andMr. McQuillan asked the Taoiseach whether in view of the danger of bringing into disrepute the high office of Attorney General caused by the appearance of the Attorney General for the defence of persons engaged in the sale of industrial assurance policies described by the President of the High Court as gambling policies, he will ensure that the Attorney General will take no further part in a private capacity in cases of this nature.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Appearance of Attorney General in Court Cases.
1.
The answer is in the negative.
Does the Taoiseach seriously contend that it is in the public interest that the Attorney General, whose official capacity, as all the country knows, is for the purpose of protecting the public where illegal or criminal activities are concerned, should in his private capacity appear before the High Court for a company which was found by the Judge of that court to be guilty of illegal conduct with regard to the issue of industrial assurance policies?
I think the implications of the Deputy's supplementary question are not borne out by the court's judgment, which made it quite clear that it was not contended by the plaintiff or accepted by the court that the company acted otherwise than bona fide in issuing these policies.
Is it not a fact that the court found against the insurance company and, since the Taoiseach has accepted the High Court's ruling on a very much more important matter, the electoral law, would he not accept their ruling in this regard also, that this company was guilty of illegal and disreputable practices against the poorer sections of the people and, because of that, should he not seriously consider withdrawing the licence of this insurance company?
That is an entirely separate question.
There is no such implication in this case.
With your permission, I propose to raise this matter on the adjournment.
I shall have to know what issue is being raised.
Is the Taoiseach advising the Ceann Comhairle that this matter should not be raised?
I am not quite clear as to what matter is being raised.
Is it not a fact that if this case is appealed to the Supreme Court the Attorney General will be in the position of trying to prove that the President of the High Court has made a misjudgment?
That can happen.
Is not that a most improper position for the Attorney General to find himself in?
Can the Taoiseach decide the Ceann Comhairle's judgment?
The Taoiseach is not trying to decide.
It would seem to me that he cannot.
I want to be clear what matter is being raised.
What does the Deputy mean?
The Taoiseach objected and gave the impression that he is able to object and that you will accept his objection.
I did not say what I accepted or did not accept. The Taoiseach made an observation to me as to the question. That is all.
Is it not a fact that the Taoiseach is defending, trying to shelter, his colleague the Minister for Finance, who is involved in this matter?
There is slime and muck. The Deputy should be ashamed of himself.
This is a most serious case involving very poor people.
We all know that if there is any mud to throw, Deputy Dr. Browne will be first to throw it.
This is a most sordid and dishonest practice.
It is the Attorney General who is in it now as far as muck is concerned.
Question No. 2.