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, 3 Feabhra, 1971

Wednesday, 3rd February, 1971

The Committee met at 11 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.

Examination of Captain James J. Kelly continued.

4727. Chairman.—Captain Kelly, in a moment Deputy Burke will be taking you on to examination. Before we do that, I want to ask you two questions, more or less to set the thing going and to give the members an opportunity to enlarge on these questions, if they want to, as the matter goes round the room. Could you tell me in respect of the Ann O’Brien account, was most of the £6,500 of the Ann O’Brien account passed or transmitted by you to Séamus Brady for his activities in respect of the publication Voice of the North?

—I gave him I would say probably all of the money he got, that was £4,000 or £5,000. This was in accordance with what the Northern people wished to be done.

4728. Who directed you to make the payments to Mr. Brady?

—I gave—the Northern people wanted the thing financed and I understood it was the way it had been arranged, so I just handed over the money, and it was given to me to hand over.

4729. The directive did not come from the actual account owner in whose name it was, Ann O’Brien?

—No, it came from the people in the North, who wanted it to be done.

4730. Not Mr. Haughey?

—No.

4731. The second question I want to ask you is—I think it is safe to say that you would agree that the Baggot Street account was manipulated so as to provide funds to a person within the jurisdiction for which it began the purposes, that is Mr. Brady?

—Mr. Brady?

4732. The answer would be “yes”?

—The answer would be the Northern people had funds and they wanted to finance the Voice of the North and make these funds available.

4733. Through the manipulation of the Baggot Street account?

—Yes.

4734. It was similarly manipulated to provide funds for persons outside the jurisdiction for the importation of arms?

—The money was used for the importation of arms, certainly.

4735. Could you tell me this: were any funds provided in a similar fashion, the manipulation of the Baggot Street account, to a person or persons within the jurisdiction for any purposes other than the Red Cross type of relief?

—Any other?

4736. Any purposes other than the Red Cross type of relief?

—No.

4737. I will put the question to you again, perhaps you will grasp it. Were any funds provided through the manipulation of the Baggot Stteet account to any person or persons within the jurisdiction for any purposes other than the Red Cross type of relief?

—The position is this, in the two subsidiary accounts, one was used primarily for the arms importation, and the second account was used primarily for the Voice of the North, and the moneys were paid for these operations. But otherwise there would have been no money paid.

4738. Were any moneys paid from these funds to persons within the jurisdiction for purposes other than Red Cross work?

—Other than what I have said, no, as far as I am aware, anyhow. Unless expenses, possibly I got these expenses on the Continent, that sort of thing. Any expenses that might arise that way, OK, they were paid, but otherwise nothing.

4739. To your knowledge, was any money provided from these funds or the manipulation of these funds to a person or persons within the jurisdiction for the purchase of arms?

—No money was provided within the jurisdiction for the purchase of arms.

4740. Deputy R. Burke.—Captain, at what date did you retire from the Army?

—1st May was the date of my retirement.

4741. 1970?

—Yes.

4742. Were you awarded a pension under the Defence Forces Pension Scheme?

—I was awarded a pension and a gratuity some time after the Arms Trial finished.

4743. Dating from when?

—Dating from 1st May. I got all the money I was entitled to.

4744. Therefore, I take it that such a pension and gratuity would be confirmation of the Army’s estimation of your good conduct at all times?

—I would accept this, yes.

4745. If there were any question of allegations of misappropriation of any kind, would these affect the question of your pension?

—I would imagine so.

4746. You are satisfied the fact that you got your pension and gratuity is in a sense confirmation of the proper carrying out of your activities?

—It seems my pension was held until the result of the Arms Trial and once the result of this came out my pension was paid shortly afterwards which would seem to indicate that the matter was cleared up and that there was no question of any misappropriation or otherwise.

4747. Mr. Seamus Brady in his submission to the Committee has said that he received various sums of money from you towards the cost of publishing the Voice of the North and some of those cheques were drawn on the Ann O’Brien account, page 11, and some in cash. From what source did this cash come? This is at the bottom of page 11?

—Some of it came from the George Dixon account by transfer and some was possibly transferred from the main account or was lodged by someone.

4748. On whose authority can you tell us were the payments made?

—The Northern people who were running this were interested in having this publication subsidised and it was so subsidised. I am not completely au fait with the background to the development of the Voice of the North or how it came into existence but I think there was some discussion early on as to whether the Government Information Bureau would support it or not. There was some talk whether it should be done officially or unofficially.

4749. Do you know whether Mr. Brady has obtained money for this publication from any other source?

—I would not say so.

4750. One sum of money was paid to Mr. Brady, £8,000 on the 17th November, 1969 but the first withdrawal from the Ann O’Brien account was on 19th November. Have you any explanation you can offer for this?

—All the money as far as I know was paid from the Ann O’Brien account although in the beginning I think some of the money was paid in cash, whether that ties in with it or not. The first payment you say was £1,000 cash on 19th November?

4751. Yes?

—And he got his first money?

4752. On the 17th November? Would it have come out of the £1,500 from the George Dixon account drawn on 17th November? Is that a possible explanation?

—I suppose it possibly could be. I think the first payments were made in cash anyhow, the cash that was given to me to give them.

4753. Was this publication in your view authorised by the Government?

—Certainly as far as I knew. In the beginning I know there was some discussion about it anyhow. I am not too sure what exactly evolved.

4754. Yes. You have no idea who authorised payments to Mr. Brady for the Voice of the North?

—All I know is that the payments to the Voice of the North came from people who were controlling the accounts in Northern Ireland. They wanted this subsidised so they passed money for this purpose and I passed the money to him.

4755. To go back to the month of August would you regard the month of August in a sense as a watershed in Irish history and politics?

—That is probably correct.

4756. Did you feel at the time that perhaps even the Cabinet was to some extent split in their relationship to this affair, some who might have what one might call republican tendencies, tending to take a particular line, others who were perhaps not republicans or so called republicans taking another line?

—I do not know at that stage.

4757. Did this message come through to you at any point?

—I do not know. At that stage I do not think I would have been aware of it. Afterwards I gathered there was some discussion.

4758. How soon afterwards?

—Maybe a month. Around that period.

4759. Would this feeling or knowledge you got about this possible difference of opinion have in any way affected your subsequent actions up to May, 1970?

—I do not think so because I carried on doing my intelligence work, reporting it, and when it came to a stage when it seemed likely that arms would be imported I went direct to the Minister for Defence.

4760. Would you have listed the Minister for Defence in what you might have regarded as the more republican category of Ministers?

—I could not say that except I know he met delegations from Northern Ireland on 3rd March. The best way to describe it is that afterwards one member of the delegation in my house said that the Minister for Defence was very republican, that he was so republican that he really made him suspicious. This was the comment he made at the time.

4761. Chairman.—I am not quite clear as to the relevance of your question.

4762. Deputy R. Burke.—My question is relevant in this sense, that if there can be shown to be a difference of opinion in Cabinet the Captain might very well have felt that he had some authority, some excuse, for his conduct in view of this—caucus is perhaps too strong a word to use. This is the main line of my question. There is a question of a change of allegiance, which was brought up in his submission yesterday.

4763. Chairman.—Carry on.

4764. Deputy R. Burke.—This question you put to us in your submission yesterday about a change of allegiance, on further reading I find that it refers to a change of allegiance attributed to you by the Minister. Would you like to elaborate on that?

—I can give my own personal interpretation of it. This change of allegiance was put forward possibly as a subtle lie to more or less excuse a change of attitude on the part of the Minister for Defence, and I find it most disgraceful and annoying as an Army officer, because I was always loyal to the Government and the authorities down here at all times and operated on this basis. This change of allegiance was used to try to excuse a change of attitude by the Minister and the only conclusion I can come to is that it was being used to blacken me or to smear me, and it had absolutely no basis in truth.

4765. So that my feeling that the question referred to a change by the Minister for Defence from one tendency to another was not exactly what you had in mind?

—The point I was trying to make as briefly as possible was that I was accused of a change of allegiance and last night I put forward the point that if there was any substance in this change of allegiance accusation why should I go to the Minister for Defence, who was the proper authority, and inform him of what was going on? As he admitted himself in court, he knew what was going on, that this importation of arms was on. He admitted that I briefed him on 25th March. He went further and admitted that I told him there would be a need for action to find out where these arms were. If I had changed my allegiance, as the Minister suggested, to people in the North and was working for them, how in the name of heaven would there be any logic in my going and briefing the Minister on what was actually taking place?

4766. At the top of page 246 in Book No. 6 there is a statement that people were fooled into thinking they were operating on Government authority and that they worked with you in good faith, and so on. I am at a loss to understand how they could have been so fooled. Was there any meeting at which they were given categorical assurances which were later reneged upon?

—The position was that these people were led to believe that this importation of arms would be undertaken down here and that these arms would be brought in and stored down here. They were led to believe that there were contacts with the Minister for Defence, for one. Also, I know that on occasions these people met An Taoiseach, they put their propositions to him, they asked for arms, and they were not refused. That is as far as I recall.

4767. Were you present?

—I was not present. I met these people afterwards and they told me what took place.

4768. So in fact you only heard them say this?

—This is true, and when the thing broke on 1st May I made it my business to go back and meet some of these people.

4769. On page 246, paragraph 3211, I get the impression that there was a swing-over from relief to arms. Can you document the change-over? Hod did it happen, and why? Why did something that started off as a relief operation for people homeless and without food swing over to a situation where they wanted arms?

—I would not say there was a swing-over. They wanted them in conjunction with each other. All the time after August 1969 people from the North of Ireland were looking for arms for defensive purposes, their thesis being that they could be under attack again and that they would be left defenceless. This applied to large areas in Northern Ireland. Delegations from various areas came south and all of them put forward this thesis. The Grant-in-Aid was obtained and it was not a swing from the Grant-in-Aid to arms. The first thing people looked for was arms. I know this myself because I know they came down on the weekend after 14th August looking for arms.

4770. Page 249, paragraph 3260, at the bottom of the page:

This was reported to the relevant authority, it came to the notice of Mr. Gibbons, and, as far as I know, it came to the notice of Taoiseach Lynch.

“As far as I know”—this is important. Can you give us anything substantial to bear out this point?

—This concerned a meeting in Bailieboro’ which I had with various representatives from Northern Ireland and at which various things were discussed—training, and so on. I reported this in the normal way to the Director of Intelligence. Some time later, three or maybe four weeks, the Director of Intelligence came back to me and said that he had had a complaint from the Minister. It was conveyed to me that the Minister got this complaint from An Taoiseach, that this Bailieboro’ meeting, as far as I can gather, was some type of attempt to subvert Northern people and that a lot of money had been spent on drink, and that kind of thing. I told the director what had happened and I assume he told the Minister, who I assume reported back to An Taoiseach, but I cannot say categorically that he did. I know that afterwards when I had a meeting with Mr. Gibbons he referred to this incident two or three times and the general impression I got was that he was conveying to me that the Taoiseach knew what was going on all along, and furthermore that the information that got to the Taoiseach was wrong information.

4771. At the top of page 250, in answer to the Chairman of this committee, you mentioned that the general attitude of the Northern people was that the Government was letting them down again. This was the general attitude of these people? How can we know how they formed such an impression which would lead them to feel that they were let down?

—You see, this training was organised in Derry and it was arranged that people would get training. In the first week nine people, I think, got training. On the Saturday there were 20 people about to come in, and the general idea was that there would be a com paratively large group, 100 or 200, finally trained. It would be something in case of a breakdown occurring and these people in the North who were concerned with this knew this was taking place and felt that they were being let down; and as you are probably aware, there are people in Northern Ireland who have this feeling that the Government down here throughout the years has let them down on occasions. This is a feeling that they have, and they felt that this was the same thing, a recurrence, so far as they were concerned.

4772. Then at No. 3518, in reference to the Minister for Defence at that time:

—He was a member of a Government and any questions he wanted to ask would have been answered and were answered.

—Yes.

4773. Do I take it from this that he did ask specific questions about these operations and that these were answered fully?

—Any he asked me were answered fully, without any hedging whatsoever.

4774. Did he ask questions?

—Yes, he did ask questions, and I would know he would ask questions probably to elucidate and we would discuss what was happening, discuss the personalities involved in coming down here, the personalities involved in the North, and go into the thing in fairly good detail.

4775. You say at 3585 that you were “forced out of the Army because I suspected the machinations of the Minister for Defence”. If you were forced out of the Army, how come that you were allowed pension, gratuity and so on? Is “forced” not too strong a word in that context?

—Well, the choice of words, I do not know whether it was correct or not, but as far as I was concerned I was forced into the position that I had to get out because I realised there was something very funny happening, or at least my conclusion was such, and because of various things that had happened, say, inside the previous week I had become rather suspicious about what people were doing and intended doing and I could see myself as being caught in the middle; and my feeling actually was that if I had stayed in the Army past that date I could conceivably have been held incommunnicado with the Army and be forced into the position that I could say nothing to clear myself, and possibly I would be used as a person——I do not know—to support some point of view that to me would be incorrect.

4776. Yesterday, in your submission, you mentioned something about alleged collusion between the Taoiseach and the Leader of the Opposition?

—Yes.

4777. I think this is based on an allegation that a piece of paper contained three names?

—That is right.

4778. And that in fact only two were used How are you in a position to know what was in the piece of paper?

—Deputy Richie Ryan in Dáil Éireann made a statement to this effect, which I read last night. This leads me to the conclusion——

4779. But Deputy Richie Ryan, to the best of my knowledge, did not say three names or two names?

—I think he did. He said Mr. Gibbons’ name was on it.

4780. Well, could we have the reference?

—Yes. I am sorry, I have not got it marked.

4781. If I were to ask you to accept that there were not, would you be prepared so to accept?

—I would; but the point is that is the way it struck me when I read this reference, which I want to bring out here.

4782. The trouble is, though, that statements of this kind which are based on feelings or vague recollections and so on should not be put so strongly as you put it in your submission. The word “collusion” is rather strong?

—The reason I said “collusion” was that it was the only feasible answer that presented itself to me at the time. I would like to get this reference.

4783. Deputy Keating.—I wonder would it not be better to pause for three or four minutes to give Captain Kelly a chance to hunt for this, rather than try to listen and hunt at the same time.

4784. Chairman.—Very good.

Captain Kelly.—Yes. It is at Page 797 of the 8th May Dáil Report and I just quoted this relevant bit. There is this reference to An Taoiseach:

—What he did not know was that Deputy Cosgrave knew what was going on. He did not know, but he knows now, that Deputy Cosgrave and a Dublin newspaper received Garda Síochána notepaper with the name of Deputy Gibbons on it, associating him with this sordid transaction.

To me this clearly indicates that Deputy Gibbons’ name was on it. Afterwards, Deputy Gibbons says “An anonymous note”—it was on this anonymous note—and to me it seems very strange that the names of two of the Ministers should be read out from this anonymous note and my name should be read out from this anonymous note and that Deputy Gibbons’ name should not.

4785. Deputy R. Burke.—But, you see, would you agree Deputy Ryan could have found out something subsequently which led him to make the statement?

—All I can do is accept what he says here, and I think he says it categorically and it is not denied by Mr. Gibbons. He more or less admits it by his statement “An anonymous note”. He did not deny it. And there is probably something before it here.

4786. In any event, would you agree that the word “collusion” is probably not the correct word to use in the circumstances?

—I do not know. The conclusion I came to— and I can only come to a conclusion—it was also announced in the Dáil that night that Mr. Cosgrave had gone to the Taoiseach and the only conclusion I could come to was, whatever discussion took place, on the advice of the Taoiseach or whatever discussions took place, that it was arranged that this name should not be mentioned.

4787. That is your interpretation of this matter?

—That is the only interpretation that presents itself to me.

4788. Can I take you to your first trip with an interpreter to the Continent?

—Yes.

4789. Who introduced the two of you, you and the interpreter?

—Mr. Blaney introduced the interpreter.

4790. Was this the first time you had met him?

—It was the first time.

4791. What dates did he accompany you to the Continent?

—He accompanied me to the Continent on the 1st April trip.

4792. Where did you go?

—We went to Antwerp, where I wanted to find out what was going on as regards these, at this time, supposed arms. I had no success and so I decided to go to Hamburg to see Mr. Schleuter and get it from him exactly what was going on. So we went there, stopping half way over-night; and then I had this order to come back home.

4793. With whom were you in contact at that time?

—My wife rang me. They probably rang her first to tell her where I was. She knew where I was anyway.

4794. Did you get in touch with the Minister at that time?

—Not at that time. I got in touch with him later. I got the order to return home because of trouble that had taken place in Northern Ireland and because it might be necessary to distribute arms to civilians up there if the situation deteriorated.

4795. You met Herr Schleuter on that occasion?

—I met him on the following day.

4796. Did he offer you any extra arms or ammunition over and above what you had there?

—He did, yes.

4797. What type of armament.

—He had 400 sub-machine guns readily available. I said ammunition the last day, I do not think there was any other ammunition if I am correct.

4798. This is the occasion for which you have the cheque for £8,500?

—Yes, that is correct.

4799. Last night you said in your submission or in some evidence, you made a statement about the previous Minister for Justice’s situation in all this, a breakdown, you used, in communication between the various branches.

—That is correct.

4800. Could you elaborate on that?

—This was evidence given in the Four Courts. He could not get the documentation, so he was at a disadvantage. However, he was asked if it had come to his notice that I was concerned in the importation of arms and he said, “yes”. I do not think he said it in a very categorical way, but he said he had some information to that effect, that it had come to his notice. And it came to him, that important point, some months prior to April or in the months prior to April. He was worried about a lack of co-ordination between the Special Branch and Army Intelligence, and he approached the Taoiseach and Mr. Gibbons, and a sub-committee was set up to sort out this matter. I think he said that we were at cross-purposes.

4801. Coming towards the conclusion: Would it be a fair summing up of your situaion, do you feel, that in a sense you were made a fall guy in a power struggle which was going on above your head?

—This is the only conclusion I can come to.

4802. Deputy R. Burke.—That is all, Mr. Chairman.

4803. Deputy E. Collins.—Were you aware of Government announcements in connection with the £100,000 which was to be set aside for relief—the red book.

—The Government anouncement, an official announcement?

4804. The Government Information Bureau made some announcements.

—Where would that be?

4805. Paragraph I of the red book.

—“The Government at a meeting on 16th August, 1969, decided …” No, I would not have been aware of that at that stage.

4806. Or of the announcement on the 21st August. A fund was set up.

—I would not be specifically aware or I would not have a specific recollection of these things. But I knew that money was being paid and that there was money available at a certain stage.

4807. You were not aware of the phraseology used in those announcements?

—I was not aware of the exact phraseology. I knew people were looking for assistance, aid and all types of things, and I knew there was some money available to aid them.

4808. Were you there when it was announced that aid would be available for the relief of victims of the disturbances?

—Yes.

4809. And that would be administered mainly by the Irish Red Cross Society?

—Yes.

4810. When did you come across the fact that there was going to be £100,000, a substantial amount of money, available for relief?

—As regards the £100,000, the exact figure, I think I came across it fairly late on. I could not give you the exact time. I know in August, 1969, for instance—I have no specific recollection of the announcement there.

4811. When did it come to your notice that the Government were sponsoring money for the relief of distress in the North?

—I knew from the Northern people, they were getting money for the relief of distress and I knew that apart from what is being investigated here, other people were getting money.

4812. How did it come to your notice?

—I was aksed about one organisation getting £20,000 and what type of organisation it was, and I gave my opinion on it.

4813. And you discussed the matter with the Director of Intelligence, that it came to your notice?

—£20,000?

4814. And the general position?

—I discussed it with the Director of Intelligence.

4815. In relation to the money?

—Yes, he would know about the money.

4816. And you discussed it with him?

—Yes, I have no particular recollection, but as the thing progressed I told him what I knew.

4817. And you discussed about the disbursement of money with the Director of Intelligence.

—I would tell him where the money was coming from for the arms.

4818. The Government?

—The Government money, I do not know, I believe I did not go into great detail on that. I think there was certain knowledge that the money was being given for grants-in-aid.

4819. In relation to the Clones account, you knew of its existence?

—Yes.

4820. Before it was opened?

—No, it was opened, I think, on 9th October. After it was opened I found this account was in Clones.

4821. Did you have any part to play in the operation of that account?

—I had no part in the operation as far as I am aware. I would certainly have no part in handling the account or anything else.

4822. Did you disburse any cash?

—No, I had little to do with the operation of the account at all. The only one I had in mind was I might have been asked to get some money into it. I do not think I was.

4823. Sorry?

—I might have been asked to get some money into it; I do not believe I was.

4824. You are aware that there were two payments into this account, one into the Ann O’Brien and the other to the George Dixon account.

—When I got this book here, I saw more or less it was clarified. I must say I have no—for instance, I did not know of the £11,450 I gave in myself until I saw it here.

4825. Yes, some of which came from the Baggot Street account and some of which came from——

—This would seem so.

4826. You have no knowledge of it?

—I have no definite knowledge of it, of the figure as such. I knew that the account changed from Clones to Baggot Street.

4827. In relation to the Baggot Street account, what part did you play in the opening of this account?

—It was put to me that the people would like to move from Clones for certain reasons, one of them was certainly security. I went and inquired where a suitable bank would be in Dublin and it was Mr. Fagan who asked where this money should be.

4828. And you went into the bank?

—I did not handle the opening of the account.

4829. Did you not take a mandate form from the bank manager or assistant manager?

—No, this came up before, and when I saw the mandate mentioned in evidence I did not realise what it was. I do not think that I had anything to do with the mechanics of opening the account. The people concerned opened it themselves.

4830. You did not take a mandate to be signed?

—No.

4831. Did you take away a cheque book?

—I do not think so.

4832. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Walsh, the actual manager?

—I think the first time probably I met Mr. Walsh—I have been thinking about this—was when I brought him signatures for the subsidiary accounts.

4833. Chairman.—Perhaps Captain Kelly has not seen the manuscript. Does the Deputy wish him to see the mandate to refresh his memory? Would you like to see it, Captain?

—I would but actually it means nothing to me.

4834. Chairman.—You might remember it if you saw it.

4835. Deputy E. Collins.—The point is there is a complete conflict of evidence as between what you are saying and other evidence we have before us in relation to this.

4836. Chairman.—We are giving you a photostat copy of the mandate and it might help your memory to recall whether you saw it before or not?

—I have no recollection of seeing anything like this, any formal document like this at all.

4837. Deputy E. Collins.—You never handled it?

—No.

4838. You did not take it away from the bank?

—No, I have no recollection of it. That is all I can say. If I was asked to do it by the Northern people I would have done it but I have absolutely no recollection of doing it.

4839. Chairman.—That would have been given out by the bank?

—That is all I can say about it really.

4840. Chairman.—Right.

4841. Deputy E. Collins.—In relation to the subsidiary accounts at the bank did you take away any mandate form?

—I saw no form like that before.

4842. Did you see perhaps one like this at any stage? (form shown to witness).

—I do not think so. My recollection of the thing is that I brought signatures to the bank for the subsidiary accounts. Even then I could not be definite.

4843. Would that be one of them there? (form shown to witness).

—Yes.

4844. You brought that to the bank?

—Yes.

4845. That is the George Dixon one. Did you bring the Ann O’Brien mandate to the bank?

—Yes.

4846. You did not take it out of the bank? You just brought it back to the bank?

—I brought signatures to the bank. For instance I got nothing like what you have there.

4847. I want to speak very specifically about the operation of those accounts. If you do not mind I might dwell on it for a short time: There was £6,500 altogether paid out of the Ann O’Biren account?

—Yes.

4848. Did Mr. Brady receive all of the £6,500?

—No. He received something over £5,000 as far as I remember.

4849. And the balance, can you account for it?

—I have a recollection at one stage that there was £600 in cash collected by someone from Northern Ireland which went back there.

4850. You do not know for what purpose?

—No. They would use it for their purpose. I do not know.

4851. What was the purpose of the publication of the Voice of the North?

—What was the purpose of it? I do not think I am in a position to answer this question. As far as I know this publication was discussed I think by what has been referred to as the propaganda unit at one stage. They were thinking of producing some publication on those lines.

4852. It would be an anti-Northern Government publication?

—I would not say an anti-Northern Government. I was never in on any discussion as to what type of thing it was. I suppose it would have put forward a line which possibly might have been anti-Unionist anyhow.

4853. Did you discuss the Voice of the North with your Director of Intelligence at any stage?

—I am sure I told him it was operating and taking place.

4854. Did he give you any directive in relation to it?

—No. This was just something that the Northern people as it turned out were financing eventually and this is where I came into it. I just handed over the finance for them.

4855. In relation to the George Dixon account altogether I think there was £41,450 paid out of this account. You said this was mainly used for the purchase of arms?

—Yes.

4856. There is a discrepancy of £11,000 plus in what you said was paid in arms to the Continent, which was £30,000.

—This was my estimate at this stage.

4857. Can you account for the rest of it?

—I could not account for the rest of it because I was not handling the thing. Some of those moneys were withdrawn that I did not even know about at certain stages but I know that those people were spending money. I know people went to America, for instance.

4858. Some people who withdrew money from this account went to America?

—Yes.

4859. Do you know for what purpose?

—They went for the purpose I suppose of finding out what support they would get in America and possibly they were interested in arms if they were available.

4860. To your knowledge were any of those people members of subversive organisations?

—No, they would be people from the North who were concerned with defensive operations up there.

4861. Were there any people who were connected with the operation of this account members of the IRA for instance?

—I could not say so. I do not think so.

4862. Surely an Intelligence Officer like you would be aware of who was and who was not a member of a subversive organisation?

—On occasions it came to my notice. I was told that certain people were. However everyone was mixed up, all types of people in the minority population were operating on committees and so on. Just to take a case in point you have John Kelly and he had been in jail previously for his activities.

4863. You may use a code in relation to the identification of any person.

—This is true. He has said this in public himself anyhow so it does not matter. He was not a member of an illegal organisation or subversive organisation at that stage. He was acting in his capacity as an organising secretary for the defence committees in Northern Ireland.

4864. I accept that. I am not questioning that.

—Many of the people were on such committees of one category or another.

4865. I want to be quite specific in the question I am asking you. Were there any people who were members of a subversive organisation and who to your knowledge received cash payments or payments of any kind from the George Dixon account or any other account?

—No, not to my knowledge.

4866. Were you aware that there were attempts to import arms into the country in the period October 1969 onwards?

—From October 1969. At various stages there were all sorts of rumours as regards arms. All of them I knew about never came to fruition.

4867. As Intelligence Officer you had some knowledge of attempts?

—Yes, I had knowledge of various attempts. Attempts in Northern Ireland for instance also came to my notice not alone by what one might call the minority but also by other people.

4868. Did you report the matter to your Director?

—Everything was reported. I reported on various aspects of the situation in Northern Ireland. This thing here was only one aspect. Actually if I may say so the money in relation to the work I was doing was a secondary, a minor, aspect. All I did as regards the money was if those people wanted cheques changed I changed them. For instance it happened on occasions that they came down and the banks were closed. They left the cheque with me to change and they collected the money again.

4869. You said that you brought £10,000 to the Continent?

—That is correct, yes.

4870. Do you know who brought the balance of the money?

—I would not know all the people who brought money but I would know some of them.

4871. Were there many other people involved?

—There were not, it was limited.

4872. Five? Ten?

—Less than that—three, possibly.

4873. The actual opening of the main account in Baggot Street: in your evidence you say you approached Mr. Fagan and told him that the Northern people wanted the account transferred to a Dublin account.

Yes, to an account in Dublin.

4874. He understood this to mean that the account would be opened in the same names as the account in Clones?

—Yes.

4875. Was this done? Was it actually opened in those names?

—No, it was not opened in the same names.

4876. Did you report this matter to Mr. Fagan? After all, he was to a certain extent interested, to say the very least?

—This came up also last night. I had at the back of my mind an idea of talking to one of the holders of the account after the opening of the account and asking him about the names, what the actual names were. So I do not think that when this account was opened I knew the names that were used, because I know I asked a person from the North about it afterwards— what were these names, and that sort of thing.

4877. You were aware that the moneys which were going into this account were going through the Red Cross?

—I was aware of that, yes.

4878. And were in effect Government moneys?

—Yes.

4879. Would it not have been proper for you to be careful about the names used on the accounts, therefore?

—I do not think this question arose. These people were worried from the security point of view and they thought it would be better not to use their own names. The committee was quite a genuine committee.

4880. I accept that, but I am trying to find out why the account was not opened in the same names as you understood it would be?

—As you realise, at that stage things were not very good in the North and people did not want their names exposed if it could be avoided.

4881. Did you give an undertaking to Mr. Fagan that the names would be the same as Clones?

—I do not think so. That they would be the same names as in Clones? I probably did, I think I did—that the fictitious names were the same?

4882. That the operators of the account would be the same names?

—I think it happened at some stage.

4883. You gave the undertaking?

—Yes.

4884. And were they the same names as were used in Clones?

—As far as I know they were. I knew that the same people, or the same committee, were operating the accounts, and the actual names would be the same. That was my understanding.

4885. Now I want to turn away from the accounts for a second. What events led up to the meeting in Bailieboro’?

—I had met numerous people in the North when I had been up there previously, on 14th September or thereabouts. I met them as individuals and in small groups, representatives of various communities all over the North, from Derry to Belfast. They all had various points of view so it was thought better that we should meet them as a group and work out exactly what they were about.

4886. Did you organise the actual meeting?

—I did not organise it, but I would meet these people and we would discuss this.

4887. Did you get permission from your Director of Intelligence?

—The Director of Intelligence knew about this meeting, yes.

4888. Were there members of any subversive organisation at this meeting?

—There were no subversives. All these people represented various defence committees, and so on, in the North.

4889. There were no member of a subversive organisation at this meeting?

—I could not say that.

4890. Surely, as an Intelligence Officer, you would have been au fait with the identities of subversive people?

—You see, once again we are bringing it back to the analogy of the man I mentioned previously. Naturally you would have some people of this type interested in helping out their local communities and they would have been called upon to so assist. So it is possible that some had such a background. Whether or not they were members of an organisation as such is another point. I do not think they were, but you would have to go into a lot of other matters that I do not feel sure about.

4891. Did you discuss the Bailieboro’ meeting with any Minister of State?

—I got £500 to finance this. I met Colonel Hefferon and Mr. Haughey and there was some question of expenses, and I got the £500.

4892. Through the Director of Intelligence?

—Yes.

4893. What discussion did you have with Mr. Haughey in relation to Bailieboro’?

—I just told him the meeting was taking place and that it would probably cost some money. I do not know whether it was Colonel Hefferon or myself who brought it up. I was asked to estimate the amount, and I estimated that 15 or 20 would come and said about £150. So I was given this money to cover the meeting and expenses in the future.

4894. Had you any discussion before or after the meeting with other Ministers of State about the Bailieboro’ meeting?

—No.

4895. Only with Mr. Haughey?

—That is all.

4896. It was from this meeting apparently that—I think this was the word you used— the genesis of the arms importation emerged?

—What happened here was that we got a consensus of opinion from these people and naturally at that stage they were primarily concerned with getting training. As I said earlier on, this question of the training that had been cancelled took up a lot of time at the meeting. They put forward their submission that they would like to get further training. One thing that emerged from the meeting was that these people were concerned about this training, and if they got arms they would be for defensive purposes only. They had no other thought and this emerged very clearly from the meeting.

4897. I think there was a complaint from the Department of Justice as a result of this, was there not?

—That is correct.

4898. What was the basis of that complaint?

—This is the one we were talking about previously; I think it was Deputy Burke who spoke about it. Some weeks after the meeting took place Colonel Hefferon came to me and said Mr. Gibbons had been approached by An Taoiseach concerning this Bailieboro’ meeting and, as far as I could gather, had been approached by the Department of Justice. There was some suggestion that this meeting was sort of not above board. So I gave my report.

4899. To what extent is it not above board?

—When I got it, it was that this was something sort of making here an attempt to subvert people. I just could not understand it, really.

4900. Subvert people?

—That an attempt had been made. For instance, the mention of drinks, that these people had a lot of drink—

4901. That would be the least of our worries, I would think.

—That they were trying to get them into something.

4902. By whom? And for what purpose?

—By the people who paid for this. And I gave the correct report of the meeting and that was accepted. I heard nothing further about it until I met Mr. Gibbons later.

4903. You were not aware of the actual text of Mr. Berry’s complaint.

—One of the reasons, this is the question of the £35 that comes up, the meeting I had, at the meeting I think there were about fifteen people present. Some stayed overnight and they had meals, and this sort of thing. The whole thing cost £25. So this more or less clarifies any suggestion that there was any——

4904. Of course the basis for Mr. Berry’s complaint is that they might be members of a subversive organisation at this meeting?

—I do not think so.

4905. Perhaps you do not know?

—No. The people who were there, some of them, their names appeared in the paper at that stage and they were identified in a public manner.

4906. So that could not have been the basis for Mr. Berry’s complaint?

—I think it cannot be explained. Where his explanation would come from I have no idea.

4907. The training at Fort Dunree, did this arise out of the Bailieboro’ meeting?

—No. This training at Fort Dunree was cancelled on the Friday before the Bailieboro’ meeting. It was cancelled because there was some rumour or report that the Press were going to publish it.

4908. Who organised the training at Fort Dunree?

—I think this was organised by the Minister, and so on.

4909. The Minister for——?

—Defence. I am not definitely sure of this, but it was officially arranged.

4910. Were you aware that this was about to take place?

—No. I became aware that this training was taking place and I was——

4911. The people who were to receive training were the same people as the members of the defence committees?

—Well, I do not know that one should——. I met them. I knew where they came from, I know them very well. They were citizens of Derry. Would that be satisfactory?

4912. I will rephrase the question. Did you have any discussion with any people about training at Fort Dunree?

—Afterwards, or before? Before? No, I had nothing.

4913. I would like you to explain to me, if possible, your exact position in relation to the line of command and authority in the Army?

—My exact position was, I had a direct link to the Director of Intelligence.

4914. Your immediate superior officer was the Director of Intelligence?

—In these circumstances, yes.

4915. Who would be his immediate superior officer?

—I suppose, he is in the Chief of Staff’s branch but he also has access to the Minister on his own.

4916. He would be reporting direct?

—For various reasons, and I suppose he had better explain these himself. I am not saying this in any way——

4917. I understand the difficulty. Therefore, if you wanted to report to a person higher than your immediate superior officer you would go to the Chief of Staff?

—No, not in Intelligence work; I would not. I would report to my Director and I would not go to the Chief of Staff unless something special arose, unless I was sent for, possibly.

4918. In relation to the giving of orders, you were taking orders from the Director of Intelligence?

—Oh yes.

4919. Only?

—That is all.

4920. All orders to you would have to come through the Director of Intelligence?

—They would, yes.

4921. At all times and in every circumstance?

—Yes. In Intelligence, you see, I had been reporting to the Director, who is the top man. For instance, I would give him information on the basis of which he would outline action— that type of thing.

4922. So he would in effect have to authorise you to obtain this importation of arms?

—He would.

4923. And no one else?

—I would say if the Minister authorised it this means the Director authorised it also.

4924. Would not the Minister’s directive have to come through the Director of Intelligence to you? Would that be the proper procedure?

—I suppose it would. It would be the normal procedure, put it that way.

4925. Was this adhered to in this particular instance?

—What happened on 4th March, I made it my business to get an interview with the Minister for Defence. I told the Director of Intelligence about this.

4926. Did you at any time receive any orders from the then Minister for Finance?

—No. I would receive no orders from him at all as regards my work in Intelligence.

4927. In relation to your visits to the Continent, what Ministers were aware you were about to go on, say, the first visit?

—The Minister for Defence was aware. I do not know if any other Minister was aware. I met Mr. Blaney fairly regularly and certainly I would have told him.

4928. Mr. Blaney?

—Possibly.

4929. I cannot understand Mr. Blaney’s position in relation to the whole activity at all?

—As far as I was concerned it was rather simple. He had a lot of information on Northern Ireland and I used to go and see him occasionally. Also he got various information which I would check out in regard to Northern Ireland, and he was assisting.

4930. Who was he working through?

—It was not a question of working through, or anything like that. He had information, which he gave me.

4931. As far as the Cabinet sub-committee was concerned, were you aware the Cabinet had set up a sub-committee?

—I knew he was on this.

4932. You were aware of the meetings of the sub-committee?

—Yes.

4933. Did you ever have a meeting with them?

—I did not know what was going on. I cannot remember anything like that.

4934. A sub-Cabinet—were you aware of a meeting of the sub-Cabinet?

—Not to my knowledge.

4935. Did you ever seek a meeting to discuss matters?

—No.

4936. Would that be a proper thing to do?

—Not in the circumstances. There was no necessity for this. It never even passed my mind.

4937. Even in respect to the 4th March situation, where you felt you would go through the Minister?

—I thought the Minister was the proper person.

4938. Did he ever mention the Cabinet sub-committee?

—I cannot say. I do not know.

4939. Did you ever ask Mr. Blaney if he had discussions with the Minister for Defence in relation to his information on Northern Ireland, or the Director of Intelligence?

—I think he had discussed it with the Minister for Defence. The details of it I do not know.

4940. They were taking orders for Mr. Blaney?

—There was no question of taking orders for Mr. Blaney. Any information I got I brought back to the Intelligence Section; and I said previously it was a matter of fitting it together to give a picture of what was going on. Information came from many sources.

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

The Committee deliberated.

Examination of Captain James J. Kelly continued.

4941. Deputy E. Collins.—Captain, before we concluded at lunch time I had addressed you regarding the discussion with Mr. Blaney. Did you discuss with him the position of the importation of arms?

—I would say so, yes. I would have exchanged this information with him.

4942. Did you discuss with him this aspect of the matter in an official capacity, with him as a member of the Cabinet sub-committee?

—It would be in an official capacity.

4943. What were his comments as to the importation of arms?

—I could not give you his comments at this stage. What would have happened is that I would have had a general discussion with him, and I am quite sure—for example, I was going to the Continent in February to check on arms and I would say his comments would be accepted.

4944. He accepted the situation?

—I was there is my acpacity as an Intelligence Officer.

4945. Did you put it to him that these arms were being imported by the Defence Committee and the North as a part of the plans of the Cabinet under the directive of the 6th February?

—I do not know if we discussed the directive of 6th February, as such. I have no recollection of doing so; but I would have discussed it in the way it actually happened. I would go to the Continent possibly and he would know, I would have told them that the Minister for Defence was aware of it. There was nothing unusual about it, as far as I was concerned.

4946. Did you mention that the Defence Committee were purchasing the arms?

—He would know that it was the Defence Committee money possibly.

4947. He would know. Would you have told him?

—If the question of money arose, I would have told him, yes. I would imagine that I would.

4948. You made four visits to the Continent. I am interested in your telling the Committee what actually happened on each of those four visits. Regarding your visit on the 19th February that was the visit on which you brought the £10,000?

—Yes.

4949. How long did you spend in Germany and whom did you meet?

—Three days and I think I had about £10,000. I met a man and lodged it in the bank. And I met Herr Schleuter.

4950. At the bank?

—No.

4951. In the statement you went back again?

—Yes and I went to Antwerp on this occasion and met Herr Schleuter. I wanted to find out what was going on and if possible to see if there were any arms and the possibility of purchasing them. At this stage he said he sent the stuff in by boat. That was the arrival scheduled on the 25th March, and he was making arrangements about putting them on the boat.

4952. On both occasions you went by yourself?

—Yes, I did go by myself.

4953. When did you feel it necessary to bring Mr. Luykx? On the next two visits?

—I was talking to Herr Schleuter; the second time I met him he had the cheque with him. He spoke some English, his English was good enough but I would have liked to have had my own interpreter and to have known what was going on. I was a bit worried about the whole operation. I thought it would be better to have someone—can I put it that way?

4954. To whom did you report regarding the 10th March?

—I would also have spoken about it to the Minister, because I met the Minister during March.

4955. Did Mr. Luykx do any private business on the first/fourth April?

—No, not with me.

4956. Anyone else?

—I do not think he did—possibly no, I do not think so.

4957. He purely went in the capacity of interpreter?

—He may have done some business, I do not know. I do not think so. I asked him whether he would come as interpreter and he said that he would.

4958. Mr. Blaney introduced you to Mr. Luykx?

—Yes, the introduction was made through Mr. Blaney. It was a result of a phone call that this person was introduced to act as interpreter.

4959. By you?

—Not at all, by Mr. Blaney to Mr. Luykx. I would call and see him.

4960. Now the last visit on the 17th April.

—That was when I went to Vienna to find out what was happening there. This was the first occasion when I saw arms.

4961. Did you at any time discuss with Herr Schleuter the possibility of refunding the money in the event of non-delivery of arms?

—I do not think it arose at that stage; the operation was on that the arms would come in and I cannot say definitely that I did discuss it.

4962. Usually in international transactions such as this it is done by an irrevocable letter of credit. In effect, in your particular case you deposited money in the bank which was not to be transferred to the consignor until the goods were delivered or at least against the ship’s documents. Was this not so in this case?

—Not in this case.

4963. Why?

—I do not think it was usual in international shipments as such, and as far as I know, it seems that in cases like this one must pay before receipt of the goods.

4964. Would you repeat that please?

—I think that in a case like this one must pay first and then expect receipt of the goods.

4965. It was quite a common procedure? It is understood by everyone?

—As far as I know. I did not initiate the arrangement that this money would be paid before the goods were shipped.

4966. Herr Schleuter, is he a reputable arms dealer?

—He is an authorised arms dealer, a legal arms dealer. This is my information.

4967. He is reputable? Does he do business with the Irish Army or with the German Army?

—I think he is known to the German authorities.

4968. Has he a factory or is he a dealer?

—I am not sure. I do not think he has a factory. He handles the sale of arms.

4969. Has he a shop?

—He has an office, not a shop.

4970. Is he well known?

—As far as I know he is well known.

4971. Did you ask Colonel Hefferon whether you should deal with him?

—That question did not arise. As I understood it, this was initiated by other people, not by me, and my action was largely follow-up action on the basis of the agreement that was reached with the authorities here that these arms would be brought in under control here.

4972. Has Mr. Luykx been paid the money he gave you?

—The £8,500? No, he has not. He is out of pocket this amount of money.

4973. Have the people in the North not refunded him?

—He has not been refunded yet as far as I know.

4974. Is there any reason for this?

—I know Mr. Luykx feels that the Government should pay him the £8,500.

4975. Mr. Gibbons was aware that you were in Germany?

—He was aware on each occasion that I was in Germany.

4976. The expenses relating to your German visit, from the point of view of proper accountability should you not have claimed them through the Department of Defence?

—Well, as it happened, I did not.

4977. That was not answering my question. Should you not have claimed through the Department of Defence?

—No. On 19th February I went on another undercover operation and it was understood I was going on this undercover operation with the full knowledge of the Minister for Defence and it was understood by the relevant authorities who was paying for it.

4978. And you were paid from the account in Baggot Street?

—The expenses would have come out of that, yes.

4979. But if it was an undercover operation —this has been said before but I want to make it clear—it was an undercover operation for the Department of Defence, or the Government, so the expenses should have been paid through the proper channels?

—I do not know whether this is correct or not. The point is that this was an operation for which the Minister for Defence was consulted; he gave his agreement and I carried it out. It was known that money was coming from this source and this was accepted, and no objection was put forward by anyone. Also, as you realise, the arms were being bought by Northern people and this agreement had been reached with them that they would be left down here. There was agreement on this.

4980. Agreement with whom, on what?

—That they would be left down here in the manner that has been described, in a safe place.

4981. With whom was this agreement made?

—The Minister for Defence knew about it.

4982. That the arms were going to be stored?

—Yes. He knew where, too, he was told.

4983. Was the Minister for Defence aware that the defence committees were purchasing, or supposed to be purchasing, these arms?

—Yes.

4984. And that it was not an official Government transaction, so to speak?

—Well, the defence committee was quite official. This was done with the agreement of the Minister, on his authority, and as far as they were concerned this was official.

4985. Was it done within the terms of the contingency plans?

—It was related to the contingency plans, certainly, and within the terms of those plans.

4986. As laid down in the directive of 6th February?

—That is true, yes.

4987. Did that directive specify the importation of arms?

—It did not, as far as I am aware. It specified arms to be put aside for distribution and—I refer you to this again—the question was would these arms be traceable if they were Irish Army arms. I think you have my submission of last night when I made the point that the distribution of these Army arms, serial-numbered arms, caused the Minister for Defence to suggest that a fictitious company should be set up to purchase these arms so that they would be no longer traceable as Irish Army arms.

4988. In relation to the storage of these arms with whom did you discuss this problem?

—With the Director of Intelligence and I discussed it with the Minister for Defence also in various circumstances.

4989. Under whose control were the arms to be?

—They would be under Army control to the extent that I would know where they were and where they were stored, and the Director of Intelligence would know where they were stored and the Minister for Defence would know where they were stored.

4990. Who would order their movement?

—The Minister for Defence could order their movement.

4991. As far as you were concerned they were coming in under full army official control?

—Yes. They would have been moved more or less in the same way as the 500 rifles on the 2nd of April.

4992. It is not normal to have a certificate issued by the Minister for Defence to import arms?

—It seems not. This is one of the points that was brought out very clearly in the court. Under subsection 8 of the relevant Act, the Firearms Act, the Minister for Defence need not issue a certificate or licence as such. I think that as one of the counsel said, a nod of his head or a wink of his eye was sufficient.

4993. Deputy FitzGerald.—Captain Kelly, I am proposing to take you through things chronologically and I will try to avoid repetition but I may still go wrong occasionally, having missed some of the evidence. You mentioned that you were born in Cavan. Did you live there as a boy?

—I did, yes.

4994. And went to school there?

—In Cavan—St. Patrick’s College there.

4995. Did you contact the North before August, 1969?

—No.

4996. Your intelligence work had not brought you in touch with it?

—No. I had no involvement whatever intelligence-wise with Northern Ireland up until I went on my holidays there.

4997. What provoked you to go there on the 11th August?

—I have some friends living up there and I met a friend of mine who suggested that I come up for a day or two to Belfast and I just went.

4998. My recollection of events is a bit vague—had the trouble started at that point?

—No, there had been no trouble at that point.

4999. You just went up for a day to Belfast and found yourself in this situation?

—I found myself in this situation. People I was with suggested that we should go over and see the Apprentice Boys’ parade and we went over to see that and I ended up in the Bogside.

5000. I want to be clear on this because I had an earlier impression that when the trouble started, you went up there to see what was happening?

—No.

5001. It was pure chance you happened to be there?

—Pure coincidence.

5002. Your first meeting with Mr. Blaney, you said, had occurred shortly after your visit on the 14th of September and your return from the North?

—That is correct.

5003. And it had come to your notice that he and Mr. Haughey were on the sub-committee of the Government?

—That is correct.

5004. Could you describe in a little more detail what happened at that meeting which I think led him to give you an introduction to Mr. Haughey?

—Yes. I came back on the 14th of September and I had gleaned a lot of information and I heard that Mr. Blaney was a member of this sub-committee and I decided I should possibly see him and discuss with him the general situation in Northern Ireland as he knew it and as I knew it. I think it was possibly he suggested that maybe I should see Mr. Haughey and I think he made the arrangement by making a phone call. We went out and there was a discussion with Mr. Haughey about various personalities and so forth. At this stage, as far as my recollection serves me, there were delegations coming down to see Government Ministers and primarily the conversation was about the members of these delegations, any of them I had met, what information I had concerning them and so on.

5005. Did he ask you what organisation they belonged to or were associated with?

—Well, the question of organisations they belonged to—I would use an overall term— Defence Committees really.

5006. Apart from that, was there any discussion at that stage on the question as to whether any of them had associations with any branch of the IRA?

—That question did not arise at that stage.

5007. The next event then really was when you were asked to go to Mr. Haughey’s house on that occasion about a fortnight later or so?

—Yes, it was with Colonel Hefferon. It was the end of September, I imagine.

5008. I understand from Colonel Hefferon that you were specifically asked for by Mr. Haughey?

—I think he was asked to bring me with him to the meeting.

5009. That would have arisen out of the discussion you had?

—This is true.

5010. What I am not quite clear about is that at that meeting you got this cheque which was to finance the Bailieboro meeting. Was that what your meeting was about?

—No. He would not have been aware of the meeting when I went there.

5011. Were you called to come there for that purpose?

—This was a meeting I had arranged with the Northern people. They wanted to see meI and I said that certainly I would see them and I made arrangements to see tham on a certain Saturday.

5012. What were you asked to go to Mr. Haughey’s house about if he did not know about the Bailieboro meeting?

—I went out there and it was a general briefing by the Director on what was going on and I also reiterated what I said at previous meetings and any additional information I had.

5013. It seems a little unusual for the Minister to call you both out to his house at the weekend to a discussion unless there was something special or something urgent to discuss?

—I do not know whether it was a weekend— I am not sure of the day.

5014. I have the impression it was—when you went to his house?

—I do not think it was the weekend because as far as I remember the meeting was on the weekend and it was a couple of days before that.

5015. It would be some evening you were called out there?

—In the afternoon, I think.

5016. An afternoon, during the week?

—I am not sure about the time.

5017. I cannot recall it, but——

—It was daylight anyhow.

5018. He had been ill and it is possible that he was convalescing at home and this might have been the reason?

—It may be.

5019. It was a kind of routine meeting, not called for some special purpose—it was a briefing meeting?

—I do not know why Colonel Hefferon was called out, but he was the person who was brought out. I was asked to come along and he asked me to come along and brought me with him.

5020. It was a routine meeting?

—Yes.

5021. Was anything said about the sub-committee then or at your previous meeting with Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney?

—I cannot recall the sub-committee being specifically mentioned on that occasion.

5022. Although when you went to see them it was because you heard about the sub-committee and their membership of it?

—I heard this, yes.

5023. When you met them did you say “I decided to get in touch with you because I understand you are a member of the Cabinet sub-committee”?

—It is quite possible that I said that.

5024. Otherwise it is a bit curious for an intelligence officer to assist the Minister for Agriculture?

—I knew he was on that sub-committee and I knew further that he had a lot of information from Northern Ireland, that he had personally a lot of contacts with Northern Ireland and was a person who visited Northern Ireland also, so that it would, apart from anything else, have suited me fine to get whatever information he had.

5025. At this meeting with Mr. Haughey you raised the Bailieboro meeting presumably— you told him about it?

—Yes.

5026. Did you raise the question of finance?

—The question of money came up, of financing it, and I think it was 15 or 20 people who were expected at this meeting. I was questioned about how much it would cost and so on, and at that stage I estimated that it would cost £150 or thereabouts. It was a weekend meeting which involved staying overnight and out of this arose the proposal that I was to be paid £500, through the Director of Intelligence, to subsidise this meeting, to pay for the meeting, and any subsequent meetings and so on.

5027. You only looked for money for the Bailieboro meeting and you were offered far more?

—I got this, I think, more or less to cover the Bailieboro meeting and it was expected that there would be other meetings, that it would not end there, that this would be a continuous process.

5028. We have been told by somebody that it was intended for Bailieboro only but my recollection may be at fault?

—I know myself that I did not ask for £500. My estimate for the week-end meeting was £150.

5029. And Mr. Haughey said “Take some more because there may be more meetings”?

—There was some cross-talk of that nature and that it would be much better to get the thing all together instead of looking for dribs and drabs. When one is meeting people like this—as it turned out, one cannot always plan a week or days in advance. I had phone calls from various people to meet them at a half hour’s notice.

5030. Were you told where the money was coming from, what the source of it was?

—In my position I was not too worried, really.

5031. You were not told if he said “Oh, there is a Northern Ireland fund. I will give you a cheque on this”?

—I do not recall that being said.

5032. You did not get a cheque there and then?

—No. The cheque was passed through the Director of Intelligence to me.

5033. The Bailieboro meeting was on, I think, 4th October?

—4th and 5th October.

5034. You several times suggested that the meeting was subversive?

—Some sort of funny story came back to me three or four weeks afterwards. I reported the meeting in the normal way, what the people wanted and about the meeting in general, and the story came back.

5035. It was a wonderful story, because the word “subversive”——

—I am using this word myself. This word was not used to me at that particular time, but the impression I got was it was some type of haphazard meeting, and it was mentioned to me there was a lot of drink around, and I was told people were being subverted.

5036. By “subverted” you meant getting them not to engage——

—This is the funny thing about it. There was some sort of thing. The drink was the thing that sticks in my mind, and the notion was there was something funny going on.

5037. But when you use the word “subversion”, this means diverting people for some purpose and from a bad motive?

—This is the general impression I got, that this was some sort of meeting that was not authorised, that I was talking to these people and maybe trying to get them to carry out some actions they should not carry ot.

5038. Carry out some action they should not carry out? What was in your mind there?

—The impression I got, the report I got, was that I was held and another things mentioned was I had money on a table and also that there was a lot of drink available, and the sort of impression was it was something like a bibulous meeting.

5039. You said a moment ago that it was attempting to get people to do something they should not do, or words to that effect?

—That was my impression. It was nothing definite. Colonel Hefferon went to the Minister and said that he had a report. I said had he told the Minister. He said “Yes, I told the Minister and he was completely reassured”, and this is why the £35 is so firmly in my mind, because it was the perfect answer to the suggestion that the money was thrown around.

5040. How many were at the meeting?

—About fifteen.

5041. Coming to the opening of the account at Clones, there seems to be some doubt about who initiated this. The Minister’s answer, as I recall it, is that he felt there should be some reputable committee because they could not operate through the Irish Red Cross but that some body should be established to whom money should be paid and it went through the Red Cross. That conveyed to me that the initiative was his and he had chosen some of the people; but then from what you said I had the impression that the committee originated in the North and that they chose themselves?

—I do not know how it originated but I know the Committee was formed and it was quite a reputable committee, and this was the committee that handled the money as such.

5042. The Minister seems from his account, to have suggested certain names anyway, including the names of the account holders, but then you had discussion with him, or at least came to his office, about the initiation of the account and you were there at the time it was discussed; and there is a piece of paper which is in this publication (Documents, Book 1)— Page 47, is it not—which is really what launched the account. You say that “£5000” is in the Minister’s handwriting?

—Yes.

5043. I think the wording underneath is in your handwriting?

—That is mine.

5044. Presumably the names underneath were also in your handwriting, although we had not got the document?

—Yes, that is mine.

5045. Could you explain the circumstances in which you came to deal with that? Were you bringing the names from Northern Ireland, or what?

—I must have got the names from Northern Ireland of the people who would be running the account.

5046. Yes, I see. I thought it was not clear from the evidence, and you are not clear whether the three names originated in Northern Ireland or were originally chosen at the instance of the Minister?

—No, I say they originated in Northern Ireland. The committee was formed, it is my recollection, and there were three people nominated to run the account.

5047. But, given the Minister’s statement is correct, that he had this idea of establishing the committee, he must have communicated with somebody in Northern Ireland. From your knowledge, do you know, first of all, whom he communicated with?

—A representative of the committee came here and I had a meeting with him down here; I had discussions with him.

5048. But they initiated the committee? Because my impression was that he wanted to get some committee established to supply the gap left by the Red Cross?

—I am sorry, I cannot help you. I know the Committee was formed but I do not think we would send a message to the Committee to come down. I would imagine the Committee came down and put their case, but I know the Committee was there and I know that three nominees were to run the account.

5049. So you feel they came down, had a meeting with him, decided to form the Committee for the purpose and then subsequently gave you at least three names?

—I think that is my recollection of the thing. There had been a Committee in existence.

5050. It was not formed on his initiative, as he says?

—I do not know. If he says it was ——

5051. Well, we can take that up with Mr. Haughey in due course.

—Yes.

5052. I come now to the transfer of the account. Perhaps “transfer” is not right, because it was not actually transferred. Could we be quite clear what you said to Mr. Fagan about this? He was very emphatic that you told him the account would be transferred. I want to get a reference here on this. You see you were asked did you understand it would be the same people that held the Clones account?

—I did, yes.

5053. Was it spoken of in terms of a transfer? You see you used the word “transfer”?

—Yes.

5054. And it could not be a transfer from bank to bank. Had you spoken of transfer to him?

—I do not know. It is possible I used that term, but it would mean nothing in the terms of——

5055. In the banking sense?

—the technicalities. That is the way I would use it.

5056. An account in the same names at the new bank and the money at Clones would be put into it?

—This would be my conception.

5057. At the time of the change from one bank to another you believed it would be in the same names?

—Yes, that is correct.

5058. Can you say when this decision was changed and in what circumstances?

—I do not know. As I said before, I was talking to somebody, I forget the names used. Whether it was for the opening of the account or otherwise, I am not too sure.

5059. Yes. Could I just be sure of the sequence of events? You came to Mr. Fagan and spoke about the transfer of the account, or words to that effect?

—Yes.

5060. He rang the bank at that point. Were you there at the time?

—He would have to ring the bank to introduce me.

5061. Were you there at the time?

—No, I do not think so.

5062. There was subsequent contact then; you were in touch with him again about it?

—My recollection is that the next step I took as regards the bank was to get signatures for subsidiary accounts. I do not think I had anything to do with the opening of the account, the people concerned probably opened it.

5063. There is conflict of evidence. Mr. Fagan’s evidence is that he rang the bank and said it was a question of opening an account or retransferring it to Belfast in connection with this.

—I certainly called to the bank. There is no question about it.

5064. There is some conflict as to whether you called in relation to the transfer of that account or whether the first call was only in relation to a subsidiary account. Our impression was that you more or less went off down to the bank after that discussion and saw to the opening of the account. That does not seem to be your recollection.

—I do not know. My recollection is certainly that I was in with Mr. Walsh and I brought the signatures——

5065. At the moment I am talking of the main account.

—It is possible. There is no reason, there was absolutely no reason, why I would not go if it was necessary.

5066. Thinking back to it, when you went to Mr. Fagan and said “Do you want this account transferred and what bank do you suggest?”, and he suggested Baggot Street, and he was to ring up and fix it——?

—Yes.

5067. What else could happen except that he would go down there?

—This is true. I believe this is my conception of the thing, that the account was opened by the people concerned.

5068. You feel that what happened was that, having said this to Mr. Fagan, he rang up and said that somebody would be up from Belfast to open the account, not mentioning your name, and then some days elapsed before you went there and in the meantime presumably from some indication by you to the people in the North, otherwise they would not know what bank they should be going along to to open the account——

—I think this is what happened.

5069. You are not absolutely certain?

—No.

5070. There is a conflict of evidence all around.

—As far as I was concerned with the bank account, the mechanics of it, I was not worried about it, but I would say that any time I was asked to assist well, really ——. about the man of the cheque books. I saw the man here this morning and I did not see him before?

5071. When did you discover that the account had not been transferred or opened in the same names but in false names? How long afterwards?

—This is what I am not clear on. I have this recollection, as I said previously. One of the Northern fellows. I discussed what names were being used in this sort of thing, this arose in conversation, and I found out the names and that was it, and afterwards, I remember, I forgot the names, and I inquired again. I took no note or anything of it because it did not effect me.

5072. Now, you were not too worried about this because your understanding was, from your evidence earlier on this afternoon or this morning that the people in fact were the same people. To you it was the same account. The use of the names was simply a substitute to avoid any exposure?

—That is right.

5073. Therefore, as far as you are concerned, all was in order: the account had been transferred.

—The same account as far as I was concerned.

5074. I will come back to this again, because when you come to discuss the switching operation you get into difficulties. One suggestion is that the account holders were unaware of it. If this were the case then you would be in difficulty, that you had been taking money out of this account for arms without the knowledge of the account holders and diverting cheques which they were cashing for relief purposes without their knowledge, and I just raised this point now.

—I know the point and it is a point which can be explained, I would think, but I would have to—I mean I think in view of the situation, it is one that might be wrong to explore too fully.

5075. Well the difficulty is, if people claim to be innocent, it would be unfair would it not?

—It depends where one is living, to put it that way.

5076. To establish people’s innocence in any country is useful.

—I do not think, for security purposes, I could go into this, and I think there is an answer to it if one considers the situation.

5077. Well, we will come back to the switching operation again. I merely mention it now because it is very relevant to the question of change of names. It is one thing to say you weren’t worried about the account being in different names, but it is a different thing if you were in fact taking money out of that account for a purpose unknown to the people who opened the account. The facts are these: At the beginning here is Mr. Fagan lodging money——

—I appreciate this point, I know the point you are making, and ordinarily there is a very simple explanation, I mean, if one thinks about it. It could be extremely simple.

5078. It may be simple and we may get the explanation, but from your point of view there is a difficulty, and Mr. Fagan opens an account at your request, he keeps feeding money into it, and yet it is in three false names, and money is taken out from it and used for arms with or without the knowledge of the names represented—taken out by you.

—Well the money is not taken out by me as such. The normal banking procedure adopted——

5079. The fact is that cheques were marked either to you or to cash and you went into that bank.

—You must fill up cheques.

5080. Cheques were filled outside by people who claimed they thought that that money could come back to them for relief in the North, and they claim that you took that money and used it for arms.

—I think the difficulty the committee, as such, is going to run into—security comes into this, security of people.

5081. Precisely.

—People could be put in grave danger.

5082. It is very important that if they are innocent this should be proven and we have a duty that anybody either North or South who may be innocent or involved inadvertently—it might be you or them or somebody else.

—The point is you cannot in any inquiry discuss people in Northern Ireland who might be involved in the purchase of arms, and no one in Northern Ireland could be associated with such an operation, I mean this would be completely against any rules or security, and this is the snag.

5083. Well we appreciate the difficulty but we are trying to establish who is innocent.

—What I am trying to put forward is, if one thinks about it how can this money be transferred from one account to the other?

5084. Explanations will be offered of that in due course. We will come back to that again. About the subsidiary accounts, you suggest that perhaps they were there, the very first action of the bank would be to open these accounts or assist in the opening of these accounts. Could we have the sequence of events? You claim that the original action, so called, of transferring the account, was a perfectly innocent action and explained by the need for greater security. Now that account was opened, according to the bank’s figures on the 11th November. The other accounts are opened on the 14th November?

—Yes.

5085. In what circumstances did the subsidiary accounts arise? In other words when you opened the original account were you aware of the intention that there should be subsidiary accounts at that time?

—This was something that people in Northern Ireland had only heard about, that they should run their affairs, if I can use that term. They opened their accounts for specific purposes.

5086. So three days would not be a long period at that time when the accounts were transferred to Dublin. It was with a view to opening subsidiary accounts to be used in the way in which they were used?

—I would say so.

5087. Deputy Keating.—It is impossible for the reporters to hear what is going on while the quorum is ringing.

5088. Chairman.—I think we had better have a short pause until the bell has stopped.

(short adjournment).

5089. Deputy FitzGerald.—Just to get it clear now on that position, because there was some confusion. What transpired, therefore, is the decision to move the accounts to Dublin was associated with the desire to open subsidiary accounts to be used in the way in which they were used?

—I would certainly imagine so.

5090. And you were aware of this at the time?

—I was aware they were to be opened. I must have been aware at the time, if I was not aware at the time, afterwards.

5091. You did not tell Mr. Fagan about them at any time?

—I do not think so.

5092. Had you any reason why? I do not want to put ideas into your head.

—I had no reason, I cannot say so—I will put it that way.

5093. The false names on the subsidiary accounts, whose idea were they? Was it your idea?

—No.

5094. It was not your idea to have false names on the accounts?

—The people who had their accounts in Dublin were worried about security. Once again, I would like to say that for security, things of this type should be said in private. They decided that this was the method that would avoid their being exposed.

5095. I am just asking a question. It was not your idea, therefore, to have subsidiary accounts in false names, but was the choice of names yours?

—The choice of names was not mine.

5096. In either case?

—In either case.

5097. Did you witness one of the signatures?

—I do not know, I do not think so. I do not know. I would like to see it if you have it. I do not recollect it.

5098. I think you have it?

—Well, if my name is on it, yes.

5099. I think you were shown it this morning. This is it. The top one. (Document handed to witness).

—No, my name is not on this.

5100. I did not ask that. I asked if you witnessed it?

—I have no recollection of witnessing it.

5101. Is that your handwriting?

—It looks like my handwriting.

5102. You are sure you do not recollect witnessing it and chosing that particular name as a false name for the witnessing?

—No, I have no recollection of that.

5103. It would not reflect a sense of humour on your part?

—I do not think so.

5104. You have said that the George Dixon account was the arms account? When did you learn this?

5105. The Chairman.—For the record might I ask what document was handed to the witness?

5106. Deputy FitzGerald.—Sorry. The document handed to the witness was the signature from the George Dixon account. It is signed “George Dixon” and witnessed “John Lynch”.

Was it before or after the account was opened?

—I would say it was after the account was opened. The point is this. All the time from August people were looking for arms as such and they were talking about obtaining arms. As far as I was aware and could find out they had not obtained arms. I knew at the time the account was opened that this account was intended for the purchase of arms.

5107. Yes, I see. In the trial I think you described the circumstances in which Ann O’Brien co-operated. It was somebody whom you knew and asked to facilitate the operation. I am quoting from memory, I hope correctly.

—Yes, that is right.

5108. Was it somebody you had known well before this affair?

—I said previously that I am giving no information on Ann O’Brien or George Dixon.

5109. Was I right in understanding something you said in court—that Ann O’Brien is someone who is otherwise quite unconnected with you? I do not want to put words into your mouth, but I want to know if that is right.

—I understand. I do not want to say anything that would identify either of these people. My belief is that there is no necessity to do so.

5110. I appreciate that it is your belief, I appreciate that it might even be true, but it is very hard for us to operate on that basis. I will leave it for the moment. On the question of the bank statements, you said you had one of the bank statements—or, to be more precise, that you had bank statements on one occasion, because there were more than one?

—I had a bank statement in my house with some cheques. I said I had one. I know I had one envelope with a bank statement in it, as far as I know. I do not recollect ever getting a second one.

5111. Distinguish here between bank statements on two different occasions, 22nd January and 16th March. On one of these occasions there was more than one bank statement because at least one if not both subsidiary accounts were attached.

—This would probably be true.

5112. You do not recollect whether it was 22nd January or 16th March?

—I do not know.

5113. You described someone as being with you in the bank and getting a statement and handing it to you. Was the man concerned not F, G or H? You may have been asked that before.

—I have been asked that before. I said he was not an account holder.

5114. All right. With regard to the switching, when did you learn of the switching operation? Was it part of your knowledge from before the accounts were opened?

—I knew when their subsidiary accounts started that people in Northern Ireland had money available for the purchase of arms and that they were going to use the accounts down here for that purpose. What happened was, as far as my information goes, that this money was reimbursed in Northern Ireland. Once again, this was from the security point of view as far as people were concerned.

5115. And you knew that this was the intention when the account was opened?

—I would know that, yes.

5116. I asked you the previous day, but was not too clear about the reply, how the switching was going to protect them. You will appreciate that as far as their accounts would show all moneys would be coming in from Dublin. If the purpose was to provide a cover so that if the Northern authorities investigated it it would be shown that the money paid into the Relief Fund came from Northern sources and not from here, how could that be done, especially in view of the fact that many if not most members of the committee were unaware of the switching operation?

—This is once again where you get back to the problem we were speaking about previously where the situation is that money in Northern Ireland which people had collected—and I think this was commonsense also—was used for welfare and could be shown to be so used.

5117. How could that be shown? Explain the mechanism of showing it.

—I cannot explain the mechanism exactly but there were people up there who would distribute the money and could give evidence that the money was distributed, and the people given money, if they were investigated, could be asked if they got the money. I will put it another way. Supposing these people up there had an account for arms and they bought arms through Northern Ireland and their account was investigated, would that not be a danger? Would it not be a very sensible and sane operation to have money that they might use for arms outside the six counties?

5118. Yes, but you see they could only justify that in the event of an investigation if there were records to show that the money paid into the account of the Relief Fund in Northern Ireland came from the Southern Ireland source, because the records of the Relief Fund showed the money came from the South. What good could it be to them, therefore?

—I cannot attempt to explain that. I can only tell you what I know. These people did not want their money in the North to be associated with arms.

5119. How do you know this?

—This is what I have been told.

5120. One is often told, but you speak of knowing it.

—I did not check it out.

5121. Oh, so you had no direct knowledge of the switching operation and you were simply taking it on faith that the money you were taking out of this account for arms was being replaced by identical sums in the North?

—I think we are getting back to the point I made the first night I started here. I think that possibly there is some information which will indicate that this actually took place.

5122-5123. There may not be information at this stage which is satisfactory evidence. What I am concerned about is whether you can hold yourself justified in taking money from this account for arms, on any grounds, moral or legal, because you believed without any direct evidence that it would be or was being replaced in Northern Ireland.

—Well, I think in circumstances like this one must accept what one hears. I mean, you have, as you probably know at this stage, a reputable committee, and that is it.

5124. I see. I want to come to the question raised by a recent court case which you attended but at which you did not give evidence, because on that occasion, unlike this, you were not secure as far as the Official Secrets Act is concerned. You heard the evidence in that case?

—I did, yes.

I will just remind you of some of it—a statement by Samuel Dowling. He said “those weapons.…”

5125. Chairman.—Could we have the name of the paper?

5126. Deputy FitzGerald.—Dundalk Democrat, 9th January, page 4. He said “those weapons were in our possession, were at that time in my possession through the work of officers and agents of the Irish Government. The finances which the Irish Government gave us as beleaguered citizens of Northern Ireland for the purchase and distribution of arms for the purpose of defending our communities— that finances bought these arms. I myself negotiated with some of those agents and it was made clear between us that such arms would be used only for defence of the minority communities in the North when under attack.” Now, I read on: “Now I am charged here in an Irish court for doing what the agents and officers of the Irish Defence Forces urged and financed us in doing.”

Then, later on: “Captain James Kelly of the Irish Army and his associates arrived among us. They negotiated with our leaders, and directly with some of us. They called meetings and made promises some of which they actually carried out in the name of the Irish Government by whom they were employed. Our situation was desperate. With the money supplied through negotiations between Captain Kelly and our leaders we were given small supplies of light arms for community defence.”

You were called to give evidence for the defence in that case?

—That is right, yes. I was subpoenaed.

5127. I take it the evidence you intended to give would have supported that statement?

—I gave no evidence and wanted to give no evidence. I claimed privilege and I do not think this is relevant to this inquiry at all because that is an unsworn statement made in Court.

5128. Chairman.—Captain Kelly, you must refrain from expressing opinions.

—Mr. Chairman, that it is not relevant is my submission completely.

5129. Chairman.—If you think a matter is irrelevant or if you think that a question put to you is improper, appeal to me and I will give you every consideration but I must act as arbiter in that situation.

—I submit to you that it is completely irrelevant because that is an unsworn statement in Court.

5130. Deputy FitzGerald.—Most of the statements which are being relied on in this are unsworn statements?

—I do not want to go into the background of that case in any way at all. It has no relevance whatever to the matter under inquiry. As a matter of fact, I had never met Sam Dowling; I knew nothing about him. The first I heard of the case was when I got a sub-poena to appear down in this Court.

5131. Could I be clear? You chose not to give evidence?

—The reason I did not give evidence was that I claimed privilege.

5132. And the grounds of privilege were the Official Secrets Act?

—The Official Secrets Act, yes. What I did as an Army officer I could not expose without due authority.

5133. But you have just said that you never met Sam Dowling and had nothing to do with it. How could giving evidence of that fact prejudice you under the Official Secrets Act?

—Any evidence I would give concerning my duties as an intelligence officer would.

5134. But if in fact you have no involvement and did not in the course of your intelligence duties have any involvement, how could saying that you had not prejudice you?

—The point is this, that I was asked what did I do as an intelligence officer and I said, no, that under the Official Secrets Act I was not allowed to give this and I said to the judge unless I got proper authority I would not do so.

5135. Your statement is that you never met Sam Dowling?

—I never met Sam Dowling?

5136. Did you meet any of his associates?

—No, not that I am aware of and Mr. Chairman, please, I would like to have it noted that this is completely irrelevant.

5137. Could I ask you in respect of the items of £1,500 cash in the George Dixon account on the 17th November, did you draw that sum?

—No. As far as I am aware I did not. I said here this morning—I was asked a question on this this morning and I said that I thought it was January before I drew out of the account.

5138. Out of the George Dixon Account?

—Yes.

5139. Did you draw £1,000 on the 18th February from the Anne O’Brien account?

—It is possible that I cashed the cheque for the Anne O’Brien account.

5140. If so, what would you have done with the money?

—Some cash I know was paid towards “The Voice of the North”.

5141. And do you think that that £1,000 was used for that purpose?

—The figure as far as I remember was £650 paid to “The Voice of the North.” I cannot be definite at this stage.

5142. That could be the £600 on the 28th which is the more likely figure?

—I do not think so. As far as I know “The Voice of the North” was over £5,000.

5143. There is one question I want to put to you: what happened the rest of the £6,500?

—I have a recollection of £600 being collected by one of the Northern people and brought North which I would imagine came out of the Ann O’Brien account. I know that there was over £5,000—the exact figure I cannot say—in “The Voice of the North”, and out of the Ann O’Brien account expenses for trips were paid for, and my recollection is that the moneys did not meet these expenses and money was refunded to me by people out of other accounts.

5144. You said yesterday that you had no personal knowledge of arms coming in here in the Autumn of 1969?

—There was no question of arms coming in here up until February and even in February I did not know that arms were coming in, and this is one of the reasons I went to the Continent to find out if in fact any arms existed and I have reiterated here that up until 17th April I did not even see arms, so therefore I had no knowledge of any arms coming in.

5145. You are not aware of a shipment of arms to Dublin Airport in 1969—you never heard of that?

—I did not.

5146. You never heard mention of that until this moment?

—No.

5147. From anybody?

—There were rumours of various arms coming in but I have no knowledge of these arms.

5148. Could you describe any contacts you had in this part of the country in the Autumn of 1969 with anybody belonging to or associated with the IRA?

—Any contacts I had I reported them to the Director of Intelligence as such and I do not think that I should give these names in public. The Director of Intelligence may give them if he wishes. He is the man to whom they were reported. He knows exactly. It was under his authority that anyone I met I met.

5149. But you did meet such people—could you describe any financial transactions you had with such people in that period?

—I had no financial transactions with any people other than the financial transactions where I handled money for people for Northern Ireland.

5150. Are you suggesting then or is it your belief that no money from this fund was used in the Autumn of 1969, the last three months of the year, to finance arms transactions involving the IRA in this part of the country?

—I am as certain of that as I can be.

5151. I want to deal now with this question of the December withdrawal of £3,500. I want to be clear that I understand your position in regard to this. You told us that you informed Colonel Hefferon before Christmas last year of this withdrawal or to be more precise, you told us in Question No. 3688 and told the Court that that occurred before Christmas last year. I think I am right is saying that?

—This is probably correct, yes.

5152. Colonel Hefferon, I think, denies that and says that the first reference of any kind to arms, never mind financing, was in mid-January?

—All I can say is this, that I reported everything to Colonel Hefferon and I have no recollection of holding anything back. It is possible that Colonel Hefferon has no recollection of me telling him about the £3,000. I have no recollection I must say of specifically telling him but I know in my heart and soul that I had no reason to hold anything back because it was fully authorised.

5153. Fully authorised?

—The whole operation was authorised.

5154. Not the whole operation. I am talking about the withdrawal of £3,500 from this account, the first payment in respect of arms?

—I explained this in the Court, in this way: that I was acting as an Intelligence officer. I found out numerous things and I found out various attitudes of mind of people on, one might call it, both sides of the fence in Northern Ireland; and I knew, as I think a lot of people did, that there were people looking for arms for defensive purposes in Northern Ireland and they were making attempts in various ways to obtain these arms, and the attempts were abortive. When this attempt—on December 22nd, it is here, so I imagine it would be around Christmas or maybe after Christmas—took place I knew that they were making a further attempt to obtain arms and I found out that this money was being put on deposit to show the intention, possibly, to an arms dealer.

5155. If one took that statement at its face value, Captain Kelly, it would sound like a very good statement of an Intelligence officer’s job, finding things out, but the trouble is that as I understand it you took the money out. You were not watching other people and reporting back illegal activities but were yourself taking money out, though you just made a statement that seems to gloss over that fact?

—The point is this: when you are doing Intelligence work—and this is the important point that seems to be missed—there must be trust and people must trust one. This was an evolving situation over a period being reported to the authorities, where the authorities knew what was going on. At a certain stage, in January it would be, even taking the dates there, of the £3,500 being drawn from the bank in January, these people wanted to get the co-operation of the Government down here to assist them in this arms purchase. So the thing is very, very close, one to the other, and I brought it to Colonel Hefferon’s notice in January.

5156. In January? You said before Christmas in court?

—The point is, I said “before Christmas or around Christmas”. The exact date I do not know.

5157. But it is rather important as to whether this was something done in consultation with Colonel Hefferon and reported to him a month later?

—I would not say it was reported a month later by any manner of means.

5158. Mid-January, you say?

—The question is that this was an evolving situation and I made a submission here last night as regards authority.

5159. I am coming to that now, but I just want to get this straight.

—I am sorry but I would like to make another submission, Mr. Chairman. I put it forward that this importation of arms was authorised and I do not accept any investigation into that authorisation as such, because it was, I know, fully authorised. And this question of trying to pin down small niggardly points in an overall operation is completely wrong and completely unfair and unjust, and one cannot be expected to remember exactly details concerning points like this.

5160. Chairman.—Captain Kelly, £3,500 is not a niggardly sum, to me anyway, whatever it may be to you.

—I appreciate that. It is not a niggardly sum to me either; but the point is that this was an Intelligence operation. These people were interested in weapons and the important thing was to find out and know what was going to happen about these weapons, where they were going, what was to happen to them, and this was the main part of the operation, as it turned out later, and one cannot be specific about this and one cannot be pinned down as to whether one said “before Christmas” or “after Christmas”. This is only hair-splitting. And, furthermore——

5161. A statement on oath?

—Excuse me. Furthermore, I put my submission last night as regards this authorisation and, as regards the case in the Four Courts, my defence was based purely on the fact that this money was fully authorised by the relevant authorities. I think if it is not accepted by this Committee that this was the case, I refuse to answer any further questions. And, furthermore, the money I think is fully accounted for. I have explained it here to the various members of the Committee.

5162. Chairman.—One second, Deputy FitzGerald. Captain Kelly, we are not interested at the moment in the authorisation. We are interested in accountability.

—The whole question boils down to authorisation. I know I was authorised to do this operation.

5163. Deputy FitzGerald.—By whom?

—By the Director of Intelligence as such and it was later brought to the notice o the Minister for Defence. What is happening now is hair-splitting based on people’s memories, and this is wrong, unjust and unfair. I refuse to answer any further questions until this question of authority is cleared up once and for all.

5164. I was coming to the question of authority. Perhaps Captain Kelly has a point. I should have dealt generally rather than specifically with the question but taking it chronologically the question of authority seems to come up. Perhaps if Captain Kelly feels it would be more logical we can drop that and come back to the authority. I would like to put it to Captain Kelly that what we are trying to do here is get at the truth. We are not trying—as some of his reactions suggest and as one of his comments suggests, I think— to prove a case. This is a complete misconception. We are trying to get the facts. If you had authority and we can establish that, this is something we shall be more than happy to do. You must appreciate that to establish this we have to ask witnesses the relevant questions. I should like to teaze out this and get what you mean. Quite obviously, Captain Kelly feels he has authority—it may be good or it may be bad—but we are trying to know, and Captain Kelly, in his own defence, has the opportunity of putting it fully and fairly. But I am quite happy to return to the question. Taking up the question of authority and dealing with it point by point and stage by stage, from the statement you made last night—I was not here, unfortunately—I understand you challenged the suggestion that you told Colonel Hefferon in October that you had been instructed to act on behalf of Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney. You said you did not knot where this came from?

—Yes.

5165. In fairness, perhaps I failed to quote the paper I was quoting from. This is the Irish Press of Wednesday, 14th October. The heading is “Acting for Government. Captain Kelly was to hold arms says Hefferon” and the opening of the story is:

Col. Michael Hefferon told the arms conspiracy trial in Dublin yesterday that he regarded Capt. James Kelly, his personal assistant while he was director of Army Intelligence, as a direct link between the Government and the Northern Defence Committees. He said he was not giving orders to Capt. Kelly, who was reporting directly to Messrs. Haughey, Blaney and Gibbons, the Ministers concerned with Northern affairs. Capt. Kelly he said, told him he was acting on behalf of the Government, and he believed him. Col. Hefferon said that around 1st October Capt. Kelly told him he had been instructed to act on behalf of the Government by Messrs. Haughey and Blaney.

You seemed to suggest last night that I was misquoting. I want to make clear what was in the paper.

—In the Irish Times he contradicted this. I produced this last night also, and the point was——

5166. Could I have the date?

—I just want to see which paper it is before I start.

5167. Wednesday, 14th October.

—I read it out last night. I gave a reference.

5168. I cannot lay my hands on the reference.

—I have the reference. It is Mr. McKenna cross-examining. Mr. McKenna said:

Did he tell you he was acting on instructions of any member of the Government, or was that something you inferred?

—I certainly inferred it, but I think Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney knew of his acting in this capacity. About giving him orders is a different matter, and I don’t know. I don’t think Ministers would have the right to give him orders except the Minister for Defence.

The point I made last night was not as regards your quotation at all but as regards a statement further on, that I was acting under the orders of Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney and this I categorically denied. It is completely and utterly wrong.

5169. Well now, I think we can reconcile the two accounts by making what to me seems a subtle distinction but perhaps an important one. First of all, Colonel Hefferon did say he wasn’t giving you orders. He then said neither were the Ministers, … but he did say here on this occasion, that you were acting on behalf of the Government. You said to him that you were and had instructions to act on behalf of the Government. To me it creates a slightly curious situation that nobody is giving you orders?

—This might arise, I don’t know, from the liaison business but one would need to go into the background of the whole question. What day is that please?

5170. Would you like to see it? (Newspaper passed to witness).

—Wednesday, 14th, the same date. I think that is a synopsis in the Irish Press of what Colonel Hefferon said, and this is not a direct quotation from the court. The one I have is a direct quotation for the court and I do not think this should be used at all in any judicial capacity at all.

5171. With reference to the transcript, however, I do not think the section of the transcript we have transcribed includes that. I think that Captain Kelly is perfectly right in this.

—There have been mistakes also in this type of thing. I do not think that was said in the Court. I do not think Colonel Hefferon would say it, could say it.

5172. Deputy FitzGerald.—Where we have not got the transcript. A newspaper account is all right where we are agreed. If there is a conflict we must go back to the transcript. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, we get the relevant section for that transcript and have it for our next session in fairness to Captain Kelly, we must put to him exactly what was said.

5173. Chairman.—Very good.

5174. Deputy FitzGerald.—Now, on the question of your appointment as liaison officer, I think somewhere in evidence you said you were not formally appointed but you were appointed. As I see it from other evidence I had the impression you thought your appointment derived from your first meeting with Mr. Blaney. I also detect some doubt as to whether any such appointment was related to the sub-committee or to the two Ministers as such. There are conflicting statements from yourself and Colonel Hefferon on this. Would you like to try and clarify this point?

—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 sub-committee 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——

5175. Could you just take your first point there, that during the trial Mr. Haughey said: you had been appointed liaison officer at the same time as the committee was appointed.

—I will start again. At the trial, in evidence, Mr. Haughey gave some evidence towards the appointment of a sub-committee to deal with Northern affairs and he was asked by some of the counsel was any other name mentioned in conjunction with this. I think it was McCarthy asked this question, and he said yes, Captain Kelly, but previous to that when the jury were out when there was some discussion as to whether or not it was Government policy and Cabinet decision and so on could be related to the trial there was some mention made, as far as I know, of this having taken place at a Cabinet meeting in September. I do not think you will find this in the paper because it was when the jury were out.

5176. Yes, I am checking on your first reference. I realise the second one may not be in the paper. I had a reference here which is perhaps the one you are mentioning, the first reference you mentioned, and you are right, it was in reply to Mr. McCarthy: “Was there any particular individual concerned in creating a link between you and your fellow members,” —I think that is fellow members of the committee.

—That is my understanding.

5177. And the people in the North?

—Yes.

5178. I don’t think it said when you were appointed.

—September I think was the time mentioned.

5179. The next said was he could not be sure when the committee was set up. He had contact with Captain Kelly and he was certain this was in September but I think it goes on to talk about any point implicit—that it occurred some time around then.

—Associated with the formation of the committee. If one had a transcript of the court and had what was said when the jury were out, when the discussion was going on and Mr. McCarthy made the point and he was not allowed to pursue it in open court.

5180. I think that part of the transcript here of Mr. Haughey’s evidence would be needed and if there is a transcript of the exchanges that occurred in the absence of the jury we would need that as well, in fairness to Captain Kelly. Nevertheless, in your own mind there seems to have been some lack of clarity as to who in fact you were liaison officer to: At paragraph 3671, you said, “I was the liaison officer for this committee”. I think that 3165 perhaps, you would get that reference first.

—Yes, this is at the top of a column, page 274.

5181. Yes, top of the page there. “The point is this. I was liaison officer to this committee, that was appointed, and the only members of the Committee that I met were Messrs. Haughey and Blaney.” You replied at 3164 and 3165. In reply to 3164 when you were asked whether in any way you were formally appointed: “I acted as liaison between various Ministers and the people in the North”, and then certain other statements were made. And then you were asked by the Chairman: “Well then, instead of being associated with a specific sub-committee you were associated with different Ministers”.

—Two Ministers in it, who are Messrs. Blaney and Haughey.

5182. You appreciate there would be a very great difference between being liaison officer between a Cabinet sub-committee with authority to act, and liaison officer between two Ministers who had no function as individual Ministers?

—I knew they were acting as sub-committee members as regards the details, and the background to it I was never fully informed about. I just knew there was a Cabinet sub-committee that these two people were concerned with. I was never called by a sub-committee in session to come to them, but I went to these people.

5183. And it is your belief that you were acting on behalf of this sub-committee because your answer to the Chairman cast some doubt on that. You were asked by the Chairman: “Well then, instead of being associated with the sub-committee, you were associated with different Ministers in rather less formal fashion.” Is that true?

—Yes. The two Ministers I met were Messrs. Blaney and Haughey. I think this is also fair enough. I would associate it with meeting Ministers. These Ministers were members of that committee.

5184. You appreciate—perhaps you do not —there is a very great distinction between the two. Mr. Blaney, as Minister for Agriculture, had no function. If you were dealing with him as Minister then it might be a useful source of information, but no more, but if you were dealing with the sub-committee and he was an authorised member of it and you understood him so to be, you were taking instructions from him.

—There was no question of taking instructions from him at any stage.

5185. Could you explain the relevance of the sub-committee? Because we are concerned with your authority to act if you got no instruction from Messrs. Haughey and Blaney? How is it relevant to the question of your authority? I was hoping that we could establish that.

5186. Chairman.—Gentlemen, I presume we are going on until ten, if you want to. If you want to change that, please tell me. Is that a agreeable to you all? Very well.

5187. Deputy FitzGerald.—You said, Captain Kelly, going back to this again in a different way, that the Ministers gave no instructions. Has there been a conflict between them and Colonel Hefferon on some matters and which would take precedence in your mind?—perhaps that is a hypothetical question.

—Yes, it would be a hypothetical question. Colonel Hefferon would have to be reported to and he would have to make a decision one way or another. Perhaps I should here address the Chairman. I would like to return to something that happened here before tea. Possibly I did not understand what was being said. It was brought to my notice in the questioning about my depositing £3,500—is that correct?

5188. I thought you said that, but I did not raise it.

—It was an error, if so, as regards the depositing of £3,500. I do not think I deposited any money. I would like to clarify that point.

5189. I thought you said that. It surprised me a little.

—It was an error as such. Furthermore, as regards the £3,500, I think you suggested that Colonel Hefferon denied it was reported to him.

5190. He said that he—I do not want to misquote him—but my impression was that he knew nothing about the arms until mid-January, the arms proposal, and I think or I thought I recalled him saying that he did not know or could not recall this transaction, but I am not certain about that.

—This is the point. As far as I am concerned the way it came across was that Colonel Hefferon denied being told of this. According to the official record here, what he said was, “I have no recollection of that.” I think there is a distinct difference between him saying that he was not told and “no recollection”.

5191. I believe he said that he had no discussion with you about arms in mid-January and no recollection about the financial transactions.

—This then is not a contradiction of my reporting to him, by any manner of means. The impression I had before tea was that Colonel Hefferon had categorically denied that this was reported to him—this was before we had the break.

5192. This is the difficulty that arises here, because Captain Kelly in evidence in court said that he reported to Colonel Hefferon. I was contrasting that statement of yours on oath to Colonel Hefferon’s statement on oath that he knew nothing about the arms until January.

—We are talking about the £3,500, and it is said that I reported to Colonel Hefferon and you said that I did not, and Colonel Hefferon said that he had no recollection of that—which is a different thing.

5193. I am not disagreeing on that. I believe Colonel Hefferon clearly denied any recollection of it. The point I was raising, and perhaps it got bogged down, is that you said you had told him before Christmas, and he said that there was no discussion of any kind about arms or finance until mid-January. And he had no recollection of financing at any stage, although he did not deny it absolutely. That is the conflict.

—I do not know as regards that. The point at issue is did I report everything to Colonel Hefferon. I maintain I always did. Previously while I had no definite recollection of reporting this specifically to Colonel Hefferon, I have no recollection of ever holding anything back deliberately from Colonel Hefferon. And I said that it was reported to him as far as I was concerned. I may be wrong but I think it came across before the adjournment that Colonel Hefferon had denied this, and in effect he did not.

5194. The time of the discussion is the thing.

—I want to make a few other objections to what took place before tea.

5195. Is it a correction of something that was said? How do we proceed?

—I object strongly to this press cutting being brought in. It was brought in during the previous day’s evidence here by you, Mr. FitzGerald, and you suggested it was in evidence, that I was acting under orders of Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney.

When I checked onit to day it turned out that it was merely a quotation from the press. I do not think any member of this Committee should do that. I think it is very unfair.

5196. Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure how to proceed in this matter. As far as I am concerned the press reports of the trial constitute prima facie evidence. If the witness disagrees with what he is supposed to have said, we must then refer to the transcript. But we have not got a transcript of the full trial.

5197. Chairman.—The witness has quoted from the press also?

—I have quoted from the actual evidence. Mr. FitzGerald gave the impression that he was quoting from the actual evidence, but he was not, and I think it is very unfair.

5198. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am sorry, but any quotations I have made have been from a newspaper or the transcript. If anybody challenges any such quotation it can be checked. When he suggested this was not a correct reference I immediately accepted that?

—My point is simply this, that the reference you used was not even a quotation from the trial transcript, from the evidence, it was just a paragraph in a newspaper.

5199. Any quotation I have given has been read out in the exact words that are in print, whether in the transcript or in a newspaper?

—They are not words that were given in evidence. It is a summary by the newspaper.

5200. That is self-evident?

—It is the interpretation of the reporter of what possibly he thought I said.

5201. You need not lecture us on this. If I read “He said he was not giving orders to Captain Kelly” it is obviously not verbatim but in the third person. If there is any kind of challenge, I am the first person to accept it and go back to the transcript?

—I think it is very unfair to say that evidence was given in court that I was acting under orders from Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney. I object very strongly and I think it should not be done.

5202. Chairman.—The matter can be resolved quite simply by putting whatever matter is there in quotation in the form of a question to the witness?

—My objection goes further than that. It is that when a member of the Committee says this was evidence when it is quite clear it was not evidence this is putting whoever is on the stand at an unfair disadvantage.

5203. When a member of the Committee says this is evidence that may be an affirmation or a question. Perhaps he should be putting it more specifically as a question. If it was written with an interrogation mark it would be clear. If you are in doubt whether it is an affirmation or a question you can appeal to the person putting the question or ask me and we will get it clarified?

—That is fine and I accept it as far as it goes. It is now clarified, but when it is put to me by a member of the Committee that this is evidence, I accept that.

5204. If you are in doubt about anything, let me know and we will get it put as clearly as we can?

—Furthermore, there is one other point. I think the bringing in of this press cutting as regards Sam Dowling has no reference to this case and can only be described as a disgrace in what are judicial proceedings. It has absolutely no reference whatsoever.

5205. Deputy FitzGerald.—What do I do in this connection, Mr. Chairman. I think any member of this Committee is entitled to decide if something has relevance until ruled out of order by the Chairman.

5206. Chairman.—The witness must try and answer everything that is put to him. If at times a matter is brought in he is entitled to appeal because it appears to be unfair and I will stop the Deputy and make him say how it is relevant to the Inquiry, make him justify his method of procedure. We will give you all the help we can?

—I would like you to rule now that this introduction of the Sam Dowling case by Deputy FitzGerald was completely wrong, completely irrelevant, and I would say was introduced as an atttempt to prejudice matters.

5207. You should have raised that matter when it was being put. You are raising it now retrospectively. We cannot go back over all the evidence?

—There were so many points put by Deputy FitzGerald in rather a rush and possibly I had not my wits about me properly, but when I thought about it during the adjournment it occurred to me how wrong, as far as I am concerned, this was. Sam Dowling had nothing whatsoever to do with me except that incidentally I had been subpoenaed and had to go to court, according to the law of this country, as a defence witness. I do not see why that should be introduced into an inquiry into money, a Grant-in-Aid.

5208 and 5209. Deputy FitzGerald.—I just submit that is a statement made in court—not on oath—that Sam Dowling said that he had received money from Government agencies and he subsequently named Captain Kelly. I cannot think of anything more relevant and I should think that if this evidence given in court was incorrect and Captain Kelly was precluded in court from saying so by the Official Secrets Act, he would have welcomed the opportunity given here tonight. Captain Kelly has asked you to rule that it is irrelevant. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to rule that it is relevant and that if other members wish to pursue it, they may do so.

5210. Chairman.—We are satisfied if once a matter is raised you say: “This has nothing to do with me at all”.

—It is irrelevant, so?

5211. Chairman.—No, it is not. You have the opportunity of saying it is not relevant.

—I think it is very much irrelevant and a matter which should not be introduced here at all.

5212. We cannot allow you to dictate absolutely what Deputies may put to you. If you are in doubt, as I told you already, let me know when the question is put to you but do not be coming back afterwards, as an afterthought, and raising red herrings all along the trail.

—This is not a red herring as far as I am concerned. It is a very serious objection.

5213. You did not raise it at the time.

—I submit that it is irrelevant and I would like to get a ruling on its relevancy or otherwise.

5214. I cannot give retrospective rulings like that.

—Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I must argue on this point. We broke rather quickly for the adjournment and I think I said before I left that it was irrelevant and I would like a ruling as to its relevancy or otherwise.

5215. You should have objected to the question if you thought it objectionable.

—There is one other point I want to bring out—this talk of IRA associations. I never had any association with the IRA. I was working for the Government here, for people concerned in Northern Ireland, and I object very strongly to this being brought in because all it can cause is some type of smear, and I object to this one very strongly because it has no reference to me or to the case.

5216. Deputy FitzGerald.—May I point out in regard to the first point raised that my quotation at question 3671 was in the third person, and in case there should be any dispute it was:

You recall his say that;

… he regarded Captain James Kelly, his personal assistant while he was director of Army Intelligence….

and there could have been no doubt whatever about the nature of the quotation I was making. With regard to the next point I want to take up, at paragraph 3599 you stated that Colonel Hefferon “suggested to me would I assist them”. I want to get the exact quotation to make sure that I am not being in any way unfair. I refer back to an earlier point: “In the course of conversation to avoid them bringing arms into Northern Ireland it was put to them that they should try to get the co-operation of the Government down here”. I think this is an important statement because it is the only statement I recall from you to the effect that you, in carrying through this operation at this point in time, were acting on Colonel Hefferon’s instructions as distinct from acting with his consent, and they are somewhat different. I would like to be clear that you mean what you say here, that when you came down with this proposal in January, you came to Colonel Hefferon and the suggestion that you assist them came from him?

—It was a proposal from the Northern Ireland people I had put to the Director of Intelligence in the normal way and he was my superior officer and it was put to him.

5217. And did he then say to you: “Would you assist them in this operation?”

—A general discussion took place that I think went on for a day or two—about this very important matter but he felt—I think this was explained here before—that I could not do this as an Army officer because of the administrative difficulties in the Army. One reason also was that it would embarrass people in the Army if it came to light that the thing was being carried out as an Army operation, that it would in effect embarrass the Government and he suggested that I would have to retire to carry it out. He asked me was I willing to retire to do this and I said yes, and also he said that if I didn’t want to do this there was no necessity…. I could stay on in the Army and not do this type of thing. This was his summary of the thing but the point was that he was going to put the proposition to the Minister for Defence and in the effect he put it to the Minister for Defence.

5218. You are going ahead of me now. What I am concerned with is a statement made by you on oath—“He suggested to me would I assist them”. I want to be clear that means what it appears to mean.

—Could I read it?

5219. Certainly (handed to Captain Kelly).

—“I put the proposition of the Northern people to Colonel Hefferon. He put it to me would I assist them. I said I would assist them certainly in this operation.” In general, I suppose this is correct. It is a matter we had discussion on. The whole discussion was would I carry on and assist these people and he said that if I was going to assist these people, I would probably have to retire from the Army. I do not see …

5220. Any difference between his suggesting to you would you do it and his saying that, if so, you must retire from the Army and his suggestion to you that you should do it?

—This is coming down, I think, to a level where one is trying to pick particular sentences out of a prolonged conversation. This is impossible to expect from anyone. The point is this—and I do not think there is any disagreement between the evidence of Colonel Hefferon and myself on this—that we had this discussion. He felt that if I was to assist I would have to do it outside the Army so as not to embarrass the Government. This was to be put to the Minister for Defence and it was put to him. I do not think it is possible to say what words were used. All we can do is get the general context of the conversation.

5221. On other occasions you have in fact given the general content along similar lines to what you have given just now. On this occasion you made a statement in court which would shift the onus of responsibility for the initiation of the operation to Colonel Hefferon. I wanted to be quite fair and to be sure that you meant this. You seem now to be changing your position and suggesting that we should not take these words literally.

—I am not changing my position at any stage.

5222. These words stand then—you stand over them?

—You are …

5223. I want to know yes or no?

—Excuse me—a person can express himself in different ways and be attempting to convey the same meaning. As regards the initiation of the operation, in my capacity as an Intelligence officer I came to Colonel Hefferon with this proposition or suggestion. What happened was that this was referred to the Minister for Defence. I suggested, he suggested, there were various suggestions made and it was talked about quite a lot, because it was a serious and important matter and to try and pin it down that he suggested or I suggested—it is impossible.

5224. It may be impossible but the trouble is, Captain Kelly, that you said this and I want to know whether it is a correct representation of the way the initiative was taken and who took it. I am prepared for you to say “No, the words were incautious and do not reflect what happened” or that they do, but I would like to know which, because on this a lot hangs.

—You mean that Colonel Hefferon suggested that this operation take place, or that I suggested it?

5225. Yes. At this meeting or meetings.

—This was a report made by me to Colonel Hefferon about a proposition of the Northern people that they would like to import arms under the authorities down here.

5226. Yes, the question of whether the arms should be imported. Now then, the question of whether you would assist. Either you suggested it to Colonel Hefferon first that you should do this or he suggested it to you?

—I had been asked by these people if I would assist them, so I put the whole matter to Colonel Hefferon.

5227. And he suggested that you should?

—What he suggested was that if I was going to assist them—and this has been explained on numerous occasions—he thought, or felt, that it would have to be outside the Army and in another Government position; in effect, that I would have a cover job so that if this matter broke, for example to British Intelligence, or someone else, and I was likely to cause international embarrassment, it would not be associated directly with the Army. Therefore, the question of one suggesting it or another suggesting it does not arise.

5228. I am sorry but it does, because you have said on oath: “He suggested to me that I would assist them”. I am quoting your own words.

—He probably said to me, “Would you assist them?”

5229. The initiative came from him then? —I cannot give you his exact words. I gave what I think is the sense of the conversation.

5230. And the sense was that the initiative came from him, according to your statement here?

—I do not accept that,—of course.

5231. All I can do is accept what you say on oath. Are you saying something different?

—No, No, No. I think you are getting to the stage where you are actually—it is impossible. I think any reasonable person would accept this, that it is impossible to put down precisely exact words, especially when one is answering questions as to what took place or did not take place. It is also impossible, I put to you further, over a year afterwards to say precisely what the conversation was, and all that can be expected, and all any reasonable person can expect, is that one can give the general tone of the conversation and what was involved. And I think the primary thing involved was that the matter was referred to the Minister for Defence and he gave the decision. Colonel Hefferon was not willing to give the decision in this case and he referred it to the Minister for Defence. At this stage I would like to go a bit further. You were absent last night when I put a submission.

5232. Deputy FitzGerald.—I would like to resume questioning and Captain Kelly can make submissions when I have finished.

5233. Chairman.—If you could put the question you are in doubt about now, and directly,—it would be simpler.

5234. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am endeavouring to do so, but Captain Kelly wants to submit something. Could I be protected from further submissions until I have finished?

5235. Chairman.—Captain Kelly, would try and answer the question?

—O.K., Mr. Chairman.

5236. Deputy FitzGerald.—If the submission is relevant to this question, well and good, but if it is different I would prefer to put the question first. I quite understand that you might not recall the conversation, or recall it incompletely or be vague about it, but I am in a difficulty when you purport to recall conversations so precisely, you remember who suggested what to whom, and subsequently you want to alter that. I am in real difficulty in these circumstances and I can only presume that your words, unless you repudiate them here and say you did not mean them, mean what you say and that you are saying Colonel Hefferon took the initiative in suggesting that you proceed with this operation. In the light of this would you comment on what Colonel Hefferon said, on 27th January on oath— Question 4146—he was referring to these discussions with you and he went on to say that the first time you went to the Continent.

… would be about 14th February, sometime around that date, and I told Mr. Gibbons that he said he was going to the Continent and I suspected he was going to “vet” arms …

I think you will appreciate the difficulty we are in when we have two witnesses on oath. You say Colonel Hefferon suggested this operation and he, so far from saying he suggested it, suggests by his words here that he was not clear enough but he suspected you were doing it. We do have to get the truth between the two of you. Would you like to comment?

—I do not think there is a problem. I think it is the phraseology of Colonel Hefferon which he used. He was talking to the Minister for Defence about this operation of importing arms and if he used the phraseology that he suspected I was going to import arms——

5237. “Vet” arms.

—Well, this is Colonel Hefferon’s way of phrasing it and I do not think that Colonel Hefferon has ever denied he knew I was going to vet arms and I think he said in evidence a cover story was produced for this very purpose.

5238. But if Colonel Hefferon were in fact the person who suggested the operation——

—It is relating to what Deputy FitzGerald was talking about that I wish to make my submission.

5239. Chairman.—All right.

—My submission was made last night in the absence of Mr. FitzGerald and now, as far as I am concerned, Mr. FitzGerald is to a large extent, as far as I can see, not asking for evidence but trying to set traps; and, furthermore, by his use of that newspaper account, which I think was very, very wrong, that is the Dowling one and the other one from the Irish Press, which I think was terrible, it is incumbent on me to put forward again the submission in the same words as I did last night; that this Committee in effect—and this has been emphasised by the way Deputy FitzGerald is putting questions here—is trying to make this Inquiry into a third arms trial. I put forward a submission last night and gave very good reasons why I was authorised in the carrying out of my duties, and I put the proposition to the Committee, would the Committee accept that this importation of arms was authorised and you, Mr. Chairman, in your wisdom said you would leave it until later. But now what I find happening is that Mr. FitzGerald is trying, by comparing evidence with evidence, word with word, very unfairly trying to disprove what has been said previously and in effect is trying to disprove what has been proved in the High Courts of this country, because during the course of that trial my defence at all times was based on this question of authorisation and my counsel at all times set out to prove that this importation of arms was fully authorised. The verdict was based on this and as a matter of fact I think the judge also laid it down very precisely what the trial was about. He said it was a purely criminal offence concerned with whether the arms were imported under authority or not, under authority of the Minister for Defence for the use of the army. The verdict given there was that they were, by the very fact that we were found not guilty. This was further proved as regards the jury when they came back and put a very pertinent question concerning this. I want to put the proposition that this Committee is going completely outside its term of reference in trying to undo what has been done previously, and to undo it in what I maintain is a very—I would say certainly in a court of law—unethical manner. Mr. Chairman, I would like your ruling, if it can be accepted that the importation of arms was authorised.

5240. Deputy FitzGerald.—May I proceed now?

5241. Captain Kelly.—Mr. Chairman, do I get the ruling?

5242. Chairman.—I am in no position to give a ruling in this matter.

—I want to put forward a further submission, that I think a ruling must be got on this because in my original suggestion here this money is related to my Intelligence work. If this Committee does not accept a verdict of the Four Courts, set out, as is quite clear from what has gone on here this evening, and I say it is unethical bringing in red herrings which are not related at all; and I would go further and say this question of the IRA and of Sam Dowling can appear to the general public as nothing more than an attempted smear and I object very strongly to it and I refuse to answer any further questions to Deputy FitzGerald.

5243. Chairman.—Captain Kelly, you see we are trying to find out where this money went. That is our primary purpose.

—I accept this, Mr. Chairman, and I accept that various members of this Committee, including yourself, have stuck to this, but Deputy FitzGerald has deviated completely from it.

5244. Chairman.—In that respect you have not been a very good witness in so far as you have not given us information.

—The point is this, which I made clear in the very beginning, that I had no responsibility for this money as such, that the money was handled by people outside this jurisdiction and, for instance, Deputy FitzGerald asked a question, posed a question earlier on, which I said I would have to answer in private. I think it would be very obvious why anyone in Northern Ireland should not wish to be associated with arms. I think this is the crux of the matter and I think it should be obvious. But the point is this: I am not willing to go on answering questions here if constantly members of this Committee try, by making use of evidence in the Four Courts—I don’t mind this— but by making use of evidence, by stating that evidence was given in the Four Courts which was not given, by trying, this can only be set up as a plan and I submit it is completely unethical, and I submit that bringing in this quotation about the Sam Dowling trial is completely out of line and I refuse, under those circumstances, to answer any further questions.

5245. You refuse to answer the question as to what you did with the money?

—I do not refuse. I did nothing with the money and I reject the phraseology of that question, Mr. Chairman. I never had any responsibility for the money. The money was in Northern Irish hands and I think that this Committee here has got some accounting of this money from those people in Northern Ireland. They have got some accounting which has not come to their notice yet, to my information, and I think possibly this should be produced first and possibly the Committee would know where the money went. I am not objecting to discussing the money as such. I am objecting to efforts that are being made here in effect for a third arms trial, and in effect hold it in a very unethical manner.

5246. You know, Captain Kelly, if you gave us a little more co-operation——

—I will give plenty of co-operation, but I can’t give the co-operation under the circumstance I have outlined. I think it is terrible that what has gone on this evening has been allowed to take place.

5247. The question of your authorisation, the question of whether you had authority to do what you did, is not the foremost thing, in my mind anyway.

—I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

5248. But what is foremost in my mind is to try and do what I am asked to do, to try and find out how the money went, and it is only when we find out how the money went that we can make a judgment. We are not getting the fullest co-operation from you as a witness in so far as you are withholding information.

—I cannot give you definite information on the money because other people were handling the money. In effect I came in by obliging them, possibly by changing cheques at a certain stage. I am willing to answer what I know about the money but what I am not willing to put up with is the type of questioning that has gone on here by Deputy FitzGerald, and I object most strongly, and I was very annoyed when I saw this evening where he got this, taken from the Irish Press which was conveyed to me as being evidence yesterday. I think this is completely and utterly wrong and I think the Sam Dowling introduction is uncalled for and I would say has no justification. Legally— I am not a lawyer by any manner of means, but this is my assumption—and furthermore bringing in this thing about subversive organisations and IRA which has nothing to do with the case whatsoever if only as far as the public is concerned laying a smear as such.

5249. If the money passed into inappropriate hands we are entitled to find out and endeavour to find out what happened.

—I think I have said earlier to this meeting, I think Deputy Nolan queried me on the money, or some other Deputy, I don’t know who it was, queried me on the money. I answered as fully as I could, but I can only again return to my submission that I am not going to sit before this Committee any further and be subjected to this query of my authority. My authority was complete. I know this myself. It has been proved in the High Courts, and this I think must be accepted first. Forget about the question of my authority as an Intelligence officer doing my duty. This was proved to have been done, and also I think the submission I submitted yesterday, I gave a lot of relevant facts which only substantiate this.

5250. Deputy Keating.—We have an explicit refusal by the witness to answer certain questions and an indication from him that he considers certain areas of inquiry impermissible on our part. I suggest that we adjourn the public session at this moment.

5251. Chairman.—Is that the wish of the members?

5252. Deputy MacSharry.—Before you do, Mr. Chairman, there is one question I would like to put.

5253. Deputy Nolan.—There is one point which could explain, the point where we got broken down earlier on, who you informed and who assisted who, it is on the same date——

5254. Chairman.—Is the position this: that you came down and put a proposition to the Director of Intelligence who put it to the Minister for Defence. Was that the position?

—The position is that you could call it a report to the Director of Intelligence of what these people intended, if you like. The proposition is probably o.k., except—the proposition from these people, yes.

5255. And you put it to the Director of Intelligence and he put it to the Minister?

—He put it to the Minister.

5256. Does that clarify things for you?

5257. Deputy FitzGerald.—Not at all. As I understand it Colonel Hefferon put it to the Minister on the 13th of February. I am talking about a conversation between them in the middle of January. I am open to correction on that. I have a statement of the witness and I thought in fairness to the witness that I should ask him whether he was clear that it meant what it said, and he stood over it. Perhaps I was foolish to do that, and perhaps I should have taken him at his word and not discussed it further. I do not understand what the objection is. I am prepared to take it that the witness meant what he said, and proceed from that. I have finished with that section.

5258. Deputy Treacy.—I am bound to say that I feel the witness is trying to be as helpful as he can in respect of the query put to him. Could we not agree then to accept the Chairman’s interpretation as now put?

5259. Deputy FitzGerald.—What interpretation?

5260. Chairman.—Can we pass on?

5261. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am happy with this matter. I have no further question on this particular point. I take it that Captain Kelly meant what he said. I will now pass on to another matter. I would like to clarify the date. I think in evidence you confirmed this. The date on which you suggested you were operating under Mr. Gibbons’ instruction, I understand you said, that it was from 4th March you operated under Mr. Gibbons’ instructions. Is that correct?

—Yes.

5262. Right, now I come back to your communication with Mr. Gibbons at that time. The time you went to see Mr. Gibbons. In this discussion did Mr. Blaney’s name come into the discussion?

—I could not say. Maybe incidentally, I do not know.

5263. Could it have been clear from what you said to Mr. Gibbons that you and Mr. Blaney had been in touch a long time and frequently on these matters?

—Mr. Gibbons would have known that. Mr. Blaney made the introduction, therefore Mr. Gibbons knew.

5264. Mr. Blaney introduced you to Mr. Gibbons in that case.

—He made the arrangement.

5265. Yes, I see. When did you first mention the arms import proposal to Mr. Blaney?

—Mr. Blaney?

5266. Yes.

—That is a difficult question to answer. As I say, I had discussions with Mr. Blaney at pretty regular intervals, it may have lapsed occasionally, maybe a week. I would have kept him informed, I would imagine, of developments because we were exchanging information as regards Intelligence, as such.

5267. You would have kept him informed from a fairly early stage.

—The question did not arise until December.

5268. By an early stage, I meant from December.

—For instance—I could not say—maybe I told him in December or January. I would not have made it my business to go and tell him, type of thing.

5269. What was his reaction when you first raised this question?

—It was merely an Intelligence operation, and there were various aspects of Intelligence interested in it at the time. For instance, a lot of the same discussions with Mr. Blaney revolved around information he had on the North, and I would possibly tell it to him incidentally.

5270. That does not really answer the point. What I am concerned about is not whether you told Mr. Blaney that you suspected that there were arms import proposals under way, but whether you yourself were engaged in these, and had, in fact, drawn money from the bank account for that purpose. There is a big difference between passing on Intelligence to him about other people and telling him that you yourself were involved.

—I was doing an Intelligence exercise. Once again, I do not see the relevance of your line of questioning at all. Mr. Blaney had nothing to do with the money, and I was only using him to fill out my Intelligence picture. Possibly, he was on a sub-committee and he may have used me to help him.

5271. Did you tell him and if so at what stage that you were engaged in the importation of arms affair, financially or otherwise? —As I said, I would probably have told him at some stage. I could not tell you when and I could not even tell you definitely that I did tell him.

5272. You started off by telling him that you had Intelligence information about an arms importation proposal, and then at a later stage you informed him that you yourself were involved in it?

—I would certainly tell him of my trip to the Continent. I would say that I was going to the Continent and I would have no hesitation in saying it.

5273. You must have met him before one of those trips.

—Yes, I did.

5274. Before he provided Mr. Luykx.

—Mr. Luykx did not come into the picture until April.

5275. But the point is that at some stage of your references in talking to Mr. Blaney about arms imports, as something you had learned about and were keeping the Government informed, there came references to your own involvement. It was important to know Mr. Blaney’s reaction when he discovered the arms importation proposals you were telling him about, that you yourself had become involved. Did he accept this or was he surprised?

—I do not understand your line of questioning at all. I put it this way. I had informed my proper authorities about this matter. They were informed. And if I discussed it with Mr. Blaney, for instance, Mr. Blaney could do nothing about it one way or the other, and I do not see what reference this has to the question of money.

5276. I am sorry. If you wish to have a ruling on relevance, you can address the Chair. Otherwise I would be grateful if you would answer the question.

—Mr. Chairman, I do not see what reference it has to the money question.

5277. Chairman.—You mean as regards the communication with Deputy Blaney?

—Yes, there is no question of money at all.

5278. The money was spent on the importation of arms in which you were engaged, and you deemed that you had been authorised by Deputy Blaney and, I think, Deputy Haughey, is that so?

—This is not correct, and it has been discussed here earlier on as regards the reference brought up by Deputy FitzGerald that I was under orders from Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney. There was no question of being under orders from Mr. Haughey or Mr. Blaney. I could not be under orders from them.

5279. Deputy FitzGerald.—We understood from Colonel Hefferon that these arms activities were being carried on under their auspices, not under his, and therefore we are anxious to find out if that is so. If you say they were not involved that is all right. In view of what Colonel Hefferon says we must try and establish who was responsible.

—As regards Mr. Blaney, he had nothing to do with the money question. For instance, I did not give him money, or I did not arrange to get money and he had no money out of the account.

5280. Did he know about the account?

—Yes, he would have known.

5281. You told us earlier that he knew the Defence Committees were paying for the arms.

—I am sure I told him this.

5282. He knew that this account existed and that it was an account held by the Defence Committees, the money was being paid into them.

—He would know this, I expect.

5283. In discussions with him did this question ever come up as to payment for the arms?

—I am in a difficulty here. I just cannot say. It is possible. It must have been discussed at some stage, in what detail I do not know, because as regards the arms importation—and this is the fact of the case which does not seem to be accepted here and on which I made my objection earlier on—this was done on the lawful authority under which I operated. This is the main point as I see it. Once I had my lawful authority there was no necessity to start querying outside that. I have also made a categorical statement that Mr. Blaney had nothing to do with the money as far as I am aware.

5284. You appreciate that Colonel Hefferon’s evidence would appear to some to be in conflict with your submission?

—I would like to see the evidence of Colonel Hefferon. I think he was referring to my liaison with various Ministers, where I introduced, for instance, members of committees for Northern Ireland, and so on.

5285. Yes, but my recollection is—and I am open to correction—that he told us that he regarded this arms importation affair as part of your liaison work?

When the arms importation got off the ground in September—and this has been explained on numerous occasions—I was keeping in touch with the developing situation. As a matter of fact I think a very good Intelligence operation was carried out to the extent that one could actually find out what was going on and could go into the position, that one could be trusted to the extent that one could find out what was going on. The point is this. In mid-January this was put to Colonel Hefferon in a precise form. He put it to the Minister for Defence and from there on the importation was authorised by the Minister for Defence. This brings me back to my original question. Is the Committee prepared to accept my authorisation on the evidence so far?

5286. The difficulty is that Colonel Hefferon says he did not hear anything about arms from you until mid-January and he has no recollection of hearing anything about the money, yet you took money from this account in December. We are in difficulties and would be glad of any help as to on whose authority you took this money out of the account. It was not Colonel Hefferon’s. Could it have been Mr. Blaney’s?

—This is not correct. The answer Colonel Hefferon gave was that he had no recollection of knowing about the money, no recollection of my telling him. The question is, did he tell you that there was a withdrawal of £3,000 from the account?

5287. Will you please listen to what I say? You are jumping to conclusions. I said—and this is open to refutation if it can be refuted— that he said he knew nothing about the arms until mid-January. With regard to the financing, he had no recollection of ever hearing about it. In any event, as he heard nothing until mid-January about the arms importation he could not have heard about the financing. That being so, I want to know who authorised you to withdraw the money in December. I think it is a fair question and goes to the very core of the inquiry, and I would like a straight answer.

—I was carrying out an Intelligence operation. I reported to Colonel Hefferon and, as I have said on numerous occasions previously, I do not think that I withheld anything from Colonel Hefferon. Certainly I did not deliberately at any stage withhold anything from him and I would be quite sure I told him about the money. He says he has no recollection of that— that is fair enough.

5288. What I wanted to know is, when you decided to take that money out of the account, did anybody authorise you to do that? Had you consulted somebody and said, “Can I do something very unusual, can I take money out of an account for a relief fund from the Irish Government and provide this money to people for the purchase of arms without being so authorised?” It is all very well to talk of an Intelligence operation. I accept that you were doing a very good job up to that time. You had gained their confidence and laid the groundwork for stopping the whole thing, and then for reasons which are obscure the fruits which could have flowed from that did not flow. But when the operation reaches the point that you are not only finding out about but participating in the activities you are investigating, that goes so far beyond the normal duties of an Intelligence officer that you would surely, in the ordinary way, seek authority? It would appear from the evidence that you did not seek such authority, and that might be considered by some as going beyond your authority?

5289. Chairman.—Perhaps the Deputy would just put questions, and not express opinions. The Deputy is straying into expressing opinions.

5290. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am trying to explain the proposition to Captain Kelly and, with respect, it is difficult to put it in such a way that we get a straight answer. Could I now, in the light of that, ask you whether you were authorised by anybody to take this money out or did you do that off your own bat?

—I was authorised by the Director of Intelligence.

5291. He told you to take the money out?

—I was carrying out a very special operation, a very unusual operation indeed. This was not the first time I had come across attempts to import arms. When one is carrying out an operation of this sort one does not straight away jump in and possibly walk into trouble. Those previous operations had turned out to be abortive, I understood. I knew that in those previous operations some money had been paid at a certain stage; an importation of arms does not start until some action takes place, and the first action would be the payment of a deposit. As far as I was concerned it can be let go forward at least that far otherwise you cannot say it is an arms importation; you do not know, you have to wait and see. And you also said in your introduction that this was Irish Government money. As far as I was aware it was Northern Ireland money on the basis that the Northern Ireland people said they had money there and for security reasons were using money down here. It is as simple as that and I have explained it ad nauseam.

5292. If you would just answer the question we could get on more quickly. I asked a simple question—were you authorised to take out that money?

—I was authorised.

5293. I am sorry, you have told us you were not authorised, as I understand it. To me being authorised means that somebody said “Yes, you can go and take this money from the account.” You are suggesting that the word means you were authorised to carry out an Intelligence operation and that authorised you to take the money from the account. If that is your proposition we should consider it. What is your proposition?

—As regards taking money from the account, I am not too sure if I took the money from the account. I know that I handled this money at one stage in that I kept it in my possession, in safe keeping, for a person. Whether I withdrew it or not, I do not know, so we must clarify it. I do not know at this point in time.

5294. I think that is a change in your earlier evidence?

—If I said it in evidence earlier, I accept it, but at this point in time that is the position. The thing is this: When you are carrying out an Intelligence operation you do not report everything that happens as such. You may conceivably be working for a Director of Intelligence who would allow you no initiative, or for one who would allow you initiative, and it is a question of trust. If I had concealed what was going on from the Director of Intelligence I could understand your saying there was no authorisation, but there was no attempt at concealment, and never was. I hark back to my original submission that this was authorised, the whole operation. And I would like to make the submission, Mr. Chairman, that I do not think the Committee should get bogged down in querying my authorisation, and this is what Deputy FitzGerald is doing all the time, and I think, Mr. Chairman, that at this stage I would like it clarified that this question of authorisation is irrelevant. If the Committee wants to know where the money went, good enough, but my authorisation as an Intelligence officer has been proved over and over, twice in the Arms Trial, and I think my submission last night made it very clear to everyone and gave a very good summary of why it was authorised, and I do not think I should be subjected to this type of question.

5295. I am satisfied. I have established now that Captain Kelly did not have any specific authority to withdraw the money but felt that he had authority under the general authority to act as an Intelligence officer. That is all I wanted to know.

—I do not accept that, Mr. Chairman. I had full authority and was acting with full authority. If it had been concealed from the Director of Intelligence, that would be a fair enough thing to do, but what you are doing at this stage is splitting hairs and trying to divide these things up into little compartments, which you cannot do.

5296. Deputy FitzGerald.—I think that members should be protected from these kinds of accusations. It is our job to ask questions and the witness’s to answer them. Would you enable me to proceed?

5297. Chairman.—The witness is by no means blameless but would the Deputy refrain from expressing opinions—and you just expressed one now.

5298. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am sorry; I am trying to establish the facts.

5299. Chairman.—We could get on much better if Deputies would refrain from expressing opinions and try to get as much evidence as they can by putting simple questions, and particularly questions relevant to where the money went. It is as simple as that. If you feel that there is some point about authorisation which you want to have clarified, perhaps you would put it in simple fashion?

5300. Deputy FitzGerald.—I do not know how I can put it more simply than I have but it has taken a lot of simple questions to get a simple answer about authorisation. I am satisfied about that now but I think we should be protected from this kind of remark by the witness.

Captain Kelly.—Could we have an adjournment for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman?

The Committee adjourned at 8.45 p.m. and resumed at 8.54 p.m.

5301. Chairman.—Captain Kelly, we have decided to give you a rest and to call you again next Tuesday at 11 o’clock.

Captain Kelly withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 8.55 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 4th February, 1971.