Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1971 > Committee of Public Accounts > Final Report - Northern Ireland Relief Expenditure

MIONTUAIRICE NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Máirt, 2 Feabhra, 1971

Tuesday, 2nd February, 1971

The Committee met at 11.00 a.m.

DEPUTY P. HOGAN In The Chair.

ORDER OF DÁIL OF 1st DECEMBER, 1970.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) was in attendance in an advisory capacity.

The Committee deliberated.

Examination of Colonel Michael Hefferon continued.

4208. Deputy Tunney.—You appreciate that what we are trying to establish here is the propriety of the expenditure of certain moneys? On 9th September, at your request, £100 was paid towards the running expenses of an office in Monaghan. In your statement I see that you tell us that:

On 21st August, 1969, I was summoned to the office of the Minister for Defence where he acquainted me with the direction from the Government to the effect that intelligence officers were required as a matter of some urgency to take statements from refugees then in our refugee camps.

In so far as the request for this money would appear to have emanated from a discussion which you had with the Minister for Defence, would it have been possible for you to get that money from the Department of Defence?

—I presumed, of course, that there was a good deal of urgency about taking those statements at the time and the Monaghan office was an institution which we regarded as having great possibilities in this matter. I regarded this taking of statements from the refugees as a matter of great urgency because those statements formed the basis of——

4209. I appreciate that, but the point I am trying to make is whether or not you were sure that you would not get the money as expeditiously from the Minister for Defence, having regard to the fact that it was he who mentioned to you the importance of these statements, as from the Department of Finance?

—I think that farther on in my statement I mentioned that I met the Minister for Finance, who assured me that if there were any necessary expenses for this matter the money would be forthcoming, for any expenses we might undertake in the matter of this work.

4210. But you would not have taken that course in the normal way, where any one Department must get ultimate sanction from Finance although initially this money might have been requisitioned from their own Department?

—There was a good deal of haste in the matter because we were faced with the position that the office might close down.

4211. And as far as the expenditure of that £100 is concerned, you were quite happy that this was spent on the office?

—Yes.

4212. On 15th October again apparently there was need for more equipment or payment of other bills and again you asked the Department of Finance for a sum of £500?

—Yes.

4213. I noticed actually in the documentation which we got that when forwarding that £500 to you Mr. Fagan asked that you send him a receipt in due course. We do not seem to have that here, but presumably you sent it?

—To the best of my memory and recollection I sent a receipt for every sum of money I received.

4214. Bearing in mind that we are searching out the expenditure of moneys, you will appreciate that someone would have to ask all these questions. In the matter of that £500, this was lodged in a bank in Stillorgan. Was a cheque book issued for that £500?

—It was, yes.

4215. And from that were cheques written by you or was cash drawn and given, as in the case of the £100, to the agent?

—Not this particular amount. I think at this stage I should refer to the office in somewhat greater detail than in my statement. When sending this money on to the office I requested my representative to find out from them some idea of what their expenditure would be on a monthly basis. I felt that if they were going to operate properly this should be made clear, and on that basis I am pretty sure I wrote a letter to the Department of Finance giving them the estimated expenditure for this office on a monthly basis. Presumably this letter exists; it must be in the Department of Finance files.

4216. Again, in these circumstances we can say that of the £600 requisitioned only £250 was spent?

—This is true.

4217. That would indicate that the recommendations which you got or the information which you had was not correct or that subsequently the exercise was discontinued?

—That is so. For reasons completely outside our control the office and the people who were running it had their own differences and eventually it folded up—at the end of October or in early November—so there was no necessity to subsidise it further.

4218. When you say that this exercise folded up at the end of October—and again I appreciate that you were very busy at the time—in circumstances in which there was £350 lying to this account, do you not think that it would have been appropriate then for some indication of that to have been given to the Department?

—I do not think so. The money was in the bank and there was a certain amount of cash, and the position when the office folded up at that time was that there might be a possibility that this could be used again at some future time.

4219. Looking at the percentage of overestimation, asking for £600 and spending £250, if we applied that overestimation to the rest of the moneys we are concerned about here it would leave us in quite a quandary?

—I appreciate that but on that basis the letter that was sent to the Department of Finance provided for an expenditure of—I do not remember the figures, but it was to be on a continuing basis. £500 was originally allotted but that would have been insufficient; it was a bare minimum.

4220. I have one final question on that particular issue. When subsequently you resigned from the Army on 8th April did you intimate to your successor at that stage that there was a sum of £350 lying to what we can call his account?

—Oh no. My understanding was that this matter was to be settled directly with the Department of Finance.

4221. Yes, but this would have to be settled post to your having retired from the Army, at which stage you were no longer Director of Intelligence?

—Oh yes.

4222. And the money was in your name?

—Yes.

4223. Would you not see there would be some difficulty then in recovering the money?

—I do not see any difficulty in recovering it, because at the time I retired it was a pretty busy time. There were certain matters of the Arms Trial, and so on; and in addition, of course, the banks were closed.

4224. I appreciate that.

—So when they reopened, when the banks were open, I was in a position to produce a final account.

4225. As far as the £500 which you requisitioned early on and which was handed over to Captain Kelly is concerned, that was in connection, you see, with a meeting in Bailieboro’?

—That is true.

4226. Would you have expected that if Captain Kelly had not spent that £500 in connection with that meeting he might have indicated to you or to somebody else—to you I would imagine—where the balance of the money was?

—Well, about that £500 I think I explained already in my statement. It was given to Captain Kelly on his requisition directly to the Minister for Finance and the accounting involved was a matter between Captain Kelly and the Minister for Finance.

4227. Even though it was a matter of a request by Captain Kelly to the Minister, I am taking it that the Department, pursuing the correct line of accountancy, had initially made it payable to you?

—That is true.

4228. You did not then assume, after handing it to Captain Kelly, that you had any responsibility at all in the matter?

—Well, I had endorsed the cheque and got a receipt from Captain Kelly and I felt I had no further responsibility.

4229. There are times, Colonel, when moneys like that are paid out, that a certain responsibility devolves on the authority—in this case yourself—to ascertain whether or not it has been devoted to the purposes for which it had been required, or indicated?

—Well, as I say, this money was given directly and authorised directly to Captain Kelly by the Minister of Finance and I felt that the accountancy problem was one to be handled by the Department.

4230. On page 264—this is Captain Kelly’s evidence, Colonel—he says:

—I went to the Minister for Defence, at least through the Director of Intelligence it was put to him, that Captain Kelly was going to Germany to investigate if any arms in fact existed, to vet arms I think was the term used by both the Minister and Colonel Hefferon. This was put to the Minister and they knew, Colonel Hefferon knew, I assume, where the money was coming from,——

Would you accept that?

—Yes.

——because I got the money from the people who were importing the arms.

This is Captain Kelly’s statement.

4231. This is Captain Kelly’s evidence here last week?

—Yes.

4232. …Colonel Hefferon knew … where the money was coming from … in connection with the purchase of arms?

— … because I got the money from the people who were importing the arms.

4233. I am not concerned with where he got it but whether or not you knew where he got it?

—My understanding was it came from funds at the disposal of the Northern committees.

4234. You accepted that from him?

—Yes.

4235. And in the circumstances you were quite happy to OK his trips to the Continent?

—Well, of course, this is tied up with his offer of retirement and my discussion with the then Minister for Defence on the matter, and my understanding was they had asked him to help them out with the importation of arms.

4236. Did you know he was taking Mr. Luykx with him?

—Not at that time. I do not remember hearing about Mr. Luykx until some time in March or April.

4237. So in circumstances where Captain Kelly would have us believe that he told you everything, that, to me, is rather an important omission?

—I certainly was not aware of Mr. Luykx— as far as my knowledge goes—until March or April.

4238. So, again, the point I am making is that Captain Kelly does not seem to have told you everything?

—No; but then I think if I had questioned him closely on this matter I have no doubt he would have.

4239. Colonel, in connection with page 255, in answer to questions put by Deputy MacSharry—:

Deputy MacSharry.—Would you answer the question, please, Captain Kelly?

—It was given to the Chief of Staff by the Minister for Defence on the 6th February.

—Yes.

4240. You were aware that this instruction had been given?

—Yes, I was present.

4241. Was it an oral—?

—An oral instruction.

4242. Deputy Barrett.—Colonel, you told us last week about a visit to Mr. Haughey’s, when you were asked to bring Captain Kelly, in September. Who else was present on that occasion?

—Just Mr. Haughey, myself and Captain Kelly.

4243. You also mentioned that you regarded Captain Kelly as a link between the Northern committees and the Minister for Finance, and you were asked by the Chairman:

… the actual details of that link were something you were not absolutely familiar with?

You said:

That is true, yes.

Did you ever check out the details of that link through the Chief of Staff of the Minister for Defence?

—No, I did not.

4244. You accepted Captain Kelly’s statement?

—I did.

4245. He gave you to understand he enjoyed a special position with the Minister for Finance?

—Yes—well, of course, I suppose it was not quite as simple as that, because on a number of occasions my phone, which was a direct line, was used by Captain Kelly and I would get a message that he was required at the phone. Sometimes he would say, “I spoke to the Department of Finance”, or “The Minister requires me”. There was involvement with the Minister for Finance.

4246. With regard to the expenses, Captain Kelly told us that he did not claim expenses since September 1969—is that correct—and he made trips to the Continent?

—Yes.

4247. And at the time of the Arms Trial, when questioned by counsel:

May I take it that, while the question is largely hypothetical, if he had made any claim to you in respect of expenses you would have rejected them?

your reply was

That is true.

Speaking about his trips to the Continent to vet the arms?

—Yes.

4248. I take it that you did not regard this trip of Captain Kelly’s as coming within his line of duty as an officer of the Irish Army?

—That is true; yes.

4249. Did you question him as to where he was getting the expenses, or what he was using for money for these trips?

—Well, it was still my understanding the Northern committees were financing his trips.

4250. And paying his expenses, whatever it might be?

—Yes.

4251. Was that not an extraordinary position, for an Irish Army officer to be receiving moneys from people outside the jurisdiction?

—Yes, I would regard it as an unusual position; but I think you must tie this up with Captain Kelly’s first approach to me about this matter, where he informed me he was intending to help out these people and I invited him to retire because he could not do this as an Army officer. And it follows from that, I reported to the Minister for Defence on this matter. The first trip was February, as far as I remember— 18th February. In those circumstances the operations were extremely quiet and I did not query them.

4252. You say he was still an Army officer?

—He was.

4253. And is it contrary to the regulations for an Army officer to accept payments or expenses from any sources outside?

—I would not be too sure of this, In the circumstances that obtained in this particular case, I think it was a reasonable thing.

4254. You did not regard this as an official operation by Captain Kelly?

—Not in the strict sense that he was sent by the Intelligence Section to do a job.

4255. Therefore, you would not have Okayed his expenses if he had presented them?

—That is right.

4256. You say you informed the Minister for Defence at that time about his trips. Did you discuss the matter of his expenses with the Minister for Defence.

—No, I did not.

4257. I see. Can you tell us, does the Director of Intelligence report direct to the Minister for Defence, go through GHQ, or the Chief of Staff’s Office?

—I am in some difficulty, Mr. Chairman, about this matter because the operation of the Intelligence Section is a matter which is naturally closely involved in national security. To give a proper picture of it, I think it would mean going into detail, not only on this matter but on many other things too, which are matters of Intelligence.

4258. Deputy Keating.—Mr. Chairman, I feel that this is a relevant point, that clearly Colonel Hefferon is worried, and I think properly, about the question of being able, of Intelligence being able, to continue its work if too much is said. I think we might have to have a private session, and perhaps he would feel more free to talk in private session.

4259. Chairman.—Does the Deputy wish to pursue that?

4260. Deputy Barrett.—We could go into private session.

4261. Chairman.—Could you hold that over until we have finished with the public session? Then we can come back to it, if that is your wish.

4262. Deputy Barrett.—You mentioned that you phoned Mr. Gibbons about the contents of the Northern paper. Why was there mention of visiting his sister?

—Well, it was partly cover for one thing, and, secondly, the going abroad did require special permission—to go abroad at that particular time.

4263. Deputy Barrett.—Yes?

4264. Deputy Briscoe.—Colonel Hefferon, I understand that Captain Kelly was your personal staff officer, as he was to your predecessor?

—Yes.

4265. What is the function of a staff officer, could you tell me?

—Well, in this particular case he acted in a military secretarial capacity.

4266. Like the Private Secretary of a Minister, making appointments and taking letters?

—Yes.

4267. Did Captain Kelly have any formal training in military intelligence?

—He did not have any formal training. In our system, again, formal training is something that perhaps might be better taken up in private session.

4268. Right?

—The point I am getting at, Deputy, is that if he did not have formal training it would not mean he did not rank as an Intelligence Officer, because quite a number of people have acted in that capacity during the period from August onwards who have had no previous connection with Intelligence.

4269. Did he have any previous working in the field? Had he taken a formal Intelligence training course?

—This I would not be sure of at the moment. He would have done his courses, and he had two years experience in the Middle East.

4270. As an observer?

—As an observer, with which a lot of officers were involved.

4271. Would this be counting how many shots were fired at the site of the Border, rather than Intelligence work as we understand it?

—Yes, this is true, but it brought in observation.

4272. I tell you why I am asking this, because Captain Kelly was trying to define what Intelligence was when we spoke to him, and even though we are just laymen, we could not buy it, as it were. This is why I wanted to know from you whether this man has ever been trained or taken a formal course in Intelligence work and passed an examination. I understand there are courses. Has this man taken a course? You have stated that he was, in fact, a secretary staff officer?

—It depends——

4273. There has been a lot of talk about the directive of the 6th February in that it has been used as a basis for which arms were being purchased. Was this your understanding? I am talking about Captain Kelly having stated that a directive was, in fact, an authority. I understand him to have stated this?

—Well, the directive on the 6th February was specific as to the Army preparing for incursions in to Northern Ireland.

4274. In the event of Doomsday?

—Yes?

4275. But this instruction did not go to Intelligence, is this correct?

—In that I was present when it was given.

4276. You were there when the instruction was given. Later on we can ask the Chief of Staff on that particular one. I have the feeling, correct me if I am wrong, that you were not aware of all of Captain Kelly’s activities?

—This is quite right. Captain Kelly would be away for three or four days at a time. He would have got certain requirements to bring back certain information and, for instance, we would hear rumours about the activities in the North. In addition to getting everything we knew about that, we would also find out from the sources what they knew about it.

4277. Did he submit written reports to you?

—Not I think after September or October.

I am not too sure of the dates.

4278. From the time that he embarked, that you put him in charge of this operation, did he ever submit a written report to you of his intelligence work?

—I do not think so. My memory would be that mid-October would be probably the last, but then I am relying on memory.

4279. Are you aware if you have even one written report from him? Is it not normal for an intelligence officer to submit reports in writing?

—The trouble at the time is we were getting so much writing it was very difficult to catch up with the things.

4280. I put it to you, Colonel Hefferon, that in fact he did not submit any reports to you in writing?

—Oh, he did yes.

4281. You accept that?

—Yes.

4282. Did Captain Kelly tell you that he had been appointed liaison officer to the Government sub-committee?

—This is something that I cannot be too sure about. My impression is that he mentioned at one stage that the Cabinet Ministers responsible for Northern affairs had made him a liaison officer or a link and as such he operated indeed all the time.

4283. Did you check up on this?

—No, I did not check on that.

4284. You would consider that it would be normal that if a sub-committee set up by the Government for Northern affairs had appointed Captain Kelly as their liaison officer that they would put this in writing?

—I presume this would be normal, yes.

4285. But to your knowledge the only awareness you have is when Captain Kelly actually told you and you had no reason, I grant you had no reason to suspect he was not telling you the truth. You had seen him with certain Ministers?

—Yes.

4286. Is this not correct, and that you automatically assumed that, particularly in the case of Mr. Gibbons, that he was automatically aware of Captain Kelly’s activities?

—Well, what time are we talking about?

4287. I am talking about prior to March 4th when Mr. Gibbons met Captain Kelly for the first time. I mean, when to your knowledge did Mr. Gibbons first become aware of the existence of Captain Kelly?

—Well, to my knowledge he became aware of it I think sometime in November or maybe October, end of October, early November.

4288. By whom?

—Because he called me to the office and he mentioned that complaints had been received about Captain Kelly’s activities in the Northern part of the country by, and had been mentioned to, I think it was the Taoiseach he mentioned him, and would I look into it. At that time I told him that Captain Kelly had an assignment and would be meeting people who probably would be under supervision by the Special Branch.

4289. I see. Well now, we can get back to those——

—I mean, this in my memory is the first time I mentioned his name specifically, although indeed in briefing—and again the briefings were pretty often in August and September—I probably did mention that Captain Kelly was one of the people at that time and that he was one of the chief people concerned.

4290. Tell me who authorised—I asked Captain Kelly who authorised his visit to Europe and he said that the Minister for Defence did so the then Minister for Defence, Mr. Gibbons, on the basis that he had arranged with you a cover story, in other words that you knew what he was going to Europe for?

—Oh, yes.

4291. In other words to go and purchase arms.

—Well, at this stage it was to assist, in my understanding, to assist the Northern Committee in the purchase of arms.

4292. Did you consider that this was a legal operation?

—I am not clear that at that time that there was any question as to where they were to be imported into, whether the arms were to be imported into the Republic or into Northern Ireland or some other place, Northern Ireland, I suppose, the only place.

4293. I understand that in mid-January, 1970 Captain Kelly informed you that he wanted to assist the Northern Defence Committee in the procurement of arms?

—Yes.

4294. Is this correct?

—Yes.

4295. Your reaction was to say that he could not do this as an Army officer and you told him to retire?

—Well, I told him that he would have to retire if he persisted in going ahead with it, but that there was no need to do that.

4296. In fact, your words were that as an Army officer he could not continue to involve himself in the illegal purchase of arms?

—Well, maybe the word “illegal”, I am in doubt about it, because at that time certainly, it is now my impression and it was then my impression that there was no question as to where they were to be imported into. You see, if they were to be imported into——

4297 In spite of this, Captain Kelly did not retire but he continued in his work, his illegal work?

—He continued in his work.

4298. And as it transpired he in fact was still continuing to purchase arms. Do you not consider that he was actually disobeying your orders?

—No, I do not think so, because the position is that, coming back to me sometime later, which was about ten days or so that—, first of all, I think he came back in a very short time, three or four days later possibly, and said that he had thought this matter over and that he was prepared to go ahead with it and would bring in his resignation, which he did a few days later. I mean, this would be a period over about ten days or so.

4299. You say he brought in his resignation?

—Well, his form of application for retirement from the forces.

4300. But it was not activated at that stage?

—No. He did mention that if it could be made for the 13th February that it would suit him.

4301. But I put it to you that you did tell him that as an Army officer he could not engage in the purchasing of arms, that this would mean an illegal activity?

—That is true, yes. I do not, not on the basis of illegal activity. I think it was on the basis that as an Army officer he could not do it because he would be involving the Army directly.

4302. For a man who was to all intents and purposes—

Deputy FitzGerald.—Because he would be? I did not hear your last remark?

—Because he would be involving the Army directly in the purchase of arms, and if the Army were purchasing arms there was a well-defined method of buying these arms. I should also say, I think, that the question at this stage—I want to emphasise this—that he was assisting the Northern Committee in the carrying out of this, that this was his purpose.

4303. Deputy Briscoe.—Yes. You see, if in fact he was engaging in activities which were not activities which an Army officer should be engaged in, you had told him this; on the other hand, if you believed that this was a Government-approved mission, I am trying to understand, to relate how you could then tell him: “You cannot do this”?

—No, I do not think, there was no question of it being a Government approved mission at this stage.

4304. Fine. Have you any knowledge as to why Mr. Kelly or Captain Kelly approached the Minister for Finance about no customs examination for the consignment of arms rather than the Minister for Defence who could sign a certificate anyway?

—Yes. Well, in this there was some discussion, I think around the end of March, in which he talked about various methods by which they could be brought in and about the question of customs clearance, and I said to him: “Why not go to the Minister and get customs clearance?”—The Minister for Finance.

4305. Why him rather than the Minister for Defence?

—Well, I think the Minister for Finance would be the person properly to give customs clearance.

4306. During the trial at the Four Courts, you mentioned that the new Director of Intelligence could not be told about the arms imports because of secrecy?

—I do not know whether I used the word “secrecy” but so far as I was concerned at this stage it was security. It was confined to two or three Ministers or, perhaps, more—I did not know—but certainly it was confined to a very close circle involving Ministers and I felt that it was more proper for the Minister for Defence to talk to the new Director of Intelligence about it.

4307. This was the man who took over from you when you retired on the 9th?

—Yes.

4308. It seems a little odd that the new Director of Intelligence should not know about these arms imports when customs officials knew about them as did Aer Lingus, Lufthansa, Mr. Luykx, people from Northern Ireland and Mrs. Kelly?

—In this matter, as in dealing with my superiors and Ministers I did not feel free, without seeking their permission, to impart information on matters of which I knew they had knowledge.

4309. In other words, you did not brief your successor either on the up-to-date situation for this very reason? You felt it was not your place to brief your successor as to what were your activities as Director of Intelligence or as to what your men were up to?

—This is over-simplifying the matter. In my last interview with the Minister for Defence —I think this was on the 8th—it was either the day before I retired or the day on which I retired—we had a discussion before going into the Minister for Defence in which the question of staff came up. My successor mentioned that he did not want to carry Captain Kelly any longer on the Intelligence section and that unless he got him removed from Intelligence he could not take some new person in because the vacancy he had in mind would not be there. I think he mentioned that he had in mind bringing in some particular officer for that post and that he wanted to bring this up with the Minister for Defence. Having made the introduction and so on, I remember the last thing I said was that there is now only one problem and that is the problem of Captain Kelly.

4310. I am a little puzzled as to why you should say that the Minister for Finance and not the Minister for Defence was the person to approach about customs examination. I would have thought that, as Director of Intelligence, you would have approached automatically the Minister for Defence about customs examination even if he were to go to the Minister for Finance?

—Against the background of his working very closely with the Minister for Finance since the previous September or October I thought that this was the proper channel.

4311. You are quite satisfied that at all times you were aware of all of Captain Kelly’s activities and you stand over all his activities?

—I could not be aware of all his activities nor would I want to be. He would be away for three or four days and what I would require on his return would be a report on his intelligence work. I could not be aware of all his activities.

4312. In the light of everything you know now, would Captain Kelly’s activities have met with your approval?

—This is a hypothetical question.

4313. I do not insist on your answering it. Captain Kelly has stated that neither Mr. Haughey nor Mr. Blaney knew of the existence of the subsidiary accounts in Baggot Street for the purchase of arms. Did you know about the existence of these accounts? Did Captain Kelly tell you about their opening?

—No, at all times my understanding was that the money was being provided by the Northern Defence Committee.

4314. So that you were completely in the dark as to his part in the handling of the money?

—In the sense that he was accounting directly to the Minister for Finance about it. Certainly, I had a good deal on my plate at the time without becoming involved in the question of money over which, in fact, I would have very little control. I was not meeting nor did I meet at any time the people who were concerned in the North with the disbursement of these funds.

4315. Who authorised Captain Kelly to embark on his Intelligence work?

—I did. When he gave me his report about events in Derry and Belfast in the previous mid-August, I authorised him to develop the contents.

4316. Something which puzzles us is that when we asked Captain Kelly about the lodgment of money in this bank in Dortmund he could not remember the name of the bank. If I lodged money in a bank, I should certainly remember which bank. I may seem to be wide of the mark in this questioning but everything eventually relates back to the money for these arms but the Chair has been patient with me. Did you know anything about the arrangements that were made to collect these arms at the airport and which officers knew of their pending arrival?

—I do not know. I am not quite clear on the question.

4317. Had this famous shipment of arms arrived at the airport, who was to have collected them?

—I understood it was Captain Kelly.

4318. On behalf of the Army?

—No, not on behalf of the Army.

4319. Were they not, according to him, to be kept under the supervision of the Army?

—They were to be kept in a place of safety in the Republic.

4320. Under the supervision of the Army or not?

—Under Captain Kelly’s supervision.

4321. Was Captain Kelly representing the Army?

—He could not be representing the Army. The Army have a well defined method of importing arms for use in the Defence Forces. In my view, anyway, I do not think he could be thought to be representing the Army in this matter.

4322. Would you say that would also apply to the bullet-proof vests which arrived over here but were not handed over to the Army?

—Yes, they were, I believe, for the Northern people.

4323. Did you know about their arrival?

—Not until afterwards.

4324. Did Captain Kelly tell you he was expecting a consignment?

—No, I do not think so, but afterwards he certainly did tell me.

4325. Would “afterwards” be after the trial or during the trial?

—I am not too clear on when, but I knew they had come in.

4326. You would have considered though that this would be a very important thing, if he was reporting all activities, particularly major activities, that you should have known these were ordered, on the way and that he was going to handle the distribution of them?

—Yes, but again this was tied up, I understood, with the importation of arms. The arms did not arrive but the bullet-proof vests did.

4327. Yes. Captain Kelly kept referring to a “crucial period”. I think around the 4th March was the first time he met the Minister. Would you know what he meant by a crucial period?

—Well, there was a good deal of discussion between delegations who came down from the North, from reports I got anyway, who met certain Ministers at which they made requests for arms and for help, from the Ministers they met, in the bringing in of arms. I think this is possibly what he meant by “crucial period”.

4328. Was this tied up with the anxiety that possibly no arms were going to arrive, or very few arms had arrived, in exchange for the £41,000 expended on arms?

—This I could not say from my own knowledge. I do not know.

4329. One last question I want to ask you: you had a meeting with Captain Kelly in Mr. Blaney’s office after your retirement?

—I had.

4330. Did your successor know about this meeting?

—No, he did not.

4331. Why were you having this meeting if you were retired?

—Because Captain Kelly rang me and said he was having a meeting with Mr. Blaney and that Mr. Blaney had expressed the wish that I would be there.

4332. What date was this meeting?

—The 23rd April, I think. I have given evidence on that one, I think, already.

4333. What did they require you for?

—This was a bit undetermined. As you know, Mr. Haughey had had an accident the day before and the Special Branch were questioning the Revenue Commissioners and certain civil servants about it. They appeared to be worried about this matter.

4334. Were you worried at this stage yourself?

—Not worried exactly, no.

4335. Yes. This meeting was really to get your stories agreeing with one another, was it?

—Oh, no, far from it. The Revenue Commissioners and some civil servants were at this stage being questioned by the Special Branch and nobody seemed to know why exactly, or what they were being questioned about or on whose authority.

4336. Who sent for you—Mr. Blaney himself or was it Captain Kelly who called you?

—Captain Kelly asked me to go.

4337. Did you have any subsequent meetings?

—No.

4338. No occasion after that at all?

—After the 23rd April, no.

4339. Deputy E. Collins.—Colonel Hefferon, your position in this affair seems to me to be very vague certainly in relation to your position as Director of Intelligence vis-à-vis Captain Kelly’s activities. Would you not agree that your position right through the affair was certainly unusual?

—I do not think so. I think that the activities, or my activity at that time, must be related to several factors not the least of which was the factor where we had to be very worried about the safety and security of our own troops on this side of the Border. We had an instance in Ballyshannon where an attempt was made to blow up the transformer there. We had several reports, well-founded we believed at the time, of efforts that might be made to beat up the troops, or demolish other institutions down here.

4340. Did you at any time have a discussion with the Chief of Staff about this whole matter?

—Do you mean about the importation of arms?

4341. Yes, about Captain Kelly’s activities?

—No.

4342. Are you at liberty to tell the Committee the text of your discussion?

—I did not.

4343. Oh, you did not have any discussion. I thought you said you did?

—No.

4344. You had no discussion?

—No, not about the importation of arms. I had a discussion with him on many matters.

4345. On Captain Kelly’s activities?

—On Captain Kelly’s activities, except in so far as I came in to verify certain—in giving a briefing—that this was Captain Kelly’s opinion or that he had a source which I believed was reliable. His name might have come into it in that way.

4346. Did you report directly to the Chief of Staff? Would he be your immediate senior officer?

—Yes; I am on the Chief of Staff’s branch.

4347. You never at any time discussed the matter with him?

—No.

4348. I would think that was unusual. Certainly if an officer had a problem it would appear to me the obvious thing to do would be to discuss it with his senior officer?

—I do not know. I think it brings in the question that we have already discussed.

4349. Captain Kelly’s activity commenced really in August, 1969, apparently when he was on holiday in the North?

—Yes.

4350. No one gave him any directions in relation to his activities at that time. He just met people up North off his own bat and that sort of thing?

—Yes, my understanding was that he was in Derry and Belfast during the outbreak of troubles there on 12th, 13th and 14th August and when he came back he reported that he had a good deal of information about them.

4351. In other words, without asking your permission, he was active during the troubles in Derry?

—He was on holidays at the time. He was free to go to Derry or Belfast or anywhere.

4352. It would appear to me that he went about getting information in Derry as an officer serving in the Irish Army?

—This, I would imagine, would be fairly normal of anyone who found himself in this position. It was a very disturbed time. It is information he knew would be of value, particularly in view of the fact that the Army was operating near the Border at that time.

4353. Were there any other officers in the Six Counties during that time?

—Not to my knowledge.

4354. Deputy E. Collins.—Do you think it would be a good idea that there should be?

4355.—Chairman.—Could the Deputy put it in a less committing fashion?

4356. Deputy E. Collins.—You approved of his activities in the North?

—Well, this whole thing came on top of us like a thunderclap although we had been very closely in touch with this situation and observing from, I think, October 1968, but I think it is true to say that it came like a thunderclap on top of everybody and we were faced with this awful problem of refugees pouring down here and the excitement of public opinion and all that kind of thing. I was very glad to get any information. I had to run around and try and find out the people that would give me the most because you had a whole lot of rumours going which had no foundation to them at all.

4357. It would appear to me from your evidence at the second court trial that you definitely told Captain Kelly that he could not partake in this importation of arms as a serving Army officer?

—Yes.

4358. Yet in reply to a question which was asked you said that at no time did you tell him to stop?

—This is true, yes.

4359. In other words you allowed him to continue on and on?

—Yes.

4360. You felt that he was working under ministerial direction, did you?

—I felt, certainly after the 6th of February, that the possibility might arise, that this directive was a very plain and very responsible statement of policy by the Government, as I understood it, conveyed to the Chief of Staff at the time, that the Army would make preparations for incursions into Northern Ireland and I had told the Minister for Defence and put him in the picture about it at this time and I certainly did not feel at that time that I should do anything to stop him, to stop Captain Kelly from——

4361. In other words it could have been part of Government policy to allow this activity?

—It could have been Government policy to prepare for the contingency which indeed in the climate of the time seemed to be going that way.

4362. This is all very important from the point of view of the Committee’s work. If Captain Kelly was working within the framework of Government policy then there was not a misappropriation?

4363. Deputy Keating.—There was.

4364. Chairman.—Deputy, I do not know whether we are entitled here to discuss Government policy as such. It would be better if you found that you could ask if he was acting under orders. Would that be a better way of putting it?

4365. Deputy E. Collins.—I am in a rather confused situation in so far as the former Director of Intelligence abrogated his position over Captain Kelly and he thought he was working under the Minister so he could not give an order, he did not give an order. The position to me is quite confusing.

4366. Chairman.—You are trying to establish if Captain Kelly was working within recognised Army conditions? Is that what you are trying to establish?

4367. Deputy E. Collins.—On whose orders was he acting?

—Colonel Hefferon.—Pardon.

4368. Under whose orders was Captain Kelly acting? Under whose authority was Captain Kelly working, operating?

—Well, he was still an officer on the strength of the intelligence service and I had occasion to give him orders many times to collect intelligence but I also knew that he was working directly on the matter of, as a link between the Minister for Finance and the Northern Defence Committees in the matter of moneys.

4369. And in the matter of importation of arms?

—The matter of importation of arms—it is not quite so simple as that because the position was that Captain Kelly had asked to retire from the Army. This request was passed to the Minister for Defence and he carried on, he——

4370. Can you give me the outcome of your discussion with Mr. Gibbons, the Minister for Defence, at that time? You met him on a number of occasions?

—Yes.

4371. What was his attitude? What did you feel was his attitude?

—The first occasion that I met him I put him in the picture, that Captain Kelly had come to me with this request, that I had advised him that he should retire from the Army at the time and I think I also mentioned to Mr. Gibbons that I had advised him to see Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney and explain to them that in my view he could not carry on with this task as an Army officer for the reasons which I have already elaborated on and I also told Mr. Gibbons of what I had done in this matter. I impressed on him, again I gave him the reasons that I had given to Captain Kelly, and he said he would see about it but I did mention—I think it has not come up yet in this questioning—that I felt that he should be provided with some post in the public service or otherwise which would make up for the difference between his Army pay and the pension that he would draw.

4372. And at the same time this would allow him to continue on the activities he was?

—I did not recommend that he carry on these activities. I mean it would be——

4373. But you did say that he could not carry them on as an Army officer?

—As an Army officer, yes.

4374. And you felt that he could carry them on better outside the Army? That it would be less embarrassing to the Army?

—Well it would be an embarrassment to the Army for him to stay on and to do this. I put the problem as it was, as it faced me at the time, I put it to Mr. Gibbons in this matter as Captain Kelly, I believe, had put it to the two other Ministers.

4375. What did Mr. Gibbons say about him retiring from the Army?

—I think Mr. Gibbons was very concerned also about the fact that as he had been doing some good work, a lot of good work that he would have to suffer financially or suffer in losing his job as a result of it and he agreed with me that he would see some of the other Ministers and talk to them about it.

4376. Did you point out to Mr. Gibbons, the Minister, at any time about the ordinary process of importing arms?

—No, I did not. I did not think that this was necessary.

4377. Well, if we take it in the context of the 6th of February directive from the Minister to the Chief of Staff about a possible doomsday situation, surely you must have thought it necessary to discuss the whole position of arms with him?

—Well, except that I said that Captain Kelly involving himself in this way could be a possible embarrassment and might be, I suppose I could not say it was bound to be but that it could be a cause of embarrassment to the Army. I did not because as Minister for Defence I imagine he would be presumed to know this.

4378. Did you at any time feel like requesting a meeting with this Cabinet sub-committee to discuss the whole matter?

—I did not, no.

4379. Why?

—Well, it did not come into my head to do that. I knew Captain Kelly was dealing with two Ministers, Mr. Blaney and Mr. Haughey at the time.

4380. Would it not have helped to clarify your own situation if you had met the committee and discussed the whole matter with them?

—My own situation at the time was that we had a constant threat of something happening down here or in the Six Counties and I was keeping all my options open in that way. I mean I felt that it was my duty to prepare, in so far as I could, if anything drastic did happen that we would be in a good position to meet it.

4381. Yet you had no discussions with the Cabinet or with the committee set up to deal with the matter or with your Chief of Staff?

—No, I did not.

4382. You mentioned in your evidence that complaints emanated from the Department of Justice from Mr. Berry in relation to Captain Kelly’s activities. Did you have any cause to discuss the matter with Mr. Berry?

—No, I did not.

4383. Chairman.—I think we have agreed to allow Colonel Hefferon off at this time as he has some personal matters to attend to. Will you be able to come next week, Colonel Hefferon?

—Yes. Thank you very much, Chairman.

4384. Deputy FitzGerald.—Tomorrow.

4385. Chairman.—Next week I understand.

4386. Deputy FitzGerald.—What about Thursday? Could we not continue the evidence then?

4387. Chairman.—I will explain to the Deputy later. I think we will have to allow Colonel Hefferon to come back next week as he has some personal matters to attend to this week.

Colonel Hefferon withdrew.

The Committee deliberated.

The Committee adjourned at 1 p.m., until 4 p.m.

The Committee resumed in public at 7.45 p.m.

Examination of Captain James J. Kelly continued.

4388. Chairman.—Captain Kelly, I do not know whether I explained to you on the last day that our terms of reference as an all-party Finance Committee are quite simple. We have been asked by the Dáil to find out where this £100,000 of voted money, Grant-in-Aid money, went. As the person who made the statement in the arms trial that this money was in effect manipulated to purchase arms, we expect that you would be prepared to substantiate that statement. As the person most concerned with the withdrawal of money from these accounts we expect that you are the person most capable of giving us the information and we therefore hope that you would answer all relevant questions towards the elucidation of this problem. I intend to ask you a few simple questions and to pass you on then to Deputy Nolan. I want to ask you about your first continental visit. Can you remember the date of that?

—19th February.

4389. And where did you go on that occasion?

—To Dusseldorf.

4390. How did you travel—by plane?

—By plane, yes.

4391. Were you alone?

—I was alone, yes.

4392. And whom did you meet out there?

—I was met by a man who was there.

4393. Had you met him before?

—No.

4394. And how did you recognise him?

—I was told how I would recognise him.

4395. He was a contact man, was he?

—That is correct, yes.

4396. And your business on that occasion was …?

—My business was to try and find out really what was going on.

4397. What hotel did you stay in?

—I stayed in the Kaiser Hotel in Dortmund.

4398. Did you take out any money with you on that occasion?

—I think it was on that occasion that I took out the £10,000. If not then, it was the second occasion.

4399. And did you get permission from Colonel Hefferon to go out?

—Oh, I did. Yes, it was arranged with Colonel Hefferon and a cover story was arranged.

4400. He knew you were going?

—He did, yes.

4401. And he knew the purpose of your visit?

—Yes.

4402. You told us the story on the last day of the lodgment of money in a bank?

—Yes.

4403. This £10,000?

—That is right, yes.

4404. Have you thought over it since? Are you able to amplify it or give us any further information about the bank?

—No.

4405. You do not know where the bank was—you cannot recall?

—It was in Dortmund.

4406. But you do not know the name of the bank?

—I do not know the name of the bank, no.

4407. How did you vouch this payment or did you vouch it to anybody?

—Vouch it?

4408. Yes.

—I met Herr Schleuter on that occasion, not concerning the money but a day or two after. That was the purpose of my visit—to meet Herr Schleuter so he got the money got to him.

4409. How did you vouch it to anybody here in Ireland?

—The question did not arise. If it did not get there other people would know about it.

4410. How would they know about it?

—They would know later on.

4411. How would they know later on?

—Because people went out there from Northern Ireland and they would know that the money had not been handed over.

4412. Do they know it now?

—If it has been handed over?

4413. Yes?

—Oh, yes.

4414. How do they know it?

—Other people met Herr Schleuter.

4415. And he told them?

—There is no doubt about it that he got it.

4416. And did they come subsequently to see …?

—Various people went out there and there would be no question of not handing over the money.

4417. That was the occasion you went to the bank with somebody who acted as interpreter?

—That is correct, yes.

4418. You still do not remember the name of the street in which the bank was?

—I do not, no.

4419. But these people went out and went out there to verify or check on your handing over of this £10,000?

—There was no question of checking on the £10,000. They would know it. If it was not paid Herr Schleuter would bring it to their attention very quickly.

4420. How?

—By telling them.

4421. You say he delivered no guns?

—The reason he did not deliver them was that they were stopped at this end. Otherwise the guns would have been delivered.

4422. These people who would be following you or your actiivties—did they get the £10,000 back?

—No one got any money back as far as I am aware.

4423. Would these people know the name of the bank or the street in which the bank was?

—I do not think they would because it was only a matter of convenience, that it was lodged.

4424. Would the contact man you met there know the name of the bank?

—He would, yes.

4425. That contact man is still alive, is he not?

—He is, yes.

4426. Could he be contacted now?

—I suppose it would be possible, yes.

4427. Would it not be in your own interest to get some evidence from that source?

—Certainly it would have been in my interest to do so, but as I explained the last night, this man was brought in—he was merely an employee of these people—and I have no intention of bringing him into this matter.

4428. How were your expenses paid?

—This is for my continental trips?

4429. For the first continental trip?

—They were paid from the people in Northern Ireland who controlled the account.

4430. Was the paying made through actual personal drawings you made from Baggot Street?

—It would be out of that, yes.

4431. And did you keep returns of all these expenses—documents and so on?

—I had a full record on 1st May—the bill fully made out and I destroyed this on 1st or 2nd May.

4432. Did you destroy cheques?

—I destroyed everything I had relating to the case.

4433. The bank accounts?

—Everything.

4434. You furnished a very complete account of expenses in respect of the Bailieboro meeting?

—That is correct.

4435. If you have destroyed all these accounts, how were you able to furnish these very complete accounts as regards Bailieboro?

—I rang up the post office for my telephone account, for instance, and I rang the Department of Finance—not the Department of Finance but the Finance Branch attached to the Department of Defence and verified from them my mileage for previous months, and this was an estimate—a low estimate. I had a memory in my head of some money I was owed before I got this £500 and I know that I spent £35 in Bailieboro. The question arose at one stage—this is the complaint spoken about— that there was a lot of money spent on this Bailieboro meeting, so therefore it is in my knowledge and my mind that I knew exactly at that time how much I had spent which was £35 so that that stuck very firmly in my mind. As regards the other figure, I think it was £250, and this was an estimate because I was meeting people on all occasions—three times and four times a week and over week-ends.

4436. You were drawing expenses from the Army as an army officer, apart from your salary?

—I was not drawing expenses—not with regard to the continental trips.

4437. You were drawing expenses up to a certain date?

—I had the normal mileage claim in the normal way up to December and I checked this out with the Department and then I did not go in after that and this was my estimate of the thing. I think it is an underestimate as a matter of fact. I wonder if with your permission I might refer to the evidence I gave on the last day. I got a letter asking me to write in any amendments I had of the evidence.

4438. Corrections?

—Could I go through these here or make some comment on various points in the evidence at this stage?

4439. I think it is better not at this stage. We will give you an opportunity all right?

—It might clarify some points. I would like to make some small submissions.

4440. Very good?

—I have some rough notes here and I will refer to them. The first matter is a small point— when Deputy Tunney was talking about my wife being outside and “that your children are there”. They were not here. I would not bring my children here. It is a small point only but I would like to get it out of the record.

4441. Deputy Tunney.—I did not say that your children were here—I was as concerned as you?

—I understand—I am not arguing about it at all.

4442. Chairman.—If you have this particular book here it would be a help if we could check the number?

—It is page 277, paragraph 3740. The sentence is “I am conscious your wife is outside—I am not trying to be sentimental about this—that your children are there …” I just want to get it off the record?

4443. And the next one?

—Another point is that Deputy MacSharry spoke about the directive and said that the directive did not exist and has never got on the minutes. It was on this basis that I took Deputy MacSharry up and sort of said that he was making an accusation—page 255. There is a statement here that I was making an accusation, in paragraph 3357, where I said “This man is making an accusation.” That was based on what I thought Deputy MacSharry said and if I am wrong in that I will withdraw it.

4444. Any other?

—Also Deputy MacSharry said that the directive must be produced or referred to by codes. I would agree with this and I think the directive should be produced, if possible.

4445. Where is this?

—It is further on—it must be on the same page.

4446. Deputy McSharry.—It is paragraph 3361?

—Deputy Gibbons at page 257, paragraph 3386, said “You are making the case that you were working on behalf of the people of the North.” To me this was a wrong interpretation. At no stage would I admit to that at all. I was working on behalf of the Government here and I do not think that this remark should be accepted on its face value.

4447. But you did correct it yourself—that is on the record?

—I was not working on behalf of the people of the North.

I have an answer here at page 260, paragraph 3450. I would like to add to that answer, if I may in the following terms:

The Taoiseach turned out to be interested in obtaining the names of Ministers. My attitude was if there was a disagreement at Cabinet level it was a matter for the Taoiseach and his colleagues to sort out among themselves. I also know that Mr. Gibbons, the competent authority under whom arms could be imported was fully au fait with the situation and in fact on the following morning before I was released from custody Chief Superintendent Fleming upon my still refusing to make a statement or to give names told me that they, that is the Special Branch, knew three Ministers were involved and named them as Haughey, Blaney and Gibbons. My reply to this was something to the effect that it was time to release me and in fact I was released shortly afterwards.

4448. The essential alterations on which you are making statements would be in the nature of corrections. Adding on what is deemed to be new material is not quite in order but you are perfectly entitled to make corrections.

—I do not think I have further new material. They are corrections. In Page 263, paragraph 3490 Deputy Tunney said:

I am not satisfied with the truth of what you are saying?

I think this comment should be withdrawn because there is no basis for it.

4449. We will take note of what you say, Captain.

—Thank you. On page 268, paragraph 3586, Deputy Gibbons said:

This is hearsay again.

From what has gone before it is obviously not hearsay but is first hand evidence.

4450. Right.

—On page 270, paragraph 3606, Deputy FitzGerald made the remark:

Anything you decide?

I do not think this is a correct remark to make in the circumstances because as I know it was not anything I decided. It was under orders of my competent authority that I worked.

4451. Very good.

—On page 274, paragraph 3687, Deputy FitzGerald again, said:

You were operating under the orders of Messrs. Haughey and Blaney from October onwards

quoting Colonel Hefferon as saying that. I would like to see the evidence on that because in the Irish Times of October 14th Colonel Hefferon is reported as saying in relation to Messrs. Haughey and Blaney:

Giving him orders is a different matter and I do not know. I do not think Ministers would have the right to give him orders except the Minister for Defence.

This is the situation. Whenever I got information, wherever it emanated from, be it Mr. Haughey, Mr. Blaney or anyone else I reported it to the Director of Intelligence in an effort to build up the overall intelligence picture, a picture concerned with many things including UVF activities, operations of security forces in the North, attitudes of Government there plus also the attitudes of minority and majority populations in the area and the movement of arms by both sides, that is both minority and majority. I think the same applies to page 275, paragraph 3705.

4452. Is this a correction now?

—Yes.

4453. Not an addition?

—It is a correction. It says in this paragraph:

The Director of Intelligence says that you are not under his orders from October and that because you have told him you are acting directly to Messrs. Haughey and Blaney?

I do not know where the basis for this arises but it is not correct. On page 276, paragraph 3722, there is a statement by Deputy FitzGerald:

You had no authority, period.

That is a completely wrong statement not related to the facts and I think it should be withdrawn. There is another statement by Deputy FitzGerald on page 279, paragraph 3756:

Therefore, your reference to people in Northern Ireland is not in good faith?

I do not see why this statement should be made. It is based it seems on the fact that I refused to name Anne O’Brien but my refusal to name Anne O’Brien could have no bearing on my good faith in not naming the people in Northern Ireland. There is no logic in it. On page 279, paragraph 3761, Deputy Gibbons asked me:

You can produce this statement?

The reply here appears:

I can produce it.

This could not be correct because I have not got the statement. It would be in the hands of the police if they had it. Probably what I intended to convey was that Colonel Hefferon could verify this statement. My answer there just could not be right. Also on page 279 paragraph 3766 Deputy Briscoe made the comment:

The only time your recollection is clear is whenever you are trying to incriminate the Minister for Defence.

I think this statement is uncalled for and bears no relation to the facts as I know them, although I could possibly agree with the implication inherent in Deputy Briscoe’s statement that the evidence does incriminate the Minister for Defence. In page 280, paragraph 3779, in answer to Deputy Briscoe it appears here:

I used this money to finance them.

This is an error which I wish to correct. I had no authority to dispense money because I did not run any of the bank accounts or sign any cheques.

4454. And on page 264, paragraph 3499: This is Deputy Gibbons. He said:

Excuse me, you are making statements of which you were not a witness to.

This in itself is correct but in an army you act through your superior officer and if he brings orders from a Minister you must accept these, otherwise the whole system would break down.

4455. Deputy H. Gibbons.—What number is that?

4456. Deputy MacSharry.—3499.

Captain Kelly.—3513 applies also:

How do you know he went to the Minister?

You have to accept that your superior officer goes to his superior, and this is accepted.

I think the same thing arises at paragraph 3604:

You are certainly making one assumption … that the Minister for Defence either did or did not inform the Government, and making the assumption that Colonel Hefferon informed the Minister for Defence on this particular matter.

In the context of the army, where orders are issued by one’s superior officer one accepts what the superior officer says and accepts it in good faith, otherwise an organisation such as the army could not operate. And as regards the Minister for Defence reporting to the Government or otherwise, the Minister for Defence was and is the statutory authority for the importation of arms, therefore it would be irrevalent as far as I would be concerned for it to be reported to the Government or otherwise. And if the Minister for Defence authorised the importation of arms I think he was completely and legally entitled to do so. If he was acting wrongly in that respect, under section 28 of the Constitution the whole Government would have to resign. This is a collective responsibility.

There is a comment on page 275, paragraph 3709. I think it was Deputy FitzGerald again:

On the question of under whose orders an Army officer is acting is a matter of how you phrase it?

This is not correct and is a statement which has no relation to the fact, and I do not think it should be there at all.

I have a further small submission which I should like to make at this stage, and then I will finish. It concerns this question of authority. The authority for the importation of arms and my involvement in it seems very much in question here.

There are various concrete facts which can be verified to support that there was authority for this importation. Also, of my own first-hand knowledge I can give evidence on this. So I would like to run quickly through the various points.

No. 1 is the directive of 6th February which gave the formal basis for the operation. No. 2 is the movement of rifles to Dundalk of 2nd November carried into effect as part of this directive. This was a physical act. Further, the knowledge of the Minister, admitted by himself in the High Court on 19th February, of my activities. I base this on the fact that he was informed of my trip to the Continent to vet arms. Also in the court he referred to the importation of arms on 25th March, which was an abortive attempt. He also said in court that he knew this was going to be followed up, which means he had knowledge and that he had been told by me of this point. He spoke about the port of Trieste, and so on. He had been fully briefed. He admitted this in the court, which means the Minister knew what was going on. Furthermore, on the foot of a report that a possible sale of arms by the army would get into the hands of the U.V.F., this was suspected, this was brought to the notice of the Intelligence Section and the Minister stopped the sale of these arms. And later on, when this question of untraceable arms came up, the Minister discussed the possibility of setting up a fictitious company to purchase these arms so that they could be used for the purpose for which the untraceable arms were being bought in Germany. That is, they would be bought by a fictitious company therefore if they were used for distribution in Northern Ireland they could not be traced back to the Irish Government.

4457. Deputy Keating.—I should like to seek some elucidation so as to be completely clear. When Captain Kelly says “the Minister” he does, I take it, mean the Minister for Defence at the time, Deputy Gibbons?

—That is correct.

4458. Can you date that approximately?

—I cannot give you a definite date but it was during one of my discussions with the Minister after 4th March, I would say, It did not take place on 4th March, to the best of my recollection, but it took place, I would say, in the course of one of my meetings during March.

Furthermore, in the court Mr. Gibbons put forward a thesis, a change of allegiance thesis, which I know was completely and utterly wrong. However, this brings us back again to this importation of arms, which the Minister admitted, on 25th March and on which I told him follow-up action would be necessary. This is on his own admission. If I had changed my allegiance and was assisting and working with people in the North without the authority of the Government here, would I inform the Minister for Defence that these arms were coming in and would I keep him in the picture? Is there any logic in it whatsoever?

Then No. 11; I have a note here, “Various conversations with Mr. Gibbons”. I had various conversations with Mr. Gibbons, I know these took place and we discussed the arms. I will not go into them in any detail. They took place, that is all I will say.

A meeting took place at Bailieboro, County Cavan, and from my reading of the paper this evening I saw that Colonel Hefferon said that a complaint had come down about me and my activities. This complaint was related directly to this Bailieboro meeting, of which the Minister was fully aware. This meeting, as I have said, was the genesis of this operation and these people put forward their request primarily for training first of all and then the possibility of arms to be available afterwards. Also, on the evidence given in court, I was appointed as a liaison officer by the Government. I acted in this capacity as a liaison officer. My primary duties were to vet people coming from Northern Ireland. If people came down to various Ministers and sought interviews I was asked on occasion, I will not say all the time, but on occasion, about them, their background and so on; what type of people they were, what groups they were associated with, and so forth. I did this.

Another point is the evidence of Mr. Ó Móráin in the court. He said that some months prior to 1st May he had become worried about a lack of co-ordination between the Special Branch and Army Intelligence.

Also, in the court he admitted that he knew something of a Captain Kelly that had been associated with arms. He was worried generally that there was a breakdown between the two services and he stated in court that he approached both An Taoiseach and Mr. Gibbons to form a co-ordinating sub-committee to regulate this matter and he said that this was done; so my point is that this was brought to the notice of the authorities by Mr. Ó Móráin and Mr. Gibbons as Minister for Justice long before this case broke at all. I have mentioned previously that Chief Superintendent Fleming mentioned Mr. Gibbons was one of the three Ministers involved. On 6th May, in Dáil Éireann, my name was mentioned for the first time. It was mentioned by Mr. Cosgrave in conjunction with two Ministers, Messrs. Haughey and Blaney. Quoting from the Dáil Reports of 8th May, 1970, Mr. Ritchie Ryan, of the same party as Mr. Cosgrave, made the following statement:

These denials will not be listened to. Three days ago the Taoiseach said he did not know to what Deputy Cosgrave was referring when Deputy Cosgrave asked a mild and simple question: “Can the Taoiseach say if this is the only resignation we can expect?” The Taoiseach did not know. Poor simple Jack! He did not know. What he did not know was that Deputy Cosgrave knew what was going on. He did not know, but he knows now, that Deputy Cosgrave knew what was going on. He did not know, but he knows now, that Deputy Cosgrave and a Dublin newspaper received Garda Síochána notepaper with the name of Deputy Gibbons on it, associating him with this sordid transaction.

This can only refer to the note which Mr. Cosgrave used to read out the names of the two Ministers and myself on 6th May. Why, if he had Mr. Gibbons’ name, another Minister, on that list did he not read out that name? I I can only come to a conclusion of my own concerning this: if he had a third Minister’s name and had approached the Taoiseach the day before that some agreement was to be reached not to use Mr. Gibbons’ name, to me it is very funny and all I can say is it smacks of some type of collusion. Furthermore, I have not the record here of this but I remember pretty well, I think, that on the 3rd November in the Debates in Dáil Éireann Mr. Gibbons said he knew pretty well that for some months prior to 1st May the Special Branch had Captain Kelly—I do not know whether he mentioned me by name or not; I think he did— and the Ministers under observation and that it was none of his business to carry out the distasteful job of policeman. If he knew pretty well that the Special Branch had me under observation for some months prior to 1st May he must have known pretty well what the whole thing was about; therefore he was au fait with what was going on—this apart from my own reporting to Mr. Gibbons on all stages. Furthermore, most of this is verifiable and I can only submit that any suggestion put forward that I was not acting under competent authority does not stand up. And I think this inquiry into the money, while it must be based on my duties as an Intelligence officer, must be accepted, in view of what I have said, that the actual importation of arms itself was authorised; and I think, further, that if you accept that we can go on to discuss the money in its proper context. If we do not—this is my feeling on the matter—I feel that I cannot go any further.

4459. Deputy Nolan.—In your submission a moment ago you said you were appointed by the Government as liaison officer between the North and the Government here?

—Mr. Haughey gave evidence of this at the trial. It was also discussed when the jury were out and the suggestion was put forward— speaking from memory—that my name was put up by Mr. Gibbons at an earlier stage, in August or September, as a suitable person. This is what I drew from this.

4460. In August or September?

—Evidently early in the period.

4461. Did you get any instructions in writing from Colonel Hefferon or anyone else appointing you as liaison officer?

—No question of instructions in writing at all. I reported to Colonel Hefferon that I was doing this, and I did it.

4462. Who verbally appointed you?

—Actually I came back from Northern Ireland on 14th September. I had met a lot of people up there and found out a lot about their background and so on and I went to Mr. Blaney first, who I heard was a member of the sub-committee, and I more or less briefed him, because I understood some of these people I had met in Northern Ireland were coming to see Ministers and I felt that they should know what I knew concerning these people.

4463. But you got no direct orders from anybody here, in writing or verbally?

—There was no question ever of orders in writing.

4464. And no verbal order from any Minister to act as liaison officer?

—I have no recollection of getting a verbal order.

4465. It was more or less, then, by assumption.

—Well, I think it came out clearly in the court. This took place in September, or August. Whether by assumption or otherwise, I cannot say.

4466. You have no recollection of getting a verbal or written instruction appointing you as liaison officer?

—No.

4467. In Document 1—

—There is another little point as regards document 1. There is a statement of the Sunday Press which I should like to correct.

4468. Deputy Gibbons.—Mr. Chairman, I propose we keep to the system of question and answer.

—On page 36 there is a statement:

Mr. FitzGerald referred to “The curious character, Séamus Brady, who contrived to give three news conferences on Friday with the aim of blacking Mr. Gibbons’ name to get him out of the Government and bring down the Government in debate.”

As far as I am concerned, and the three news conferences, one was given by Paddy Kennedy, one by a group of Northern people and one by myself, having heard some other scholars comment on the radio. I had noting to do with the first two press conferences, so I say nothing about them, but I know what happened at the third. I called this on my own. I called the press to my house and made a statement to a newspaper reporter at my diningroom table, which he wrote out, and it went out to the TV, the radio and the press. Mr. Brady was not there and I made no attempt to contact him, and I think this is not a correct because it implies that I was using Mr. Brady as a PRO. Since 1st May I have acted as my own PRO whenever it was necessary to do so, and that statement is wrong.

4469. Chairman.—Continue, Deputy Nolan.

4470. Deputy Nolan.—Now on pages 10 and 11, the bank statements—

—The point I want to make is this—I thought I made it when I finished by submission—does the Committee accept that this importation of arms was authorised?

4471. Chairman.—Deputy Nolan is asking questions at this stage.

—But this is my submission.

4472. Chairman.—You are making a submission. You were asked whether you wished to offer submissions beforehand, as everybody is. You did not choose to do that. You made all the corrections you thought desirable in the evidence you gave on the last day, you made a submission there, you interrupted Deputy Nolan when he was beginning to examine you with another submission, and now you appear to want to make another submission. Are you being fair to the Committee?

—I am sorry if I am not being fair to the Committee but I want to be fair to myself and the point is this: I did not make a submission to the Committee in the terms that I have made and argued because I did not think it bore relation to the case but as far as I can see when I came here the last night and from what I have read since the Committee seems to be attempting to prove there was no authority for this operation. I have gone through three files in the Four Courts and my defence was that my operations were authorised by the Minister for Defence, and the defence’s answer proved nothing else as far as they were concerned. This is what the jury accepted, as was proved by a question, the jury came back and asked during their deliberations. So I think, in fairness to me, that this question of authority for the importation of arms would have to be accepted as having been duly and properly authorised. I know there has been a lot said since. For instance, some people have said no certificates were issued. No certificate is ever issued by the Minister for Defence for the importing of arms in this particular case and I know that I was duly authorised and if the question of my authority comes up here again there is only a third arms trial. That is my submission. Unless the Committee accepts this basic fact and works from there I think I shall have to refuse to answer any further questions.

4473. Deputy Briscoe.—On a point of clarification, if I understood you correctly you said no certificates for the importation of arms were granted by the Minister on any of these occasions?

—Subsection 8 of the relevant section of the Firearms Act of 1925 covers it, and no certificate is necessary.

4474. The Chairman.—We cannot allow members to enter into an argument with the witness or the witness to enter into an argument with the members. We will have plenty of time to clarify it when you are called on later on. Deputy Nolan is in possession and is entitled to ask questions, and the witness is requested to answer these questions. I hope Captain Kelly, that we will not have another fourth or fifth submission from you. You can come round the next day and give a submission in writing and we will read it.

—I have finished with my submission and I thank you for listening but it is a question of authority.

4475. This meeting is concerned with where the money went. That is our primary concern.

—But it is my lack of authority for carrying out an Intelligence operation.

4476. You may answer now and forget the authority for a moment, and tell us where the money went.

—Is my authority accepted?

4477. This Committee is taking evidence and we will write a report afterwards. This is a factfinding Committee taking evidence. No committee in the world gives decisions step by step or answers questions like that from witnesses.

—The Committee is concerned with the money. But what it has come down to is that it is now concerned with the authority, as I read it.

4478. Deputy Nolan is prepared to ask you questions about the bank account.

—And is the authority finished? I wanted to get it clarified.

4479. I have not mentioned authority at all.

—I appreciate that very much, but other people have.

4480. Deputy Nolan.—Getting then down to money, on page 11 of this.

—Page 11?

4481. Yes, of the pink book. On page 10, the account was opened in the Munster and Leinster Bank, Dublin, for the Relief of Distress. On page 11 you have a copy of the bank’s statement of the two subsidiaries, that is the George Dixon account and the Anne O’Brien account. If we take the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress, and the receipt side, all the moneys were lodged from the Red Cross, that is from the £100,000 voted by the Dáil, with the exception of the 6th January amount, £4,993. Is that correct?

—Yes, correct.

4482. No money was lodged to that account other than moneys from the £100,000, and the American dollars?

—As far as I am aware. I cannot give evidence on these, it is as far as I am aware.

4483. Then you take the George Dixon account and this account you refer to which was used for the purchase of arms, this is the arms account.

—Yes.

4484. The lodgments made there, £11,000, £13,000, £12,000, £4,000 and £1,000—they were made from the main account.

—It states here £11,450. I have no reason to contradict what is there as regards £11,450. I do not know. I would say, yes, it is correct, generally.

4485. The payment side of this account, the cash, could you remember the cash £1,500.

—Cash, the £1,500 you mean?

4486. Yes, on the 17th November.

—I did not handle the cash at all. To my recollection, I do not think I handled any cash until January.

4487. Yes, you did not handle the £849. 13s. 9d., and the £1,000. How about the 22nd December cash £3,500?

—I had this money; whether I drew it myself or not at this stage I am not precisely sure. I do not thin I did.

4488. Look at the £3,000 paid as deposit.

—It was supposed to be £3,000 going for arms.

4489. And you did not deposit it yourself for the arms?

—No.

4490. Could you tell us who did?

—No, I could not.

4491. Do you know?

—I do not exactly know. I know the person got the money or had it when he was in my company. I knew about it. I was aware of it. I was aware that there was an attempt being made to purchase arms, an attempt which was one of many that had come to my notice, as a matter of fact.

4492. Then there is the transfer to the Ann O’Brien account £1,000, and the cash of £200 of 2nd January.

—I could not say.

4493. You do not know about that. Take 9th January, £6,000 and 22nd January, £6,000.

—Yes, at some stage I drew money, and drew various sums of money. I think the bank manager said here I drew £18,000 and I would accept his word.

4494. In other words, you drew the two £6,000.

—Six or twelve, he said £18,000. You see you must realise that the people operating these accounts could draw the money themselves and date it on occasions. He said I drew £18,000 and I might have. I was working on the assumption that I was assisting these people, that they came down and if the banks were closed they would leave the cheques with me. Often they went straight to the bank and I saw them afterwards. My primary concern was getting whatever information I could, normally when I saw these people.

4495. Then £1,500 follows and two sixes.

—I do not know, I have an idea it went back now and again. Some occasions I think so.

4496. Then you have that there is £1,000, a further £1,000, and a further £600, then £4,000?

—No, I do not think £4,000, I do not think I handled it.

4497. From that account, which was known as the George Dixon account, now the arms account, how much of that did you take out of the country for the purchase of arms?

—£10,000.

4498. £10,000?

—Yes.

4499. That was the total figure you took. Could you tell us, is there anybody you knew who took further sums on that account?

—I know various people, I know that the money got there, shall I put it that way? And it will be the Northern people concerned with getting it there.

4500. And it came out of this account?

—Yes.

4501. Do you wish to disclose the names of any of those people?

—No, I would not like to disclose the names.

4502. On one of the trips to the Continent, when Mr. Luykx met you, he got a cheque from you or you got a cheque from him for £8,500?

—Yes.

4503. That was drawn on his bank account in Ireland?

—Yes.

4504. When you got back to Ireland you wrote a cheque on the Ann O’Brien account for £8,500?

—Yes.

4505. Why was that cheque drawn on the Ann O’Brien account since there was the George Dixon account?

—It was easier to get Ann O’Brien to sign the cheque and this man wanted the money in a hurry, lodged into his account. He did not want an overdraft.

4506. Are you aware whether this £8,500 cheque which you paid to Herr Schleuter for the arms has been debited to the account of Mr. Luykx?

—He has had the money.

4507. That is definite?

—Yes, in my presence in Germany on the weekend of the 1st/4th he paid his own personal cheque and ——

4508. Drawn on an Irish bank here?

—What bank would it be drawn on?

4509. It is a bank account here?

—Yes, I know Herr Schleuter got it.

4510. Deputy Nolan.—Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

4511. Deputy Treacy.—You regarded yourself as a liaison officer between members of the Irish Government and the Northern Committee. Is this not so?

—I found myself acting in this capacity and I found myself more or less verifying the credentials of people who would be coming here to see members of the Government, so in that capacity I was acting as liaison officer.

4512. Backed by such influential members of the Government as say Deputies Blaney, Haughey and Gibbons, at that time Ministers of State, did you feel that you could and did in fact act very largely on your own initiative?

—There was no question of acting on my own initiative at all because at all times I reported to my Director of Intelligence and when this question of actual arms coming into the State here arose I made it my business to go to whom I knew was the person concerned, the Minister for Defence then, and I briefed him fully on what it was. This was the time, as far as I am concerned, if he wanted to stop this thing he could have stopped it because nothing had come in at this stage. There was just those initial arrangements made.

4513. Deputy Keating.—Could I just ask for a date? When you say nothing had come in at this stage what date are you talking about?

—This was the 3rd of March.

4514. Nothing had come in on the 3rd of March.

—Actually, as far as my information was concerned, on the 4th of March I was very doubtful. I had been on the Continent on the 19th of February. I had seen no arms and I came back here just wondering if the whole thing was a hoax. I went to the Minister—I suggested this to him—I said it would be necessary possibly to go to the Continent again to verify whether in fact anything existed or not or whether someone’s leg was being pulled.

4515. Deputy Treacy.—May we take it that you kept Colonel Hefferon, your chief, fully informed of all your activities?

—I kept him fully informed.

4516. On his own evidence here he did express surprise when he learned that you had gone over the Border on occasions when in fact I think you had been forbidden to at a certain stage, and also expressed surprise that you had gone on the Continent seeking the purchase of arms. Are you certain that you did so inform the Colonel of those trips?

—There was no question of I going across the Border after the time that Colonel Hefferon issued a direction that I was not to do so and I was very particular that I did not do so. I do not know where this suggestion arose from because at all times it has been said that I did not cross the Border after some time in October, I think, whenever this direction was issued. I met all my contacts South of the Border thereafter.

4517. Would you say that you kept the Ministers, or rather one Minister in particular, fully informed of your activities.

—One Minister. Which Minister?

4518. Defence I should think.

—When I came in contact with the Minister for Defence I kept him fully informed of my activities. I made it my business to do so.

4519. Having regard to what you considered to be your loyalty to the Minister in all your activities you feel somewhat let down, if not betrayed, in respect of the whole business?

—Let down is putting it very mildly. If I give you an honest answer on that it was a complete and utter betrayal.

4520. Could I take you back to the various trips to the Continent, Captain? You were there on a number of occasions, were you not?

—I was there on four occasions.

4521. February 19th, March 10th, April 1st to 4th and April 17th.

—That is right.

4522. If it is not too much, Captain, would you be kind enough to recount your activities, say, on your first visit of the 19th February?

—I lodged this money, as I have explained to the Committee already, and I made an appointment to meet Herr Schleuter, whom I met. I had a discussion with him and I more or less asked him if he had got those arms available for those people. He told me he had. I wanted to see them. I could not see them and that is a short summary of it. I came back dissatisfied because I had seen nothing.

4523. I see. You went back again on March 10th?

—I went back on March 10th.

4524. With any success on this occasion?

—I am sure it was to Antwerp I went on this occasion. I met Herr Schleuter again and at this stage he said he had arms available and that he was going to send them in on a ship. This is the 25th March trip. So I came back, reported, went down to the ship on the 25th March to meet the arms. This is where I met the customs officials and all the rest of it. I can go into the whole detail if you wish.

4525. What went wrong with Herr Schleuter with the honourable agreement you entered into with him for the supply of those arms? What went wrong that they were not shipped in accordance with the plan?

—This is something I never got to the bottom of. I made inquiries at the docks on that day and I got the customs officer to go to Palgrave Murphy and have a telex message sent to Antwerp to inquire. An answer came back and as far as I remember what it said was the goods were offloaded. I heard other rumours. One rumour brought to me was that the captain refused to take them. I do not know how true that is.

4526. Would you agree that at this stage the whole transaction was being badly bungled so to speak?

—I would not say it was bungled at this end, by any manner of means. I will not admit that, whatever happened at the other end. The arrangement I made was that the arms would come in on this ship, that everything was OK at the other end. All I had to do was to arrange to receive them and those arrangements were made.

4527. So the letdown was on Herr Schleuter’s side rather than on this side?

—Yes. Once again there was suspicion arising on what was actually happening and so on. This was the situation at that date.

4528. On April 1st you were accompanied to the Continent by Albert Luykx?

—That is correct.

4529. You met Herr Schleuter again on this occasion?

—Yes.

4530. You seem to have been successful in securing some items of armaments shall we say in the nature of bullet proof vests rather than the real thing on this occasion?

—The bullet proof vests arrived on the 25th March. Forty bullet proof vests arrived on the 25th March.

4531. They were paid for?

—Yes. Nothing comes unless it is paid for.

4532. Can we ascertain from your recollection how much those vests cost?

—Those vests cost £70 each. I was going to come to that when you were talking about the 2nd April. It seems 100 vests were ordered. I thought they were too expensive and tried to cancel them.

4533. You thought they were too expensive?

—Yes.

4534. Was it your desire that vests should be purchased in any event or were they rather imposed on you by the supplier?

—They were not imposed by any manner of means.

4535. You specifically requested them?

—I did not request them at all. It was not me who requested them.

4536. This is what I want to ascertain if I can.

—It was not me who requested them at all.

4537. I wanted to ascertain whether you really thought them worthwhile at all in the circumstances?

—They could be worthwhile as a defensive garment certainly.

4538. Deputy Nolan has adverted to the difficulty you experienced in paying Herr Schleuter money on the occasion of the visit of 1st to 4th April and the fact that Mr. Alfred Luykx facilitated you with a cheque for £8,500. You made good that amount from the account of Anne O’Brien at a later stage?

—Yes.

4539. Would you be surprised if I told you that the cheque, in the words of Mr. Alfred Luykx himself, bounced?

—No, I have read this since and, looking at this, I am not surprised.

4540. What do you think went wrong on that occasion?

—The bank strike, I would say, interrupted the whole thing. Otherwise there would have been no problem.

4541. It has not as yet been refunded, the £8,500? Is that so?

—That is correct.

4542. To the best of your knowledge and belief, did any arms come into this country by way of land, sea or air?

—As regards this particular operation, no arms came in.

4543. Irrespective of this operation, I am asking you, from personal knowledge, did arms come in?

—No, I have no personal knowledge of arms coming in. There were various rumours at all stages and an intelligence agent gets all kinds of information.

4544. Is your recollection any keener now as regards the amount of money you handed over for the arms to Herr Schleuter? There was a disparity of, I think, about £10,000. Is your recollection any clearer?

—This is my estimate of £20,000 to £30,000? I would say it is £30,000.

4545. This is your recollection now? You think this is a precise figure?

—It could be a bit more; I cannot give a precise figure.

4546. We have narrowed the gap, anyway. In any event, you were on this operation a number of months and senior Ministers of Government ——

—I was on this operation among others. I was concerned with numerous things and actually I spent a very busy nine months on this and was rarely at home.

4547. And you have said to us that not only Ministers of State in the person of the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons, Deputy Charles Haughey, the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Neil Blaney, the then Minister for Agriculture, Colonel Hefferon, your immediate superior and indeed perhaps the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Seán MacEoin himself, might have been kept fully informed of all the activities?

—General Seán MacEoin would not have been kept informed of my various acts because the operation was through the Director of Intelligence and to the Minister and at a later stage it was directly between the Minister and myself, with Colonel Hefferon still operating to the Minister.

4548. With the exception of General Seán MacEoin, the other important personalities, then? In any event, you were allowed to continue these activities and no one cried stop or even hinted that you should abandon any operation at any given time?

—On the contrary, when I made it my business to see the Minister for Defence he gave me every encouragement and discussed various ways and means with me.

4549. I accept your sincerity and your honesty in that regard. Could I just take your mind back a moment to the various meetings for the inauguration of the Northern Committee? Who picked the members of the Northern Committee? Did you have some say in the matter?

—In the North of Ireland, you mean? Not at all, they established themselves.

4550. You had no part in the selection of these personalities whom we know of very largely by code here? You are aware of the code?

—I am aware of the code, but I will only say that I met numerous people, I made it my business to do so, but I did not play any part in selection.

4551. Who selected them?

—There was no question of selection. The only thing was, you had various delegations coming down here ——

4552. It was a spontaneous thing?

—It was spontaneous. There were delegations coming down and if I knew the background of the various people and if they were approaching various people and I was asked I would say what I knew.

4553. You did say you met a delegation to vet them, to use your own words?

—This is true; I did this in effect.

4554. And you would at times say whether you thought these people should be there?

—I would not stop any of them coming but I would have a fair idea what attitude of mind they had, what their ideas were and whether they would fit into a particular group or committee, and so on.

4555. Do you feel, looking at the personalities involved, that in any sense they might have been regarded as being chosen, irrespective of how they were selected, on particular sectarian or political lines, that there was selectivity in respect of the people who represent the North?

—I will answer that question in this way. As regards the people who came down here, there was no selectivity.

4556. Did you have any part to play in the creation of the Voice of the North?

—I had no direct part to play in that at all.

4557. You did not contribute any of the articles, or anything like that?

—No.

4558. Allowing for honourable intentions in the matter of assisting our Northern brothers in the difficulties experienced at the time, some people have in fact suggested that the endeavour was rather to mislead and deceive certain elements in the North, and indeed to subvert and undermine certain organisations of the North rather than help them in their distress. How true would this be of your activities?

—It would not be true of my activities at all. As far as I was concerned they were people coming looking for assistance. A lot of these people were very worried and afraid and put forward very good cases, as I know, not to me but to the various members of the Government whom they met, that they might in certain areas be isolated and subject to attack. Some feared a recurrence of what happened in August 1969, and so on, and they wanted some guarantee of protection in the event of that happening.

4559. Would you not agree that, arising from all the activities of the time in question, there seemed to be some divisions emerging in the ranks of the organisations both North and South?

—That is true.

4560. And that this suggestion that they had been subverted and undermined was given credence?

—I do not think that arose at all. My personal attitude is all I can give and it is that my idea would be that it should all be on the one foot and that if there were serious apprehensions that they were going to be attacked they would all have to operate together and would all be in the one melting pot anyhow. So as regards that suggestion it did not arise in my case.

4561. If I may revert very briefly to the bank accounts, in respect of the many withdrawals from the main account and the subsidiary accounts you were again the main liaison officer. What particular steps, if any, did you take to ensure that the money went to reliable people in the North? I appreciate the circumstances of the time; it was virtually a revolution and therefore it was hard to expect accountability as such, but I want to try and ascertain at least that the money that was handed over for payment of wages, for foodstuffs, for clothing and for refugee work generally was handed to reliable people and accountable people and that you would expect that some record of income and expenditure would have been made available to you in that regard?

—There was no question of their being accountable to me at all; and as regards Grant-in-Aid money, this was a very reliable committee. A number of people are there and they were accounting, and I would have no right to ask them for an account.

4562. I see. You trusted those people implicitly?

—Well, it is handed over to a committee and the committee has it, and I could not go and ask them to account to me for it.

4563. To whom were they accountable?

—I would say the committee was accountable to itself, as a committee.

4564. Even though the money, in the main, was coming from an Irish source, this source here?

—I do not know. This is a Grant-in-Aid given to a committee so I would imagine the committee were the people who would handle it.

4565. Was any account given, say, to the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Defence, or anyone like that?

—I do not know of any accounting going to any of these people.

4566. You have given evidence to us, certain evidence, to prove that you acted all the time on behalf of the Government, so to speak. You laid particular stress on the importance in this regard of the directive of 6th February?

—Yes.

4567. I am not au fait with this directive. Could you enlighten me as to what it contained?

—I have to work from memory and from what was given by Colonel Hefferon in the Four Courts as regards this directive and actually it is in the court record. However, I will give you what my memory is.

4568. I should be very grateful.

—It was to prepare for incursions into Northern Ireland. That was No. 1. No. 2, I think was, or possibly 3, was to make gas masks available. Then there was some phrase about surplus arms to be set aside for the same purpose. Then there were some other bits of it which I do not recollect the phraseology of but I know that at the end of the case in the Four Courts one of the questions put by the foreman of the jury to the judge was, did it emerge in evidence that these arms were intended for distribution to civilians in Northern Ireland as a result of this directive, and the answer was, Yes.

4569. You regarded this as your authority for the activities you were engaged in?

—If I would describe it as such, it was the formal background for activities that had been going on from August. I am not saying there was importation of arms from August but this was a developing situation. It did not develop overnight, but gradually, gradually.

4570. How did you come to know of this directive? Was it something that was passed on to you?

—Colonel Hefferon informed me of the general terms of it shortly after it was issued because it was related to this question of the submission to me by the Northern people that they would like to have arms, which I brought to Colonel Hefferon’s notice at approximately the same time.

4571. And Colonel Hefferon felt that it was all right for you to act within the directive?

—On 19th October—take that case—it was rather an investigation I was carrying out to see what was happening. This is as regards arms, which was the primary consideration, to see if they existed at all. I got the impression it was genuine, but I do not know. I was still in doubt.

4572. Yes. And would you say that the movement of rifles from the South, or whereever they came from, to the Dundalk area, the Northern area, in the vicinity of the border, was part of this plan of campaign as contained in the directive of 6th February?

—It could arise from nothing else; and I think there is further proof, and that is the fact that when Colonel Hefferon heard this he made it his business to try and get me back from the Continent to distribute these weapons.

4573. Are these the rifles said to have been deposited in an abbey in a certain county adjacent to the Border?

—No, No, No.

4574. This is a different consignment of rifles we are talking about?

—These were Army rifles as such.

4575. I was interested in hearing you recount the purchase of untraceable arms, or an endeavour to purchase untraceable arms. With what success, Captain?

—This operation, I think, would have come to its logical conclusion, the arms would have arrived in Dublin around the 20th April.

4576. But no untraceable arms did in fact come in?

—None that I am aware of.

4577. You say that the then Minister for Defence had taken positive steps to set up a fictitious company for the purchase of these untraceable arms in order to divert the attention of the Northern authorities, perhaps, or to ensure that they were not traceable?

—I do not think I said he took positive steps. If I did——

4578. You intimated. I am sorry, Captain, I am not putting words into your mouth.

—He suggested that it would be a good idea, if we wanted to have untraceable arms, that the surplus arms that had been retained by the Army, which they were selling at a particular stage, should be sold to a fictitious company, and the suggestion was put up that a fictitious company should be formed.

4579. Had you been engaged, Sir, on the Continent in seeking to secure arms of an untraceable kind as part of your mission?

—That was the idea, that the arms would be untraceable as such, but it was not initiated by me at all. The way I would explain it is that we found out this was going on and these arms would be brought in under control with the agreement of the people who, I suppose one would say, owned them, the Northern people.

4580. In respect of the plans you were making for the defence of the people of the North, who were under such pressure at that time, to what extent were you relying on or seeking the active support of organisations which might be regarded as subversive?

—The idea would be that it would be to defend people over a wide area of the North if there was a breakdown. I think the term “Doomsday” has been used and it was probably a fair term. This is if there was an outbreak, say, August, 14th August, 1969, again and possibly over a wide area—a question of people defending themselves.

4581. And did you in fact supply either money or arms to these associations, Captain?

—I supplied nothing to any group, association or anything else; and my attitude at all times to these people was that I could do no such thing, that I must have the authority of the Government. This was my attitude, expressed on numerous occasions.

4582. You would repudiate any suggestion, Captain, that you did in fact assist these subversive organisations by way of——

—There was no question of assisting subversive organisations, because the arms would be under the control of the Government authorities here.

4583. I do not want to take up unduly the time of the Committee but there is just one last point, Captain. I am reading your statement on the last occasion. You did show reluctance, or disinclination, to make a statement to the Special Branch when you were arrested?

—Yes.

4584. I can well understand the feelings at the time. But you did say, Captain, that you would be prepared to talk, I understand, to the Taoiseach?

—I did not.

4585. Yes. I might refer to page 259 of the Committee’s Report dated 1st December, Captain, No. 3427, Deputy Briscoe is here saying that you were in the “presence of Superintendent Fleming”?

—Yes, correct.

4586. I am quoting now, “Chief Superintendent Fleming turned to me and he said: ‘Would you talk to the Taoiseach?”’.

—Yes.

4587. And he quotes you again, “and I said: ‘Yes”’.

—Yes.

4588. And this meeting between yourself, Superintendent Fleming and the Taoiseach was so arranged?

—There was myself and the Taoiseach; Superintendent Fleming was not there.

4589. You did meet?

—Yes, he brought me over.

4590. You did not feel equal to talking to the Taoiseach on that occasion and coming clean, so to speak?

—It was not a question of coming clean. I had made up my mind at that stage that I was not making a statement to anyone because of certain questions and what had transpired. When Superintendent Fleming said to me, “would I talk to the Taoiseach?”, I said “Yes, I would”. My idea was that I would talk to the Taoiseach, but I had no intention of making any formal statement, because my attitude was that the Minister for Defence knew what was going on.

4591. You were prepared to have a heart-to-heart talk to the Taoiseach and unburden yourself to him?

—I was prepared to talk to him and see what happened.

4592. You were not prepared——

—I was not prepared to go in and make a formal statement. When I arrived——

4593. That was the end of the affair?

—We had a discussion for some time and I arranged a jail for a night.

4594. That is all I have at this juncture, thank you very much.

4595. Chairman.—Gentlemen, may I express the wish that Deputies would, so far as possible, refrain from passing opinions, favourable or unfavourable, regarding the reliability of the witness’s evidence.

4596. Deputy Tunney.—Captain, on page 244, referring to the bank accounts——

—The Red Book?

4597. No, the Green Book. No. 3174:

I did not hear anything about a mandate until I read the evidence here. It meant nothing to me.

Now the mandate refers to three names, and the main account?

—Yes.

4598. And that it would be taken that you did not know everything about that account?

—I know something about the account, but not the mandate.

4599. The opening of that account?

—I do not think I opened that account or was concerned with the opening of it.

4600. If you look over to page 245, you will see there No. 3195:

I have no recollection of being handed forms as such but I have an idea that I had been at the bank one day with three names.

—This is correct. I was at the bank, I would say with the names of George Dixon and Ann O’Brien. I do not think, I believe I did not do so for the main account. And if I believe about the three names, Ann O’Brien and George Dixon——

4601. Only in so far as there were three names on the main account, I thought that— and you admitted further up—you had some knowledge of the individuals or the subsidiary accounts. I thought there was a slight conflict there.

—I understand.

4602. As far as you are concerned your recollection is not that you had any knowledge of opening the main account?

—I do not believe I opened the main account.

4603. Apart from not having opened it, you were aware of the existence of this account?

—Yes.

4604. You were aware without giving the names of the people in whose names that account had been opened——

—That is correct.

——and that this was a transfer of the same account. I know that money still resided but for convenience sake it was being brought down here?

—This is true. For instance, when I saw this Clones account I did not realise how much money was in it at all. It was only when I saw it here that I knew, so that I had very little knowledge of the Clones account as such.

4605. You had been requested for convenience sake to have it changed down here?

—That is correct. Actually, there was security involved in this also so that it was finance and security.

4606. Even though it was opened here in the names of Loughran, Murphy and White?

—Yes.

4607. To all intents and purposes these were the same people as operated the account above?

—As far as I was aware.

4608. I was looking at the Clones account and I see that while it was up there the three people in whose names it was held did write cheques on that account?

—Yes.

4609. On the other hand, in circumstances where I would be asked to accept that it was brought down here for convenience purpose, it struck me as being rather strange that the name John White does not appear on any cheque drawn on that account. You would be aware of that?

—No, I would not have been aware of it at the time. I found out after. I did not, I was told afterwards I did not but this was a committee which had handed in their names and they changed the cheques and I do not even know if I changed any of those cheques—I may have and I would not be able to compare them all anyhow.

4610. In circumstances where I find myself on the outside trying to look in, you would concede that it seems rather strange that if the three people who held that account requested that for convenience sake, allowing again for a certain amount of security, it should be changed down here—from that point, from the point of its being changed the name of one of the holders does not appear any longer?

—I do not know. I just cannot answer that.

4611. There would be no question of that particular holder, whoever he was, not being a party to its being changed, or to the reasons for which it was being changed?

—I would not know that—I do not think so.

4612. Again, Captain, I thought that when you were going through the corrections that you might refer to something of which I reminded you the other night. That was on page 246. You said: “I suggested to them”?

—Yes.

4613. And again I think you say on page 269, at the bottom of that page: “I put the proposition of the northern people to Colonel Hefferon”?

—Yes.

4614. That was pre-February 6th?

—Yes.

4615. And you are indicating there that rather than again resulting from certain chats you had with these people but you are not saying there to me that you are conveying their message but rather you are making suggestions arising from what they had said to you?

—Oh, well, in that case it was what I had found out from these people that I was putting to the Director of Intelligence. I think it is a use of words there. I would not put it. It would have to be the people in Northern Ireland who would put forward the proposition as such.

4616. You said, Captain, that you referred earlier on to reported court evidence and I have had a look at that and I am again bearing in mind everything that happened pre-February 6th—would you say that it would be a fair comment to say that in the court the impression was given that before that date—whether you intended it or not—I think that in answer to one question you did say that you had knowledge of or, I think, you drew £3,000 in connection with the purchase of arms?

—Yes.

4617. That is prior to February 6th?

—Yes, but there were things—I had knowledge of various attempts at arms, as a lot of other people had at the time. This is normal work in which one would be engaged, to know that these things are going on, and you must wait until they develop to a certain stage. I reported these in the normal way but it was a matter of waiting to see what would happen.

4618. On that, too, in respect of the directive of the 6th you would take it that from that everything you did subsequent to that was on authority?

—Yes.

4619. Would you be making the point— are we to take it then that the directive in so far as these other moves were already on foot, the directive was to accommodate those moves or that it was just fortuitous that because of the directive it was able to bring this move under it?

—No, I do not think so. I think this was just a formalisation of Government policy put to the Chief of Staff and there was no question of any arms coming in before the directive, and all I had prior to that was knowledge gained in a certain way that these people trusted me down here and talked to me as I had knowledge.

4620. But I think you did indicate that moves had been made prior to this about the importation of arms?

—Several moves had been made by several people prior to that and they all were abortive and these could have been abortive too in the same way.

4621. As far as this directive would be concerned the Chief of Staff would have been, putting it mildly, involved in them. He knew of this directive?

—As far as I know, Colonel Hefferon was present when the directive was issued to the Chief of Staff on 6th February.

4622. I think you did say that the permission of the Chief of Staff was not involved at all in connection with any operation of bringing in the arms?

—This is true, yes.

4623. If he was not involved at all and if he is involved in that directive of February 6th, to me there seems to be a gap?

—I do not know how this can arise. I worked in the Intelligence Section under the Director of Intelligence. There was direct access to the Minister who was the person responsible and I do not see any gap. People might say it should work another way but this was the way it worked in fact.

4624. Yes, but you would know what you do know about the Army. I am looking at the evidence that will be before me. After all, one thing you do say is that what you were doing arose from the authority which you thought came to you as a result of the directive of February 6th?

—No, that is not correct. My authority was there from August all the time. I was reporting everything I found out to the Director of Intelligence. At a certain stage it turned out that these people felt that they should being in arms through the South. This was their proposition in general which I put to the Director of Intelligence.

4625. I thought you were making the point that your authority sprang from the directive of February 6th?

—No, but I think the directive confirms that it had Government authority and this was the Government attitude and frame of mind because it was a Government directive issued by the Minister.

4626. This is probably my second last question. You spoke about your information from the North from August on. Colonel Hefferon when giving evidence did say that he had not sent you to the North?

—In August?

4627. Yes?

—That is quite correct. I was on leave.

4628. Would you not concede then that there would be some slight doubt at least as to whether from that point you were there officially or not?

—I was not there officially during my period of leave. I happened to go to Belfast on this particular day with a friend of mine for a visit. When we arrived in Belfast about 1 o’clock at night this man suggested that we should go over to Derry and see the Apprentice Boys Parade which neither of us had seen before and we drove to Derry with that one idea of seeing what was going on and we walked straight into the Bogside on the following day. I thought it my duty to stay there and see what I could see. At this stage I did not introduce myself to anyone—just kept my ears open to find out all I could. We went back to Belfast, checked there and came straight down to the Director of Intelligence and reported to him on 14th February, and it was purely coincidental that I was in Belfast and Derry on the occasion.

4629. Deputy MacSharry.—14th August?

—I am sorry—14th August.

4630. Deputy Tunney.—To get back to the corrections you made, where you were asking me to withdraw something I said here——

—About the children?

4631. I did not say that your children were here—I said that you had children at home?

—I understand.

4632. Having said to you that I was as concerned about your character as anybody else, I was conscious of the fact that what I had here was here. I had asked you not to prejudge the Committee or any member of the Committee, that I would be guided by the facts as presented by you to me?

—Yes.

4633. And where you were being queried then as to whether or not your trips to the Continent were official or otherwise, you made the point that they were official and authorised, and I asked you in the matter of travelling at home whether as a Captain you would be entitled to travelling expenses?

—That is correct, yes.

4634. And you said you would?

—Yes.

4635. I asked you again in what circumstances as a not over-paid Captain you would be entitled to claim your travelling expenses and you said: “I got my travelling expenses”?

—That is right, yes.

4636. Did you get them from the Department of Defence?

—No.

4637. That was my question to you and you said: “I did not; they came out of the Northern Fund”. Was that not rather strange on your part? As far as I am concerned, it still is strange that if you are entitled to claim them from the Department, you did not do so. You then said: “Maybe it is strange but this is the fact of the case”?

—Yes.

4638. The point I made there was that it was difficult to relate what you were saying to what I think I would do in your shoes. If you think that was a major reflection on you, I was not challenging you on the point that you got your expenses from the people in the North but that in the circumstances presented to us it would have been more appropriate for you to claim your expenses from the Department?

—No, I did not. I got them from the Northern people. I suppose that if I had been very clever I could have tried it both ways.

4639. Deputy Barrett.—If we go back to page 243 of your evidence last week, in reply to Question 3163 you mentioned: “I was acting as liaison officer appointed by the Government in between the Northern representatives and the Government.” Can you tell us who actually appointed you?

—I am basing this on the evidence that came out in the court and this was given when Mr. Haughey was being cross-examined and he made this point. I have not the record before me but he said——

4640. Did he say that he appointed you?

—No. He said this in the court and there was some discussion when the jury were out because it concerned what took place at Cabinet.

4641. Colonel Hefferon this morning was not able to throw any light on who appointed you, in his evidence?

—I did not know definitely myself until I heard it in the court.

4642. That means in effect, so, that you were acting without knowing who appointed you until the court case?

—There was no question of anybody knowing.

4643. Without your knowing actually who appointed you as liaison officer until the court case?

—As I said in the court case, I found myself acting in the capacity as ad hoc liaison officer because I found myself being asked to vet people from the North because it turned out that I knew people and I was asked who these people were, what they were, their background and so on, and I found myself in this capacity as liaison officer. Whether it was ever spelled out or not I have no recollection.

4644. You yourself attach great importance to this, that you were acting on the orders and appointed by the Government, and if we can establish who actually appointed you— whether it was one Government Minister, a group of Government Ministers—your Director of Intelligence was unable to throw any light on the matter for us?

—I have not a copy of the court case in front of me but it is in this, during the period when the jury were absent, when there was some discussion about what is admitted and is not admitted and there was this question that Cabinet meetings cannot be discussed in the court because the judge gave a ruling that Government policy did not apply to the particular case.

4645. Let us assume that it was a Cabinet decision and could not be discussed in court. It still had to be conveyed to you?

—Yes.

4646. And it was not conveyed to you?

—I have no recollection of it being conveyed to me. I know that it came to my knowledge about this sub-committee and this was why when I came back from Belfast on 14th September I went to see a person who I knew was a member of the sub-committee——

4647. Could you tell us his name?

—Yes—Mr. Blaney.

4648. Assuming that you were appointed— you cannot recollect by whom—what were the particular duties assigned to you? What were the particular duties assigned to you as liaison officer?

—As liaison officer.

4649. It is not unusual for an Army officer or any member of the Army to have his duties spelled out?

—Yes, but these were exceptional circumstances, and also the person who was in contact with a lot of people in Northern Ireland—a lot of people in Northern Ireland were coming down here to various members of the Government and when I was asked about these people, who they were, what they were and what they represented, I gave my opinion and told people how I felt about them and what they represented.

4650. Were you told to report to anyone in particular or were you reporting regularly to anyone in particular?

—I was not reporting on any regular basis to anyone in particular but there were occasions when information was available, especially from Mr. Blaney who seemed to have a lot of information about Northern Ireland, and I went to him and got it from him and I brought this all back and fitted it into the picture, and I also checked out information to see if it was correct or otherwise as you do in this type of operation—check it with various sources.

4651. You were just comparing notes with Mr. Blaney, more or less?

—It is not comparing notes.

4652. I mean comparing your information with what he was able to supply?

—You get information from here, from there and you check it with as many places as possible. You get some idea of what is happening from that.

4653. Then, having we will say, made a report or compared information and so forth and maybe discussed it with the Director of Intelligence were you in the habit of getting any further instructions from anyone in particular? Were you just let off again with no particular instructions?

—I worked to the Director of Intelligence. Instructions were given. I would go in, report to him and tell him what was happening. I would discuss with him what we would do next and go off and do it.

4654. You were in effect reporting to him?

—I was reporting to him, yes.

4655. Not to any Government Minister or group of Ministers. You were not reporting to them, were you?

—I was reporting to the Director of Intelligence up until the 4th March. I then reported to the Minister for Defence.

4656. On Page 245 again, at the very bottom of the page you say: “I was doing an intelligence operation, working under the authority of this Government, of the Government of the Twenty-Six Counties.”

—Yes.

4657. Does the same thing apply there? You have no recollection of getting that particular authority?

—As regards the importation of the arms they were fully authorised by the Minister for Defence who was the statutory authority, so therefore I was working under the authority of the Government.

4658. The importation was fully authorised?

—Yes, by the Minister for Defence.

4659. When? At what particular time?

—On the 4th March.

4660. The importation was already in train at that time?

—There was no question of the arms coming in at that stage and anyhow it would not have been my business as a captain in intelligence to report to the Minister for Defence. However, I knew I was embarking on an unusual operation. When it came to the stage that the arms might possibly be coming in I thought it as well to go and see the Minister for Defence, which I did on the 4th March. I told him what was taking place. If at that stage he wished to cancel it all he had to do was say so. Furthermore, at the end of January, when he was approached by Colonel Hefferon with the original suggestion, if he wished to stop it all he had to do was say so.

4661. You cannot say he definitely gave authority for the importation of arms, can you?

—I cannot say he got up and said: “import arms”. I was carrying out an intelligence operation and in intelligence it is the intelligence agent or person who finds out the information and brings it to the notice of his relevant authority. If the relevant authority accepts that this is correct, that this should go on, the relevant authority is giving his authority.

4662. The Director of Intelligence did not tell you it should go on, did he?

—The Director of Intelligence when it was put to him—I think this has been gone through on numerous occasions before—thought that this was something which should not be done under Army auspices. He had various reasons for doing so in that the Army with its set procedures and so on would not be the best place to do it and also one other reason he had was that it would be embarrassing to the authorities here if a person in full service possibly became involved in an operation of this sort. This is embarrassing internationally. Therefore, his suggestion to me was that I would possibly have to leave the Army to do this. I said I did not mind, I would carry out the job outside the Army on condition that I was authorised, so I gave him what I would call a tentative resignation to present to the Minister for Defence, which he did and which was rejected. The word I got back was: “Carry on” as I was.

4663. As an Army Officer?

—Yes.

4664. Therefore, what you are saying is that the importation of arms and your visits to the Continent were done on the authority of the Minister? Is that not it?

—That is exactly right.

4665. Then, why did you not make a claim for expenses to the Army authorities in the usual way that you had been doing?

—I think this question came up the last night also and there was talk of cover for the first movement to the Continent. I had a sister in West Germany and it was suggested or worked out that this would be a good cover so that people would not know what I was going to the Continent for actually, even people in the office of the Director of Intelligence because no one there, only the Director and myself, were aware of what was going on. This was brought to the notice of the Minister for Defence. As regards the money I got reimbursed by the Northern people, out of the Northern Fund, if you like to call it that and I did not claim from the Department. I would say one of the reasons was because of this cover. If you have cover and you start claiming money this means the cover has gone west.

4666. With regard to an intelligence officer and claiming for expenses as I understand it— correct me if I am wrong—he makes a claim for his expenses and the Director of Intelligence o.ks or vouches for that claim.

—That is correct.

4667. There is no one else who has any details of that, just the Director of Intelligence and the officer concerned. Is that correct?

—I used to get mine typed by the typist who for a start would probably know. It would probably be known in the office what my claim was because these claims were never treated as secret documents. They were just thrown into a tray. It could be an In and Out tray. They could be picked up by anyone. At the time the question did not arise. I got my expenses and I did not claim any further.

4668. I know but what I am coming at is that it would have been normal for you to claim through the normal channels. You say the Director knew you were going?

—Yes.

4669. It was an authorised trip as far as you were concerned so therefore there could be no doubt but that he would vouch for the expenses if you submitted them to him personally?

—I do not think then that there would have been much point in the cover story because it would have been known.

4670. But he would have been the only one?

—Not at all. It has to go up to Finance for clearance and passes through the normal circles.

4671. Does the explanation as to what the expenses are for go up to the Department of Finance?

—It would. You are supposed to state where you go, mileage and all that sort of stuff and possibly it would be rejected by the Department.

4672. It is not the case then that it stops dead at the Director of Intelligence office and he o.ks the amount?

—Oh, no. He would certify it as being o.k. that these journeys were undertaken.

4673. The amount?

—You would know the amount from various DFRs. They are issued from time to time, what the various moneys are paid for, so many days away from home and this type of thing.

4674. I appreciate that but am I wrong in assuming that if he okayed your expenses we will say for this particular trip to the Continent all that would go on to Finance or to the officials there would be the actual sum of money that was to be payable to Captain Kelly? Am I wrong in that?

—A form would go. There is a special form.

4675. And a full explanation?

—It would be on it. There are various headings on it, From, To, Time, Date, this sort of stuff.

4676. I see. On Page 246, about three-fourths of the way down, in replying you said:

These people who were looking for arms to defend themselves in Northern Ireland, had money to purchase arms and at one stage they wanted to bring these arms into the North. I suggested to them that they should come and operate through the Government here.

Did you do that completely on your own initiative or did someone tell you that you should suggest it to them?

—The thing is that I realised there were people seeing Ministers of the Government here and talking to them on all occasions. As regards I suggesting to them that they should come and operate through the Government here that would not be correct. I would have told them that if they wanted any assistance they should put it to the Government Ministers they were seeing. This would be it, to put it on a regular basis.

4677. Nobody here had told you to make that suggestion to them? You did it yourself. Is that correct?

—I did it myself, yes.

4678. With regard to this directive of February—I forget the actual date—I have not got the actual transcript of this portion of Colonel Hefferon’s evidence at the Four Courts but as far as I recall Colonel Hefferon agreed with regard to this directive that any action based on that directive was to be subject to a Government decision?

—That is correct.

4679. Any particular action? As far as I know there was no such decision ever made for any particular action under the directive. Is that correct? Any action taken under the directive was to be subject to a Government decision which was never made, as far as I know? They made no further decision with regard to any aspect of this directive?

—As far as I know, the directive said prepare for incursions into Northern Ireland, which to me meant that preparations would be made in case they were sent in.

4680. But do you recall Colonel Hefferon in the Four Courts agreeing that any action taken under the directive must be the subject of a further directive from the Government?

—This would be concerning the actual distribution of the arms—that was the point of issue there—and this was accepted by everyone.

4681. It would only concern the distribution? A further directive would not have to come for the importation?

—No. Once the Minister for Defence knew about it and authorised it, it was his responsibility. He is the statutory authority.

4682. Yes. You say he did authorise it as far as you are concerned, but no further decision was made by the Government, to your knowledge?

—I did not have any instructions that the arms were to be distributed. The nearest I came to it was when they rang me when I was on the Continent to come home immediately, and it was also conveyed to me that the purpose was to distribute arms. These were the arms that were moved from Dublin to Dundalk during the period of the riots in Northern Ireland. This was the nearest the Government came to giving the decision, which indicated to me the possibility existed that they would give the decision.

4683. Deputy Briscoe.—Just to follow on from that, this was the phone call that Mr. Gibbons made when he was stopped at Naas. Is that correct?

—Yes.

4684. And you had a phone call from your wife telling you that Colonel Hefferon said you should come back and you phoned— Mr. Blaney, was it?

—Yes.

4685. And you asked him to contact Colonel Hefferon?

—I asked him what the situation was. I think it was an hour or so afterwards and he said the situation had cooled and I more or less suggested that there was no necessity for me to come back and would he contact Colonel Hefferon and tell him.

4686. At one future date you had difficulty, I think. We asked you why you did not phone the Minister for Defence rather than somebody else, either Mr. Blaney or Mr. Fagan, I am not sure, and you said you did not know his phone number. It came out in court that you did not have his phone number. Is my recollection correct there?

—I did not have his phone number. That is correct.

4687. Why was that?

—I never had it. I always contacted him at his office.

4688. But you know his private telephone number is in the telephone book, do you not?

—I do, but I was on the Continent.

4689. But I know you can get it from Directory Inquiries on the Continent.

—There was no necessity to get on to him.

4690. So it was not because you could not get his number?

—I had the other number available, which I used.

4691. One of the things I want to try and get some information on from you is this. The arms arriving here were supposed to be under Army supervision at all times? Is that correct?

—Yes.

4692. Who, in essence, was the Army as such? Was it you representing the Army?

—I will explain it in this way. When the arms were due to come in on 25th March I went to Colonel Hefferon and we had a chat and I put the suggestion that they sould be lodged at Cathal Brugha Barracks, collected by the Army in the normal way. There were various reasons put up why this was not possible, largely administrative and largely because people would be alerted. Then a place of safety was selected, which was mentioned in the court, where these arms would be stored, and this was reported by Colonel Hefferon to the Minister for Defence.

4693. What happened to the bullet-proof vests? Did they come in under Army supervision or were they handed over to the Army?

—They were not for the Army, the bullet-proof vests.

4694. So this was not a purchase for the Army?

—Strictly speaking none of the purchases were for the Army.

4695. They were for the Northern defence?

—Yes, and they agreed with the co-operation of the Government here to have these arms under control down here.

4696. Except the bullet-proof vests?

—I do not think they would have been moved without the arms.

4697. But nobody seemed to know where they were?

—They were moved after 1st May when this all blew up in smoke.

4698. And were they under the supervision of the Army?

—They were under my supervision until then.

4699. But you were no longer an Army officer after 1st May?

—I was no longer an Army officer and, I must reiterate, was being charged for doing my duty.

4700. So you moved Army property?

—It was not Army property.

4701. It was under Army supervision. We have just established that point?

—I do not think the vests came in as an Army consignment. They came in because they were not firearms. They were paid for by the Northern people and I had them under my control until 1st May, and when I was arrested and charged under the Offences Against the State Act I thought it better to get them out of my control.

4702. Did you remove them from Army property?

—No. They were in my house, as a matter of fact.

4703. I see. Well, I know we have a small Army, but this beats it all.

—I have made it clear earlier on that I suggested they should to into Cathal Brugha Barracks, and this was knocked on the head.

4704. To whom did you suggest that the arms should go into the barracks?

—To Colonel Hefferon.

4705. You mentioned here when you were answering some questions from Deputy Barrett about this type of operation, in a blasé manner, if you will excuse the term, that you were used to it and were pretty knowledgeable on intelligence affairs. I understand that you have been Staff Officer to Colonel Hefferon since he took up his appointment and also to his predecessor. A Staff Officer is like the Secretary to a Minister, Colonel Hefferon told us this morning. What experience had you in the field before you undertook this? This was your first assignment really, was it not?

—I would consider myself rather experienced. I spent two years in the Middle East doing a similar job in rather awkward circumstances as liaison officer between Arabs and Jews and acquired a certain amount of experience.

4706. Running guns?

—No, as regards intelligence and knowing what is going on on both sides; meeting people from one side and the other, eating with them, discussing with them, and finding out what people know—that sort of thing.

4707. Not working on an observation post?

—It required a certain amount of experience.

4708. You were actually involved in this liaison work yourself?

—I was in charge of a controller station, which made me directly involved with the authorities on one side as opposed to the other, and then there was a question of correlation.

4709. And you went on both sides of the border?

—I operated on both sides, yes.

4710. You mentioned to Deputy Barrett about your conversation with Colonel Hefferon when you talked over the possibility of whether you could carry on doing the kind of work you were doing. When he was with us this morning he did not put it in exactly the same words or in such a chatty form as you had put it, but I would like to bring you back to that. In mid-January, 1970, you informed Colonel Hefferon—this is according to Colonel Hefferon—that you wanted to assist the Northern Defence Committee in the procurement of arms, and his recollection was of saying that you could not do this as an Army officer, and he told you to retire.

“He said that as an Army officer he could not continue to involve himself in the illegal purchase of arms.” These are the words of Colonel Hefferon in the Four Courts. In spite of that, though, you continued in your operation. Can you explain——?

—I do not think there is any discrepancy here. It is just a question of the use of words. I reported to Colonel Hefferon. His feeling was that I would have to retire if I was to carry out this operation. He also suggested I should drop the operation and carry on with my normal duties, for the very reason that he thought it was an abnormal thing that I should not be asked to do unless I was willing to do it. I said I was willing. This might involve my retirement, he told me. It evolved from this that I gave him a tentative retirement and he brought it to the Minister for Defence. Once he brought it to the Minister for Defence, that was that.

4711. There is a difference in the way Colonel Hefferon tells it and the way you tell it?

—Well these are the facts of the case.

4712. This word which you do not like—I am sorry to have to get back to this— “authority”. Were you authorised by the Government to engage personally in the purchase of arms?

—I was authorised by the Minister for Defence, from 4th March, personally.

4713. Why did you approach the Minister for Finance for on Customs examination rather than the Minister for Defence? This touches on something you were saying earlier, in your submission.

—Actually I suggested that the arms should be brought into Cathal Brugha barracks and come under Army control. Colonel Hefferon said I should go to the Minister for Finance and get Customs clearance and bring them in and they would be better held outside of Army barracks.

4714. He suggested to you not to go through the normal channels?

—Yes.

4715. Now we were told that the new Director of Intelligence was not informed as to what was going on, particularly about the shipment that was due to arrive at the airport?

—Yes.

4716. And we were told the reason was that the fewer people that knew about it the better.

—I think Colonel Hefferon said this.

4717. Yes. Would you agree, or not?

—I would have no contact with Colonel Delaney at that time.

4718. That was the date of the arrival of the shipment of arms at Dublin airport? That week-end—do you remember?

—That was 17th April was it? I cannot recollect.

4719. Colonel Delaney was in his office as the new Director of Intelligence on 9th June. He knew nothing about this?

—I do not know. My impression is he did know something about it, because on 10th April, the day after Colonel Hefferon retired from the Army, a phone call to my house from Captain Dan O’Shea, Staff Officer to Colonel Delaney. My wife took it and she actually asked if he wanted to speak to me but he said “No, take a message”. It was that I was excused duties, regimental duties, on the 11th and was to carry on what I was doing. To me, this was an order to carry on.

4720. With whatever you were doing?

—Whatever I was doing.

4721. You at no time discussed it with him, because it emerged it was too secret, or something?

—This order was delivered by phone and I accepted it, what I was told to do by a staff officer, and carried it out.

4722. Subsequent to Colonel Delaney’s taking up the appointment as the new Director of Intelligence, did you tell him of your impending visit to the Continent?

—I discussed nothing with Colonel Delaney whatsoever. I discussed it solely with Colonel Hefferon.

4723. Who was then retired?

—No.

4724. This is after the 9th?

—I did not, no, because the Minister knew.

4725. Deputy Briscoe.—I think I have finished, for the moment anyway, Captain Kelly. We appreciate your answering our questions.

4726. Chairman.—Thank you very much, Captain Kelly. That is all for the present.

Captain Kelly withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 10 p.m. unit 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 3rd February, 1971.