Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 18 Dec 1990

Vol. 404 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Export Credit Insurance Cover.

Michael Bell

Ceist:

23 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the names of companies who received export credit insurance cover for the years 1980 to 1990; the type of business which these companies are engaged in; the amount of cover given to each company; the countries to which the goods were exported in each case; and the claims already paid or amounts currently notified to the insurance company directly or to his Department, where claims might be made with the exception of the beef exports in question.

It has never been the practice to disclose the names of companies availing of the export credit insurance scheme or to give details of the amount of cover they have individually received. This is confidential information relating to the commercial operation of the companies concerned. Its disclosure would be inappropriate and would not be in the best interests of the companies concerned. In any event, it would be virtually impossible for me to give the Deputy details of the names of companies who have held export credit insurance in the period in question as there is a continuous turnover of companies using the facility each year. I can, however, tell the Deputy that at present there are about 400 companies covered by the scheme involving exports to 20,000 buyers in over 90 countries. These companies are involved in various manufacturing, processing, distribution and services related activities. Examples would include food, drink, chemicals, computer and telecommunication equipment, machinery and technical services contracts.

For the period 1 January 1980 to 30 September 1990 claims paid amounted to £43.3 million. In the same period recoveries of claims paid amounted to £15.3 million. Total exports covered by the scheme in the period amounted to roughly £5 billion. Amounts notified to the Insurance Corporation of Ireland as at 30 September 1990 on which claims might be payable stood at about £12.3 million.

I should point out that the 1989 and 1990 figures included in the above totals are not audited and have therefore been estimated on the basis of the latest available information.

The above figures exclude amounts in respect of beef exports to Iraq in 1987 and subsequent years.

In relation to the last part of the reply, why are they not included in the figures?

Because the Deputy asked for them to be left out for some reason, as can be seen if Deputy Barry reads the question.

They are the ones that I have the most interest in.

I do not know why but for some reason Deputy Bell asked for them to be left out. That is why I drew attention to it in the reply. It might otherwise mislead people.

Why should it be that information about the companies who avail of this facility ought not be made available in the normal way? When the Deputy was on this side of the House he spent a great deal of time winkling out information in this area in respect of some companies. I cannot see how it could damage commercial credibility.

I suppose it is like any other insurance policy. It would not be the practice to give details in regard to other forms of insurance policy. It just happens that the State in this country is involved in this type of insurance. That is one of the matters we are considering at the moment but because it is involved I do not think those who utilise it should be put at a commercial disadvantage in regard to it.

Precisely because it is the State and taxpayers' funds that are involved here and because substantial taxpayers' funds are being lost through the scheme, information regarding these firms should be disclosed to the House and it would be entirely appropriate to do so. It is not comparable to an ordinary private insurance company which has a private contract——

I think overall figures should be disclosed to the House and information should be given to the House quite freely in relation to matters other than individual policies and names of companies.

Why not?

I think that has always been regarded as commercial information. I do not want to put people in the position that if they take out export credit insurance in a normal way their affairs are going to be discussed in this House. I do not think that would be fair to them.

Can the Minister say——

I want to get on with Deputy Peter Barry's Question No. 24.

——which countries have defaulted and caused this loss of some £30 million to the taxpayer?

The total figures would be different. As I made clear in the reply, I have excluded beef exports to Iraq. Iraq, of course, has defaulted heavily. There are other defaults but many of them have nothing to do with the country involved. It just happens that it is a company situated in a particular country, but it would be wrong to draw any reflection on the country where it is a private company within that country that has defaulted.

Have any countries defaulted other than Iraq?

I think there are one or two, yes.

Which are they?

Nigeria is in default for a long time.

How much?

Several million pounds, and there are other countries that have difficulties.

Which others?

Countries like the Sudan, Egypt and some others.

Which others?

I am not asked that question.

I am asking it as a supplementary.

You cannot expect information for everything. I know a great deal but I cannot know everything.

In relation to the reason for not disclosing the names of companies involved, will the Minister not agree that this is not similar to other types of insurance? It is not underwritten in the same manner as other types of insurance. This is more a guarantee scheme.

It is underwritten by the taxpayer.

Yes. It is a guarantee scheme provided by the State with taxpayers' money, therefore, it is not a question of normal commercial criteria applying. The rate being charged for export credit insurance to Nigeria or to Iraq was not based on some commercial criteria. For that reason will the Minister not recognise that there is a duty to disclose openly here in this House those companies who receive these State guarantees and the countries that default in relation to the cover provided? Otherwise taxpayers do not know the exposure they are involved in or the amount of tax that ultimately, I presume, they will have to pay.

I have no objection whatever to giving that information on the amount of exposure, as requested by the Deputies so far as countries are concerned. Here I am asked a very specific question. It is a very long question. It has a number of precise points that the questioner wants answered. I have tried to deal with those. It then goes on, rather unusually for a question, to say it does not want certain other points answered. Deputies opposite now get up and upbraid me for not answering here the very points the questioner who put down the question asked me not to answer.

Barr
Roinn