andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether his advisers consulted the Attorney General's Office before deciding that no prosecution could be taken against the New Ireland Assurance Company for carrying out insurance practices which he described as being in conflict with the Insurance Acts; and, if so, when this consultation was first held.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Decision on Insurance Practices.
16.
No consultations took place between my Department and the Attorney General's Office in this matter. I should like to make it clear that I have not at any time described the issue of the policies in question as being in conflict with the Insurance Acts. A decision as to the legality or otherwise of policies of industrial assistance is a matter for the courts.
Will the Minister now tell the House why he stated here recently, in reply to a question, that he was warning insurance companies, in view of the decision given in the High Court, not to contravene the 1936 Insurance Act?
I issued a general warning not to issue policies that would contravene the Act. Determining what policies did, in fact, contravene the Act would be a matter for the courts.
If, as a result of a decision of the High Court, it was necessary for the Minister to issue a general warning, does he now seriously suggest he took no steps with regard to this particular company to ensure that policies that were paid were paid back? Does he also maintain that no consultation whatever took place between the officers of his Department and the officers of the Attorney General's Department with regard to this case?
The warning was issued to the company which was a party to these proceedings, in common with other companies. As far as consultation between my Department and the Office of the Attorney General is concerned, I told Deputy Dr. Browne last week that I had no consultation with the Attorney General's office before a warning was issued. Subsequently in case of misunderstanding, I said I wanted to make clear that there may have been consultations with regard to confirming my Department's impression as to whether or not proceedings were statute barred for criminal purposes. I have since discovered that there were, in fact, no such consultations. My Department determined that question for themselves.
May I ask the Minister, so, in view of the fact that in the House recently he said he was not aware whether there had been discussions between his Department and the Attorney General's office, if he will state now why, in view of the importance of this matter, such discussions did not take place?
My Department were fully competent to decide the matter for themselves. The law, as far as they were concerned, was quite clear and, as it transpired, it was not necessary for them to consult the Attorney General's office.
May I ask——
Question No. 17.
Is it not a fact that no action could be taken due to the fact that this case was Statute barred?
Question No. 17.