asked the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism if he is satisfied with the operation of the Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1983 and particularly that the Act affords a sufficient degree of protection to employees of a company where an administrator is appointed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

It is quite clear that where an administrator is appointed the position of employees is improved, since the Act specifically requires the administrator to carry on the business as a going concern. It also provides that contracts of employment are not affected by reason only of the appointment of an administrator. Under the earlier legislation of 1936 and 1964 the only option available to the Minister in a case of serious insolvency was to petition the High Court for the winding up of the company in question with the inevitable consequences of termination of employment for the staff and of insurance cover for the insuring public.

The Minister has indicated that one of the factors in passing the Act was to safeguard employment. He said the purpose of the administrator was to carry on the company as a going concern. Apart from the principal company were the subsidiaries taken into account in relation to employment? Can he be specific about the closure of the garages with a loss of 80 jobs and no redundancy repayments after 20 or 30 years' service?

I am in a certain difficulty because there may be a sub judice problem. I said in my reply that the Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1983, specifically requires the administrator to carry on the business as a going concern whereas under the 1964 Act the company was forced to wind up. An administrator was appointed by the courts and he has direct responsibility for the PMPA. He acts under the court's direction. The administrator is subject to and answerable to the courts.

On the last point, since the Minister appointed the administrator does he not monitor——

I am concerned only with the relevance of the question, but the administrator was appointed by the court and not by the Minister.

My question asks about the operation of the Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1983. Surely the Minister monitors the operation of that Act to ensure that it is operated in accordance with the wishes of the Dáil. Did he take up with the administrator the closure of the garages almost as soon as he took up his job with a loss of 80 jobs particularly as they did not receive redundancy payments after 20 or 30 years' service?

That is a matter for the administrator. It is my responsibility to keep the operations of the PMPA insurance company at arm's length.

15.