Michael D'Arcy (Fine Gael)

As I said, Senator Byrne was a primary cheerleader for the previous Government in the other Chamber.

We are here as a result of €280 million being required for the insurance compensation fund. Capitalism in Ireland is unique; when a company makes a profit, it pays corporation tax and the dividend is paid, in whatever form, to the directors or shareholders, but when it makes a loss, it is the State that is required to step in and underwrite it.

We are here simply because there will be a request for a number of years for an amount of money in the region of €720 million. I ask the Minister if the State Claims Agency has examined this issue. It would be prudent that it examine it. I am hopeful €720 million is the maximum figure and that there will not be a need for more funds to be provided. People the length and breadth of the country are stretched and it is appalling that the Exchequer must provide this funding following a request from the Central Bank. However, we appear to have no other option but to provide it.

The moneys are to be recouped by way of a 2% levy on the insurance industry which does business in the State. This is not the first time we have been in this position. It happened previously in the 1980s following the collapse of the PMPA. We know the figures and the reason we are here. While it is stated in section 7(4) that the levy is to be reviewed regularly, it is hoped there will be a point at which it will cease to apply and that it will not become an income gathering exercise. I have not had time to go through the legislation in detail, but I presume it is stated somewhere that there will be a point at which the levy will cease. I would like to think this is a once-off requirement and that we will not have to revisit the issue. I accept that we cannot predict what will happen years from now, let alone decades from now, but we have been in this position before following the collapse of the PMPA. Quinn Insurance has all but collapsed with the loss of many jobs in Navan. However, it continues to employ 1,600 people. I agree with Senator Byrne that the regulator has done a good job. He stepped in and has remained strong in the face of opposition and done the right thing. Doing the right thing is not always easy, but it is what must be done.

The significant section of the Bill is section 7 which deals with contributions to the fund. However, the Minister might provide the House with more detail on sections 1 to 5, inclusive. I would also like more detail on the role of the Central Bank in this regard. It is stated it will continue to be responsible for assessing the fund and that it will determine the levy to be placed on insurers when funding is required. Will a levy of 2% be enough? Can the figure be reduced to 1%? Can those paying insurance and expected to pay the levy be told when it will cease to apply?

The Bill states the Minister has the power to appoint a collector of the levy which will be passed to the ICF. Who is the collector likely to be? How will he or she be selected? Will the Minister receive a list of names from the regulator or the Central Bank?

The Bill also states the Central Bank will have responsibility in respect of the non-payment of the levy. Perhaps we might also receive more detail on this point.

It is stated in the Bill that the levy will be reviewed regularly. Will a date be set for its cessation?

I welcome that Voluntary Health Insurance will not be subject to the levy, as the cost of health insurance has increased a great deal. A further levy of 2% on top of these increases would be difficult for consumers. Given their financial circumstances, many are unable to meet their VHI contributions and opting out.

Near the end of his contribution the Minister touched on the Central Bank supervision and enforcement Bill. We are in this position because of a lack of checks and balances as a result of political interference by senior people. A former Taoiseach did not encourage oversight or regulation and was Reaganist in his views as regards those who should have been doing a far better job than they were doing. I, therefore, look forward to the introduction of the Central Bank supervision and enforcement Bill. We must ensure those in charge have the powers and authority they need to ensure these mistakes are not repeated. The Minister has stated the number of staff in the Central Bank from 50 to 100. Will 100 people to deal with an industry of this size be sufficient?

I welcome the appointment of authorised officers to investigate a company on behalf of the Central Bank. Of benefit has been the decision made by the previous Government to seek expertise outside the State. Such persons will not know the individuals concerned and will thus ensure there will be no return to the old boys' club practice often to be found in the State. To date, Mr. Elderfield has proved to be a good example of a person with expertise from outside the State who doing a good job here. I do not wish to decry the work being done by suitably qualified individuals within the country, but, unfortunately, this is a small country and too many people in certain sectors know each other, be it in the insurance industry and so on.

While I welcome the Bill, I would much prefer if we did not have to introduce it. I am sure the Minister would prefer if the Exchequer did not have to provide this amount of money to the ICF, but we have no other option. I look forward to hearing his response.