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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 2 Meitheamh, 1971

Wednesday, 2nd June, 1971

The Committee met at 4.45 p.m.

DEPUTY E. COLLINS 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. C. Murray, Secretary of the Department of Finance, further examined.

11655. Deputy E. Collins (acting Chairman)— Mr. Murray, I understand that you have some further information in relation to a number of matters, mostly to tidy up some loose ends. Would you like to make a statement?

—Yes, Chairman. This deals with some points raised at earlier meetings. The first point is a relatively small matter and relates to details of the normal Grant-in-Aid to the Red Cross. I was asked for this information and I had not got it at the time. I explained that the normal Grant-in-Aid is paid for four purposes. Firstly, it is paid for administrative expenses of the Red Cross; secondly, emergency relief; thirdly, for North China refugees; and, fourthly, a contribution to the International Committee of the Red Cross. The question I was asked was in what proportion was the Grant-in-Aid paid. The fact is that this differs from year to year. I will give the figures for 1970-71. They are as follows and I am rounding these figures:

The payment for the administrative headquarters and other expenses came to £20,000. That figure is fairly steady. It was somewhat less in previous years. The aid for emergency relief in 1970-71 came to £7,000. This is an item which fluctuates. For example in 1968-69 it was £110,000 and in 1969-70 it was £27,000. The payments towards North China refugees is relatively stable. In 1970-71 it was £5,700 approximately. It was of the same order in previous years, and the same applies to the contribution towards the International Committee of the Red Cross. It was £700 odd and was of the same order in previous years. The total payment in 1970-71 was £33,000 approximately.

That finishes that item, so far as I am concerned. Are there any questions the Deputies wish to ask?

11656. Chairman.—Has any Deputy a question?

11657. Deputy Treacy.—May I take it that Mr. Murray is replying to questions I raised?

—Yes.

11658. May I aske him a few questions in respect of the desirability of following up expenditure of moneys of this kind to ensure that they were, in fact, disposed of for the purposes intended? Would Mr. Murray refresh my memory to the extent that there is a follow-up in regard to expenditure of amounts of this kind?

—I might just say what the arrangements are for the payment of moneys. This, in part, answers the Deputy’s question or is relative to this question. The payment for administrative expenses is paid quarterly in arrears on request from the Society. This item is now more or less stabilised. The payments in respect of emergency relief are being refunded on actual expenditure incurred by the Society, the refund being made three or four times during the year by reference to the actual expenditure incurred. I want to check up on one item. The Government contribution to the Red Cross Committee is a refund of the actual contribution paid by the Society on behalf of the Government and the contribution towards North China refugees—I am sorry I am confusing the payment— the payment in respect of North China refugees is on the basis of a refund of actual expenditure incurred by the Society and a refund is made three or four times a year. I confused the Committee because there is also the emergency relief fund which has no set pattern in regard to payment. It depends on actual circumstances. I had earlier said that this was refunded three or four times a year. That reference should have been to the North China refugees. The accounts of the Society are audited by auditors appointed by the General Council of the Society and copies of the audited accounts are sent to the Department of Defence and I am told that they are available for inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. In addition a senior officer of the Department of Defence is a member of the Central Council and of the executive committee of the Society. There is fairly close departmental contact with the Society.

11659. The figures given are in respect of cash as distinct from foodstuffs and clothing?

—I am afraid I could not answer that. I would guess that they are in respect of cash. In fact, I am fairly certain they are. This is a breakdown of the Grant-in-Aid issued from the Exchequer to the Society which prima facie would be cash.

11660. Having regard to the administration of relief of this kind to foreign parts can Mr. Murray say if there has been any evidence in recent years of any kind of misappropriation?

—In respect of these moneys? No, I have no evidence of that at all and I take it if there was any such evidence it would come to light in the audit of the accounts.

11661. Deputy MacSharry.—What did you say the emergency relief amounted to?

—£110,000.

11662. Which year?

—1968/69. In the following year it was £27,000 and in 1970/71 it was £7,000.

11663. Have you details before you as to what the £110,000 was spent on in 1968-69?

—No, but I can send the information to the Committee.

11664. Deputy Keating.—I should like to ask one brief question for the purpose of amplification. Mr. Murray’s words in regard to payment under the emergency relief was that this was according to no set pattern but by reference to accounts of expenditure incurred?

—No, the note I have here from the Department of Defence is that the mode of payment depends on circumstances. The aim is to maintain a reasonable balance in the fund which the Society themselves maintain. In some years no payment is made.

11665. What I was trying to uncover was the way in which the request came from the Red Cross to the Department of Defence because almost all of the other headings, administration in North China, and so on, are fairly clearcut. If it is not made three or four times a year it is possible for you to tell us whether, in fact, the Red Cross say “We want so much for such and such” or, simply, “We want so much for emergency relief?”

—The brief note I have here on that which may or may not answer your question is in the case of expenditure on relief, when the Society apply for funds to the Department of Defence, the Department check on the amount still remaining from the grant already given. Therefore, I infer from this that there is an application to the Department and that there is some form of check. For more detailed information in regard to this I think it would be more appropriate to address inquiries to the Department of Defence which is the Department responsible for this Grant-in-Aid.

11666. Deputy H. Gibbons.—What interests me is that the Red Cross have the disbursing of this money to North China. When this money reaches North China, who is to vouch that the money is spent properly there? As I see it, in those Grants-in-Aid there will be a certain amount of accountability and certain steps will be taken in relation to the payment of the money. However, unless one has a very long hand the stage will eventually be reached where there will be no accountability. I understand that the Department of Defence probably deal with the details of this in the case of the Red Cross, but the point I am making must apply to any Grant-in-Aid and, no doubt, during the past 12 months some thought must have been given to this matter by the Department of Finance. I suppose that, finally, it will be one of our duties to comment on this but so far as information is available to us at this stage, it would appear that definite detailed accountability did not exist for nearly any Grant-in-Aid?

—That is the essence of a Grant-in-Aid.

11667. That is the point I am trying to get across.

—There are two essential features of a Grant-in-Aid. Perhaps that is overstating it but normally there are two features of a Grant-in-Aid. The expenditure is not accounted for in detail by the accounting officer and unspent balances at the end of the year are not surrendered to the Exchequer. This is the essence of the system that has lasted, I would say, for 75 years or more. I have the impression that the expenditure on North China refugees is expenditure in this country but that is only incidental to the Deputy’s point.

11668. Deputy FitzGerald.—We must clarify it lest it should be thought that we were financing Mao Tse Tung.

11669. Acting Chairman.—I understand from Mrs. Barry’s evidence in relation to contributions made by the Irish Red Cross Society that it is customary to give such contributions to the local Red Cross in whichever country they are sent to? While I am waiting I should like to ask you in relation to the four items you have mentioned: administration expenses, emergency relief, North China Refugees Fund and the contribution to the International Committee of the Red Cross, all these moneys are chanelled through the Department of Defence?

—No, they are a charge on the Vote of the Department of Defence and are paid from the subhead which is entitled, “Grant-in-Aid to the Red Cross”.

11670. If I may refer to question 8714 of volume 16 in evidence given by Mrs. Leslie Mary Barry, the question asked by the Chairman was:

But in respect of the disposal of other funds, say, for example, to parts of Africa or other places, have you always been told what bank to put it into and in whose names?

The reply given by Mrs. Barry was:

—No, in most cases we were asked to transfer money for the relief of distress in some place and we transferred it to the League of Red Cross Societies in Geneva, or the International Committee of the Red Cross and they distributed it; but we never followed it up; we never wanted to know whether it was spent on water, soup, drink or anything else. We trusted the people to whom we sent it; and we followed the same practice in this.

Would you agree with that answer?

—I am not in a position to agree or disagree. I am not directly concerned with the normal Grant-in-Aid to the Red Cross. Frankly I regard it my function here to-day to supply factual information which I got from the Department of Defence. Whether Mrs. Barry’s statement is one with which the Accounting Officer of the Department of Defence would agree I am in no position to comment.

11671. Deputy FitzGerald.—Following up what, perhaps, lay behind what Deputy Gibbons was asking you have told us already in earlier evidence that not all Grants-in-Aid are specifically given to particular organisations. Would it be fair to suggest that the kind of control which is implicit in the system is that when money is voted in a Grant-in-Aid it is seen to Parliament either to be voted to a specific organisation which is known to Parliament to be a reputable body which Parliament trusts to expend the money properly or else it is voted for the specific purpose, such as the President’s motor car, so specific in character that Parliament would be satisfied that with that very specific objective the money will be properly spent by or under the authority of the issuing agency which might be the Department of Finance. I am trying to visualise what kind of control mechanism is implicit in the Grant-in-Aid system and I wonder whether my suggested interpretation would be a fair one?

—Perhaps I could comment on that indirectly by making a point which I am not sure was made earlier in regard to this aspect that it is possible I think to lay undue stress on the fact that in the case of some Grants-in-Aid the grantee is not specified. Of the total involved, which I think was 18 or 19, in 1970-71, 13 were practically the equivalent of departmental sections and were for all practical intents and purposes paid to the Department in question. The normal accounting rules applied and the essence of the transaction was that the balance was not surrendered so that the number of cases where a grantee was not specified is very rare indeed. Included I think, is the case of the President’s motor car. I could read them out if it would help?

11672. Yes, mention the other cases.

—I am dealing with 1970-71. There was a payment of £5,000 for the expenses of a survey of provincial museums, historic houses etc. That payment was made to An Taisce. The second one was the payment for the replacement for a motor car for the President. The third item was a payment of £6,000 to the Asgard Committee.

11673. It was therefore to a specified body?

—No, it was not.

11674. I thought you said to the Asgard Committee?

—I am instancing the cases where the grantee was not specified but I am telling you to whom the money was paid.

11675. I am sorry I am getting confused, it was for the purpose of maintaining Asgard?

—Yes, the expenses of operation of the Asgard. The fourth case was a payment of £100,000 out of the Vote of the office of the Minister for Education. This £100,000 was paid to a variety of sporting organisations.

11676. The names of which were given to the Dáil.

—Subsequently. The point is that, apart from the impossibility of detailing all those in the Grant-in-Aid, the difficulty in principle is that they had not been identified when the Grant-in-Aid was given. The next one was a payment which was intended to be made in respect of a Council of Europe Conference on Linguistic Research. The payment was not, in fact, made. The next one was in respect of the publication of a book of essays, this is Father Hurley’s book. The final one, I think this is seven in all, was made in respect of a variety of Irish language periodicals.

11677. In all these cases the object was so specific that Parliament could reasonably presume that it was not necessary to bring them within the framework of the ordinary procedure and they could be left to the Grant-in-Aid procedure without any significant danger of abuse?

—I presume so.

11678. The transaction we are investigating does in that respect appear to be somewhat different?

—Yes, that is so, different in many other respects as well.

11679. Deputy FitzGerald.—So we have discovered.

11680. Acting Chairman.—At this point in time I feel it would be better if at all possible to have all Grants-in-Aid specified as to who should receive it, would you agree with that?

—In principle yes. I think that out of the 100 and more Grants-in-Aid we find since 1970-71 a handful did not specify the grantee in other words there was a very obvious reason why they could not be specified, but as a matter of principle I would fully agree with that.

11681. —I have no other questions in relation to Grants-in-Aid in general and their administration?

—Thank you. The next item I want to touch on was a reference made in the early stages of the sitting of this Committee as to the arrangements for the destruction of official documents. I think it was Deputy Burke who raised this. I dealt with it shortly afterwards but I had not time, at that stage, to deal with one aspect of the question he raised. He was very specific in asking me whether, if official documents or confidential documents had to be destroyed, they would be destroyed between the hours of 7 p.m. and midnight. This seemed to me to suggest that he has some reason to think that some documents were destroyed between these hours. I gave him an assurance in regard to my own Department but in case his question related in any way to the destruction of documents by any other Department during these hours I thought it well to ask all Departments whether they had in fact occasion to destroy any documents between those hours anytime during 1970 or in fact up to the period in 1971 when Deputy Burke raised this issue. I got replies from all Departments and offices and these replies were completely negative. I thought it as well to report this to the Committee in case there might have been any lingering question regarding the destruction of any document relating to this inquiry.

11682. Acting Chairman.—Is there a set procedure for clearing all documents which may or may not be destroyed?

—For clearing them before destruction?

11683. Yes.

—In general when I am talking about the destruction of documents I am primarily talking about what we call confidential waste, that is documents which are no longer required, which represent drafts of earlier documents or, for example, Government memoranda in the possession of Ministers, as distinct from those on files, and which are cleared out from time to time. Each Department has its own procedure for determining which documents it gets rid of and which it does not. I think I said, on the occasion of Deputy Burke’s question, that there is only one definite thing one can say and that is that official documents are retained for too long, that is that we do not get rid of enough of them.

11684. In relation to official documents, secret and not secret, and semi-official documents, secret and not secret, does this apply? Do you hold on to them for quite a long time?

—Yes, indeed. There is no distinction made in this respect between official and semi-official documents.

11685. Deputy FitzGerald.—I did not quite follow what Mr. Murray was saying there in the second last intervention. He seemed to be distinguishing between documents on Minister’s files and so on and the departmental documents. To which of these or is it to both that his reply relates?

—I was merely emphasising that a more normal occasion for the destruction of documents would be documents which had accumulated in the Minister’s private office and which, in most cases, were paralleled by documents on files. A typical example would be a memoranda for the Government which would be dealt with in the normal way on an official file but where the Minister, as a member of the Government, would have his own copy to bring to the Government meeting and, maybe, to hold on to for some time. These and many other similar sorts of documents accumulate. Many private offices clear these out from time to time. That is the more normal type of destruction that takes place. I was merely giving that as an example of the more normal type of destruction.

11686. Are you saying that no such event occurred in 1970?

—That is right. What I am saying more definitely is that there was no burning or destruction of documents in 1970 as reported to me by Departments or in 1971 up to the date of Deputy Burke’s question.

11687. We are clear here that what you are talking about are not simply departmental files but also these other accumulation of documents in private offices?

—Yes, that is so.

11688. None of these were destroyed?

—Between the hours of 7 p.m. and midnight.

11689. They could have been destroyed at some other time?

—Quite so.

11690. It only relates to those hours?

—Yes, that is so.

11691. Deputy MacSharry.—This is the accusation that was made. This is a point that was made by Deputy Burke.

11692. Deputy FitzGerald.—I want to be clear what exactly your denial relates to?

—I made that clear.

11693. I missed that.

11694. Deputy MacSharry.—Deputy Burke said that between 7 and 12 p.m. on the particular night certain documents were destroyed. Mr. Murray now tells us that between those hours no documents were destroyed in any of the Departments.

—The point was that at question 470, Book No. 2 Deputy Burke said:

My final question is: If disposal of papers in the Department were to take place it would not normally take place, say, between the hours of 7 p.m. and midnight?

That seems to me to suggest that he had reason to believe that there was some destruction of documents between 7 p.m. and midnight.

11695. Deputy FitzGerald.—That was his final question. His other questions were not tied down by time, were they?

—No, but his final question related to the manner of disposal.

11696. Yes, but his other questions related to the destruction of documents. It was only in the final question that you could take an implication that all the matters he was thinking of occurred in that period. I am not clear, in other words, as to why your denial is confined to this period.

—My earlier denial was not so confined. I was making it clear that at that stage I could not deal with this question of whether any documents had been destroyed between 7 p.m. and midnight. I dealt with this earlier intervention at the time and shortly afterwards. I dealt with it the following day in Book No. 3 at question 650 in so far as my own Department was concerned.

11697. The point is we now have your statement that no documents in the Department of Finance—official, semi-official, unofficial or in any category—were destroyed at any hour of the day in the year 1970 and that in relation to other Departments no such documents were destroyed between the hours of 7 p.m. and midnight.

—Yes, that is so.

11698. We do not know whether other documents of other Departments were destroyed during other periods of the day?

—That is so. I was not sure if that information on that score would be of interest to the Committee. I was dealing with this particular question, having dealt with other aspects of Deputy Burke’s questions, more or less immediately afterwards.

11699. Deputy Tunney.—I would like to intervene here. I notice Mr. Murray refers to the Committee. As a member of the Committee I say that I did not share the concern of the Deputy who asked the question. As far as I am concerned I did not have any evidence before me that would suggest that any documents at all had been burned or destroyed. This, to me, with all due respects, is another example of our spending a certain amount of time on matters which are not relevant to what we are supposed to be doing. There is no member of this Committee who feels inhibited by suggestions from anybody or evidence to date that documents were destroyed.

11700. Deputy MacSharry.—Too many documents have.

11701. Deputy Tunney.—If some Deputy asked some question for which the rest of us have not any basis he should be here to answer or to ask more questions. Personally, as a member of the Committee, I am not prepared to waste my time on what to me is a matter of total irrelevance and is only being brought in to bring a dramatic ingredient into our proceedings. I do not propose staying further for the continuation of the evidence.

[Deputy Tunney withdrew].

11702. Deputy FitzGerald.—The only thing I was concerned about was to discover precisely what was being denied in relation to this and I think I have clarified that now.

11703. Acting Chairman.—As Chairman I want to say quite honestly that it is up to me to decide what is or is not relevant. The question of the destruction of files was brought up by a member of the Committee and the Chairman then considered it was relevant. Mr. Murray, as he undertook to do in reply to question 470, has checked on the matter of the destruction of files. I see no objection to anyone asking questions in relation to the destruction of files.

11704. Deputy Treacy.—Might I ask Mr. Murray if he could enlighten me on this, in respect of the system for the compilation of files in the Department? Could documents be removed without your knowledge, Mr. Murray? I am concerned about the compilation of files which should or will include official or semi-official documents and I am wondering if there is a proper index kept of all documentation which would go to make up a file in order of strict sequence—one, two, three and four and a, b, c, d, e, f, g et cetera—and if there is available, at all times, a means of checking whether a document may have been removed or not, be it official, semi-official or a mere note but which may very well be an integral part of a file?

—I am at some loss to give you a general answer on that, but perhaps if I related it to the documentation of a meeting of concern to the Committee, on this Grant-in-Aid—I did tell Deputy Burke that there were two factors which were, I think, important in considering this issue. One is that this particular file did not get into general circulation. It was kept within a very small group indeed—two or three people. The second point is that as soon as I came to read the file, which was about mid-May or towards the end of May, I took the precaution of numbering every document in it. I did this not because I had any grounds for suspicion but because we were photographing the documents and we had to take them from the file for this purpose, and I thought that this was the sort of process where a document can easily get mislaid. It so happens, by a fortunate coincidence—I say “fortunate” since this issue has been directly raised that this is one case where we can say that the documents as I saw them in mid-May are still on the file.

11705. In strict order of sequence?

—In fact, I think I explained that some of the documentation we received not in chronological order. They were on the file in the order in which they were received but that does not mean to say that they were in date order, and in fact I explained to Deputy Burke that to clarify matters, I got them re-arranged in chronological order and re-numbered them, and I explained that if he looked at some of the copies we gave you on this, he would see two numbers on some of them.

11706. Acting Chairman.—May I make a general observation relating to question No. 466 in relation to the disposal of files? You replied to the question:

Beyond telling you that Department files are usually kept for too long, I cannot tell you anything. They are kept for years and years. They are certainly not destroyed within months, if you like, of the event to which they relate.

Can I take it then that all documents on the files which arose, say, from the middle of 1969 to the end of 1970, or indeed to this point in time, in 1971, are in fact intact within each file in all Departments?

—I would not like to give you an unqualified assurance about the practice in other Departments.

11707. Deputy MacSharry.—We are only concerned with the one file.

11708. Acting Chairman.—In relation to this particular file?

—We have no reason to think otherwise.

11709. You had another point, Mr. Murray? —Yes—there were two other points. One related to a Parliamentary Question regarding the Grant-in-Aid which was answered on the 18th November, 1970, and this is a point that was raised by Deputy FitzGerald. He raised this point in Volume 6 of the Minutes of Evidence—questions Nos. 3075 et cetera. On that occasion he referred to the answer given by the Minister for Finance to a question tabled by him on the 18th November, 1970. The question was as follows:

To ask the Minister for Finance whether the inquiries conducted by officials of the Department of Finance prior to 14th May last into the possible use of public funds for the illegal purchase of arms included an inquiry to the principal Private Secretary to the Minister who had control over the issue of sums from the Northern Ireland relief; if so, what these inquiries elicited; and if not, how these officials were able to assure the Taoiseach that no public funds had been used for arms purchases.

The reply given by the Minister was as follows:

The assurance given by the Taoiseach that no public funds had been used for arms purchases followed discussions with the official described in the question and an examination of the relevant Departmental papers. These papers gave no indication that the Northern Ireland Relief Expenditure Grant-in-Aid had been used to purchase arms. The payees listed in the papers were reputable persons and bodies. I should add that the official described in the question had no control over the issue of sums from the Grant-in-Aid.

I had stated in my evidence to the Committee early in January last that I had not had a discussion with the officer in question, Mr. Fagan, in connection with the assurance I gave the Taoiseach on the 14th May and Mr. Fagan at a later date had also stated that his discussions with the Taoiseach did not touch on the financing of the arms purchase, and therefore Deputy FitzGerald sought further information regarding the discussions with Mr. Fagan which were referred to in the reply to the Parliamentary Question. Mr. Fagan told the Deputy that I had been out of the country at the time of the Parliamentary Question but said that he would consult the person who drafted the reply for the Minister, but however, as this is a Departmental matter, I thought it would be preferable with the Committee’s consent, to deal with this myself before the Committee. I have consulted the officer who prepared the reply for the Minister and he has told me that the discussion referred to in the reply to the Parliamentary Question related to a discussion which I had with Mr. Fagan prior to the assurance I gave to the Taoiseach. I had already told the Committee that I had such a discussion with Mr. Fagan prior, in time, to giving the assurance to the Taoiseach and I would refer, for example, to the replies I gave to questions Nos. 416 and 490, amongst others. These are two examples. On these occasions I made it clear that the discussion did not touch on the question of the financing of the arms or on the guarantee given to the Taoiseach, but what I would like to make clear is that at that stage Mr. Fagan had no reason to think that the Grant-in-Aid moneys had been used for this purpose and therefore could not, and did not in fact raise any question in my mind that these moneys could have been used to finance arms purchases. I am quite confident that if Mr. Fagan had had any suspicion at that time, he would have communicated his suspicions to me. I had no reason therefore, following my discussions with Mr. Fagan, to think in terms of the Grant-in-Aid expenditure when I was considering the assurance I would give to the Taoiseach. Perhaps I should say by way of explanation that matters would have been quite different if prior to my giving the assurance to the Taoiseach, there had been no contact at all between me and Mr. Fagan in regard to any aspect of these transactions. The point is that there was in fact such contact and that this contact did not raise in my mind, for the reasons I have given, any suspicion that the Grant-in-Aid payments were relevant in connection with the assurance given to the Taoiseach.

11710. Deputy FitzGerald.—Could I ask what knowledge the official concerned had of the content of your discussions with Mr. Fagan before he drafted that reply?

—On the lines of the reply I have given he knew that this did not touch on the financing of the arms purchases. He knew that I had a general discussion with Mr. Fagan—a general discussion which, as I explained earlier, did not touch on the financing aspect but on other aspects, for example, the extent to which the Revenue Commissioners were involved and other matters.

11711. He was under no illusions on that score?

—No—under no illusion.

11712. Have you found any indication why he thought it proper to refer to discussions of quite a different character and on a different matter as apparently justifying an assurance on the financing issue?

—I have explained the reasons why a reference to these discussions was considered relevant. This has been the substance of my reply. If there is anything——

11713. Deputy MacSharry.—Does it mean that the official concerned used the discussion you had in May for the answer to the Parliamentary Question in November?

—Yes, that is so. What he said was that the assurance was given following a discussion with Mr. Fagan.

11714. Deputy FitzGerald.—I thought he knew that the discussions did not concern in any way the financing?

—But it was relevant or significant in another connection.

11715. It must have been relevant or significant to something.

—In another connection or aspect of the assurance given to the Taoiseach.

11716. The assurance given to the Taoiseach was that no public funds had been used for arms purchases and yet he thought it proper to justify that assurance and explained it partly in terms of discussions you had with Mr. Fagan which he knew did not concern the financing transaction at all?

—The Parliamentary Question had nothing to do with justifying the assurance given to the Taoiseach.

11717. Once again we are involved in semantics. Mr. Murray does not like the word “justifying”. The fact is that the reply was that “the assurance given to the Taoiseach that no public funds had been used for arms purchases followed discussions with the official described in the question”, but the official who prepared this reply was aware that these discussions did not concern financing. Yet he thought it proper to introduce these discussions in this reply which was related solely to the question of financing.

—I would prefer to use the word “relevant”. He considered it relevant. I consider the reference relevant.

11718. You would not consider it misleading, apart from relevant?

—Certainly not. “Misleading” to my mind connotes in certain circumstances deceit.

11719. In other circumstances it denotes that something actually misled. Would you not agree that the answer, as given, would lead anybody listening to the reply to conclude that the discussions had taken place with the official described with respect to the financing and that, in view of what was said with respect to financing, the assurance given to the Taoiseach was drawn up.

—Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that my function as an official of the Department of Finance is finished with that particular aspect with this particular information which I have given to the Committee as to whether words used by the Minister were misleading or open to wrong inference being drawn—this is a matter which is for the Minister for Finance himself.

11720. That is certainly true but I was concerned whether, in fact, an official in your Department, acting under your authority, in your view acted properly and on what grounds you think he acted properly.

—I have given the grounds already of why I think he acted properly. As to whether he acted properly and as to whether the reply given to the Minister was misleading is a matter which the Minister would be prepared to deal with himself.

11721. You regard it as having been relevant?

—Yes. I have made that quite clear.

11722. Acting Chairman.—You have something else to add, Mr. Murray?

—Just a general matter. On earlier occasions when I appeared before the Committee and when Mr. Fagan appeared before the Committee a number of questions touched on the extent to which the Department was responsible or was not responsible for the misuse or apparent misuse—the wrongful use of these moneys, the point being whether the procedures adopted contributed in any way to that situation. When these points were put to me I dealt with them there and then. I am just taking advantage of this appearance before the Committee to inquire whether the Committee wish to raise any other aspects or similarly related aspects with me now or whether anything which has occurred since then has caused those members who raised these questions to form a different view from that which apparently was the basis of their questions? This is something that the Committee may wish to consider but I wanted to say that I would be very glad to discuss any aspects of it touching on the Department’s responsibility.

11723. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is there anything you would like to add at this stage, or any other aspects you would like to deal with? It may be that our questions were not well-directed. It may be that they did not cover aspects on which you felt you could enlighten us or should be covered. Would you like to add anything?

—I am reasonably satisfied with the replies I have given to these questions on the occasion they were addressed to me and also with the replies given by Mr. Fagan. My prime concern was had anything happened in the interval which would cause the Committee to seek further information on this, and in particular, what I was concerned with was that if the Committee as a whole shared the viewpoint which was reflected in these particular questions that there would be an opportunity for further discussion.

11724. Would you like to say which questions you are referring to?

—I can give the references. Questions No. 473 and 474.

11725. Deputy MacSharry.—Can you read them out?

—I have extracts from them.

11726. Deputy FitzGerald.—It would be long-winded to do that. If Mr. Murray would like to direct our attention to the question we could look at them again and consider whether we would like to come back to these points on a future occasion.

11727. Acting Chairman.—I appreciate your interest and willingness to come here today and I can understand your concern in relation to a number of questions put to you. I think we would be grateful if you had anything further to add to any of the questions or answers which you gave if we take them as they seem important to you.

—I must be careful about this in that in raising this issue I am not betraying any uneasiness about the position that we have previously adopted. It is just that this came up in the relatively early days of the Committee. I took a line at that stage. In essence I have not anything to add to it. My viewpoint was contained in a number of replies and this is not always very satisfactory but I still hold to the essence. Certainly, the minimum I would like is that if that viewpoint is, despite my replies and what has happened since, shared by the Committee generally, that there would be an opportunity for further discussion on it. Perhaps in that context I might give some of the references.

11728. Deputy FitzGerald.—That would be very helpful.

—The questions are Nos. 473 and 474, Nos. 543 and 550 and Questions 2934 to 2937.

11729. I would suggest that we have a look at these in due course and consider whether we would like to come back to Mr. Murray on any point for clarification. Perhaps it is a long time since we asked the questions and, therefore, we would need a little time to reflect on them.

—Perhaps in that general context I might reply to the evidence given by the former Minister for Finance, Mr. Haughey, and to statements made by him in his replies to Questions Nos. 9197 and 9331.

11730. That is a little different because in the first instance it is a question of whether we would like further clarification on any points while, in the second instance, Mr. Murray may have some comments that he would like to, volunteer at this point?

—No, I was merely giving an example to indicate what I had in mind when I said by reference to developments since I replied to these earlier questions.

11731. Acting Chairman.—Perhaps if the witness is willing to come back at a later stage, Deputies will have had time to read these questions to which he as referred?

—Yes.

11732. Deputy FitzGerald.—There is one point that should be raised now although, in doing so, I may be forgetting an answer given already: whether Mr. Murray would like to say anything more about the relationship with the Red Cross. There was a question of doubt here but at the moment I cannot recall whether it was clarified fully. This was whether the nature of the payments to the Red Cross was a payment to them under Section 2 of the Red Cross Act or whether it was the channelling of money through them. We may have discussed this since we saw the Red Cross witnesses?

—You discussed it with the previous Minister and took a very definite line on this. Since he was the person primarily concerned with this, I would not add to or subtract from anything he said.

11733. You cannot throw any further light on that? There is nothing in your records on it?

—No, none at all. You will recall that the decisions in the early days which set the general pattern for the relations with the Red Cross were decisions taken on the basis of discussions between the then Minister and the Red Cross. The Department were not involved then.

11734. Could you say anything in respect of other payments to the Red Cross—whether in other cases the procedure adopted was, in your view, one of payment to them under Section 2 or one of channelling funds through them?

—When you talk about other payments to the Red Cross, do you mean other payments from the Grant-in-Aid?

11735. I mean payments to the Irish Red Cross for particular emergency relief purposes in other countries on other occasions?

—Do you mean payments from the Grant-in-Aid administered by the Department of Defence?

11736. Yes, normally they would be.

—I could not answer that because that Grant-in-Aid is administered by the Department of Defence and, therefore, I would have no function in relation to it.

11737. This is the only case where money has gone from the Department of Finance to the Red Cross?

—So far as I know—I cannot speak for five or ten years ago—but I am fairly positive that it was.

11738. As it was handled personally by the Minister, the nature of the payment is something that was determined by him and on which you cannot give us any further guidance?

——I think he has made it fairly clear that he was not primarily concerned with how it related in a strict way to Section 2 of the Red Cross Act.

11739. That is our trouble because, in law, it must have been either one or the other. He seemed not to mind which it was or not to know which it was and you are saying that nobody else could know. That creates an extraordinary situation in regard to public money?

—May I say, although being completely irrelevant, that one of the questions is that whether a line had been taken one way or another on that, it is not very easy to see what difference it would have made in actual fact.

11740. The difference would be that we are concerned with what happened and what authority there was for what happened and where responsibility lay for exercising authority. If the payment was made to the Red Cross under Section 2, the Red Cross would be responsible, no doubt, with the Minister and the Department of Finance but would themselves carry responsibility for what happened to the money. However, if the money was merely channelled through the Red Cross— whether that was a proper procedure—they would not carry the same responsibility. Therefore, we must establish this if we are to do our job. We seem to be somewhat frustrated by the vagueness of all concerned. There has been contradictory evidence from the Irish Red Cross, evidence that was changed in the course of question and answer. We had very vague answers from the Minister and you cannot give us any guidance?

11741. Deputy MacSharry.—It was not a vague answer from the Minister. He accepted full responsibility for it and the full authority.

—That is right.

11742. Deputy FitzGerald.—My recollection may be at fault but I do not recall that he made it clear whether the payment was made under Section 2.

11743. Deputy MacSharry.—He was Minister for Finance and accepted full responsibility.

11744. Deputy FitzGerald.—With respect, he might accept full responsibility but if he paid the money under Section 2 and accepted full responsibility for paying it. it would then be the responsibility of the Red Cross to disburse it. That is what I am trying to establish but we have not had as much help on this as we might have hoped for from everybody?

—If I cannot be of any help on this I hope the Committee will appreciate that I am in no position to help.

11745. Deputy MacSharry.—That rules Nos. 542 and 543.

The Committee adjourned.