asked the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism if he will indicate the total drawings that have been made on the Insurance Compensation Fund during 1983 and 1984; the present level of the fund; and the expected receipts to the fund from all sources during the present year.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Insurance Compensation Fund.
10.
The Insurance Compensation Fund is maintained and administered by the accountant of the High Court, acting under the control of the President of the High Court. An abstract of the accounts of the fund for each year ending 30 November is required to be furnished to the Minister by the accountant, and to be published by the Minister. The latest year in respect of which accounts of the fund have been submitted by the accountant is 1983. The accounts of the fund for the year to 30 November 1984 are due to be submitted to the Minister by the end of February 1985.
There were no payments out of the fund during the year ended 30 November 1983 and the balance outstanding to the credit of the fund on that date amounted to approximately £36,000. No contribution by insurers was determined by the Minister in respect of the year 1983.
For the year 1984, the Minister determined a contribution rate of 2 per cent of gross premium income on all non-life insurers. The appropriate contributions are payable to the Minister on a quarterly basis during the year. So far this year a total of £5.3 million has been remitted to the fund in respect of contributions received from insurers covering the half-year to 30 June 1984. Also, I understand that the accountant of the High Court has, in accordance with his statutory powers borrowed the sum of £30 million for the fund in 1984.
I am informed that a total of £30 million has, with the approval of the High Court, been paid out of the fund to the administrator of the PMPA to enable him to carry on the business of the insurance company. This amount is an unsecured debt of the insurance company.
Would the Minister indicate again when we may expect the figures at year end for this firm to be made available to the House?
The accounts for the fund for the year to 30 November 1984 are due to be submitted to the Minister by the end of February 1985.
Would the Minister indicate what the estimated gross premium income from all non-life insurance might be for 1984?
I have not the full figures for 1984, so I cannot calculate what the income would be. I suppose one could calculate that if the figure for the half year to 30 June 1984 is £5.3 million——
No, the Minister misunderstands. I am asking the estimated gross premium income for all non-life insurance, even for the half year. That would be satisfactory.
I have not that figure.
But if the Minister has not that figure, how could he estimate what the outturn will be and what amount of money will be made available to other sources, namely the PMPA, if he cannot estimate what the income is?
I have indicated to the Deputy that so far this year a total of £5.3 million has been remitted to the fund in respect of contributions received from insurers covering the half year to 30 January 1984. That £5.3 million would be 2 per cent of the total of the non-life premiums, so the Deputy can work it out for that half year.
Might I suggest that the gross income from non-life premiums might be £500 million in the year? Perhaps a calculator purchased by the Department might not go astray? Would the Minister finally——
The Deputy's calculations might be wrong.
Perhaps they are. However, the reason for my asking the question is that the Minister can lead the House in the proper direction on these figures, but he is not able to do so. We have to make estimates of our own. That might certainly be an appropriate remark to the Minister at this stage. Finally, concerning this matter, the Minister says that £30 million has to date been given to the PMPA to help them to defray their liabilities — I take it part of their accumulated liabilities. Is the Minister in a position to say, seeing that a drawing was made on this fund in the sum of £30 million, what the estimated total draw on this fund might be to clear the accumulated liabilities of the PMPA?
The Deputy is often given to flights of fancy.
Would the Minister answer the question and stop beating about the bush?
Order, please.
I will answer the question. Sometimes this is an unfortunate trait. I cannot calculate the total amount from non-life premiums based on half-yearly figures. That the Deputy can do so is marvellous. He is a wizard.
We are talking about the payment to PMPA.
I am saying that the figures for the second half of the year are not available and that they may be substantially different from those for the first half. That the Deputy is able to do these wonderful calculations must be a great help to the Gallery.
The Minister should not be provocative.
Deputy Tunney wants to ask a question.
This must be of great help to the Gallery.
I am talking about £30 million.
They are really of little value to the House.
I call Deputy Tunney.
I am sorry, on a point of order, I am simply asking the Minister if he will respond to the question of the £30 million.
That is not a point of order.
Would the Chair please direct the Minister to offer an explanation on that matter?
That is not a point of order and I have no control over how the Minister answers.
The Minister does not know how much money is in his Department or how they will be able to meet the demand. That is the truth.
If the Deputy continues with his flights of fancy, I am sure I can understand his problem. I said in answer to the previous question that under the relevant legislation the PMPA administrator is required to publish the accounts for the year ended 31 December 1983 by the end of next month. When those accounts are published we will have a much clearer picture of the PMPA situation.
I am calling Deputy Tunney.
Until that report is lodged and published, if the Deputy wants to go off in various directions, I am not going to go on the wrong road. If he wants to take flights of fancy, he can.
This is a relatively simple question, I hope. Would the Minister accept, bearing in mind the contributions that are necessary towards that fund, that the existing strike of one of our leading insurance companies can——
Well, Deputy Tunney, now——
If the Chair will bear with me, he will see that the question that I am putting is not unreasonable.
The preamble is unreasonable.
Would the Minister accept that I am in order in saying that because of the disruption of that fund it might be in order for him to exhort everybody concerned to bring that strike to an end? That is a reasonable question. It is going to affect the fund.
It is a supplementary question that is put down for an ulterior motive. I am sorry, I am calling on Deputy Treacy.
Is the Minister not concerned about the fund? He should be concerned about looking into the disruptive effect of this strike and should be prepared to comment on it.
I am sorry, Deputy, I am disallowing the question.
I do not think that the Chair should have been so hasty in disallowing that question, because the Minister is responsible——
The Chair has ruled. The Chair does not profess to be infallible, but he is in charge and has ruled in good faith, and that is that. I am calling on Deputy Treacy.
The Chair was expecting that I was asking the Minister to act as Minister for Labour, which I was not. I was asking him to express understandable concern for that fund. It was a fair enough question.
I am calling Deputy Noel Treacy.
Arising out of the Minister's earlier reply and in view of his statement that £30 million has been given from this insurance compensation fund to the PMPA and also out of his statement that he sanctioned an increase of up to 50 per cent in premiums to that company, could he now indicate to the House what hope there is for the many distraught investors in the PMPA of any reasonable refund of the money that they invested in the company prior to their going into administration?
That is a separate question.
It is relevant——
I am ruling——
——to the actual facts regarding the fund.
We cannot discuss each and every facet of the PMPA on this question. I call Question No. 11. Would the Minister please answer that question?
Are we to be satisfied that the Minister is not answering questions which are relevant to these moneys? That is very unfair.