asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the total number of persons employed (1) on life and industrial assurance business, and (2) on fire and accident business by (a) the City of Dublin Assurance Company, Limited; (b) the Irish Life and General Assurance Company, Limited; (c) the Irish National Assurance Company, Limited; and (d) Comhlucht Urrudhais Mumhan agus Laighean, Teoranta, immediately before the passing of the Insurance Act, 1936; the number of persons transferred from employment on the fire and accident staff of each of these companies, (1) to the Insurance Corporation of Ireland, (2) to other Irish insurance companies; the number of persons whose services were dispensed with by each of these companies by reason of the relinquishing or curtailing of fire and accident business consequent on the passing of the Insurance Act, 1936.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Effect of 1936 Insurance Act on Personnel of Insurance Companies' Staffs.
The information asked for by the Deputy is not available in my Department.
Will the Minister say what steps he is taking to see that the employees of those companies are not prejudiced in their employment by the Insurance Act of 1936?
The Insurance Act of 1936 is not yet in operation.
But is not the Minister aware that the Insurance Act of 1936 is sufficiently in operation to have brought about the discharge of a number of men by some of those companies?
No.
Will the Minister take steps to inquire, or has he taken steps to inquire?
I know that the Insurance Act of 1936 cannot have affected the employment of any persons by those companies.
Is not the Minister aware that one of the results of the Insurance Act of 1936 is that at least one of those companies has given up its fire and accident business, and as a result of that has discharged some of its employees?
I am not aware that any of the provisions of the 1936 Act required the company in question to give up its general insurance business.
Is not the Minister aware that the effect of the passing of the Act is that some of the companies have given up their fire and accident business?
I am aware that they have given it up, but I want to point out to the Deputy that they were not required to give it up under the terms of the Act.
In view of the steps which have been taken to safeguard, either in respect of employment or compensation, those persons who were employed on the life and industrial side of this business, will the Minister say why he has taken no steps at all to see that persons actually affected on the fire and accident side would be safeguarded in any way either as regards employment or compensation?
The Deputy misunderstands the position. I have no power to compel an insurance company to remain in business. If a company doing general business decides to sell that business to another company, it is a matter for the board of directors and the policy-holders and not for me. I have no power to prevent it.
Is not the Minister aware that no action of any kind either to dispose of the accident business or to sell it took place other than because the Insurance Act of 1936 was passed, and that it is entirely arising out of that legislation and the plans that were made to implement it that certain men have lost their employment?
The Act of 1936 prohibited the carrying on of general business and life assurance business by the same company, but the company in question had already made arrangements under the agreement of which the Deputy is aware to dispose of its life business. It was quite entitled not to dispose of its general insurance business. It chose instead to dispose of that general insurance business by sale to another company. That is its business and not mine.
But it entirely arose out of the Minister's policy.
No. In fact, as the Deputy knows, other companies concerned in the agreement did not dispose of their fire and accident business.