employment having been given by way of monopoly to other concerns, they could turn nowhere to get employment in the same class of business in which they had been engaged. Some of those men who lost their employment as a result of the Transport Act, including even those who got small compensation, are to this day drawing unemployment assistance or relief from the various boards of assistance. We all know that where monopolies get possession—and this will be a monopoly—the possibilities of obtaining employment are reduced. Take the case of the manufacturer of our own sugar. When we started to make sugar, we did not make any provision for those commercial travellers with large families who were engaged in the sugar business, and who were living up to their earnings. They were earning their living by soliciting orders from grocers. At one stroke of the pen these men lost their employment and were left stranded. When we were not able to manufacture sufficient sugar for our own requirements, I understand that some sugar board or other authority got power to purchase sugar elsewhere, and that they did not avail of the services of those travellers who had been on the road all their life.
There are too many victims of amalgamations in this country. There are too many victims of monopolies, and I earnestly support the appeal being made to the Ministry that he shall give some guarantee to those engaged in the insurance business that they shall not by any act of the Government lose their employment without the Government accepting some responsibility for their future upkeep. This is a national matter. The Minister says that this legislation is for the benefit of some section of the public, whether policy-holders or others. In any action taken by the Government to benefit a section of the public, the Government should see that no hardships are borne by the families of employees as a result of that action.
The Minister has expressed sympathy with the idea of providing for employees of promoting companies who may lose their employment under this Bill. To the extent that the Minister is sympathetic, well and good. But all the sympathy in the world will be of no avail in ensuring that adequate or substantial provision will be made for employees who may lose their employment as a result of this Bill. The Minister says that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will take steps to secure that schemes of amalgamation will make some provision for staffs who are to be transferred from the promoting companies to the amalgamated company. Suppose the promoting companies or the amalgamated company submit no proposals to the Minister for taking over the staff affected by the amalgamation, what can the Minister do in the matter? He can ask the directors of the amalgamated company to see him. He can thunder to them. They may say: "It is impossible for us to take over the entire staff of the promoting companies, and it is equally impossible for us to pay them compensation in the form of cash." They can then say to the Minister that it is not their intention to submit any scheme to provide for the retention of redundant employees or to make any cash contribution towards them.
What can the Minister do? The Minister has a scheme submitted to him to provide for amalgamation. Amalgamation is urged for financial reasons. It is apparently desirable that amalgamation should take place. The Minister therefore will be handicapped to this extent that while desiring to make provision for transferred employees he will be in the position of not being able to hold up amalgamation. The assurance companies may say to him: "If you are not prepared to take this scheme of amalgamation submitted by us which makes no provision for dismissed employees, we are not going ahead with amalgamation." In that case there will be no amalgamation where amalgamation is clearly desirable. The transferred staffs of the promoting company under the Bill as it stands will find that the provision for them will have no real effect at all if the companies concerned are determined to fight the Minister.
The Minister's sympathy, useful though it may be, is of no real value whatsoever to the staffs likely to be displaced. As against the sympathy of the Minister, offered on the Report Stage of the Bill, I suggest an amendment by which a definite obligation will be placed on the amalgamating company to transfer, where practicable, the staffs of the promoting companies to other offices where employment could be found and in cases where employment can not be found to pay compensation on the scale set out in (b), namely, two months' wages or salary for each completed year of service to each employee who cannot be taken over; and, in the case of those employed by a collecting society, the value of the books which they hold should also be paid to them in addition to whatever compensation to which they are entitled.
From the Minister's own point of view it is very desirable, if he intends to give effect to the sympathy he expressed here with the employees, that he should be armed with an amendment of that kind. It is desirable that the Minister would be empowered to compel the company to pay compensation. When the Minister's statement is boiled down, it comes to this: that he is taking no more power than attempting to bluff the amalgamating company into paying compensation to its former employees.
I am glad that Deputy McGilligan has expressed repentence for some sections of his own Acts in connection with railway amalgamation. I think the Deputy will realise now that the Act of 1927, passed to amend his amalgamation Act of 1924, destroyed the provision for redundant employees in the earlier Act. I would be more effective in connection with this amendment if I had known that the Deputy would have made the declaration he made to-night. He has made a public recantation of that amending Act of 1927, which helped to destroy much of the good that the Deputy did to provide for the employees in the 1924 Railway Act. I am glad that the Deputy has seen fit to declare now that any amalgamations of this kind, or monopolies of any kind, which confer upon one institution, group or company, the right to secure control over other interests in industry or in a particular form of activity, is a kind of development which ought to be carefully scrutinised by the House. By this Bill, whether the Minister believes it or not, we are definitely going to disemploy a substantial number of persons who at present find some kind of livelihood in the insurance business. Deputies know that the more companies there are in the insurance business, the more employment there will be. The less Irish companies we have in this country, the less employment will be found in the insurance industry. I cannot understand where the Minister has got the element of assurance that he has displayed here to-night, when he says that a substantial number of persons will not lose their employment as a result of amalgamations under this Bill. The Minister ought to know that a substantial number of persons now employed in insurance will, as a result of this Bill, be disemployed. There is no provision made for these people in the Bill. By allowing this to go through the House, we are making no legislative provision for those who will lose their employment as a result of this Bill.
I think Deputy Dillon was right when he said that a substantial number of persons will in fact lose their employment. That means that the economic lives of these people will be uprooted. They will be diverted from their present occupations. Their whole economic life may be blighted by reason of the fact that men of middle age find it impossible to secure employment in industry or in commercial activities or in spheres in which they previously had no experience. Deputies ought to know that there is no expanding opening in the labour market in this country for people so displaced.
Before we pass a Bill of this kind which is going to have serious effects upon people in the insurance business we ought to see that provision is made for those employees until such time as it will be possible for them to fit into a new groove in the economic system of the country, or until it is possible for them to be absorbed into employment in other industries. Deputy McGilligan knows that because of the Railway Amalgamation Acts there have been people displaced who since then have been employed. The lump sum or the weekly pittance on which the ex-railway employees are compelled to live has reduced them to a state of which this House has little appreciation. I say that when the Dáil lightly passes Bills of this kind and makes no provision for those affected by such Bills it is doing a very serious thing. I would urge the Minister to accept this amendment. Armed with it he would be assured that in any amalgamation scheme submitted substantial provision would be made for those who lose their livelihood. Armed with this amendment the Minister would be in a much better position to talk to the insurance companies. This will make some provision for those likely to lose their employment with the insurance companies. Without this amendment in the Bill their lawyers will be able to advise the companies that the Minister cannot bluff them into making provision for the employees who have been displaced. Under this Bill the companies in my view will not be deceived by any bluff which the Minister may try on them. I urged the Minister, therefore, to accept this amendment. I am willing to have the amendment altered in such a way as to meet any reasonable view, but I do think the Minister ought not to let the Bill pass without definitely making provision for those who will lose their employment.
I should like the Minister to take note of the reference made this evening to the very small compensation paid to employees as a consequence of the amalgamation of national health insurance societies. I generally come up against most of the cases of hardship in Dublin of people with grievances, but I only met one man who lost his employment through the amalgamation of the national health insurance societies and he had a grievance regarding his compensation. For some time he did not receive any compensation and was considerably agitated on that account. Later on I met him and asked him how he had done, and he said that he had done well, that he got £500 compensation. I think that was very decent compensation and, having regard to that example, we ought to have some further information before this thing spreads.
To come back to this insurance matter, I should like to get it into its proper perspective. There can be no doubt that there is going to be redundancy if there is an amalgamation scheme. There can be no possible doubt that there will be people losing employment if the amalgamation scheme goes through. On the Second Reading the Minister for Industry and Commerce said: "There are too many people employed in the industry at the present time to permit of its being conducted on sound lines." When questioned on that in the course of the Recommittal Stage, he repeated it and indicated that it was still his point of view and then fled away from any discussion about compensation to the people rendered redundant. Let us be clear that the view of the Minister who originated this scheme, and who is responsible for these amalgamation proposals, as clearly expressed, is: "There are too many people employed in the industry at the present time to permit of its being conducted on sound lines."
An amendment has been put up. Objections may be taken to it in detail, though not on the details on which the present Minister took objection to it. Whatever objections may be taken to it in detail, what is the alternative offered by the Minister, "Leave it to me"; that when an amalgamation scheme is brought forward he will see that the employees will be fairly treated. I wonder what opposition I would have been met with in introducing a Railway Bill or Electricity Bill, or anything having to do with road transport if, when it came to the question of employees, I was asked did I consider that employees would be rendered redundant and said "yes," and was further asked what were my proposals about looking after them, and then put up the amazing statement to this House: "Leave it to me, I will see about it."
There never was any measure passed through the House where there was definitely an admission of the certainty of redundancy without the House insisting on its view—it may be an inadequate view, and I may be one of the people who persuaded it to take up a meagre point of view with regard to compensation—being expressed in the Bill and, as Deputy Norton said, without its being left as a statutory right which an employee could enforce in the courts if he was deprived of the rights that the House sought to give him. The Minister said here: "Leave it to me; I will look after them." We do not know that he will. We do not know that he will be there to look after them, to start off with. We do not know what his point of view about these things will be. He has not indicated to the House, even in general terms, what his view of fair terms is. In that context we are asked that we should not insist on something being written in upon which employees hereafter can stand in the courts, but simply to leave it to the Minister to see to their position when an amalgamation scheme comes up. I personally have some doubt, when such a scheme would be proposed, that the Minister could insist on provisions. There is no doubt that there is a series of matters which he can insist upon under a sub-section of the section. There is such a thing as a just and generous rule. There seems to be one sub-section which gives fairly wide powers, but the whole substance of the detailed paragraphs of Section 24 (2) is in relation to the scheme itself—the books, the acturial calculations, and things like that. It is certainly not inherent in Section 24 (2) that there should be any provision made for employees.
The Minister in a later section is given absolute discretion to approve or refuse. But the Minister has announced that he is set on amalgamation. The people who will be approaching him with this amalgamation scheme will know that the Minister has more or less to justify his attitude towards insurance in this country. There may be an amalgamation scheme which will be good from the actuarial point of view, from the policy-holder's point of view, and even from the shareholders' and directors' point of view. But there is not a word uttered by the Minister, except the vague phrase about being fairly dealt with, that he will consider it from this angle: will it be good from the employees' point of view? The Minister may be faced with a scheme which is excellent in all other respects and failing in this only. It will be a serious temptation at that time. Will he yield to it and get some good fruit from the Bill, which has been so criticised, and let the employees shift for themselves?
Deputy Norton wants to write in a series of phrases into the Bill. I would rather that Deputy Norton's amendment had cut out the phrase "so far as practicable," so that his amendment would run, that every existing employee would be transferred with his existing rights and then let the rest follow from that. There is power to dismiss for misconduct. Possibly there might have to be references to inefficiency, or some other extension, which would allow people to deal with a man who was not doing his job properly. The Minister made the objection that there is no heed paid to the fact that employees of insurance companies are different types. They may be part-time, whole-time, or temporary employees. Deputy Norton rules out the temporarily employed people. As far as part-time people are concerned, anybody who is dragged over by the amendment will be dragged over only with his rights and privileges as they exist in relation to wages, tenure, conditions of service, etc. If a man was a part-time employee, he would not carry with him any more than part-time conditions.
He will get compensation on part-time wages.
Yes. What is the rate provided for here? Two months' salary or wages for each completed year of service. That is where, personally, my experience has been deepened in the last three or four years. I hope my new mood will be a lasting one. When I consider some men, who fell under some of the other Acts, who had been occupied in very technical and difficult railway work, men who had reached the age of 45 or 50, having gone into that occupation out of their apprenticeship round or about the time of their majority, after learning a particular business for 25 or 30 years, I simply cannot now conceive how I ever thought it possible that such men, having spent the best 30 years of their life learning one job, with a limited education, would find it possible at that age to turn round and get any other occupation. From what I know some of these men have got—good awards have only brought them about £1 per week—I think that is a hardship which should not have been inflicted on these people. So far as I did it, I am regretful for it.
When anybody thinks of the conditions of employment of the type of people dealt with in any of these amalgamation schemes, and relates that to the existing situation in this country, a situation which is going to exist for some time—we are not like America, where enterprising people have opportunities of shifting from one post to another, because in this country, both in the lower and in the higher walks of life, a man spends most of the best years of his life training for some occupation, and he is lucky if he gets occupation sufficient to keep him employed for the rest of his life—it is a desperate condition of affairs to take any man so trained and to throw him out of that occupation when he is not educated in such a way that he can easily turn to something else and when, at any rate, the conditions operating in this country do not allow of his getting something else to turn to. It is a desperate thing that we should get benefit for one section of the community through economies under amalgamation schemes when these economies are really being hammered out in the living flesh and blood of individual people about the country. We do scrounge a certain amount of benefit for people under amalgamation schemes, but we gouge it out of the livelihood of certain other people who have no resort once we take from them the livelihood that they have been trained for. It is a recognition of that fact—possibly because I have some sort of a roving disposition myself and have had it brought home sufficiently to me—that has now completely changed my viewpoint on these matters. So far as amalgamation schemes are concerned, I hope that I will always take up the standpoint that the only proper thing to do is to transfer in bulk all the employees of all the concerns that are going to be amalgamated, and then to insist, by a series of rigid phrases heavily loaded against the newly amalgamated concerns, that these people will be kept in employment or only permitted to leave employment if there is such a thing as misconduct on their part or something of a glaring type of inefficiency that almost amounts to sabotage in their work.
I hope that, as regards any schemes of amalgamation that come into this House in the future, they will be heavily loaded in favour of the employees and against the new concerns. If we ever do have amalgamation schemes for the future, properly considered schemes, their only justification will be that the business in which we are looking for amalgamation is at a low ebb or that a company is at a low ebb. In such cases it might not be equitable to impose on the new concerns, the obligation to provide for all the employees, but it is the duty of the State, seeing that the State is interfering in bringing about this disruption in the lives of ordinary people, to assist the new concerns to bear the extra burden. I do not care if, in such circumstances, the State has to take on its shoulders a little bit extra in order to provide for the employees to be taken over. I think it is only when one begins to peer down into the conditions of certain people that one realises that, with the best possible education that this country can provide, it is not easy for any man in his middle years to change from one profession, or from one type of occupation, to another. It is only when that atmosphere gets a hold of one that there is a complete realisation of the extreme hardship and injustice that may occur and that has occurred through amalgamation schemes already brought into force in the country. I personally will not stand for any amalgamation scheme being worked out at the cost of the broken livelihoods of certain poor people.
I hope that Deputy Norton will press his amendment to a division. Subject to the reservations we have made with regard to details, we will vote with him.
I do not like the Deputy's reservations. I think that Deputy McGilligan's reservations are much more progressive. Perhaps the Minister will reconsider the matter.
I do not know what we are committing ourselves to under Deputy Norton's amendment. I am not disposed to accept the amendment. If the amendment were accepted, the amalgamated company would be compelled "in addition to any other compensation" to which an agent may be entitled to give him, if they disemployed him, "a sum equal to the amount which a willing buyer would pay for the goodwill interest" in his book.
The book is his own private property.
It seems to me that the amendment opens up a number of questions which would have to be gone into very carefully. I feel more disposed to allow the representatives of the companies which are amalgamating to thrash out that question themselves, knowing that the employees of those companies have a good deal of influence with the directors. There is no real analogy, I think, between the position of disemployed railway workers, let us say, and insurance employees who may be disemployed as a result of the amalgamation scheme foreshadowed in the Bill. The railway workers were disemployed as a result of a compulsory scheme passed through this House. The details of that scheme were fairly well known, and the position in regard to it was quite clear. The State was definitely and immediately responsible to the extent that it had brought those amalgamation provisions into effect. For that reason, the Minister of the day was compelled to bring in a measure providing compensation for those workers.
The Road Transport Act as phrased will not apply to them?
I am dealing now with the railway position. I say it was compulsory amalgamation, and that as a direct result of State action those employees lost their employment. In connection with the present Bill, there is no compulsory amalgamation. We cannot compel the companies to amalgamate. In fact, I foresee serious obstacles in the way of amalgamation, one being this very question of compensation. Deputy Norton seems to think that raising the question of compensation in a large magnificent way will tend to induce the companies to come together. Having some knowledge of the companies, I am inclined to think that it will not. The possibility of having to pay out heavy compensation will not induce them to come together as quickly as the Deputy would like. Then there is the troublesome question of the companies which are not in a strong position. What guarantee is there that their employees will continue to secure employment?
Deputies like Deputy Alfred Byrne conveniently forget that there are two sides to all these questions. Had Deputy McGilligan, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, not taken certain steps with regard to the railways—the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, in particular, being faced with the responsibility as a result of his legislation, of disemploying other workers —we might have had the railway companies closing down altogether. Had that occurred, Deputy Byrne would be able to make a truly pathetic speech in the Dáil about the sad plight of the railway workers, because I am sure he would be able to argue that the Government were in some way responsible for the disemployment of those people, and that the members of the Government, as humane men, should have some consideration for them. Therefore, in order to keep the railway people in employment, the steps which I have referred to had to be taken.
Is that the Minister's defence for disemploying the insurance men?
I think that if Deputy Byrne's argument is pursued to its logical conclusion, it means that because there are a certain number of people finding, let us say, part-time employment in a certain line of business, no effort should be made to reorganise that business if there is any danger whatever that some of them may lose their employment. We have to realise that, in the world as it is, questions of this kind are constantly arising. When the railways came in, I suppose they disemployed large numbers of people. When motor transport came in, large numbers on the railways and in other occupations were disemployed. In my opinion, all that is inevitable, and people have to accommodate themselves to these changes which may come about.
These people cannot accommodate themselves, because they have got no money and no wages.
Remember that you cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs.
If the employees of a company, not in a strong position, were to find themselves without employment to-morrow, then all the difficulties that Deputy Norton foresees would arise for them. At any rate, if this amalgamation scheme goes ahead, those people who, I maintain, are by no means secure as to employment in the future, have some chance of securing employment. But we have to bear in mind that there is that redundancy, and even if you leave these particular companies, which may or may not continue, out of consideration, you still probably will have redundancy, and you have the further fact that every redundancy in connection with staff adds to the expenses and is, therefore, a burden on the policy-holder.
Nonsense.
Nonsense? Then why did the Cohen Committee report in that strain? In connection with the bus companies, for example, I know the Department exercised its best endeavours to try to find employment for the disemployed bus people. I know in a particular connection, when there was a doubt whether the Government, through the Electricity Supply Board, had any responsibility as to whether certain people were disemployed as a result of the activities of that Board in Cork, we introduced special legislation, and if it could be shown here and now that we were responsible, through this Bill, for disemploying certain people, I am sure the Government would be prepared to go into the question.
But we are here discussing a matter which has not yet reached the stage when we will know what is to be the extent of the disemployment, if any, what will be the extent of the problem with which we will be faced. I submit that until we have that information before us, and until we come up against these circumstances, we cannot very well take a leap in the dark and bind ourselves to the Deputy's amendment. I have assured the House that, so far as we are concerned, we shall endeavour to see that the employees get a fair deal. That may not satisfy Deputies opposite.
What does the Minister mean by a square deal?
I cannot say at the moment what number of years' compensation should be granted to an employee, or whether we should have regard to the number of his dependents or the amount of business he was doing, and so on, or whether the amalgamated company would be in such a strong position and would have such bright prospects that it would be really feasible to ask them to take over all the employees—to insist upon it. Naturally, I cannot foreshadow what the possibilities will be.
Will the State be prepared to make any contribution under any circumstances?
I cannot bind the State at this moment to make any contribution. If the State are convinced that it is as a result of their action and this legislation that the disemployment is brought about, then they may consider the question of making a contribution. I do not wish to bind the State in any definite way. It is not that we have any objection to pay up money in a certain definite hard case, but the point is, are we going to be asked, as Deputy McGilligan pointed out in connection with the S h a n n o n fisheries, in connection with every individual who has lost employment under the policy of protection or who may remotely claim that through some Government act he had lost his employment—are we going to be asked to apply this question of compensation wholesale or where are we going to stop?
There should be some advertence to Government responsibility in the matter and, since this amalgamation is not compulsory, since we are not bringing in a scheme of amalgamation, we are not at this moment responsible. When the matter is brought before the Minister, and he goes into it with the company, he will then be responsible by reason of the pledges he has given to the House to see that the employees will get fair treatment, and the House will have the additional safeguard that if the Minister for Finance invests a substantial amount of money in the undertaking, they may feel that that enables them to demand that the Government should go further in seeing that the employees who would be otherwise disemployed are kept on. I do not think it would be reasonable to ask me to promise here and now that a State contribution would be made when I have not full knowledge of what the circumstances are and what the liability is to be. I think, in the first instance, the responsibility should be put on the amalgamated company and the Minister should try and get them to keep on as many of these people as possible.
It is quite evident from the statement just made by the Minister that no consideration has been given by him, at any rate, to the position of those who are bound to lose their employment as a result of the operation of this measure. The Minister has unduly stressed the point that this is not compulsory amalgamation; but he knows perfectly well, if he has been in touch with what has been going on, that it is bound to lead to amalgamation and the Government, if they have not a direct responsibility, have an indirect responsibility for whatever number will lose employment through the operation of this legislation.
Consideration has been given to the rights of policy-holders, and rightly so, and the position of those others who may be affected by this measure, but no consideration has been given to those who will lose employment as a result of direct or indirect State action. The whole Bill presupposes amalgamation and amalgamation means that people are bound to lose their employment. There will not be a case for the continuance of competing insurance agents in towns when some of the insurance companies are going to disappear. I never heard such a case as has been put up—I never heard such a bad case as has been put up by the Minister.
Did he not say that he would give you a square deal?
He did, but he did not explain what that meant.
What do you think it means?
Wait until we see whether anybody will lose his employment; wait until we see the scheme coming into operation, and until people lose employment, and then the State will consider what they are going to do. That is what the Minister's statement amounts to. The State will consider the position after the scheme has been sanctioned and these men have lost their employment. That is what the Minister meant.
He meant by a square deal what we all mean by a square deal.
Perhaps Deputy Kelly will tell us what he means?
I will give way to Deputy Kelly in about two minutes. The Minister also said that he did not know whether the compensation to be paid in certain circumstances would depend on the family responsibilities of, or the financial loss involved to, the person who would lose his employment. That is not a clear explanation of a fair deal.
A square deal.
I will give way to Deputy Kelly if he will get up and explain what the Minister did not explain to the satisfaction of the House.
What is a square deal?
The square deal was embroidered with one or two phrases. The Minister is not sure whether compensation ought to be apportioned having regard to the dependency on the man or in relation to the wages he would be earning. The Minister introduced two other things rather ominous to people wondering what this square deal may import. He was not sure whether the amalgamated company would be strong enough. The square deal may turn out to be a very small business, a very meagre pittance, and the excuse offered is that the amalgamated company may not be too well set and might not be able to afford certain things. That is the point at which, if there are a couple of weak Saorstát companies amalgamating, they cannot be asked to bear a burden too heavy for their strength. There should be a Government contribution in those circumstances. There should be help from the State. The Minister is thinking entirely of the amalgamation as achieved, the individual companies who achieve it, and their ability to bear a particular burden. He also introduced this—a most amazing introduction— into the context of his remarks: We must remember that the Minister for Finance will have a large holding in a certain company; the Minister for Finance having that large holding he is going to be terribly impressed with the sufferings of persons who may meet with disemployment. Would not the Minister for Finance be thinking, as the Minister for Finance always thinks primarily, of the return that is going to be made in money, and how he is going to get back what State funds are in the concern? The Minister for Finance will be the greatest Gradgrind. He is bound by his job to be that. He is the very man who will see that the square deal will be cut down to a very small point indeed.
I rose mainly to counter an analogy which the Minister brought into this argument. He said the difference between the provisions for redundancy in the Railways (Amalgamation) Act and this depends upon the fact that the Railways (Amalgamation) Act imposed amalgamation compulsorily, therefore we had to provide; this does not impose the obligation to have amalgamation, therefore, we need not provide. I challenged him about the Railway Transport Act, and we got no answer. The Railway Transport Act imposed no obligation on anybody to amalgamate concerns. It did give certain companies the right to apply for the transfer of other people's property to them, and then said: "If and when those transfer orders are applied for, and if and when they are accepted, then certain provisions that we wrote down into that measure will apply." That was undoubtedly making provision against a contingency. It was just as likely to be a certainty as the amalgamation here is. Similarly, when the Electricity Supply Act was established, it was recognised there that there was going to be some amalgamation, but there was a certain amount of amalgamation or absorption that was left to the Electricity Supply Board itself to decide upon, and yet we provided against the contingency. The Bill was built upon a contingency. We knew very well that the Electricity Supply Board would not be carrying out the duties that this House put before it unless it did bring about a certain amount of absorption of other people's business into the hands of that board, but we definitely did provide against the redundancy likely to follow if and when the contingency became a reality.
That is what we ask should be done here, and nothing more. The attempt that the Minister has made to pin himself down to the solitary example of the Railway Act does not save him. The Railway Act I think had more detailed provisions and had more difficult provisions from the angle of the employee than any of those other Acts. It is a rather peculiar thing that the Act which insisted on amalgamation, and therefore almost necessarily brought about redundancy, should have been less generous in its provisions than the other Acts which only allowed redundancy as a possibility or as a contingency. Deputy Byrne here alluded to some of the terms of the Road Transport Act. There is no doubt about it that certain people have been most harshly and unjustly treated under the 1933 Road Transport Act. There is a phrase there which entitled a person to compensation, not as Deputy Byrne suggested when he can prove five years' employment; he had to prove five years' continuous whole-time employment on the operation of the vehicles licensed. If he changed the character of his employment in the interim he might find himself without a shilling. There was a very harsh provision indeed. The first hurdle that had to be got over was the qualifying period, but it was not simply five years' employment; it was five years' whole-time and continuous employment—five years' employment operating certain vehicles carried under the licence.
In fact the terms were so bad that an amendment had to be introduced in a later Act, and even the amending Act did not meet some of the cases which were put before the Minister when he was trying to relax the conditions of the second Act. Some people have since fallen by the wayside, beaten by the conditions of the so-called relaxing Act. The Minister has also alluded to the possibility that people here might, if this idea of compensation became more popular than it is, come and ask the Ministry to give them compensation because they are put out of employment through the Government's policy of protection. Of course the way that is going to work is to put the Government out of occupation. One of the most serious handicaps under which the Government labour at the moment is that when they attempt to justify their protection scheme they cannot meet the criticism that always is passed upon it, that they have in fact resulted in putting more people out of occupation than they have brought in. The people cannot claim compensation, unfortunately. The one compensation that they can claim is that they have a vote which they can cast, and we saw the result of the casting of that type of vote recently.
That is far away from the amendment.
It is brought in by the Minister.
It is a very great distance away from it.
Not as great a distance as it will remove Deputy Kelly from government when it gets going.
Mr. Kelly
We will risk that.
The Deputy is betting against a certainty this time. There is no doubt that if this matter were properly considered the Minister would not have the audacity to attempt to pass a Bill of this sort without at any rate making some provision for the redundant people. I do not care how vague the phrases are. If the Minister would come in here and say he pledged himself— although we have seen just what happened when there was a pledge about bringing in an amendment—to see that people who are rendered redundant will get compensation, and state what the conditions are, Deputy Norton might be willing, at this late stage of this Bill in its peculiar progress through the House, to accept that. It certainly would not give people who are likely to be disemployed a statutory right, but it would make clear to us the Minister's intentions. We have all this vague nonsense about a square deal. There would be different ideas about a square deal. If I may get into the confession humour again I may say that my idea of what would be a square deal for those people in 1925, 1926 and 1927 is different from what I have now. The Minister may have taken the opposite change to what I have taken.
This House should not give up its control of this matter without having some sign. Let the Minister even do this, and Deputy Norton may be satisfied; let him bring in some simple clause into this part of this Act, to the effect that if and when a scheme is brought forward for confirmation by him that scheme will be laid on the Table of this House and will not be approved until it has authority from this House. Then we will have some idea of what the compensation clause is like. Remember that if this House loses its grip on it now it will never get a hold on it again. Amalgamation schemes will be drawn up. They will be brought before the Minister. They will include a certain number of things, and the Minister in his absolute discretion can pass or refuse them. This is a piece of legislation we are passing. The function of this House is to pass legislation. If the Minister's policy were to be pursued to its logical conclusion, he could come in here and say: "Not merely trust me to give a square deal to every person rendered redundant, but pass an Act telling me I can amalgamate or wipe out, or resurrect, or do anything I like with insurance companies. Trust me to give a square deal to everybody—to the company, to policy-holders, to shareholders, to directors and employees." Nobody would think of bringing in a measure of that type. Nobody would attempt to put that before this House as a proper measure to be passed. This is a matter worthy of more consideration, and with your permission, Sir, I move to report progress to enable the Minister to give it, at any rate, the night's consideration.
Progress reported.
The Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. to-morrow, Thursday, 30th July.