asked the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism if he has any proposals to petition the High Court to terminate the appointment of the PMPA administrator.

3.

asked the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism if he envisages in the near future the withdrawal of the administrator from the PMPA insurance group and the handing back of the control of the business to the former board of directors and shareholders.

I propose to take Question Nos. 2 and 3 together.

I have no proposals to apply for the termination by the court of the appointment of the administrator as it would clearly not be in the interest of the insuring public to consider action on these lines.

Is the Minister aware that recently there has been a major structural change in the way the PMPA is being run, that the administrator has virtually withdrawn and has appointed executives to do the job for him? With this change in the internal administrative structure of the PMPA, does the Minister think that now might be the time to seek the removal of the administrator?

Section 2 (7) of the Insurance Act, 1983, lays down the conditions under which the termination of this appointment could take place. It confines it to three circumstances: first, upon the making of an order for the winding up of the company concerned; second, upon the making of a court order to that effect on the application of either the Minister or the administrator with the approval of the Minister; or third, where the court considers it would be unjust and inequitable not to make an order to that effect provided four stringent criteria are met, namely, (a) if the manner in which the business is conducted will make adequate provision for the insurers debts; (b) the manner in which the business is conducted will not jeopardise the interests of persons arising under policies issued by the insurer; (c) the business of the insurer is and will continue to be on a sound commercial and financial footing; (d) any debt due to the Insurance Compensation Fund has been or will be paid. I have no evidence which would suggest that it would be appropriate for me to apply to the courts as I am empowered to do under the second condition. However it is open to the administrator to apply or for the court to act under the four conditions mentioned. Therefore it is not solely a matter for the Minister to act in this manner and I have no reason in my possession which would suggest that I should act. However, I would be happy to consider the matter at any time.

The Minister will agree that it is within his power to apply to the court to take this step, but is the Minister satisfied that the business of the PMPA insurance company is now being conducted in a satisfactory manner?

Let me put it this way: I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the way this company is being conducted. Naturally my Department maintain very careful supervision of this and all other insurance companies. If there were reasons for dissatisfaction, and I am not saying there are, there are remedies open to me other than the removal of the administrator.

Would it be accurate to suggest that the Minister has no intention of removing the administrator until such time as the Insurance Compensation Fund has been totally repaid?

I have indicated the statutory position and I am not going to say that I will never do "such-and-such in any circumstances except", because clearly I have to keep open all the options which are open to me within the statute. However, I have no intention of acting along the lines suggested by the Deputy, but if he feels—I am not sure if he does from the tenor of his question—that such action should be taken, it is up to him to produce the evidence before this move can be considered.

If the Minister is not satisfied that the business of the PMPA insurance group is being conducted in a satisfactory manner he can go to the courts to change the situation.

That is not what I said.

Is the Minister aware that it is estimated that the cost of administration in the current year will be in the region of £1.5 million? This is a very substantial sum and, on top of the current overheads of the PMPA insurance group, must make the company non-viable. In those circumstances, the Minister must reconsider the legislation passed some months ago.

I want to stress that these two question baldly ask about the termination of the appointment of the administrator and I have answered that question. If the Deputy has complaints about the operation of the company, as I have already said, as Minister responsible for insurance I have certain opportunities to raise those complaints with the company, as I have in respect of other companies. That also applies in respect of my functions on price controls. Recently the House decided without division on a particular approach to the problems of this company and it would be premature to contemplate the course of action which the Deputies seem to be suggesting. Deputy Brady seems to have a slightly different emphasis from Deputy Flynn in this regard. As I said, there are many other ways I can raise any complaints about this or any other insurance company and if the Deputy wishes to furnish me, either by way of parliamentary question or otherwise, with grounds for concern, I will be happy to follow them up and take whatever action is appropriate or, if I do not take any action, report back to the Deputy.

May I——

We are having repetition.

I have asked only one supplementary and one of these questions is down in my name.

Make it a question without any preamble.

I have asked only one supplementary question and this is my second.

You made a long statement.

The onus must be on the Minister to ascertain that the administrator is performing his duties in a satisfactory way. The motoring public who are subsidising the PMPA insurance company have expressed anxiety, as have the staff, about the future of the PMPA insurance group. Can the Minister assure me today that it is not costing £1.5 million in administration fees? That is a very relevant point.

I am not going to get involved in discussing that matter because it was not raised in the original question.

It was raised in a supplementary.

If the Deputy wants to raise any particular point about this or any other company he is free to do so.

I would like this company returned to private ownership as soon as possible because I consider that the Government have nationalised it. Is the Minister aware that recently the administrator is on record as saying that this company is on a sound footing? That is why I am suggesting that now would be an appropriate time to terminate the appointment of the administrator and to seek his removal by the court.

I do not think we have reached that point. However, I will keep the matter under review.