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, 15 Meitheamh, 1971

Tuesday, 15th June, 1971

The Committee met at 7.30 p.m.

DEPUTY P. HOGAN in the chair.

ORDER OF THE DÁIL OF 1st DECEMBER, 1970.

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

Mr. Mícheál Ó Móráin, sworn and examined).

11746. Chairman.—Do you wish to make any preliminary statement?

—I wish to reiterate my position that I have conveyed to this Committee in my letter. I need these particular files, firstly, the files comprising the reports from the Garda dealing with the alleged attempted importation of arms and sums allegedly offered to procure arms. There were at least three of these. The final one being the report discussed by me with Mr. Wymes and Mr. Fleming.

11747. Chairman.—Now that the noise outside has subsided perhaps you could tell me the files you are interested in?

—Firstly, the most important ones of which there are at least three, the final one being the report discussed by me with Mr. Wymes and Mr. Fleming and I think this was mentioned in Mr. Fleming’s evidence here with you. They discussed this report with me when I sent for them. Secondly, there are a number of reports sent me by members and or ex-Members of the gardai as a result of visits to the North of Ireland on my instructions. These reports were discussed from time to time by the Government. As their existence on this discussion was denied by Deputy Gibbons I want those produced. I also made some notes on them. Thirdly, there are reports of subversive activities running from August until the time I left the Department. They would not be so many.

The position as far as I am concerned with these reports is that I need them to refresh my memory. I made notes on some of them. It is a well known established rule of courts and procedure before tribunals that the best evidence should be obtained. I will give you chapter and verse of that if you require it. The best evidence is of course these documents. I have told you they were refused to me before although I would like to point that Counsel for the Attorney General in the arms trial stated publicly that he was waiving all questions of privilege with any matters touching that trial. They made an exception to that rule in my case and refused me permission to have access to these files although taking this attitude publicly.

I want to say that I would need much more time as I have not been following the proceedings of your tribunal except occasionally in the press. I have been away for some time while this Committee was sitting and I would need time, outside getting these documents, as I would want to see them and I would want to read the evidence given before you.

I do not know that there is, at this stage, anything else I need say to you. In my letter I set out my position here and my submission to you, Mr. Chairman, is that you have statutory authority to get these files. I have quoted you the authority from your own Act establishing this body and I suggest to you that it is your business to get the best evidence on this matter and to get these files made available to me.

11748. Chairman.—Of course, we appreciate that at that time you had been ill and it is understandable that after 12 months, particularly having been through an illness, you would not be able to recall all details to a fine point— nobody could. In fact, we ourselves are forgetting some of the evidence; it has become so voluminous. Do you wish to go on and give what evidence you can indicating how infirm it may be at any particular stage in view of faulty recollection or, to be completely fair to you, do you wish to stop until this question of the documents you mentioned is considered?

—I think that that would be very unsatisfactory, both from your point of view and from my own. For instance, just a few moments ago upstairs I came across one report containing the evidence of Mr. Fleming here. This was evidence of a report that he gave to me and discussed with me. It appears to me that he has been completely inaccurate in some of this evidence to this body. The proof of it is available to this body in the report that was supplied to me at the time. Therefore, I do not see why the tribunal of inquiry should not insist on getting these reports. In fact I feel that when this gentleman was giving evidence before you he had notes and reports to which he referred. Some of these events took place, I think, up to 18 months ago—certainly more than 12 months ago—and it would be utterly impossible for me, without making reference to some of the notes I made and to these files, to be accurate. I wish to make it quite clear that it is my desire to co-operate with this Committee to the best of my ability. I do not want to stultify you in any way. I have nothing whatsoever to hide from this Committee or from any other committee but there is a well established rule about best evidence. The written record of these events is there and I think that from both my point of view and the point of view of your Committee, it would be very wrong to proceed in this way while the records are available.

11749. Deputy Tunney.—There is one question that I should like to put to the Committee. So far as Superintendent Fleming’s evidence is concerned, I do not know what reports you have, but they would seem contradictory in parts. On page 2 we would have information that Mr. Fleming did indicate to us that the only factual information which he had on the matter of moneys—while I appreciate what you say about the statutory regulations— but in so far as the evidence which you might give would refer to the expenditure of the £100,000 would establish, as I see it, whether it was relevant. On the other hand, I do appreciate that, perhaps, you as a witness, as in the case of any other witness coming before us, would like the opportunity to clarify points that were made even though they were not relevant to our inquiry, that opportunity should be given to you but, through the Chair, what I wanted to ask you was whether you think there is evidence on these files that would be relevant to or of importance in the matter of the expenditure of this money?

—That is so. My opinion—if I stick to the terms of reference quoted at the top of one of these documents—with my training I would say that most of it could not be relevant to this, at least to the extent that I can see. It reads:

Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann, sitting to examine specially the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief issued from Subhead J, Vote 16, (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969/1970 and any moneys transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to a bank account into which moneys from this Vote were or may have been lodged, pursuant to Order of Dáil Éireann made on the 1st day of December 1970.

All I can say—and this is my opinion—all I can say is that all I know about the £100,000 is what every member of the Dáil knows—that it was passed by the Dáil for the purpose which we all know. From that on, I have no evidence at all about its expenditure. All this—if you take Mr. Fleming’s evidence as being relevant to this £100,000—does not appear to me to be relevant—he is talking about different sums. Some people’s characters were taken away by evidence given here. I know this at least—where some of his statements are concerned they are untrue so far as my knowledge went. He did not, for instance, ever tell me that Deputy Haughey gave £50,000 to anybody, or Deputy Blaney either, and the record about that report is there and can be obtained.

11750. Deputy Tunney.—In fairness to Superintendent Fleming he never said that Deputy Haughey gave £50,000 to anybody.

—That was my reading of it.

11751. He said that he understood that Deputy Haughey met a member of the IRA and promised him money. I remember specifically asking him questions on that.

—He said also that that was reported to me. So far as my recollection goes that is not true. The report he gave to me is there.

11752. He subsequently withdrew that.

11753. Deputy Keating.—I listened to Deputy Ó Moráin when he made the initial argument about the need for best evidence and the need to see these files. I must say I was entirely convinced by what he had to say. I am sure this is right. We now seem to be, without any resolving of the issues raised, rambling into a discussion about the issue. I would prefer that we clarify our procedure first.

—I entirely agree with Deputy Keating. I think the proper thing to do is to stick to the well-established rule of best evidence and to get these files here from which they can be quoted and checked, and the different times to which they refer can be gone into if the Committee so desire. That is by far the most appropriate, and not only the correct thing, but the right thing to do.

11754. Deputy FitzGerald.—I was going to suggest, in agreeing with Deputy Keating, that a possible procedure would be to limit ourselves to such questions as may be necessary as to establish the need for particular files to be produced. I would not think that we should go into the merits of any of these issues at this point in view of what the witness has said. If we want to make the case that the files should be produced it may be necessary to ask questions in order to see why Deputy Ó Moráin feels a particular file is necessary and to put us in a strong position to obtain the files. I suggest that we confine ourselves to that.

11755. Chairman.—Deputy Ó Moráin, the line of questioning that I would be pursuing and that we would be pursuing would be in regard to Books 8, 9, 11 and 19. These are nearly all dealing with Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence and the questioning of the Commissioner. Books 8, 9, 11 and 19. I can pass the numbers to you. These are the only parts that I know of in all the evidence where you appear and I wish to ask you about. If you feel strongly that you would like to have these files before we go into these questions, if you like to look at them now and say “These are questions on which I would like to have the files”, if you would like five minutes to look at them, I would be quite happy. In all fairness we are anxious to give you as a witness whatever help we can.

—I will direct my attention to these books which you have mentioned if you give me time. I still feel that we will end up in the unsatisfactory position of having to travel back and forth in my recollection of what is in these files. All these matters came to my attention through these files. I know the sources. I could not, without reading these, really countenance how far I could go. Certainly I feel that I am entitled to these files and that they are the best evidence. They are a contemporaneous record of my knowledge of these events. Therefore I think it would be more satisfactory from everybody’s point of view if I had them here available to me.

11756. Deputy Keating.—Could we then follow Deputy FitzGerald’s suggestion that we try and get clear that there were three sorts of files Deputy Ó Móráin wanted? We could have validation of why we are seeking them. That would be a reasonable thing to do at this stage.

11757. Deputy FitzGerald.—It would be necessary for us to show cause for these files to be produced and wishing to facilitate the witness we should help him to show cause in order to help him and to enable us to proceed.

11758. Chairman.—Offhand, I cannot think of the most appropriate kind of question to put.

11759. Deputy FitzGerald.—I have some questions ready. If you will just take the documents you mentioned—reports from the Guards concerning arms and sums paid for arms—I think you used some phrase like that and it is the latter part that we are particularly concerned about—you say that there are at least three of these?

—Yes.

11760. You are saying that there are these three reports which contain references not only to the import of arms but to sums of money being paid or promised, in regard to arms, so far as you can recall?

—Yes, that is so.

11761. So that in order to validate your recollection, you would need all three of these to assist us in our inquiries as to whether any of these sums paid for arms might have come from the £100,000.

—Yes.

11762. Then you mentioned reports sent in by members or ex-members of the Gardai on visits to the North which were discussed by the Government and whose existence, and discussion by the Government presumably, was denied on oath by Deputy Gibbons. Could you, first of all, give any reference to this denial? I do not, offhand, recall it?

—I am referring to the proceedings before the Central Criminal Court.

11763. You have not got the direct reference to the particular denial?

—No, I have not, but I have a distinct recollection of it because I was asked specifically about it myself and I have evidence on this myself and there were reports of as many as 12 people being up there sometimes. Some of these reports are highly critical of Army Intelligence, bearing on what I said, lack of co-operation between the two intelligence bodies. This Committee may not consider that revelant, because, in the main, I wanted to show beyond all doubt that these reports are there, that these men went up and reported back and I quoted these reports to the Government and specifically to Mr. Gibbons.

11764. Would you like to indicate how you think they are related to our inquiry more directly?

—It is hard for me to say. I cannot really say, in conscience, reading these terms of reference, that the reports would help in the job you are engaged in.

11765. Do any of them refer to the question of arms purchases, in your recollection?

—I cannot conscientiously answer that question now. They were mainly about conditions in the North and about the work of Captain Kelly and other Army Intelligence officers in the North. I cannot say from recollection … I do not think, from recollection, that they touched on money.

11766. Would they have touched on the question of Captain Kelly’s authority in any way? This is one of the issues which we have before us?

—They were certainly critical of him. …

11767. It is not quite the same thing.

——and that he was taken by my people to be a member of Army Intelligence working under instructions in the North of Ireland.

11768. You said that you had notes on these?

—On some of them, and I cannot now recollect, but I do recollect that I have notes on some of these files—which of them I cannot say—but I had certainly notes on some of them.

11769. Would they be likely to assist your recollection in relations to matters before the Committee?

—They would undoubtedly, because they were made, some of them, when I was in a rush to Government meetings and these reports were given to me by the Secretary of the Department of Justice just before I went to meetings and I made some notes of them and some notes on them. They would certainly assist me, and, of course, the question of the timing of these reports as you can appreciate is very, very important. There were a tremendous number of events taking place very quickly up in the North of Ireland and the significance of some of these … I need the dates to refresh my memory.

11770. So that the two main grounds for looking for these reports are that, first of all you have notes on them which would help you to refresh your memory of what you knew at any given time and secondly, in so far as they would assist in regard to the time sequence of events which we might be investigating?

—Exactly.

11771. There are then the reports, approximately one per month, on subversive activities from August to May, on which I think you said you also have notes. Would these reports in your recollection, or any of them, contain references to arms importation or purchase or offers of money for that purpose?

—Some of them did, in my recollection.

11772. Financial references, references to offers of money?

—Reference to funds coming into the hands of subversive operations.

11773. I think we have established that they are potentially relevant but we would have to examine them to see if these could be or might have been or were from the £100,000. My final question which I want to put: You stated that in reading Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence, you came across something that was completely inaccurate?

—Yes.

11774. Would you like to direct our attention to that in so far as it might be relevant to our inquiries?

—You will have this report, firstly, as to evaluating his evidence. The source I believe he is referring to—cross-checking—is a source that was not reporting direct to his section at all and a source which was regarded as very doubtful by Commissioner Wymes and myself. Secondly, there is this reference to Deputy Haughey— “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.” He says that at page 419 of this volume for February 9th, 1971. To the best of my recollection, it is untrue to say that he told that to me or that his report contained that. The report we are speaking of is there and it is available.

11775. Chairman.—Perhaps I could ask you: would you look at Book 11 and at Question 5965 and the subsequent entries there at page 420? He speaks there of payment of money and you might read on from that to the next page?

—Is this about Mr. Harry Blaney?

11776. Yes. That deals with the passage of money. Do you feel that in dealing with that you are handicapped in not having these files?

—It does indeed and there are two sums mentioned here, £200 and £2,000, and the point of time is an important factor.

11777. Deputy MacSharry.—On this point, it is agreed by the witness that there is a doubt as to whether these files would enable the Committee to gather any knowledge about the expenditure of the £100,000, that the terms of reference would not give us the authority or the power to look for them or to get them. Is this doubt there?

—If this question if referred to me——

11778. Not necessarily; I am just referring it to Deputy FitzGerald who is making the case for these documents, and we have to have reason for looking for documents in relation to our terms of reference.

11779. Deputy FitzGerald.—I thought from the questions I put that what I elicited was reasons for getting each of these files because they would help in relation to questions concerning sums of money paid for arms. Of course, until we see the files and examine the matter further we could not know whether they came from the £100,000, but once money for the purchase of arms is involved which might have come from that source it seems to me to be immediately within our terms of reference until we discover that it did not.

11780. Chairman.—There is a further point. In the Books I mentioned 8, 9 11 and 19. Deputy Ó Moráin is specifically mentioned and he may wish to have an opportunity to comment on what has been said in reference to him in these particular Books.

11781. Deputy Keating.—If I might add to that I am personally satisfied with the reasons given by Deputy Ó Moráin as to why these three categories of files should be sought. There seems to me to be another reason which applies to the way we have carried on our business in this Committee. Put it this way. I do not think we can stop in the middle if we are to seek to be fair. If we have allowed in the past certain sorts of information to be introduced and certain people to be mentioned then we, by that action, take on responsibility towards those people and we have to try and find other sources which will either validate or invalidate things which were said so that we can then express an opinion. While I think the reasons already given are adequate I think in equity in regard to the way we carry on our business that that is a further reason why we have to do this.

11782. Deputy Nolan.—There is one point I wish to make and it is in reference to the £50,000 which Mr. Haughey was supposed to promise to the IRA. It is in Book 19 and in answer to a question Chief Superintendent Fleming said:

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

Therefore, there would not be anything in any file in the Department of Justice that would state that Mr. Haughey promised £50,000 to the IRA?

—The first I heard of that £50,000 was in the evidence before this Committee. I have no hesitation at all in saying that. I can say that without any reservations.

11783. Deputy MacSharry.—Or with a meeting with Mr. Haughey and a leading member of the IRA?

—I am quite sure that Mr. Wymes, if you sent for him, could be questioned on this. I have no recollection whatsoever of this. I am quite sure it did not happen.

11784. Deputy FitzGerald.—You have no recollection of what exactly?

—There was only one £50,000 mentioned at any stage to me and that was a sum was alleged to be promised by Captian Kelly for arms. That is the only figure of £50,000 that was ever mentioned to me.

11785. Did I understand you to add—I may have misunderstood—that there was no reference in any of these verbal reports to you of a meeting between Mr. Haughey and anybody in the IRA? I may have misunderstood you on that?

—Not with Deputy Charles Haughey.

11786. Deputy Nolan.—When the Special Branch reported to you verbally did he always give you a written report as well that was filed?

—My recollection is that I think there were only two conferences. They were sent for by me as a result of some reports which came up to me and this is what happened on this occasion. This was the most elaborate one they had. I think certain things were being conveyed to me by the Secretary of the Department from different sources. There were reports from these. Specifically there are three important ones of which I have recollection, the final one being the one when I called them in. I called in Mr. Wymes and Chief Superintendent Fleming when we discussed certain implications. Again, I have not read these things fully. Perhaps the Chief Superintendent retracted or amended that statement in some way or some of the others did, I do not know.

11787. Chairman.—As far as I recall Chief Superintendent Fleming said that the Comissioner requested the big meeting, the one in early December, 1969. I think that was what Chief Superintendent Fleming said.

—My recollection is that I got this report and I instructed Mr. Berry to get these two men in.

11788. Deputy FitzGerald.—This is one of their reports?

—Yes.

11789. Deputy MacSharry.—Chief Superintendent Fleming in evidence in page 420, question 5671 was asked:

Did you have any reply back and instructions from your superiors?

He replied:

—No, actually the previous Minister for Justice sent for the Commissioner and myself on this matter.

That is Chief Superintendent Fleming’s own evidence.

—That is my recollection. There were only a couple of occasions on which I had the two of them in at the same time and my recollection is that I sent for them.

11790. Deputy Nolan.—Could you recall in any meetings with the Special Branch was the possibility of public moneys being misappropriated discussed?

—No, to my recollection. I was trying to find out both from Mr. Gibbons and others the source of this £50,000 that came in reports about Captain Kelly.

11791. When did it come to your notice that public moneys may have been used for the purchase of arms?

—The first time that came to my notice, to the best of my recollection, was during the arms trial. That is my first recollection of it. There were a number of reports about this alleged £50,000.

11792. Chairman.—I want to correct one thing here in regard to a statement made by the Deputy in respect of who asked or sought this meeting between Deputy Ó Móráin, the Commissioner and Chief Superintendent Fleming in early December, 1969. It is in Book 19, the 3rd of March, question No. 10098 the question was asked:

The Minister did not initially ask you to meet him?

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

That second statement from Chief Superintendent Fleming is different from his first statement. The one the Deputy quoted was an earlier one.

11793. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is it about a different meeting?

11794. Deputy MacSharry.—I was quoting evidence he gave.

11795. Deputy FitzGerald.—Could I ask another couple of questions arising out of what Mr. Ó Móráin’s has said? You referred to reports by Mr. Berry which were separate from the Special Branch reports. Are there any of these that you feel are relevant, that you would need and that we would need?

—His source of information was different to the sources of the Special Branch at that time. I do not know whether there are files on what he said to me or not but it was mostly verbal. It was verbally he reported to me. One of the reasons I am asking for files on subversives is that, from time to time when they would come in I would send for Mr. Berry and we would have a discussion on some implications of them. I believe that I made notes on some of them and there may be some reference to this source in some of these.

11796. His reports were actually verbal but some of the contents would be featured in the monthly reports on subversives. Is that right?

—The reports he made to me were certainly verbal from the particular source I have in mind but the reports of the others are something else. The reports from Commissioner Wymes and Mr. Fleming were in writing and are there and, as Mr. Fleming says in this volume anyhow, I sent for them. That was the procedure on each occasion I had them, to the best of my recollection.

11797. To your knowledge are there any tape recordings that would be of use or of value?

—I had no tape recorder.

11798. You are not aware of any tape recordings having been taken of discussions in the Department that might be helpful?

—I am not so aware. They could be there, particularly in the Special Branch, without my knowing anything of them. I can speak only of personal knowledge.

11799. You said earlier that you were trying to find out, I think from Deputy Gibbons, about this £50,000 concerning Captain Kelly. Perhaps we should leave that for the moment.

—He was his officer.

11800. Yes, that would be outside the scope of our present discussion.

11801. Chairman.—Gentlemen, you have heard the points made by Deputy Ó Móráin. He is anxious to have the help of these files. You have had an opportunity of asking questions and if you have any further questions to ask on that aspect, ask them. If, however, you have concluded I suggest that we go into private session for a while and perhaps Deputy Ó Móráin would be kind enough to wait?

—Yes, of course.

11802. Deputy MacSharry.—There is one question I wish to ask in relation to the bulk of Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence. He was asked about this the two occasions on which he was here. As a result of the meeting with you and Commissioner Wymes you told him to keep checking on this particular report and nothing further emerged. This, to me, with such alarming evidence or information, whatever one likes to call it, coming at such a time and when it was checked further by the Gardaí and the Special Branch, nothing further emerged is surprising. Nothing further on this report of December, 1969 came before you in any other report?

—Again on times—I remember distinctly this last report. It is a long one and I could not possibly keep the details of it in my mind. There was a lot of this very airy fairy stuff—Dúirt bean liom go dúirt bean léi—I asked these people to try and cross-check or get some confirmation of these matters. They were the instructions they got from me at that particular time but of course this was reported elsewhere too.

11803. Deputy FitzGerald.—Are there any documents other than those that would be in the files mentioned which would assist your recollections in regard to any communication you had with the Taoiseach on these matters— any other documents that we should look for which would assist your recollection of that?

—There may have been communications between Mr. Berry and the Taoiseach who was directed by me to report direct to the Taoiseach. There may be written communications between him and the Taoiseach. I had a number of interviews and discussions with the Taoiseach in connection with these matters from time to time at that particular period. I certainly would not have committed any of this to writing at that particular time for very obvious reasons.

11804. Deputy E. Collins.—In your report to the Taoiseach, was Captain Kelly’s name involved?

—Yes, any information I had from any source the Taoiseach got both from myself and from Mr. Berry.

11805. Was there any question of any possible illegal importation of arms financed from this Fund?

—Not from this Fund. I have told you in my letter already, reading the terms of reference, no more than any man here knows or I as a member of the Dáil and a member of the Government at the time knew is that a decision was taken to provide this money. I have a general recollection about the trouble concerning the Irish Red Cross not being able to operate in the North and about these committees being set up. If you will recollect the period in which we were then living—a period of crisis particularly for a month or so—a time of great trouble in the North when events were moving very quickly. There were a number of discussions at Government level about the North and the various things that might happen. We were expecting anything to happen at that particular time and I had no knowledge of the spending of that money any more than you have. In fact, you probably have much greater knowledge of that now. My first recollection of hearing the allegation being made that this Fund was used for the purchase of arms was at the arms trial. I read in today’s papers of the denial by Mr. Devlin that funds were used at all to get arms. I did not hear it suggested and when I asked for the source of this alleged £50,000 that Captain Kelly had, nobody could tell me or suggest any source for that money. Certainly, it was never suggested that it was coming from the State in any form. This was denied to me by Deputy Gibbons who said it certainly did not come from his Secret Service Fund. This I knew very well because his was less than my own.

11806. Deputy R. Burke.—Mr. Ó Móráin, you said you had a number of interviews with the Taoiseach. Could you say approximately how many?

—Of course, I was meeting the Taoiseach regularly but I have specific recollections of three special interviews about these matters.

11807. At approximately the December/ January period?

—Yes, but I would be able to pinpoint it better if I had these files.

11808. It would not have been as late as April?

—I would want these files before I could say.

11809. Deputy Keating.—Deputy FitzGerald has been inquiring about other possible sources of documentation. I would like to follow that line of thought. Deputy Ó Móráin has told us that he inquired about possible sources of the £50,000 that had been mentioned. I want to ask Deputy Ó Móráin if, at the time that Captain Kelly was responsible in a ministerial sense to the Minister for Defence, would there be any documentation that would relate either to exchanges between you and Deputy Gibbons or between Deputy Gibbons and the Taoiseach or any documentation relating to that area?

—No. There is a note, I think, on one of the files. We were having all this difficulty about duplication of one arm of the State service not knowing what the other were doing. I was trying to correct that or at least trying to find a modus operandi at the time. I remember telling Mr. Berry that I would go and see Mr. Gibbons about these allegations that were coming in concerning Captain Kelly. I saw him a couple of times but I saw him specifically on one occasion. I mentioned it to him on a few occasions. I asked him specifically about this alleged £50,000 that Captain Kelly was supposed to have got.

11810. Would there be any aide memoire or any other documentation in relation to that?

—It may come to me. I am nearly able to pinpoint the time from one of these reports. It was a result of information I got that I was making these inquiries. I did not know and none of my people could suggest, certainly at that time, and I do not know since, from what source the £50,000 was coming.

11811. Deputy Keating.—Apart from the three categories of documents you initially suggested are there any others which now come to light in view of what we have been talking about that might help you to validate or invalidate things which have already been told to us?

—It is difficult for me—I had many reports about all kinds of things. I feel that the most helpful thing would be the cross-references of some of them to something else. I believe that these are the most relevant ones to the best of my recollection.

11812. Chairman.—If you are satisfied perhaps we could go into a private session for a quarter-of-an hour and then let the witness come back again.

(The Committee deliberated).