asked the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism the amending legislation to the Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1983, that he proposes to make now that the PMPA crisis has been resolved.

I have no proposals for amending the Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1983. I would remind the Deputy that the Act is of general and continuing application.

Will the Minister agree that it is apparent now from media reports that the crisis which was the reason for the introduction of the Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1983, has passed and that from public statements made by the administrator it is obvious that they are on the road to recovery and that it might be possible to have appointment of the administrator it is obvious that they are on the road to recovery and that it might be possible to have the appointment of the administrator terminated?

In relation to the specific case to which the Deputy is referring, that is not the case. It will take some time, possibly a number of years, to ensure that the company in question is back on a sound commercial footing. In relation to that case, there is no intention on my part to take any action in relation to the removal of the administrator. In relation to the general thrust of the question, the Act is of continuing application and it may well be used in future years in other cases to ensure that any company that gets into difficulties will not have to be wound up as was the case under the 1964 Act. The 1983 Act could be used to appoint an administrator through the courts to ensure the continuation of a company and the security of the policy-holders.

Is the Minister of State aware that the administrator appointed by the courts to the named company has indicated and published that a new executive will take over the operation in his place? Would that not seem to indicate that as far as the administrator is concerned they have now reached a satisfactory way of dealing with business on a continuing basis? Would that not indicate that the appointment of the administrator could be terminated?

I would not accept the argument put forward by the Deputy. In the first instance the administrator is responsible to the court and not to me. I do not want to say too much about this because possibly the sub judice rules apply. In relation to the recent appointment of a chief executive, that is a management decision by the administrator in relation to the company in question and does not relate to the position of the company under the administratorship.

The Minister of State stated that this legislation is of a continuing nature and that it may have to be used in future. Is he indicating that the licensing authority for which he is responsible are suggesting that this legislation may have to be used in respect of other companies? Is he aware that it would not have been necessary to talk about the liquidation of this or any other company if the terms of the original Act which allowed inspectors to be put in had been utilised. The Minister of State was not accurate in what he said. Is he suggesting that other insurance companies may be in some difficulties?

I am not stating that. I made it quite clear that I was speaking generally when I said that the Act is of general and continuing application. It will allow the Minister in the future to take certain actions that were not available to him under the 1964 Act.

9.