|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE(Minutes of Evidence)Dé Múirt, 20 Aibreán, 1971Tuesday, 20th April, 1971The Committee met at 7.30 p.m.
DEPUTY P. HOGAN in the chair. ORDER OF DAIL OF 1st DECEMBER, 1970.Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) was in attendance in an advisory capacity.The Committee deliberated. Mr. Harry Blaney sworn and examined.10728.—Chairman. I call Mr. Harry Blaney. 10729. Chairman.—Is there any statement you want to make at this stage, Mr. Blaney? —Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I could like to say first of all, that I regret that you could not accede to my request in relation to having counsel to address the Committee and to recall Mr. Fleming for cross-questioning because I am convinced that it could be shown, if this was allowed, that Mr. Fleming was not telling the truth and this would be borne out by someone other than myself who would be more capable of cross-questioning Mr. Fleming on this. When I was first summoned to attend before you, my first reaction to it was that I would not attend. I will give the reasons why now. I do not think it is constitutional—this enquiry at all. I think this Committee or this enquiry was set up, or allowed to be set up by the powers that be, to blacken, blackguard and discredit certain political figures and, for this reason, my first reaction was that I would not appear for those reasons I have given you. On second thoughts, I decided that I would appear before you to contradict what has been said and to let the public know that I have nothing to hide, which I have not, and all I can say is that anything that has been said about me, as I have already said publicly, and I am saying it now under oath, I still believe to be a lie and the person who issued it if he is not a liar himself he has been listening to people who have been telling him lies. This is all I have to say. 10730. The only point I wish to make at this stage is the question of the constitutionality. We have to proceed on the basis that we are constitutional. That is the decision the Committee took. If the Courts find otherwise at a later stage that is a different matter. At this stage we are proceeding on the basis that we are constitutionally correct. That is the only comment I can make on that aspect of it. I would like to give you the opportunity of replying to the evidence which was given here in respect of you. We will give you two books if you have not got them already. —I have not read the evidence except in the newspapers. 10731. Books 11 and 19. —Books 11 and 19. 10732. Book No. 11. Paragraph 5691. —5691. 10733. That is evidence given by Chief Superintendent John P. Fleming. I think Deputy E. Collins was examining at the time and in Paragraph 5690 he said: You mentioned Mr. Blaney’s name? Mr. Fleming replied: Yes. The witness was asked: Where does he come into your information? Chief Superintendent Fleming said in reply: He handed over certain sums to the IRA from time to time, both he and his brother. 10734. Do you wish to make any comment on that? —None except the comment I have made in the public papers that this is a lie. It could not be anything else. I have no knowledge of any sums of money one way or the other. 10735. Paragraph 5692 Deputy Collins states: Mr. Harry Blaney … handed it to the the IRA himself? The reply was: Yes, money and arms. To the further question: And arms? The reply was: Yes, that was my information on it. —Again the same thing applies. I don’t know of any members of the IRA personally. Therefore, it would be very hard for me to hand over anything to them. I certainly did not, either arms or money. I have no knowledge of money being handed to the IRA or arms either. 10736. You will notice further on he stated he had not got dates but it would be some time in October or November in 1969. He did not know the amount but he stated in Paragraph 5696 there was a sum of £200 at the beginning, towards the end of September 1969. In Paragraph 5697 he was asked: £200? and he replied “yes, and there was a sum of £2,000 three weeks or a month later.” Your evidence would be that that is untrue? —Yes, that is untrue. 10737. If you turn to Paragraph 5720, have you anything to say with regard to this? —The same thing applies here. All of this is untrue. 10738. Do you reject all the statements by Superintendent Fleming in paragraphs 5721, 5722 and 5723? —Yes. 10739. If you turn to Book 19, Paragraph 9888 do you reject this? —Yes, the same thing applies. It is untrue. 10740. Paragraph 9889? —Again untrue. 10741. I take it you reject it as far as yourself is concerned? —Yes. 10742. Deputy MacSharry.—Could we have the paragraphs read out? 10743. Chairman.—Yes, if you wish. Do you want me to start at Paragraph 9888? 10744. Deputy MacSharry.—Yes. 10745. Chairman.—Paragraph 9888 reads: The information you received in relation to the handing over of funds by Harry Blaney—you said that Neil Blaney’s brother handed over £200 and £2,000 at different times? You just mentioned Mr. Neil Blaney as handing over certain sums to the IRA from time to time—both he and his brother? —Yes. Paragraph 9889 reads: Is it your information that both of them are involved? —That both were involved, yes. Paragraph 9890 reads: You know of the denials by these people? —I know of the denials, yes. Paragraph 9891 reads: You have nothing further to add to that? —Not to that, no. It is authentic as far as I am concerned. 10746. Do you deny all that as far as it applies to you? —Yes, in so far as it applies to me. That is all I can speak of. 10747. Paragraph 9995 reads: You mentioned the name of Deputy Blaney and that of his brother, Harry, at Paragraph 5690, and at other sections on the same page of Volume 11. You stated that Mr. Harry Blaney handed over money and arms to the IRA. —Yes. 10747. Do you deny this? —This again is untrue. 10748. Paragraph 10099 reads: In reply to Question No. 5723: “I see. It is the Minister and his brother jointly who are involved. It is not a separate operation?” you said—“This is jointly.” Again you mean Mr. Blaney and Mr. Harry Blaney there. Have you any concrete evidence that that was the case? —I have no concrete evidence. 10749. Do you wish to make any comment on that? —All I can say is that it is very clear to me and I am sure to the Committee as well in regard to the evidence you have taken from Chief Superintendent Fleming that this man is telling lies and has been lying all along as far as I am personally concerned. This reply he has given indicates that that is so—that he has no concrete evidence. Yet he tries to make the statements he has made. 10750. I take it, then, you are prepared to state that you had no transactions in respect of the purchase of arms or any of the State money? —Never at any time. Neither did I have knowledge of any other persons purchasing arms at any time. I have no knowledge whatsoever. 10751. Deputy Barrett.—Apart from the purchase of arms, do you know anything about how this £100,000 was distributed, or did you take any part in its distribution? —I have no knowledge whatsoever of the £100,000 or of how it was distributed except what I read in the paper. 10752. Deputy R. Burke.—No questions. 10753. Deputy E. Collins.—You are aware that Deputy Blaney did recommend that certain moneys be given to various people in the North, especially in August, 1969? Are you aware of this? —I am not aware of any moneys—— 10754. You are not aware that at that time he was helping out? —Not at all. Except from the evidence I have read, I do not know anything in connection with this. 10755. You never contacted anyone in the North? —Never at any stage. 10756. Or distributed any moneys from this fund? —None whatsoever. 10757. Deputy H. Gibbons.—No questions. 10758. Deputy Keating.—I am in something of a difficulty because some of the material I wanted to pass on to the witness has not in fact been made public. I should like to refer Mr. Blaney to proceedings which we have not published. If I do it at this stage we will be publishing part of them in a selective way. Would it be possible for the Committee to have a private discussion briefly to discuss how we might properly proceed. The Committee deliberated. 10759. Deputy Keating.—Mr. Blaney, I wanted to refer you to two questions simultaneously. The first is from Volume 11 which I think you have and I think you also have Volume 19. In page 420, Paragraph 5692— we have been over this in fact already but I just want to refer you to it—the question was: He handed it to the IRA himself? And the reply was: .. Yes, money and arms. You have explicitly denied that entire reply— both money and arms. Now, on Page 759 of No. 19—this was when we had Chief Superintendent Fleming back again—at the bottom of the first column, Paragraph 10121, I asked the question about an alleged transfer by you on the 18th of September 1969 to the IRA of £200 and I asked the question as to whether it might have passed through other hands and the reply was: It is quite possible that there was an intermediary. You see the reply of Chief Superintendent Fleming, who says it is quite possible that there was an intermediary, which is not quite the same as Paragraph 5692 where he says: “He handed it to the IRA himself”. —Yes, contradictory evidence. 10760. We have an explicit denial from you of the truth of the statement that you handed these things, either money or arms, to the IRA yourself. I wanted to ask you—did you hand over moneys to an intermediary, knowing them to be destined for the IRA? —No. I said, I think, on several occasions here that I did not hand any money over to anybody, apart from the IRA and the same thing applies here. I did not hand it to anybody to give to the IRA; I did not hand any myself. 10761. I would like to refer you now— perhaps Mr. Chairman, you could have given to Mr. Blaney the name of the person I want to ask him about next; I do not want to refer to it—— 10762. Chairman.—The code? 10763. Deputy Keating.—I do not think we need to use the code, quite honestly, Mr. Chairman. 10764. Chairman.—Very good. (Name handed to witness). 10765. Deputy Keating.—Mr. Blaney, we have evidence which suggests to us that you may have had a meeting with the person whose name is on that piece of paper? —I do not know anybody of this name. I have never met such a person—at no time. 10766. Did you have any meeting, apart from knowing him—perhaps we can get these things explicit—did you in August or September of 1969 have any meetings with the person whose name is on the paper in front of you? —None whatever. I never met him; I do not know him. 10767. Am I right in the rapid note I made previously which says in reference to your brother, Mr. Neil Blaney: “I was not aware at all that he was helping people”—this is in reference to the distribution of money as distinct from arms? —I was not aware that he was. 10768. You said that until you saw the evidence—again I wrote it down as you said it; it may not be exactly what you said but we will have the record of exactly what you said in the transcript—you had no knowledge about how the £100,000 was distributed. This is until of course the evidence of the trial of last year? —Yes. 10769. Is that correct? Am I understanding you correctly on that? —This is quite so. 10770. Did I also understand you correctly to say that you do not know anybody in the IRA? —I do not know of anybody connected with the IRA other than the reports in the papers. Apart from that, I have no knowledge of them, good, bad or indifferent. 10771. I had better say about the next question that I am asking you something which you may not want to answer, and if you do not wish to go into it, I will entirely accept your declining to do so. You said about Chief Superintendent Fleming—and again I wrote it down as you said it; they may not be exactly your words but they are substantially your words: “this man is lying all along”. That is what I wrote down and you have, I think, expressed that sentiment a number of times. We are in the position—let me say this before asking the actual question—that we have from Chief Superintendent Fleming explicit statements about you and we have from you equally explicit and categorical denials of them and we are faced with the task of assessing both of these things. We are faced with the task of assessing both of these things. Would it be possible for you to give us any opinion as to why if as you say he is lying, he is lying? —I already said he was either a liar himself or his informant was a liar or he is being used by somebody else for their own purpose. This is the only conclusion I can come to. 10772. Is it possible for you to amplify that? —You can draw your own conclusions from what I have said. It is quite obvious what I am talking about. 10773. We are faced with the task of having to make a choice between absolutely explicitly conflicting things and you know that you are here in public and you have an opportunity to help us in that, if you wish to do so. —I have helped in so far as I can. I have answered your questions. I think you have more evidence before you than I have. You met Mr. Fleming in committee and I dare say you extracted some information from him there that I have not got. I am not in a position to comment on it. I have given you all that I can give you. If you want to ask me more questions about it, I will answer them. 10774. I do not want to. I said you might not wish to reply. I find this difficult. I find that from two sides there are totally conflicting and absolutely irreconcilable statements. I would find it helpful if you wanted to indicate why you thought somebody has lied about you, as to the reason why, if there is one. —I think the reasons, if there are reasons, could be as obvious to you as they are to me or to any member of the Committee why this man might have implicated me at all. I had nothing at all to do with it, either with the handing over of money or arms to the IRA or anybody else. I was astounded when I found that he made this statement. I do not know why he made it. The only guess why he would make it, I dare say, is more to implicate somebody else rather than myself that the statement may have been made. 10775. I am not going to try to persuade you to say things you do not want to say. That is all I want to ask you. Thank you. 10776. Deputy MacSharry.—You did say that you were astounded when you heard the evidence of Chief Superintendent Fleming. There was, at that time, reports of you handing £200 and figures as high as £2,000 to the IRA and you have denied that. Did you know of any handling of funds whatsoever around this time? —None whatever. 10777. We are only concerned with funds in relation to the Grant-in-Aid. You also stated—correct me if I am wrong—that you had no knowledge of your brother, Neil Blaney, giving assistance by way of funds to certain people and organisations in the North? —No, I did not have. 10778. Just one final question: were you ever, since August 1969 to now, interviewed in relation to these allegations by the Gardaí? —Never, no. 10779. Thank you. 10780. Deputy Nolan.—In August—September, 1969 quite a number of people, including myself, were associated with the collection of funds and clothing and food for the relief of distress in the North. Were you associated in any way with this which could lead to any misinterpretation by people? —I was not. I think I attended one meeting in Letterkenny when the committee was formed for the collection of funds. That was all. I was just there as a spectator. I had nothing whatever to do with it. I was not on the actual board of that Committee. Apart from being at that one meeting, that was the only knowledge I had of it. 10781. This was only one of the many meetings held in many areas for the collection of funds from the public to be channelled via the Red Cross? —Yes. 10782. Deputy Treacy.—What knowledge had you of the creation of this fund for the relief of distress in the North—this £100,000? —Apart from what I read in the papers I had no knowledge at all whatever. 10783. When did you first learn about it, and its purpose? —That is very hard to day because it is a good while back since it first appeared that this vote of £100,000 was being made available. I could not say when I first knew but the first I knew was when I read it in the papers. 10784. Have you any knowledge of the Clones account? —Nothing whatever. 10785. The Baggot Street account? —Nothing either. 10786. What part, if any, did you play in assisting in providing relief in the North yourself during this period? —Really none whatever. 10787. May I take it you took no part in the distribution of financial or material aid to the people in distress there at that time? —I did not, no. 10788. I have heard you say that you received no money from these sources yourself or did not pass on any money? —That is so. 10789. May I put the question again? Did you personally receive any money through some other person or intermediary which may have come from the funds we are now discussing in this investigation? —I did not. I have no knowledge of any money passed on to me or passed from me. 10790. Deputy Tunney.—I have very little to ask except on a point of clarification which you might like to make. You might want to make a distinction. Earlier on I took you to say you had no hand, act or part in the distribution of this money or that you did not know it was available. I thought perhaps you might want to draw a distinction here. I could say the same myself, that I had no hand, act or part in it, but I knew the money was available. I thought for the record you might want to clarify whether you knew that moneys were available for the relief of distress in the North? —Apart from its being voted in the Dáil to this fund. How it was to be distributed I had no knowledge of it and neither did I inquire how it was to be distributed. More than to know it was there, I knew nothing about the workings of it. 10791. You did, as other people had, have some idea that money was available? —Yes, but what for I did not really know. 10792. Chairman.—Do you know Captain Kelly? —I do. 10793. How long have you known him? —Since some of the times he had been before the court. It was one of those days of the Arms Trial. 10794. You did not know him up to then? —No, not up to then. 10795. That is all, thank you. Mr. Blaney withdrew. The Committee adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 21st April, 1971. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
