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 Márta, 1971

Wednesday, 3rd March, 1971

The Committee met at 11.00 a.m.

DEPUTY P. HOGAN in the chair.

ORDER OF DÁIL OF 1st DECEMBER, 1970.

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

The Committee deliberated.

Colonel Michael Hefferon further examined on recall.

9567. Chairman.—I wish to welcome you back. I want to ask you some questions. They will be, by their nature, perhaps, repetitious because there are not many new questions which can be asked at this stage. I will try to ask the questions in such a fashion as to make it reasonably easy for you to answer simply yes or no. I will try to bring them in some kind of chronological order. First of all, it seems that in respect of Captain Kelly, he appeared, to borrow an expression of Deputy H. Gibbons, to be wearing three hats. He was an Intelligence Officer to you, he was acting as liaison officer in an unofficial capacity between the Northern people and the Minister for Finance and then, at some stage, he was acting as an arms procurement agent for the Northern people. Would that be correct?

—I do not know. This arms procurement business: I do not think I would use the expression “arms procurement”. I have gone into this in a good deal of detail. It has been gone into in two arms trials and again here, with Captain Kelly and other witnesses. Without again going back and elaborating on what happened around mid-January and onwards, I do not think there is an easy answer.

9568. You said that in mid-January you gathered from Captain Kelly that he intended to help the Northern people in the procurement of arms. Is that correct?

—To assist.

9569. I said to help. They amount to the same thing. Did you regard his activities as being (a), an Intelligence Officer collecting information for yourself, and (b), a liaison officer helping Deputy Haughey in the distribution of the Grant-in-Aid?

—That would be so.

9570. Was there any suspicion in your mind that maybe Captain Kelly was going outside these two fields?

—You mean giving money to people?

9571. The two fields I mentioned—intelligence officer and liaison officer?

—Not until early or mid-January. I think mid-January is close enough.

9572. So you had no suspicion of his departing from the position of observer or reporter or as an intelligence officer on arms movements to become more positively involved as a participant?

—No, not until he brought this matter up in mid-January.

9573. From mid-January you thought he was becoming emotionally involved in this arms thing?

—Yes.

9574. At that stage you told him he could not do this and remain an officer in the Army?

—Yes.

9575. Did you advise him (a) to retire and (b) to consult with Deputies Haughey and Blaney?

—Yes. I think the sequence of events is that in the first instance I had a talk with him and told him he did not need to do this, that he could be assigned to other work, that he should consider his family and to go away and think about it for a few days. At a later stage, I think three or four days or a week, he came back to me and this time he said he had made up his mind at that stage.

9576. He brought his retirement form?

—Yes.

9577. And did he ask you that this should not be activated until 13th February?

—That is right.

9578. Did that mean that he would cease to be an officer on 13th February?

—If I sent the papers through at that stage, this would be true.

9579. The two pieces of advice you gave to Captain Kelly—I take it you agree that you mentioned the question of retirement and you mentioned the question of consultation with Messrs. Haughey and Blaney?

—Yes.

9580. Did you inform the Minister for Defence that you had given these two pieces of advice to Captain Kelly?

—Yes, I believe I did. I cannot be quite certain of that but I believe I did, I believe I gave him the whole surrounding circumstances.

9581. There was also the question of the third point—the proposal for a transfer to some other innocuous occupation for Captain Kelly. Where did that proposal come from? From yourself?

—In my discussion with the Minister for Defence, first of all, I did mention to Captain Kelly that he should tell the other two Ministers that I did not think he could do that kind of thing and stay on as an officer in the Army but that I felt some job should be got for him. I also mentioned this to the Minister for Defence, who was sympathetic to this, too.

9582. The Minister for Defence then was acquainted with three things—Captain Kelly’s application for retirement, the suggested consultation with Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney and the proposal for a transfer. He was acquainted with these three points?

—Not necessarily a proposal for a transfer but a proposal to have him accommodated in some other post.

9583. We accept that.

—You see, there would be no question of a transfer.

9584. What was the reaction of the Minister to these three points? I understand he was sympathetic to the question of getting him some other occupation. What was done as regards retirement at that stage?

—I understand the matter was under discussion between himself and the other two Ministers over a period and, finally, about the third week in March, I think I was told some time after Patrick’s Day, by the Minister for Defence that a post had been found for him— had been suggested by Mr. Haughey, I think,— and this post I have already told you about.

9585. This retirement form that Captain Kelly produced, is it an official document? Is it the recognised form which is filled up?

—Yes.

9586. Did it contain in writing anything to suggest his request? Was his request written into it that this retirement application be not activated until February 13th, or was it a verbal request?

—My remembrance and recollection of this is that he asked verbally that this would be done.

9587. Is this retirement form filed? Would it be available to this Committee?

—No.

9588. What happened to it?

—I never forwarded it. I think it was destroyed with other papers before I left.

9589. We can take it that it was an official document presented in the regular fashion?

—Yes, it was.

9590. I do not want to ask a leading question but in order to short-circuit things I will do so on this occasion. Is it your evidence that at this stage the question of the technical method of importation of arms, how the arms were to be brought in, was not under consideration?

—That is my recollection.

9591. At that stage you did appreciate that the Northern people, to use that general term, had their own funds, had some funds?

—Yes.

9592. You would agree that so long as they had money in their pockets they would have access to some arms somewhere in the world?

—I think that is so.

9593. Therefore, the only help that could be provided for them south of the Border would be at the level of importation, not at the level of procurement? The most reasonable help they could get from down here was import facilities? Would you accept that?

—I think there was a bit more to it than that. I think they felt in asking Captain Kelly to do this for them they would look on him as an expert in this field. In other words, if they bought arms they would not be “codded” by the arms people. They would like to have somebody who could help them.

9594. The point I am making is that although the method of bringing in arms here at that time may not have been specifically discussed, would it be a reasonable assumption that in the minds of everybody south of the Border the question of using the South as a means of importing arms would be at the back of everyone’s mind?

—I do not think so. I think the question was very open at this stage.

9595. With the British Navy around the Six Counties, was it so open?

—No, that is true, but we are discussing possibilities.

9596. Yes. I think your evidence has been to the effect that Captain Kelly offered to retire by February 13th at your suggestion so that he might more fully participate without causing embarrassment towards helping Northern people to import arms. Is that correct?

—Yes.

9597. Would it then be correct for me to suggest to you that this offer from Captain Kelly was not taken up, and that Captain Kelly was allowed to remain in the Army and, with the knowledge of his superiors, visit the Continent thereafter in an effort to assist Northern people in the importation of arms?

—Yes.

9598. I want to take you briefly, and, I think, in chronological order over Captain Kelly’s visits to the Continent. Again, Colonel Hefferon, there will be a bit of repetition but I hope you will be patient with me. I understand that Captain Kelly’s first visit to the Continent was on February 19th when he went alone to Dortmund?

—In or around that.

9599. Did he discuss this visit with you beforehand?

—He said he was going to see about arms. I understood that some of the Northern people were going with him and they were going to see about some arms on the Continent. That is my recollection of it.

9600. He had to have your permission to leave the country?

—Yes.

9601. Did he state his destination?

—I think Dusseldorf. I think that was the destination mentioned.

9602. You agreed to his going away?

—I discussed it with the Minister.

9603. Did the Minister agree?

—Yes, he did.

9604. Did you arrange a cover story?

—I did not arrange a cover story. He told me he had a sister anyway.

9605. Did you discuss a cover story with the Minister?

—Did I discuss it?

9606. Yes.

—Yes, I did, whether he had a sister.

9607. What was the reaction of the Minister to the question of the cover story?

—As far as I know he said that it is a natural thing for him to visit his sister, is it not.

9608. Yes, but you and the Minister——

—I made it quite clear he was going to fetch arms.

9609. You knew and the Minister knew?

—Yes.

9610. Did Captain Kelly give you a full report of that journey on his return?

—I am sure he told me what had happened but, at this time, I cannot remember.

9611. It was an oral report?

—Yes, there was no written report.

9612. Did you transmit that report to the Minister?

—Well, no, I have no recollection of transmitting that report to the Minister.

9613. Had you any conversation with the Minister about Captain Kelly’s first visit to the Continent subsequent to Captain Kelly’s return?

—I have no recollection of that.

9614. In his report to you about it did he tell you he met Herr Schleuter?

—I do not think so.

9615. Did he tell you that he took with him £10,000 in English one pound notes?

—No.

9616. Did he report that he met an agent in Dortmund?

—He could have but, again, I do not have any recollection of it.

9617. Did he disclose the identity of that agent?

—No.

9618. Did he tell you that he lodged £10,000 in a bank in Dortmund?

—No.

9619. And you have no idea on whose authority he took over £10,000 out of the funds in Baggot Street?

—I presume it was on the authority of the Northern people, the Defence Committee.

9620. Now, Captain Kelly’s second visit. This ended up, I think, in Antwerp, March 10th. Did he discuss this with you beforehand?

—Yes, he told me he was going to Antwerp.

9621. You gave him permission?

—Yes, I went to the Minister again about that time and made further representation about Captain Kelly being separated from service, getting some post outside the army.

9622. At all events he had to get your agreement to go on the second visit to the Continent?

—Well, he was reporting to me, and I was reporting to the Minister for Defence.

9623. And the Minister for Defence did not disagree with his going?

—No.

9624. You knew the purpose of his going?

—Yes.

9625. And the Minister knew the purpose for his going?

—Oh yes. By the way, in this connection, of course, a whole lot of other things happened. These delegations which had come down from the North before March which the Minister had met, a lot of these things.

9626. Was the method of disposal of arms discussed with you by Captain Kelly before he went to the Continent on this second excursion, the second visit?

—I have no recollection that this matter of the disposal to Cathal Brugha Barracks was discussed with me until after they had failed to come. This is my recollection as I have already stated.

9627. Did he report to you that he met Herr Schleuter on the second occasion?

—I have no recollection of Herr Schleuter’s name being mentioned at all.

9628. Did he mention to you that there were arms on some dock, but he failed to see them?

—He mentioned to me sometime that they were in Antwerp and it was hoped to get them in by sea.

9629. Did he tell you that arrangements were made for the arrival of arms on a ship at Dublin port on March 25th?

—Yes, that they had been coming.

9630. You knew beforehand arrangements were being made to bring them in?

—I did.

9631. Did you give a report of that to the Minister?

—I understood Captain Kelly gave him a report on this, I think you have evidence to that effect.

9632. Did you give him a report?

—No.

9633. I understood from your evidence, Colonel Hefferon, that you had a consultation or a talk with Captain Kelly in March as to the technique of importing arms, as to the method which mighf be used for bringing in arms?

—You mean about getting permission to bring them in?

9634. Well, you can correct me now, but I gathered from Captain Kelly’s evidence here that he suggested to you (a) that the arms be imported under the Minister for Defence; (b) that they be stored in the Republic under the care of the Army and he mentioned the name of Cathal Brugha Barracks; and, (c) that they would be distributed to the North under Army management in a doomsday situation. Would this suggestion have come in the earlier stages?

—My recollection of it is that after March 25 this question of bringing them into the Cathal Brugha Barracks arose.

9635. I am speaking about late March.

—Yes. Second, there was never any question of the arms being sent to the North except under Government control. I did not understand your second point.

9636. Is it correct that you made an alternative suggestion? Did you suggest that the customs clearance be secured through the Department of Finance?

—Yes. At this stage I felt that if these arms were coming in officially they should have official clearance.

9637. And that they be stored in the Republic in a safe place by Captain Kelly?

—Yes.

9638. And that they would be there for distribution to the North in a doomsday situation?

—Yes, in a doomsday situation.

9639. Did you report this discussion, and particularly your suggestion as regards customs clearance through Finance, to the Minister for Defence?

—This again is something that I have no clear recollection of doing. It would be normal that I would do so, but again I cannot say definitely.

9640. Did Captain Kelly inform you that the importation on March 25 was an abortive one?

—The attempted one, yes.

9641. Did he tell you he had succeeded in getting bullet-proof vests?

—Yes. My remembrance concerning the bullet-proof vests is that some time later he told me about this.

9642. He told you after? Did he tell you that the vests were stored in his own house?

—No. Again, this came out later on, I think.

9643. Did you in effect ask him what had happened to the vests?

—No, I did not.

9644. Did you report the question of the vests to the Minister for Defence?

—No. I understood that Captain Kelly had given him a pretty full report on this, including his visit to the docks. I think you have had evidence on that from Captain Kelly.

9645. From what stage was Captain Kelly reporting directly to the Minister?

—It appeared to me to be about the 3rd/4th March. He was reporting pretty frequently to the Minister.

9646. At page 350, Book 8, Captain Kelly states that he was reporting directly to the Minister after 4th March. At paragraph 4655 Captain Kelly states “I was reporting to the Director of Intelligence up until the 4th March. I then reported to the Minister for Defence.” So far as your knowledge goes, is that a correct statement?

—Yes, but, of course, he was also reporting to me.

9647. Captain Kelly made a third visit to the Continent. I think you have not seen the submission from Mr. Luykx.

—I do not think so. Is this a submission to the Committee?

9648. Yes. This visit took place between the 1st and 4th April?

—Yes, roughly.

9649. Again I take it that Captain Kelly had to seek your permission to go to the Continent on the fourth occasion?

—Yes.

9650. Did he again state his destination and purpose?

—He did. This has been given in a good deal of detail already. I think it is important to tie up with this the fact that Captain Kelly was still subject to being called for military duties Before that happened, as he had informed me— incorrectly, as it happened—that he was due for duty at this time, and because I had no authority to release him from that duty, I went to the Minister for Defence and asked him, if it were necessary, whether he would use his good offices. I find that this is like a gramophone going over this again and again. With great respect, to put this matter without the background—which has already been stated— is over-simplifying it, and reducing it to the point of whether I reported it to the Minister or whether I did not. I know you have to ask these questions but they have been asked and answered before.

9651. I take it that for this third visit, as usual, he sought your permission and told you where he was going on the Continent, and the purpose of his visit.

—Yes.

9652. And you acquiesced and informed the Minister for Defence accordingly.

—I said I would see the Minister for Defence about it, and I did, because of this question that he had informed me at the same time that he was due for duty.

9653. He was allowed to go to the Continent with the Minister’s knowledge?

—Yes.

9654. That is the point I am trying to get at. You had no cognisance of the purpose for which he went to the Continent?

—Yes.

9655. He gave you his report when he came back?

—Yes. He would have reported to me some time after he came back. That was very near my retirement at the time. You will remember that, at this time, the question of the rifles to Dundalk had also arisen, and I sent a message to him to come back over this weekend, I think it was 2nd April.

9656. Did he mention that he was taking Mr. Luykx with him on that occasion?

—I do not have any clear recollection. My remembrance is that he was taking an interpreter with him. He possibly mentioned Mr. Luykx. I am sure he did. He only mentioned that he was a businessman and did a lot of business on the Continent. I have no memory of him mentioning anything else about him.

9657. Can you recall whether he gave you a full comprehensive report of his activities when he came back from the Continent on that visit lasting from April 1st to April 4th?

—At this stage I cannot remember what he told me about it, beyond the fact that they had been there and that they had seen arms and further arrangements would have to be made about getting them in.

9658. Did he mention the fact that he arranged for Herr Luykx to pay a cheque for £8,500 for 400 extra sub-machine guns?

—I do not have any memory of that.

9659. Such report as he gave you would in due course be given to the Minister for Defence by you?

—No. I understood he was reporting and had reported to the Minister for Defence himself.

9660. Captain Kelly paid a fourth visit to the Continent. At that stage you had retired— April 17th. You are not able to give us any help in that respect?

(No reply).

9661. I appreciate that, throughout your evidence, you have indicated that you were not acquainted in any detail with Captain Kelly’s activities in respect of the financial affairs of Baggot Street. The ex-Minister for Finance yesterday, Deputy Haughey, also testified that he knew nothing about the main Baggot Street account or the subsidiary Baggot Street accounts. In general, you knew of the existence of a fund. Did you know of the existence of a fund from mid-October and of Captain Kelly’s association with it in a general way?

—In a general way I knew—he had reported to me that the account was transferred from Clones to Baggot Street and over a period, as I said before in evidence, I had got’ phone calls from the Department of Finance which were for Captain Kelly and which he took. There were visits and so on. In that way I was aware.

9662. Did you believe at that stage that his activities in respect of that fund were under the control and with the knowledge of the Minister for Finance?

—Oh, yes.

9663. Did he inform you at any stage that he was operating or in a position to participate in the operation of funds at the request of Northern people.

—I am sorry. I did not quite get that question.

9664. Did he inform you at any stage that he was in a position to operate or participate in the operation of funds at the request of the Northern people?

—My understanding of it was that he was operating directly with the Minister for Finance in this matter of the administration of the funds and that he was the link between him and the Northern committees, or one of the links, anyway.

9665. I take it that while he did not give you any specific details of his operations did he, in general, at any stage inform you that he was presenting cheques, drawing large quantities of money and keeping this money for periods in his own house?

—No.

9666. In general, Captain Kelly’s activities vis-à-vis the funds were completely outside your knowledge?

—Except for the fact that he was active in this fund with the Minister for Finance—that he was actually administering the fund through him as a link between the Northern defence committees and the Minister for Finance.

9667. You believed up to mid-January that Captain Kelly was not involved or not deeply involved, anyway, or not involved at all with the question of the importation of arms?

—Oh, yes.

9668. And that he was carrying out his duties as an Intelligence Officer and just reporting in a proper fashion?

—Yes.

9669. Would you consider that Captain Kelly’s activities after mid-January—after your request for his resignation, that his continued activities as an Army officer were irregular?

—I do not know about the irregularity of it. There was a period during which his future in a post other than the Army was being considered. During this period I knew that the three Ministers concerned were aware of the fact that he had made a request to leave the Army for the reason that he wanted to help the Northern defence committees.

9670. We are moving now into the field of Captain Kelly’s much-vaunted authority and the question of superior culpability. Would you accept that the failure to accept Captain Kelly’s resignation immediately—would you accept that that constituted an acquiescence, if not a sanction, in his declared intention of helping the Northern people to import arms?

—Very little happened between the time that he sent it in or had a conversation with the Minister for Defence on this matter and that I had sent him back through the other two Ministers to report to them—between that and the time he went on the Continent for the first time about the 19th March. Certainly, at this stage, the Minister for Defence was in no doubt as to his going there in order to vet arms.

9671. Captain Kelly, shortly after mid-January, offered to resign. He brought in his retirement form, duly filled up. He asked that it be operative on the 21st February for personal reasons but subsequent to that—his offer of resignation was not immediately accepted—and subsequent to that he was allowed to make four visits to the Continent for the purpose of procuring arms to your knowledge and according to the evidence to the knowledge of the Minister for Defence?

—Yes.

9672. Do you agree that that was acquiescence, to put it mildly, in Captain Kelly’s activities?

—As I have said before, I had reported this to the Minister for Defence on two occasions and Captain Kelly had gone abroad, certainly with my knowledge on these occasions, and I felt the responsibility for that had been removed from my particular field.

9673. You understood up to mid-January that Captain Kelly was not involved in the procurement of arms, but that may not be acceptable to everybody on the basis of the movements of money. But did not the fact that Captain Kelly was allowed to continue with his arms procurement activities and to remain an officer after he had submitted his retirement application mean, in effect, that he was being given retrospective sanction in respect of any activities he might have involved himself in in relation to the procurement of arms prior to the submission of his retirement application?

—This is a very involved question. It is a matter of opinion.

9674. While appreciating the humane aspect of it, would you accept that the positive efforts made to secure a neutral position for Captain Kelly would, by many people, seem a rather soft approach when, in the eyes of many, disciplinary action should be taken?

—I do not think so. At this stage you are again ignoring the background. This was not a very normal time. The general reports we were getting at the time were that there was possibly a further hardening of the lines. Captain Kelly was somebody who had the confidence of the Northern defence people. Bearing that in mind, bearing in mind that he had done a very good job, it was important that he should get some—

9675. Do you agree that, in general, the handling of Captain Kelly’s retirement application, the way it was handled, that it would not be unreasonable for Captain Kelly to assume he had authority to continue as he had done to involve himself in these activities?

—In view of the fact that it had gone through the Minister for Defence and that nothing was to be done about it until he had consulted the other two Ministers——

9676. Is it not basic to your office, and to the position of every Army officer, that arms are to be prevented from falling into the hands of non-Army personnel?

—Oh, yes.

9677. I suggest then that the idea offered or the suggestion made to Captain Kelly that he should seek customs clearance from the Minister for Finance for the importation of arms in a non-regular fashion was not in accordance with these principles?

—I do not know what you mean by that. The fact that I had suggested that he go to the Minister for Finance and get customs clearance was a true indication that this was a matter that should be done in this way, a matter that should be done in an open and above board manner.

9678. I am submitting to you a document. You may not have seen it already. This relates to the £500 which Captain Kelly got, through you, authorised by the Minister for Finance, for the Bailieboro’ meeting. You got no expense accounts from Captain Kelly, I understand, after 31st December?

—I do not believe I got any expense accounts from the time he got this £500. At this stage of time I do not remember because the only ones I can think of that might be submitted to me would be travelling expenses. It is possible, but then I would have been getting scores of forms.

9679. Captain Kelly’s evidence was that he submitted no expense accounts after 31st December?

—I just cannot recall 31st December.

9680. The impression has been given that after 31st December Captain Kelly drew no expense accounts from the State, but if you look at the document I have given to you, the £500 that he received from the Department of Finance, apparently from the fund, for the Bailieboro’ meeting, you will see that an amount of £35 was expended. It is Item 4 on the document. Then, he has apportioned the remainder of that sum to other expenses, extending from prior to October to May. Should that not have been submitted to you, rather than have Captain Kelly apportioning this money, which he got from the Department of Finance, to his expenses as an Intelligence Officer? Ordinarily, should he not have submitted these accounts to you as his Intelligence Chief?

—I do not think so in this particular case. There was this draft from the Minister for Finance and he was responsible to the Minister for Finance directly.

9681. There is £150 for mileage. Would that expense not be appropriate to the Department of Defence?

—This would normally be covered by an application to the Department of Defence.

9682. By an application to yourself?

—It would pass through me. I would just verify that he had been on duty. This is the form of it.

9683. In effect, Captain Kelly has, by a post hoc reconstructed statement, here apportioned that to Finance, in fact to the fund.

—Yes, this is true. This would come out of the £500. There is no more than the £500 here.

9684. He speaks of further figures. As an officer who has all these expense accounts submitted through him, can you state that would be the ordinary format in which an expense claim would be submitted to you by any of your subordinate officers?

—No, the mileage one would be submitted on a special form.

9685. It would give details?

—Well, not necessarily details because it was not customary. These forms pass through the normal Civil Service. Normally, he would satisfy me that he had been on these journeys and I would certify the amounts he had expended.

9686. Would the absence of vouching as here satisfy you if it was presented to you by Captain Kelly through the normal channels as a claim? Would you accept “estimated mileage outstanding January-May, 1970— £150”, would that be satisfactory?

—First of all, I am not aware of anyone who would be owed that amount of money over six months. These expense accounts are normally sent in monthly or thereabouts. I do not think it would come to £150 over a six months period. There was none of these claims submitted to me—this is the short answer to it.

9687. In this first item it states “expenses outstanding prior to October”. Have you any knowledge of that £23?

—No. Captain Kelly was subsidised prior to this, as were others, on a fairly small scale. It is possible he was owed money but I was not asked for it.

9688. Captain Kelly has apparently submitted expense accounts to Defence up to 31st December. He has also testified here that his expenses in respect of his liaison activities, vis-à-vis the North, we paid by the Northern people by the simple method of abstracting that amount from the money in Baggot Street.

—Yes.

9689. In this statement we have “expenses outstanding prior to October”.

—Yes.

9690. This would appear to be expenses in reference to his activities as an Army officer. You have no knowledge of this?

—I have no knowledge of that.

9691. The fifth item is in connection with refugees. It states “refugee contact, accommodation et cetera, 10 weeks, air fare, £200”. Can you give us any enlightenment on this item?

—No, I have no idea about it. I do not know the “air fare”.

9692. At any rate it looks like “air fare”. I suppose it is unfair to present you with that document when you are not able to give us any enlightenment on it. You cannot give us any help about what is meant by “reimbursed £100”?

—No, I do not know.

9693. Deputy FitzGerald.—There are a couple of questions arising out of this morning’s evidence which I should like to put. On this point I do not know if you are aware that the former Minister yesterday said in evidence that the £500 he gave to Captain Kelly was for refugees, for relief purposes. He was quite unaware that there was any question of the money being used by the Bailieboro’ meeting or any other meetings. Would you like to comment on that?

—I have already given evidence on that matter. I think the evidence I have given is sufficient.

9694. Your evidence was that there was a discussion in which the question of the Bailieboro’ meeting came up and arising out of that directly the Minister decided to provide not only the £150 estimated that was needed for Bailieboro’ but £500 to cover other meetings as well.

—That is true.

9695. That was what happened in this discussion. Can you suggest how the Minister could have such a different view? If, in fact, there was such a discussion, as you have given evidence and Captain Kelly has given evidence, how long did that discussion last about this money?

—It was rather a short discussion, 10 or 15 minutes perhaps.

9696. Was the question of money for refugees discussed at that meeting?

—I do not know. I do not remember the question of refugees. Certainly the only memory I have of refugees being discussed was the £500 I got myself, for which I have accounted. This amount I am quite certain of. I do not think there was anything but the Bailieboro’ meeting brought up. By the way, there was no sum of money mentioned. I do not think Captain Kelly made a requisition for that at the time—not in my hearing anyway.

9697. Yes, he just said he needed money for Bailieboro’——

—Yes, he said he was having this meeting and could he be subsidised for the job.

9698. Your understanding was that any money provided was solely for Bailieboro’?

—This was my understanding.

9699. Captain Kelly’s understanding is that it was initially provided for Bailieboro’ and other meetings but that he was entitled to use it for his own expenses and the Minister’s understanding is that it was for refugees?

—I can only say what my recollection of it is

9700. We will have to sort that one out. You said this morning that you understood that the question of Captain Kelly’s retirement from the Army was under discussion with Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney. From whom did you understand this? Do you mean you understood it from Captain Kelly or from the Minister for Defence?

—I understood it from the Minister for Defence and probably understood it from Captain Kelly as well.

9701. From both of them you had the impression that Mr. Gibbons had discussed this with Mr. Haughey?

—Yes.

9702. And with Mr. Blaney? They were both mentioned by the Minister in this context.

—I am not too sure about Mr. Blaney——

9703. You think Mr. Haughey was mentioned by the Minister in this context? You think Mr. Haughey was mentioned by Mr. Gibbons as someone with whom he had discussed the question of Captain Kelly’s retirement and an alternative post?

—Yes, I am pretty sure about that because when I went to him—I think the second time— and mentioned this, I think he mentioned that he would again see Mr. Haughey about it.

9704. I think you said that in early March a discussion took place about a post to be found by Mr. Haughey?

—I think it would be certainly after 15th March that a post was selected.

9705. A discussion took place with Mr. Gibbons early in March?

—Yes.

9706. On what date was it communicated to you that Captain Kelly was not to be retired from the Army, and by whom?

—I do not think that it was at any stage communicated to me because this thing kept on and on and when I left the Army there was the question of Captain Kelly sending in some statement, I forget what it was, that he was willing to be transferred. He sent this in and what happened afterwards I do not know.

9707. There was no reversal of this decision about his retirement, it just dragged on?

—Yes.

9708. Why did it? If the decision you had suggested he should retire, he sent in his retirement form, the Minister had found another job, it was agreed he should go, why did he not go and why was the form destroyed and by whom and on what instructions

—The point about it was this thing about the post fix up what the post would be and then there was the question between Departments as to the proper procedure to be followed, would it be Government or would it be, I presumed, retirement plus the taking up of the other job, you have this in the court trial, evidence was given to this effect, statements have been requested from Captain Kelly over his willingness to take up this post which I understood, he had sent in and this would be round about the time I retired, actually retired.

9709. I think, Mr. Chairman, on this point it would be useful if the relevant Government Departments could be asked to give us the documentation. It would appear from Colonel Hefferon’s statements that there must be a good deal of documentation about this. There was discussion and debate as to whether he should be seconded or whether he should retire and be appointed to this post. He was asked to make an application or indicate if he wished to take the post. I think we should ask to get that documentation.

9710. Chairman.—From what source?

9711. Deputy FitzGerald.—The Department of Defence, the Department of Finance, and the Department of Agriculture are the three Departments which appear to be involved.

9712. Deputy Nolan.—How relevant is this?

9713. Deputy Tunney.—What connection would it have, Mr. Chairman, with the actual £100,000.

9714. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am following up the Chairman’s questions on this and the evidence is relevant and I think we are anxious to get the evidence with regard to it rather than an unsupported statement.

9715. Deputy Tunney.—I don’t think it’s relevant.

9716. Deputy Keating.—I suggest we discuss it later.

—By the way, before you leave the point, in case there is any question about holding words as has been often done before my understanding was that this post, the mechanics about the post would be between the Departments. I did mention whether it would be secondment or otherwise, this is something that I do not know about and perhaps I should not mention it, you go directly to the other person. I don’t know.

9717. Deputy FitzGerald.—So far as this point is relevant we should get the evidence of it. You say that the retirement form was destroyed. Who destroyed it?

—I did.

9718. When?

—At the time or about some time round my retirement. It did not seem to have any validity any longer.

9719. The retirement in early April?

—Yes.

9720. You have told us that right up to May the question of retirement was still carrying on, had never been decided against.

—The document would be well out of date at this stage, out of date in January.

9721. Your suggestion is that another retirement form would be needed?

—Of course, if necessary. Again, I mention the question of secondment.

9722. That form was then irrelevant, no point in taking it.

—It had no relevance.

9723. I thought I should clarify that because the destruction of documents could be suspicious. You mentioned that Captain Kelly’s role with regard to the visits to the Continent was as an expert in arms, to advise the Northern people, to make sure they got good value? I think you said that.

—I wanted to make sure they were not being jibbed, I suppose.

9724. You think he was qualified to do that?

—Well, as an Army officer he would be better qualified than a civilian. He was not qualified in the sense of being an ordnance expert but he would have a good general knowledge of arms.

9725. You would expect that any arms passed would be in good working order and suitable for use?

—I would not expect, as I said, an ordnance expert who would normally be sent to vet arms. He would not have the same expertise as an ordnance officer but a good general knowledge.

9726. What did Captain Kelly report on his discussions with Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney about the question of retirement? What did he say had happened on these discussions?

—I think primarily that they were discussing it with Mr. Gibbons.

9727. Who were?

—Mr. Haughey.

9728. You asked Captain Kelly to talk to Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney. What did he report back?

—This is what he reported back, to my memory, that they were discussing it with Mr. Gibbons.

9729. That he had spoken to them and they were going to discuss it with Mr. Gibbons?

—Yes.

9730. There were questions this morning about what happened with the Minister on this matter, whether this did not imply acquiescence in the four visits to the Continent for the importation of arms. I would like to go back to the use of the word “suspect”, that you suspected Captain Kelly was going to vet arms. If you said that to the Minister, in those terms, is it not open to the interpretation that the Minister in permitting the whole thing to continue, was, perhaps, letting it take its course with a view to discovering whether your suspicions that he was involved in it were correct?

—No, I do not think so because this was not the first occasion on which I talked to him about it.

9731. How did you come to use the word “suspected” if, in fact, this was an official operation?

—Perhaps, in general terms in my discussion, I used the word “suspect”. I take it the Minister has said I used the word “suspected” I take it that I did, but, if I did use it, there was no doubt in either his or my mind as to what Captain Kelly was going to the Continent for.

9732. There may have been no doubt in his mind what Captain Kelly was going for but were the discussions you had with him consistent with the thesis that he was giving Captain Kelly rope to hang himself with rather than going along with this operation?

—I do not think so, no.

9733. You would not accept that interpretation of the discussion?

—Not at all.

9734. Finally, would you accept the view, which I understand to be the Taoiseach’s view, I hope I am not misquoting you, that Government policy is, and has always been, against the importation of arms or against any assistance being given to the importation of arms for use by particular groups in Northern Ireland. I ask this, it is not a trick question, but I ask it because we understand that it is, and always has been, Government policy, yet you seem to have a different impression. I would like to be clear if you realised this was Government policy and if, at any stage, anything was said to you that would justify you in believing the contrary?

—No, this is a very involved question. As you say, it brings back all the things that have been thrashed out.

9735. I do not want to go over the ground thrashed out before but if it is the case that this has been Government policy and this has been said and it is the understanding of many people, I just want to know at what stage you got any evidence that it was not, that would justify you in going against Government policy, because it does seem, that when this whole thing on the importing of arms came up, you did not treat it as something that you should stop and use all the powers at your command to stop. You treated it in a different way. If you were correct in doing that, you would only be correct if you had reason to believe that the Government policy would, or might, favour such an operation. I want to ask you finally, because this is very important from the point of view of your responsibility, as to the ground you had for believing that Government policy was anything other than opposed to any importation of arms into the North, direct or through the South, for the use of private armies there.

—Surely, Mr. Chairman, to answer that question I would have to go back again, not alone I but every other witness that gave evidence at the arms trial, would have to go over this thing all over again.

9736. It is a simple question. Was there any instruction to you, had any Minister said to you that Government policy would permit or encourage this? I want to know who said what to you or wrote what to you that made you feel that toleration of arms imports of this kind could be within Government policy. I do not want to be told about vague rumours from Captain Kelly about meetings with people in the North, I am talking about direct communications to you.

—These were not vague rumours.

9737. I am not talking about what Captain Kelly said to you. I am asking whether any Minister or superior officer ever told you, indicated to you, or suggested to you that government policy could, or would, tolerate the the importation of arms into the North directly or through the South.

9738. Deputy Tunney.—Mr. Chairman, it has always been a feature of this Committee’s deliberations that we did not, at any stage, discuss Government policy and I think that it is rather unfair to ask any witness there to comment on what might be called Government policy, whatever it was or whatever it might be.

9739. Deputy FitzGerald.—I did not intend to be in any way unfair. I felt, and I am prepared to be overruled if the Chairman thinks I am wrong, but Colonel Hefferon must be given a final opportunity to clarify this point.

9740. Chairman.—I think one would be entitled, as a Minister, to keep off the question of Government policy.

9741. Deputy FitzGerald.—I shall rephrase it. Did any Minister or superior officer ever suggest to you that it would be proper to encourage or permit the importation of arms into the North directly?

(No answer).

9742. Deputy MacSharry.—That is not relevant.

9743. Deputy FitzGerald.—It all hinges on that.

9744. Deputy Keating.—It would be better to discuss this in private and have—as I think we had yesterday—simple blanket statements, total judgements of relevance or irrelevance, without even the qualification of a particular member’s opinion. That is not what we are asked to do at all.

9745. Deputy Tunney.—The one submission I would make is that it has never been, nor do I think it is now, appropriate at this Committee to discuss Government policy. Depending upon our findings, I think that the Dáil may discuss Government policy as revealed here. But the right was never given to this Committee—and I have not been notified that it has now been given to us—to discuss Government policy.

9746. Deputy FitzGerald.—I do not mean to discuss Government policy. I merely want to know finally whether Colonel Hefferon had any grounds for tolerating this arms importation. It seems to me that this is vital because the whole question of the financing arose from that.

9747. Deputy Tunney.—That would be a different question from the one you have been putting to Colonel Hefferon earlier on.

9748. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am afraid that my use of the words “Government policy” may have worried you. I think, if you listen carefully to my question, you will find it is in order. It did not discuss the merits of Government policy. I simply wanted to know whether Colonel Hefferon would like to add anything that could justify the course of action adopted.

9749. Deputy Nolan.—How is this question relevant to the inquiry?

9750. Deputy FitzGerald.—Captain Kelly claims to have been acting as an intelligence officer under the direction of Colonel Hefferon when he took money out of this account in December, at the very start, and in the actions he subsequently took in taking money from this account.

9751. Deputy MacSharry.—He also stated he was spending money for the Northern people, not the Government.

9752. Deputy FitzGerald.—He states he took the money out of the account under the authority of Colonel Hefferon. I am anxious to know: (a) did he; and (b) had Colonel Hefferon any basis for authorising that? That seems to me to be the fundamental issue we are concerned with so far as Colonel Hefferon is concerned.

9753. Chairman.—Colonel Hefferon did not know about the withdrawal of money. That is the point you are making.

9754. Deputy FitzGerald.—That is not my recollection of the full burden of the evidence before us. We have had evidence given to us in respect of this, that he was informed of the withdrawal of money from the account shortly after the event.

9755. Chairman.—You had better put that question to him, then, so that he can be clear about it.

9756. Deputy FitzGerald.—Which question? I thought you asked me to state the relevance of my question.

9757. Chairman.—Please do so.

9758. Deputy FitzGerald.—I stated the relevance of my question. Captain Kelly took money from this account. He claims to have done so as an intelligence officer acting under the direction of Colonel Hefferon in respect of the arms imports of which Colonel Hefferon was aware and at least acquiesced in. I wanted to know, in so far as this is true, whether Colonel Hefferon had any basis to go on in encouraging or permitting this arms importation; whether anything had been said to him justifying him in such a course of action; and whether it would be proper, when the entire tenure of Government policy was in the opposite direction. Is that a legitimate question?

9759. Chairman.—It is a question I am bogged down on.

9760. Deputy Keating.—The question is an inquiry as to whether Colonel Hefferon ever received a document or verbal instructions on a certain matter, which seems to me to be fairly clear cut. The answer to it does seem to me to be both relevant and important. I personally should very much like to hear it put and answered.

9761. Deputy FitzGerald.—Colonel Hefferon should have a final chance to clarify whether he had any authority in this matter.

—I have given evidence time and time again about my actions over this period and I cannot add anything to that.

9762. I am satisfied. I thought I should give you a final opportunity as so much hangs on it from your point of view.

(No answer)

9763. Deputy Gibbons.—I should like Colonel Hefferon to say whether recruits from the Six Counties are acceptable as recruits to the FCA and to the Army?

—My understanding of that was that there was no debarment of natives of the Six Counties from service with the regular Army. But there is; they are debarred from service. This involves a case of some months ago. I do not know what the regulations are now.

9764. You stated on a few occasions that Captain Kelly was reporting frequently to the Minister. How do you know that?

—From Captain Kelly’s reporting to me.

9765. You have no other evidence beyond what Captain Kelly told you?

—No.

9766. I think you also said on a few occasions that Captain Kelly told you anything you wanted to know from him.

—Yes.

9767. At any time, on your initiative, did you ask him about the importation of arms?

—Do you mean on my initiative?

9768. Yes.

—No. He reported to me every time he came back from the Continent and before he went to the Continent, as I have already said.

9769. What exactly did he report to you when he came back from the Continent? You see to my mind the report would have two or three points: that he went to get arms; that he purchased arms; and where the money came from. Did he report to you on each occasion on those three points?

—Not, in any detail. My understanding was that the money came to the Northern Defence Committee. We did not go into the question of money in any detail.

9770. Another thing that struck me was that the Chairman asked about the question of seeking permission for Captain Kelly to go to the Continent: he went to the Minister for Defence, who would have decided on what duty Captain Kelly would have to do at that particular time—in other words, who would be his superior officer making this decision?

—The duty roster is made out each month by the officer responsible for it. This duty roster does advise the officer as to who is to be on duty on certain dates, on any date during the month.

9771. Are you in a position to say who would draw up this duty roster?

—It would be drawn up in the McKee Barracks.

9772. By the Minister?

—No, by the commandant.

9773. Why would it be necessary to go to the Minister rather than the commandant in this particular case? Was the commandant approached on this occasion?

—No, there was no necessity to do it, anyway, because it turned out that he had been “slated” for duty in error. It was the following weekend, or something like that.

9774. Again it is the attitude of mind in the situation which is relevant. Why was it thought that, instead of going to the commandant, it should go to the Minister for Defence?

—Because interference by me in this matter might be embarrassing in view of the activities Captain Kelly was engaged in; and I felt that the Minister for Defence would have ways and means of controlling or settling this one without higher Intelligence entering into it.

9775. Still, it would be known down the line that you had made the approach?

—No, I don’t think so. I did not expect that the Minister would tell everybody down the line that he was doing this. This could be done in a discreet manner, more discreet than if I interfered.

9776. Mr. Chairman, I cannot see how this could be done without the Minister indicating that he would like it to be done and thereby right away it became known that the Minister had interfered in it and this would bring up the question of why, which to my mind would make it much more suspicious than had you, as his superior officer, interfered in the first place.

—I did not think so at the time and I do not think so now.

9777. Would you accept that my interpretation would be a fair one—the fact that the Minister interfered would make it more suspicious rather than less suspicious?

—No, I do not think so. I think that the Minister would have been able to do it without appearing to come into it at all. He would have been able to do it. This was my interpretation. I would not have been able to do it without having to enter into it directly.

9778. Deputy Keating.—I do not propose to go back over any of the material I talked about before. There are two matters that I feel I would like to raise. I seek guidance on these. I ask this because of their repercussions inside Northern Ireland. I feel this is something that the Committee should be sensitive about. Can I start explaining what they are, with your permission, Mr. Chairman? The first one is that Colonel Hefferon has said to you, in reply to your questions and he also said to Deputy Gibbons that he has said on previous occasions that—for example, he said about Captain Kelly’s authority to go to Dortmund and expend moneys there, “I presumed it was from the northern people, the Northern Defence Committee”. I am not sure whether you said “Northern Defence Committee” or “committees”.

—I presume I said “Northern Defence Committees”. The main one would be the Belfast one.

9779. This is precisely my point. All over Northern Ireland there are defence committees including a very major one in Belfast. Membership of these is known and their duties are quite clearly understood. I have seen no suggestion in Captain Kelly’s evidence and no suggestion elsewhere, and have no evidence that at any stage was he instructed by any of these committees. The reason I am raising this is that, of course, our proceedings are carefully followed in Northern Ireland and this is suggesting that these defence committees—and the word is “defence committees” that we are using and, of course, there was a committee in northern Ireland concerned with the purchase of arms—were concerned with the purchase of arms but I suggest to you, Colonel Hefferon, that there is no evidence that it was any defence committee, either the Belfast one or any other, and that you are in fact putting these people in jeopardy by suggesting that they were involved in any way in arms purchase. In fact, I know that it is having repercussions in Northern Ireland and I feel we ought to clear it up.

—When this thing arose at the beginning I was very much aware of these things and I am still very much aware of them, but these things have been said by many people at two arms trials. All your meetings here are open, and there are many things which I have said here which I regret very much indeed having had to say but they had to be said, I suppose.

9780. Is it not true, Colonel Hefferon, that if we say a little then we owe it to everyone to be explicit so that there is no misplaced blame? Can I put this in short questions? Have you any evidence that any defence Committee in Northern Ireland in any way tried to organise the import of arms illegally into Northern Ireland?

—I have given evidence before on this one and I do not think I am going into it again.

9781. We had the phrase “Northern people” but the defence committees are open organisations with a clear-cut role whose membership is known?

—Yes, I know that.

9782. Surely, Colonel Hefferon, nobody has suggested—over and over again when pressed Captain Kelly said “northern people” and we have evidence of some sort of shadowy committee existing behind and perhaps working through one person on the Belfast Committee for the Relief of Distress but I know of no suggestion that any northern defence committee, as a defence committee, was involved in the importation of arms. They are now all being tarred with the brush in the North of doing this which they are not doing, so far as I am aware. Would you like to make a statement which would make their position vis-à-vis other sections of the community in the North a little easier? Their role is a clear one. They are defence committees.

—I have the greatest sympathy for them and always had. I would like to be able to make this statement but you must see that any statement which can be made on this with all the publicity this has got by now between the trial and so forth, cannot have any bearing on anything which was said before.

9783. In that case I want simply then to reassert my understanding that the role of the defence committees is an open one; their membership is known and theirs is a defensive role. We possess no evidence whatsoever tying defence committees in with arms purchases. We have received evidence of some sort of shadowy committee absolutely distinct from any defence committee. I feel it is important to say that. The other thing I feel it is important to say relates to my pursuing a little the matter of this convent or abbey or monastery on the Border. I pursue this because the building of bridges of some sort of trust between the two communities in the North is vitally important. The suggestion of the use of the premises of a religious institution to hide arms is being used day after day to damage that relationship. I want to ask you in the light of testimony which has been given—I did not introduce it but it is being used to damage community relationships—firstly, is it not the case that the monastery or whatever building it was, was not in fact in Co. Cavan but just across the county line in Co. Monaghan—in its physical location?

—That is not my—I think I claimed privilege on this the last day.

9784. Chairman.—You did.

9785. Deputy Keating.—I realise this, Colonel Hefferon, but the reason I pursue it is that it is believed that there was participation by a religious order in the hiding of arms. My information is that this particular building had been long vacated by any religious and had for years previously been in the control of the Irish Army?

—I must claim privilege on this matter again. I am sorry.

9786. Chairman.—Yes.

—I appreciate the point you are getting at. It is of the greatest importance to build community relations. I am here in a bit of a vacuum. Nobody could have done more to better relations than I have. However, that might be a matter for another Committee to resolve.

9787. I appreciate your dilemma and I do not propose to press it but I felt some effort should be made to clarify this situation in the light of events in the North.

9788. Deputy MacSharry.—You had a meeting with the Minister and subsequently £500 was passed to you and you thought it was for Captain Kelly?

—Yes.

9789. At that meeting were you simply and solely discussing the arrangement for refugees —mainly?

—Yes. I do not have the date with me but I think Mr. O’Donnell gave the approximate date, some time at the end of September. My memory is that my discussion about refugees was earlier.

9790. The £500 you say that was given, that was given for meetings?

—Bailieboro, yes.

9791. Were refugees portion of the purpose of these discussions dealing with refugees generally? We had Deputy Haughey’s evidence yesterday that as far as his memory went this £500 in some way or another dealt with refugees?

—The £500 he advanced to me at a later stage was for refugees. This was made clear by writing in to the Department. My understanding and my memory of that meeting is that Captain Kelly had reported on the forthcoming Bailieboro meeting. He was to meet members of the Northern Defence Committee at Bailieboro and he was to discuss with them their problems. There was no question as to what the money was for.

9792. You made the request for the money?

—I did not at that meeting.

9793. Who made it?

—Captain Kelly made it for Bailieboro specifically.

9794. You were there?

—I was there at the request of the Private Secretary who asked me to go and to bring along Captain Kelly.

9795. When the request was made was the money to come out of any particular fund?

—I do not think so. I think Captain Kelly said he wanted this money, would the Minister support him, that there would be some meeting to set it up.

9796. Was it a secret meeting?

—By its very nature it would be very confidential and secret.

9797. Would you have thought it would have come out of secret service funds?

—I do not know.

9798. Deputy Nolan.—You may recall that Captain Kelly referred to a committee and that among the arms he purchased were 400 submachine guns at £16 each. I asked you the price of Gustav submachine guns and you replied: “I do not know because I do not deal in purchases”. That is understandable. Am I right in saying it is the Ordinance Corps who normally vet and purchase arms?

—That is correct. They vet arms on behalf of the QMG.

9799. What about prices?

—That would be a matter on which they would look for contracts. There is the suitability of the weapons, and then the question of price arises. If there are several people selling the same weapon they would get tenders.

9800. Further on in that reply you said you thought the price of the Gustav would be £100?

—That would be a figure off the cuff.

9801. It is just for the record because an ex-Army officer, who was in the Ordinance Corps wrote to me since he saw this in the press and he said that in Sweden a Gustav submachine gun now issued was less than £16. The point is that if Captain Kelly did buy it at £16 he would be getting it at current market value?

—I regard any submachine gun as being cheap at that price, depending on its quality.

9802. Deputy Treacy.—I regret that I must advert again to the matter of the abbey referred to be me earlier and by Deputy Keating a short time ago. I do so primarily in order to correct a statement attributed to me at page 653 of the Report of the Committee, at Question No. 8659. The Committee and Colonel Hefferon will recall that my whole concern in raising this matter was to place on record that the abbey concerned had not been occupied by a religious community for a very long number of years, and by reason of the location of the abbey in a border county this seemed to me to be of paramount importance in order to ensure that people would not construe it as meaning that any religious body in that area or indeed in any part of the Republic were engaged in gun running activities. It is attributed to me in the second line of 8659 the words “British soldiers”. In lines three and four the words “British communities” appear. I wish to say that what I said, or intended to say, was clearly “religious communities” in each instance. I would be grateful if the appropriate correction was made because the words “British soldiers” is clearly out of context with what I was conveying to the witness.

9803. Deputy Tunney.—I have only one question. As far as the first information you got of Captain Kelly’s involvement in the matter of moneys from this fund and the report regarding arms are concerned, in your capacity as Director of Intelligence you regarded this as some misfortune that had befallen you?

—Yes, in the sense that one of the best intelligence officers I had——

9804. That is what I mean. Your attitude towards him and your representations to the Minister later were because of the high esteem you held Captain Kelly in and you were anxious he might not suffer and that perhaps the position might be contained without giving it great publicity?

—Of course there was no question of his carrying on in the Army while engaging in this activity.

9805. Chairman.—There is one other matter before you go. Did you receive in the autumn of 1969 a written report from Captain Kelly in reference to what I suppose one would call the “Captain Malcolm Randall” affair?

—From Captain Kelly, I think it was a verbal report that I got, as far as I remember. I acted on it by trying to find out what was known about this man.

9806. It was not a written report?

—It may well be, but I would not have it with me now.

9807. If it was a written report it would be still on the files?

—Yes, it would.

9808. What was the nature of the report? Who were involved?

—To my knowledge, there were some of the Northern people involved. They had been in England and this man had approached him and they were suspicious of him. He had come across here and was staying in the Gresham Hotel and had been showing a good deal of anxiety to get in touch with people who would be interested in bringing in arms. This was generally the nature of the report.

9809. You have the code—do you wish to name the Northern people?

—On this matter I am afraid that naming persons on the code at this stage seems to indicate very clearly who they are. I do not wish to be difficult about this but there was certain evidence given in the Courts about meeting with people and the number of times one met with people and then later on being asked to identify them.

9810. Deputy Nolan.—Perhaps Colonel Hefferon might prefer to discuss this in private session?

9811. Deputy E. Collins.—If the witness supplied the names in writing we could have them for our private information.

9812. Deputy Keating.—If there were any persons within the jurisdiction, perhaps he might like to adopt the same procedure?

9813. Chairman.—Before we go to that, did people from here go to London about that time?

—I am in some difficulty to know which people you are referring to.

9814. Did people from here go to London with reference to this Captain Malcolm Randall affair, in the beginning?

—This was reported, or at least I got some report on Malcolm Randall. At a later stage, it must have been some months later, I became aware, by photograph, that two people had been in London. Whether I was aware of their identity before that I am not now able to say.

9815. Were photographs returned here from London?

—Not from London.

9816. Was the substance of this information passed on from Intelligence to the Special Branch?

—The traffic would be the other way in this case.

9817. There is some basis behind my questioning. I do not know if you are aware that there was evidence given here last evening by Manager Walsh of the Baggot Street bank stating that the Dixon account was opened by Captain Kelly on 14th November to the amount of £11,450. On 17th November the Munster and Leinster Bank made accommodation at the Provincial Bank in Piccadilly for exactly that sum. It is for that reason I am asking if you are aware of the movement of personnel from here to London at about that time?

—In a general way I am, but without the files and without the evidence of what I had written at the time——

9818. You did make a memo of it at the time?

—It will be on file.

9819. That is all the help you can give at the moment?

9820. Deputy FitzGerald.—The witness could give us the names in private. Perhaps he would do it now?

(Witness wrote on paper).

9821. Chairman.—I know memory is fickle, but can you guve us any indication of the date?

—I am afraid not. It would be verifiable possibly, from the records.

9822. Can you also tell me did Captain Kelly tell you that he advised one of the names mentioned there to become disassociated from it?

—This is my recollection.

9823. Deputy E. Collins.—I understand that the witness was going to identify someone from outside the jurisdiction.

9824. Chairman.—I think he has answered everything.

9825. Deputy Keating.—I do not think this should be pursued at this moment, Mr. Chairman.

—Thank you very much, Colonel Hefferon. You have been very patient with us. I am sure we have been very trying at times.

The Committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until 4 p.m.

The Committee resumed at 4.20 p.m.

Chief Superintendent Fleming futher examined.

9826. Chairman.—Chief Superintendent, I have here a photostat copy of the visitors’ register of the Irish Club, Eton Square, London, dated November 16th, 1969. On that date and entered is the name Pádraig Haughey, 20 Foxstreet Avenue, Dublin, and after it the room number, No. 21. After the name Pádraig Haughey and on the same line is the entry George Dixon. Perhaps you could be shown this photostat.

—Is it G. Dixon or George Dixon?

9827. G. Dixon. Can you testify as to the authenticity of this photostat?

—Yes.

9828. It is a true record of the visitors’ register at some subsequent date?

—That is correct.

9829. Was this photostat taken by you personally or by one of your assistants?

—I was present when it was taken.

9830. Did you secure corroborative evidence from the hotel staff that the person or persons mentioned were remembered as visitors to the hotel on that date or around that time?

—Pardon?

9831. Did you secure any corraborative evidence from any of the hotel staff?

—Yes, I obtained a statement from the manager of the Irish Clubs in London.

9832. And what was the nature of that statement?

—Pádraig Haughey stayed there on the 17th November, 1969 and he produced this bill that he paid when he was leaving the Irish Club.

9833. Did you secure any other evidence of recognition by photograph or anything like that?

—Yes, I produced photographs of Pádraig Haughey to the manager and he identified the photograph.

9834. Was the room a single or a double room?

—It was a single room.

9835. Was it two beds?

—Two beds in the room.

9836. Was there any record of single or double occupancy?

—Pádraig Haughey occupied the room on his own.

9837. Can you tell me, you know that there are two buildings, on both sides of the street, on what side is the office and the bar and the other side is residential?

—Yes.

9838. On which side of the street, was it the office side or on the other side, where the room was?

—I could not say that. I did not visit the room Pádraig Haughey occupied.

9839. You are aware that there is an intercom communication between the two parts?

—No, I am not aware of that.

9840. I am submitting to you another document here, exhibit E. If you read this, Chief, it is a directive, dated I think it is the 16th November?

—17th November.

9841. From the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot Street, to the Provincial Bank, Piccadilly, requesting financial accommodation up to £11,450 for George Dixon, is that correct?

—That is correct, yes.

9842. That document was not available to you when you interviewed the bankers?

—No, it was not available.

9843. Is this the first time you have seen the document?

—I saw it the last time I gave evidence here. It was produced by Deputy Keating, I understand.

9844. If you would look at pages 10 and 11 you will see that the first lodgment to the George Dixon account was made on November 14th, £11,450?

—Yes.

9845. Exactly the amount that was advised three days later to the accomodation of George Dixon at the Provincial Bank, Piccadilly. Now I would pass you over a lodgment form. This lodgment form is to the credit of George Dixon, lodged by George Dixon on the 14/11/’69 consisting of two components £7,000 and £4,450 to the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot Street.

(Document passed to witness).

9846. If you look back at pages 10 and 11 in your pink book you will see that on 14th November £7,000 were transferred from the No. 1 account to the George Dixon account to make up £11,450. Did the bank furnish you with this type of information originally?

—Yes, they did.

9847. Did they volunteer the information as to how the lodgment was made?

—So far as my recollection goes, Mr. Walsh was not too sure about how the lodgment was made. The bank strike was on at that time. It was very hard to locate the member of the staff who had dealt with those lodgments.

9848. I am now passing you this photostat copy. (Document passed to witness). Did the bank make you aware that the £4,500 had come from Clones?

—It had been transferred to the account in Baggot Street.

9849. Yes. That is a photostat of the cheque. When you were examining the Clones accounts, were you shown the photostat of that returned cheque?

—Yes, so far as I remember, they gave me all the documents in relation to the account.

9850. Have you been able to establish since, or at any recent time, whether the accountholders in Clones and at Baggot Street were identical?

—No, I have not been able to establish that. The names on the account were definitely different.

9851. The cheque drawn on the Clones account for £4,450 was dated 10th November. It was drawn one day before the main account was opened at Baggot Street?

—Yes, that is correct.

9852. Four days before the Dixon account was opened?

—Yes, on the 14th.

9853. It became one of the smaller components of the Dixon account. Do you attach any significance to that? That money was moved on the 17th to London, or at least arrangements were made to move it.

—This all relates to one account.

9854. Yes. Are you aware that the Dixon account has been described by Captain Kelly as the arms account?

—Yes, that is correct.

9855. Have you made any further advances concerning the identification of signatures by means of sophisticated micro-analytical methods?

—No, there is one outstanding at the moment. I am waiting for it to come back from the State handwriting expert.

9856. These transactions took place in mid-November. Have you any other evidence, apart from the entry in the London register, that Mr. Pádraig Haughey travelled over to London about that time?

—No, except from other confidential information, already given.

9857. Is there any evidence that Mr. Haughey visited London early in November, apart from this visit in November?

—I am not aware of any evidence in that respect.

9858. Have you any information about the Captain Malcolm Randle affair?

—Yes.

9859. Is that confidential information?

—It is confidential, yes.

9860. The expenditure of this £100,000 grant-in-aid is interlocked with arms importations, or attempts at such. Captain Kelly gave evidence that the funds were utilised—or an attempt was made to utilise them—for that purpose. Your statements on February 9th were, to say the least, startling and received wide publicity. However, I am sure you will be the first to appreciate that it was not proof in the strict sense in so far as much of it could be described as hearsay. Certainly, most of the statements made by other witnesses have also been hearsay and have often been expressions of opinion. The Committee is conscious of that difficulty and also has its own problems in securing evidence. Many of our important witnesses are outside the jurisdiction. While we are at pains to avoid placing such witnesses at risk by using code letters, that particular aspect has been fastened on by key witnesses within the jurisdiction and offered as a reason for withholding essential information.

In fact, our entire authority and even our constitutionality is currently under challenge. This Committee is entitled to adopt its own procedural arrangements and, not being a punitive body, does not have to follow necessarily the procedural arrangements obtaining in a civil court. Your evidence, Chief Superintendent, has been flatly contradicted by previous witnesses, two of them under oath, and probably by some who may yet testify. This is not the only conflict of evidence we have had. I may add that in the arms’ trials, under more rigid procedural arrangements, there was a similar conflict of evidence which the High Court did not appear to resolve. We shall be re-putting your main statements to you here to day so as to give you an opportunity to state if you are in a position to make any further comment on these statements and whether you are in a position to offer any irrefutable evidence or pronouncement in respect of any one of them. These remarks must not be taken in any sense as constituting the slightest reflection on your personal integrity. I feel sure we are all here confident that you took all steps to check and counter check the accuracy of the observations you have made here. Nevertheless, as it stands and while it may be all perfectly true it is not evidence in the strict sense of that term. This Committee at a later stage will probably have to make up some attempt to assess the material put before it here. For this reason and further to the importance and highly disturbing nature of your public revelations as head of the special police, we have deemed it expedient to recall you. I do not intend at the present time to put any further questions to you but I am handing you over to the next Deputy and he will, I take it, go over some of the evidence you gave the last day in the hope that you will be able to deal with at least some of it more fully.

9861. Deputy MacSharry.—It was stated the last day in your evidence that the information had come from confidential sources and you were not at liberty to disclose those sources?

—That is correct.

9862. Are you at liberty to say that this source is a paid source?

—No.

9863. You cannot say?

—I cannot say.

9864. Is it normal that information is taken as evidence?

—In a court?

9865. Yes?

—No.

9866. When you submitted this information to your superiors you were told to keep checking?

—That is correct.

9867. You did?

—I did, yes.

9868. What happened?

—I did not come up with anything more. I am quite satisfied as to the authenticity of the information I gave to the Committee the last day, and of the reports I made.

9869. I am asking you, when you kept checking, did you draw a blank? You got no further information?

—No. I got no further information.

9870. You just drew a blank? In actual fact it may not be as authentic as you thought at the time?

—I am quite satisfied that it was authentic. I checked and double checked it before reporting it to my authorities. I am convinced that it is authentic.

9871. A lot of it was information that one would expect subsequent action on and if you were checking it you would have been aware of this subsequent action. You are not so aware?

—I do not follow what subsequent action you refer to, Deputy.

9872. There were promises made by particular individuals mentioned by you in your evidence?

—That is correct.

9873. Those promises were not carried out?

—I could not be sure of that. I know they were partly carried out.

9874. You drew a blank? If they were partly carried out, was this reported?

—I know that sums of money were paid over by Captain Kelly.

9875. We will come to that in a minute. When you were asked by the Chairman could you tie this information in with the fund that we were investigating, your evidence was “I take it it came from the £100,000”. I am quoting from page 418 in answer to question 5631:

“Some of this money was paid over prior to the opening of the account in Clones in October. It could well be that they had an account somewhere else.”

Who were the “they” referred to there?

—The people who had the £100,000.

9876. Who were they?

—The people who opened the accounts in Clones and in Baggot Street.

9877. The same people? Do you mean that they were using the £100,000 in lieu of them getting it, or something to that effect?

—That was the impression I got of it.

9878. We are not aware of any other account.

—I am not aware of any other account either.

9879. The Government grant-in-aid was sanctioned on the 15th or 16th August. The amounts in question are in the information submitted to us by you—there are some sizeable amounts in the period August-December of that year. The suggestion was that it came from the £100,000 grant-in-aid. We are just concerned here with the funds that came from the £100,000 grant-in-aid, not with any other funds. Our information from records in the Department of Finance and from other evidence which has been produced here is that when this account was opened in August, Mr. A. received £1,000. It has been vouched for. A Mr. B received £5,000 and a Mr. C and a Mr. D received £500 each. Even combining all of that, it would only amount to the £7,000 which your information suggested was passed over by Captain Kelly to the IRA.

—Yes.

9880. Therefore, this money could not have come from the grant-in-aid if there was such a handing over of £7,000?

—There was such a handing over of £7,000. Where the money came from I do not know.

9881. The evidence you were giving here is to help us in relation to the £100,000 grant-in-aid. Do you accept that?

—Yes, I accept that.

9882. This money was not from the grant-in-aid?

—I do not know where the money came from.

9883. The Chairman has dealt with the signature in the register in the Irish Club in London. We know that the same person did not write the two names, Pádraig Haughey and G. Dixon. I think in some information that came before us that Mr. J accompanied Mr. Haughey to London at that same time?

—That is correct.

9884. It would not be remiss of us to expect that he could have stayed with Mr. Haughey?

—According to the manager of the Irish Club, Mr. Haughey stayed on his own.

9885. In a double room?

—There were two beds in the room.

9886. That is usually described as a double room?

—Yes, but he paid for it as a single room.

9887. It could be that the Clerk at the reception desk filled in the G. Dixon?

—Yes, that is one explanation of it.

9888. The information you received in relation to the handing over of funds by Harry Blaney—you said that Neil Blaney’s brother handed over £200 and £2,000 at different times? You just mentioned Mr. Neil Blaney as handing over certain sums to the IRA from time to time—both he and his brother?

—Yes.

9889. Is it your information that both of them were involved?

—That both were involved, yes.

9890. You know of the denials by these people?

—I know of the denials, yes.

9891. You have nothing further to add to that?

—Not to that, no. It is authentic as far as I am concerned.

9892. You were asked in question No. 5611 at page 419:

Do you have any information, or did you have any information, about any Ministers involved with Captain Kelly?

and you answered:

Yes, Mr. Haughey’s and Mr. Blaney’s names were mentioned at that time.

The next question was:

In what capacity?

and you say:

Well, I know that Mr. Haughey had a meeting with one of the leading members of the IRA and he also promised him £50,000.

—That is correct.

9893. You are satisfied, here, testifying on oath, that this took place?

—That that took place, yes.

9894. On the information given to you?

—That is correct—quite satisfied.

9895. You have no documentary evidence to this effect?

—No.

9896. You submitted this in written reports to your superiors?

—As far as I know, as regards the sum of money, I think I stated here the last time that I submitted all to my superiors. The sum was not fully checked out. I did not submit a written report on the sum of money, but I did on Mr. Haughey’s meeting with this leading member of the IRA.

9897. And this took place in August?

—Yes, sometime towards the end of August —the second part of August.

9898. Do you know who Mr. J. is?

—I do, yes.

9899. Could that be the man who has been described as the leading member of the IRA?

—No.

9900. Definitely not?

Definitely not.

9901. And you are quite definite that they met at a place in Dublin?

—Yes.

9902. And you personally are satisfied that all of this information which you received from this informant, or whatever he might be called, is authentic?

—Yes, fully satisfied.

9903. And this is the period now we are talking of, from August to December, 1969?

—Yes.

9904. There were subsequent court cases?

—Yes.

9905. All of this evidence that you have given to us as being authentic evidence known to you, within your full knowledge, between August and December, 1969?

—Yes.

9906. None of which was used in the subsequent arms trial?

—It could not have been used in the arms trial. In any event it was not relevant to the arms trial. I fail to see where it was relevant to the arms trial.

9907. The question of the importations of arms and money that paid for arms and promises of money by Ministers to members of the IRA?

—Yes. Where would that be relevant in an arms trial?

9908. It is not for me to answer where it would be relevant, but it is relevant information to arms and money?

—It is, yes.

9909. And there was an arms conspiracy trial?

—Yes.

9910. And none of it was used?

—No, it was not.

9911. Could you tell me why?

—I do not know—the law officers decided that.

9912. Because it was not relevant?

—Yes, it would have been relevant.

9913. It was not evidence?

—It would not have been evidence in the first place in a court.

9914. Deputy MacSharry.—That is all I wanted. It was not evidence.

9915. Deputy Nolan.—Yesterday, Deputy Charles Haughey gave evidence here and in answer to a question by Deputy Treacy said— and I am quoting from today’s Irish Press:

It is a monstrous allegation and even on the face of it it does not stand up. He does not purport to state when and where the alleged meeting took place, or who the person was. I do not think that anything else in this whole affair has upset me more or hurt me more than this false oath bound statement. As you know, I have been subjected to many statements and allegations in the course of my political career. I can take most of them in my stride, but this one I hope the Committee will pursue further and nail it.

In that statement he said: “He does not purport to state when and where”. I think you said a moment ago that it was in August?

—It was in Dublin in August.

9916. What date in August?

—I have not got the date in August—the latter part of August.

9917. It could be the last two weeks?

—It could well be.

9918. To me as a countryman and to yourself as a countryman, Dublin is a fairly big place. Could you say where in Dublin?

—No, I would not be prepared to say.

9919. But do you know?

—Yes.

9920. You know the place?

—Not the exact locality, but I would not be prepared to say it.

9921. But it was in the latter part of August in Dublin?

—In the latter part of August in Dublin— that is correct.

9922. Are you not prepared to mention the person’s name?

—No.

9923. But it was a leading member of the IRA?

—It was, from the 26 Counties.

9924. Also in his evidence yesterday, Deputy Haughey said he met a constant stream of deputations from the North here looking for money and supplies for Northern Ireland. Could it be possible that a member of some of these deputations could also be a member of the IRA?

—Not possible, no.

9925. That is not possible?

—It is not possible. This leading member of the IRA was from the 26 Counties, as I have said.

9926. And therefore could not be?

—Could not have been mistaken for …

9927. Are you satisfied that Mr. Haughey would know that this man was a leading member of the IRA?

—Yes.

9928. Therefore, it would not be possible— the point I was trying to make is that he could meet some of these deputations and this leading member of the IRA could be on a deputation and he would have promised him money for relief of distress in the North and it could be interpreted as being …?

—No, that is not possible.

9929. Also, you mentioned that Captain Kelly met leading members of the IRA and actually mentioned Cathal Goulding?

—That is right.

9930. Would you agree that an Army intelligence officer in the course of his normal duties would meet members of the IRA in order to get information about the position?

—Yes, in his normal duties.

9931. And that would be normal duties?

—That would be normal duties.

9932. And is also, in a way, the normal duties of the members of your Branch?

—Certainly.

9933. You mentioned that he also handed moneys to the IRA?

—Yes, that is correct.

9934. And in particular to the man mentioned?

—That is correct.

9935. And you are satisfied from the information you have on this that Captain Kelly did hand over money?

—Quite satisfied.

9936. There is no doubt in your mind?

—In my mind no doubt whatsoever.

9937. You are aware that Captain Kelly here in evidence, after you had been with us, emphatically and categorically denied that?

—Yes, I am aware of that.

9938. That he did not hand over money?

—I am also aware that he categorically denied having met Cathal Goulding—he said it here in evidence—and the following evening he admitted that he had met him three times.

9939. He admitted to us meeting him but I could understand that. He could be meeting him to discuss matters of Army intelligence, but there is a conflict of evidence here and we as a Committee have a big problem in trying to solve this.

—I understand.

9940. Again, coming back to this arms trial evidence, you had all this evidence prior to the arms trial?

—Yes.

9941. This £100,000 did come up in evidence during the arms trial and I think you cannot divorce the £100,000 from the arms trial, because it was from this £100,000 that part of the money at least was used on the Continent to buy arms. I do not know who are the legal people who advised you on this, but to my mind, as a layman, I think it was very important evidence for the arms trial?

—I cannot see that. It would not have been admitted.

9942. Yes.

—It would not have been admitted, as relevant evidence; it would not have been admitted.

9943. Would it not?

—We were dealing with the one consignment of arms during the arms trial case.

9944. But in trying to establish the amount of money that was used to purchase arms, the total amount was £100,000 and in trying to establish how much of that money was used to buy arms, surely the fact that information was given that £50,000 was promised to the IRA and £7,500, or another figure mentioned— that would be admitted for the total amount of money available to buy arms?

—Not in court.

9945. On legal advice this was irrelevant?

—Yes.

9946. At the arms trial?

—Yes.

9947. As far as you were aware, there were more Army Intelligence officers, more than you, any other Army Intelligence officer being in contact with the IRA to your knowledge?

—I do not know, they could well have; but to my knowledge, no.

9948. The only army officer that had contact with the IRA to your knowledge was Captain Kelly?

—Yes.

9949. It is quite possible that some of this contact was in connection with his duty as an Army Intelligence officer?

—Part of it may have been, I do not know.

9950. From your information the plan would be to hand over money?

—Yes and he promised arms and trading facilities to the IRA.

9951. Deputy Treacy.—Chief Superintendent Fleming, in you reposes a high degree of responsibility for law and order in this country. I think you will agree that on you befalls the duty and function to garner the facts, to furnish all the relevant evidence and, above all, to be thorough and impartial in respect of your duties?

—That is correct.

9952. You are the Chief of the Special Branch in this country?

—That is correct, yes.

9953. Apart from your duty to maintain law and order, Superintendent, yours is the responsibility to protect in very large measure the lives and property of people?

—That is correct.

9954. And to uphold our Constitution in essence?

—Yes.

9955. In the light of the information you gave us on the last occasion and having particular regard to the vehement and stringent manner in which your allegations were rebutted and repudiated by so many people, in the light of these things is there anything, Superintendent, that you would now wish to retract or modify, or perhaps amend at this stage?

—No, as regards the substance of my evidence here on the 9th February I have nothing to retract from it. I would like to change one date.

9956. Yes?

—I said here last that Pádraig Haughey imported arms at Dublin Airport in October. On rechecking, I find that this is slightly wrong, it was September.

9957. Could we have any further elaboration at this juncture? Is there anything you wish to make clear in regard to your evidence apart from that point you have already made?

—No, there is nothing more I can add to my evidence.

9958. Can you say with a degree of confidence, Superintendent, that you have behind you the full resources of the State surety, judiciary, Department of Justice, Special Branch and the Gardaí?

—I can only speak of the Special Branch and the Gardaí.

9959. Is there not the closest co-operation between the Gardaí and the Special Branch?

—There is, yes.

9960. Can you not speak with a certain amount of confidence on your behalf also in respect of co-operation in the furnishing of information?

—I said on behalf of the Special Branch and the Gardaí, I can speak for those two.

9961. Have you utilised these resources to the maximum in respect of the matter we are now discussing?

—Yes.

9962. Have you had the fullest co-operation from these various agencies?

—Yes, I have.

9963. The Department of Justice?

—I do not see how the Department of Justice would come into it.

9964. Department of Defence, relations between yourself, say, and Colonel Hefferon, your counterpart in Army Intelligence?

—As I said, I do not deal with Army Intelligence. Anything at a higher level would be done from my quarters.

9965. To what extent has there been co-operation between the secret service and the Army and you?

—I do not know, I am not in a position to answer that; it is not done through me.

9966. Are you confident of the loyalty and the co-operation of these various agencies to which I have referred?

—Yes.

9967. Have you had the fullest co-operation in your investigation?

—Yes.

9968. Chairman.—I have to interrupt the proceedings for a moment, I have to take a phone call.

9969. Deputy Treacy.—May we take it, Superintendent, in respect of the evidence you have given here that you have no political axe to grind, so to speak?

—Definitely not.

9970. You are not influenced by anyone?

—No, definitely not.

9971. In respect of information?

—I have said on the 9th February I made those reports, October, November, December, 1969 before there was any word of a conspiracy or arms conspiracy trial.

9972. Are you satisfied, Superintendent, that your organisation in respect of assessing crime and dealing with crime is an efficient organisation?

—I am quite satisfied of it.

9973. Operating on the most modern lines?

—Yes, as far as possible, yes.

9974. Have you a good record in the matter of detection of crime?

—Yes, very good.

9975. Would you be prepared to say that you are in complete control of the activities, say, of subversive organisations?

—That is correct, yes.

9976. Your information is reliable?

—Yes.

9977. Correct? Can be acted upon?

—Yes.

9978. Referring to your evidence, I think you would agree that there was in many parts a high degree of ambiguity. You were reported as saying from time to time, “I am not sure, I cannot swear to that, that is quite possible, I have not gone into it closely.” You were not at all certain about dates, Superintendent.

—That would be correct.

9979. This ambiguity has given credence to the belief that yours was evidence of a very hearsay kind which could hardly be substantiated.

—I am not in a position to substantiate it. As I said, there is a risk of exposing the source of such information.

9980. So you will appreciate our predicament?

—I appreciate your predicament.

9981. A very deep void exists between what has been referred to as fact, and fiction. In respect of your evidence, a very grave reflection has been cast upon very many people, or a number of people, in the public life of this country.

—That is correct.

9982. Some people have taken steps to repudiate the allegations. Your evidence referred first to the evidence of Captain Kelly. You gave us various instances in which Captain Kelly met leading members of the IRA.

—Yes.

9983. He promised to supply arms and money?

—That is correct.

9984. Chairman.—Could you give the reference?

9985. Deputy Treacy.—Yes, it is the Superintendent’s own evidence as contained on the first page of Volume 11, Question 5628. The Captain promised to give the IRA £50,000 in instalments. You stated that on 7 October, 1969 he paid over £7,000 at Cavan Town to Cathal Goulding and that during the last week of November, 1969 he paid over a further sum of £1,000?

—That is correct.

9986. You are certain that is correct, despite the repudiation?

—Yes.

9987. We are all aware that Colonel Hefferon, who occupied a very high post of responsibility in this country, the Chief of Army Intelligence, also stated categorically that to his belief and estimation Captain James Kelly was unalterably opposed to the IRA and their activities.

9988. Chairman.—Would you give the reference, please?

9989. Deputy Treacy.—The reference is the Superintendent’s own statement as contained at Question 5629, Vol. 11. Not only did Colonel Hefferon repudiate the suggestion that Captain Kelly was in cahoots with the IRA, but he— referred to the alleged meeting of Captain Kelly with the IRA people at a certain meeting as “sheer popycock,” to use his own words.

—That is correct.

9990. Here we had a serious conflict of evidence between the chief of Army Intelligence and the chief of our secret intelligence organisation.

—I think that in his later evidence, Colonel Hefferon said that Captain Kelly had become too emotionally involved and decided he could not keep him under the Army. How does that tie in with his previous statement that Captain Kelly was unalterably opposed to the IRA and still is emotionally involved? How do you reconcile those two?

9991. One could be emotionally involved in principle with something …

—Without being unalterably opposed?

9992. Chairman.—Would the witness confine himself to answering the question?

9993. Deputy Treacy.—Also, in your evidence, you very clearly implicated Deputy Haughey in this matter, Question 5663, Volume 11, and at other sections on the same page. At Question 5622 you said: “Mr. Haughey had a meeting with one of the leading members of the IRA and he also promised him some £50,000.” (No answer).

(At 5.15 p.m. the Chairman again took the Chair).

9994. Deputy Treacy.—You know how deeply grieved Deputy Haughey feels about this allegation, reflecting upon his character? Are we to take it that you have nothing to add to or retract from your statement in this regard?

—Nothing whatever.

9995. You mentioned the name of Deputy Blaney and that of his brother, Harry, at paragraph 5690, and at other sections on the same page of Volume 11. You stated that Mr. Harry Blaney handed over money and arms to the IRA.

—Yes.

9996. Were you also clear in your evidence here, Superintendent, that Deputy Blaney was, in fact, involved in the handing over of arms and money?

—Yes.

9997. Also, in respect of Pádraig Haughey, whose name has been adverted to, again is there anything to substantiate in any way the evidence you have given in regard to his activities in the matter of importing arms and collusion with the IRA in the matter of passing over money and arms?

—Yes, I can substantiate the import of arms, but not just presently.

9998. You are not at liberty to give us any further evidence on that?

—No.

9999. Are you satisfied the evidence you gave us in respect of the consignment of arms coming into Dublin Airport which Pádraig Haughey allegedly took in charge and handed over to two leading members of the IRA is correct, or substantially so?

—It is quite correct.

10000. In detail?

—In detail. I was wrong about the date. In my previous evidence I said “October”; it should have been September.

10001. In respect of these various reports, did you submit reports to your superiors?..

—Yes.

10002. May I take it that the reports were issued quite soon after the events, and that there was no delay or unnecessary time lag? As soon as the matter was observed which you felt like reporting, was it done promptly?

—As soon as I became aware of the information, it was done promptly. The time lag between the events recorded and the time when I received the information would vary.

10003. Your immediate superior would be the Commissioner?

—Yes, the Deputy Commissioner, or Commissioner.

10004. Is it still the position that all these various reports of a rather startling kind, involving personalities, even non-government ones, were not acted upon except to the extent that you were told to keep on checking, to use your own words?

—Yes. The Minister for Justice at the time, Mr. Ó Moráin, was made aware of the position.

10005. Was your information conveyed to your Commissioner and thence to the Minister for Justice?

—Yes.

10006. You did have a meeting with the Minister for Justice?

—Yes.

10007. You briefed him fully at that time?

—That is correct.

10008. Did you tell him all the things you have told us?

—Yes.

10009. All of them?

—I may not have mentioned the sum of money which was passed. I told him about Mr. Haughey’s meeting with the IRA member.

10010. Was it not strange, to say the least of it, that information of this kind was not acted upon quickly and resolutely by the people directly responsible for law and order and justice in this country, and would it be a fair assumption to go on that a blind eye was being cast on these activities? There was a clear reluctance on the part of your superiors, even to the extent of the Minister for Justice, to Act in the matter?

10011. Chairman.—I feel that it is unfair to ask the Chief Superintendent to make comment on that——

10012. Deputy Treacy.—I appreciate the point and the Chairman’s ruling in the matter.

10013. Chairman.—In respect of his superiors.

10014. Deputy Treacy.—Yes. I wanted to relate this matter of inactivity which could be construed as condolence of the activities. You reported, Sir, not merely verbally but in writing to your superior officers?

—That is correct, yes.

10015. To what extent was the report in writing? If so, is this evidence available? If they were written reports, are they available?

—I made written reports. They are available in our headquarters. They are with the Commissioner.

10016. To what extent have we been presented with the fullest information? You are conversant with the information we have?

—Yes, with my evidence here the last day.

10017. And other types of evidence?

—Yes.

10018. I was going to put the point of view, Chairman, that if there was any further written evidence which might be helpful to the Committee, that that should be looked into in respect of the written evidence conveyed to the Minister’s Department by the Superintendent. In retrospect, Superintendent, can you say that you met Colonel Hefferon more often than twice since 1968?

—Since 1968? I could not be sure of how often I met him. I may have met him three or four times. I could not be quite certain.

10019. What kind of liaison exists between the Army and the Castle, so to speak?

—As I explained to Deputy Nolan, it exists at a higher level than through my superior officers.

10020. In the light of the happenings and of the events which have taken place, did it not behove you to consult with Colonel Hefferon at the time?

—No, I did not consult with him. I must go through my superior officers. The liaison exists with those people.

10021. No one thought fit to arrange a meeting between the respective chiefs?

—The meeting did not take place, in any case. It was not arranged.

10022. And 1968 was the last date on which you met Colonel Hefferon?

—No, I would have met him in some part of 1969. It was after Gárda Fallon’s death. It would be 1970.

10023. Do you not think it desirable in retrospect that an endeavour should have been made to ensure greater co-operation between the various Chiefs in the Army and the secret service?

—That is a matter for the authorities. I do not know to what extent the co-operation exists. I take it that there is full co-operation between the Army Intelligence unit and the Gárda unit.

10024. Was there a complete breakdown of relationships at this time?

—Not that I am aware of.

10025. Was there any deliberate frustration in the matter of co-operation?

—Between the Army and the Gárda?

10026. Between the various heads?

—I am not aware of any frustration.

10027. That is all. Thank you very much, Superintendent.

10028. Deputy Tunney.—We all have been breaking our own regulations in our desire to keep to what is directly before us. In saying that, I am saying to you that I am going to do the same, but I hope not for too long. Other members here are concerned about your statements and the denial. As I see it, there might not be such a gap between the statements and the denial at all. I propose asking you one or two questions which will help me to fortify the opinion which I have regarding it. I am working back from the witnesses we had and those denials. Deputy Haughey has denied what you said about him. I have been looking at what you said about him. I notice that what you said was “he promised this money for funds for the North of Ireland”. I think at the time people thought you said “for guns”. “Funds” is here. Your evidence is that he promised it for funds?

—Yes, for funds.

10029. In that respect there would not have been anything unusual in any man down here promising funds for the North?

—Promising them to the IRA would have been quite serious.

10030. I was going to come later to the man to whom he was alleged to have made the promise. At the time we were all promising funds to the North of Ireland. There were collections outside chapel gates, in Henry Street and at football matches in order to get funds for the North of Ireland.

—Yes.

10031. Except in so far as you would say the person to whom he made the promise would have been a leading IRA man—it is only in that respect that the offer would be offensive?

—Yes, if he had made them to the Red Cross or something like that—if he had made a promise to something like the Red Cross it would have been above board.

10032. I more or less anticipated that there would be denials of what you were saying the last day. I mentioned one or two questions that I would ask, hoping to see what I call a balance. Deputy Nolan has already referred to this, but if at the time of this alleged promise the leading IRA man to whom the promise was made—if he was more concerned with what we call the relief of distress in Northern Ireland——

—There was no question of relief of distress.

10033. It was just a promise to finance them?

—The IRA?

10034. I take it from what you say that that is the evidence you have. The importance of the promise and the gravity of it is conditioned by whether or not the promise was ultimately effected?

—Yes.

10035. You and I could say “I promise to do this” and unless we carry out the promise is not of any great merit?

—Yes.

10036. Would there be evidence that this promise was carried out?

—I am not aware that it was carried out. Part of that money may have been, perhaps, what Captain Kelly handed over.

10037. So far as Deputy Haughey would be concerned, there is not any evidence that he himself …

—Handed over the £50,000? No.

10038. And you were not making that point in the beginning in your evidence?

—No, I was not.

10039. I think that there we would have resolved part of the gap because I think the impression was that he did. As far as you are concerned, you evidence is that somewhere in Dublin, to some man who was known to you as being connected with the IRA at some stage, whether it was in private or in a lounge bar, in sobriety or otherwise, Deputy Haughey made a promise that he would give £50,000 to the IRA for funds?

—That does not quite resolve the conflict. Mr. Haughey has denied ever meeting any member of the IRA.

10040. I think I did refer to that slightly on the last day—it is the final point I was going to make on this—as far as you were concerned, you are quite sure that this man was known to Mr. Haughey as a leading member?

—Quite sure.

10041. The second point in which I would be interested is the references to Captain Kelly meeting Cathal Goulding. As you said, Captain Kelly has admitted to meeting him. I think he said he did not meet him and you said he met him in Cavan—I presume you meant County Cavan?

—Yes.

10042. He has admitted to having met him, I think, in Bailieborough on at least one occasion, but as far as we are concerned, this Bailieborough meeting of the 4th and 5th October is, on Captain Kelly’s evidence and on Colonel Hefferon’s evidence, a very important meeting because from this we are told sprang the whole idea of what happened subsequently. On the last day, you did not seem to attach great importance to the Bailieborough meeting at all. I can refresh your memory, Chief Superintendent. At question 5789, page 427, I said to you:

A meeting which took place in Bailieborough and which in his own words …

that is, the words of Captain Kelly—

… formed the genesis of all this operation,

and you said:

That could well be.

Subsequently, I said to you:

And, I think, subsequently both he and Colonel Hefferon referred to the fact that there were complaints or reports to the Department of Justice regarding this meeting,

And you said:

Not regarding that meeting, unless it came from some member of the Garda in the country. He definitely did not get it from me.

I presume that should be “the county.”

As far as you are concerned, this is not the the meeting from which these complaints regarding Captain Kelly’s associations came?

and you said:

No.

Both Captain Kelly and Colonel Hefferon—and here we have a new conflict—will insist that arising from that meeting for which moneys from this fund had been allocated and to which we can assume Captain Kelly brought some money—that arising from that, there were complaints—I think they said from the Taoiseach to the Minister for Defence down to Colonel Hefferon and that these complaints were investigated and that everybody was satisfied that everything was all right. It seems to me strange that if those complaints were there, they would not have come from your section?

—I do not know anything about those complaints.

10043. Finally, as far as George Dixon would be concerned and having regard to the information we have about these accounts— apparently there was no definite holder—is it possible that while in the case of Pádraig Haughey, there may be evidence that he signed maybe the card which opened this account, there is not evidence to show that he subsequently drew all the money from the account?

—As far as I am aware, there is no evidence to show that he subsequently drew all the money from the account.

10044. So that there again we have another reconciliation, that in your saying that George Dixon was Pádraig Haughey or vice versa, you did not say he drew the moneys?

—Excuse me, Deputy Tunney—I did not say that George Dixon was Pádraig Haughey. I said that from my investigation, I believed him to be.

10045. But again I would be concerned here that the reports which we had and the general acceptance of your evidence was that you had said that Pádraig Haughey was George Dixon?

—Yes, I believe from my investigation that he is.

10046. Notwithstanding that, you did not at any stage say that he was the man who drew the money from the bank?

—No, I have no evidence of that.

10047. Again, I hope that your having given that evidence on the first point in relation to Deputy Haughey and on this point will help somewhat to reconcile statements and denials which we have had to date. Thank you, Chief Superintendent.

10048. Deputy Barrett.—Getting back again to the £50,000 which Mr. Haughey is alleged to have promised a leading member of the IRA, could you say how many people were present at that meeting?

—I am not prepared to say how many people were present.

10049. Could I ask you if there were more than two people?

—I could not go any further—I am sorry.

10050 Could it be possible that while this was a leading member of the IRA and known to you, he could be a man who could be used by Mr. Haughey to deliver aid to Belfast in all good faith? What I want to know is if it would be possible that while you know him to be a man connected with the IRA, Deputy Haughey may not know him as such and that in his anxiety to get aid for the distressed in Belfast, he may see fit to use this man for the purpose and made such a promise to be conveyed to people in Belfast?

—There is no question of his making a mistake in his identity.

10051. With this particular man?

—With this particular man.

10052. Even though he was an IRA man, do you know if he was in any way concerned about getting aid to people who are in distress in Belfast?

—I could not say.

10053. You do not know if he was?

—I do not know.

10054. It is possible that he could have been?

—Yes.

10055. Could I ask you with regard to your information concerning all the people you have mentioned and their connections with meeting IRA people, was your information coming from the same informant in all cases?

—I am not prepared to answer that either—I am sorry.

10056. With regard to your evidence concerning Captain Kelly handing over £7,000 in Cavan town to Cathal Goulding, in your reply as to whom on this occasion he handed over the money you said:

As far as I know it was Cathal Goulding. I cannot swear to that though. In the early part of December 1969 he paid over £1,500. Again I am not sure but I think it was to Cathal Goulding.

You agree that that was loose type of evidence that we have to take note of when weighing it up?

—I understand that, yes.

10057. Finally, Chief Superintendent, I do not know if this has occurred to you or not, but I would like to ask you could it be possible that your informant or informants, because of the connection with subversive organisations, could be deliberately trying to collect information which would be designed to undermine the lawful authority in this State at that particular time?

—I did not say, Mr. Barrett, whether they were connected with subversive organisations or not.

10058. Even bearing that in mind, could it be possible that it was an attempt?

—No.

10059. To feed false information.

—Definitely impossible.

10060. Impossible?

—Quite impossible.

10061. Deputy Collins.—Chief Superintendent, in reply to Question 5631, “apart from this information you would not be able to help us by giving other information? Have you any knowledge where this money came from? Can you in any way tie it up with the fund that we are investigating?” you reply, “I take it it came from the £100,000 you are investigating.” It is rather a loose reply. You cannot verify that it was?

—No, I cannot verify.

10062. It would appear to me that it did not come from the £100,000, that is the initial moneys.

—It was before the account was opened.

10063. You cannot throw any further light?

—I cannot throw any light on that, I am sorry.

10064. In reply to Question 5638, “did you mention any Ministers being involved?” “Not in the context he put it there. He says I told him we knew that,” which I think was in relation to Captain Kelly’s arrest? Do you recall that?

—What was that you cited?

10065. The question was, “did you mention any Ministers being involved,” “not in the context you put it there.”

—Yes, I remember that.

10066. In what context did you put it, that there were Ministers involved?

—I never said that I knew there were Ministers involved. I asked him who was involved.

10067. You asked him?

—I asked him, yes.

10068. Did you specify any Ministers?

—I asked him the three Ministers——

10069. The three Ministers involved?

—That is correct.

10070. Question 5652, “Did you take any steps to find out whether his activities were proper?” that, is Captain Kelly’s activities; “yes, I did. I reported the matter to my superiors at the time,” etc. Did he report it in writing or verbally?

—In writing.

10071. To?

—My superiors.

10072. Did you get any reply back? Any feed back from him?

—No, I never got any feed back from him.

10073. At all?

—No.

10074. Were you not perturbed?

—I was not perturbed.

10075. Or anxious? At that time you were worried that you might be picked up in the North.

—I just put forward information, I do not expect to get any rely back.

10076. I think you mention that he met members of the IRA on a number of occasions. In Question 5656, is there any documentary evidence taat you can give to the committee?

—No, not that I am aware of.

10077. Question 5657, you again say, “I got no answer back,” from the Commissioner; “We send reports up to our authorities, to the Commissioner, and we do not get a reply back.” I feel this is somewhat peculiar as an intelligence operation, as a secret service operation. Surely there should be some conclusion or some policy laid down?

—The policy is planned out at the top.

10078. You are head of the secret service?

—Yes, but I am not in on headquarter conferences and the like.

10079. Question 5659, “it would strike me as being peculiar, if you do not mind me saying so, in so far as the IRA are extra-legal?” “I understand,” was the reply, “I made some enquiries on my own in the matter.” That is in relation to Captain Kelly and the IRA, “I believe when it was put to Colonel Hefferon— I do not know by whom—he said it was pure poppy-cock.” Who told you this?

—I honestly do not know who told me that fact. I was told that at the time, it may have been an officer in the Colonel Department, it may be one of my officers. I could not answer truthfully who told me that.

10080. In relation to Mr. Haughey meeting a member of the IRA, in question 5671, in Questions 5670 and 5671, “did you report it to your superiors?” “Yes, that is correct.” “Did you have any reply back and instructions from your superiors?” “No, actually the previous Minister for Justice sent for the Commissioner and myself on this matter.” In other words, he had apparently already received——

—No, that is not quite right. The Commissioner took the initiative, as far as my understanding in the case, and he sent word to the Minister. I said in my evidence, which I firmly believed at the time, that it was the Commissioner who sent for the Minister and myself. I now understand that it was the Commissioner who decided to go to the Minister.

10081. The Minister did not initially ask you to meet him?

—No, it was the Commissioner asked to see the Minister.

10082. Upon a report before him by you?

—Yes, that is right. My evidence on that is not quite correct on that point.

10083. That is Question 5671.

—But I understood on the last occasion that it was correct.

10084. Again, nothing happened as a result of this meeting. Can you give us any concrete evidence as to the involvement of Mr. Pádraig Haughey with the IRA? You say he was very deeply involved. In answer to Question 5674, “I am not sure about further meetings. I know his brother Pádraig was deeply involved.” This is a fairly damning statement. Can you substantiate to any extent?

—I think he was collecting money and arms for the IRA.

10085. Collecting arms? Where would he buy arms?

—Endeavouring to buy arms for them.

10086. Can you give any concrete evidence to this effect, any documentary evidence, pictures or anything like that with Pádraig Haughey’s involvement?

—Buying arms?

10087. Of his involvement with the IRA initially.

—No.

10088. You said to Question 5679-5680, “under whose authority did it come to the Airport?” that is the arms importation, and your reply was, “He made the arrangements for them to come in,” that is Mr. Pádraig Haughey. How do you know he made arrangements for them to come in if your information was post the event, after the event?

—I know now for a fact how they came in through the Airport but I am just not prepared at this stage to elaborate in public on the points, but I would like to clear, in case there was any misinterpretation in my statement as to any suspicion thrown on the Customs and Excise authorities, I would like to clear that, they were in no way involved. It was taken in in good faith.

10089. In relation to that you said in reply to Question 5684, 5683, “Yes,” you replied, “not as such. It was done by a certain individual in the customs possibly, I imagine.” Do you want to correct that reply? You are not satisfied it was not done by a person in customs?

—It was done by a certain member of the customs in good faith.

10090. It was cleared by——

—By customs.

10091. In good faith?

—In good faith, yes.

10092. Was it upon instructions from yourself?

—No. I am not prepared to go into this in public, Mr. Chairman, I will in private afterwards if that is possible, just to clear that point with the Committee.

10093. Deputy R. Burke.—I assume you were told by the Minister for Justice and the Commissioner to keep checking on the matter of Mr. Blaney’s and Mr. Haughey’s involvement. I assume you checked as any further information became available?

—There were other items in that report apart from Mr. Blaney’s and Mr. Haughey’s involvement. It was a collective thing, to keep checking.

10094. The other matters were not related to this particular problem, were they?

—More or less, yes.

10095—They were related?

—Yes.

10096. We are not aware of them at this point of time.

—I think you are aware of most of them, or any involved in this transaction.

10097. Has any further information come to light about this matter since then?

—Do you mean in connection with those reports?

10098. Yes.

—No, I am not aware of any further information.

10099. In reply to question No. 5723: “I see. It is the Minister and his brother jointly who are involved. It is not a separate operation?” you said—“This is jointly.” Again you mean Mr. Blaney and Mr. Harry Blaney there. Have you any concrete evidence that that was the case?

—I have no concrete evidence.

10100. Deputy H. Gibbons—One point strikes me about the Chief Superintendent’s statement. I refer to the question of his information. Would there be any danger of having only half the story in your information? My reason for saying this is that those of us on this side of the table who deal with the public know that at times stories are brought back, certainly, concerning situations of which we have no recollection. In other words, could a thing be garbled by the time it reaches you?

—No.

10101. That could not arise?

—It could not arise.

10102. I feel that the circumstances under which the information is collected cannot be made available to us. That is important. But we cannot go into it at this stage.

—That is correct.

10103. Deputy Keating—Could the alphabetical list of our people be given to the Chief Superintendent? (Document passed to witness) you told us when you gave testimony on a previous occasion that on 17th August 1969 Mr. Pádraig Haughey passed £1,500 to Cathal Goulding in London.

—That is correct.

10104. We have evidence from another source that Mr. Pádraig Haughey made a trip to London on that occasion and that the ticket for that trip was furnished out of the funds we are investigating. So we have a direct interest in this matter. I realise that you will wish to protect your sources, as you have been doing. You must stop me if I transgress on anything about which you do not wish to speak. Do you know where Mr. Pádraig Haughey met Cathal Goulding in London?

(No answer).

10104a. You do not know the actual address?

—No.

10105. Do you know who made the contact between them?

—No.

10106. Could I ask you, when you say “no”, whether you mean you do not know or you would prefer not to say?

—I am not prepared to answer it in any case.

10107. Do you know if anyone else was present at that meeting?

—I am sorry. That is as good as saying the other thing.

10108. For the record, if you look at that list, do you know whether any person listed on the document in front of you was present at that meeting? You may not wish to answer that.

—No, I cannot.

10109. I appreciate that. I was anxious to get some testimony on the record. I should like to be clear also about the meeting that took place some time in December 1969, at the instigation of the Commissioner, between the Minister for Justice of that day, Deputy Ó Mórain, the Commissioner, and yourself. You have told us that this was at the Commissioner’s instigation.

—Yes.

10110. The three of you were present together?

—That is correct.

10111. Am I right in thinking that on that occasion you briefed the Minister for Justice at that time in detail on a number of matters which were the subject of your testimony to us both to-day and on the last occasion?

—That is correct.

10112. For example, that you told him such concrete, definite and positive things as the one I just quoted, that Pádraig Haughey gave money to Cathal Goulding in London on 17th August; for example, that arms had come through Dublin Airport at the arrangement and organisation of “Jock” Haughey; for example, that Harry Blaney had passed £200 to the IRA on a certain date in August?

—Yes.

10113. Did you tell him on that occasion of the meeting between Captain Kelly in Cavan on 4th August and members, or a member, of the IRA?

—I did; and sums of money changed hands.

10114. So that substantially what has emerged now in your testimony was told by you in the presence of one of your superiors to the Minister for Justice on that occasion in December 1969?

—That is correct.

10115. Are you familiar with an article which appeared in the Irish Times on 10th February 1971 by Dick Walsh—I shall give you a copy—“Abortive London Arms Deal”?

—I think I have read that. (Document passed to witness).

10116. Again you may wish to observe the same reticence as you did previously, but perhaps you can answer some questions about this. Were you aware that arms were inspected at Eltham by someone from Ireland early in November 1969?

—I am sorry; we are on too dangerous ground here. I am not prepared to say.

10117. Are you aware of whether or not Mr. Pádraig Haughey met Mr. Martin Casey in Dublin or elsewhere? Were you aware of such contacts?

—No I was not aware of that.

10118. Is this an area which, for other reasons, you cannot discuss?

—It is an area I cannot discuss. I am sorry.

10119. I appreciate the reasons for that. We have been making a number of efforts to explain why we could have seemingly direct contradictions about things here. There are occasions when you said that Mr. A gave money to Mr. B. I am putting it in very general terms. If it were the case that an intermediary took the money from Mr. A and gave it to Mr. B, then you would have a situation where Mr. B could absolutely correctly swear, “I did not receive money from Mr. A.”

—Yes.

10120. In substance the money would have come from Mr. A; yet Mr. B would not have received it from Mr. A. In connection with the testimony—give me a moment to find it— there are a number of places where we would have direct denials under this sort of heading because it was not a simple transfer, for example, Pádraig Haughey to Cathal Goulding in London. Are you saying you are certain the money went from one to the other, or that it went from the hands of one to the hands of the other without an intermediary? Which sort of affirmation is it?

—I am not saying one way or the other. I am sorry.

10121. In regard to other money transfers, for example, Mr. Harry Blaney on the 18th September, 1969 to the IRA, £200. Is your assertion here that the source was Mr. Harry Blaney and the recepient was the IRA, but that you do not know how many hands it passed through? Is that the situation? Would that apply to the £2,000 which went to the Chief of Staff of the IRA on the 1st October from the same source?

—It is quite possible that there was an intermediary.

10122. Again, for the reasons that we accept you may not wish to answer this, but in the case of Captain Kelly’s transfers of money to the IRA, are you referring to Captain Kelly as the agent of that transfer or as the actual person who handed it from his hands into the hands of someone he knew to be in the IRA?

—So far as I am aware, he handed it personally in this case. That was my information.

10123. You told us that you had some conviction which you could substantiate— details of this arms import. I think you have told us very recently that you might amplify this in private to us. You partly answered my first question with the second statement. I was going to ask you do you expect to be able to give us more information on this in the very near future?

—Yes.

10124. Of a detailed and substantial sort? Of a sort we could check?

—Yes.

10125. That is all, thank you.

(The Committee deliberated).