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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Máirt, 2 Márta, 1971

Tuesday, 2nd March, 1971

The Committee met at 11.15 a.m.

DEPUTY P. HOGAN in the chair.

ORDER OF DÁIL OF 1st DECEMBER, 1970.

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

The Committee deliberated.

Mr. Charles Haughey further examined.

Mr. Haughey.—Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I might begin by saying something about my personal position with regard to the Committee. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I view these entire proceedings with very great doubts, and I believe that my doubts in this regard are shared fairly widely by the community at the present time. It seems to me that these proceedings, and the way in which they are being conducted, represent an entirely new departure in the administration of justice in this country. I believe that the powers which have been conferred on this Committee, and the way those powers have been used have had the result of constituting this Committee into an instrument of the administration of the criminal law.

I think this represents a grave and radical departure in our administration of justice and I doubt any of us can see the ultimate end. I am sure you are also aware, Mr. Chairman, that the constitutionality of these proceedings is at present being questioned before the Courts. It would seem to me, in these circumstances, wise that your proceedings should have been suspended until these constitutional issues have been decided.

I have also mentioned to you, Mr. Chairman, the doubts which I have as to the Committee, as it is at present constituted, complying with Standing Order 127. Furthermore, I think that the way in which these proceedings have been conducted, the type of cross-examination which has been resorted to, the entire lack of protection of witnesses, the hearsay nature of a great deal of the evidence, all these things, in my opinion, are causing grave public unease and disquiet.

The Committee, or perhaps, for all I know, the majority of the members of the Committee wish, in spite of the things I have mentioned, to proceed. As a member of the Dáil, as the person who was Minister for Finance when this grant which you are investigating was instituted, I believe I have a duty to assist the Committee. In spite of the reservations which I have about these proceedings I intend therefore, Mr. Chairman, to give evidence today. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that my evidence will be restricted to the matters which the Dáil has directed this Committee to investigate. We do not appear to have a complete Committee here. A number of your members would appear to be absent.

8959. Deputy FitzGerald.—There is a quorum present.

8960. Chairman.—The position is that if four members are present at the time appointed for the meeting of the Committee it is in order for them to proceed, in accordance with the invariable practice and procedure of the Committee. Standing Order 127 has not been construed as requiring a particular balance of members present at the meeting. In the circumstances, a quorum being present, it would seem, in accordance with our previous practices, that we could proceed.

—I am not producing any argument concerning Standing Order 127. In my view the validity of your proceedings must be in question. However if you, the Chairman of this Committee, decide to proceed, then that is perfectly in order with me.

8961. The question of constitutionality is an important point. We proceed on the basis that we are acting under legislation which we deem to be constitutional until proved otherwise. That has been our thinking, on these lines. I have here the Dáil Report on the Miscellaneous Vote 16. I shall pass it to you to see if you are satisfied that that is an accurate account of the proceedings when the Vote was introduced.

(Document passed to witness.)

—Yes, I think so.

8962. In effect this Vote gives statutory regularity to the Suspense Account set up the previous August for the Grant-in-Aid to the North. Would that be correct?

—I am sorry. Would you repeat that?

8963. This Vote was to give statutory regularity to the Suspense Account, which the Department of Finance set up on August 16 with a view to providing aid to the North?

—Yes, you could put it that way. I regard it myself as coming before the Dáil for statutory authority for these moneys which had been expended.

8964. There were two items involved. One was the Grant-in-Aid which was allocated for the relief of distress in the North and the other was a sum of money which had been expended on, for want of a better word, propaganda.

—Yes. I think the second item was about £75,000. I am not sure. But as it happened all I needed in the Dáil was two Votes of, I think, £10 each, because there was a very large saving on the Miscellaneous Expenses Vote because the amount of money which had been provided for the industrial incentives—the scheme which had been introduced to overcome the British import levy—had not been used to the extent anticipated. There was a very big saving on the Miscellaneous Expenses Vote; and these two Votes—the £100,000 and the £75,000—were able to be accomodated practically in their entirety in that saving.

8965. The £100,000 was mentioned in Subhead J. in the Supplementary Vote. You know the little leaflets which are circulated around?

—If you will explain to me what the point is.

8966. The point is that, I wish to know in that Vote before the House there were the various items and there is the question of the £100,000, which had already been practically spent at that time. Was that mentioned in your statement to the House?

—The Supplementary Estimate was put to the House. Nobody asked me questions and it went through without any discussion whatsoever.

8967. I mentioned it only because other small sums were adverted to in your speech and this was not?

—I did not make any speech on that Supplementary Estimate. Could I be clear about what you mean?

8968. In your remarks?

—I did not make any remarks. I put the Supplementary Estimate to the House without any introductory remarks, so there is no validity in your point.

8969. Other items are mentioned.

—Deputy O’Higgins asked about other items in the Supplementary Vote but he did not ask anything about these other two items.

8970. Do you accept that the intention behind the Vote was for the purose of relief to the North and for no other purpose?

—Absolutely.

8971. You accept, therefore, that expenditure from that fund for propaganda purposes and for arms would be irregular?

—Yes.

8972. And you are aware that some of it was presumably spent for propaganda purposes— Voice of the North?

—I am not aware personally of anything of that sort. Of course, I have been following the proceedings of this Committee and I am aware of the evidence given. That is my only knowledge of this.

8973. So payment from the Fund was made without your knowledge or permission?

—Yes.

8974. You were aware of the Clones account?

—I was aware that a bank account was being opened in Clones.

8975. And the holders of the account were known to you and they were acceptable?

—Yes. Other names have been put forward and I had refused to accept them.

8976. Was there to your knowledge an earlier account anywhere else?

—No.

8977. You were not aware of possibly an additional account in Dundalk.

—My recollection is that there was a suggestion of an account in Dundalk but that was not proceeded with.

8978. Did you have any knowledge beforehand of an intention to open a new account and to transfer from the Clones account to Baggot Street?

—I was never aware of any transfer to Baggot Street. I was not aware of an account in Baggot Street until the proceedings started in the Courts.

8979. You did get American money, something about £4,000 odd?

—Twelve thousand dollars.

8980. Which was transferred to Baggot Street?

—My recollection is that I handed that cheque to Mr. Fagan and asked him to deposit it to the Northern Relief account. It was on that basis that the cheque was given to me by the American.

8981. Mr. Fagan knew it was going to Baggot Street but you thought it was going to Clones?

—There was not anything very much present in my mind where the Account was but I state positively that I did not know ever that the account was transferred from Clones to Baggot Street.

8982. Therefore you did not know anything about fictitious names or subsidiary accounts. You never heard the names White, Murphy, George Dixon or Ann O’Brien?

—Until the Court cases.

8983. You knew that requests were made for funds for Voice of the North?

—Yes, I did. I have read the evidence given here by Mr. Brady. Generally speaking, I think he has given a reasonable picture of what happened. I was not immediately involved in that particular matter. My understanding was that Voice of the North would be financed out of the propaganda vote, if I may use this expression.

8984. That is the £75,000?

—Yes. As you know, a considerable propaganda campaign had been mounted throughout the world. Experts had been called in from the State Companies and sent abroad to conduct the campaign, and that campaign ultimately cost something in the region of £75,000. That campaign was conducted by the Government Information Bureau and, in the normal course of events, it would be accounted for by the Taoiseach’s Department and the Government Information Bureau. Because of its exceptional nature, it was decided to put it through the Miscellaneous Provisions Vote. My recollection is that the original idea of the Government Information Bureau was that Voice of the North would be financed out of that money. Subsequently, that did not happen.

8985. I understand a request was made to the Taoiseach’s Department?

—I cannot remember exactly, but there was some contretempts which arose and I remember going to see the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach gave me his view, his direction, that these State funds should not be used to finance this.

8986. Do you remember subsequently that Captain Kelly financed it?

—No.

8987. Was there any reason why it should not have been paid out of Subhead K?

—What is that?

8988. For propaganda, Northern Ireland special publicity?

—That is the £75,000?

8989. The £70,000.

—None at all. There was the decision of the Taoiseach at the time that we should not finance it.

8990. So you never found out how it was financed?

—No.

8991. What position did Captain Kelly exactly occupy vis-à-vis yourself as Minister?

—No position.

8992. No official position?

—No.

8993. He has spoken here of his position as liaison officer between the Northern groups and the Minister for Finance, yourself?

—It is not for me to comment on the evidence any other witness gives to the Committee. I can give only facts known to me personally. I know that Captain Kelly, as Intelligence Officer, was very active in acting as liaison between different groups in the North and various people down here.

8994. But in his unofficial position as we know it, he had contact with you either directly or through Mr. Fagan and in most cases it would be a request for money to be transferred from your Department through the Red Cross?

—I am not quite clear. He would intimate to Mr. Fagan as a general rule whether or not the Northern Ireland people required more money.

8995. Yes?

—And we would certainly, in the Department of Finance we would certainly accept that he was in a position to convey to us the needs and requirements of the Northern Ireland people.

8996. Did you know at any stage that Captain Kelly had gone outside the field of providing aid to the North and he had become interested in providing arms to the people in the North?

—I have no knowledge of that.

8997. Were you quite happy with the position of a serving Army officer under the direction of another Minister providing services to your Department in an unofficial capacity?

—Captain Kelly was very useful to me in briefing me on the situation in the North of Ireland. I did not see anything at all wrong with him doing so. He was a very trusted, reliable member of the Intelligence staff. It was a very confused, a very difficult situation. I had no hesitation whatever in receiving assistance from Captain Kelly in briefing me on the situation in the North of Ireland and letting me know who the different groups were and all that sort of thing.

8998. Was his particular Minister, the Minister for Defence, aware of Captain Kelly’s activity?

—I cannot say anything about that. That would be hearsay. There is nothing I can say about that.

8999. You did not personally acquaint the Minister for Defence that one of his officers was providing some service for you, or for your Department?

—No, I do not think I ever did but I am sure that the Minister for Defence must have been aware. That is all I can say.

9000. You gave £500 to Captain Kelly for the Bailieboro’ meeting, or at least you gave it to Colonel Hefferon and he passed it on?

—I did not give it to anybody; I authorised the payment of it to Colonel Hefferon, yes.

9001. Yes. Was there any—are you aware whether there were any expenditure returns provided by Captain Kelly as an itemised account of how he spent that money returned to you or the Department?

—No.

9002. That would be a matter for the Department rather than the Minister, would it?

—It would be a matter for the administration, yes. Perhaps I might elaborate a little bit on that, Mr. Chairman. A Minister for Finance never makes an actual payment, he never sees a cheque, a payable order, he never sees money. All he does is give an authority, he authorises the expenditure of money. Once I as the political head of a Department, would authorise any particular item of expenditure from that point on it would be a matter for the Department, the Department machinery to arrange for it to be expended in the direction that I indicated.

9003. But you would expect, would you, that when you authorised a payment of that nature to Captain Kelly that he would provide a measure of accountability for the money he received?

—Not in this particular case. I think you have, you must keep in mind the circumstances surrounding this entire affair. This was a confused, chaotic, agonising situation. Myself and other Ministers and other people were under constant pressure from different sources to provide aid and assistance. Now it was the decision of the Government that we should provide generously this assistance and that we should do it with a minimum of formality. We were concerned more with coming to the aid of people in distress rather than anything else. So that to that extent, if you like, we, in my Department, we administered this particular money more or less along the same lines as we would administer the Secret Service Vote.

9004. This money was provided, we understand, to organise what they now call the Bailieboro’ meeting?

—No, that is not my recollection. My recollection is that the Director of Intelligence sought this money for use for refugee purposes, to assist refugees.

9005. There was a second £500 which I thought was for the refugee purpose. I thought this was for the Bailieboro’ one?

—No, that is not my recollection, Mr. Chairman. I can only tell you, as honestly as I can, what I remember about this affair and I understood that the Director of Intelligence sought this money for expenditure in refugee circumstances, to help alleviate the situation of refugees.

9006. Yes. Were you aware that the money was passed on to Captain Kelly in its entirety?

—No, I did not know that. I did not know that.

9007. Did you personally meet Messrs F, G and H if you know—the witness has not got the code has he?

—I have no idea who they are. At that time if you were to devise a code for all the people I met from the North of Ireland looking for assistance you would have to use the whole alphabet.

9008. This is our own one here. We will give it to you now.

(Document handed to witness.)

—Yes. Perhaps you would repeat the question, Mr. Chairman?

9009. Did you personally meet Messrs F, G and H?

—Yes.

9010. And you knew that these were the account holders at Clones?

—Yes.

9011. When and where did you first hear that this fund was manipulated in an attempt to provide money for the importation of arms?

—Well, I—perhaps you would put that question a bit differently. I have never, I do not know that the fund was manipulated. Perhaps you would ask me more specifically what exactly you mean.

9012. It has been suggested that the Fund was manipulated——

—That some of the moneys were taken out of this Fund to purchase arms.

9013. Yes. When did you first hear about that?

—In the High Court.

9014. As far as you were concerned, you regarded Captain Kelly’s function as purely to assist in the providing of money for the relief of distress?

—No, I would not say that, Mr. Chairman. I knew Captain Kelly was carrying out his duties as an Intelligence Officer in regard to the situation in the North. Part of his duties, his activities, was to keep me and other Ministers informed of developments and activities in the North of Ireland.

9015. Captain Kelly states or complains that he was personally caught up in a change of Government policy. You need not comment on that if you do not want to.

—I certainly will not.

9016. That is all I have to ask you at the moment.

—Perhaps we might hear what the Clerk is saying?

9017. We are trying to establish the order of persons to start questioning.

—The Clerk is an officer of the House and has as big an obligation and duty to me as to any member of this Committee.

9018. I was merely asking him a private question.

9019. Deputy Keating—Deputy Haughey, I want to start with the matter of the Government decision. I do not know if you are familiar with what we call “the pink book”, which set out a good deal of the documentation?

—I hope there is no significance in the first reference to “a pink book” being made by yourself, Deputy.

9020. I think pink is quite a reasonable colour. This is a quotation, I take it from a minute of the Government meeting. I am quoting from page 2:

The Government at a meeting on the 16th August, 1969, decided, inter alia that

“a sum of money … should be made available from the Exchequer to provide aid for the victims of the current unrest in the Six Counties.”

Does that correspond with your recollection about the discussion and the decision that was taken on that occasion? Is that fair record?

—I have no intention of saying anything about what was said or discussed at the Government meeting but I can tell the Committee that the Government was very seriously perturbed, was very anxious about the situation in the North of Ireland. As I said, it was a very confused, chaotic situation. We knew that a lot of people were suffering very severe hardship and distress and the Government decided to be generous in coming to their aid. I was appointed as the person to see that this aid was given as freely and as generously as possible.

9021. The phrase used there is “aid for the victims of the current unrest”. In paragraph 2 there is a quotation from a Government Information Bureau statement of the same date “will make funds available for the relief of victims of the disturbances”. These are two similar but not identical phrases. What sorts of activity do you consider proper in the context of “the relief of victims of the disturbances” or “aid for victims of the current unrest”?

—The provision of every type of facility and amenity which they would require. One of the main things, of course, was to accept refugees down here and accommodate them in Army camps—that is those people who felt their life was in danger or, for some other reason wished to flee from the North. That was perhaps one of the major aspects of this whole operation but, in addition to that, we envisaged providing financial assistance, providing food, clothing—a very wide basis of assistance.

9022. You said “every type of facility and amenity”. You have listed a number of things. Can I take it, in your thinking as the Minister at that time charged with the disbursement, that the use of these moneys for the provision of arms, even if that were for defensive purposes, was totally excluded from the terms of that decision?

—Absolutely.

9023. We have been told that a sub-committee consisting of four Ministers was set up to deal with matters especially related to the North.

—That had nothing to do with the expenditure of this money—the establishment of that committee. That committee was established really to inform itself as fully as possible on all developments of every sort inside the North and to keep the Government informed accordingly. It was not formed in relation to this Grant-in-Aid.

9024. Apart from being formed in relation to it, am I correct in understanding your reply to mean that it had no function whatsoever in regard to this Grant-in-Aid.

—No, that would not be correct. The individual members of it would certainly be entitled, if you like, to make requests to me for aid. The sub-committee was established primarily as an information unit of the Government.

9025. The reason for my asking this is to try to be clear as to exactly what the chain of command and the relationships of Captain Kelly were. You have said just now in reply to the Chairman that in regard to yourself you considered that Captain Kelly had no position. I wrote the words “no position”. I think he asked you what position did Captain Kelly have in regard to yourself and you said “no position”.

—What I meant by that was that he had no official position in regard to me as Minister for Finance. He was an Intelligence Officer of the Intelligence section of the Army.

9026. Was it your understanding then that at all times he was working in his normal place in the chain of command, which would run from him to Colonel Hefferon, to the Chief of Staff, to the Minister for Defence? First, do you accept that that would be the normal chain of command for a captain in Intelligence?

—I do not see that I am the person who should answer that question. I was not responsible for the chain of command in the Army.

9027. Deputy Keating.—I recognise that you must be familiar with both Captain Kelly’s testimony at arms trials and also here, and the question of whether he was acting correctly is very important for this Committee.

—You must. I would not and cannot comment on any evidence other witnesses give here or anywhere else.

9028. I was not calling for comment, I was indicating how my question arose.

—I can only tell you things that I know of my own knowledge, factual information of which I personally am aware, not what anybody else says.

9029. The question was in the light of your own knowledge at all times. I wanted to elaborate your answer that Captain Kelly had no position in regard to yourself. I wanted to understand this better. Did you at any time act as a person who had a right to issue instructions to him?

—No.

9030. Did he ever take any orders from you in fact?

—No.

9031. Have you any recollection of when the sum of £100,000 emerged as a quantity of money to be expended?

—Yes. as you know when the Government position was taken there was no sum of money specified. I was instructed by the Government to make money available on a generous scale to whatever extent was required. My recollection is, coming towards the end of the financial year, the Department came to me and said you must now have this money voted by the Dáil and we recommend it to you that you bring in the Supplementary Estimate of £100,000. It was not until Spring sometime, say in February or early March that the actual sum of £100,000 came about.

9032. Up to now you were expending as need arose?

—Yes, you have got to be clear on this. I did not envisage that this relief of money for the relief and distress in the North had come entirely from Government sources. The general strategy of the thing was that the Irish Red Cross Society would be used for the relief and distress in the North. We sought to get all the various bodies and people, individuals, who were collecting money to hand them over to the Irish Red Cross so that they could distribute it as effectively as possible in the North of Ireland. It was envisaged to the extent that the Red Cross would have sufficient funds either from its own resources or from various subscriptions to us and that the Exchequer would make additional moneys available. What I am trying to get across to the Committee, if I may, it was not envisaged that there was a grant for the grant of distress and nothing else. All over the country people were collecting money, running functions, for the relief of distress in the North and it was our hope that rather than that these should be disbursed in a haphazard manner the money would be all handed over to the Irish Red Cross and disbursed by them through their experience and knowledge of the requirements of this sort of situation.

9033. You have said that the decision to use the Red Cross as the general strategy—when was that decision taken? This would be of the order of the 16th August?

—Yes.

9034. How long was that in general intention or decision adhered to?

—I do not understand the question.

9035. I see. We will come around to it. No question that on the 16th August such decision could be taken but it then became rapidly evident, from things that were already known, that the Red Cross could not function inside the North of Ireland and secondly, when it entered discussions with the British Red Cross, it was promptly told that there was no need for these activities and that there was no need for it to send in joint teams of the British Red Cross and it was generally warned off by the British Red Cross so that within a week it had become evident it could not function in that way. The question I then asked with that thought in my mind was how long was this general strategy adhered to?

—My view it was adhered to throughout. Anybody who got in touch with me about making contributions for the relief and distress in the North I advised them to make their contribution to the Irish Red Cross and, as a general principle, I directed aid through the Red Cross to particular people who needed it. In other words, as an example, when the housing people came to me, I used that phrase loosely but I think the Committee know the people to whom I am referring, when they came to me seeking assistance to undertake the rehousing of people who had been burned out of their homes, I directed the assistance in that particular move through the Irish Red Cross. My answer to you briefly is that I am not aware at any time of departing from the general strategy of channelling aid through the Red Cross.

9036. You used the phrase “I directed money through the Red Cross”. Did you feel then that you had that power,

—I hoped you would not be too——

9037. You will be familar——

—I have no desire.——

9038. Familiar with the—

—I am aware of the argument that has been going on here as to whether I directed the Red Cross or whether I gave them assistance or what have you. I just explained to the Committee that the Irish Red Cross was a sociable vehicle for the channelling of relief and distress into the North of Ireland and I used it. Whether I directed them or persuaded them or asked them I do not know and I do not think that was present in any of our minds at that time. This sort of situation has often arisen before, there would be a disaster and tragedy and we, at the Government, decide if assistance should be given and that would be channelled through the Irish Red Cross. That is all the help I can give the Committee on this point.

9039. In the light of the Red Cross’s quite explicit inability to function and indeed well known inability to function and in the light of the failure of the negotiations carried on with the British Red Cross——

—I think you are reading too much into that, Mr. Chairman, I think that Deputy Keating is reading too much into that discussion. I was not privileged at any of these discussions. I have only second-hand knowledge which, as far as I remember, the discussion with the British Red Cross was related to sending in teams of people, personnel, not presenting any money or food supplies because I do know that, on one occasion, I visited the Red Cross headquarters over here in Merrion Street and the building was chock-a-block, blankets and food supplies of all sorts and they were sent directly into the North of Ireland by the Red Cross. I do not think there should be too much play made of this business about the British Red Cross. I do not think Irish Red Cross ever felt inhibited in sending either supplies or anything into Northern Ireland because of some activity by the British Red Cross.

9040. The reason why I asked this is in fact the money went astray and in fact the mechanism of channelling——

—Mr. Chairman, that is not a question. Deputy Keating is making a statement. I am only here to answer questions. If Deputy Keating wishes to make a statement I will withdraw when he has made his statement and I will come back and answer any questions.

9041. Chairman.—Perhaps the Deputy would put the statement in the form of a question.

9042. Deputy Keating.—I do not see how I can know whether it is a question or not until I have finished it but I was including some facts in the course of a question. If we could take the facts as read, it would indicate——

—I am not taking any alleged fact as read. I am prepared to answer any questions which Deputy Keating may address to me which are within my personal knowledge. That is my sole duty, Mr. Chairman, to this Committee.

9043. Was the decision to utilise the mechanics of the Red Cross taken at the initial Government meeting of the 16th August?

—Yes. The Government were concerned, as I say, about the situation in this part of the country in regard to the collection of moneys. There was a very wide-spread feeling among the public, and a very wide-spread desire, to help; and various individuals and organisations were engaging in the collection of moneys. The Government were anxious that so far as possible these should be controlled. It seemed to the Government that the way to control the disbursement of these moneys was to have them all handed over to the Irish Red Cross and disbursed by the Irish Red Cross.

9044. I wanted to raise some more, different, matters, in relation to a number of trips made to London on 17 and 18 August by four persons. In fact five names have been given in evidence to this Committee. I do not know if Deputy Haughey is aware of the trips I refer to on the 17 and 18 August?

—Yes, I am aware of those trips. They were undertaken at my request. A sum of £106 was expended from the Grant-in-Aid in regard to the air fares.

9045. The persons involved, you say, made the trips at your request. Was your request made known or directly expressed to all of these persons, or were they chosen in some other way?

—They were chosen by me personally.

9046. I see, yes. What was the purpose of this trip, or these trips?

—I think my successor as Minister for Finance has explained that to the Dáil. The purpose of the visits to Britain was to mobilise assistance over there for the relief of distress in the North, and to make people in London and elsewhere aware of the need for assistance, and to persuade them to send whatever assistance they could to the people who were in distress in the Six County area.

9047. When you say assistance, what sort of assistance?

—Money, mainly. But I have the recollection that some families left the North of Ireland and went to seek asylum in English cities, Birmingham, London, perhaps; I am not too clear about that. But in the main, it would be to arrange for the collection of money and the sending of these moneys on to people in the North of Ireland who were in need of it.

9048. Have you got the alphabetical list in front of you showing you how we identify people?

—This one here?

9049. Yes. Do you know if any member of that group met Mr. B. on that occasion?

—Yes.

9050. They did meet?

—Yes. I am not too specific as to what exactly they did. But I know he was one of the people they intended to see and whose assistance they would seek.

9051. Yes. One of the people of that group of five was, in fact, your brother Mr. Pádraig Haughey?

—Yes, that is correct.

9052. This is Superintendent Fleming’s evidence, paragraph 5629 I do not know, Mr. Chairman, if a copy might be handed to Deputy Haughey.

(Copy of Proceedings of Committee of Public Accounts No. 11 handed to witness.)

It is at the top of the second column of the first page, paragraph 5629. The last sentence reads: “About the third week of August, 1969, Pádraig Haughey paid over £1,500 to Cathal Goulding in London”. Do you see that?

—Yes. I have no knowledge of that. Nothing like that was involved in the action which the group undertook at my request. They went over to London with explicit instructions to organise and promote the raising of funds for transmission to the North of Ireland to people who needed them. I am very glad that Deputy Keating has brought up Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence. I want again, using this opportunity, to deny emphatically, and with all my personal integrity, the evidence of Chief Superintendent Fleming has given here about me. He has borne false witness against me here and I deny that I ever met a leading member of the IRA or that I ever made any promise to him as suggested by Chief Superintendent Fleming. I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, will investigate this matter to the full because my character and my integrity have been seriously affected by this false evidence which Chief Superintendent Fleming has given to you here. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this falsehood by this man was widely and sensationally reported by the news media; and it is very difficult for me ever to catch up with this particular falsehood. I want also, perhaps, to remind the Committee, as I have said outside the privilege of this Committee, that Chief Superintendent Fleming’s statement about me was untrue.

9053. I wanted to come back to the matter we were discussing.

—The only thing I can say in answer to Deputy Keating is that if the evidence which Chief Superintendent Fleming gave to this Committee about my brother is as false and misleading as it is about me, then I think the Committee should throw it into the waste paper basket.

9054. I think one of the purposes of raising these matters with Deputy Haughey is in fact to give him the opportunity of expressing, in exactly the same circumstances, his opinions and thoughts about these matters.

—Thank you.

9055. I wanted to ask a specific question of Deputy Haughey. Does he know if this meeting between Pádraig Haughey and Cathal Goulding took place in London, or is that outside his knowledge?

—It is completely outside my knowledge. I want to repeat again to the Committee that I asked this group of people, in all sincerity, to undertake this work. Their air fares were paid out of the Fund. I think it is a matter for the Committee to decide as to whether the payment of these air fares out of the Fund was legitimate or not. I will abide completely by the decision of the Committee in that regard. If the Committee takes a decision in regard to the expenditure of this sum of £106 then I will fully support the decision of the Committee in regard to it. But I want to assure the Committee regarding any decision they may come to about expenditure from the Fund, that my purpose in asking this group of people to go to London and other places in England was entirely for the purpose of getting people over there, who were disposed to be friendly, interested in the relief of distress in the North and in sending moneys for that purpose.

9056. Do you know if on the occasion of that trip to London any meeting took place at which one of the persons on that list, A to K was present with Cathal Goulding or Mr. Pádraig Haughey?

—I do not know. I am not too clear about——

9057. I was asking were you aware of a meeting during the third week in August in London between Cathal Goulding and one of the persons on this list?

—I am not aware of any such meeting.

9058. Would it follow that if money were transferred at that meeting, whether directly or indirectly, to the IRA, that it took place entirely without your knowledge?

—Absolutely. I have no knowledge whatever of any moneys being given by anybody to the IRA. I have no knowledge whatever of any of these moneys being expended in any way other than the purposes for which they were intended.

9059. You have made a general vehement denial of the general content of Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence. In fact you will be aware he said a lot of things. As far as you are aware, is the last sentence of the paragraph to which I have referred——

—I do not think the Committee should pay the slightest attention so what Superintendent Fleming said. In my letter to you, Mr. Chairman, I pointed out that his evidence was full of peculiar phrases like “I could not swear to”, “I am not sure” and “I do not know”. In my view, even from an ordinary individual, it would not qualify as evidence and certainly something of this nature put before a Committee of the importance of this by a high ranking Garda official is incredible.

9060. I was asking you if the last sentence of paragraph 5629 on the first page of volume 11 is, in your belief, true or untrue. It is the last sentence and it refers to the third week in August, to Mr. Pádraig Haughey paying over £1,500 to Cathal Goulding in London?

—I have no knowledge of any such happening. As I have said, I would direct the Deputy’s attention to words which Chief Superintendent Fleming used—“I cannot swear to that, though”. His evidence was full of phrases of that sort, and if I were to accept, as a criterion, the veracities of Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence by virtue of what he said about me and his false allegations, I would not believe any of his evidence.

9061. There was a subsequent visit to London in the November period, from 15th to 20th?

—There was not. I had no subsequent visit to London.

9062. Not yourself. The Committee have received evidence of a visit to London by Mr. Pádraig Haughey and others?

—I have no knowledge of any such visit. I am not here to give evidence about anybody other than myself.

9063. The question I was coming to was did that visit take place at your suggestion or instruction?

—As I said I know nothing about any such visit and, therefore, it follows that it could not have been at my suggestion or instruction. Mr. Chairman, it has nothing to do with the matter which the Committee are examining.

9064. The last part is for the Committee to decide. There was a great deal of evidence to suggest that this has a lot to do——

—The Deputy is using this Committee as a platform to make statements. I suggest that he confines himself, while I am here, to asking questions of which I have personal knowledge.

9065. I asked you whether you had personal knowledge of a trip to London?

—I suggest that you confine yourself to asking questions of which I have personal knowledge and not making allegations about people who are not here.

9066. I asked a question.

9067. Deputy FitzGerald.—If the witness challenges the relevance of the statements the Committee are entitled to state——

9068. Deputy MacSharry.—He answered the question he was asked. Leave it at that.

9069. Deptuy Keating.—Am I to understand your answer to be that you had no knowledge whatsoever of the trip to London by your brother during the period 15th to 20th November, 1969?

—First of all I must say this is not a relevant question to the matter on which I am being examined. However, because I have been asked the question again, I would repeat that I have no knowledge whatsoever of any such trip.

9070. In your opinion and, in the light of your experience as Minister for Finance, does the Minister for Finance possess the power to instruct his officers to allow arms to be imported——

—I am not here to give opinions. I am here to answer questions of fact. If the Deputy wants opinions as to the power of the Minister for Finance I suggest that he applies to the Attorney General.

9071. Did you ever give instructions for the importation of arms through Dublin Airport without the normal——

—That question should not have been asked of me. I am here to deal with the expenditure of money. This Committee are not concerned with the matter which was decided by the courts and I think it is very dishonourable of Deputy Keating to ask such a question of me. I do not think this Committee were given the powers they were given by the Oireachtas so that Deputy Keating could pursue questions of this sort.

9072. Now we are in the realm of opinion. I am not anxious to bandy words with Deputy Haughey. I think I am permitted, in the light of what he said, to express amazement at his choice of the word “dishonourable”. I do not propose to pursue this most recent observation of his any further but I think I should indicate why this line of questioning is right and proper?

—I am here to answer questions from the Deputy but if he is going to make statements or observations I will withdraw while he makes them.

9073. The observations have been coming from you.

9074. Chairman.—He is trying to show the relevance of his question.

—I suggest he is trying to injure me politically and nothing else. I repeat to you, Mr. Chairman, what I said at the beginning— as a Deputy of the House and as the Minister who is responsible for the introduction of this Vote I will answer all questions which you, the Committee put to me about the expenditure of these moneys in so far as I can and I suggest that Deputy Keating confine himself to asking questions about the matter which the Committee is authorised to investigate. I think that is a very fair request.

9075. Chairman.—Of course, you appreciate that statements have been made that the money has been subverted for the purchase of arms and I think it would be on that line of argument, on that basis that the Deputy is proceeding.

—The simple answer to that is that I have no knowledge whatever of any such subverting of moneys for that purpose. None at all.

9076. Deputy Keating.—In view of the accusation that my sole motive has been to injure Deputy Haughey politically, which I think to be an utterly scandalous one, I decline to question him further and I reserve my right to raise the matter in the appropriate place. Thank you.

9077. Chairman.—You are finished for the present, Deputy? Deputy MacSharry.

9078. Deputy MacSharry.—If we could start off from the Government decision to the setting up of the now called Grant-in-Aid, it was left to you to—who decided that it would be in the form of a Grant-in-Aid first?

—I would say the decision on that would have been taken at the departmental level.

9079. In the Department?

—The Government decision was simply to make moneys available.

9080. Yes. We understand, from evidence already given to us, that particular Grants-in-Aid are not as accountable as the ordinary expenditure of money?

—I think the Secretary of the Department of Finance has given a full explanation of all that matter.

9081. Then this was, the Suspense Account was opened in the Department of Finance and some moneys were allocated from that before you actually set up this or agreed to nominations sent to you from the North to be the committee to spend this money—some money had been given out at other people’s requests from the Department?

—I am not quite clear of the import of the question.

9082. Well, it is just—the reason?

—Requests came in from various sources for aid. These were met. The money was charged to a Suspense Account. Subsequently that Suspense Account was brought before the Dáil by way of Supplementary Estimate and authorised by the Dáil.

9083. But when these requests were coming in—I am putting you a view that I have in relation to the evidence as I see it before me— you felt that a committee was necessary to take over the handling of this money in the North of Ireland because an account was opened in Clones under the names of F, G and H, approved by you and if—what I want to get is how does the Minister for Finance, how is he involved from there on? You set up a committee——?

—No, I was not—the Deputy is not correct there, Mr. Chairman. I did not set up the committee. In this——

9084. You approved of it?

—I asked that a committee be established.

9085. Yes?

—Which would be responsible for the administration of relief in Belfast. This committee had relation, this committee functioned only in relation to Belfast. It would not, it was not an exclusive committee. In other words if somebody came from Derry or elsewhere looking for assistance that would be treated, that would be dealt with separately.

9086. Yes. But the bulk of the money was through this committee?

—The greatest need was in Belfast and the greatest expenditure was through this committee.

9087. We now know that at a period during this time that this account was transferred from Clones to Baggot Street and you have stated that you did not have any knowledge of that?

—Yes, that is so.

9088. Mr. Fagan, in actual fact, stated in evidence that he does not ever remember telling you that that was the case?

—He did not ever tell me, no.

9089. On occasions it was suggested, it was told to us here that Captain Kelly made the requests for funds and being an officer of the Irish Army was, more or less, his word was taken to vouch for these requests and money was subsequently lodged in the account from the Department of Finance, but Mr. Fagan told us on occasions that the amount asked for was large, that you refused, without having prior consultation with Captain Kelly. Do you remember such visits or such requests?

—Captain Kelly would be simply conveying the requirements of the Belfast Committee for aid. He was very closely associated with them. He is as far as we knew, in their confidence and therefore if he conveyed to either myself or to Mr. Fagan a request from them then that would be accepted. At some point in time I did become a little worried about the fact that the requests for aid kept coming substantially and that there was no sign of the need for assistance falling away and it almost, certainly in that context, that I would ask to see Captain Kelly so that he would explain to me what the actual position in regard to distress inside Belfast was.

9090. It was simply and solely distress that you discussed with Captain Kelly on these occasions when you asked to see him—?

—Yes.

9091. At times he came looking for money?

—Yes.

9092. So you had agreed or approved that this Committee was, could vouch for the expenditure of money and take it over from the Red Cross and it would be properly spent for relief of distress? You are satisfied in your mind that that was the case?

—This committee, this committee of these three people represented, came into being for no other purpose but to relieve distress. They were not the, what is commonly now known as the Defence Committee, they were a separate group of people and the sole purpose of their existence as a committee was to relieve distress.

9093. So as requests came along Mr. Fagan sent in word to you, either written or verbal requests, and you just said “O.K.” You understood all along that each request was going direct through the Red Cross to this committee?

—Yes.

9094. You had never any doubts about that?

—None at all, no. If I had any doubts at all I would have stopped them proceeding.

9095. You have already stated that you had no knowledge of any——

—It came as a complete, it came as something astonishing to me, later on, to learn that there was a suggestion that these moneys or any part of them had gone anywhere other than for the relief of distress. It was a shock to me.

9096. You did state also that you had no knowledge of any account in Baggot Street, so you could not have knowledge of a subsidiary account?

—No, none at all.

9097. I should like to pick out Superintendent Fleming’s evidence in paragraph 5749, page 423. I think it was Deputy FitzGerald who was questioning Superintendent Fleming.

I want to refer to the trip made to London by Pádraig Haughey and another person Mr. J in November, 1969. Can I ask you, first, if you know the identity of George Dixon?

—No, I do not.

9098. This is the question Superintendent Fleming was asked. He replied to that question:

—I believe from my investigations that George Dixon is Pádraig Haughey.

He believed that George Dixon was Pádraig Haughey, or Pádraig Haughey was George Dixon.

—I have not personal knowledge of this but I am informed that it can be proved beyond any doubt that my brother Pádraig was not George Dixon.

9099. You are satisfied that he was not?

—He has so informed me and I accept his word.

9100. That is all the questions I have for the moment.

9101. Deputy Nolan.—I have no questions at the moment.

Deputy Haughey.—Mr. Chairman, before we leave I feel that I may not have been fair to Deputy Keating and I would like to withdraw my allegation.

9102. Chairman.—Thank you. Deputy Keating, would you like to——

9103. Deputy Keating.—I do not wish to continue at this time, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

9104. Would the Committee like to adjourn for the present.

—I should like to finish if I may. There is not much more way in which I can be of assistance to the Committee, Mr. Chairman.

9105. I cannot give a guarantee how long we shall continue asking questions. Let us go on until 1 o’clock.

9106. That suits the Committee to continue until 1 o’clock? Yes.

9107. Deputy Treacy.—As the Minister for Finance you played a leading part in the launching of the Northern Relief Fund, naturally. I note your reluctance to talk about details with regard to Cabinet meetings and the like at that time. I appreciate that fully.

—I have sought right through this whole shabby affair not to divulge anything that happened at Cabinet meetings or indeed confidential discussions with my former colleagues.

9108. May I take it that the decision to launch the Northern Relief Fund was as a result of a Cabinet meeting?

—Yes.

9109. Would it have been the unanimous decision of the Cabinet?

—Absolutely. If I could elaborate there. The mind of the Government at that time—and this was a very agonising, emotional time— was to be of any assistance they could to the people who were under attack in the North of Ireland. This was one of the ways in which they could be of assistance and they were determined to be generous in providing that assistance.

9110. Quite. With regard to the sub-committee which was established with special regard for the situation in the North, might I ask if there were many meetings of this subcommittee to review the situation?

—Not many. I think I have dealt with this in the Court.

9111. I take it there are no minutes available of meetings of this kind?

—No. That committee did not have anything to do with expenditure of this money.

9112. Was it your idea to open the Clones account, as such?

—No.

9113. Whom did you understand to be empowered to draw upon this fund?

—The three people referred to.

9114. Yes. F, G and H, I gather.

—Of course, if they nominated someone else to administer the fund, that was not really any particular concern of mine. They had my confidence.

9115. Did you have any say, as the then Minister, in the selection of these people?

—Oh yes. In other words, they came to me and I thought it my duty to approve of them as reliable, trustworthy people.

9116. Did you seek certain advice in that regard as to the integrity of the people concerned?

—Well, I did not have to have advice. I knew of them.

9117. There was no suggestion of your rejecting any particular name submitted to you at that time in connection with the fund?

—Not in connection with these three people.

9118. I take it that Captain Kelly was entrusted to administer the fund? He was the man primarily entrusted to administer the fund?

—No, only in the manner in which I say. He was very closely associated with this committee, he was in their confidence, and in so far as he would convey requests from these people, they would be met.

9119. I take it he acted with your full authority, as the then Minister?

—Captain Kelly? I do not quite agree with that wording. What I would say is that he had the confidence of the committee and, in so far as he conveyed to me the wishes or desires of the committee, I would accept them. I never had any reason to believe that Captain Kelly was anything but an honourable officer, carrying out his duties to the best of his ability.

9120. Did he report to you often, in these circumstances?

—I beg your pardon?

9121. Did he report to you as to his activities in respect of the Clones account or the Baggot Street account?

—If I wanted any information or briefing about the situation in the North of Ireland he would provide it.

9122. He made many requests for money from the fund, mainly through Mr. Fagan?

—Yes. I think they were almost all made through Mr. Fagan.

9123. There were the occasions when you did, in fact, refuse to accede to his requests?

—No, I do not think so.

9124. Naturally, you did question demands from time to time?

—In the context in which I have mentioned.

9125. I observe that you had no knowledge of the transfer from the Clones account to the Baggot Street account?

—No. I think you know all the mystery that surrounds this affair. I think that is one positive nugget of hard information—I did not know of the Baggot Street accounts.

9126. Can you remember occasions when you authorised payments from the Clones account?

—Mr. Fagan has given evidence that I authorised every payment, that he either had written or oral authorisation from me as to payments to this committee and I accept that. It would not have been my recollection if I had been asked but I accept it now. Mr. Fagan is quite adamant that it was so and I accept his statement.

9127. To your knowledge, is there any further tangible evidence which would help us on these lines? We have some scraps of paper indicating “Kelly’s men are looking for more money” and so on. Is there any tangible evidence?

—The only additional help I think I might be able to give you is this. Mr. Fagan and I were very busy people and it is quite possible that he would come in to me with perhaps five or six items on which he would want authority or instructions. One of these would be a demand or request from the Northern Relief Committee. As part of the parcel I would authorise it and to that extent it would not be as clear in my mind as it might otherwise be.

9128. As the then Minister, you had no knowledge as to who were the recipients of these various amounts of money that were doled in the North of Ireland?

—I have no knowledge of any individual.

9129. I have heard you say earlier that in the circumstances it was difficult to bring about the kind of accountability, which we are now seeking, in the climate which prevailed at that time?

—None of us ever envisaged that any such accountability would ever be required. For instance, we made money available for the relief of distress in Biafra. I do not know if this Committee intends to follow that up?

9130. You have heard Captain Kelly’s evidence that some £20,000 or £30,000 was expended on arms. Is it conceivable in all the circumstances that such a large amount of money could have been spent without your knowledge, without your having any idea at all as to an amount of that size being expended for this purpose?

—I can only repeat my assurance to you, that I have no knowledge that any of this money was used for any such purpose.

9131. Deputy Treacy.—Were you aware, Sir, of any trips to the Continent by Captain Kelly?

—Never.

9132. And the trips by Mr. Luykx?

—Never. These matters first came to my attention when the Court proceedings started. I had no knowledge or inkling of them before that?

9133. I have heard you deny, Deputy Haughey, a statement made by Chief Superintendent Fleming, vehemently so?

—Yes.

9134. I appreciate your feelings.

—This is a monstrous allegation, monstrous is the term I used advisedly.

9135. I would just like to draw your attention to the views of the Superintendent in this matter of reliability, truth and fact. In our book, Number 11, you have it before you, the Committee were concerned as to the real reliability of the Chief Superintendent’s evidence to it and the question was put to him by Deputy Richard Burke.

—Yes.

9136. Question 5643, Sir, “Chief Superintendent, are you absolutely sure that your sources of information are accurate and to be trusted?” And the Chief Superintendent’s reply was: “Absolutely, they have been checked and double-checked.” Despite that kind of categorical statement, Deputy Haughey, especially in relation to your good self, in Question 5662 of the following page, you would repeat with equal vehemence your complete repudiation of the statements made by the Superintendent?

—Yes, I cannot make this denial too strong, because, as I say, it is a monstrous allegation. Even on the face of it it does not stand up. Chief Superintendent Fleming does not purport to be accurate as to when the alleged meeting took place or who the person supposed to have been met was. I do not think anything else in this whole affair has upset me and hurt me more than that false unfounded allegation by the Chief of the Special Branch. I am well used, as members of this Committee know, to allegations of one sort or another and I think I can take most of them in their stride but this one I hope the Committee will pursue further and nail it.

9137. I appreciate your feelings, Mr. Haughey, and I do hope that you will be able to do much to redeem your good name. That is all, thank you very much.

9138. Deputy Tunney.—Mr. Haughey, specifically on the matter of money, I think the Chairman was putting this to you earlier on, but do you know that Colonel Hefferon did receive the sum of £600 from the Fund? You seemed to be at some doubt earlier on.

—I thought you were going on to——

9139. Did you know Colonel Hefferon had received the sum of £600, it is in the pink book there, for equipment for the office in Clones?

—Yes, Sir.

9140. You know that he had obtained that?

—Yes.

9141. When he was before us here I put the question to him and I put the same to you, that I thought it would have been more appropriate if he obtained that money from his own Department.

—There may not have been any moneys available in his own Department from which he could get it.

9142. He did base his——

—It was an unusual development. As I understand it this particular office was of use to him in his work and also as an office to which refugees were assisted. It may well be there was no appropriate heading in the Department of Defence Estimates from which he could get it.

9143. I should not have asked him except for the fact that he did say it was subsequent to a direction from his own Minister. These refugees should be interviewed and I thought it would have been more appropriate because there was a matter of over-estimation even in the matter of that £600 which if applied to the rest of the money——

—I think the only answer I can give the Deputy is that if the office were assisting refugees therefore it would be appropriate that it should come from this Grant-in-Aid and it may well be that there was no heading in the Department of Defence Estimate from which such an item could have been provided.

9144. The second matter of money, Captain Kelly obtained, and here Colonel Hefferon’s evidence would be that, this payment of £500 was authorised by the then Minister for Finance, Mr. Haughey, to be paid to Captain Kelly for the purpose of organising a meeting of the representatives of Northern Defence Committee in Bailieboro’, 4th and 5th October and any follow ups that would be necessary as a result of that meeting.

—I do not wish to comment on Captain Kelly’s evidence.

9145. This is Colonel Hefferon’s evidence.

—Sorry, I do not wish to comment.

9146. The £500 was paid to Captain Kelly from the Fund for this meeting. I think the Chairman spoke to you about this. Captain Kelly did get £500 from the Fund. Were you aware of that?

—All I am aware of is that the Director of Intelligence wished to get the money for his own purposes to assist refugees, that is my recollection.

9147. As far as the £500——

—That was the justification for paying out of this Grant-in-Aid, that it would be money which would go to the assistance, directly or indirectly, of refugees.

9148. My question, Deputy Haughey, is did you know that the £500 which Captain Kelly got was in respect of a meeting at Bailieboro’ and subsequent follow ups?

—No.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The Committee adjourned at 1 p.m. until 3 p.m.

Examination of Deputy Charles Haughey continued.

9149. Chairman.—I am not sure whether Deputy Tunney has concluded his questioning or not. We shall proceed on the basis that he has finished, or we can come back later if necessary.

9150. Deputy Barrett.—When the accounts at Clones were set up and approved by F, G and H, was it ever indicated that they would not be held accountable at some date for the moneys? Were they given any reason to think that they would be?

—The question of accountability never arose. What was in all our minds at the time was to get assistance where it was needed, as speedily and as generously as possible.

9151. Deputy R. Burke.—This morning Deputy Treacy referred to the question I put to Chief Superintendent Fleming, No. 5643. I asked him whether his sources of information were accurate and to be trusted. He gave what appeared to be a categorical answer. He said: “Absolutely. They have been checked and double-checked.” You have never been quite as categorical in your denial as to the allegations made here?

—How could he check and double-check an alleged meeting with me when he did not know what month it took place in, the name of the person with whom it took place, and when he was not sure of the exact sum of money supposed to be promised. Even on the face of it, that statement is incorrect.

9152. I am glad to offer you the opportunity of elucidating the position. You can note a certain—I shall not say mistrust—query in my mind in asking the question. Can you add anything in relation to this evidence? It has obviously given you a lot of pain and so on. Can you give any reason why a person would have come to give monstrous evidence of the type you have stated to this Committee?

—I would rather not speculate. But may I add an aside to that? Deputy Burke’s conduct elsewhere has been impeccable and I want to express my appreciation at the honourable way in which he behaved. That is by the way. I have no idea why this man should come along here and make this allegation against me. I am not concerned with any of the other evidence, again, but I think the Committee will have to direct its mind to why he should do this, particularly as I understand he gave his eviddence in the form of volunteering information without waiting for the Committee to ask questions. So his whole behaviour seems to me to be very suspect.

9153. When I attempted to pursue the matter further, at the end of the particular session, he was very quick to say that he was prepared to discuss any allegations such as telephone interceptions or anything of that type. I did not press him on it. I noted he was reluctant to do that. I do not have the exact quotation before me but I did not press him on it. However I noted his reluctance to pursue the matter further. There was one small point that gave me a little trouble this morning. In your opening submission you spoke about our Committee’s functions being an entirely new way of administering justice, that they were part of the administration of justice; and particularly there was some references to the criminal law. I do not think we have any function other than to assess evidence placed before us and make a report. Would you like to qualify your statement in any further way? I think that it might give a slightly wrong public image of our functions. In my view we are not, perhaps, an administrative court of justice of any kind; we are simply a Committee inquiring. What led you to make that statement about our activities.

—It seems to me that this Committee is inquiring into something which could bear on a criminal offence. After all, public funds were misappropriated. That is a criminal offence. It seems to me that this Committee is concerning itself with matters which have criminal implications, to say the least. It seems to me that members of the Committee, in cross-examining witnesses who have come before it, have made serious implications to these witnesses. That is my view and I am just leaving it at that.

9154. Deputy E. Collins.—Before I crossexaimine I should like to say I feel that Deputy Haughey’s remarks about Mr. Tobin this morning here were rather uncalled for. I would ask him to withdraw the remarks he made here.

—I merely said that Mr. Tobin, as Clerk of this Committee, is an officer of the House and has exactly the same obligation to me as to any member of this Committee. If he is giving advice to the Committee, I just want to hear what that advice is. That is all.

9155. Chairman.—I think I told you that I asked Mr. Tobin who the next witness would be, because I had lost track.

—I made no allegation whatever against the Clerk. If he is giving advice to the Committee then I should like to hear what that advice is.

9156. Deputy E. Collins.—I feel slightly differently about it but I shall not pursue the matter. I appreciate the circumstances in which it was decided to provide moneys for relief in August, 1969. I should first like to ask you did you receive any advice about the method of disbursement of these moneys before the announcement was made in the Dáil to allocate moneys for relief in the North?

—As to whether we should use the Irish Red Cross as a channel?

9157. Well, a Grant-in-Aid is usually specified?

—At the beginning this was not a Grant-in-Aid. At the beginning we just paid out money as it appeared to us to be needed. It was only later that we began to regularise the position. The Deputy will recall the circumstances. Probably he will appreciate that calls were being made, insistent demands were being made from all directions, and our main purpose was to meet those demands. There was a feeling among the Government, and among the community as a whole, that we could not do a great deal to help the people in the North who were under attack at that time but at least, in so far as it was in our power, that we should try to help them, and one of the ways in which we could help them was to make financial assistance available to them.

9158. Would I be right in saying that the only concrete method would be through a Grant-in-Aid?

—I think Mr. Murray has covered that ground adequately and I do not think I can add anything to the technical explanations he gave.

9159. In so far as we have evidence that moneys were misappropriated I was just trying to trace——

—I have no knowledge of any moneys being misappropriated.

9160. I am not saying you have. I was merely trying to establish how these moneys were being made available.

—Perhaps the Deputy would realise that he is now dealing with this matter as hindsight. If he would cast his mind back to the agonising days of August, 1969, he would appreciate that we were not concerned with the mechanics of the payments, not concerned with the subsequent way in which these moneys would be accounted for, but with helping people who were imploring us for aid.

9161. You have in paragraph 3 of the pink book this statement:

In an announcement on 21st August, 1969, the Government Information Bureau stated that the funds which the Government was making available for the relief of victims of the disturbances in the Six Counties would be administered mainly by the Irish Red Cross Society and would be to cater for any eventuality which would be likely to arise.

I put it to you that the moneys were not, in effect, administered by the Red Cross?

—No. In fact the money was passed on by the Irish Red Cross to various organisations and individuals who administered it.

9162. On your instructions?

—Yes.

9163. Why was this thought necessary?

—I do not understand. Why was what thought necessary?

9164. That the moneys would first have to go through the Red Cross?

—I dealt with that at some length this morning. I explained what the strategy was.

9165. In fact, the Irish Red Cross did administer other moneys directly and did disburse them within the Six Counties?

—Yes. I understand you have evidence before you of payments made by the Irish Red Cross out of their own funds to various individuals and organisations within the Six Counties.

9166. Why were they not allowed to administer the Government money?

—I explained that earlier. They first paid the moneys to organisations and individuals whom they entrusted to administer them.

9167. Why were the moneys of the Government not permitted to be administered in the same way?

—That is what happened. The Irish Red Cross passed them on to various organisations and individuals whom they entrusted to administer them for general relief in the Six Counties. They had done the same thing with their own funds and I cannot see any difference between the two procedures. In one case the Irish Red Cross gave moneys out of their own funds to individuals and organisations and asked them to administer them to the best advantage; in the other case they gave Government money to two committees, a housing committee and a general purposes committee, and they asked the committees to administer them.

9168. Except in one case they were directed to give the money to some bank account and afterwards they did not know who administered the money?

—I do not follow that. I asked the Red Cross to give moneys to two committees. One was a housing committee and the other a general purposes relief committee. The Red Cross, at my suggestion, entrusted the administration of that money to those people. That was the situation.

9169. In effect, the moneys were not administered by the Irish Red Cross but were transferred by them on your instructions to a bank account?

—No. To two committees.

9170. To two bank accounts?

—I do not propose to enter into this kind of argument. If the Deputy has some questions of moment to ask me I will answer him. My situation was that there were two committees serving useful purposes and my sole purpose was to make funds available to them for those purposes.

9171. I have here a letter dated 10th February, 1969, from Mr. A. J. Fagan in relation to £7,500?

—I do not think it requires any great stretch of the imagination to realise that one of the effective ways of giving money to a committee is to lodge it to their credit in a bank.

9172. I am merely interested here in the accountability aspect of the moneys which were voted by the Dáil for the North. In that respect I would, it is my own opinion that—?

—If you are asking me questions I will answer them; if you want to voice opinions that is a separate matter.

9173. It is my own opinion that it was up to the then Minister for Finance to take every care that the money was spent properly and would the Minister not feel that——

—I took as much care as I could in the circumstances. I asked responsible people to form themselves into a committee to see to the spending of this money for the relief of distress. Thereupon I directed that the money be made available to this committee. There was nothing more that I could do.

9174. In relation to the £500 which was given to, initially, to Colonel Hefferon as a result of a meeting apparently in your house—on page 3 of the pink book—were you aware that this money was for a meeting in Bailieboro’ and possibly subsequent meetings?

—I have already dealt with that matter this morning, Mr. Chairman. I do not propose to go over it for the third time. I have given as adequate an explanation of that matter as I can to the Committee.

9175. Chairman.—Is there any point which the Deputy is not clear on?

9176. Deputy E. Collins.—I want to know was Deputy Haughey aware of the purpose of that meeting in Bailieboro’?

—No.

9177. Where you aware of the training at Fort Dunree?

—No. I do not see what that has to do with the matter which the Committee is investigating.

9178. Mr. Murnane’s trip abroad, without identifying anyone outside the jurisdiction, can you give us the names of the people who went on that trip?

—You have the names, I understand.

9179. Deputy E. Collins.—Have we?

9180. Chairman.—We have the names, yes. You may, if you wish, check them with Deputy Haughey if he is able to help you but it is a big list and I do not suppose anyone could carry them in their minds.

9181. Deputy E. Collins.—Well, I have not got them in my mind anyway. Were the people selected to go on these trips or on this trip, had they any special qualification for so going?

—Yes, they, first of all, had my trust and confidence and secondly I knew that they had useful contacts in London and other areas and, as I say, the only call on the funds as a result of that trip was this sum of £106. I suggest that the Committee now knows the purpose for which this money was expended and it just remains for them to decide whether this was a legitimate demand on the Fund or not and I am perfectly willing to abide by the decision of the Committee in regard to that money.

9182. You were a member of the subcommittee appointed by the Cabinet to keep in touch with Northern Ireland affairs. How many times did the committee meet?

—I have already said, and, again I must ask for some protection from this repetitiveness, as far as I remember once or twice. I think this has been mentioned several times already and I have already also indicated that this committee was not in any way directly involved with the expenditure of this grant-in-aid, had no responsibility in regard to it.

9183. Captain Kelly had a special position in relation to giving you information——

—I will answer questions.

9184. ——in relation to events within the North? How many times did you meet Captain Kelly between August and Christmas?

—I do not know.

9185. Did he advise you that the people in the North wished to have arms?

—That has nothing to do with the matter which the Committee is investigating.

9186. Deputy E. Collins.—Mr. Chairman, if we have evidence that some of these moneys were misappropriated in order to import arms I feel that I am within my rights to know?

—I can only tell you, Mr. Chairman, matters of which I have personal knowledge and I have already assured the Committee that I have no knowledge whatever that any of these moneys, any one halfpenny of these moneys, went for the procurement of arms. I cannot go beyond that and I suggest that if Deputy Collins keeps at this from now until Christmas he will not get any other reply from me.

9187. Deputy E. Collins.—O.K., Mr. Chairman, I am withdrawing from questioning.

9188. Deputy FitzGerald.—I will try to make my questions relevant. If you doubt their relevance I will put the matter to the Chair and he can settle it and I will make my countersubmission. There is one other point. I may quote from newspapers accounts of the trial, parts from which I made out of the transcript in front of me. If at any stage, you feel that the quotation is incorrect we can refer to the exact transcript. If there is any doubt about that in those cases. In the transcript, in the newspaper account of the trial you are quoted as saying

“with regard to determining the bona fides of the applicants had you the means of checking this?”

and your reply is recorded as

“Well, Captain Kelly was one of the very important people, he had a very good knowledge of who was who inside the Six County area and he was one of the people Mr. Fagan would certainly consult”.

You may have noted that I have asked Mr. Fagan questions on this at 3111 on this and he, we went through all the different disbursements of the fund and he stated that in no case had he any——

—Is this a question?

9189. ——had he any means of checking the bona fides. I wonder whether in fact you feel that he did check the bona fides and, if so, in respect of which of these accounts?

—I do not understand the question; it is too long and convoluted and I suggest that the Deputy ask me a direct question and I will answer it.

9190. I did ask a direct question. I asked you in respect of which of these different people to whom, organisations or accounts to which money was paid, which of them did Mr. Fagan check the bona fides of?

—I recollect Deputy Fagan telling me that he did not check any bona fides.

9191. Mr. Fagan?

—Mr. Fagan. Therefore, I can only suggest, I can only believe that Deputy FitzGerald is trying to, that this is a trick question, he wants to try to make me contradict the Deputy, Mr. Fagan, or vice versa. I have no intention of entering into that sort of——

9192. On the contrary, far from being a trick question I first quoted precisely what he said in court so that there would be no question of being tricked.

—Excuse me, what I said in court I said in court. I gave my evidence to the best of my ability in court; the matter was decided by the judge and the jury and I am certainly not going to be re-crossexamined on my evidence in court before this committee.

9193. I am concerned to establish whether, in fact, Mr. Fagan did check the bona fides of these people. You said so in court, he said here that he did not?

—I do not think I said so in court.

9194. Well, if you wish to challenge the reference certainly we can check it. I have quoted what was said—

“Well, Captain Kelly was one of the very important people, he had a very good knowledge of who was who inside the Six Counties area and he was one of the people Mr. Fagan would certainly consult”.

—Yes, but I did not say he did. I said he was one of the people he would consult. Mr. Fagan now says that he did not consult them and I accept that, but I do not think this is directed to the expenditure of the moneys which this Committee is investigating. This is Deputy FitzGerald trying to rehash the arms trial and I am not going to submit to that.

9195. If you are suggesting that the question is irrelevant the Chairman can decide. I will explain to the Chairman my concern here is to establish the chain of responsibility for the payment of money to particular accounts?

—I will deal with that. In so far as Captain Kelly is concerned Captain Kelly had a very thorough knowledge of all the different groups and organisations inside the Six Counties and he would certainly be available to me, and I also thought to Mr. Fagan, to give information on any of these groups or individuals and my understanding of it is that we availed of Captain Kelly’s knowledge and expertise any time a request was made to us for aid, if he was in a position to help us.

9196. Yes, but we are clear then that you accepted Mr. Fagan’s statement that he did not have occasion to check the bona fides of any of these people?

—I cannot say. I mean, if Mr. Fagan—Mr. Fagan is an honourable man and if he says something I have no reason to doubt it. I believe he gave evidence here to this Committee to the best of his ability and recollection. I certainly would have thought from my own recollection that there would have been occasions when he would have asked Captain Kelly about people or organisations inside the Six Counties, but, if he says he did not, I accept that.

9197. You appreciate we are concerned to establish responsibility in the matter?

—You need not place responsibility on any one in this regard. I accept responsibility for anybody to whom money was paid out of this fund into the Six County area. The ultimate political decision was mine and I accept it.

9198. Good. We have clarified that point then——

—You did not have to go searching and trying to trip me up on alleged discrepancies in evidence to estabilsh that. If you had asked me that straight-forwardly and honestly I would have told you.

9199. I asked you a straight question but in fairness to you I quoted the two sets of evidence so that you would not feel it was a trick question. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we should be protected from these kind of comments. Now, as regards the opening of the Clones account, I am not clear as to how this was initiated, because different views have been expressed. In your evidence in Court you said that you decided to establish this committee; the reference is the Irish Times dated 20th October. It is stated “Unfortunately because of international rules and regulations, the Irish Red Cross could not operate inside the Six County area so he”—meaning yourself— “decided that in these circumstances the thing to do was to establish a committee for the relief of distress, which would consist of reputable people inside the Six County area”. Later on in evidence the point was repeated when you stated “I decided that a committee of respectable, reputable Six County people should be established to administer the moneys which the Red Cross would normally administer”. I am concerned as to who initiated the committee. That evidence seems to suggest that you did and yet I think you stated this morning that the Clones account, as such, was not your idea, by which you might have meant that the opening of the account in the place was not your idea. You also said “they came to me looking for the money”. Can you describe how this initiated, and how the whole thing came about?

—It is very confused. I had, at that time, a constant stream of deputations from the Six County area looking for assistance. To put the matter on a formal basis it was decided—it may have been my suggestion or not—that a committee should be set up in Belfast to administer these moneys and the moneys should be made available to that committee. What I said this morning about the Clones account is correct. I do not think that at the time I knew they opened in Clones or what bank in Clones they opened the account.

9200. That is what I thought you meant. However, we are not any further on as to where the initiative came from for the establishment of the committee.

—I do not think there is any question of initiative. There was a situation. We agreed between us perhaps that the situation would be handled in this way. I was anxious that a reputable committee would have the administration of these funds and such a committee was established.

9201. You say “we agreed between us”. This is my difficulty. Using the code, could you tell us who were the people who agreed to this?

—I could not tell you at this stage. There was a procession of deputations and in some cases people would come on different deputations. I just cannot recall at this stage. All I can assure you and the Committee is that the three people who were selected had my confidence and I accepted responsibility for them and they still have my confidence.

9202. Who suggested their names? Was it you, some group of Northerners or did they themselves?

—Probably one of the deputations put forward these three names.

9203. Would any of them have been on that deputation?

—Almost certainly, yes.

9204. You could not tell whether F, G or H were involved?

—They were certainly involved in a number of deputations.

9205. You said that other names were put forward whom you rejected?

—Yes. I would rather not discuss that.

9206. I would not, of course, ask you the names in public.

—I do not even remember the names. I remember one of the people.

9207. Do any of the people whom you rejected feature on the list of names to which we have given letters?

—I do not think so.

9208. I want to see that I have this picture correctly. You were having these discussions and out of this incoherent situation you felt a solution would be for one particular committee to be established to handle this, not to the exclusion of all other funds, but to handle the general relief situation in Belfast and that names emerged probably from their side. You rejected some but accepted these three as reputable people and as far as you were concerned they established a committee. Was it your understanding that they established a wider committee and that they were the three names in the account or that they were the committee?

—They were part of a wider committee, that was my understanding. They were not the Civil Defence Committee—that I am clear on. They were a separate committee.

9209. The term “Civil Defence Committee” has been used rather loosely—even, I think, by yourself in evidence to some degree and there is some confusion about this. A wider committee was established which was not a defence committee but some of the members of which may have been members of defence committees. Were you concerned in suggesting names for that wider committee?

—No, not at all.

9210. Were you given the names?

—No. I knew very little about the inner workings inside Belfast and, indeed, I did not particularly want to know.

9211. Your concern was with the names of the account holders?

—I think at the time we looked on them as being in the nature of trustees to whom this money would be paid.

9212. Your concern was not so much with the personnel of the wider committee but that the trustees as you call them, should be reputable people?

—Yes.

9213. You were satisfied they were reputable people, you felt you could transfer money into their hands.

—That is correct.

9214. It was worth teasing that out because I think there was some confusion on that point. In regard to the transfer of the account, one or two points that have already been dealt with need to be clarified and I hope you will bear with me on that. I will not press you at length but I want to draw attention to certain discrepancies and make it clear what is your position. In regard to the transfer of the account—I want to be clear about this—you said you had no knowledge about it. There is some suggestion to the contrary but it is not a strong suggestion.

—I thought Mr. Fagan was quite adamant on the fact that he had not told me. That way my general impression.

9215. He was quite clear that he did not clear with you the opening of the Baggot Street account——

Chairman.—Would the Deputy please give the reference.

The reference is question 2870. He stated at the end of one of his replies:

“It is possible that on one or more occasions that Baggot Street might have come into our discussions but I do not specifically recall that.”

As distinct from the transfer, you do not recall reference to the fact that money was in Baggot Street?

—No, because I recall much later hearing of Baggot Street during the Court proceedings. I am quite certain that was the first time that Baggot Street came into my consciousness.

9216. Again, Captain Kelly had some impression about this. He was asked: “Mr. Haughey was never aware that the account was transferred to Baggot Street?” and his first reply was: “He must have been aware”. When it was pointed out that you had denied this, he accepted your denial but he seemed to think that you were aware. You are quite clear you had not recollection of it?

—None at all.

9217. On the subject of Captain Kelly, in reply to Question Number 6943, when he was asked:

Do you accept freely that the setting up of the Baggot Street banking mechanism was for arms and propaganda as well as for relief?

he stated:

Certainly at this stage I was in no doubt that it was for arms and propaganda.

—I do not wish to comment on that.

9218. Although he said he was in no doubt about it, he never communicated anything to you about it?

—No. I did not know about Baggot Street.

9219. You were unaware of the fact that there was in any account, whether in Baggot Street or elsewhere, subsidiary accounts?

—Absolutely unaware.

9220. This was never mentioned to you by Captain Kelly?

—Or by anybody.

9221. I accept that. Could I come now to the payment of £500 to, or through, Colonel Hefferon? We have had a good deal of evidence on this particular point. You will bear with me quoting but it is only fair that you should know precisely what has been said so that you can clarify the point. I will refer to paragraph 2933. Would it be helpful to you to have a complete set of the Minutes of Evidence in from of you?

—Not at all.

9222. Fair enough. Mr. Fagan in giving evidence——

—Let me say at this stage that I have been over this ground so often. This is about our fifth time around this particular point and I am now beginning to doubt what I remember from my own recollection, what came forth as evidence in Court, what was said in the Dáil or where anything really emanated from. Subject to that, I will answer as best I can.

9223. You appreciate that where there is a conflict of evidence we do have to try to be quite clear about the position.

—We have evidence at two trials, Dáil debates and all the evidence of this Committee. I must confess, Mr. Chairman, to be slightly muddled at this stage.

9224. Mr. Fagan said——

—Furthermore, may I hope that this is the last time we will have this repetition.

9225. Chairman.—Can you appreciate how confused we are getting?

—I have every sympathy with you, Mr. Chairman.

9226. Deputy FitzGerald.—According to Mr. Fagan’s evidence the second amount received by Colonel Hefferon was £500. It was given to him to give to Captain Kelly for the Bailieboro’ meeting. “I understood from the Minister that this was something that was arranged at the Minister’s home.” Mr. Fagan’s evidence is indirect on that. We now come to Colonel Hefferon in Question 4102. He said that at this meeting Captain Kelly briefed Deputy Haughey on the position in the North and told him that he had arranged to meet representatives of the various Defence Committees that had at that time been set up in the North and that he would require some expense for this meeting. Colonel Hefferon stated that there was no figure mentioned at this meeting as far as he could remember but that on 3rd October he received a cheque for £500 from Mr. Fagan. He stated that he rang Mr. Fagan. That is Colonel Hefferon’s evidence on the point. What Colonel Hefferon said as far as the 5th October is, “that was in connection with the meeting in October?” “That is true.” Finally, Captain Kelly himself giving evidence at 5026 confirmed this. He was asked, “At this meeting with Mr. Haughey, you raised the Bailieboro’ meeting presumably—you told him about it?” “Yes.” “Did you raise the question of finance?” “The question of money came up. I was questioned,” presumably by you, “about how much it would cost and at that stage I estimated that it would cost £150 or thereabouts,” and he goes on to say that he was given £500, more than was needed for that meeting, in order to pay for other later meetings. “I got this, I think, more or less to cover the Bailieboro’ meeting and it was expected to include other meetings.” We have had the evidence of the other two people at the meeting suggesting that the £500 was entirely for the Bailieboro’ meeting and other meetings.

—I do not think so.

9227. You have said this morning it would be for Bailieboro’ and Colonel Hefferon——

—I cannot comment on what Colonel Hefferon or Captain Kelly said. I can only tell you what my recollection is and I understood that Colonel Hefferon needed this money for the assistance of refugees. That is all I can comment upon. I have some vague recollection of some Secret Service money that was used in connection with the meeting but whether that is the Bailieboro’ meeting you are referring to or not I do not know.

9228. We have no evidence fortunately concerned with the expenditure of the Secret Service Fund.

—I think you might be going into all these matters to find out where some of the Secret Service money went.

9229. I am afraid it would be outside our territories.

—I am not sure that this is restricted——

9230. I do not expect us to accept it. It is just to make sure that I was clear on these three different viewpoints expressed in that matter. Could we come back to the frequency of your meetings with Captain Kelly which is relevant and proper in considering. In the trial——

—In what way is it relevant?

9231. Because the whole question of whether the responsibility for the money took a wrong turn hinges on your relationship with Captain Kelly.

—I do not think so, not at all.

9232. We are at difference on this particular question in the trial. You said, “I did not see him very often but three or four times perhaps when he was avaiable to me. Whenever I did see him he gave me a briefing on the whole situation”, which is not in accord with the information we have. When we got it on a matter of this kind it is important for the different people concerned to clarify it.

—I repeat what I said in examination and cross examination which is given as honestly as I could and to the best of my recollection. If you want to try and accept the evidence I gave in court that is your affair but I am not going to have anything to do with it.

9232a. We would not wish to reflect on your evidence unless we were clear there was cogent evidence forcing us to do so.

—Mr. Chairman, I am not going to enter into this discussion. I gave my evidence in court on a very important matter and I am not going to be re-crossexamined for the third time by Deputy FitzGerald on the evidence I gave.

9232b. Nobody has in fact examined Deputy Haughey on this.

—I was examined in court.

9233. I am not aware that anybody brought Deputy Haughey to the meetings with Captain Kelly as I now propose to do. Firstly, you are aware of the evidence of Mr. O’Donnell, first of all the evidence of Mr. Fagan. Mr. O’Donnell had said to him between the 7th and the middle of October that Captain Kelly had been in and out with you in the past few months. In clarification of that Mr. O’Donnell said he did not think he said months and if he had used that it was loosely and it was only since the 21st September, in and out of there. Would you agree?

9234. Chairman.—If you are going to quote, quote the reference.

9235. Deputy FitzGerald.—7487, 7480. Was it a case in that period, 21st September to mid-October, you had in fact seen Captain Kelly on a number of occasions?

—Mr. Chairman, the only relevance Captain Kelly has on this is that he was the person who had advised me as to the situation in the North of Ireland. It seems to me quite clear that Deputy FitzGerald is seeking to make me give self-contradictory evidence to this Committee. I do not think that is desirable. I am here to help this Committee to the best of my ability with regard to the expenditure of this money. I will do that as honestly as I can. I do not think this pinpricking, comparing this evidence with that and asking me to decide between those, that should be relative. I do not think it is the purpose for which this Committee was established.

9236. Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to establish is whether, in fact, Captain Kelly was or was not a frequent visitor. We have a conflict at this point, we have a difference of evidence. We have a purpose to get at the truth.

—I am not concerned with a conflict of evidence. I gave my evidence to the best of my ability and recollection to the court of this country on oath and that matter has been decided by that court and I object strongly to it being reopened in this fashion. I told you I am here to help the Committee. I do not think I should be subjected to this pinpricking, kneecrossing type of examination.

9237. I think the Deputy is misunderstanding my question. I am concerned here. There is a conflict and it is important that it is a conflict that Deputy Haughey should have an opportunity of resolving to his own favour if it can be resolved.

9238. Chairman.—What conflict is it?

9239. Deputy FitzGerald.—On the frequency of Captain Kelly’s visits. If I do not put that to him it will mean that I will have to reach a conclusion without hearing Deputy Haughey on it in regard to it.

—I am perfectly prepared that Deputy FitzGerald should make his own conclusion without hearing me.

9240. It would have been unfair for me not to have given Deputy Haughey the opportunity of clarifying the point. If it is all right I will leave it that way. I would like to turn now to the Seamus Brady money and we heard evidence on this from Mr. Fagan, Mr. Brady and Captain Kelly. I want just to be clear with you, let me find the evidence. The sequence of events as given to me, I would just like you to confirm, ended up with you being in a position where Government funds were not to be used according to Mr. Brady. You said you could not see him around, you would dash around for him if it was necessary.

9241. Captain Kelly then came to you and volunteered or said, I forget which, that the matter had been settled, and that the paper was to be maintained out of funds from the North. Is that your recollection of the sequence of events?

—Not the last bit. I do not remember Captain Kelly coming to me along those lines. Otherwise the sequence of events is correct. Since reading the evidence which Mr. Brady gave to this Committee I have been trying to recollect, as clearly as I can, what I meant when I said to him that I would see he was all right. I felt that Mr. Brady was unfairly treated. He had embarked on the publication of this newspaper, as he understood it, at the request of the Government Information Bureau. I am not saying whether that was so or not, but he certainly understood that the Government Information Bureau was prepared to back him. As I understood it, my recollection is this. Mr. Brady understood that the Government Information Bureau wished him to publish this newspaper. Whether he was right or wrong, or did not understand it, I cannot say. I have no interest in saying this. Certainly he thought that that was the position. He came to me and indicated that he had put £650 of his own money into the publication and he was now in difficulty with the Government Information Bureau because they were not prepared to pay up. I went to the Taoiseach on the matter. The Taoiseach gave me a direction and a ruling that public moneys were not to be used for this publication. When I said to Mr. Brady that I would see that it would be all right I cannot be clear whether I intended that I would get private subscriptions for him or whether I would go back to the Taoiseach and point out to the Taoiseach that Brady had, in fact, spent his own money and would have been at a personal loss through no fault of his own, and perhaps persuade the Taoiseach if not to finance the papers in the future, at least to pay for the past issues. That may have been in my mind but I cannot recall it.

9242. How did you think the affair ended up?

—It went out of my ken after that. I only came into it indirectly insofar as getting the Government Bureau to authorise payments. This was not Grant-in-Aid money; this was the propaganda vote.

9243. I understand that that was the position at that stage, yes. I want to clarify that point, as to how it ended up, because you were concerned that he should not be out of pocket, so I would have thought that you could have satisfied yourself about that.

—Only up to that point. Mr. Brady never came back to me, so I presumed that he had found some way.

9244. We have two sets of evidence; Captain Kelly’s, telling you that it had been sorted out, and that of Mr. Fagan, that you told him it had been dealt with. You must have known that it had been dealt with.

—This is the £650, the original money.

9245. I do not know how much money. Certainly Mr. Fagan said he came to see you and you were looking through your papers. He came across the relevant document or note about it on the file and said: “What about this?” You said that this had been looked after. Captain Kelly then gave evidence.

—What document was that?

9246. It is No. 2786, Book No. 5. Mr. Fagan said: “I noticed it on his table …”—“it” being the earlier document.

—I do not think so. I do not recall that at all. Reading it here, I think that Mr. Fagan’s recollection does not seem to be any clearer about it than my own. I think what it means is that I went to the Taoiseach and he gave a direction on the matter. I think that is all I mean there; that it had been looked after. At this stage I cannot say what I meant at that time.

9247. But that does not quite agree with the evidence given at 2785 which says: “the Taoiseach had definitely ruled that this was not a matter for payment out of Government funds …” You said: “I will speak to the Taoiseach about it myself”. But then you noticed it on the table for quite a while. He asked you: “What about this?” You said: “This had been looked after”.

—I can only give you my recollection. My recollection is quite clear. I went to the Taoiseach and he decided that this publication should not be financed from Government funds. I was clear that Mr. Brady felt that he was let down by the authorities. I had no particular interest in the matter after that.

9248. Even though you said you would not see him let down? You just left it there?

—If Mr. Brady wanted his £650 it was up to him to come back to me about it.

9249. Did Captain Kelly tell you he was also under the impression that you were aware that the paper was being financed from the North?

—If that was Captain Kelly’s evidence then I have no comment to make on it. Certainly I had no knowledge at any time of this newspaper being financed out of the relief Grant-in-Aid. So far as I had any connection with it, it was related to the propaganda vote. I had no knowledge that it had in any way been financed out of the relief Grant-in-Aid.

9250. You will appreciate that our impression from Captain Kelly and Mr. Bacon was that you knew that it was being financed from this fund. Captain Kelly thought you knew it had been financed from the North. Mr. Fagan said he suspected it came from there.

—It was a peripheral matter so far as I was concerned. I only came into it insofar as the question of the Government Bureau authorising the payment was concerned. That is all.

9250a. You appreciate that as the money was used from this fund, we are trying to track down who is responsible for that?

—Quite, I understand that. Undoubtedly that is something of which I have no knowledge.

9251. On 20th March Captain Kelly arrived at your office with Mr. J. Mr. Fagan gave evidence of this at question No. 3142. What discussion, if any, did you have with Mr. J. on that occasion?

—With Mr. J., none. He did not know me on that occasion.

9252. It is not clear from Mr. Fagan’s evidence whether he did or not. I have the impression he did but I am not sure.

—He did not come near me on that occasion.

9253. Was it outside?

—On that particular afternoon I was perparing for a television broadcast in my room. Captain Kelly just came in for a couple of seconds and was gone, because I had no time to talk about it to him. That conversation had nothing whatever to do with these funds.

9254. Did you know J. was outside?

—I do not think so. Captain Kelly hopped in. I told him I was engaged getting ready for a TV broadcast and he disappeared in a matter of minutes.

9255. There is another point I wish to clear up. Colonel Hefferon was giving evidence and he said he told Captain Kelly to go to see you and Deputy Blaney to see whether he should retire from the Army. It is not very clear whether he talked to you about it and whether you advised him?

—It has nothing to do with this money. However, I can tell you he did not.

9256. There are loose ends like this which we should try to get out of the way. We come now to the use of the Red Cross. This has been raised before but I have to put it to you again because I was a little taken aback by your answer. It is of great importance to know the responsibility in relation to this matter. One is that you directed them to channel the money and the other is that you exercised your power under section 2 of the Red Cross Act, on conditions. It does not make any difference from your point of view but it does from that of the Red Cross. You will recall that the Red Cross were somewhat confused and Mrs. Barry said she thought they were assisted by section 2 of the Red Cross Act. Can you clarify this? I appreciate that at the time you may not have been thinking legalistically?

—I have only to suggest that you consider both these alternatives to the best of your ability. You know what my approach is and you know what Mrs. Barry’s approach was.

9257. I do not know what your approach is?

—Neither of these legalistic formulas presented themselves to my mind. I was interested only in getting money channelled into the Six Counties for the relief of distress.

9258. It was informal?

—Yes, very. We had done this sort of thing before.

9259. You were not consciously considering section 2?

—No.

9260. It really was a request to the Red Cross to channel the money, and not an assistance to them?

—All I know is that they were helpful and co-operative. They were there to help in the channelling of money for the relief of distress in the North.

9261. And there was no thought of section 2?

—What does it matter. If you want to take an action against the Red Cross you have the power to do so.

9262. We are concerned to establish the responsibility?

—You know the Government and I were responsible for getting the Red Cross to channel the money. We are not running away from that.

9263. We appreciate that but there is the matter of the responsibility. What I am concerned with is whether the Red Cross were responsibly engaged at all. If you were invoking section 2 of the Red Cross Act, then their responsibility was not engaged. You appreciate the distinction of which particular method was adopted. This is significant because it is the only evidence we have of the state of your mind?

—I do not think I can give information before this committee on this matter which would be of any great value. It was a Government decision that we would use the Red Cross and that they would distribute this money as they had done before on other occasions.

9264. But the question is how. Did you use section 2 on previous occasions?

—We decided to give money for the relief of distress in Biafra and we found this very straightforward way of giving it. On this occasion we found this means of channelling the money on our doorstep. If there is anything legal involved the committee must get legal advice on it.

9265. No amount of legal advice would settle a matter of fact?

—I cannot give any more facts than that. We had used the Red Cross before and the most natural thing in the world was that we should use them as a vehicle for this purpose.

9266. Did you regard it as a request or a directive?

—Neither.

9267. Would you like to describe it as a request?

—No.

9268. I do not know of any other way of describing it than as a direction or as asking. Maybe I am missing something?

—I think you are being legalistic. It was a sensible, practical operation, a sensible decision by the Government at the time.

9269. Certainly the word “legalistic” is not a sensible way of distinguishing between the two?

—I am not here to help the committee legally.

9270. Unfortunately we are?

—The best of luck to you.

9271. We need it?

—You can say that again.

9272. Was there any reason for not making a speech on the Supplementary Estimate?

—No.

9273. Would it not be normal to give some explanation?

—In my time I put 50 items through the House without a word or a question. If you had been there you might have asked a question but unfortunately you were not.

9274. I am talking about an introductory speech?

—There is no special significance.

9275. I just wanted to establish it?

—In most of these cases the Supplementary Estimate is circulated to Deputies, the Minister comes into the House and says “I move”, and that is that.

9276. On the relationship between Captain Kelly, yourself and the sub-committee, there seems to be confusion in the minds of different people, or at least a different view, and I should like to be clear on it. I understood you to say this morning that Captain Kelly was not a liaison between the sub-committee and you?

—I am not sure——

9277. I am not sure but I think you said he was not acting for you. You said Captain Kelly had no position in relation to you?

—In relation to me as Minister for Finance, he had none. He was a serving officer of the Defence Forces engaged in the Intelligence Branch. He had no position in relation to the Department of Finance.

9278. You appreciate he made a statement and that Colonel Hefferon said he had two roles at once in relation to two Ministers rather than to the committee?

—He was always available to me for any information I wanted or any brief I wanted in relation to Northern Ireland matters.

9279. That was in relation to Intelligence?

—You can take it that he had acted as a liaison between myself and the relief committee in Belfast.

9280. Colonel Hefferon’s evidence suggests that Captain Kelly was reporting directly to you and to Deputy Blaney and he was specific that he had no function in relation to the account—that he was under your instructions, not under your orders, making an army distinction?

—I cannot tell you about that.

9281. That is, you were not instructing him and that he was not acting on your behalf?

—You could go further and say that he was a liaison link between myself and Belfast relief.

9282. That he was not merely telling you what they were thinking but that he was conveying messages from you to them?

—It was a one-way formula.

9283. Would you distinguish that liaison role from his role as an intelligence officer in the North?

—I did not distinguish between them. He was helping me, a Government Minister with a public responsibility.

9284. Part of what he was keeping you informed about was the need of those people for money but you did not give them instructions?

—He was a serving officer and as such he carried out his own work.

9285. I was puzzled by one statement of Colonel Hefferon because I cannot trace anything that quite corresponds to this. He said at 4107: “If I may go back to the court case, I think Mr. Haughey there stated in his evidence —this is a matter of memory; I am not too sure, but I think it was when the jury was out— that he (Captain Kelly) had been appointed by the Cabinet as liaison officer.” I am not aware of anything to that effect in what I have of the trial. Do you recall anything that could justify that statement of Colonel Hefferon’s? “Appointed by the Cabinet as liaison officer,” it is rather, you know, formal phraseology?

—Yes. I cannot say anything about that.

9286. You do not recall saying this in the trial? It is alleged it was said when the jury were out. We have a transcript for part of that. Have you a copy there? I do not recall anything that seems to justify that in it. I just wanted to make sure with you whether Colonel Hefferon had any basis for that statement. Perhaps if we could see the relevant bit of the transcript?

—I do not see what this, if this is relevant I mean.——

9287. Well, it is relevant all right but it is just a question of finally clarifying this. You see, Captain Kelly also said at 5174, “I think this question of liaison officer was completely clarified by the evidence in the High Court by Mr. Haughey.” He said, I was appointed at the same time as the subcommittee was appointed. He was asked in open session was anyone else associated with this or in conjunction with this, and he said “yes, Captain Kelly” and therefore when the jury were out on that particular—and he was interrupted. So we have two witnesses who claim something happened at the trial and I am not clear if anything as specific as that——

—I am not concerned here with what happened at the trial. I have been in the courts and as far as I am concerned that matter is finished.

9288. Well, I think there is a misunderstanding. I think it was your counsel who made a statement. May I just quote what your counsel said because there could be confusion about this?

—I really do not see what——

9289. “The evidence I propose to tender”— this is on your behalf, Deputy,—“is in regard to information given by Mr. Gibbons to the Cabinet with regard to Captain Kelly. I believe in August, 1969, and a subsequent decision which has already been adverted to in evidence —it does not make much sense yet—“to set up a subcommittee of the Cabinet consisting of Messrs. Brennan, Blaney, Haughey and Faulkner, and that it was arranged that there should be liaison between them through Captain Kelly with the people in the North.” Judge: “I must disallow discussions of the Cabinet,” and then your counsel challenged that particular point. But your counsel appeared to be saying that there was a Cabinet decision appointing Captain Kelly as liaison officer. I think that is what Captain Kelly and Colonel Hefferon are referring to rather than anything that you said?

—I do not intend to go into these matters.

9290. Chairman.—The witness has already said that Captain Kelly had no position and by that I understood that he had no official position. That is the evidence he has given today.

9291. Deputy Haughey.—Captain Kelly had no official position in relation to me as Minister for Finance.

9292. Chairman.—Is there any point you want to make, Deputy?

9293. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am trying to clarify the position in respect of that because it appears from Deputy Haughey’s counsel, and he stated this, that he had a function in relation to the subcommittee rather than in relation to Deputy Haughey as Minister for Finance. I want to be clear whether Deputy Haughey feels that his counsel was correct in saying that?

—I do not intend to answer that question. All these matters were gone into in the court. They have nothing whatever to do with the expenditure of this money.

9294. Chairman.—It does not seem a very incriminating question.

9295. Deputy FitzGerald.—You can, of course, plead any question, that you will not answer it, lest it may incriminate you but I do not think that is what you are doing at the moment?

—Certainly not. There is nothing in this matter to incriminate me.

9296. Exactly, because it is a simple question of fact but there is confusion about it. Obviously if Captain Kelly claims——

—If there is confusion about it I did not——

9297. Obviously, if Captain Kelly claims——

—I did not cause it and I have no responsibility for clearing it up.

9298. If he claims he was acting as liaison officer and that he was appointed. Colonel Hefferon says the same thing, they both claim this was stated in court, your counsel said something of the kind in court, and you say it was not true and it is important from Captain Kelly’s point of view——

—I have said——

9299. Excuse me, Deputy Haughey—from Captain Kelly’s point of view, to establish the truth. If Captain Kelly were acting as liaison officer with a subcommittee under its authority it might mitigate his involvement. That is why I am asking the question. It is entirely relevant. Would you like to comment?

—I have certain knowledge as a former member of the Government. I am not at liberty to disclose that. I do not wish to go any further on this matter.

9300. But your counsel was?

—I can assure the committee that it has no bearing whatever on the expenditure of these moneys as far as I am concerned.

9301. Well, then we cannot pursue it very far, Mr. Chairman, but I am in a difficulty as between the Deputy and his counsel in this matter and the conflict of evidence between them. The counsel was acting on his behalf on making that statement and it is in conflict with what he is saying now. Should I pursue it or what do you think I can do?

9302. Deputy MacSharry.—The counsel is not giving evidence.

9303. Chairman.—You feel that Captain Kelly has been claiming to have more authority than the Minister has stated here—sorry, than Deputy Haughey has stated today?

9304. Deputy FitzGerald.—Yes, and the ex-Minister’s counsel also submitted this to the court so that I am anxious to clarify it. I think in fairness to Captain Kelly it ought to be.

9305. Deputy Haughey.—Counsel does not give evidence in court.

9306. Deputy FitzGerald.—He makes submissions on your behalf, Deputy and I think it is part of our work to make sure that we know who is responsible for what?

9307. Deputy Haughey.—The Deputy again seems to me to be trying to open up the court case. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, you should permit him to do so. I am here at your disposal, as I said before, to answer any questions I can with regard to this expenditure, I will do so, but I think this is not in any way relevant to the matter and certainly not relevant as far as I am concerned. It does not in any way impinge on my responsibility for the expenditure of this money.

9308. Deputy FitzGerald.—The trouble is that Captain Kelly claims it is relevant. He rests a large part of his case upon it.

9309. Chairman.—Well, is it important in your mind?

9310. Deputy FitzGerald.—It is for Captain Kelly’s sake, yes, because he does rest a part of his case, a large part of it, on that the actions he took were, part of the actions he took, were on the authority of this subcommittee.

9311. Chairman.—Yes, he has been very strong on authority.

9312. Deputy FitzGerald.—In fact a lot of our work which may appear to have been outside the immediate concern of the accounts, the immediate matter of the accounts, has arisen from Captain Kelly’s claim which appeared to be endorsed by Deputy Haughey’s counsel and I am anxious in fairness to Captain Kelly to clarify it.

9313.—,Deputy Haughey.—Deputy FitzGerald’s concern for Captain Kelly——

9314. And for all other witnesses——

—does him honour.

9315. The questions, a large part of the questions I submit, are designed to give witnesses an opportunity of clarifying the position?

—If this committee wishes to know, have further information about these matters I cannot be of any assistance to them. I have said what I said in court and I am saying now what Captain Kelly’s role in these matters in so far as I was concerned, he was helpful, advisory and that was the situation.

9316. In court, may I just put to the witness what he said as distinct from what his counsel said. He was asked by his counsel: “Mr. Haughey, in August or September, 1969, I am not sure of the exact month, was there a committee of the Cabinet set up to deal with the special situation in the North?”, and you replied: “I would not say it was to deal with the special situation in the North but one of the things that was very much on the Government’s mind at that time was the lack of information we had on internal matters inside the Six County area and the committee consisting of myself, Mr. Blaney, Mr. Fulkner and Mr. Joe Brennan, was established and we were given the instruction that we should develop the maximum possible contact with persons inside the Six Counties and try and inform ourselves as fully as possible on events and on political and other types of developments in the Six County area.” Question: “Was there any particular individual who was —not in the Cabinet I mean now—any person who was concerned in creating a link between you and your fellow members and the people of the North?” “Yes, Captain Kelly.” That seems to me to be a direct statement on oath that Captain Kelly was a liaison officer for the committee but the witness has denied that here.

9317. Chairman.—I do not know that the witness has denied that. He has just made a comment on it.

9318. I thought earlier he did. I thought he told us this morning that Kelly had no position but I may be wrong. That may have been in relation to him as Minister for Finance.

9319. Chairman.—It was vis-à-vis Deputy Haughey himself.

9320. That is what I wanted to clarify. Is that correct?

—I made the statement this morning that Captain Kelly as a serving officer of the Defence Forces had no official position in regard to me as Minister for Finance.

9321. Yes, but the witness has not denied here that he had a liaison role vis-à-vis this sub-committee.

9322. Chairman.—He has not answered that question.

9323. I wanted to be clear on that because my recollection was not clear as to what precisely he had said. The witness is not answering that question, so we must rely on his answer given on oath in Court.

9324. Chairman.—Would the Committee wish to adjourn for 15 minutes for a coffee break?

—Is there much more?

9325. Deputy FitzGerald.—I have not myself much more. There are only two other points although they involve a series of questions. Perhaps we might proceed for another ten minutes or so. I think I might finish in ten minutes but perhaps other speakers might wish to continue?

9326. Deputy Keating.—In view of the way the Committee has been continuing this afternoon I do not think there is any point in my asking questions.

—Good. Perhaps we might finish now with Deputy FitzGerald.

9327. Deputy FitzGerald.—There may be others. I wish to refer now to the actual payments made into the account, which is crucial. I should like to take them individually and check each one. The original payment into Clones was made at your request by the Irish Red Cross out of their own funds?

—So the records show.

9328. The next occasion was when you asked them to pay another £5,000. However, they had not got the money and you instructed Mr. Fagan at that stage to lodge £5,000—that is the payment of 17th October which was made on your instructions—

—They are all set out by the Department. I have nothing to add to them.

9329. That was on your instructions. The next is payment of £5,000 on 4th November for which there was a written instruction from you. This is referred to by Mr. Fagan in question 2796.

—The Department of Finance, in this book, have set out the whole situation. I have nothing to add to it.

9330. We are concerned about the direct authority for these payments——

—I accept authority.

9331. I want to go through each of them individually——

—I am not going through each of them individually. I accept authority for them all. I accept responsibility for them all.

9332. I am going through them individually. It is not a question of responsibility. It is a question of whether in each instance you did specifically authorise payment.

—I dealt with that this morning, Mr. Chairman.

9333. I am going to ask you about them individually.

—I must request, Mr. Chairman, that this repetition cease. I dealt with this matter this morning.

9334. There is no repetition. You have not been asked about individual payments and I am asking you now. The payment on that date was on your written authority, according to Mr. Fagan. Do you accept that?

—I dealt with this matter this morning, Mr. Chairman?

9335. You were not asked about the payment of £5,000 this morning. I am anxious, Mr. Chairman, to ask in relation to each payment whether the witness accepts that he gave direct authority or instructions for the payment— for each payment in to the two accounts in Clones and Baggot Street. It is fundamental to our inquiry.

9336. Chairman.—There were only three payments.

9337. Deputy MacSharry.—The witness has said that he accepts full responsibility for all payments. What is the necessity to delay proceedings by going through the matter, item by item? The witness has accepted full responsibility.

9338. Deputy FitzGerald.—I wanted to ask a question regarding each individual payment into Baggot Street—I think this is fundamental.

—I dealt with this matter this morning.

9339. It is a different matter for the witness to say that he accepts responsibility. I want to ask him if he gave written or oral instructions?

—I dealt with that question this morning.

9340. You have not been asked this in relation to each individual account.

—Mr. Chairman, I dealt with this matter this morning. I said that Mr. Fagan gave evidence in this Committee that he either had written or oral authority from me in regard to every payment and I accept Mr. Fagan’s statement.

9341. Chairman.—That would seem to cover it, Deputy—that is a global answer that would appear to cover the matter. What reservations has the Deputy about this answer?

9342. Deputy FitzGerald.—The reservations are that I am trying to get at the truth of this and I have conflicting evidence in regard to the payments. I think in fairness to Mr. Fagan we must ask Deputy Haughey the question, as we did of Mr. Fagan.

—I told the Committee this morning, Mr. Chairman, that if you had asked me before Mr. Fagan gave his evidence that I would have thought he did not have specific oral authority for each payment, but once he made his statement I accepted it. I am now prepared to accept before this Committee that I gave either written or oral authority for each payment.

9343. Chairman.—Does that satisfy you, Deputy?

9344. Deputy FitzGerald.—Written or oral authority for each payment?

—Yes.

9345. Despite what you said in Court?

—Yes. I think I indicated in Court that my recollection was at fault.

9346. That your recollection was at fault?

9347. Chairman—Will you accept that as an amended statement?

9348. Deputy FitzGerald.—I was anxious to establish if it was written or oral authority in each case. Mr. Chairman, but if this is thought to be unnecessary——

—All I can say on that is that I cannot from my own clear recollection give that statement but if Mr. Fagan says it was so I unhesitatingly accept it.

9349. That resolves that problem. The other matter is the question of delegation to you. We have a conflict here.

—I can clear that for you. Some confusion has arisen about this. I do not think that I ever said that the Taoiseach ever delegated his functions to me. He could not have done so— there is no machinery by which he would do so. What I did say in Court, and I maintain this is still true, was if the Taoiseach were away— abroad, officially on business, on holidays or unavailable for any reason—and some particular problem of urgency arose he would expect me to deal with it. That is all I said. I have never said, and I do not say now, that the Taoiseach delegated his functions to me.

9350. That is all you said?

—Yes.

9351. In the Irish Times dated 20th October the question was asked: “Can you recall, Mr. Haughey, if on that Saturday the Taoiseach was in town?” and you are quoted as saying “he was out of town.” When asked how you were aware of that, you were quoted as saying: “I was always in close touch with the Taoiseach. If he were going for holidays or for a weekend his secretary would let my secretary know, for when the Taoiseach would be away he would expect me to cope with any emergency or anything else which might arise in his absence”. We asked Mr. Fagan and he told us that it was a matter for Mr. O’Donnell, that he was not involved. Mr. O’Donnell told us that nothing of the kind had happened, that there was no case when the Taoiseach’s secretary rang him on such a matter.

—There were. I do not think there is any great significance in this but I can recall at least two occasions quite clearly when people from the Taoiseach’s office came to me about matters, in the Taoiseach’s absence, and asked either my assistance, advice or perhaps even a direction. I have never attempted to suggest that the Taoiseach delegated his functions to me.

9352. What you suggested was that if he was going away his secretary would let your secretary know.

—Again, Deputy FitzGerald seems to be trying to go back on the evidence I gave in Court and trying to contradict it. My statements in that regard in Court were as accurate as I could make them, as they are to this Committee. What I tried to convey to the Court and, equally truthfully, to this Committee was that the Taoiseach would expect any Minister in his absence to try and deal with any particular emergency that might arise—nothing more, nothing less.

9353. Do you accept Mr. O’Donnell’s denial of your statement in Court?

—I do not think that Mr. O’Donnell denied that.

9354. I see. I think in fairness I had better quote Mr. O’Donnell.

—I am not commenting on anyone’s evidence. I am giving my own evidence. My evidence is as I have said—that there were occasions, quite clearly to my recollection, when people came from the Taoiseach’s office to me about matters in his absence and I helped or advised in regard to them. Mr. O’Donnell would not necessarily know about these matters. I never said that the Taoiseach ever delegated his functions to me when he went away. I know there were Dáil Questions about this, it was raised in various ways, but it is of no importance.

9355. I do not think it is a red herring. I have not used the word “delegation”, I am merely quoting what you said.

—You did, Deputy FitzGerald, in the Dáil. You tried to infer I said that the Taoiseach delegated his function to me. You tried to make that case in the Dáil. I do not think it is proper of you to be going over this again. You acted as a politician in regard to this, as a member of the Dáil, and now you are trying to go further into it. I do not think it is correct and, furthermore, it has nothing to do with this Committee’s investigation and you are wasting the Committee’s time.

9356. I have not raised the question of delegation, I have raised the question of the conflict between your evidence and Mr. O’Donnell’s.

—You did raise this question in the Dáil and tried to infer that I had said that the Taoiseach delegated his powers to me and you asked constitutional questions about it. I never said any such thing, the most I said is that the Taoiseach would expect me to cope with any problems or difficulties that would have arisen in his absence, and that is the truth.

9357. You did say that earlier in your evidence but I have not relied on that point at all.

—I do not know what you are relying on. If you are trying to again go back to this pin-pricking business of trying to make out that something I said in Court was incorrect, I am not taking any part in that game and I think you are only wasting this Committee’s time. I make that point very strongly, Mr. Chairman.

9358. I appreciate your reluctance but we are concerned to try to find out the truth in this matter and there is a direct conflict of evidence. I am simply asking whether you accept Mr. O’Donnell’s evidence. You may prefer not to answer.

—I have told the truth as I know it.

9359. You said this morning that you had no knowledge that Captain Kelly had ever been to the Continent?

—Yes.

9360. When Mr. Fagan rang you that weekend, 18 to 20th April——

—It had nothing to do with this Committee. The matter has been gone into in Court. I gave my evidence as accurately as I could to this Court of the land. I am not prepared, Mr. Chairman, to pursue this matter any further.

9361. Let me put my final question. You made a statement here this morning, and I presume if you made it here this morning it is relevant to ask a question about it. I simply want to know when you got on to him on that occasion, he did not tell you Captain Kelly had rung from Vienna?

—This is the evidence I gave in Court, yes.

9362. I just did not recollect that, I just wanted to establish that.

9363. Chairman.—Deputy Keating?

9364. Deputy Keating.—No questions.

9365. Chairman.—Two small questions. Were you aware that Captain Kelly conceived himself as acting and entitled to act on the direction of the account holders in respect of the withdrawal from the bank account? He has given his evidence here that he was taking his directions as regards these withdrawals from the people, as he said, in the North?

—The only way I can help you is to say he was certainly in their confidence.

9366. You know nothing, you feel he was entitled to take orders from them and it was their money?

—I cannot help you there but he certainly was in very close contact with them and in their confidence.

9367. One of the points that has been raised here already. You have mentioned in your evidence that the Red Cross, despite difficulties, international regulatory difficulties, that the Red Cross was capable of, and did send, goods and money to the North, the Department of Finance also sent from the Fund, the Suspense Account money directly in the first instance and later on through the Red Cross, first through the Belfast Fund, I think it is £20,000, or something like that, and the rest to the Belfast Relief Committee. If the Red Cross could send money and goods directly to the North and if the Department of Finance could send money directly to the North why did the peculiar system arise, this round-about method of sending out in the final stages to the Red Cross and then to the North?

—I think the first payments, Mr. Chairman, were in the early days. They were urgent and they were actually transferred to bank accounts in the North.

9368. Would that have been simpler, to let the Red Cross do its work directly and the Department do its work directly because the impression created is that the Red Cross is being used as a front and improperly used as a front.

—I tried to explain that this morning. We were concerned with two things. First of all, the disbursement of the money and, secondly, the collection of the money because, you remember, at that time all over the country people were collecting money for the relief of distress in the North. We were anxious that some control should be maintained over those moneys and we decided the best thing to do was to channel all of it into the Red Cross and through the Red Cross into the Six County areas. That was the reason for that decision. If these moneys could all be collected into the Red Cross Fund and disbursed from that everybody would know where they were and how they have been disbursed.

9369. I think that is all I have to ask you. Deputy Nolan?

9370. Deputy Nolan.—You mentioned this morning, Deputy Haughey, and again this afternoon about the Special Branch, their funds. Is there any information you would like to give to the Committee about their funds as relevant to this Inquiry?

—The Secret Service Fund, no, there is a great deal of information I could give you but I think it would be better not to. I have sought, I hope, Mr. Chairman, throughout this affair both in the Courts and here, and elsewhere, to give the maximum information, as I thought, for the purpose intended without divulging any information which would be of detriment to the national interest.

The Committee adjourned at 5 p.m. and resumed at 5.20 p.m.

Mr. William Christopher Walsh further examined.

9371. Chairman.—Mr. Walsh, since you were before us last we have received a letter from the Group Law Agent, Mr. Rory O’Connor, enclosing three letters. Are you familiar with those letters? Have you seen them?

—No, I am afraid I have not seen them.

9372. If you have not, I shall read them out to you.

(Documents handed to witness).

—I have seen them now, Mr. Chairman.

9373. The first letter is addressed to the Manager of the National Provincial Bank Ltd… It reads: “Dear Sir, George Dixon, Further to our telephone conversation of today, we would be grateful if you would kindly facilitate our above-named client by cashing his cheques on to-morrow, the 18th instant, up to a maximum of £11,450. We enclose specimen of his signature and regret that there is not sufficient time to direct this request through the usual channels. Our client has been issued with cheque book, No. 925376/400. Yours faithfully, Manager.” You were Deputy Manager at that time?

—Yes.

9374. Was that document sent out by you, Mr. Walsh?

—No, this is the first time I have seen this.

9375. There are initials which I cannot decipher at the bottom. Can you help us as regards the initials?

—I cannot really. I do not recognise them myself.

9376. Can you recall the transaction?

—I cannot, not specifically, no.

9377. Could it be done without your knowledge as Deputy Manager?

—Yes.

9378. Then who would be likely to make these arrangements?

—Various people could possibly make the arrangements; the Manager, the accountant, the assistant accountant, various people. They would act on the instructions of a client in a case such as this.

9379. Do you see the other two letters— they are not really of great importance— dealing with the same matter? Would you accept that that latter did go from the bank?

—It would appear so, yes, certainly.

9380. You were unaware of that transaction until now?

—Until today, yes.

9381. This moment?

—No—a few moments ago while we were in the waiting room.

9382. How did you find out then?

—Mr. Deacon and Mr. O’Connor were talking about them.

9383. So you are not able to give us any explanation as to why it was not produced previously?

—I am afraid not.

9384. Do you have the pink book in front of you showing who was making these accommodation arrangements in London at the Provincial Bank? Would you agree that that was the total amount standing on that date to the credit of the George Dixon account?

—I must assume so. I have not got the copy of the account in front of me. I must assume that at least £11,450 were in credit in the account at the time. I think Mr. Deacon has copies here.

(Documents handed to witness).

The balance on that day was £11,449.13.9. It was in fact the total amount less the debit for the cheque book.

9385. It was in effect about the £4,450?

—Yes.

9386. We have been over this ground before but perhaps we could refresh your memory on it. Do you agree that this account was opened by two deposits?

—To my memory it was a deposit of two cheques.

9387. On the same day?

—Yes, making up one lodgement.

9388. One was £4,450. Is that correct?

—I have forgotten the precise figures.

9389. Do we have copies of the lodgements?

—I think, looking at the accounts here, that one cheque was for £7,000 and the other was for the balance, £4,450.

9390. We will get that for you in a moment.

—I have a copy here.

9391. You will see that there are two components in that lodgement of £11,450. Can you recall a cheque perhaps being produced here? We have another copy here if you want to see it, a cheque coming from Clones with the Clones’ bank stamp on it and a Baggot Street bank stamp on it, for the amount of £4,450.

—I did not see the actual cheque recently, but I would assume that the £7,000 portion of this lodgement was transferred from the White Longhorn Murphy account and that £4,450 was the balance of the Clones account.

9392. We shall produce a photostat of that for you in a moment.

9393. Would you agree that it is a reasonable assumption to make, that the other £7,000 was drawn from the main account on November 14th?

—Yes, I would.

9394. That is I think, stated in your bank returns?

—It would, yes.

9395. So that that is how this first lodgment was made. Are you yet in a position or have you as yet recalled who instructed you to open the Dixon account?

—Captain Kelly instructed me to open the Dixon account.

9396. And who instructed you to open the Ann O’Brien account?

—Similarly, Captain Kelly instructed me to open the Ann O’Brien account.

9397. Do you as yet know the identity of the main account holders who apparently assumed the names of White, Loughran and Murphy?

—No, I do not know them.

9398. Are you still unable to tell us to whom were given the ledger statements and the returned cheques?

—Yes.

9399. You are?

—I am still unable to tell you.

9400. Are you aware that Captain Kelly testified here that they were returned to a non account holder?

—I read that in the newspaper report.

9401. And then given to him?

—Yes.

9402. Would you consider that to be irregular?

—I would, yes, somewhat.

9403. Are you satisfied that all the White, Loughran and Murphy cheques were signed in the same handwriting?

—I could not answer that question because I did not see the cheques. It would not be part of my business to see the cheques but I would rely on our staff to make sure that they were properly signed.

9404. In respect of the signatures to the George Dixon cheques, would your answer be substantially the same?

—It would, yes.

9405. Can you tell us who issued instructions towards the provision of accommodation for George Dixon in a Piccadilly bank?

—I have no idea.

9406. Who handed back the mandate for the George Dixon account?

—The signature card was handed to me by Captain Kelly.

9407. Do you recall the names, the signatures of the people who witnessed it?

—I think it was witnessed by a John Lynch but it was handed back completed.

9408. Are you aware that Captain Kelly has testified that he wrote that name, John Lynch, himself?

—I am not so aware, no.

9409. You are aware that the signatures White, Loughran and Murphy were not witnessed?

—Yes.

9410. And you are still in ignorance as to the identity of the persons who assumed these various names in respect of the three accounts?

—Yes.

9411. You do know to whom the bank book was given, do you?

—The cheque book?

9412. I am sorry—the cheque book?

—No, I cannot recall how that went out.

9413. There would be three cheque books that went out for the three accounts—or was there one?

—There were three cheque books. The two cheque books for the George Dixon account and the Ann O’Brien account were given by me to Captain Kelly. It is the other book that I cannot recall how it went out.

9414. Was the cheque that was presented to your bank transferring £4,450 from the Clones account … it was written “pay cash”?

—I have no idea, Mr. Chairman.

9415. Did you personally take the cheque, that cheque for £4,450, on 14.11.69 from some person?

—I took this cheque and the cheque for £7,000 from Captain Kelly and completed the lodgment of it for him.

9416. The lodgment form is filled up … this lodgment of £11,450 on the 14th November —was that lodgment form filled up by you?

—It was.

9417. It is all your writing?

—Except the “George Dixon, Baggot Street” on the bottom.

9418. That signature was made by the person who lodged the cheque?

—Exactly—by Captain Kelly.

9419. And he signed “George Dixon”?

—On that occasion, yes.

9420. So that signature is Captain Kelly’s?

—It is, yes.

9421. Chairman.—I think that is all for the present, Mr. Walsh.

9422. Deputy Collins.—On the white ledger card, the main ledger card … first of all, you left the bank, I think, around Christmas Eve?

—Yes.

9423. On the 22nd of December, 1969, there is written in pen, I think, “Cashed NPB, 29.11.69”, and possibly “£2,500”. What does that relate to?

—I cannot see it on this copy. Is it on the main account?

(Copy of photostat handed to witness).

—I must only assume the letter here, “Advise the National Provincial Bank to cash this cheque for George Dixon in London”. It is normal procedure when advising like this to make sure the money is retained in the account. This was blank when it was written. It would have been written on 17th November. If you have got in touch with the National Provincial Bank they must retain the money. It is usual to put a pencil mark on the ledger page.

9424. You have no knowledge of that entry being put there?

—No. It is normal banking procedure.

9425. Deputy MacSharry.—You say Captain Kelly signed “George Dixon” on the lodgment which opened this account?

—That is right.

9426. Had you at that time in your possession the specimen signature?

—I had, I think.

9427. You did not compare them?

—No, I did not. It is of little importance to a bank official in his business whose name is on the lodgment.

9428. It is of importance who signed “George Dixon” to a cheque which was withdrawing that money from the bank?

—Precisely.

9429. Did you think, because of this lodgment, that Captain Kelly was George Dixon?

—It never occurred to me. I just did not think about it.

9430. You did not know who George Dixon was?

—No.

9431. Had you seen somebody signing his name?

—I saw Captain Kelly signing “George Dixon” but it was the signature we had on the specimen sheet.

9432. Up until this time and until you left the bank, did the name Pádraig Haughey appear on any cheques?

—I would not know Pádraig Haughey. The last time I saw him was in 1946 playing football for Dublin.

9433. He did not, to your knowledge, come in and draw money from the George Dixon account?

—Not to my knowledge.

9434. Deputy Nolan.—Captain Kelly came in, lodged money and put George Dixon’s name on it. Is this common practice?

—It is not unusual.

9435. This was a big account in the sense that quite a lot of money was lodged and paid out of it. Did you ever meet the client, George Dixon?

—I was never aware I had met him. I never knew a person called George Dixon.

9436. Which other people, apart from those mentioned, did you meet in the bank?

—There was just one other name and I do not want to mention it, not because I do not know it but because you disallowed it. It was the same man who signed the mandate.

9437. Mr F.?

—Yes.

9438. Did you meet anyone else?

—No, I do not think so. I would be in an office. I would not normally meet the people transacting business, cashing cheques.

9439. Are you aware any of the staff in Baggot Street met George Dixon? Surely this would have been discussed in a social way?

—It would. No one there knows who George Dixon is. They certainly had not told me.

9440. Or Ann O’Brien?

—Or Ann O’Brien, or White, Loughran or Murphy.

9441. Would you not think it unusual that a bank dealing with people and with a fair amount of money——

—We are more likely to meet the people who have not got money rather than the people who have. Most banks have money clients who live in England, America and other places and we never meet them.

9442. The accounts were in credit. If there had been an overdraft you would begin to look for George Dixon?

—We usually do.

9443. Deputy Treacy.—I have heard you say you were unaware of the identity of those people in whose name the original account in Baggot Street was open, White, Loughran and Murphy. Did it ever occur to you to seek to identify those people?

—No.

9444. Were you at all perturbed when the subsidiary accounts were opened in the names of Dixon and O’Brien?

—No.

9445. You did not regard it as being in any way unusual. You were not perturbed when you saw Captain Kelly signing “George Dixon” for £12,000?

—It was a lodgment.

9446. What was your overall impression of these accounts, the main and the subsidiary accounts? From whom did you feel the money was coming?

—I was told it was money available to the Government and coming through the Red Cross. I did not give it another thought.

9447. You did not regard it as most abnormal banking practice to be dealing with fictitious names and characters of this kind?

—It is not abnormal.

9448. Deputy Tunney.—The amount so lodged would be lodged into an account which, as you have already said, had been opened by Captain Kelly?

—That is correct.

9449. Moneys which hitherto had come through Mr. Fagan from whom you had seen a note saying “Lodge so much to a particular account”?

—Prior to that there is only one lodgment, which came from the Red Cross to the main account.

9450. You did not think it in any way unusual to see Captain Kelly lodging this money?

—No.

9451. Supposing Captain Kelly in your presence had written a cheque on these accounts and signed Dixon, or O’Brien, or Loughran, or Murphy, would you have accepted such a cheque?

—I may have questioned him as to why he was using these names. That would have been unusual.

9452. You did not recall it happening?

—No. Provided the signature he was signing was the same as on the specimen sheet there would have been no reason to do anything beyond asking “What the devil are you using those names for”.

9453. Chairman.—Can you recall the £7,000 being transferred from the main account, to be added to the £4,450?

—I do. It was a cheque drawn on the main account.

9454. Whom was it signed by?

—Presumably it was signed properly. I cannot say which two of the three signed it, but it was in order.

9455. Whom was it payable to?

—I cannot say. It is something you would not pay particular attention to.

9456. It was not made payable to George Dixon, I take it?

—I cannot say. The cheque here debited to the main account presumably is the cheque. It has been specified here as being payable to cash. Assuming that this is reasonably OK, you can take it that it was payable to cash.

9457. Was that cheque drawn on the main account?

—Yes.

9458. Did the person withdraw the cash or was it just a book-keeping transfer for your part?

—Yes, to a certain extent.

Mr. Deacon further examined.

9459. Chairman.—You have on the table copy of a letter which we got from Mr. O’Connor?

—Yes.

9460. The letter is dated 18th November? The letter to the Provincial Bank in Piccadilly.

—It is the 17th November.

9461. I beg your pardon. There are initials at the bottom of the letter.

—Yes.

9462. Can you help us with regard to these initials?

—I am afraid I could not be certain. It could possibly be my own.

9463. What are the initials?

—HTD.

9464. What is on that one? There is a D, anyway.

—There seems to be an H and a D and that is why I think it is probably mine.

9465. Can you recall this transaction?

—No, Sir.

9466. You were off duty when that took place?

—In the initial stages of this I was not dealing with the account at all. It is quite possible a letter like that would come into me to be signed in the evening with possibly 80 or 120 more. I would not remember what was in the letters.

9467. Were you on duty in the bank at that time?

—Yes.

9468. When you gave evidence on the last occasion, you had not recalled that letter at all.

—No, I did not even know it existed.

9469. How did it come to your knowledge in the meantime?

—It has been brought to my notice now. I did understand it was sent from our office to Mr. O’Connor, I suppose. When I was giving evidence originally I had no recollection of this letter.

9470. When would it have been sent from your office to Mr. O’Connor?

—I think Mr. O’Connor sent these letters here, did he not?

9471. Yes, but when did your bank acquaint Mr. O’Connor of these matters?

—I could not tell you exactly.

9472. He must have been informed by the bank?

—Yes.

9473. You do not remember when he was informed?

—No, I do not. It was subsequent to our being here, anyway. I think it arose out of some cheque being cashed at the National Provincial or our request to the National Provincial to cash a cheque. Somebody subsequent to that went back and looked through correspondence and found these letters.

9474. Was there a cheque cashed at the Provincial Bank, Piccadilly?

—No, I do not think so. I think the final letter says “No longer require facilities” so apparently there was no cheque cashed there.

9475. You uncovered this correspondence since you were here last by looking back through your files?

—Yes, that is correct.

9476. There is no further information which has come to your knowledge in the meantime —no cheques returned to your bank or anything like that?

—No developments of any nature.

9477. Deputy Collins.—On the letter dated 21st November, 1969, there is another initial at the bottom of the page. Do you recognise it?

—It looks as if it might be Mr. Morrissey of our office—I would not be sure but with the PJM it might be.

9478. It could have been Mr. Morrissey who initialed it?

—Yes. In which case, probably he would have signed it.

9479. There is no signature on this letter?

—The original letter would have left our office and that would be just a carbon copy.

9480. On the 27th November there is another initial which I could not decipher.

—I could not either.

9481. None of these letters came to your notice?

—No.

9482. You have a copy of this document?

—Yes.

9483. Does any of it make sense to you? Does it give you a guide in relation to NPB, Piccadilly?

—Judging by the date on it, I think it would be quite reasonable to assume that when they were advised to pay a cheque of £11,400, we would put a note on the leger sheet in case somebody else paid a cheque in the meantime and the £11,400 was not left in the account.

9484. On the letter of 23rd February, 1970, there is something like “26/11/69—phone message Kelly”. Do you know anything in relation to that?

—I can read “phone message Kelly” but beyond that I cannot.

9485. You do not recall this? Do you recognise the handwriting?

—I am afraid I could not.

9486. Have you asked anyone in your office if they remembered anything in relation to this NPB message?

—No, I have not. It is so normal I have not asked anyone.

9487. Deputy FitzGerald.—We are faced with quite a problem about this NPB case. I am wondering can you not assist us any further? First, who discovered this correspondence and in what circumstances?

—I am afraid I could not tell you. I think it must have been that Mr. Morrissey went rooting through stuff and found it. I think it was Mr. Morrissey.

9488. You knew nothing about this?

—We have an enormous amount of correspondence.

9489. You appreciate this is a serious matter we are dealing with. You were here giving evidence. In the course of that evidence I do not think the NPB transaction emerged until we started deciphering semi-rubbed out letters here and it became evident that we considered it of great importance. We asked what branch it was; we were told that nobody was quite certain, that it might be Piccadilly. There were a number of phone calls but nobody could remember where they were to, there was no record of them. We have found great difficulty in getting information from you about this. Surely, after all that, if this correspondence turned up it would have been brought to your attention as manager.

—It was brought to my attention. I understood it was sent to Mr. O’Connor.

9490. You made no inquiries as to why this had not come to light previously?

—In the volume of correspondence we would have in the office no one would have recollected that transaction. We had a strike in the meantime. This was six or eight months afterwards and it would not be unreasonable that no one would remember that correspondence.

9491. When you made inquiries about it, was the correspondence on the files in connection with this account?

—I presume it was. No, I do not think that particular correspondence would not be put in a particular file.

9492. Where would it be kept?

—Probably in a file, advices to pay cheques or something like that, which would be probably an enormous lot.

9493. Can you suggest any way in which we could get more information about this? I may, here is an account which itself is unusual and which people in the Bank who are dealing with it know it is a secret Government account, and think it is a secret Government account, and then there is this transaction of some monies from London, phone calls, free letters. Can you suggest any method in which we could find out who are the people involved in this and what they may remember. You have not asked members of the staff about this?

—No, when I was here before this was not done at all.

9494. You have not carried out any further enquiries about this?

—No, I have not got the letters or copies. I think they were sent here on 1st February?

9495. I presume the photostats were kept. You would be able to find out who the initials are and let us know and you would be able to find out from the bank in London who kept photostats of the original letters and discover who signed?

—I expect that would be possible.

9496. I would assume, taking the importance of the matter that perhaps you could now undertake the matter so that we would know who the people are who are dealing with this. Would the people who made the phone calls be the same people who signed these letters?

—I could not say that. It looks as if I signed one letter, that is the first letter of the 17th.

9497. The first letter?

—Yes, the one on the 17th.

9498. That means that either somebody purporting to be or acting for Mr. George Dixon came in on spoke to you or came in to somebody in the Bank who in turn spoke to you.

—The letter would appear to me with hundreds of others.

9499. Would there be anything on the letter to indicate who brought it to you?

—No, I do not think so.

9500. There is no reference of any kind?

—No.

9501. You have probably seen Captain Kelly’s evidence about his transactions with the Bank?

—I have seen some of it certainly.

9502. I think it is fair to say his evidence suggested that he had by no means been the only person drawing the money. In fact I think the impression he gave was a lot of transactions, in fact most of them were undertaken by other people and that somebody else had come in and got bank statements and handed them to him in or outside the bank and the second bank statement was not given to him, so that we have now the suggestion that some other person or persons was very much involved in this account, was receiving bank statements, or at least one if not two, and was signing cheques and drawing money. Has it been possible to find out anything more about who these people might be?

—No, in my dealings the only person I have met dealing with the account was Mr. George Dixon, not George Dixon but Captain Kelly.

9503. Can you give us a list of the tellers who were in this period, over this period, who were dealing with the business on the counter and likely to be in contact with other people as well as Captain Kelly? I do not mean give us a list at this moment but could you send us in a list?

—I could find those, if you gave us the specific period we could tell you every teller that was on the counter in that period.

9504. I think the period, in fact, covered by these accounts, it really is from the beginning to the end of the accounts, November 11th up to April 24th. We do know who cashed a cheque on April 28th, that main account. So it is really from the first cheque cashed which is, I suppose, 21st November, if we exclude the transfer of the Dixon account, let us say the 11th November to be on the safe side, to the 24th April. That is the minimum period.

—Yes.

9505. When we saw you last it was not clear to us that so much had been undertaken by somebody other than Captain Kelly. The picture painted by him suggests that another person or persons were acting in this matter to a considerable degree so that it becomes more important to us to deal with this, if we could get more information.

—I can tell you that there were possibly 150 days involved with six tellers on a day. I suppose it would be 1,000. I could give you 1,000 names.

9506. The names of tellers?

—Some of them would be the same. If on holiday somebody would substitute and so forth.

9507. How many tellers would you have altogether?

—Normally six.

9508. How many substitutes would there be.

—As many as you hired. If a teller was away or ill or anything else somebody else would step in.

9509. How many other people would regularly substitute for tellers?

—In the normal course if all our tellers were available we would have no substitutes.

9510. In that period how may people were likely to be called on as substitutes?

—I would say possibly six or seven.

9511. If he could tell us the names of the regular tellers first, because clearly they are much more likely to remember somebody engaged in a series of transactions than some subsequent teller who might not have met them, only on one occasion. I think it is the regular tellers. You will give us then the names of the people who signed, the initials, the photostats of the originals of the letters with the signatures on them to the bank and the names of the regular tellers?

—Yes, I will get those.

9512. Thank you very much.

9513. Deputy MacSharry.—You have said you did not negotiate this transfer?

—To London?

9514. Yes.

—Yes.

9515. You had no knowledge of it at all?

—Except that I might have signed that letter but that does not mean——

9516. When did you have knowledge of it apart from the knowledge of the signature of the letter?

—After our previous meeting here which was a month or so ago.

9517. Not until then?

—No.

9518. Never saw any documentation?

—No.

9519. You said that the only dealings you had in relation to this account would be if it was Captain Kelly?

—Yes, that is as far as I know anyway.

9520. Did you ever witness him signing any other name, in any name other than his own to any documentation?

—No.

9521. Never?

—No.

9522. That is all, thank you.

9523. Deputy Nolan.—Mr. Deacon, as far as the lodgements were concerned in this account, that is the three for Murphy, White, Loughran and also the other accounts, you met no one?

—I think I did but I have completely forgotten them.

9524. You know there is a code?

—Yes, there is one on the 25th March. I made out the lodgements docket and somebody signed the sheet on the code also. I think it is Mr. X, but I have no knowledge of who he was at the time nor do I know him yet.

9525. You met him?

—Yes.

9526. You did not meet George Dixon, you do not know who George Dixon is? You have not a clue as to who he might be?

—I have not a clue.

9527. Or O’Brien?

—No.

9528. Thank you.

9529. Deputy Treacy.—I was primarily concerned, Mr. Deacon, to ascertain if you had any further information for us since we first met here. I take it Mr. Deacon, that you have been following actively the reports eminating from our deliberations here?

—I have followed them but I have been spasmodic.

9530. You cannot throw any further light on the identities of these various people who were operating the accounts in your Bank?

—No.

9531. Messrs White, Loughran, Murphy, O’Brien and George Dixon?

—No.

9532. Nor can you give us any further information, Mr. Deacon, in respect of the issue of the Bank statements?

—No.

9533. Or the cheque book, the one cheque book we were anxious to ascertain was received?

—No.

9534. May I take it that Captain Kelly was your main contact in doing business in your Bank in respect of these accounts?

—I think so.

9535. But there were others, Mr. Deacon?

—I did meet Mr. Kelly. He is the only person I met, that I know of except that I say I met somebody else that I have no recollection.

9536. Are you satisfied there were others— other than Captain Kelly—who had access to this account and did in fact do business in your bank?

—I find it hard to be very definite about that.

9537. We do have evidence in respect of one gentleman referred to by a code letter here.

—Mr. F., yes.

9538. You are satisfied he did?

—I am satisfied he signed a docket in front of me.

9539. What steps, if any, would your staff have taken to satisfy themselves as to the identity of those people other than Captain Kelly?

—On this particular occasion there was a lodgment being made. We are not particularly worried as to who brings in the money.

9540. I see. You are aware that one of our witnesses—and indeed a very important witness—conveyed the impression to us at least that he knew the identity of George Dixon?

—No, I am not aware of that.

9541. May I put this to the witness, Mr. Chairman?

—I recall it now, yes.

9542. Chief Superintendent Fleming in fact stated that it was his belief that George Dixon and Padraic Haughey were one and the same person, or words to that effect?

—Yes.

9543. What is your feeling about that?

—Certainly, to my knowledge, Mr. Haughey mentioned it. I do not think he was ever in our office. I think I possibly would have heard of it.

9544. Do you know Padraic Haughey personally?

—No.

9545. So he could have been to the bank without your knowledge?

—He could have, yes.

9546. With regard to the female involved, Anne O’Brien, and having regard to all the evidence submitted here, Mr. Deacon, can you throw any light at all on the lady involved?

—No.

9547. Deputy Tunney.—I appreciate, Mr. Deacon, that you would sign many letters in the course of your studies. I would assume that you may have signed one of these letters. No doubt you would be inclined to accept that yourself?

—Yes, it is quite possible.

9548. You would have known at that stage that this referred to the subsidiary George Dixon account?

—I do not think I would have known, because I think the account was opened for quite a while in the office before I knew or was aware of it.

9549. So far as you were concerned it could have been any account in the name of George Dixon?

—Yes.

9550. Later on you became concerned about the fact that the George Dixon account had become overdrawn?

—Yes.

9551. At that stage, having regard to your concern, you did not think back to this letter which you had signed?

—No, it is only within the past month or so that I became aware that that letter was in existence.

9552. Apart from the number of letters that you signed daily, would there be many letters so advising English banks?

—Not necessarily. Possibly there would be more around the summer time or during the summer periods, or something like that, when visitors would be over there.

9553. Yes, but at this particular time there would not have been?

—No there would not be any great number.

9554. That would not make you recollect it?

—No.

9555. Subsequently, when you became concerned about the Dixon account, you still did not relate it at all?

—No.

9556. When the bank became aware of the fact that this Committee would be sitting examining these accounts, I find it rather difficult to understand how they did not make this correspondence available.

—I do not think anybody knew it was in existence at the time. They did not recollect at the time that it was in existence.

9557. It was only having regard to the reference to the accounts here that at that stage someone went searching for correspondence in 1969?

—Yes, I would imagine so.

9558. Chairman.—Do you remember at whose request this accommodation was sought at the Provincial Bank in Piccadilly?

—No.

9559. Do you remember the transaction at all?

—I do not think I was involved in the transaction at all.

9560. Take the first letter we handed you, there. Are you satisfied that that letter, dated 17 November, is a true record of your bank’s transactions?

—I am, yes.

9561. Are you satisfied that the initials at the bottom of that letter are your initials?

—I would not be too sure but I think they are.

9562. Can you recall two large transfers being made from the main account to the George Dixon account, one of £12,000 and the other of £13,000? I think you will find them in the book in front of you. I forget the page.

—£12,000, George Dixon.

9563. They were both lodged by a person with the signature “J. Clarke”. Is that correct?

—Yes, one is J. Clarke. It is £13,000, 6th January, 1970.

9564. It was lodged by J. Clarke. Can you recall, or do you know, J. Clarke?

—No. I wrote out that docket and he signed it, but I have no recollection whatever of it.

9565. The other one, for £12,000, was lodged by Loughran Murphy.

—It is from the White-Loughran Murphy account. That is written by myself.

9566. Do you know who did that one? —No. I would imagine it was Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Deacon withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 6.20 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 3rd March, 1971.