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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Máirt, 9 Feabhra, 1971

Tuesday, 9th February, 1971

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY P. HOGAN in the chair.

ORDER OF DÁIL OF 1st DECEMBER, 1970.

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

The Committee deliberated.

Chief Superintendent John P. Fleming sworn and examined.

5627. Chairman.—You know, of course, that we are investigating this question of the expenditure of public money. Have you any information in respect of the passage of money to any persons or organisations which might be of help to us?

—Yes, I have. Could I refer to a note for dates and amounts?

5628. Yes certainly.

—At the outset I would like to point out that all this information has come from confidential sources and I am not at liberty to reveal the sources from which the information came. First, in about the last week of September 1969 Captain Kelly met Cathal Goulding, Chief of Staff of the IRA, in Virginia, County Cavan, and he agreed to get him a regular supply of arms and ammunition for use in Northern Ireland. He also promised to provide training faclities for Northern Ireland members of the IRA in Gormanston Camp. Captain Kelly attended an IRA meeting in Cavan in the first week of October, 1969 and he then promised the IRA to give them £50,000 by instalments. To prove that he was not bluffing he promised to pay the first instalment within three days.

On or about 7th October, 1969 he paid over £7,000 at Cavan Town to Cathal Goulding. During the last week in November, 1969 he paid over a further sum of £1,000.

5629. To whom on this occasion?

—As far as I know it was to Cathal Goulding, I cannot swear to that, though. In the early part of December, 1969 he paid over a further £1,500. Again I am not sure but I think it was to Cathal Goulding. Those are the sums which as far as I know Captain Kelly paid over.

About the third week of August, 1969 Pádraig Haughey paid over £1,500 to Cathal Goulding in London.

5630. Is this just relating to Captain Kelly or is it any sums of money paid over to the IRA from any source? Any information concerning the passage of money to any persons or organisations which might be of help ot us in trying to find out where this £100,000 went. In that respect we cannot tie you exactly to the £100,000 but we will have to decide whether it is relevant or not. It may be of help to us, that is what we are trying to find out.

—I had only confidential information that Harry Blaney passed over quite large sums of money to the IRA from September, 1969 onwards.

5631. Apart from this information you would not be able to help us by giving us any other information? Have you any knowledge of where this money came from? Can you in any way tie it up with the fund we are investigating?

—I take it it came from the £100,000 you are investigating. But 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. I think the Government Grant-in-Aid was sanctioned in the Dáil on 15th or 16th August.

5632. Yes, the Suspense Account was opened at that time.

5633. Deputy Briscoe.—Have you anything further to add to what you have already told us? Any other information, or is that the entire amount of information you have for us?

—That is, as far as I am aware, all the actual sums of money that passed over.

5634. I would just like to take you back to evidence that was given to this Committee by Captain Kelly on 26th January. He told the Committee that when Mr. Gibbons was leaving your office at the time that you had picked up Captain Kelly to ask him some questions about the arms import, Mr. Gibbons said something. Captain Kelly’s words were:

As he was leaving Chief Superintendent Fleming’s office—and this is what made me not give a statement—he turned to Chief Superintendent Fleming and, says he: “Be easy on Captain Kelly. He is a good officer. He has been caught up in a change of Director of Intelligence, in a change of policy.”

Can you confirm whether or not that statement is accurate?

—No, that is not an accurate statement. What actually happened is that when Mr. Gibbons was leaving the office he said: “Do not be too hard on Jim”. He never referred to him as Captain Kelly. I was referring to him by his christian name throughout the interview and he said: “Do not be too hard on Jim. He was a good officer. His commanding officer, Colonal Hefferon, spoke highly of him.” Those were the exact words.

5635. That was all he said?

—That was all he said. There was no mention of a change of policy.

5636. Are you quite positive on that?

—I am, yes. There is just one other matter I would like to clear up. I was reading over some of Captain Kelly’s evidence on Page 333, Vol. 8. In his reply to question 4447 Captain Kelly said, I think that I told him that we knew at the time—that is, the Special Branch knew at the time—that three Ministers were involved.

5637. Deputy Keating.—Yes, that is right.

—That is definitely not correct.

5638. Deputy Briscoe.—Did you mention any ministers being involved?

—Not in the context he put it there. He says I told him we knew that.

5639. That is not true?

—No. I was trying to get information at the time, not to tell him what I knew.

5640. Deputy FitzGerald.—That carries conviction.

—I did ask him if Mr. Blaney, Mr. Haughey and Mr. Boland were involved but I never mentioned Mr. Gibbons.

5641. Deputy Briscoe.—Are any of the other statements made by Captain Kelly in the course of his evidence to this Committee incorrect?

—I have not gone through it closely. I have not the time to go through it closely.

5642. Deputy Briscoe.—I understand. You are quite busy.

5643. Deputy R. Burke.—Chief Superintendent, are you absolutely sure that your sources of information are accurate and to be trusted?

—Absolutely. They have been checked and double checked.

5644. Deputy E. Collins.—The payments you mention were passed initially by Captain Kelly in September, 1969. You have read the document, have you?

—I have, yes.

5645. If you look at page 9 (Documents, Book 1.) the Clones account was opened on October 9. The first sum, of £7,000, was transferred on 7 October. This is before the first deposit to the Clones Account?

—That is right.

5646. So it is possible that this money did not in fact come from the Grand-in-Aid?

—I do not know where it came from.

5647. It is possible that the £1,000 would come from one of the accounts, probably in Baggot Street?

—That is quite possible.

5648. And the sum early in December, £1,500, that could also have come from the Baggot St. account. When did you first know that Captain Kelly had been in contact with the IRA?

—It would be about September, towards the end of September, 1969.

5649. At that time there was no question of the official IRA and the other?

—Not at that stage.

5650. There was no such thing as the Provisional IRA or the Official IRA?

—No, there was not. There was no split until the January.

5651. You knew of Captain Kelly’s position within the Army?

—At the beginning I did not know his position. I made inquiries as to his position, was he a genuine Army officer, and I was told they had such a man in the Army Intelligence as Captain Kelly.

5652. Did you take any steps to find out whether his activities were proper?

—Yes, I did. I reported the matter to my superiors at the time because I heard he has been operating in Northern Ireland and that he was operating without taking proper cover and I was afraid he would be picked up in Northern Ireland, on the Six Counties side of the Border, maybe by the UVF.

5653. In other words, you were satisfied he could have been working with the IRA?

—He could have been. I would not know what Army Intelligence would be working on.

5654. And that in fact he could be in contact with the IRA for a specific purpose? You are aware that your evidence is in direct conflict with what Captain Kelly maintains?

—I am not too clear on what Captain Kelly’s evidence is?

5654(a). Deputy FitzGerald.—The relevant evidence is there (indicating a place in the Minutes of Evidence).

—I did not go through it all.

5655. Deputy E. Collins.—Captain Kelly said in one statement to the Committee that he never met any members of the IRA as such. In fact that was in reply to a question from myself.

5656. Chairman.—If he did say that, it would be incorrect?

—It would be incorrect, because I know of, at the very least, four or five occasions where he attended meetings with IRA members. One of those meetings took place at a certain hotel in Monaghan—I will not mention the hotel— some time at the end of October or early November, 1969.

5657. From your information, which we gather is in relation to his contact with the IRA what answer did you get back from your own Commissioner?

—I got no answer back. We send reports up to our authorities, to the Commissioner, and we do not get a reply back.

5658. No one said he was working officially or unofficially?

—Nobody told me; no.

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. I made some enquiries on my own in the matter. I believe when it was put to Colonel Hefferon—I do not know by whom—he said it was pure poppycock about Captain Kelly meeting members of the IRA and passing over money.

5660. That it was pure poppycock?

—I cannot go further with that at this stage, to whom he said that, but I know he did refer to this as pure poppycock.

5661. Do you have any information, or did you have any information, about any Ministers involved with Captain Kelly?

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

5662. In what capacity?

—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.

5663. That would be Mr. Haughey?

—Mr. Charles Haughey had a meeting with a certain leading IRA member in Dublin.

5664. When was this?

—It would be towards the end of August. I would not be too clear on dates. August or September, 1969.

5665. August, 1969. And Mr. Blaney?

—Mr. Blaney, as far as I know, was not at the meeting. It was a meeting between a certain leading IRA member and Mr. Haughey, at which he promised him a large amount of money.

5666. Mr. Haughey?

—Promised the IRA a large sum of money, about £50,000.

5667. For what purpose?

—For funds for the North. For the IRA, for the North.

5668. They met at a place in the Republic?

—It took place in Dublin, definitely.

5669. Did you not feel this was peculiar, to say the least?

—Yes, I certainly did.

5670. Did you report it to your superiors?

—Yes, that is correct.

5671. 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.

5672. Mr. Ó Moráin?

I reported verbally and in writing to him the sum of money passed over and of Mr. Haughey’s meeting with certain IRA men.

5673. What transpired at the meeting with Mr. Ó Moráin?

—Nothing really, except to keep check of the result.

5674. From that time onwards did Mr. Haughey have any meetings or anything like that?

—I am not sure about further meetings. I know his brother, Padraig, was deeply involved.

5675/6/7. He lives here?

—He lives at 25 Foxford Avenue. One consignment of arms at least came through Dublin Airport some time in early October. I definitely know of one. There could have been a second or a third.

5678. One that actually came through and passed on up to the North?

—I do not know whether it was passed over to the IRA in Dublin.

5679/5680. Under whose authority did it come through the airport?

—He made the arrangements for them to come in. He made all the arrangements at the airport to take in this consignment.

5681. Was customs clearance granted?

—I am not sure. There possibly was. I did not hear about it until much later.

5682. This would be very important to us, you will appreciate.

—If there was customs clearance?

5683. Yes.

—Not as such. It was done by a certain individual in the customs, possibly, I imagine.

5684. Could it have come from the Minister for Finance?

—I do not know. I could not track that down because I did not enquire into that.

5685. Where did these arms come from?

—I do not know. I have no idea where they came from. It could be from England or the Continent.

5686. How large was the consignment?

—I do not know.

5687. Mr. Padraig Haughey took them?

—He handed them over at the airport.

5688. Have you any knowledge of the source of the moneys which paid for the arms?

—I imagine it came from the grant in aid fund.

5689. Have you any knowledge of any other imports or arms consignments?

—No, that is the only one. There could have been others.

5690. You mentioned Mr. Blaney’s name?

—Yes.

5691. Where does he come into your information?

—He handed over certain sums to the IRA from time to time, both he and his brother.

5692. Mr. Harry Blaney. He handed it to the IRA himself?

—Yes, money and arms.

5693. And arms?

—Yes, that was my information on it.

5694. On what occasions did he hand over money and arms?

—I have not got the dates. It would be about some time in October or November 1969.

5695. How much money did he hand over?

—I do not know. I do not know the amount.

5696. Do you have any approximation?

—There was a sum of £200 at the beginning, towards the end of September 1969.

5697. £200?

—Yes, and there was a sum of £2,000 three weeks or a month later.

5698. Did you report this to your superior officer?

—I did, yes. That was part of the report to the Minister of Justice at that period.

5699. I see. They were the only two Ministers involved?

—Yes.

5700. Mr. Pádraig Haughey went to London. He stayed at the Irish Club.

—He went to London on 16-17 November, 1969. From confidential information I know he went for the purpose of purchasing arms.

5701. With whom did he travel?

—I do not know whether I am entitled to use his name.

5702. Chairman.—You can use the code.

—He is referred to as “J” on the code.

5703. Deputy E. Collins.—You went to the Minister for Justice and the Commissioner with this information about Mr. Blaney and Mr. Haughey?

—We were told to keep checking on the matter.

5704. This involves government policy to a certain extent which—I do not know—I would not even be prepared to state.

—(No answer).

5705. Captain Kelly has definitely stated, as far as I am concerned, that he was not involved with the IRA in this period.

—To my knowledge he had at least five, six or maybe more meetings with the IRA. He definitely should have known.

5706. He said he reported the contacts he had with them. I am certainly under the impression that he did not cooperate with them to any extent or have any dealings with them. Your evidence is in conflict with that.

—He promised them arms and handed over money, as I have already stated.

5707. Deputy FitzGerald.—You mentioned an arms shipment to the airport in October?

—Yes, some time in October.

5708. Not November; October.

—So far as I am aware, October, yes.

5709. The only person you mentioned in connection with that is Mr. Haughey. In connection with that I think you said that he had handed them over at the Airport.

—Yes, to two leading IRA members at the airport on that occasion.

5710. I see.

—As far as my information goes, they took over that consignment.

5711. Captain Kelly was not connected with that operation?

—Not so far as I am aware. Captain Kelly was not connected with that.

5712. You said you presumed that the finance came from the grants in aid fund. You have agreed that the money—the £7,000 on 7 October—could not have come out of the bank accounts, which were not opened, and that from the evidence we have of sums paid into the grant in aid fund it is difficult to see how it could have come from that fund, because the payments made prior to that do not correspond with that sum and are made to a number of different people in different countries. That suggests there was another source of funds.

—There must have been some other source at that period.

5713. Have you any evidence that that other source was fed from public sources? I should like to distinguish between money handed over by a Minister from private sources and government funds. Have you any indication of money from government funds that could have accounted for any of that £7,000?

—No, I have no indication.

5714. That money could have come from private sources.

—Yes, it could have come from private sources.

5715. As regards the other sums—the £1,000 and the £1,500—it is possible they could have come from the Baggot St. or the Clones account. You have no direct evidence of that.

—I have no direct evidence. It could have happened that it was paid out to be reimbursed later from the grants in aid.

5716. You saw the statement made by Sam Dowling in court in Louth in early January when he was charged with offences of having received money from agents and officers of the Irish Government?

—Yes. I did not see it. I hear that he made that statement.

5717. Can you guide us at all as to whether Sam Dowling was associated with the IRA or with any other group?

—As far as I know, yes; he is associated with the IRA. To what extent I do not know.

5718. Prior to that unsworn statement by him had you any evidence of his being given money or direct associates of his being given money or arms?

—No, no evidence of that whatever.

5719. But, if he is associated with Goulding of the IRA, his statement would be consistent with what you have told us?

—I do not know to what extent his association is with the Goulding group of the IRA.

5720. Yes. You mentioned Harry Blaney providing quite large sums from the end of September on. Can you give any indication of what you mean by quite large sums?

—I said £200 on the first occasion.

5721. That was the Minister I thought.

—They were both involved in this.

5722. I see.

—There was a sum of £2,000.

5723. I see. It is the Minister and his brother jointly who are involved. It is not a separate operation?

—This is jointly.

5724. I see. The first indication you had of Captain Kelly’s activities was when you came across somebody called Kelly whom you were told was an Army officer at the Bailieboro’ meeting in early October?

—I was told he was operating in the six counties at this stage. That was the first information I got of Captain Kelly’s existence.

5725. Yes you referred to him attending IRA meetings or meetings of IRA leaders. I think in his evidence he spoke of certain meetings as being with people from the north who either in many cases were not members of the IRA or were not known to him as being members of the IRA. When you say an IRA meeting do you mean literally a meeting confined to members of the IRA; a meeting consisting of leading members of the IRA, say Cathal Goulding for instance?

—I know for a fact of at least one meeting and Rory Brady who was a leading member at that stage was at the same meeting. This was a meeting in a hotel in Monaghan about the end of October.

5726. I do not think you appreciate the distinction I am making. In the confused situation could there have been a position that a meeting was held of representatives of various groups concerned with people in the North and that they might have included IRA people and non IRA people or were they specifically meetings of the IRA?

—As far as I know this meeting in Monaghan was specifically IRA.

5727. But the Bailieboro’ meeting, you cannot tell us more about the composition of it?

—No, the Bailieboro’ meeting, while there were a number of IRA present, there were also other members from the six counties present who may have belonged specifically to the defence committees or other groups.

5728. That is consistent with Captain Kelly’s evidence. When you heard that Colonel Hefferon said that your information was pure poppy cock this must have been disturbing. I can appreciate when you pass on information to your superiors, and even if it involved evidence of Ministers being involved and money for the IRA, for all you would know that could be a government decision. You might have your own views as to the wisdom of it but it might have been a government decision and if that were the case you would have to accept it. Did the suggestion that it was pure poppy cock not place a different complexion on it?

—Yes, it certainly did.

5729. It would suggest to you it was an activity of Captain Kelly unknown to his boss. Would that not suggest the need for further action with the authorities? Did you go back to the authorities at that stage and say: This now does not look alarming—as if it is not simply a government decision but the action of a sub-ordinate? Did you take the matter further at that point?

—At that stage, no. It was sometime afterwards that I learned he said it was pure poppy cock. I did not learn about it immediately.

5730. You did not have any direct contact with Colonel Hefferon?

—Not really. I would have met him sometime—I could not be clear on dates—in 1968.

5731. But not during this period?

—Not during that period.

5732. So liaison, such as there was, was at a higher level between the two Departments?

—Yes.

5733. You said that Haughey and Blaney met IRA leaders in August/September I think in Dublin?

—Yes, I know Mr. Haughey met one in Dublin.

5734. Could you be more specific as to either the date or the place?

—I am not sure. I am not sure of the date or the place. It would be August 1969. It was shortly after the outbreak of trouble in Northern Ireland.

5735. You said you were only aware definitely of one arms shipment through the airport. There could possibly have been one or two others?

—There could well have been in which Mr. Jock Haughey, or Pádraig Haughey or Captain Kelly may have been involved.

5736. But you have no direct evidence of that?

—I have no evidence.

5737. It is just speculation on your part?

—Yes, I have no direct evidence. It is speculation or rumour.

5738. Deputy Keating.—I would like to refer to your statement of the arrival of arms at Dublin Airport at the end of October 1969?

—It was sometime during October 1969.

5739. Do you know where the aircraft came from that was carrying those arms?

—No, I have no information of where it came from.

5740. Do you know, or have you any partial information about who negotiated the sending of them to the airport?

—No, I have no information on that.

5741. Are you sure they were met at the airport by Mr. Pádraig Haughey, that is Mr. Jock Haughey? This is the same person, Mr. Pádraig and Mr. Jock Haughey?

—Yes.

5742. You are sure they were met there and seen through customs by him there?

—I do not know how he concealed them through customs but I know he made all the arrangements for it.

5743. Were they handed over from his care at the airport to, I think you said, two prominent members of the IRA? Is that correct?

—I know there were two prominent members of the IRA at Dublin airport on the occasion who spoke with Pádraig Haughey at the time.

5744. Was it the sort of consignment that could have been taken away in the boot of a car or was it a substantial quantity of arms?

—As far as I am aware it was taken away in a truck.

5745. Does that indicate that it was a quantity that would have required a truck rather than the boot of a car? Was it a substantial quantity?

—Ammunition weighs very heavy.

5746. If I turn from the question of importation to the airport I think you will be aware— there is no point in putting this as a question— that there have been widespread rumours about the importation of arms and ammunition by ships through a number of ports.

—That is correct.

5747. If we limit this to ports in the Republic —within the jurisdiction of this Government— do you know of instances of the importation of arms by ship at any part of the coast of the Republic?

—No. There was information alright about the IRA getting arms and ammunition in but when I went to check it I could not check it out properly.

5748. You have no information about the importation of arms by ship, which is comparable to the hard information you have in regard to Dublin airport. Is that correct?

—No.

5749. I want to refer to the trip made to London by Pádraig Haughey and another person Mr. J, in November 1969. Can I ask you, first, if you know the identity of George Dixon?

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

5750. I do not know if you will be familiar with copies of letters that the Committee has received from the group law agent of Allied Irish Banks. We have three letters dated November 1969, three dates in November 1969, and I think you can be given a copy of those. The first letter is from the manager dated 17th November, 1969. It is to the manager of the National Provincial Bank, Ltd., Piccadilly branch, Piccadilly, London. It indicates that George Dixon—it confirms the contents of a telephone conversation of that day, 17th November, concerning George Dixon, to the extent that on the following day, 18th November, the said George Dixon would call to cash cheques to a total of £11,450. It gave the number of the cheque book and it requested that he be assisted. Have you any reason to think that this George Dixon was, in fact, on this occasion Mr. Pádraig Haughey?

—I believe it was Pádraig Haughey.

5751. Do you have any information about what this £11,450 was to be used for?

—For the purchase of arms.

5752. Is this the purchase of arms in England?

—Yes, in England.

5753. Do you have any knowledge as to who they were in negotiations with, or where the arms were coming from in England?

—No.

5754. We have subsequent letters which indicate—letter of 21st November—it is from the Bank Manager in Dublin to his opposite number, the Manager of the National Provincial Bank in Piccadilly in London. It says that the client had not yet availed of the facility and would probably do so in the next week. In other words there was a delay. They were advising the London bank that the facility to a maximum of £11,450 was still to be extended to George Dixon. Have you any idea as to why this delay in their plans occurred in London?

—No, no idea.

5755. Are you aware of any importation taking place at this time from England? You told us you believed that this facility was to be used for the purchase of arms in England. Are you aware of any importation which would correspond to this purchase?

—No, I have no information.

5756. We know that the facility was not used. I want to obtain any information the Committee could get as to why that whole affair went wrong, as it appears to have done. Do you have information on that?

—No, I have no information on that.

5757. Can I ask you if you are familiar with the publication “The United Irishman”? In the nature of your work you would be familiar with its contents often?

—Yes.

5758. Are you aware that on numerous occasions, with a fair amount of detail, “The United Irishman” has stated that the moneys made available under the Grant-in-Aid scheme were being used, through the agency of Captain James Kelly and others, for the purpose of splitting the IRA?

—Yes, I have heard that.

5759. You have seen that in “The United Irishman”?

—Yes.

5760. Have you any knowledge from the facts that you possess about the contacts between Captain Kelly and different sections of the now split IRA, which was not split at the time of the original contacts, which would either contradict or lend substance to the accusations of “The United Irishman”? Have you anything that makes you think that Captain Kelly was acting in a way designed to split the armed republicans in Northern Ireland into provisionals and regulars?

No, I would say not.

5761. There is nothing which either lends substance to or contradicts them. You have no knowledge either way?

—No.

5762. You have already answered Deputy FitzGerald on this point. I would like to be absolutely clear. You have said you know of instances when Captain Kelly had contacts with the IRA. Is it possible, if you review in your mind these instances, that Captain Kelly was dealing with people from the North of Ireland who were, in good faith, requesting aid and that while, in fact, they may have been members of the IRA there was no way for him to know that they were and this was not a relevant part of his business with them? Are you sure, in fact, that he was dealing with them as members of the IRA and not as bona fide aid seekers?

—I cannot swear as to the members from Northern Ireland whether he knew they were members of the IRA or not, but as an Army Intelligence Officer he should have known the members from the South of Ireland whom he met.

5763. I want to read a quotation from Captain Kelly’s evidence of 3rd February. It is in volume nine of the evidence. Paragraph 5215. I wonder would it be possible to give the Chief Superintendent a copy of this. It is a record of exchanges between Captain Kelly and the Chairman. Captain Kelly had been rather objecting to the line of questioning was taking. He says at Paragraph 5215:

There is one other point I want to bring out—this talk of IRA associations.

Then you will see the sentence in front of you where he says:

I never had any associations with the IRA.

You have given evidence here on oath to the extent that he did have association with the IRA. We have a clear conflict of evidence. It is necessary to be clear about the conclusions we draw. Is there any way that it is possible to reconcile the facts of which you have knowledge with the statement “I never had any association with the IRA”. Is there any way without one or other statement being untrue?

—No. There is no possible way. He met Cathal Goulding on umpteen occasions. Surely as a serving Army Intelligence Officer he should know the Chief of Staff of the IRA at that period.

5764. I feel it important that we should be clear. So far as you are concerned the statement “I never had any association with the IRA” is not a true statement?

—It is definitely not a true statement.

5765. We are in a very embarrassing situation here. No doubt the Chairman of this Committee will stop me if I transgress what is proper to discuss in public. Let me say first the reason for taking up the line of questioning I now wish to take up. We have an absolutely explicit, detailed, clear-cut conflict of evidence between two people here, one of whom was a senior and experienced person in Army Intelligence and the other of whom is a senior and experienced police officer. We are faced with the problem, in the long run when we come to the task of making up our minds, of assessing one against the other. I would, therefore, like to ask Chief Superintendent Fleming a number of questions. Firstly, he has told us that on numerous occasions he reported events which he had discovered and which he knew of to his superiors and was told to go on checking, or words to that effect. For example, he told us that he reported the contacts between the IRA and Ministers in the Government, and between the IRA and Captain Kelly. We have had the circumstances that the Minister for Justice, who is the superintendent’s ultimate superior, was changed shortly before the other Ministers were changed. I want to ask Chief Superintendent Fleming if he had ever any reason to think that the Minister for Justice of that time, Deputy Ó Moráin, was in any way trying to prevent the full and open investigation of the events which the superintendent was reporting?

—No.

5766. You are satisfied?

—I am quite satisfied that there was no effort to prevent any inquiries or investigation, that he told me to carry on.

5767. We have also—since we are weighing the matter of conflict of evidence, of credibility —an area now of very great conflict. Therefore I would like to ask the Chief Superintendent, in the light of what I have previously said to our Chairman, if he knows of any connection between the events relating to the attempted importations of arms in March and, I think, again in April of 1970 and the accident to the Minister for Finance, Mr. Charles Haughey, which took place at the end of April. You remember that he was completely incapacitated at a very crucial period and—I think I am saying something that is common knowledge— that there was speculation at that time as to what actually happened to him. Have you any knowledge that would in any way relate these events to the events we are now trying to establish?

—No, I have no such knowledge.

5768. Finally, may I ask you if you have discussed in the recent past with anyone senior to yourself in the public service the content of the testimony that you have given to us today?

—My present testimony? No.

5769. You will immediately appreciate the significance of my question. Obviously the information you have given us is very significant and the time is very significant. It will be suggested that in fact you have given this evidence as a result of discussion and decisions taken in the context of the whole political situation at the moment and I am simply giving you an opportunity either to assent to this or to say it has no connection with current events whatsoever?

—As far as I am concerned it has no connection whatsoever with current events. I was asked the questions and I answered them truthfully, on oath.

5770. Deputy Nolan.—You said that it was in August 1968 that you met Colonel Hefferon?

—I said I remembered meeting Colonel Hefferon on one or two occasions. I cannot give you approximate dates of those meetings. But they were not concerned—it was an unofficial matter.

5771. It surprises me as a layman that in the situation which developed from August 1969 to, say, May 1970 you as Special Branch and Colonel Hefferon as Army Intelligence did not meet to discuss the situation that was developing at that time?

—He probably met my superiors at headquarters. He would not have come to me, he would have gone to my superior officer.

5772. You are not aware if he did?

—I am not, no.

5773. The other point is this: you stated that to your knowledge approximately one lorryload of amunition was imported?

—As far as I am aware it was a lorry or a small truck of ammunition, but I do not know the amount.

5774. Is it not surprising that a lorry or even a truckload—I agree that ammunition is very heavy and the boot of a car would not take much—but would you agree that if a truck took ammunition away from Dublin airport someone should have known about it?

—Not necessarily because quite a lot of machinery and machine parts come in through Dublin airport and it would be very hard to detect a small quantity of arms or ammunition, especially if it was labelled as machinery.

5775. Would there not have to be an invoice or some clearance?

—It would have to be invoiced, but I do not know the Customs procedure.

5776. Is there not something called a Certificate of Origin too?

—A User’s Certificate—I do not know whether that applies on a boat; it applies on a plane—sorry, we are talking about a plane. It would need a certificate in the country it is leaving but not, so far as I am aware, in the country it is imported into. Before taking it out of the country you must provide a certificate.

5777. You know Albert Luykx who gave evidence last week?

—Yes.

5778. Do you know of his involvement in this affair? Do you know much more than he told us?

—Nothing really. His name never came up until his trip to the Continent with Captain Kelly. We arrested him at that stage and he made a written statement. He said he went as an interpreter, that he was asked by Neil Blaney to go as an interpreter with Kelly to the Coninent, and he did this. I asked him if he knew of any money having changed hands for arms. He said no but he has changed this statement now to the Committee. He says he was aware of £28,000 changing hands and that he issued one cheque for £8,500 himself in Dortmund. He did not mention that when I took his statement.

5779. Before he became an Irish citizen were you aware of any activities of his concerning arms in any other country?

—I knew he was condemned by the Belgian Military Courts in November 1945 for alleged collaboration with the enemy at that time. That was during the War. He was sentenced in the first instance to death but he appealed this and the appeal succeeded and the death penalty was reduced to 20 years’ imprisonment. The appeal was heard in 1947, nearly two years later. He escaped from prison on 28th August, 1948, from an internment camp in Beverloo in Belgium, came to Ireland as a Hungarian refugee and became a naturalised Irish citizen in 1954.

5780. Deputy Tunney.—As far as Captain Kelly’s association, as it might be called, with the IRA is concerned, an Intelligence Officer having an association with what might be described as “the other side” would not be unusual?

—No, not if he was getting information.

5781. That is a point I would like to clear up. The fact that he was meeting them does not necessarily … Having heard from you, I am trying to get any balance there may be here in an attempt to see the true position?

—I would like to clear that one up. Had he met one of them on his own I could agree that he might have been getting information, but to meet them two or three at a time—definitely not. An Intelligence Officer should not act in that way.

5782. Might there have been the possibility there that he was trying to contain them or to get information from them rather than assist them?

—Handing over those sums of money? I think, to my knowledge anyhow, he was assisting them.

5783. Right. As far as what might be called the IRA was concerned, you have heard of the Northern Defence Committee, a Committee we are accepting here as being the one through which moneys might have been spent in the North? Did you see any affinity between what might be called the IRA and what was in actual fact the Northern Defence Committee? Do you have the names there?

—No. Again, I could not prove, I could not state definitely, that they are anything except what they would be on this.

5784. Deputy Keating.—Simply on a point of fact, and not to intervene in Deputy Tunney’s questioning, Mr. Chairman, in fact the account in Clones and the account in Baggot Street was in the name of the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress. There were many defence Committees and a central one linking the whole lot.

5785. Deputy Tunney.—We will call it the Committee for the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress if you like, but there may have been what might be called here some IRA members involved in that Committee?

—Yes.

5786. As far as the meeting in Bailieboro was concerned, you talked about a meeting in Bailieboro on 4th or 5th October. We already have information that such a meeting took place?

—Yes.

5787. Would that be the meeting to which you referred as having occurred elsewhere?

—No, there was one meeting in a certain hotel in Monaghan about the end of October which involved leading members of the IRA. There was another meeting in a hotel in Bailieboro. Again I will not mention the name of the hotel. This was on the last Sunday in November 1969. This was a separate meeting to that which you are referring to, I think.

5788. But Captain Kelly refers to a meeting on 4th and 5th October?

—In Bailieboro?

5789. A meeting which took place in Bailieboro and which in his own words formed the genesis of all this operation?

—That could well be.

5790. 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?

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

5791. As far as you were concerned, this is not the meeting from which these complaints regarding Captain Kelly’s associations could have come?

—No.

5792. Chairman.—Chief Superintendent, to whom do you report?

I report to my Commissioner, through the Deputy Commissioner in the first instance.

5793. And he, I take it, reports to the Minister for Justice?

—I take it he would. I do not know. That would be the usual course.

5794. You do not report at all to the Attorney General?

—No. I am sorry—if we have a case in court that we want legal aid for we report through the State Solicitor.

5795. What liaison exists between the Special Branch and Army Intelligence?

—I have no idea. It is done through headquarters, through Garda headquarters.

5796. A question arises here to me as a layman, and I am sure to others, that these activities that you have recounted here seem to have been, to say the least, quite irregular?

—Yes.

5797. Well, perhaps it is a fair question to you: you made your reports—why was no action taken on this matter over these many months?

—I have no idea.

5798. You made, I presume, several reports over these months?

—Yes, I made several reports; but, as I said, I had a meeting with the then Minister for Justice about the second week in December 1969 and became fully aware at that period of what was taking place with Captain Kelly and other members of the Government.

5799. You were personally in on this matter?

—Yes, I was with the Commissioner.

5800. You had no other subsequent meetings with the Minister for Justice?

—No, as far as I am aware. That was just prior to Christmas 1969.

5801. You were told at that stage to carry on?

—To carry on with the investigation, yes.

5802. Deputy R. Burke.—Just briefly, Chief Superintendent, and without divulging anything to injure the security of the State or the service, could you outline what type of contacts you have, what sources you use? In particular, could I ask you, in view of the evidence of an ex-Minister, if there has ever been telephone tapping? Were you aware of any order that was given that the telephones of particular individuals should be tapped?

—I cannot——

5803. Chairman.—You cannot answer if there is any information you feel you should not give.

—I cannot answer anything in that line. I am sorry.

5804. Deputy R. Burke.—I will not press it any further.

5805. Deputy E. Collins.—Just one question, Chief Superintendent. From your knowledge, are you aware of any connection between Captain Kelly and any Ministers of State perhaps, especially Charles Haughey and Neil Blaney?

—Yes.

5806. To what extent?

—I know that he met them on numerous occasions, but apart from that I do not know what took place.

5807. Could it be possible that Captain Kelly had been working with authority from either Mr. Haughey or Mr. Blaney, or both together, as members of the Cabinet Sub-Committee?

—I have no evidence to support that in the investigation.

5808. As far as you are concerned he was not working under a direction from anybody?

—As far as I am aware. I do not know.

5809. Chairman.—Just before you leave, Chief Superintendent: you mentioned names of persons who had passed money to the IRA. Are there any other persons in Government or Government service, to your knowledge, who passed money to the IRA?

—Not that I am aware of.

Chief Superintendent Fleming withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1 p.m. until 4.0 p.m.

Examination of Albert Luykx continued.

Mr. Luykx.—May I say something?

5810. Chairman.—Yes, certainly.

—I should like to put something right which I said last week. On Friday morning I arranged to see my bank manager. I wanted to make sure my statement was correct and to refresh my memory concerning the cheques and ask him for the bank statement. The correct position is this. In Hamburg I gave Mr. Schlueter two personal cheques drawn on my account with a bank in Dortmund. I am not quite sure of the numbers of the cheques but they were drawn for a total of DM 72,150, equalling £8,500 at the rate of exchange on that date. At present it would be equal to £8,421 13 4. In Hamburg I asked Mr. Schlueter not to lodge those cheques as there was not enough money to meet them. But I stated I would let him know early in the week when a bank transfer was made. I returned to Dublin and the transfer was made, and so the account was put right. On Saturday the 5th I wrote a letter to my bank in Germany. We have a copy. I wrote it in German but I will read it out to you in English:

“Dear Sirs,

May I please ask you to send me statements of my accounts for the period from 1st until 15th April, 1970. The period I am specially interested in is the payment in favour of Mr. Otto Schlueter, or Messrs. Otto Schlueter, GMH, of Hamburg. I should be very pleased if you would let me have the statements as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully”

Yesterday afternoon I telephoned Otto Schlueter in Hamburg. I asked him first if I was still his agent and he told me “Yes”. He told me that the arms are still there. Second, I said “Mr. Schlueter, you will remember the two cheques I gave you”. He said “Yes”. “Will you please send me a copy of the receipt,” or something of that nature, which I will submit to you as soon as I have received same, and my bank statement in Germany.

There is one thing I should explain. German banking is slightly different from banking in Ireland or Britain. You write out the cheque; that cancelled cheque is not returned to you— it stays with the bank. Thus I just wanted to say that the banking procedure is different.

As requested, I have here my passport and bank statements, with copies, from 3rd April until 6th April, £8,000, and from 1st May until 15th June, where you will see that I transferred more money to Germany than needed to cover that cheque, because during that trip with Captain Kelly I was hoping to call up my principals, but we did not have the time, to settle a few accounts. As you will see, I transferred £9,936 9 2. The last statement gives the figure of £8,500. In the passport there is a London stamp of 20th February.

5811. Chairman.—The date is on the last page?

—No where there are some papers in the passport.

5812. The position is that on the 6th April your account was credited to the amount of £8,500?

—That is correct.

5813. Then, in June when it was withdrawn it was debited to a corresponding amount and in May there was this transfer which you have mentioned?

—Yes. Although it was debited in May it was done the same day. It was done on the 6th April.

5814. It took time to get across?

—I would not say so. I would say because the account was in credit anyhow they booked it in not on that day but the transfer was made on Monday the 6th. I checked that. A couple of days later the money was there which the German bank statements will reveal. I will send those in as soon as they come to hand. May I say one thing. It refers to last Thursday’s meeting and I think it requires correction. It is in page 412 of the transcript, question 5573. I think there is a slight mistake here. My reply was: “The ship was to leave Antwerp”, not Hamburg. “The bills of lading were from Antwerp”. It is printed “Hamburg”, Do you see it in question 5573?

5815. Yes.

—The question asked me was:

You and Captain Kelly chose Antwerp in particular to track down the arms at that source?

My reply was, as printed here:

The ship was to leave from Hamburg.

That is not correct. It should be:

The ship was to leave from Antwerp. The bills of lading were from Antwerp.

5816. The word “Hamburg” should be crossed out and “Antwerp” put in?

—Yes. There is another very small mistake. My sons name, I am sorry to say, is not Donal. It is Anton, short for Anthony.

5817. Deputy Tunney.—The last day you told us in your evidence that Captain Kelly told you of this particular mission while you were on the plane going out on the occasion of your first visit?

—He filled me in completely on what we were going to do.

5818. That was the first intimation you got that what was originally described as a government assignment was in connection with the importation of arms?

—No. What is your question again?

5819. I gathered from your evidence that you said the first intimation you got of the fact you were going on an arms mission was on the plane from Captain Kelly?

—No. Around the 25th March Captain Kelly told me about some arms which had not come in and a couple of days later we went on the plane and on the plane Captain Kelly filled me in completely, entirely, about his whole work and everything he was doing.

5820. For the record, you looked upon yourself as being engaged as an interpreter?

—Yes.

5821. You were paid for such work?

—No.

5822. I thought you said that apart from all expenses you were paid £50?

—Yes, but that is more for out-of-pocket expenses than for payment as interpreter for three or four days.

5823. Whatever it was for, apart from overall expenses, you got this £50 out-of-pocket expenses?

—Out-of-pocket expenses. That is right.

5824. Have you any idea of what the total expenses in connection with your trip would have been, such as the plane fare and hotel expenses?

—Yes, it would be Dublin-Antwerp-Hamburg, roughly £450.

5825. £450?

—Yes.

5826. Would that be in respect of you yourself or——

—No, the lot.

5827. That would be £225, half, for you?

—Yes.

5828. I notice on the occasion of your second visit you mention you left to go to Dusseldorf on private business of your own?

—That is right.

5829. Your expenses were being paid by Captain Kelly out of this fund?

—No. You mean to say while I went to Dusseldorf Captain Kelly paid my expenses?

5830. You say that your expenses were paid for the second trip?

—That is right. Captain Kelly paid the hotel in Vienna. I flew from Vienna to Dusseldorf and broke my journey there and I think I better say here that it is the same money, you return fare, if you break your journey or do not break your journey. In Dusseldorf I took the train and paid for it out of my own pocket and paid for my hotel. While I was with Captain Kelly he paid.

5831. And your plane fare over and back?

—Yes.

5832. Even though on your own admission you were on private business?

—I was not on private business, Mr. Tunney. I was finished with Captain Kelly. I could have come home on Sunday evening. I could have taken a plane home on Sunday evening. Captain Kelly kind of dismissed me. I was finished. I could have come home but instead of going home I went on private business.

5833. There was a blending of your own private business with what you have said was a Government assignment in so far as Captain Kelly had paid your plane fare out and presumably it was a return ticket?

—It was a return ticket, Deputy Tunney. I do not agree with you at all. I do not like it. I was there. Should I come back to Dublin first and take another ticket to go back to Dusseldorf?

5834. In so far as I am concerned we go through this operation in all departments and we are obliged to see if in any case money wa spent in a fashion that might have been avoided, and where you say to me in your evidence that you had been invited by Captain Kelly to accompany him as an interpreter, and where you said you got out-of-pocket expenses and where you said all your expenses were paid, I was at a loss to associate that with your statement that you had left for Dusseldorf on private business. That is the purpose of my questioning.

—All right.

5835. I have not looked yet at your passport but could you tell me, please, whether or not it would indicate that you were on the Continent on the 19th February?

—No. No. It does not indicate that. It indicates that I was in London on the 20th February.

5836. You were in London?

—On the 20th February.

5837. I would refer here to Captain Kelly’s evidence in respect of this trip of 19th February. The date 19th February appears and subsequently Captain Kelly was asked questions in connection with that and on page 332, question 4417, Captain Kelly was asked: “That was the occasion you went to the bank with somebody who acted as interpreter?”

—Yes.

5838. It is in Captain Kelly’s evidence? Have you got that?

—All right, yes.

5839. The question was asked “That was the occasion you went to the bank with somebody who acted as interpreter?” and Captain Kelly said “That is correct, yes”. That prompted me to ask you whether or not you were the interpreter?

—I was not.

5840. You were in London on the 20th?

—I was in London on the 20th. I was in London. In fact, I came from Brussels.

5841. On the 20th?

—On the 20th.

5842. You had not been in Dortmund?

—No.

5843. You say you have bank accounts in Dortmund and, again, we here would be anxious to trace this money. In circumstances where subsequently you acted as an aide or assistant to Captain Kelly, would you be able to indicate the bank in which he lodged the money payable to Herr Schleuter?

—I don’t know.

5844. You did not know?

—No. I never went to a bank with Captain Kelly in Germany or in Belgium. In Brussels we changed money at the airport. We did the same in Frankfurt and the same in Vienna.

5845. So far as your cheque for £8,500, which bounced—that cheque was drawn to you on April 6th and I think, when indicating what perhaps went wrong, you said that possibly the bank strike occurred. In circumstances where the bank strike did not occur until the end of the month, would you agree there would have been time here at home for the people who made that cheque payable to you to make suitable arrangements so that your cheque could be paid?

—Yes, definitely.

5846. Now, Mr. Luykx, I would just like to refer to your evidence the last day where you stated that four Ministers knew of your assignment. Have you seen since these statements from three Ministers which would deny that?

—I have seen it.

5847. Would you have any observations to make on that?

—No, no observations.

5848. Well then, perhaps I could ask you one or two questions?

—You can.

5849. Can you recollect what was the date?

—If they say it was 20th February, I accept that, although I would have thought that it was later.

5850. And you accept that that was the date you were in London?

—Yes, because I did come back from somewhere and I am certain that it was London because I remember it well. Neil Blaney put his hands over my eyes and said “Guess who” and I said “Neil”, and George Colley and Dr. Hillery were with him.

5851. So you were on the same plane?

—Yes. Neil Blaney bought me a drink on the plane. He came to sit beside me; they were sitting two seats in front of me.

5852. Again, that would be another day’s work. Your evidence was that you overheard a conversation in the hotel?

—Yes, I did. I do not want to offend any of you or any of the newspaper boys, but my evidence of last Thursday has been reported so badly in the newspapers, so differently from what actually took place, that I had better be careful what I say so that they do not start mixing things. Definitely the newspapers left their readers under the impression that all was said by me in one breath, that there was a conference at the hotel, that I was sitting in on the conference; that there was a conference with fellows from the North and talk about arms and guns. That was the way some newspapers printed it but that was not the way it was said. It was said quite differently.

5853. But one cannot accuse the newspapers of transferring the scene from what was a hotel to what is now an aeroplane. You said it happened in your son-in-law’s hotel?

—I still say that. There is no change in my statement.

5854. And you mentioned that as endorsement by the Ministers of your assignment or involvement in this?

—That is the way I interpret it.

5855. You told me earlier on that the first intimation you got from Captain Kelly was on 25th March?

—Not the first intimation. When Neil Blaney asked me—it may have been early January or late January, some time in January —to help out and said that I would have to travel to the Continent, I had a fair idea what was going to happen. Had we not all, in January last year?

5856. But again, Mr. Luykx, for the purpose of these questions I am guided by what the people who come before us say. I would hope that I could see no conflict in what they say. But you will accept that since you made the point that these compliments to you on your involvement in the assignment occurred in your son-in-law’s hotel on 20th February and subsequently you tell me that it was through Captain Kelly on the 25th, while actually your evidence in other parts said it was on the plane going out on the 1st April, there is considerable conflict of evidence?

—No, not considerable at all.

5857. Well, could you elaborate perhaps as to the extent of the recognition which the Ministers in question gave to your involvement on the plane?

—On the plane? I had not spoken to them on the plane.

5858. Well then, in the hotel?

—I had not spoken to them in the hotel either. I had only spoken to one Minister in the hotel, to Neil Blaney. May I say something here to the Chairman as probably the last point in this kind of controversy? This morning I got a message from one of the Northern gentlemen and he has given me authority to write down his name here and is prepared to come and testify. In fact, I understand he will come here within the next few days anyhow. Is it all right if I write down his name here?

5859. Chairman.—Yes.

(Witness writes name and paper is handed to Chairman).

5860. Deputy Tunney.—As far as the actual hotel conversation is concerned, can you elaborate on how, during that conversation, you became aware of the fact that, as you claim, these Ministers knew of your involvement?

—This is a very long question. What is it really you want me to answer?

5861. In your evidence here before us the last day you gave me to understand that in the hotel Mr. Colley and Dr. Hillery and some others—I do not know whether you said Mr. Lenihan was there—indicated to you that they knew of your involvement in this assignment and that they complimented you on the work you were doing on the question of the importation of arms?

—One complimented me, yes. He did not say on the importation of arms.

5862. Again it would be just as well if you would clear this up. If the compliments referred perhaps to what you were doing in the commercial world here at home or to anything else, maybe to the manner in which you were pouring out the drinks, that is O.K., but in circumstances where the other impression has been given I think it would be big of you and it would be well if you could clarify that it was not specifically in connection with the importation of arms.

—First of all, I do not pour out drinks, not in a hotel. Number two, a witness standing beside Brian Lenihan wondered what kind of a job I was at after Brian had said that with a slap on the shoulder, because that witness knew that the business deal we were doing did not deserve a slap on the shoulder. So what else was it? But then he did not think of it any longer, he just passed it off.

5863. Finally, you said in your evidence the other day that you wrote out a cheque for £8,500?

—Yes.

5864. You are quite specific about having done that?

—Yes, I wrote out two. That is what I have corrected this morning.

5865. That is the point I was going to make. Again there is a difficulty there in accepting that. Maybe people who write out cheques more frequently than I do would know, but you were quite satisfied the other day that this one cheque was written out and debited to your account, whereas your evidence today is that there were actually two cheques?

5866. Deputy Barrett.—On the occasion that you allege that Brian Lenihan gave you the slap on the back and told you you were doing excellent work for Ireland, could he possibly have been discussing a factory for Athlone town on that occasion?

—No, because the discussion of the factory for Athlone, which is going to be in Cashel now, had taken place upstairs. We had had a full session about that and contracts were signed and everything was sealed and delivered. There was no reason to refer to that.

5867. On page 401 of your evidence, the last day, having named Ministers Colley, Hillery and Lenihan, in the answer to Question 5381 you say:

—and since my participation I had heard and knew that several other Ministers had had full knowledge of my activities.

I presume that means activities to do with the importation of arms—is that right?

—Well, helping.

5868. Helping, yes. From whom did you hear—from someone in particular—that other Ministers——

—There were three Ministers coming for a meal, one of course with wife and son and with Mr. McCann, meeting men from Northern Ireland who had spoken previously to me. And in fact there were two girls in that party with the gentlemen from Northern Ireland as well, and afterwards they, the Ministers, spoke to the men from Northern Ireland. It is very difficult here in this room to explain precisely the lie of the land at the Sutton Hotel, and I would invite you to come, if you want the best meal, and I could explain precisely where I stood and where they sat, and you could not help but see. There is another little point that probably should have been settled with Deputy Tunney. If those gentlemen and Ministers do not even know me by appearance it could have been I was sitting right beside them, could it not?

5869. I do not know.

—If they do not even know me by appearance——

5870. On this particular occasion in the hotel they were sitting around the dining table in the diningroom?

—No, they were at the bar having a drink and ordering a meal, and waiting for the meal.

5871. You now know Mrs. Hillery and her son were with them?

—No, I had very little interest.

5872. You know they were with them?

—Of course.

5873. Do you think it probable that Dr. Hillery would discuss the importation of arms in front of his ten-year old son?

—Why not? It was a very legal, legitimate business.

5874. Well, you said it.

—I think they all knew.

5875. Let me put it this way: Is it probable he would discuss affairs of State, legal or illegal, in front of a ten-year old boy, and for that matter his wife, in the presence of two other Cabinet Ministers?

—Well, he spoke to the men from the North. I could not see why not.

5876. But did you hear them discussing arms or the importation of arms?

—Not importation. I heard “guns”, “arms”.

5877. What did you hear?

—“Guns”, “arms”.

5878. Just “guns”, “arms”?

—They were sitting at the bar, which is about five steps down from the lounge in a corridor. It is very difficult. You can come and have a look. And Neil was, in fact, holding the brass rail and I stood right beside them and those gentlemen were sitting not as far as from here to where Deputy Gibbons is sitting from me. I could not help but hear. I am not going to overhear conversations or listen in. It was quite unintentional.

5879. Do you remember which Minister mentioned guns, arms?

—No, because at that moment I could not see the Ministers.

5880. But you do not know which Minister mentioned——?

—No.

5881. It may even have been the gentlemen from the North?

—It may have been—although his accent would have told me it was not. It may have been.

5882. But you cannot say you remember Mr. Colley or Dr. Hillery mentioning guns or arms?

—No, it could have been the men from the North.

5883. Last week you omitted to mention that Mrs. Hillery and the boy were present, or at least a lady and a boy?

—Yes.

5884. Yet you took exception to the way the press reported it this afternoon. That, they gave a wrong impression. That is what you gave us to understand. You gave us to understand that your reading of the press reports and the disclosure by you, if you like, was calculated to make it seem you wished to cause mischief. That is the way I understood you to mean?

—Something like that.

5885. Why did you conveniently forget to mention a lady and a little boy? You did give the press the impression you must admit, that it was a special meeting by three Ministers with gentlemen from the North of Ireland, whereas now it could be just a social occasion, by accident or otherwise?

—In the plane Neil Blaney had asked me to book, or try to book, with my son-in-law a table for six. He said “Look, Albert, we are going into the VIP lounge and will be there for a while by this time. You get through Customs and ring from there, and come round the other side of the VIP lounge”—which I did. I spoke to Paul and he said “Oh we are awfully busy …” They arrived pretty late, I would say half-nine.

5886. Therefore it was not a pre-arranged meeting?

—No, I would not say it was a pre-arranged meeting with the gentlemen from the North.

5887. But would you not agree that last Thursday you gave that impression?

—No.

5888. Can you tell me why did you not say these Ministers were present with a lady and a little boy? Why did you not mention Mr. McCann, for instance?

—Nobody asked me. I was only interested, Deputy Barrett, to find or to confirm my definite feeling, that I still have, that everything was very legal.

5889. That is a theory?

—A theory?

5890. You have no evidence of it? You cannot give us any evidence?

—Number one, Deputy Barrett, we have been acquitted in court by the Irish people.

5891. That was another occasion, excuse me. This is a different occasion altogether?

—What do you mean to say?

5892. I fail to see what your acquittal in court has to do with what I am asking you.

—The acquittal in court was over if there was a legal or illegal importation of arms. If it had been illegal we would not have been acquitted.

5893. But before your acquittal in court you thought it to be legal?

—Of course.

5894. While nobody told you it was legal?

—Nobody told me it was illegal. And Ministers, high-ranking Ministers——

5895. And one Minister—is that correct, one Minister——

—Correct.

5896. One Minister, not Ministers?

—One asked, and others slapped me on the back. By the way, it was even before 20th February.

5897. One Minister asked you to help—is that correct?

—That is right.

5898. Not Ministers?

—No.

5899. What was the exact date of that meeting with Brian Lenihan?

—31st January. The last I saw of Brian Lenihan was on the plane the day I was arrested, 28th May, 1970, because we travelled on the same plane from Dusseldorf.

5900. You did not hear Ministers Colley or Hillery discuss guns or arms, or mention guns or arms?

—From somebody in that company I heard the word.

5901(a). Deputy Keating.—Mr. Luykx, how long have you known Mr. Blaney?

—I would say 20 years.

5901(b). It is clear from the way you speak of him as Neil and from the way, for example, in the matter of his putting his hands over your eyes or your talking to him over his garden fence that you know him well?

—Yes. I was even at his wedding in the Shelbourne, with Sean Lemass and the whole gang.

5902. Would you look on him as a close friend, quite apart from politics?

—I have only a few close friends—my wife is the only close friend I have but the others are friends, but I have only a few.

5903(a). Do you know if the request to take part in the effort to buy arms in Europe on your behalf—do you know if that request came from Mr. Blaney? Was it Mr. Blaney asked you to do it?

—No. I think I stated that last Thursday already that I would probably most likely be asked to talk about Captain Kelly—to go to the conference to have a talk on the thing and so on, about whatever he had to do.

5903(b). Did the request come from Mr. Blaney or from Captain Kelly?

—From Mr. Blaney. I never heard of Captain Kelly before.

5904. So you got a general request to help out from Mr. Blaney?

—That is right.

5905. And then as you say in your submission, some time before the 1st April “Captain Kelly asked me to accompany him to the Continent”. That was the specific request?

—Yes.

5906. When you got that specific request, you understood that it referred to the events or to the activities Mr. Blaney had previously indicated?

—Oh, yes. I had met Captain Kelly in between time several times.

5907. You say in the first sentence of your submission to the Committee “to facilitate Government business in which he was involved”. This is the purpose of your going?

—Yes.

5908. In fact, you say “Captain Kelly asked me to accompany him to facilitate Government business”—I have omitted a few words in between but that is the sense of it?

—Yes.

5909. Are you sure—this is something which the Committee must be clear about—that he said “to facilitate Government business”?

—Yes.

5910. I would like then to ask you about your visit to Brussels and to Antwerp: “We both flew to Brussels and went by car to Antwerp on the 1st of April”. Mr. Luykx, did you hear all of the testimony of Chief Superintendent Fleming this morning?

—I heard nothing of it. It was only this afternoon coming from the Hibernian that I bought a paper and got shocked. I don’t believe it.

5911. Apart from the testimony that related to Ministers, he had some testimony that related to you?

—There was nothing in the paper about that.

5912. No—I was wondering if you were familiar with the testimony he gave?

—I was to be here at 11 o’clock; I sat in the restaurant here from about a quarter to eleven and I think we met, in fact, did we not?

5913. The reason I am asking this is that he said something concerning yourself which leads me to question you about your visits to Brussels and Antwerp. He said in regard to your coming to Ireland that you had been arrested by the Belgian Resistance in the spring of 1945?

—That is a lie.

5914. That in the autumn of 1945 you had been condemned to death by a military court in Belgium?

—That is correct.

5915. And that in 1947 that was commuted to 20 years hard labour?

—No, not commuted—I went on appeal and gained the appeal sometime in 1947.

5916. And then in the summer of 1948 you escaped?

—That is right.

5917. And then came to Ireland with Hungarian documentation?

—That is wrong—with an official Dutch passport.

5918. You will see all this testimony, Mr. Luykx, but it is as well that I should say all this before asking you the questions I now propose to ask you. If it were the case that you had been sentenced to 20 years and were serving that sentence in Belgium and escaped from Belgium, was it not a dangerous thing for you to fly to Brussels on the 1st of April?

—No.

5919. Are you free to enter Belgium?

—Sometimes, and sometimes not.

5920. Did you in fact on that occasion enter Belgium?

—Oh, yes.

5921. Did you enter it on your own passport as Albert Luykx?

—Oh, yes.

5922. Is it necessary for you to obtain special permission from the Belgians when you enter?

—Yes and no. It is a very irrelevant question, I think—all this—but I am very pleased to answer it. In fact, I had expected another question, that probably somebody would have asked something about the letter of Mr. Peter Berry. If I am stopped on the border, I cannot enter, but as normally you are not stopped— if I am stopped, I am sent out, or if I am there and, say, I have an accident or something happens where I have to produce my passport, some smart guy would say “We cannot put you over the border”.

5923. Does the question of putting you back in jail arise—I take it not?

—No.

5924. You were therefore taking some risk in fact?

—No.

5925. Just the risk of being put over the border but no more than that?

—Yes, but there are so many other roads you know.

5926. Because I see that on your passport— on the 1st of April—that——

—Deputy Keating, as you have touched on this point it may be wise to say here something —I do not want to get in any commercial, Mr. Chairman——

5927. You got a few in earlier?

—The Flemish question or the Flemish movement is a very difficult thing to understand. One could compare it with Irish politics. I am not going to——

5928. I ask this, seeing that it was brought out this morning because Mr. Luykx’s testimony about Brussels and Antwerp seemed to be a little in doubt. When I heard this testimony this morning I said to myself “Could he have gone to Brussels and gone by car to Antwerp? Would the risk not have been too great?”; but I am satisfied with this and I feel that really the complexities of Flemish-Walloon internal Belgian politics … we talked about a lot of things in this Committee but with respect I feel, sir, that they are not really relevant. I do not wish to pursue them.

—Let me add this: I was arrested by the Germans during the war three times as well and if Mr. Fleming likes to say that I was arrested by the Belgian Resistance, that is a lie, because one of my brothers, Boniface, was one of them, was a very prominent member of the Belgian Resistance but that Belgian Resistance could not have existed without fellows like us. Nevertheless, when the war was over, General Montgomery wanted to stick some decorations on his chest and he could not find him, but they found him in jail. He was arrested too, so after a while he was released so he got his decorations. That really after the war did not mean much. I will tell you how many people were arrested.

—In Flanders alone there were 184,627. In the Walloon part 95,180 were arrested.

5929. I have indicated that I did not wish to pursue that line of questioning.

—No—about not being able to enter Belgium.

5930. I accept that you did so. I had a doubt as to your doing so when I heard this morning’s evidence. I accept now that you did in fact do so. I should now like to turn to some other matters. Some of them have already been answered in reply to other people. I am now referring to your testimony. Have you a copy of your testimony of 4th February?

—I have.

5931. You told us on page 400, Question No. 5351 and again at 5353 that you had no idea of what Mr. J’s function was. You said: “I do not know” in reply to question No. 5351. Then at question 5353 you simply say “It is too much”.

—I do not know why I said that.

5932. In the interval is there any more that you want to say, at this stage, to us about what Mr. J’s function was then? You acted as interpreter. You must know.

—I think I told you that Mr. J arrived about an hour, or three quarters of an hour, before I was due to leave. When he got into the customs Mr. Schleuter was standing at one ticket desk and I was standing at the other getting my return ticket confirmed. It was booked by telephone previously. Mr. J was met there by Captain Kelly, who had been speaking for some time. There was no need for me to translate anything. We had spoken together for a fairly short time afterwards but there was really no need to translate.

5933. In answer to the question as to what his function was—in other words, why he went there—is it the case that you do not know?

—I said last Thursday, and I repeat it now, that it is not easy to remember now what one knew then, and what has come to light afterwards. Now I would say that he said “Lay over”, “Stop it”, or something like that. But then I did not know.

5934. Right, I should now like to turn to page, 401, question No. 5381. You say in the last line “I had heard and knew that several other Ministers had had full knowledge of my activities.” A person has many activities. I should like to be clear as to exactly what activities you meant.

—Activities which I was in a way tied up with, the scheme to bring in arms in a secret way. I was honoured to have been asked. I said I would do my best to help wherever I could. At that time I was certain that other Ministers knew.

5935. But the activities you refer to were that you should act as an interpreter and—although I am not trying to lead you on this, I think it is fair to say so—a little more than an interpreter.

—Yes, because they knew our firm. Wherever I could help I would do so. I gave a cheque just to help out, and even more, although the original assignment was as an interpreter. That is the way it all started.

5936. In fact it grew because you were helping with your experience with travelling and banking. You were helping, as well as interpreting.

—Yes.

5937. When you say “my activities” you mean the activities of interpreting and helping.

—Yes, as described.

5938. And helping with what you understood to be the secret but legal purchase of arms.

—Yes, secret and legal.

5939. I am anxious to be as clear as possible. You say “I had heard and knew that several other Ministers had had full knowledge”.

—Yes.

5940. I wonder, will you amplify that as to who these Ministers were, and approximately when they knew? I know I am covering testimony given elsewhere but I want to be clear in my own mind.

—As I said last time, I would have thought it was a bit later than 20th February but I accept that this definitely was on 20th February. I checked in my diary. It must have been on the 20th. I also checked in my diary with reference to the last or second last day of January. During that period I could not say who actually—it was somebody—mentioned the name of Mr. Haughey, although I did not know Mr. Haughey personally at all. To me that was the bulk of it. I had heard Captain Kelly mention him several times so I had no suspicion whatsoever.

5941. On 30th or 31st January, when you got a pat on the back and good wishes from Mr. Lenihan were you absolutely clear that this related not to the bringing of an industry to a part of the country in which he was interested but to the participation in the effort to import arms?

—Definitely.

5942. You are completely clear it was related to importing arms?

—Yes. That is the way I understood it. It would have made no sense the other way.

5943. You say in the next question in regard to your meetings with Mr. Blaney “I met him twice or maybe three times over a glass of beer”.

—It could have been four times.

5944. I understand when you say “maybe”. We will not hold you to a number. Would all those occasions have been in the hotel with which you are associated?

—Yes.

5945. Was this a place where Mr. Blaney occasionally went?

—Mr. Blaney was not there with us, no.

5946. It relates to the fact that Captain Kelly went to the hotel?

—Neil does not drink; he is a teetotaller, although he buys me a drink.

5947. Captain Kelly went to the hotel on a number of occasions?

—Yes.

5948. Would it have been socially or to see you, or for what reason?

—I have the feeling that he had other business on the way out, say either with Neil Blaney, who lives half way, or with Seamus Brady. I do not know.

5949. He went when he was in the neighbourhood.

—Yes.

5950. You talked about arranging that Mr. Schlueter would demonstrate some of the equipment he manufactured or sold to the Irish Army?

—Yes. Here is a letter where he offers personnel carriers and other equipment for which I think the Irish Army pays £20,000 for one and he offers them to us for just below £2,000. That was one of the items we were to talk about and he was to give a demonstration of this infra-red image convertor. You can read about it in this document. (Documents passed in.)

5951. I am interested in your thought that in fact you would be able to arrange this. Had you had any previous transactions with the Irish Army or with the Department of Defence?

—No. We sold them one little commodity for Cyprus and the Congo. We did very little business with them.

5952. I understand that a letter was transmitted to the Department of Defence by Mr. Blaney for you.

—Yes. I asked him to and he handed it to Mr. Gibbons. One of the documents I handed to you is a very important document. Recognized arms dealers in Germany use those documents.

5953. I would like to turn to the occasion when you flew back from Dublin in, I take it, the accidental company of a number of Ministers. Who were those Ministers on the aircraft?

—George Colley, Paddy Hillery, Neil Blaney and Mr. McCann.

5954. Mrs. Hillery and their son were waiting at the Airport, and met them there?

—No. They were picked up by car on the way out to the hotel. It is only 15 minutes drive from the Airport to Sutton Cross and Paddy Hillery just lives along the sea road three doors past the Marine Hotel.

5955. When they got to the hotel there were already people from the North of Ireland there?

—Yes, because when they arrived in the hotel I was talking in the restaurant to two gentlemen.

5956. Was it an accident they were there or had they come with the knowledge that Mr. Blaney and the others would be coming back from London and they could meet them there?

—I did not ask that question. It could have been arranged. I do not know.

5957. Was it the circumstance that because of your connection both with Captain Kelly and Mr. Blaney that on occasions groups coming from the North of Ireland did in fact either stay in your hotel or eat in your hotel?

—It is not my hotel.

5958. The hotel you are connected with?

—I could not say that. You would have to ask both. I know those two gentlemen had been in Dublin and seeing Ministers and I think even the Taoiseach. Do not make me swear on it. They came out sometimes with Captain Kelly and sometimes without him.

5959. So, it was the circumstance that if they thought they would like to meet or like the chance of meeting those three Ministers, then this was a sensible place to go?

—Yes, it is on their road. It is out of the way.

5960. Was there any fixed arrangement that they should meet?

—I do not know. I could not say.

5961. I am trying to visualize this scene clearly. We have got three Ministers, a senior diplomat, the wife of one Minister and his ten year old son, yourself and two people from Northern Ireland or more?

—Two people from Northern Ireland.

5962. I am just trying to get a clear picture. It is a little surprising, as has been pointed out, that they should discuss those matters, which, as you yourself say you knew were secret, in the presence of the wife of one and the ten year old child. It also surprises me, I am bound to say, that they should discuss them in the presence of someone who was a senior person in the diplomatic service. Was it the circumstance that they drew aside from the three Ministers and the two people from the North or was it a general discussion with everyone hearing what was said?

—I could draw a sketch but it is not worth it. While I heard the word “arms” I could not see the Ministers outside the one I was talking to, Neil Blaney. We were standing upstairs, say five steps higher. When I had finished with Neil he went downstairs and I went to my two sons who were sitting there with me having a drink. From where we were sitting we could not help looking down through that opening and see one man from Northern Ireland talking to the Ministers where just a couple of minutes before I had heard the word “arms”. I did not consider it very unnatural to hear it.

5963. I am not at all surprised at that and indeed I am not concerned with the details of that at all. I want to be absolutely certain that it is your clear recollection that the three Ministers together, in each others’ presence and in each others’ hearing, were talking to at least one of the two people from Northern Ireland. Let me put this as a question. Is your recollection clear and definite that all three Ministers talked to at least one of the people from Northern Ireland?

—Yes.

5964. Do you recall if Mr. McCann was with them at that time or is there a doubt?

—I could not swear on that. You would have to come really and see it. It would be easier if you did come some time but from where we sat we could see two or three people, no more. We could not see all the rest of the party. I do not know if they were there or not there or whether Mrs. Hillery and young Hillery were there. They could have been away at that moment. I do not know.

5965. You appreciate there is in fact a conflict of evidence here and that it is necessary for us to be clear, as I think we are getting clear, on exactly what your recollection is. Indeed you have not been recalling more than you can be sure of but your recollection, as I understand from what you have said, is that you are quite sure that Mr. Blaney, Dr. Hillery and Mr. Colley were together speaking to one of the people from Northern Ireland?

—Yes.

5966. Are you quite sure that the word “guns” was mentioned in that conversation at that time?

—No, it is not like that. When I heard “guns”, “arms” or both or something like that I was standing with Mr. Blaney upstairs while the rest were sitting five steps lower down, say like here and around the corner. When Mr. Blaney—when we were ready—Mr. Blaney walked down—I walked away with my two sons and we see there one person of the two Northerners who were still talking to the Ministers.

5967. You said in evidence, talking I believe to Deputy Barrett, but certainly you said this afternoon—I did not write down who you were talking to—that “it is a very legal, legitimate business. They all knew it.” The “they” in that—that means Ministers—how do you know that they knew it?

—I am confirming my definite belief and feeling, Deputy Keating. Until somebody else proves me the opposite I still believe that.

5968. Mr. Lenihan was not present on that occasion?

—No.

5969. Your meeting with him was in Athlone?

—No. It was in Sutton House.

5970. It was on either 30th or 31st January?

—That’s right.

5971. I am referring to page 412, the second column. You are talking about the details of what happened with the situation in Antwerp and then with the things being sent to Trieste and you say “I was not only the interpreter at that moment”. You were also an assistant?

—Yes.

5972. About four-fifths of the way down, the long paragraph on the second column of page 412, you say “while I was speaking to my wife I asked my son to ring Neil Blaney”.

—That is right. I can’t find it, but I remember it.

5973. It is about eight lines up from the bottom, just above paragraph 5578.

—Yes.

5974. It says “Blaney would ring back”.

—Yes, I have got it.

5975. You were in Antwerp?

—No, Dortmund.

5976. You took it that this arms importation was, as you say, a very legal, legitimate business?

—Yes.

5977. Did you know that the correct person to import arms legally into this country was the Minister for Defence? Did the question of who was the correct Minister in relation to authorisation of what was a very legal, legitimate business cross your mind?

—Yes and no, Deputy Keating. First of all, I considered Captain Kelly as a member of the Irish army, as the man appointed to look after this and to deal with this assignment, this project. Captain Kelly mentioned Mr. Gibbons to me several times.

5978. The question which arises in relation to this part of your testimony is that it was, in fact, Mr. Blaney that you chose to phone. There were other Ministers—Mr. Gibbons, perhaps, more directly involved—but other Ministers also whom you had met. Why did you choose Mr, Blaney?

—I probably was not quite clear when I explained it. I will try to explain it a bit clearer. On the Continent sometimes you have to wait two or three hours before you get through. The two telephone calls were at the same time— I mean Captain Kelly to his wife and I to my wife, because I had hoped to be home that Friday night. Captain Kelly’s telephone call came through first. In that telephone call Captain Kelly got certain instructions or orders and the news about arms transfer from Dublin to Dundalk and Captain Kelly was very—I would not say upset but very—it was a serious case, a serious position.

5979. Can I break in to ask you was he telling you the situation as it unfolded? Do you think he was keeping the details back? Was he explaining the details to you and discussing them?

—If my memory serves me right I was standing beside him when he spoke to his wife.

5980. When you say you were fully briefed on the aeroplane, and then after your full briefing on the aeroplane, you were completely up-to-date with what was happening——

—Yes, I think so. Then Captain Kelly, when the phone call was finished—we discussed it and he told me more—I was wondering why my telephone call was so long delayed. I complained about it and then I proposed to Captain Kelly as we have two lines that while I would be speaking to my wife that my son or somebody in my family could telephone Neil Blaney in the meantime to make sure to get the reply that Neil Blaney would ring Captain Kelly. It was my son that rang Neil Blaney. My son could not ring anybody else because we do not know any other Ministers to telephone. Neil’s number is not in the book. Mr. Blaney’s number is not in the book. We have it.

5981. You had some comments to make earlier on the way in which the last day’s proceedings were reported in the press. I would think that you have read the transcript as presented, because you had some comments?

—Yes.

5982. Can I ask you if you accept the transcript as a fair record of what happened here?

—Oh, yes.

5983. In the light of that transcript and of the statements—two separate statements put out by three Ministers since the last time you spoke to this Committee would you accept the fact that there is a real conflict of evidence between what you say happened and what these Ministers have said happened or do you think it can be explained in the light of the further details you have given us to-day?

—Deputy Keating, I did not make any statement last Thursday purposely or intentionally to damage any person. That is not my character. I illustrated only how I felt and thought and still think that everything is legal, but if these gentlemen Ministers, say they do not know me by appearance that is the end of the discussion. It is like this—here I am sitting at a square table and in my eyes it is a square table and I am prepared to swear on it— actually it is a rectangular table—but if in your eyes it is an oval table and you are prepared to swear that it is an oval table, that is the end of the discussion, isn’t it?

5984. I would describe that as a conflict of evidence.

—Yes. We are in agreement.

5985. I am finished, Mr. Chairman.

5986. Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. Luykx.

—May I say something, not to whitewash myself, but I even introduced Mr. Hillery to my son-in-law, and he always calls me Albert.

5987. Chairman.—I want to ask a couple of questions, Mr. Luykx. You mentioned that you were picked up here. What date was that?

—1st May at about 7 o’clock outside the bungalow, and I was released about 11.30, or just before, because I just made it for a drink at a bar nearby with Inspector Doocey and the other man.

5988. Was any charge preferred against you?

—No. That day I wrote out a statement, or Mr. Fleming wrote it and I signed it. I was picked up again on 28th May when I came off the plane, on which plane Brian Lenihan was travelling. I was only stopped at the airport.

5989. I thought I heard you mention a person named Squire?

—John Squire, yes.

5990. Who was he?

—He is the managing director, I think, of Air Turas, which is a charter airplane company that flies all over the world on charter. They are at Dublin Airport.

5991. In respect of bringing back the arms cargo from Vienna, do I gather that there was some disappointment there? That a charter plane was to have arrived and did not turn up?

—That is right, it did not turn up.

5992. You have no idea who was to fly that plane, what particular company?

—I think John Squire, Air Turas.

5993. This is the man, John Squire?

—Yes.

5994. You have no idea why he failed to turn up?

—I heard afterwards—then, in Vienna, we had no idea—that on that Sunday, that morning, he was questioned by the Special Branch, I think by Chief Superintendent Fleming, who asked John Squire to go to Vienna and pick up the armaments and bring the gentlemen back, and when they would arrive at Dublin Airport they would clamp down on them. So John Squire decided not to fly. That is what we heard afterwards, of course.

5995. Deputy Barrett.—Referring again to this evening at the hotel, the other Ministers— I understood you to say in reply to Deputy Keating that a car picked up Mrs. Hillery and her son at their home in Sutton. Is that correct? Because they lived conveniently?

—Yes.

5996. A car picked them up and they came along to the hotel? Is that correct?

—I suppose so. It is a normal conclusion because you have to come there by car.

5997. Did they meet the Ministers at the hotel?

—I did not see the party of Ministers come into the hotel because at that time I was speaking in the restaurant to those two gentlemen from Northern Ireland.

5998. But you did say it was convenient from Dr. Hillery’s home to meet at the hotel on that occasion?

—Yes, he lives in Sutton.

5999. But he did not live there at the time?

—No?

6000. No, not until June?

—Anyhow, he lives there now. Anyway, his wife and young son were there.

6001. Actually they met Dr. Hillery at Dublin Airport?

—Are you sure?

6002. I am quite certain. They did not move there until June, actually.

—I am not contradicting that but I have a feeling that somebody in the party said to me that they were a bit late because they had to go and pick up Mrs. Hillery.

6003. No, they met him at the airport?

—Oh, very well.

6004. Deputy B. Briscoe.—There are certain contradictions between what you have told Deputy Keating and what you told the Committee last week in relation to your going to the hotel. On page 403, taking it from 5424, you were asked:

You just went to the hotel? You were not asked to go to the hotel?

And in reply you said:

—No. I went to the hotel. When you see three Ministers in discussion——

I gather from that that they were already there when you arrived at the hotel? The whole party? No one arrived late?

—They arrived when I was speaking to the gentlemen from Northern Ireland.

6005/6/7/8/9. You were then asked:

Mr. Lenihan was not there?

—Not at that occasion. I see them in discussion with people from the North— names not mentioned, but you know.

Could you identify them by code?

—Ah, no. Do not make me an informer now. We have agreed on one name. You will have to take my word for it.

Then the Chairman said to Deputy Collins who was having difficulty:

Develop it as far as you can—maybe you will get round it—for the present.

Mr. Luykx.—When they have the discussions there in the hotel.

Then Deputy Collins again:

Very well. The outcome of your arrival on the scene?

You were asked to join them?

—Yes. I would not do it because I was not hungry.

In other words, they were eating?

—No. Neil Blaney, when I came out of the restaurant, immediately asked me to join them for a meal. They had not even ordered.

6010. Were these people dining with the people from the North?

—No.

6011. They did not sit at the table?

—No.

6012. I see. You have agreed that the date is very likely to have been 20th February?

—Yes.

6013. And they had their meal in the restaurant? Is this correct?

—That is correct.

6014. Who was in that party in the restaurant? Would you repeat it for me? Who was in the party with the Ministers?

—The three Ministers, McCann, Mrs. Hillery and Junior.

6015. Did you speak to them during the meal?

—No, because when they went into the restaurant I did not enter the restaurant.

6016. What table were they at?

—I do not know because from where I was sitting in the lounge you could not even see the restaurant.

6017. So you would not even go in to see how the three Ministers were getting on with their meal?

—No, I do not run the hotel, my son-in-law does. I am just a customer there like any other.

6018. So once they left the bar you never went near them?

—That is right.

6019. Would this be possibly because since you met this delegation you heard that I was there that night with a party of my own sitting at a table next to the Ministers?

—I did not even know that.

6020. Well I was and I saw the Ministers from the time they came in, and the point is that I was in touch with them. I saw them, and they were talking to no one. Mr. Lenihan I did not see anywhere there, and I very much doubt the veracity of this whole story.

6021. Chairman.—I do not think the members of this Committee should adopt the role of giving evidence. I think we should confine ourselves——

6022. Deputy B. Briscoe.—I was just adding one small point, and the people who were at the table could have been brought along as witnesses. However, we will pass on from there. Deputy Keating asked you about your visit to Belgium and I understand that at the trial it came out that you used the name “Mr. Albert” and this was the name you were recognised by?

—I think there is something not fully correct. I called Captain Kelly always Jim and he always called me Albert.

I cannot recall where I have been formally introduced to somebody and my name has been mentioned or my name has not been mentioned. It is much easier to remember “Albert” than my name.

6023. You have admitted you were not free to travel to Belgium?

—Yes, I am free to travel to Belgium.

6024. Do you not need special authority?

—No; Because if I wanted an authority I would not get it.

6025. From the Belgian Government?

—No. That is why I wanted the letter.

6026. In other words, you are free to travel to Belgium so long as the Belgian authorities do not know?

—That is right.

6027. In other words, you are smuggling yourself into the country and out?

—No, not smuggling because in the EEC they have no passport.

6028. Put it this way: it confirms what I have asked you, that you do need a special authorisation to enter Belgium legally?

—Well, if I wanted to go legally, yes. I agree with you.

6029. Did you apply for permission and authorisation to enter Belgium?

—No.

6030. Did you apply to visit Belgium in 1968?

—1968?

6031. Yes, on humanitarian grounds?

—In 1968, to attend a golden wedding, I think I did.

6032. To visit your parents? —No, parents-in-law—the golden wedding jubilee; that is correct. And I got it.

6033. You had an authorisation on that occasion?

—Yes.

6034. You have made certain statements to Deputy Keating, saying that you were in actual fact a Belgian patriot?

—Flemish, yes.

6035. A Flemish patriot. Would you correct me if I have this wrong. You were born on 22nd August, 1917, at Lommel.

—That is right.

6036. You were arrested on 21st March, 1945, tried by a Belgian Military Court, and sentenced to death on 30 November, 1945? —Yes.

6037. Chairman.—I do not think this is relevant.

6038. Deputy Briscoe.—This is relevant to show there are statements which the witness has made which I am in disagreement with.

6039. Chairman.—It has been covered already.

6040. Deputy Briscoe.—I think it is relevant and I shall explain why when I have finished making my statement, if you will bear with me. I think it is very important. (To the witness): You were tried by a Belgian Military Court and sentenced to death in 1945 by the Military Court in Liége for serving the Nazis in a criminal manner, for wilfully supporting Nazi policies and plans, for supporting their propaganda and for bearing arms against Belgium as a Belgian citizen. You carried out recruitment for the Zwarte Brigade——

—That is not correct. It was only under Article 118.A——

6041. And the VNV. Let me finish. You instituted a reign of terror at Lommel, denounced people to the Nazi authorities. You appealed against the death sentence and on 7th June, 1947 it was commuted to 20 years hard labour. In 1948 you escaped to Holland——

5642. Chairman.—You must show us at some stage that this is relevant.

6043. Deputy Briscoe.—The witness has said that in fact he was a Flemish patriot without explaining what he meant. In fact it was a German plan to partition Belgium into a Flemish and a Walloon state—partition, which is of some concern to people in this country.

—I am sorry to contradict you, Deputy Briscoe, but it would be worth your while to study the history of the Flemish movement before making statements like that.

6044. The fact is that these statements are facts.

—No, they are wrong, because I have been charged under Article 118.A, which means to shake confidence in the King. If you want a copy of the charges I shall submit them to you. It is an Article of the Act which was made in London by the broken-off Government while the King was still in Belgium. After the war they charged so many people under that Act, they thought it fit to do away with the thing.

6045. Chairman.—I still fail to see how this can be related to our terms of reference, which are to find out where this £100,000 went.

6046. Deputy Briscoe.—It is in relation to that that the witness might have been in Antwerp, at this stage, Mr. Chairman. I am finished with that. (To the Witness): In your statement to Chief Superintendent Fleming you told him that you were not engaged in any financial transactions. This is contained in your statement to him?

—Have you got the statement there, Deputy?

6047. I have not but this is contained in your statement?

—I think I said that in Vienna—— Superintendent Fleming asked me if I saw any financial transactions or money change hands in Vienna. I said “No, no money changed hands. There were no financial transactions in Vienna.”

6048. He asked you specifically in Vienna?

—He did. That is where he started.

6049. We can get a copy of his statement; because you were engaged in financial transactions in Hamburg—is that correct?

—Of course. I have stated all that.

6050. In regard to the cheques, question 5344, I think, deals with them. On page 403, I think it is, you told us quite definitely that you had drawn a cheque on your own account and you changed that this week to the fact that you drew money out of German accounts you had?

—I do not think I have stated that I drew a cheque here. A personal cheque, is it?

6051. At Question 5344:

You say you have paid the cheque, your own cheque to Herr Schleuter, that you have that back, and you are submitting it. You say you have paid the cheque, your

—It is debited to my account, so it must be back.

On that occasion last week, for some reason, you did not recall that you in actual fact paid out two cheques?

—No, I did not. That is why I corrected it first thing this morning; and the transfer of money from the Munster and Leinster Bank was to finance that cheque.

6052(a). You say that the German banks actually keep the cheques themselves?

—That is right.

6052(b). That they usually photographed them, mimeographed them.

—That is right.

6052(c). Did you ask them for a photocopy of cheques?

—I asked them for a detailed statement of my account.

6052(d). I think it would be relevant to have photocopies of those cheques sent to us, if you would arrange for that?

—Yes.

6052(e). One of the other points which has come out in your evidence is that you are asserting that this was a Government-authorised operation. On the other hand Captain Kelly has been endeavouring to tell us that the funds were Northern Defence Committee funds, not in fact Government funds, on the hypothesis that these moneys were replaced by the people in the North et cetera. So there is a conflict there. But I understand your informant would be, probably, Deputy Blaney, who told you that these were Government funds. Is that what you are basing your case on?

—No. Nobody told me it was Government funds or Northern Funds. It was a Government deal, that is all. About the Grant-in-Aid, I heard that only very recently, since this thing started.

6052(f). You mentioned that Captain Kelly would be in Sutton House on three or four occasions?

—Yes.

6052(g). Did he have a meal there?

—Oh no.

6052(h). He would just go in for a drink?

—Just a drink.

6053. You mention that you have sold some equipment to the Army for Cyprus and the Congo?

—That is right—very small stuff.

6054. What stuff? Is it arms or cameras? —No, not arms.

6055. Has it do to with these infra-red things?

—No.

6056. It is not arms anyway?

—No. Mr. Chairman, it is not Deputy Briscoe’s business to divulge my business.

6057. It was irrelevant of you to bring it up in so far as you were trying to show that you were selling equipment to the Army all right and leaving doubts in peoples minds that this might be arms?

—I think Deputy Keating asked the question and I answered it.

6058. You answered it all right but you did not say specifically that it was not arms. You have now stated that it was not arms?

—I have stated that it was a very small matter.

6059. In your statement you stated that you discussed the possibilities of becoming Schleuter’s agent in Ireland, which you did?

—Yes.

6060. And you mentioned specifically antiriot equipment?

—Yes.

6061. And it has also been mentioned that you endeavoured to sell implements, armaments, also to the Department of Defence?

—Yes.

6062. I just wanted to finish up on this note, Mr. Luykx: it is quite ironical that here you are selling stuff to start wars and selling stuff to stop wars. War is a profitable business, I think, to you, Mr. Luykx?

—May I answer this?

6063. Chairman.—I think we will pass the comment.

6064. Deputy Collins.—I think the question is irrelevant.

—I do not know how a clever man like Mr. Briscoe would ask such stupid things.

6065. Deputy Burke.—At page 408, when Dr. Hugh Gibbons was endeavouring to establish dates in relation to Ministers—at the top of the page—there is:

that following 21st April, probably the last week of April or perhaps the first week of May, it came to your notice that other Ministers knew about those happenings, of importations?

you said: No, thanks very much, that does not go.

Then there is: But that is the conclusion I take out of your statement.

And you said: That is up to you, but that is not it.

This is followed by: That at this stage they would probably have learned of it through their official sources.

And you replied: No, by no means. There is even more.

At that stage the Committee went into private session and you did not get an opportunity of elaborating on the phrase “there is even more”.

—What would I have meant then?

6066. It was a little unfortunate that we went into private session because I got the impression, as I think did other people, that you had some evidence to give on this point which would have helped us?

—I cannot remember it clearly. This was after a couple of hours.…

6067. Yes, it was some days ago. Earlier today you mentioned that the Northern Ireland person whom we know as Mr. F. was prepared to give evidence on your behalf?

—Yes, offered that.

6068. What purpose would he serve in your regard—what witness could he give?

—What I have stated here.

6069. That in fact the people mentioned were in your company, in his company, and were there?

—And talking to the Ministers, yes.

6070. Deputy Collins.—You refused on the 4th February to give the name of the second person from the North of Ireland who was in the company of the Minister?

—Yes.

6071(a). I feel, Mr. Chairman, that it could be of importance to us and I would ask Mr. Luykx to write down the name?

—I have no authority for that, none

6071(b). It is not a matter of authority, I submit?—Probably when that other gentleman does come—and as far as I can gather he has been invited to come here in the next couple of days—would you ask him?

6072. Chairman.—This other gentleman was with the name you gave?

—Yes.

6073. Is it on your code?

—I have no code—I leave out the code.

6074. Deputy Collins.—I feel it is important. Could Mr. Luykx have a copy of the code?

6075. Chairman.—Would you say whether he is on that code (handed to witness)?

—Mr. Chairman and Deputy Collins, I have authority to mention one name and I have not authority to mention another. It is bad enough to be a kind of half foreigner in Ireland—do not make me an informer as well.

6076. Deputy Collins.—Mr. Luykx appears to be under a misapprehension. I am not trying to make anyone an informer. I am only trying to get things for the use of the Committee. I leave it to your discretion, Mr. Chairman.

6077. Chairman.—Is the second person within or without the jurisdiction?

—Outside the jurisdiction.

6078. Is there any special reason you should refuse, by code or otherwise, the second name?

—He is coming here very often. It would put me in very big trouble. That is why I do not like to give the name.

6079. Deputy Collins.—Perhaps there is a misunderstanding on your part in the matter. We would take the greatest precaution not to make public any name outside the jurisdiction of the State and we have made this quite clear on a number of occasions?

—Please do not push me.

6080. At question 5433 on page 404, I asked you:

“how did you know they were discussing the same thing?”

—This is on the occasion when you were in the hotel—and you said:

“Because the same men from the North had been discussing with me that thing at that distance away from them”.

Would you elaborate on that?

—A distance away from them, I suppose— a distance away from them, in the corner where I was sitting with the boys.

6081. They were talking across you—the people from the North of Ireland?

—Not across. I was sitting with the boys in the corner beside the fireplace where you can look into the bar, the lower down portion.

6082. Were the people from the North in your company or in the company of the Minister?

—When they were eating?

6083. At this point in time to which you referred in answer to my question?

—One man was downstairs for a period and that same man had been with us just before that.

6084. And they were discussing with you the importation of arms, were they?

—Yes.

6085. What was the substance of your conversation?

—What I heard was the question as to how things were going and whether there was any possibility.

6086. Nothing more normal?

—At the time it was very normal to me.

6087. Did they discuss the arms importation in the context of Government policy? Did they mention any names of Ministers?

—No. It was not like that at all. It was obvious that sitting at a distance of five metres there were Government Ministers who obviously knew them and knew of the whole affair.

6088. Did they discuss with you the intended use of the arms?

—No, they did not.

6089. At question No. 5437 you said that the occasion of seeing the Ministers and the people from the North was after your first visit to the Continent. Is that not so? It is February 20th.

—No.

6090. Have you any reason for making the mistake?

—I would not say it was that. I think I said I was not quite sure. I did not recall it. I did not expect that the question would be asked.

6091. In reply to a question from Deputy Keating this evening you mentioned some other people going to the hotel with Captain Kelly, I think, though I am not quite sure. Did you mention our Ministers going to the hotel, visiting?

—Did I say that today? No.

6092. I thought I heard you mention Mr. Lynch’s name this afternoon?

—No. That was the gentleman from the North who came regularly to Dublin to see Ministers, including I think Mr. Lynch.

6093. I see. They stayed at your hotel, did they?

—No, I did not say that.

6094. How do you know they met Mr. Lynch?

—I said “maybe Mr. Lynch”, because those gentlemen regularly talked to me and told me what they had either been doing or what they were going to do, whom they were going to see, and what they were going to discuss.

6095. You would be very familiar with the people from the North of Ireland? Do you do business with them?

—No.

6096. How come you are so familiar with them?

—There was nothing wrong with that.

6097. For instance, I do not know many people from the North of Ireland myself. You must have had some good cause to meet them.

—For years I was in Belfast every second week and did business there.

6098. Did you do business with the Government of Northern Ireland?

—No.

6099. Do you do any business with the Northern Defence Committees?

—No, in fact since the trouble has started there, I have not been there.

6100. Did any Northern people ever discuss with you Government policy in relation to arms importation?

—I would not recall any, no. I doubt whether they would discuss such things with me.

6101. You said at the end of your statement that you were introduced to senior Ministers. “Since my participation I heard anew that several other Ministers had full knowledge of my activities.” You have named three Ministers. Did you hear of any other Ministers who knew about this?

—Yes, I came to the normal conclusion that Mr. Lenihan would know.

6102. Did anyone tell you that other Ministers had been involved or knew about your activities?

—When Captain Kelly talked to me about Mr. Gibbons I came to the wrong conclusion— I have to use that phrase again—that Mr. Gibbons would know about my activities.

6103. What did Captain Kelly tell you about Mr. Gibbons? Did he indicate to you that he had been with him?

—Yes.

6104. Or that he had authority to import arms?

—I never asked him for that and he never told me. It was obvious.

6105. In question 5450 you said you went to Donegal: “I went twice a week to Donegal, I went up on Monday and returned on Friday.” Do you do business in Donegal?

—That finished in 1963.

6106. Was John Squire, of Air Turas, ever paid for his charter plane?

—As far as I know, no.

6107. You did agree on a price with him?

—Yes.

6108. It was all arranged, was it?

—Yes.

6109. Can you name your bank in Dortmund, Germany?

—There is the bank statement.

6110. Who are your principals in Germany?

—There is a letter I wrote to the bank and you have my passport.

6111. Who are your principals in Germany?

—Messrs. Hoesch.

6112. You are agent for them, or are you employed by them?

—I am an agent. The firm is an agent, too.

6113. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Since the last day you have decided that this seeing of the Ministers in your hotel was on 20th February. Is that correct?

—Yes.

6114. You were not too clear in your answer to Deputy Keating about your visit to the Continent in March. You could not remember too clearly what exactly happened there, particularly with reference to Mr. J. making visits there.

—I went to the Continent with my wife in March.

6115. You visited the Continent with Captain Kelly in April and you were not too clear as to when Mr. J. arrived. Is that correct?

—Yes.

6116. You made reference to your diary. Have you got it here?

—No.

6117. Would you make it available to the Committee?

—No.

6118. Even the parts relevant to the Committee’s work?

—No.

6119. With reference to the date of 20th February as the date of seeing the Ministers in your hotel, when I last questioned you at page 406, question No. 5466, you seemed to be quite sure on that occasion. You said:

It must have been, surely, after 1st April.

I then put it to you:

This is of some importance. How long after 1st April? The position was you were in some place or other on 17th April?

—Oh, it was before then.

5468. Before 17th April?

—Oh, yes.

5469. Are you sure of that?

And at that particular time you seemed to be absolutely sure that this occurred in April.

—I was absolutely sure it occurred before the 17th April.

6120. In reply to me you are quoted as saying:

It must have been, surely, after the 1st April.

—That is correct.

6121. You seem very clear about what happened on 20th February in your son-in-law’s hotel but you do not seem to be as clear about what happened two months afterwards on the Continent which must have been more a special outing?

—I do not get your question, Deputy Gibbons.

6122. It is more an observation than a question, then. You said you were talking to two northern people in the hotel when the Ministers came in. You told Deputy Barrett this?

—Yes.

6123. Were there only two people in it from the North?

—I was talking to two.

6124. Were there more than two people from the North in the hotel that evening?

—I do not know.

6125. Were there more than two people from the North talking to the Ministers?

—Not that I am aware of.

6126. Deputy Collins, question 5434, asked you:

Would you elaborate a bit more for me, please? Was the person with whom you were discussing, the person you identified here—

You say:

Yes—and others.

This suggests to me that there were certainly more than two because under those circumstances you would have said: “Yes and the other”.

—There were two gentlemen there.

6127. This is what you said today but this is not what you said the last day.

—I only flicked through this thing. My answer to this question “Yes—and others” would that mean Mr. J.? If it does it is wrong.

6128. I am putting the question and you are getting two opportunities to answer.

6129. Deputy Tunney.—You identified Mr. F. here, did you? This is the man who would come to give evidence on your behalf.

—Today.

6130. He is Mr. F?

—I think it was Mr. J.

6131. Deputy Gibbons.—We would like to get it clear first were there two people or more than two people?

—There were two people.

6132. Do you suggest to us that your statement the last day was not correct?

—I am trying to understand it. If I have said this: “Yes—and others” then it is not correct. I may not have understood the question fully.

6133. I do not know if there is any importance in this but you stated you were charged with importing arms in the court. I think, subject to correction, this is not correct. You were charged with conspiracy, which I understand is a different charge altogether.

—Conspiracy to import arms.

6134. This is a legal question but as I understand it this is the situation and I say, subject to correction.

6135. Deputy MacSharry.—I want to try to get back to the money for a moment. You lodged the Ann O’Brien cheque for £8,500 on 6th April in your account in Grafton Street?

—Yes.

6136. It was not until 1st May you arranged for the transfer?

—No, I arranged that day in the presence of Captain Kelly with Kevin Croke of the Foreign Department.

6137. It did not debit into your account until 1st May?

—I have seen that myself.

6138. I just wondered if there was any reason for this?

—Previously somebody asked a question about this. Although there was no bank strike on, I think there was a go-slow at the time and there was a bit of a mix up in the lodgments, the bookings in and what have you. That is the explanation I have got. It was that day that Kevin Croke of the Foreign Department brought me instructions to transfer it and he apparently has done it.

6139. You may have been asked this before. What was the name of the bank in Dortmund?

—The Dresdner Bank. I just handed in a copy letter. I will send in another copy to the Committee.

6140. Would this be the same bank Captain Kelly mentions lodging £10,000 in in Dortmund?

—I do not know.

6141. You had no involvement whatsoever with the introduction of Captain Kelly to a bank in Dortmund?

—No.

6142. Had any of your friends out there?

—I do not think so.

6143. Somebody was acting as interpreter for him?

—Yes, I have heard that. I think some Northern people have been there before and they had a man who also looked after Captain Kelly. That is the nearest I can get to identifying him.

6144. You cannot at all help us in relation to any transactions of this £100,000 Grant-in-Aid? You do not know of any cash exchanges?

—No, except my £8,500.

6145. You have no experience or no knowledge of any?

—No.

6146. You said it was not until 1st April, 1970 when Captain Kelly asked you to accompany him to the Continent that you had the first knowledge of exactly what was going on?

—The full picture.

6147. The full picture of what was going on. Nevertheless you state here on 20th February Ministers can congratulate you for the wonderful work you are doing. What had you been doing up until then?

—Very little.

6148. Could you tell us what you had been doing?

—I did very little. I think I once translated something at the time when Captain Kelly came out.

6149. You were translator where?

—In the hotel. He asked me for a translation. I may be wrong but I think he asked me for a translation and he took it along with him. I said very little, just: “I am at your disposal if you want me. I am only too honoured”.

6150. So you really had done nothing at all until 1st April?

—Yes, very little except they had used my name or the name of the firm.

6151. Yet, you were being congratulated all over the place by Ministers?

—No, only one.

6152. Deputy Nolan.—In your opening remarks you mentioned you asked the Government for £8,500 plus interest of £730 1s. You got the Ann O’Brien cheque for £8,500 returned from the bank, you now know that Herr Schleuter did not export the arms, but still has them, and you are a businessman; did you ask him to refund the £8,500?

—I spoke to Mr. Schleuter yesterday for a very short while and that is all we discussed. It was very brief and very short because I wanted to be certain, number one, that I was still his agent and, number two, to get a receipt.

6153. Did you discuss the possibility of getting back the £8,500 from Mr. Schleuter?

—I did not ask him, to tell you the truth. I would hope I would or as much as possible.

6154. You said here last week that Herr Schuelter would possibly refund some of the money to the State, if he was asked for it. He is a business friend of yours. If you asked him for your £8,500 do you think he would also refund it to you?

—Yes, I have to think about that and to talk to the lawyers. It would not be the same, I think. Would it be? But money is money——

6155. The only other question I would like to ask is about your passport which your adviser has there. When you arrived in Brussels on 1st April, 1970, there is a note in pen underneath the stamp. I think it is in Flemish. I do not understand Flemish.

—That is right.

6156. Does that mean “with permission”?

—Yes. I should have mentioned that to Deputy Briscoe that here I had no permission and still I was let in. That is “permission to come in”. I am sorry I did not see it.

6157. Does that mean that everybody who goes into Brussels Airport—that that would be written underneath it?

—No.

6158. Why is it written on yours?

—They have a big fat book there and my name is in that book and they stated that here that although I had accepted Irish——I will read out this letter—Mr. Berry should have read it out, that letter. There is no mention of neo-Nazi-ism or Nazi.

6159. The reason for this writing is that at one time you were a Belgian citizen and now you are an Irish citizen. Is that it?

—Yes.

6160. That clears the point.

6161. Deputy Tunney.—One final question, I hope. You said to Deputy MacSharry that prior to 20th February you were not involved except to the extent that perhaps they were using your name. Would that be correct?

—Yes.

6162. The other night when I spoke to you about when you said you arrived in Brussels and discovered there that the arms were being consigned to you——

—No. I was told that before here in Ireland by Captain Kelly.

6163. That was not the evidence which you gave the other night. In your statement you said that you went on this unknown mission. You said in evidence that Captain Kelly told you on the plane going over and the point I was making to you was that you had subsequently said that in Antwerp you discovered that the consignment was consigned to Welux and Co. That is when I asked you was that the registration of your company?

—I knew that.

6164. You knew that prior to the 20th February?

—No. The goods were only consigned—the ship only arrived here about 25th March.

6165. The question of importing arms—you said to Deputy MacSharry that as on the date of 20th February that apart from the question of their having used your name that there was no other involvement so far as you were concerned?

—Using my name afterwards.

6166. He asked you about prior to 20th February or before it?

—Did Deputy MacSharry ask that?

6167. He did, he did. I understood him to ask it that way.

—I did not understand it that way.

6168. Deputy MacSharry.—Yes, were you involved up to that?

6169. Deputy Tunney.—You said they had used your name?

—They only used my name afterwards.

6170. You would like to withdraw that then?

—Yes, if I had said that—they used my name afterwards.

6171. On your passport—I think you passed through London on 16th February?

—I could have.

6172. I thought I saw London Airport, 16th?

—Yes.

6173. You passed through London Airport on the 16th?

—Yes.

6174. Captain Kelly was on the Continent on February 17th, 18th and 19th or thereabouts?

—Yes, it is possible, quite possible. Yes, afterwards even in the court in the arms trial at one period it transpired that while Captain Kelly was on the Continent, I think, in the month of March, I was on the Continent too.

6175. It would now appear you were on the Continent in February when he was there also?

—No—I might be in Brussels.

6176. You were on the Continent in February also?

—Yes, I came from the Continent.

6177. In circumstances again where Captain Kelly speaks of his interpreter being with him on 19th, you were not his interpreter on that occasion?

—No, I was not with him.

6178. One final question on the meeting in the hotel—is it as likely, assuming that these conversations took place, is it more likely that what you heard and when you heard the word “arms” being mentioned that it was a request from the people from the North?

—It could easily be.

6179. It is possible that it was that request and we all know people were requesting—

—It is quite possible.

6180. It was a request from the North of Ireland people?

—It could be quite possible. When it was said I did not look at the people who were speaking. I was standing here, and here was the wall, and the people are sitting, you can’t help hearing.…

6181. If you had said that earlier on we might have saved——

—Nobody asked me. I did not want to implicate anybody but I only wanted to prove that for me it looked a very legitimate business.

6182. You would say now it was more likely that what you heard was a request for arms from the people in the North?

—It is quite possible.

6183. You are not saying you heard any reply at all to that request, if it was made?

—No, no.

6184. Thank you very much.

6185. Chairman.—One member has passed me a note. He feels that it is important that you should give the name of the second person from the North of Ireland whom you had discussions with in your hotel. I do not like to end on a discordant note but I have to point out to you that any refusal of what one might regard as reasonable information places the person who refuses in contempt. We may be able to get this information otherwise through Mr. F. If this is so, I am sure the Committee will be quite happy. If not, maybe you could consult with this person and the person might release you from friendship obligation you feel towards him and you might be able to give information in code to us later on. If we can find it otherwise I am sure the Committee will not bother you any more.

—I will ask for permission if I can do so.

Mr. Luykx withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 6.30 p.m. until 8 p.m.

The Committee deliberated.

Examination of Captain J. Kelly continued.

Captain Kelly.—I want to do something, Mr. Chairman, with your permission. I want to apologise for the last night when Deputy FitzGerald brought up this question of the IRA and Sam Dowling generally. At the time I objected very strongly but this morning, listening to Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence, which I presume was the same as that he gave in secret session, I felt that I should withdraw the hot words I spoke.

6186/7. Deputy FitzGerald.—Thank you very much, Captain Kelly. That is generous of you. I want just to go back to Colonel Hefferon’s evidence. You very properly objected to my relying upon the press report, which is incomplete. Although I feel that it was a legitimate way of raising the issue, if you feel that it was not, we must go back to the transcript, pages 5A and 5B. Colonel Hefferon suggested that you had said to him that you were under the instructions of or being asked to do things by Messrs. Haughey and Blaney. I direct your attention to the following questions and answers:

Who was the first Minister that he named to you as instructing him to do anything on behalf of the Government.

Mr Haughey.

And then he explained that Mr. Blaney had asked him to do things on behalf of the Government. Then further down:

Did Captain Kelly tell you that he was doing anything on the instructions of either Mr. Haughey or Mr. Blaney——

I would point out that there is a distinction between that and the word “orders”. And later on, as you correctly pointed out, Colonel Hefferon made a distinction:

Sorry, about giving him orders or acting on the orders of any Minister, this I don’t know; of course I don’t think Ministers would have a right to give him orders, except for the Minister for Defence.

So there is a distinction, which is perhaps clearer to somebody in the Army than to somebody outside. They could not give you orders as they were not your superiors but as members of the Government talking to somebody in public service they were instructing you to do certain things. Can I ask you whether Colonel Hefferon is right in saying that you told him they were instructing you to do certain things?

—It would be correct to the extent that as I was acting as liaison officer with these people, instructions would hardly be the correct word because what actually happened was that when people came down from the North I did come into the position, or the position had arisen, that I was asked for advice on those people, their backgrounds, and so on and so forth. And whether or not you would say this was instructions, it was not instructions really.

6188. But the thing is, one is a little worried that Colonel Hefferon also said—we have not got the complete transcript on this at the moment and I have to go back to the press report, but the Irish Times does quote the questions and answers and is probably accurate. Colonel Hefferon was asked:

You were not giving him any orders in relation to his course of conduct?

No.

And the other questions followed on. So it emerged in court that from a certain date Colonel Hefferon was not giving you orders; you were operating under the instructions of the two Ministers. The impression we got from that was that there was some transfer and we are trying to find out whose instructions or orders you were under?

—It is not difficult to explain that. The thing was that I found myself acting in two capacities—acting as liaison officer to Ministers of Government when I was asked to do so and at the same time carrying out my Intelligence duties. If these people wanted me to come down and meet them and give them some information on a group that had come from the North looking for assistance, I went down and so assisted them. I also made it my business when I was in contact with people from Northern Ireland to find out any more details. For instance, I went back on occasions to check on people, so in this way one could say I was reporting to them. Whether you could take it as far as being given instructions is another thing.

6189. The reason this came up is that I was asking questions particularly about the withdrawal of £3,500 in December. I was trying to get it clear whether it was your case that this withdrawal was made by you in carrying out Intelligence duties under Colonel Hefferon’s supervision, although not at that time with his knowledge, or whether it was done on the instructions of or in conjunction with those Ministers. Would you like to clarify that?

—I have studied this since I was here last and this money was withdrawn on 22nd December and I had the money for some time in fact probably until early January. This money was then handed to the Northern people, the Northern people requested it. My understanding was that this money was possibly—I put it that way—being used for the purchase of arms. As I said in court, it came to my knowledge that it would be a deposit on an arms purchase. This I reported to Colonel Hefferon maybe three days after the event.

6190. After you discovered that was its purpose?

—I was not even sure it was the purpose. I will bring you up to 19th February. When I went to the Continent to try and find out what was going on, and did find out, I did not even know if any arms existed. From my various contacts I understood that these people were going to make an attempt possibly to import arms but, as I have said previously, on other occasions I had known that attempts were being made and they proved abortive, so it was just a question of watching to see what developed.

6191. When you withdrew the money are you suggesting now that you then had no knowledge of the purpose but discovered it later on?

—I would say that from my previous information I believed that this was what it was for. I would not have had definite knowledge. If someone had asked me in January if I could swear this money was for arms, I could not have done so, but I believed it was.

6192. Can I be clear, then, that in withdrawing the money, knowing the purpose for which it was intended, you felt you were acting as an Intelligence officer and as part of your duties under Colonel Hefferon’s authority rather than as part of your liaison duties under the instructions or with the advice and knowledge of the Ministers?

—Not with the advice of the Ministers because this was concerned with arms and I was concerned in my Intelligence duties with the movement of arms and wanted to keep in touch with that.

6193. So there was no discussion with the Ministers about that money before the withdrawal or in the period immediately after?

—No. As I said, I met Mr. Blaney fairly regularly and it is quite possible I mentioned it to him, but just in casual conversation, an exchange of information.

6194. It was not on authority from him that you withdrew the money? He did not know beforehand?

—There was no question of authority.

6195. And he did not know beforehand about this transaction?

—No, I do not think he would. He would not.

6196. You made reference to something that happened in the court after the Jury left and we have a section of the transcript here—page 47A. I am not too clear what is the point you wanted to make. Perhaps you could clarify what the point is?

—I was talking from recollection the last day and when I was listening to this Mr. McCarthy was making his case as regards Cabinet meetings being admitted as evidence. The reference is in the third line down where Mr. McCarthy says:

Now the evidence I propose to tender is in regard to information given by Mr. Gibbons to the Cabinet in regard to Captain Kelly, I believe in August 1969 and the subsequent decision which has already been adverted to in evidence to set up a sub-committee of the Cabinet consisting of Messrs. Brennan, Blaney, Haughey and Faulkner and that it was arranged that there should be liaison between them through Captian Kelly with the people in the North.

And the discussions of the Cabinet were disallowed by the Judge. The point I wanted to make was, it suggested that Mr. Gibbons brought my name up to the Cabinet meeting as a suitable liaison officer. It was suggested that I should be a liaison officer.

6197. Thank you for clarifying the point. I think I had reached the point of asking you in detail about your contacts with Mr. Blaney and Mr. Haughey. What was Mr. Blaney’s reaction when you first mentioned to him this arms importation proposal? You told us that you had told Mr. Blaney about the proposal to import arms in, I think you said, January?

—I would have told him this, told him what was going on.

6198. What was his reaction?

—He would have no reaction. He would have no adverse reaction. He was just accepting it as information.

6199. But, you see, we have a picture from you that in December, in withdrawing this money, it was part of an Intelligence operation in order to maintain contacts with these people, maintain confidence and go along with them. At a later stage you say the arms importation became authorised by the Government, or certain Ministers. When you mentioned it to Mr. Blaney for the first time, this was, if this was in January, at a time when you were still regarding your work as Intelligence finding out about it?

—Yes.

6200. Were you saying to him “I have found out these people want to import arms and am following this up”? or did you talk about it as a positive proposal that you were going to assist?

—No. I think this arose, again, in the court and Mr. Gibbons’s evidence came across on this, that it was nebulous even on 19th February what exactly was going on. I knew this £3,000 was withdrawn. I assumed it was for arms, but there were no definite hard facts and even when I went to the Continent on 19th February I saw no arms and all I had was the word of Herr Schleuter.

6201. But when you mentioned it to Mr. Blaney, it was an illegal activity you had found out about and were following up, or a proposal you were going ahead with, co-operating and assisting with. What stage was it?

—It was January when this proposal came forward and certainly I would have told him of this proposal at this time.

6202. As something that was going to go ahead and you were assisting in?

—That it had been put forward to me to assist these people, which I put to the Director of Intelligence, and having met Mr. Blaney, maybe before or after the event, probably I would have said it. There was no reason why I would not have said it.

6203. You felt, having spoken to him, that in going ahead with it you would have his consent and support?

—My assumption was that the Government were on the one foot on this.

6204. And that he represented the Government?

—That he represented the Government also. But the point is I put it myself to my own authorities. I looked upon this as being more important, because he actually would have no authority in the matter. And the reason why I was talking to him at all was because he had a lot of information from time to time on events in the North and often gave me information on various personalities and so on, so we kept in close touch on this level.

6205. You have told us that he knew defence committees were paying for the arms and also that the Baggot Street account was for the defence committees?

—Yes.

6206. Well, now, given those two facts, would you assume that he appreciated the money was coming in and making a circular trip? The money was in fact coming from the Government? Would he not put two and two together?

—No. I think he would know the money was coming from Northern Ireland as such and the Northern people had the money to pay for this. This actually would bring me back to October, this meeting I had at Bailieboro’. I made a report on this at the time and one factor I mentioned in the report was that the Northern people had money available for the purchase of arms.

6207. But the point is, he was aware it was the same people as were paying for the arms who were receiving money through this fund from the Government?

—But this switch took place—

6208. Never mind the switch for the moment. When you say “defence committees” do you mean the same people and did he know, or think, the same people were involved?

—He might think the same people were involved, although he would possibly know there were other committees operating in Northern Ireland.

6209. Would he have, given the knowledge he had, grounds to suspect that Government money was being used for arms?

—I do not think he would have any indications that this money was being used for arms.

6210. But that money was going to defence committees, which were supplying moneys for arms. I think a man would put two and two together in those circumstances?

—But when you have a switch, which he would know about, that the Northern people had money of their own——

6211. You say he would know about the switch?

—He would not know about the details of the switch. He knew the Northern Ireland people had their own money to pay for arms, I would say.

6212. But did you understand he knew there was a switch operation going on between these two funds?

—I expect he would.

6213. But the question then arises as to whether you told him, whether he knew about the subsidiary account, or the money taken out and used for arms. We have been talking, on the last day and now, as if you did not mention this to him, but if you did not it is puzzling, if you were liaison officer between him and the Northerners, that you would not have mentioned this account. I wonder is it not the case that it must have come up in discussion and you must have mentioned the account and that you were withdrawing money for arms from it?

—He certainly would know there was an account for arms. I do not know that he would know what bank it was in or not; and I would certainly have told him that the Northerners had money for arms and were looking for arms. I do not think I would have gone into the details of explaining how the various money was switched or how the various bank accounts operated as such.

6214. How often did you discuss the arms importation with him—once, or on a number of occasions?

—I would say that from January on I would probably have told him what was going on. So I would say——

6215. You met him fairly frequently?

—Maybe once a fortnight, maybe once a week, maybe once in three weeks, maybe more often on occasions.

6216. When you met him you would have mentioned it?

—I would discuss it with him, certainly.

6217. Then on your relationship with Mr. Haughey, on a similar basis I have similar questions, although the relationship may have been a bit different. At what stage did you mention the arms import to him? Clearly it arose on the occasion that you sought approval for the customs clearance?

—Yes.

6218. But had he known about it before then?

—Yes. The point is this, that in February some time there was a delegation down from Northern Ireland and in the court I said 14th February, which was obviously a wrong date; it was some few days later. At this stage I met Mr. Haughey and I met him for a few minutes and I told him fellows were down looking for arms and ammunition. I made the suggestion to him, and he was going into the meeting. I did not attend the meeting, because the Minister for Defence was attending and at that stage I thought in my position I should not be there. So I was not there for the meeting.

6219. I am talking not about the request for arms but the fact that there was an arms importation going on, or about to go on, or planned. You mentioned it to him, presumably, when you went to talk to him about customs clearance, but did he know before that that such an attempt was envisaged?

—This would be the first time, I think, that there would be any indication to him that there was.

6220. What was his reaction when you asked him for authority? It was the first time?

—All I probably said to him was—it was a quick meeting in the corridor—these fellows were looking for arms and ammunition. It was quick. I do not think I indicated very much to him really. I assumed he knew.

6221. You were asking if he could fix up customs clearance?

—This was later on. This was 25th March.

6222. That is what I am talking about. You are still talking about 18th February, the meeting with the Northerners. You told him what they wanted, talked about arms. I am saying, when you went and talked about customs clearance what was his reaction, if this was the first time he had heard that there was an arms importation project on and you wanted a clearance through customs?

—He said “Yes, that’s Okay”. This was a very rapid meeting. That morning Mr. Fagan was there and actually he said “He is very busy this morning” and it was suggested he was in a bad humour, as a matter of fact. However, I obtained an interview, a very few words. I said “Is the customs clearance ready for this consignment”, or “this stuff”?

6223. You just said he did not know about it until that meeting, but if you go and say to him: “Is the customs clearance ready?”, that implies that he did?

—My assumption was he would have known what was going on, because these people had been all the time asking for arms and ammunition.

6224. I am not talking about a general request but about a specific consignment coming in in a particular way?

—Yes, and in February I had more or less suggested to him that these people were bringing in arms—in what words I do not know. This is my recollection and I do not think I met him between that and March.

6225. Did you have some indication from the Northerners that they had been in contact with him about it, that he knew about the transaction? If you go in and say, “Is the Customs clearance ready for that consignment?”, you do not say that unless you have very strong reason to believe that he knows all about it?

—When I went to Mr. Fagan, first of all, and asked him to get this consignment cleared——

6226. You did not tell him what it was?

—No. When I was leaving the thing he asked me what it was and I more or less said, “You can assume what it is”.

6227. You go into Mr. Fagan and you ask to see the Minister?

—Yes.

6228. Could you describe in detail from there what was said?

—I did not indicate to Mr. Fagan what the consignment was but Mr. Fagan—he said this himself in evidence—assumed that it could be nothing else only arms and ammunition, and he did not pursue the thing any further.

6229. Did he go into the Minister then?

—He went into the Minister obviously because I was sent for then.

6230. You go into the Minister and Mr. Fagan has been in with him. You did not mention arms to Mr. Fagan and therefore the Minister could not know from Mr. Fagan that there was a particular consignment of arms at a particular time?

—Mr. Fagan, I think, indicated that he was fairly sure what it was.

6231. He asked you afterwards what it was, after the meeting?

—No, he asked me before the meeting. This was the meeting I had with Mr. Fagan initially and I left the office of Mr. Fagan believing Mr. Fagan knew, without actually saying it to Mr. Fagan because my assumption was that the Department of Defence would be bringing in nothing else only arms.

6232. You went into the Minister and said, “Is the Customs clearance ready for that consignment?” That question does not really arise adequately out of Mr. Fagan going in and talking to the Minister in a general way. “Ready yet”—this implies that somebody has been arranging something with him—“Has he got the job done yet?” Am I misunderstanding you in this?

—The point is this, that I was told to go down and arrange customs clearance, and the person I met was Mr. Fagan so I put my proposition to Mr. Fagan and in my presence, I think he rang the various Revenue Commissioners.

6233. To find out if the Minister would have power to give this?

—Yes, if the Minister would have power. He said something to me on the lines of “What is involved in this?”, and I did not really directly answer him but I think he knew without saying it.

6234. He went into the Minister and asked the Minister to see you?

—No. I went away, and I think it was a day later when I came back.

6235. I was not clear on that?

—And I went in and said, “Is the Customs clearance O.K. for this consignment?” or “stuff”—this is the normal term, “this stuff”, one uses in this type of thing and I think this conveys—to me it conveys nothing else only arms.

6236. Did you think it conveyed that to the Minister?

—This is certainly my assumption.

6237. And it is still your assumption?

—It is still my assumption, yes.

6238. Had you any subsequent discussion with him about arms?

—Subsequent discussion? That was the 25th of March and I do not think I met him again after that as far as I recollect. I cannot think of an occasion. It is possible I may have but I cannot think of one.

6239. In your contacts with him about the accounts, because he was the Minister you were dealing with, did you tell him about the subsidiary accounts? Did he know about these? What was discussed when you looked for money? First of all, did he know about the subsidiary accounts?

—I have no recollection of telling him specifically about the subsidiary accounts as such, and actually my contact with him was normally rather short and very fast and he never wasted much time on me really. I went in as an Army officer and just said what I had to say and got out.

6240. Were you satisfied, going into the Minister and looking for sums of money, as a very large proportion of which went for arms…. Many of these requests were related to feeding an account for arms. Did you think he knew nothing about the arms being paid for out of this account and if so, how did you justify it to yourself? You were asking him for money for a relief fund when you knew that the money was needed to feed the account out of which the money was coming?

—He had met delegations from Northern Ireland and I think that any of the Ministers who met delegations from Northern Ireland would know that these people were interested in buying arms.

6241. That is different; I am talking about the money side, which is more properly our problem?

—The money side, you see, was this Grant-in-Aid which was given to a Northern delegation that met the Minister at one stage. It must have been around October some time.

6242. You are assuming that in their contacts with him they made it clear that they were going to use this fund for this purpose and you did not feel it necessary to be explicit to him?

—No. This money was given as a Grant-in-Aid is my understanding of the situation, but overlapping on this was this intelligence exercise, that these people were looking for arms and wanted to import arms into Northern Ireland, first of all, and were talking and discussing about this and actually as they were talking and discussing about it—this would be from August on to December—it came to my notice that they were making attempts to obtain arms in various places and I just merely kept in contact with this and reported this to Colonel Hefferon, that these people were doing this, and I knew that they had opened these subsidiary accounts for this very purpose and they were opened as subsidiary accounts,— for accountancy was one thing—to keep the arms things separate from the Grant-in-Aid and my understanding of the position from these people was that they were re-imbursing this money in Northern Ireland.

6243. You are carrying out an intelligence operation to find out what was happening and you find out that it was being done through this account and simultaneously you are going to the Minister and looking for sums of money to put into this aid account to enable the switching operation to be carried out but you never tell him at any stage that this operation is being carried out, although your function as an Intelligence officer is to find this out for the Irish Government? It is a little difficult to accept this.

—I understand, but I reported this to Colonel Hefferon, that these Northern fellows had money and were using it to buy arms and I did not go into the detail of the thing as such.

6244. You certainly had to keep things in different compartments in your mind?

—I had it in my mind. I knew exactly what was done and as the thing was developing, I knew how the situation stood and it was a question of waiting until something definite ensued. Nothing definite ensued until January when this suggestion was put forward and then in February, when I got the opportunity of going to the Continent, I took it to try and find out if there was anything going on.

6245. It seems extraordinary that you were using the Minister as a channel to get money for this account for the switching purpose and that at no stage did you mention that to him?

—As regards the money, what I was merely doing was—the Northern fellows would come to me and say they wanted money at certain stages. If they wanted money, I just rang Mr. Fagan and said they required this money and at some stages Mr. Fagan said that the amount was too big. At this stage I went to the Minister and said that these people wanted— the money…

6246. You never said what for?

—First, these are the same Committee members and so on, and I would assume that at some stage I mentioned to him arms certainly.

6247. In relation to money?

—No, it would not be in relation to the money. This was the situation, that they had these three accounts that they were operating and as far as I was concerned the whole thing was above board.

6248. Could we come back to the directive for a minute? Could I be clear what you claim the directive authorised who to do?

—My understanding of the directive—I got this from the Four Courts, apart from what I got from Colonel Hefferon—it came out completely in the Four Courts——

6249. That is hindsight. At the time you were acting here you felt you were authorised partly to go ahead by this directive?

—This was that there were special arms, or arms were specially to be put aisde or made available. The word “immediately” came into it: they were to be “immediately made available”. I discussed this with Colonel Hefferon and my understanding of it, after discussing with him, was that these arms were to be made available for distribution in Northern Ireland in the event of the Government so directing.

6250. The directive authorised steps to be taken to get arms for this purpose and authorises the Director of Intelligence to do this? That is your understanding?

—The point is this. The Northern thing cut across this directive. As soon as I found out about the Northern thing I reported it to Colonel Hefferon and it was brought to the Minister’s notice that these people were getting arms. It was thought that these arms should be untraceable, and also in the security context.

6251. I want to get this straight. Is it your view that that directive had the effect of authorising the Director of Intelligence to take action to get untraceable arms for this purpose and that you were going ahead with this mission under his authority, he acting under this directive?

—Yes I certainly believe it.

6252. You are clear that there is doubt as to whether the directive did more than authorise contingency planning or whether it authorised anything to be done in terms of importing arms.

—My understanding of the directive was— as a matter of fact I know this—that it was to prepare for incursions into Northern Ireland, which to me envisages more than plans. It means that preparations must be made in the event of the contingency arising.

6253. It raises questions as to who was to do what. My recollection—and I could be at fault—is that Colonel Hefferon felt the directive did not authorise him to take action at that time. I do not want to rely on that. My recollection could be at fault.

—Colonel Hefferon gave evidence on this and he was asked specfically about this. He was asked whether he saw this directive as covering the distribution of arms into Northern Ireland to civilians. He said “Yes”.

6254. It is necessary to distinguish. The word “covering” has two meanings. It could cover in the sense that it could make provision for such a contingency and the subsequent point is that when the Government said that this was to be done, that action could be taken. But in your view did it authorise action to be taken in the way of importing arms at that stage? My impression of what Colonel Hefferon said is that he did not interpret it in that way.

—Yes. My conception of the directive was that it gave formal Government backing for an operation which was to prepare for incursions into Northern Ireland, which is related to this possibility of distributing arms to the civilian population which would take place in a “doomsday” situation.

6255. It either authorised the Director of Intelligence to import arms, or it did not. He seems to think not. You seem to think it did.

—The point is that this is where the distinction arises. It was referred to the Minister for Defence for his decision. He gave his decision on it.

6256. That is nothing to do with the directive. That is a separate authority, if he gave his authority.

—The director clarified it. His authority tied in. When it was put to him by Colonel Hefferon he said “carry on”.

6257. Had there been no directive, and the Minister had authorised it, you would have understood just as much.

—You would be justified in still carrying on.

6258. The directive was in a sense irrelevant.

—I think it gives the backing. It shows in effect that the Government were making these preparations.

6259. It might be evidence of a state of mind.

—My understanding is that it was a Government directive to do with the Chief of Staff, which I think is quite a formal change of Government policy.

6260. You clearly feel that you were let down by Mr. Gibbons. Have you considered any alternative from Mr. Gibbons point of view? You approach him and tell him about this arms transaction. He has been told by Colonel Hefferon that he suspects you will go to the Continent to get arms. It is the use of the word “suspects” which implies a different relationship. If Colonel Hefferon did use that word, and you spoke to Mr. Gibbons and told him, could his subsequent actions not be interpreted as playing you along, giving you a rope to hang yourself with? I think that is one hypothesis.

—Yes, I appreciate that very much.

6261. It could be a double misunderstanding.

—I do not think so. The point is that before Colonel Hefferon went to Mr. Gibbons in February he had already gone to him regarding the January proposal and had made his suggestion to Mr. Gibbons as I understand it, that if I were to carry out this operation in conjunction with the Northern people I would have to resign from the army, and so on. Before Colonel Hefferon went—concerning February —Mr. Gibbons knew that the arms importations were a possibility, which is a better word.

6262. It does not rule out a double hypothesis completely. There is an alternative hypothesis that when you went to him he knew from you, or Colonel Hefferon, or otherwise, that Mr. Blaney knew of this and—as he said at the trial himself—as he was a junior Minister and did not have access at that time, he might have felt that he had better lie low and let this carry on if Mr. Blaney would authorise it. It could have been a misunderstanding of that kind.

—This could possibly have happened. I think that the directive, a Government decision—given, so far as I know, that the Government directs—makes it pretty clear that he was acting on the authority of the Government.

6263. Not necessarily. The two could be separated in his mind. There was a contingency plan for certain eventualities and then he found out that you were involved in the import of arms into Northern Ireland.

—I see the point you are getting at. I think later events would disprove this. I had various meetings with Mr. Gibbons especially from 4th March when I made it perfectly clear to him what was involved, and that there could be no question of this.

6264. If you were afraid of Mr. Blaney he might still have played around so far as you were concerned there, and stayed out of trouble.

—This is a question between Mr. Blaney and Mr. Gibbons. I do not think this can arise because a person who is responsible for looking after arms is the Minister for Defence.

6265. What is your reaction to this hypothesis? I think that is the viewpoint which Mr. Gibbons put forward.

—You remind me of something which may also not be relevant.

6266. I am not suggesting he is putting forward the suggestion that he was afraid of Mr. Blaney, but perhaps some of the things he said might fit in with the concept of playing out a rope to you to hang yourself with.

—I think that would be a ridiculous, a complete hoax. What would he be using me for?

6267. That is not a question I can answer.

—I cannot answer it either, I am afraid. I do not think this arose. Actually you put forward various cases yourself. As you will realise I read quite closely the thesis that you put forward at one stage as to what might have happened.

6268. It was based on very incomplete data.

—You said roughly that you felt Mr. Gibbons might have been giving the information through a second source, to another source working through an intermediary.

6269. Yes.

—You were trying to reconcile one statement with another and I suppose that is a possibility I do not know.

6270. I was trying to find a solution compatible with the truth which is perhaps not easy in this whole context. Finally I want to come to a couple of things said earlier today by Mr. Fleming. I do not know if you were here at the time.

—I was here for some of it. I left in the middle.

6271. Is George Dixon Pádraig or “Jock” Haughey?

—That is completely wrong.

6272. Let me put it another way. Did Pádraig Haughey act with George Dixon in any way by signing cheques or otherwise?

—No.

6273. About these alleged contacts with the IRA, have you met Cathal Goulding?

—Yes.

6274. You did say to us that you had had contacts with the IRA before.

—Yes, I suggested it. Colonel Hefferon answered the question really.

6275. You did?

—Yes.

6276. I am not sure he can quite sustain that. I asked you various questions the other day on this. I want to check your answers on some of them. It seems to me the answers you gave to me are not imcompatible with something said this morning. You may have chosen your words with care. I asked you:

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

6277. Deputy Keating.—Could we have a reference?

6278. Deputy FitzGerald.—Sorry, 5148. Then you said:

Any contacts I had I reported them to the Director of Intelligence.

At 5149 I asked you:

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

Your reply was:

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

I did not perhaps appreciate the significance of the words at the time. At 5150 I asked you:

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

Your answer was:

I am as certain of that as I can be.

Those answers do not rule the possibility that you had contacts with the IRA—we have accepted that—that there were financial transactions but they were in your view involving money for people for Northern Ireland rather than for the IRA to start a revolution down here and that money did not come from this fund but came from other sources. The answers you gave me, which in retrospect seem very carefully worded, are not consistent with that hypothesis. Would you like to comment?

—I would like to comment very much. First of all, I would like to state categorically here and now, I have in front of me now the Evening Herald, and I want to make comments on what was reported there. First of all, “Pádraig Haughey was George Dixon” is a complete mis-statement of facts. “Arms were flown in from the Continent into Dublin in 1969 and handed over to the IRA”. I do not know of any such happening and it would have no relation to any of my work.

6279. It was not suggested to Superintendent Fleming that you had any involvement in it.

—I want to say it does not apply. “Captain James Kelly had paid over £7,000 to IRA Chief of Staff, Cathal Goulding in October 1969”. This is a complete lie.

6280. Would you like to say whether you had paid over any similar sum at that time to anybody else?

—All the money with which I was associated went through the Northern Ireland Committee. It was paid direct into their account and I handled no other money. As a matter of fact I did not even handle this money so there is absolutely no question of me giving money to Cathal Goulding at any stage. “Mr. Charles Haughey had promised the IRA £50,000”. I cannot say, quite obviously, whether he did or not but the one point I would like to make, in fairness, is when some committees from Northern Ireland representing us were looking for money I understand from the information I gleaned from these committees that £50,000 was mentioned. That is all I will say about it.

6281. You can only give second hand information.

—This other thing. Chief Superintendent Fleming said that in the last week of September 1969 Captain Kelly met Cathal Goulding in Virginia, County Cavan. This is wrong. I never met Cathal Goulding in County Cavan.

6282. Not even in Bailieboro?

—I did not. I will explain about Cathal Goulding later. I would just like to carry on about this. It also says here: “He also promised to provide training facilities for Northern Ireland members of the IRA at Gormanston Camp”. This in effect is not correct. We had the Bailieboro’ meeting which took place with Northern representatives, as I told you last night, and here training was discussed. I do not think Gormanston Camp was discussed. There was no definite place discussed as such. “Captain Kelly attended an IRA meeting in Cavan in the first week of October, 1969”. This is wrong and a complete misstatement of fact. “He then promised to pay the IRA £50,000 by instalments”. The meeting is wrong so the follow up statement is wrong. I will go back on these and explain why they are wrong later on. “To prove that he was not bluffing he promised to pay the first instalment within three days”. That is nonsense because the meeting did not take place. The only meeting I had with people—not IRA but representatives of defence committees in the North—was in Bailieboro’. “He paid over £7,000 to Cathal Goulding at Cavan town”. That is the height of nonsense. That is the only way I can describe it. “During the last week in November he paid over a further sum of £1,000”. I gave no money to Cathal Goulding. It is as simple as that.

6283. Superintendent Fleming said he thought it was Cathal Goulding but he could not swear to that.

—Actually I think a lot of his information this morning was this type of hearsay information. A lot of it was speculation as a matter of fact. As an officer who has some professional background in Intelligence I thought it was terrible. I make this comment because you glean a lot of information. You check it, you evaluate it and you must put forward a finished product. What he put forward this morning was rumour.

6284. He said he checked it and double checked it.

—He obviously has not checked it or he is getting information from a very doubtful source that is giving it to him for their own purpose. However, it is also stated here: “In the early part of December, 1969, he paid over a further £1,500 and witness thought it had been paid over to Cathal Goulding, but he was not sure”. That is a lie. “The Chief Superintendent told the Committee that around the third week in August, 1969, Mr. Pádraig Haughey, brother of Mr. C. J. Haughey, paid £1,500 over to Cathal Goulding in London”. I just cannot answer that because I do not know. “Other confidential information showed that Mr. Harry Blaney paid over quite large sums of money to the IRA”. Once again I do not know but I know that none of the money out of the Relief Fund around that period went there. I can come to that later on also. “The witness said that he took it that the money came from the £100,000 grant-in-aid fund”. That, as far as I am aware, is wrong. I am quite sure it is wrong.

6285. I think you will recall—perhaps you were here at the time—that we discussed that and Superintendent Fleming accepted that the £7,000 could not of course have come from it because it is ante-dated.

—This is where I think a lot of his evidence is rather dubious evidence.

6286. The report is incomplete but he did clarify it afterwards.

—The report also states: “At the outset of his evidence Superintendent Fleming said that the information he had came from confidential sources”—we will leave that—“and he was not at liberty to reveal these sources. The Chief Superintendent said that in August, 1969, the former Minister for Finance, Mr. Charles Haughey, TD, met one of the leading members of the IRA in Dublin”. I do not know whether he did or not. “He promised him a large sum of money, probably about £50,000”. This is related, I would imagine to the other, £50,000. I do not know. I just cannot say.

6287. I think those are all the points. You are accepting Superintendent Fleming’s account of what Mr. Gibbons said to you and perhaps this can be taken up later. I think we have covered most of the main points.

—There is one more point which I think is completely wrong and is a complete misstatement of fact. I am quite positive about this. I said I was positive about other things up to this but I am certainly positive about this one. Do you see the heading at the end “Not Correct”. It says here: “That was definitely not correct. He was looking for information as he had asked Captain Kelly if Messrs. Blaney, Haughey or Boland were involved but he never mentioned Mr. Gibbons”. This is a complete and utter lie. What Chief Superintendent Fleming said to me on the 2nd May in his office was—He was asking me for names of various people and I said: “No, I am not giving any names”. He said “No, it does not matter, we know and the three Ministers involved are Blaney, Haughey and Gibbons”. He has thrown in Boland as a red herring.

6288. Just to go back generally over what you said—at no stage were you involved in the payment of any money to Cathal Goulding or anybody else associated with the IRA in the Republic in the Autumn of 1969?

—I would like to explain about Cathal Goulding and this might clarify the whole matter. As you realise that August, 1969, there was a rather chaotic situation existing in the North and there was a chaotic situation existing down here. In the months of August, September, up until the last day, the 5th of October, I met Cathal Goulding I think three times. What we had were general discussions as to what was going to take place, what was not going to take place, what was the attitude of the IRA in present circumstances, so on and so forth. Actually my last meeting with him which took place on the 5th October—I remember this date because it was the afternoon of this Bailieboro’ meeting at which Cathal Goulding or no member of the IRA was at.

6289. You mean no member of the IRA from the Republic?

—This is stuff I really did not want to go into. Actually I could have gone into it in the High Court to my advantage in the trial because it is concerned with national security and it will get at the very structure of national security. It is probably going to set back a security structure which has been set up over 30 years. Chief Superintendent Fleming has introduced it and it is incumbent on me to explain it because he has told—whether he has done it maliciously or otherwise or whether he is being very naive or whether he was instructed to say it, I don’t know—but he has introduced complete lies here, so far as I am concerned.

6290. He told us he had no discussions with you before giving evidence this morning?

—Yes, but however I am getting a bit lost here.

6291. I believe you met Cathal Goulding?

—Yes. We met and we had a discussion—an ideological discussion, really. I was asking him about Sinn Fein policy and we had a slight— I won’t say an argument—but I said his policy was not right and I did not agree with it.

6292. In what respect? What was the net issue?

—He was talking about his socialist policy and this type of thing. This was the type of conversation we had at this stage and that was the last meeting I had with him. I broke completely with him after that because my conclusion was that there could be no question after this of co-operating with the IRA. What I did was I investigated the IRA to see what their attitude was at the time and I came to the conclusion and reported back to Colonel Hefferon that there was no question of having any co-operation whatsoever.

6293. Because of their socialist views?

—No, because I thought that it just was not on. That was my belief.

6294. They were not willing to co-operate?

—My impression was that they might pretend they were willing to co-operate and my belief was that it would be useless carrying it any further.

6295. Co-operation in what?

—They were talking about defending the people in Northern Ireland and the discussion was what happened on the 12th August and who defended who—this type of thing.

6296. You said you reported back to Colonel Hefferon and he suggested that you have these contacts?

—He knew I had the contacts and actually he reported to Garda Headquarters—this is the point you see—that I would be meeting these people and this was in case the Special Branch or anyone else would be under any doubt.

6297. This was before you had the contacts that he reported it?

—At some stage he reported it.

6298. Did he know before your first contact that you were making these contacts?

—He did, yes.

6299. Did the initiative for that come from him or from you? From you or from Colonel Hefferon? Whose idea was it?

—The point is this—once again you get bogged down here slightly. I had met a person here in Ireland on the week-end of the trouble in the North, back in August 1969, who suggested to me that I should see Cathal Goulding. I accepted that Cathal Goulding wanted to see someone. This was a person I came across by accident. The arrangement was made that I would see him. We met and had a preliminary chat and the chat revolved around what had taken place in Northern Ireland, what had taken place up there and whether people had been defended, and who defended and who did not defend them and he gave me some information of what action they took and what their attitude was. You may remember then at another stage the IRA issued some type of public statement—I forgot what it was, but it appeared in public. We had a discussion about this at the second meeting. We had a discussion then at the third meeting which was based on his approach to a Socialist Republic and so on.

6300. The idea came from somebody who suggested it to you. You cleared with Colonel Hefferon and you had these contacts?

—It was cleared with the police, that is the point.

6301. Was it cleared higher up? Asking army Intelligence to contact the IRA with a view to co-operation sounds to me like something involving a political decision. It is not the kind of initiative one would expect from the army whose job it is to defend the State against illegal activities——

—No. It is part of one’s Intelligence operations to know what is going on.

6302. It is one thing to know what is going on but on your own initiative, without any political authority to go and discuss co-operation with an illegal body whose job it is for the army and the police to suppress seems rather extraordinary——

—With all due respects, I do not think so in the circumstances obtaining at the time and with all that went on.

6303. You will permit a politician to differ on that?

—I admit this, but our assumption was to get as much information as we could, to know what was going on, and to know what the ideas of various people were and when I found these out, contact broke and has never been resumed. That was early in October.

6304. It is one thing to get information but it is certainly open to mis-interpretation if an officer of army Intelligence is discussing co-operation with an illegal organisation.

—We were not discussing co-operation.

6305. Those are your words, Captain Kelly.

—Maybe I am not using my words correctly. I was talking to this man for a purpose, and I am sure he was talking to me for a purpose also, and I was talking to him for my purpose. I wanted to try and find out what the attitude of his organisation was in the circumstances then existing.

6306. So far as you are aware Colonel Hefferon did not clear this with anybody higher up?

—He cleared it with Garda Headquarters.

6307. That is not clearing it with them. He notified them but he did not get authority from anybody in authority above him in the army or in the Government?

—I do not think there was any necessity for him to get authority. It is not my function, but I do not think there is any necessity.

6308. So far as you are aware he did not? There was no talk and he did not say “I had better clear that”?

—All I know is that he went to the Garda authorities and told them.

6309. He never said anything like “I had better clear that with the Chief-of-Staff or the Minister”?

—There was nothing arose that necessitated any clearance.

6310. That is a matter of opinion.

—I know what was said. There was nothing arose. We had quite an ordinary discussion.

6311. Deputy H. Gibbons.—The first thing I would like to put to you was that you had three activities from August, 1969, until May, 1970. Firstly, you were an Intelligence officer. This was your profession?

—Yes.

6312. Secondly, around September you were appointed liaison officer to this Grant-in-Aid?

—Yes.

6313. Thirdly, you considered importing arms which, I gather from your evidence, this idea was initiated when you met some people from the North in October around Bailieboro?

—Yes.

6314. Would that be a fair analysis of your activities at this time?

—I would say the start of this thing was at this meeting in October. I do not think it can be divorced—that the importation of arms can be divorced from my Intelligence duties because this would be drawing a very fine line. It was part of my duties as an army Intelligence officer—this situation arose. It was reported to the relevant competent authorities. I do not think there can be any such thing as saying that I had three jobs.

6315. To go back to your duties as liaison officer of the Grant-in-Aid, you are probably familiar with this account, the Belfast distress account, which contained £63,900, practically £70,000?

—Yes.

6316. Could you give us any idea of how much of this, to your knowledge, in fact, reached the Belfast people as aid, for housing, for hunger, for distress—any heading you like?

—I would think, and all I can do is depend on what the people in the Committees——

6317. I am asking you, as liaison officer of this Grant-in-Aid, to your knowledge how much?

—I would imagine that all went that they had declared there as going.

6318. If you say “imagine” does this in fact mean that to your knowledge you do not know?

—I would not definitely know, and I would not say categorically——

6319. To your knowledge can you name any sum at all?

—To the North?

6320. Yes. To your own knowledge?

—I would say that most of the money that was withdrawn there on that main account went to the North of Ireland.

6321. I know, but you say “I would say” and what I am asking is to your own personal knowledge. It is page 10 of the pink book. Any of those sums, would you say?

—I would say all those cash sums with the exception of the transfers to the George Dixon account went to the Grant-in-Aid. And whatever was transferred to the George Dixon account was reimbursed in Northern Ireland and from the information I have I understand it was over-reimbursed.

6322. You stated in evidence that you told everything to Colonel Hefferon?

—Yes.

6323. According to Colonel Hefferon there were some things you did not tell him. We are back to January, 1970. I understand from your evidence at this time that it was in your mind to help to import arms, but Colonel Hefferon said he thought the help was of a technical nature?

—He said it was of a technical nature and I think he used the term “vet arms” also in February.

6324. I will come to that later. I would take it from that that at that time Colonel Hefferon did not in fact know that you intended to take part in the importing of arms?

—I do not think that is correct. I think evidence has been given to the contrary.

6325. Now we come to 19th February. At this stage again Colonel Hefferon did not seem to me to have full knowledge of the facts because all he could convey to the Minister was that he suspected that you proposed to import arms. In other words, he was not in a position to say “This man has gone to the Continent to import arms”?

—All I can say to that is that this might have been the phraseology used by Colonel Hefferon, and it might not be the most fortunate phraseology, but the point is that Colonel Hefferon himself arranged a cover story which was brought to the Minister’s notice. I think I said here before that if I was merely going to the Continent to visit my sister it would never come to the ears of the Minister. The only reason it was brought to his ears was that in effect I was going out to check on arms. And how Colonel Hefferon used the term “suspected” I do not know. I suppose the fact that none of us knew arms existed is one explanation and we were just going out to follow up the various leads we had at that stage.

6326. But if your evidence is correct you were offering a cover story to the very man who did not need it—the Minister for Defence. I can understand your offering a cover story to some other Ministers, but not to him?

—I am afraid you have taken me up wrongly. What was explained to the Minister was that I was going under cover. He was put in the picture as to how exactly I was going and the Minister for Defence was told, using Colonel Hefferon’s terminology, that he suspected I was going to get arms and he was told that, as a cover, I was using a reported visit to my sick sister in Frankfurt, and this was conveyed clearly to him.

6327. Accepting that this was a cover story for you to vet arms, at the same time the best Colonel Hefferon could convey at that time to the Minister was that he suspected. In other words, he did not seem to be in a position at the time to tell the Minister he knew?

—I have answered this already to Deputy FitzGerald, I think. Previously Colonel Hefferon had been to the Minister concerning this proposed or possible importation of arms. This was concerning my resignation, so the Minister already knew arms were concerned. A lot of play has been made with the use of the term “suspected”, but I do not know.

6328. Colonel Hefferon said you did not tell him where the money was coming from?

—I think Colonel Hefferon said on numerous occasions that he knew the money was coming from the Northern Committees.

6329. The answer he made was that you did not tell him about the shipment of arms until it had failed to arrive?

—This was 25th March?

6330. Yes?

—I think it became quite clear in the court that it was Colonel Hefferon who suggested to me that I get customs clearance from the Minister for Finance and he also said in court that I had suggested that the arms should be taken to Cathal Brugha Barracks and handled in the normal way, and he advised against this. If he said that this took place after 25th March his memory is at fault, because the logic of the thing is—and I am quite sure of this—that I went to him concerning Cathal Brugha and he said no, this cannot be done, and he suggested that I get customs clearance, so this must have taken place before the shipment of arms.

6331. In the trial he was asked when Captain Kelly first told him about the pending arrival of a shipment and he said that he did not hear about it until after the arms had failed to arrive?

—I think in the first trial he said something different, so it is just a question of his recollection.

6332. He also stated that you did not tell him to whom the arms were consigned?

—He did not know the name of the firm to whom the arms were consigned and this was confirmed in the court fairly fully, but he knew where the arms were going and he told the Minister for Defence.

6333. Finally, he also said you did not tell him that Mr. Luykx was going with you to the Continent?

—I read some of his evidence recently. He said he did not hear of this until March.

6334. We discussed this question of an Intelligence operation before. Do you still maintain this was an Intelligence operation?

—It was done with the authority of the Minister for Defence and I cannot say anything else. You can call it a defence operation if you like, but it is still a matter of terminology.

6335. We disagreed on this before. Colonel Hefferon did not agree that this was an Intelligence operation.

—Colonel Hefferon said—and once again this was very well ventilated in the courts— that he looked upon it that I was working directly with the Minister for Defence so he had no responsibility. So in this context it was not an Intelligence operation, but once again this is a matter of the use of words. I was acting as an Intelligence Officer, reporting direct to my Minister, reporting also to Colonel Hefferon, and as far as I was concerned I was acting under the direct authority of the Minister. So he said it was not an Intelligence operation, but I do not see any problem about this.

6336. The position is that it was put to him in court if he considered it an Intelligence operation?

—But he also said in court that I was working under the Minister for Defence.

6337. I do not think that is right. It was put to him that it was not an intelligence mission at all. Is that not the short answer to the whole thing? And he said “yes”.

Do you mean to imply that he had been carrying out a mission of somebody else?

No. It was not strictly an Intelligence mission.

It was not, as far as you were aware at the time, an Army matter at all?

No.

—Well, I think with all due respect, going further into this, that the reason it was not an army matter was that the arms were not to be imported in the normal way. It was an unorthodox operation, fully authorised by the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Defence knew about it and the responsibility for it was not his as Director of Intelligence. This is why he would say that it was not an Intelligence operation. This is just a mere question of phraseology. There is nothing further in it.

6338. There is a difference of opinion about that.

—Please, Mr. Gibbons, I will not let that go. There is no difference of opinion about it. The thing was authorised under the Minister for Defence and it is just a question of words and nothing more.

6339. In respect to that, Mr. Chairman, there is a difference of opinion.

—I am sorry, Mr. Gibbons, I will not let that go. I object very strongly to this being put forward. The thing was authorised under the Minister for Defence. It was reported to the Director of Intelligence, who was fully in the picture, and if anyone tries to put forward the suggestion that it was not an Intelligence operation it is just a matter of phraseology, and that is all it can be.

6340. Fair enough. You describe this as an unorthodox operation and I would put it to you that, for a lot of reasons, it was a very unorthodox operation. In the first place, to bring it about bank accounts had to be switched, subsidiary accounts had to be set up, fictitious names had to be used for people in the Six Counties, and according to evidence money was being brought up and down. Secondly, no import licence was got from the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Justice. Thirdly, at some stage it appears no user certificates were available.

—Could we take it in easy stages. You have made statements there that are wrong. The first was——

6341. The bank accounts had to be switched, subsidiary accounts set up.

—Northern people opened bank accounts for their own purposes and for security, and these are open to your guess.

6342. No import licence from the Minister for Defence?

—An import licence was got from the Minister for Defence. If you mean a written certificate was not got, none was got. But never has the Minister for Defence over the years issued such a licence for the importation of arms which are for the use of the Defence Forces—which is what these arms were for. This was one of the very crucial points in the court case, and when a representative of the Department of Defence was brought into the witness box, a Mr. O’Grady, he produced a log book in which, he said, he and his two assistants recorded—they were the people who authorised the importation of arms and it turned out it was merely a record of arms imported. My counsel, Mr. Finlay, presented the Act to Mr. O’Grady and got him to read the relevant section, section 8, I think. Under this the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice have not to issue a licence or certificate. This is a canard which has been perpetrated ever since the trial, which I want to knock here and now. There is no question of the Minister for Defence at any stage issuing a certificate.

6343. Nevertheless, this again is a point where there is a difference of opinion as to whether the arms came in under the Minister for Defence or not?

—This was conclusively proved in the court and I made a submission here the other night and this is one point I will not have gain-said here, because the defence was based solely and unreservedly on this question of authorisation, and it was made quite clear.

6344. Nevertheless, there is still a difference of opinion about this?

—There cannot be a difference of opinion about it. Excuse me please, Mr. Chairman. In the court the whole issue was, was this importation of arms authorised, and it became quite clear that it was authorised. The jury accepted it as such and I do not think this Committee here has any right to criticise or take this into issue.

6345. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to argue with Captain Kelly but there are differences of opinion on this and he has just got to accept it.

—I do not think so, because this has been proved.

6346. The only thing I can say is that arguing about it serves no useful purpose.

—Mr. Gibbons, I have another comment. For instance, you introduced the certificate, which without any doubt is wrong, and I think that by introducing this question of the arms importation not being authorised you are also very wrong. As a matter of fact, I think possibly if the thing was pursued it would be going into complete contradiction with what was decided in the Four Courts, and I do not think the Committee ought to do that.

6347. Mr. Chairman, I still say there is a difference of opinion about this and that there is no point in arguing about it.

—I object to this being entered into the minutes. I take exception to it and I wish that to be on record.

6348. At some stage no user certificates were available for those arms?

—I do not know where this arises. This is purely a commercial, technical matter and has nothing to do with the case in point, and once we had customs clearance there is no user certificate necessary. That is necessary at the other end, actually. And as far as I was aware everything was fixed at the other end.

6349. Granted that it may have been a technicality, it was also proposed to bring in some of this ammunition on passenger planes. That, I understand, is contrary to the regulations?

—I never made any arrangements for this.

6350. No customs clearance was in fact arranged or got for them?

—There was.

6351. I understand from what I read about it that there was not?

—If you read the evidence of the various people at Aer Lingus and discussions with John Kelly at this time it is quite clear the customs clearance was there. There was no problem. Naturally the people there were assisting in bringing the arms and doing their best to ensure they were brought in.

6352. Further, there was neither an export nor an import licence?

—Where does this arise?

6353. Mr. Luykx said this was one of the reasons why this stuff did not get out of Antwerp.

—He was talking about a business arrangement. This was not a business arrangement at all. This was an unorthodox secret arrangement and so far as we were concerned the position was that these arms were supposed to be put on a ship and as far as people at this end were concerned all they had to do was receive them.

6354. I understood from Mr. Luykx that the reason they were not put on the ship was there was no export or import licence.

—There were various theories about this. I do not know.

6355. Mr. Luykx was the business man?

—I think in the court the customs official produced a telex message from Antwerp which gave another reason. One reason is as good as another.

6356. I am not acquainted with the details.

—With due respect, Mr. Gibbons, I think this is irrelevant.

6357. Further, the arms were to be under Government control when they came in?

—No doubt about it.

6358. And taking it all along that the operation ran into a lot of difficuilies, it to my mind certainly does not have the hallmark of its being a legal operation, for this reason.

—If the Minister for Defence authorises it, it is completely legal, and regardless of the opinions one might form as to the movement of arms, this is the point at issue. I ask you, if it was the most efficient operation ever it could still be illegal. There is no logic in this— equating efficiency with legality and vice versa.

6359. I understand that in fact the Army was taking in arms in this particular week?

—Oh, yes. This brings up a very interesting point—where I was supposed to have disappeared into the shadows. I only shook hands with the Army guard.

6360. Would it not be strange, the Army taking in arms legally and illegally on the same day?

—Not at all. The Army just happened to send a normal consignment of arms. I went to the ship and saw it, saw it was addressed to the usual place in Dublin, which I knew. It was still on the quays while I was waiting for the other consignment to arrive, which was on the boat. One of the witnesses in the High Court said Captain Kelly disappeared into the shadows. As a matter of fact the sergeant of the guard was an old friend of mine and I went over and shook hands and had a chat.

6361. What does one infer from this? It strikes me as strange, the Army to be taking in arms legally and under cover in Dublin port on the one day?

—The person sending the arms from the Continent did not realise the Army happened to be sending a normal consignment on the same ship. It is purely a coincidence. There is no connection.

6362. It just struck me as strange. Then there is the matter of untraceable arms. Who puts the serial numbers on the rifles, or any arms?

—I would say the manufacturer. I do not know. But I know they cannot be erased.

6363. I understand that having done so, any arms can be traced back to the manufacturers? This applies to any parts of the world in fact?

—I imagine they could be traced back to the manufacturer, yes.

6364. How do you use the term “untraceable arms” in this context?

—They could not be traced to the Irish Government. If you want to pursue this, the way to clarify it is as follows. Mr. Gibbons was also worried about this and this is when he suggested to me forming a fictitious company to buy arms for the Irish Army that would be distributed as untraceable arms.

6365. When is the fictitious company mentioned?

—It was during one of our conversations. I would say during March—I could not put a precise date on it but I have quite a clear recollection of it because he asked me was it possible to form a fictitious company and said it would be quite proper. I said that we were busy enough with the other matters but that we would give it consideration later.

6366. Am I correct in thinking that you said you were told to go down and arrange the customs clearance by Colonel Hefferon?

—Colonel Hefferon suggested this to me, yes.

6367. Another thing I would like to clear up here is how did you know what Colonel Hefferon put to the Minister?

—Because Colonel Hefferon told me.

6368. You know that Colonel Hefferon said that he did not put everything to the Minister?

—I do not know what point you are getting at now. If you will be specific, I might be able to answer you.

6369. I have the report of the proceedings in Court:

Mr. Finlay: Did you keep the Minister for Defence fully informed as to what Captain Kelly was doing?

—No: I did not feel it was my job to keep the Minister so informed because I felt he was dealing directly with the Minister for Defence—that he, Captain Kelly—in this matter, and with some of the other Ministers concerned.

6370. Chairman.—Would the Deputy give the reference?

6371. Deputy Gibbons.—Irish Press, October 14th, 1970.

—I would say that is at a later stage because I think Colonel Hefferon was also asked if he kept the Minister for Defence fully informed at another stage and he said yes. I made the point here the last day. I think that in a second statement Colonel Hefferon made to the Special Branch which was not produced—one of the last questions he was asked was did he believe that Mr. Gibbons was fully aware of all that Captain Kelly was doing and he said yes, and that this was not produced in Court.

6372(a). There are one or two final questions I would like to put to you, Captain Kelly. Did you at any time between 15th August, 1969 and 1st May, 1970 ever see, read or have read to you any order, direction or instruction from the Government or your superior officers suggesting to you that you take part in the importation of arms, legal or illegal? That is a question to which you can answer yes or no?

—I cannot answer yes or no, you see, because there is no question of illegal importation of arms for a start, and I refuse to accept that. Furthermore, at all times, I acting in my Intelligence capacity, reported to the relevant authority, the Director of Intelligence, from 1st August. I reported also to the Minister for Defence from 4th March and told him what was going on, what was likely to develop and so on, so therefore, I would say that I got full authority or full orders. Orders, you must understand, are not issued in any barrack room manner in this type of work. One brings in the type of information one has and one gets advice as to where to go from there and one accepts it. There is no question of anyone getting up and saying do this, that or the other.

6372(b). This is not an answer to the question I asked you?

—This is an impossible question to answer, I think.

6373. It is not impossible?

—Could I have it again?

6374. At any time between 15th August, 1969 and 1st May, 1970 did you ever see, read or have read to you any order, direction or instruction from the Government and your superior officers suggesting to you to import arms legally or illegally?

—Was that order ever read to me? This is not the way the Army works.

6375. I am only asking you for yes or no?

—You must take it in the context of how the organisation operates.

6376. Mr. Chairman, I spent a very short time on active service in the Army and one of the things I brought with me from it was that when an order was given or a direction was given, it must be fully understood by the person receiving it and the person giving it must check on it and in fact at that time we were asked to repeat the order to ensure that we fully understood. This is 30 or 35 years ago and things may have changed since but this is my experience and it strikes me as of some importance?

—I would ask at what level was this order given and when you had to repeat it back?

6377. I may add that it was at the lowest level.

—This is the point. When working in this type of work, we understand each other; we know what we are about and we are sort of adult and are au fait with the situation, and we discuss it man to man and out of that a situation arises, and there is no question of anyone getting up and giving an order and its being repeated back. It is understood and accepted that you know what is going on.

6378. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that this particular activity broke down on this question of understanding because otherwise we would not be here. You have not answered the question I put to you, Captain Kelly?

—Well, I will answer the question if you want it answered. I will answer it: yes, but the point is this that in answering yes, orders were not read to me in the type of way you suggest because this is not the way the thing operates, but the orders were there. I will put it to you in reverse: I come in on 4th March, the first time I met Mr. Gibbons, and I give him a full briefing on Intelligence operations to date and I then said to him “What is the next stage of the operation and what is suspected as being the next stage of the operation?” and he says to me “That’s fine; keep me informed”. This is an order. This is the way orders are given.

6379. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be going back putting to Captain Kelly a lot of things I put to him before but what has been put to him before is that this activity was going on for some months before you went to the Minister for Defence?

—Once again this is putting an interpretation on it. There was no obligation on me at any stage to go to see the Minister for Defence. That is the point.

6380. One question I would like to put to Captain Kelly is: at any time between 15th August, 1969, and 1st May, 1970, did the Government or your superior officers inform you verbally, by phone, consultation or conversation that you should take part in the importing of arms, legally or illegally?

—The Minister for Defence did.

6381. On what day?

—He told me personally on 4th March.

6382. Mr. Chairman, I want to be very careful about this because in fact the evidence suggests that all this was going on before Captain Kelly went to the Minister, and what I am asking——

—Excuse me, once again I am not accepting that at all, It will be explained fully.

6383. The question I am asking you is did the initiative come from the Government or your superior officers?

—The Government were informed of a situation, and when I talk about the Government, I talk about the Minister for Defence and my superior officer was the Director of Intelligence, but as a matter of fact I had gone a stage further—I had gone to my Minister so therefore the initiative came from the Government.

6384. Would you give us the date on which it came from the Government?

—4th March—this is from Mr. Gibbons.

6385. I want to put it to Captain Kelly that this activity was going on before 4th March?

—The point is this that as Mr. Gibbons himself said in Court—and I will quote his own words—everything was very nebulous on 19th February. He is correct—our knowledge or experience of what was actually going on. It was reported to him in March when one still did not know and I had not gone to the Continent for the second time that it was still nebulous and he also said that the information available was nebulous at that stage. He is correct in that, and it was reported to him then—if Mr. Gibbons did not agree, all he had to say was “No, this must stop. This is not authorised. This is not Government policy”. Instead he said “Carry on”.

Information can be nebulous in various manners. The Minister said that information was nebulous—although we shall have to come back to the Minister to find out what he said.

6386. Deputy Keating.—I shall try not to cover ground that has already been covered but some of the things that I may say may seem to you unduly simple or even foolish because I shall be looking for definitions of meanings of words as clearly as we are both able to get them. I think we have lost some time, and have got ourselves up some blind alleys, because obviously words were not used in the same way by different people. I should like to start— and I do not mean this to be offensively simple—by trying to get clear what you understand by an intelligence operation. Sometimes, if we have very long answers, things get lost. I am not looking for three words, but maybe you can be fairly brief.

—There are what I call various types of intelligence. Combat intelligence is related to war, information about the enemy, and so on. The second aspect is security, which this operation is primarily concerned with. With security you have to get information on all people in the country, or as many people as one possibly can, as to what their intentions and ideas are, what they intend to do, and what they will do in certain circumstances. You have to find out how they will do it, why, and verify this and check it. One checks the various sources, evaluates them, and comes to some conclusion.

6387. Let me try to paraphrase that. You can tell me if I am distorting it. It is the gathering and assessing and then, one might say, the passing on of information, Is that fair?

—That would be fair.

6388. That is my understanding of it. insofar as somebody outside has a picture of what intelligence is about. It is about the gathering and assessing of information.

—Yes.

6389. Does it not follow that acting as a liaison officer is a totally different thing? It is a different activity. I am saying that it is different. I am not saying it is right, or wrong, or anything else.

—I understand what you are getting at. I suppose that if you accept a pure definition of intelligence as such in this question of national security, various aspects come in. For instance if I assume you have got a Minister as such, and I was the intelligence officer, and you were meeting various people, you would like, if you could, to have someone who could give you information. Therefore in this way it is quite closely related and part and parcel of the national security context.

6390. I understand that perfectly, and somebody who was an intelligence officer would be a natural person to appoint as a liaison officer. That is again a perfectly correct answer. But I suggest it is different. It is not the normal work of an intelligence officer.

—I could not answer that. This was an abnormal situation.

6391. I agree that this would be a justification.

—It turned out that I happened to end up in a funny position. I knew numerous people, many more people than anyone else, in Northern Ireland, and over quite a large area, and had picked up quite a comprehensive picture. So therefore it was, I suppose, an extra job tagged on.

6392. I appreciate that entirely and I can see that it was justified. But the travelling to Europe and endeavouring to get arms and endeavouring to see that they got safely to Ireland, and arranging for the payment of money for those arms—all those were positive actions in relation to objects, in relation to arms.

—Yes.

6393. But not in relation to information.

—The point is this, you see——

6394. I am suggesting that there is a distinction between that action in relation to arms and intelligence work.

—Yes, that is probably the point Colonel Hefferon was making; that it was not intelligence as such. I was acting under the Minister for Defence for this special job. Intelligence is not purely passive, either. The primary concern is that one must keep in contact with what is happening. To keep in contact, one needs to develop trust and liaison with people and, in a situation like this, a liaison with people with whom an army officer would not normally come into contact. That point was developed in a certain way. So we knew exactly where these arms were coming from, when they were coming; and when they came into the country we knew exactly where they were going to be and that they were going to be under control. That was the main objective of the situation. I would say that it is a logical projection of passive intelligence.

6395. I can see a logical connection. I accept you are satisfied that you were acting under a clear chain of command under valid instructions. But your belief is not proof for us. Saying it, however vehemently you say it, and believing it, does not demonstrate it. We are in a position where we have such conflicts of evidence that it is hard to believe that the same country in the same century is being talked about by the different groups of people. It is that wide.

—Yes.

6396. Is there any way you can show us? This is why I am trying to tease it out, to be absolutely clear of what I suggest are separate chains of command. That is why I have tried to separate these activities, because you should have a clear and completely understood chain of command for your intelligence activities which would never be in question. That I absolutely understand.

—Yes.

6397. The chain of command and authorisation in regard to your liaison activities: would you first tell us exactly between what groups that liaison was to be set up, and was set up?

—I saw to the liaison between people from the North and members of the Government here. For instance, when delegations from the North came down to see the Government they normally first came to see me, with one or two exceptions, and the general idea was I could say to the people “these are so-and-so”.

6398. I understand that. I can understand that something concerning a Northern man should be nebulous, to use that word. It is not so clear that the Government end should be nebulous. Were you acting as a liaison officer between people in the North and the Government, which is a clear cut thing, or between the people in the North and the Government sub-committee which was to be set up and have a special position?

—I would say the sub-committee, more than anything else. But I only came in contact with two members of that sub-committee.

6399. Did that sub-committee ever meet? Did it work?

—I could not say, to my knowledge, whether it ever operated at all.

6400. How did you know that you were acting as a liaison officer to the two Ministers who were prominent people in that Government sub-committee?

—This is the point. It came to my notice that there was a sub-committee. However, at that stage, I knew that Messrs. Blaney and Haughey were members of it, and the other two Ministers, Messrs. Faulkner and Brennan. When I was in the North in September—I think September the 4th is the date—I got a lot of information and I thought some of it would be useful to the sub-committee. I made it my business to go and see Mr. Blaney.

6401. It was your initiative?

—It was the first time I met this Minister. He arranged, because Mr. Haughey lives close to him, that I should go over and see Mr. Haughey and tell him. Then we gathered that various people had been coming down from the North looking for assistance and that they were quite happy to get some background information on it.

6402. The problem here is it was a very rapidly changing, confused and nebulous situation. Once you started acting in this way it was logical that you should go on acting in this way and that you should accept you were acting validly in this way but there was always the danger for you that if people started to back out for whatever reason that you would be left holding the can if you did not have any sort of clear authorisation. I am asking this as a question without overtones. It is a factual question. Is there any way you can show us directly by inference that you were acting as liaison officer because you went on doing this and nobody said: “What are you doing here?” In that sense you certainly had validation. Can you show us any initial authority or did your authority just come by doing it and by people who were Ministers accepting you doing it and continuing to use you to do it? Was there any other sort of validation or authority?

—At this stage I have no recollection of it being spelled out to me that: “You are an officially accredited liaison officer”, if you can use that term. It just became accepted if some information was required by people it was the normal thing that I got a ring, was asked to come down and was asked if I knew so and so. This was more or less the normal thing.

6403. Of course, once you were used and accepted in that way then it was natural to go on in that way because people would not use you if they did not accept you.

—That was the point.

6404. That is OK for the intelligence part of the work and it is OK for the liaison part of the work. This committee are not really concerned with either of those and we would not be here if it was just those. The third part of the work related to bringing arms into the country, firstly, but, secondly, it related to, as it is told in one way, a process which, even if legitimate and admirable, was illegal and that was a switch.

—I missed the last bit there.

6405. I am saying it was not just the arms which were being brought into the country, that they were to be paid for in a way that, even if it was from a certain point of view permissible or admirable, it was still illegal, that sort of switch. If I give you a neutral comparison. If somebody from some bank account takes money to do a certain job, regardless of what sort of job, and then puts it back from another bank account in another place he can always say: “My intentions were good” but he is still breaking the law. People are caught for doing this every day. So, distinct from the Intelligence and the liaison work, can you build up for us in a way that will demonstrate it as distinct from just declaring it that you had authorisation either from Ministers, from a sub-committee of the Government or from the Government, to indulge in the work relating to the import of arms and to the work relating to the switch? What can you show us, apart from saying it, that will convince us?

—Show you?

6406. Can you tell us, can you mention dates, can you mention persons, assuming it was all verbal. You could say documents but if there were no documents? You said with great emphasis—the emphasis does not come through in a written record so in a sense it is wasted—“I was authorised”. I am not questioning that statement at all. I am just saying, like the man from Missouri: “show me”. Is there any way you can?

—You want me to show you how I had authorisation to handle the accounts? Is this it?

6407. Either to handle the accounts or to enter negotiations with people outside the jurisdiction about this purchase or to travel in relation to the purchase or to try to make arrangements to bring the purchase into the country? Any of those things?

—I suppose one should go back to the beginning really and start off in August. As you know a chaotic situation arose here, not alone in Northern Ireland, and there were all sorts of rumours going around. For instance there were suggestions that people were going to march on the North and all this sort of thing and there was a general state of unpreparedness. This was the background against which the thing started and was the chaos which lasted for some weeks. Out of this chaos one had to try and get something positive, some type of organisation if you like, so this was the background against which the intelligence operation as such started. Therefore, I was in contact with numerous people in Northern Ireland under the direction of the Director of Intelligence and at this stage I was collecting whatever information was available. At the same time this other point arose that I had met Cathal Goulding two or three times. This was all building up, this picture. Sometime around September and October I got a direction from the Director of Intelligence not to go into Northern Ireland anymore. This is where, once again, I would like to contradict the evidence of Chief Superintendent Fleming. He said something like I was uncovered in Northern Ireland or something like that. There were some officers’ names mentioned as being in Northern Ireland. Mine was not one of them. I had not been in Northern Ireland since I got this direction from Colonel Hefferon so that bit of information there is wrong also. However, I operated on this side of the border from then on. I am sure the committee is aware that there were people at all times looking for arms and ammunition and there were various visits to Ministers which at the time I was not very much concerned with except that on occasions I was asked did I know so and so. At this stage it was often after the event. At this stage the general idea of people in Northern Ireland was that they wanted arms and this is where this Bailieboro’ meeting comes in on the 3rd and 4th of October. I met this group of people from Northern Ireland who were not as such IRA men—I have said this before—but were representatives of the various citizen defence committees. Those people put forward that they wanted arms and ammunition for defence purposes but they said they would like training first and they would like to have an organisation.

6408. I do not want to interrupt you but in fact you are saying things substantially you said to us before.

—I know.

6409. You are on the record as saying them. How does that answer the question I asked you about showing where? I am trying to avoid repetition. It is not that this is irrelevant but you are saying things you have said before and that are on the record.

—I am coming very quickly to something else. I want to emphasise this point about this Bailieboro meeting. This was reported in the normal way. This is the meeting where I think someone suggested here there was some complaint about my activities emanating from the Minister for Defence. I do not know whether this is on the record before but I want to make sure it is on the record that this complaint came from the Minister for Defence concerning this Bailieboro’ meeting. The suggestion put to me was that it came from the Taoiseach. This Bailieboro’ meeting, as far as I am concerned, is the genesis of this operation and this has been denied—any knowledge of it—by the Minister for Defence which to me is slightly sinister in itself. The next point is this, and this is where I want to come to Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence. He says in October I attended an IRA meeting. I think he said in County Monaghan. This is completely and utterly wrong. What actually happened was this. A fellow from Northern Ireland rang me and said he would like to see me in a hotel in Monaghan on a particular day. I arrived down to the hotel. He brought me in and we sat under the stairs in this particular hotel and we had a chat. I noticed a few fellows around the place and I said to this lad “What is going on?” and he said there was a meeting going on. He said a meeting of republicans was going on. Actually, being an Intelligence officer, I said would it be possible if I could get into this meeting. And he said, “No, not a chance, what do you think?” I never attended the meeting, so therefore this statement made here is completely wrong. The next point I want to come to is that the Chief Superintendent made a statement here. He mentioned Pádraig or Jock Haughey going to England.

6410. I was hoping to come to these things in due course with you. I can understand the argument that since you went on with a large number of activities and nobody stopped you at any stage that, therefore, you had authorisation from day to day, and that if you were not authorised why were you not picked up, etc. etc. I understand that argument which is an argument in a negative sort of way. Nobody shouted “stop”, to quote somebody, but did anybody shout “Go ahead”? I do not mean it in regard to the Intelligence or liasion. I mean in regard to the arms.

—It was certainly “go ahead”.

Captain Kelly withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 10.5 p.m. until 11.0 a.m. on Wednesday, 10th February, 1971.