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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 21 Eanáir, 1971

Thursday, 21st January, 1971

The Committee met at 10 a.m.

DEPUTY P. HOGAN in the chair.

ORDER OF DÁIL OF 1st DECEMBER, 1970.

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

The Committee deliberated.

Mr. David Carroll sworn and examined.

2225. Chairman.—Now, Mr. Carroll, our questioning to you will be very brief and simple so you can relax completely. There is nothing to be worried about?

—O.K.

2226. Your presence here derives from the fact that I think your initials are on some of these ledger statements that we got?

—Yes.

2227. If you look at the main account first, your initials appear on that, do they?

—They do, yes, on 15th January.

2228. And the one on the 5th March, that is not yours, is it?

—That is not mine, no.

2229. No. Well, there is a date there, 22nd of January 1970, and these are your initials after it. Is that correct?

—That is right.

2230. What does that signify?

—It signifies that I balanced the statement with the ledger cards, that I saw that the balances agreed before giving out the statement.

2231. Before making out the statement?

—Before giving it out.

2232. And you did prepare a statement?

—I prepared a statement, yes.

2233. At whose request? Just routine duty, was it?

—One of the staff—some one of the staff on the counter downstairs. I was working upstairs at the time.

2234. Yes. You do not remember specifically who?

—I would not remember.

2235. And when you had made out this statement to whom did you give it?

—One of the staff on the counter. I could not remember which one.

2236. Yes. Would you handle the cheques, the returned cheques, at the same time?

—Yes, the statement and the cheques would be in a sealed envelope.

2237. And you would put them into this envelope and seal it, would you?

—Yes.

2238. And hand it to somebody else?

—Hand it to somebody else.

2239. Well, in the ordinary course of this type of work, this sealed envelope and the statement, would you address the envelope?

—I would, yes.

2240. And can you recall in this case whether you addressed the envelope?

—Well, I could not recall it but I am sure I did because I addressed all envelopes going out.

2241. And what address would you put on such an envelope?

—The address that was on the ledger card.

2242. The ledger card. Well, you can, look now at the top of that ledger card in front of you?

—Yes.

2243. And let us assume at the moment that you cannot remember distinctly what you did that particular day, but if you were doing it now again, or doing it in the ordinary course, what address would you put on?

—I would put on here, on this, on the main statement here, I would put on “Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress” and I would not have put any address on that, I would have just put the name of the account.

2244. The name of the account?

—Yes.

2245. And you would hand it to somebody else?

—I would have handed it then to somebody else on the counter.

2246. And is that what you did in this case, do you think?

—I do not know.

2247. You do not know?

—No.

2248. Do you know if, you cannot recall who requested you to prepare the statement on that particular——?

—I could not recall.

2249. Can you recall whether the person wanted it for giving out immediately?

—I could not recall because I would have had so many of these in in one day.

2250. Yes. And you would hand them all to the one official on the one day, would you?

—No. It could be any official depending on the person—if the person came in looking for the statement whichever official he went to at the counter to ask for the statement.

2251. Yes. And you would prepare the statement and hand it to that official?

—Yes.

2252. And after that it was not your concern?

—It was not.

2253. Well now, what about posting out statements?

—Yes.

2254. How would you have to deal with that at all, the posting out of statements?

—I would have to deal with that also, yes.

2255. And how would you know what to post out and what just to leave to——?

—Well, there are orders in for, you know, standing order, for statements to be sent out monthly——

2256. Monthly or so on, yes?

—Or weekly and also you get requests by telephone for a statement to be sent out.

2257. This statement in this case was not a standing order?

—I do not think so.

2258. Then this statement would be prepared by special request?

—Yes.

2259. But you do not know whom the special request came from—whether from outside the bank or in the bank?

—I would not know that at all.

2260. You are quite satisfied a special request was made for this statement and that you prepared it?

—Yes.

2261. You just wrote, or presumably you wrote, the name of this particular fund on the outside of it and then gave it to some senior official in the bank?

—Yes.

2262. When you are preparing this type of statement do you show the ledger entries or just the balance?

—It shows the ledger entries.

2263. It shows credit entries, lodgments, withdrawals, credits and debits?

—Yes.

2264. Something like the one you have in front of you?

—The statement is just a smaller form of this ledger card.

2265. Do you ever prepare shorter statements just disclosing the state of the balance?

—If there had not been any entries since the previous statement was sent out.

2266. But ordinarily a statement is taken exactly?

—Yes.

2267. And it always shows on the top the entries that are on top of the ledger card?

—No, just the name Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress would be on the top of the statement.

2268. The names White, Loughran and Murphy would not appear on the statement being sent out?

—I do not know, really. I do not think they would.

2269. To turn to the George Dixon account, are there any entries there by you?

—Yes, on 6th and 9th January. The same date is on it with my initials.

2270. Showing you checked the balance, prepared a statement, that you had got out the returned cheques and that you had put the cheques and the statement into an envelope?

—Yes.

2271. In this case what did you do with the envelope?

—I cannot remember.

2271(a). In this case, if you look at the top of the ledger card, the only entry would be George Dixon, care of 2, Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2, businessman. What would you have put on that envelope? Can you recall?

—I cannot recall what I actually put on it.

2272. In the ordinary way what would you put on it?

—George Dixon, Esquire, care of 2, Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2.

2273. In that particular case you cannot recall to which particular person, to which official, you handed the sealed envelope?

—No.

2274. It was the same day as you prepared the main account?

—Yes.

2275. The request, presumably, had come from the same source?

—Possibly. I cannot say, really.

2276. In the case of the third account, is there any annotation of this account from you?

—No, there is not.

Mr. Carroll withdrew.

Martin Richard Power sworn and examined.

2277. Chairman.—If you look at the large main account, the ledger card first, are there any entries by you?

—My initials are down on 5/3/70.

2278. That would be on 5th March?

—Beside 5th March.

2279. Opposite 5th March. Could you tell us generally the circumstances of that entry, what does is signify?

—That I checked the amount on the statement against the amount on the ledger card to see if it was right and then I would get the statement ready.

2280. The statement would be very like the one you have in your hand, containing essentially these figures up to that date?

—Yes, up to 5th March.

2281. Then, what else would you do?

—I would get the cheques with the statement and mark the cheques off against the cheques on the statement, their numbers and amounts, I would put them into an envelope and give it to whoever asked me to get it.

2282. Who asked you to get this one?

—I am afraid I do not know.

2283. Would you address the envelope?

—I would put an address on it.

2284. Can you recall putting an address on this envelope?

—I do not recall but most likely I would have.

2285. Which address?

—Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress.

2286. You would not put any names on it?

—Well, Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress is in larger type than the names on it so I would put that one on.

2287. You would realise that this statement and the returned cheques that were put into an envelope were intended for somebody?

—Yes, it would be intended for somebody.

2288. Will you explain to me how could that purpose be achieved if there was nothing put on the envelope except Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress?

—If somebody had asked me to get the statement ready, that is what I would put on it to show them that the statement was inside the envelope.

2289. And you would just hand it to whatever official asked you?

—Yes.

2290. In this case—I do not know whether you can recall it or not—you think you just prepared it as usual and handed it to some official?

—To somebody, yes.

2291. Turning to the next account—the George Dixon account—do you appear on that one?

—Yes, 16-3-70.

2292. Your entry there signifies that you did all these things you have mentioned in respect of the previous ledger card?

—Yes.

2293. In this case, can you recall what address you put on the envelope?

—I cannot recall what address I put on it but I think I would have put on “George Dixon, Esquire.”

2294. This would be the usual medium-sized brown bank envelope?

—Yes.

2295. Again, you handed that to whatever official you thought appropriate, or who would come to you?

—If I was asked to get it I would hand it to whoever asked me.

2296. You do not recall who asked you? —No.

2296 (a). Or to whom you handed it?

—No.

2297. The next account—the Anne O’Brien account—do you appear on that one?

—Yes, 16-3-70.

2298. On that date you prepared a statement?

—Yes.

2299. You checked the balances?

—Yes.

2300. You got the returned cheques?

—Got the returned cheques, yes, and put them in an envelope.

2301. You examined them and put them in an envelope?

—Yes, and sealed the envelope.

2302. You cannot recall who requested you to do that?

—I am afraid I cannot.

2303. The request came to you on the same day as in the two previous cases?

—The three requests came on the same day.

2304. You do not know from whom the request came?

—I am afraid not.

2305. You prepared the envelope. Did you address it?

—If I addressed it I would have put “Anne O’Brien” on it; if it was for somebody downstairs I would have put “Anne O’Brien” on it.

2306. You sealed it?

—Yes.

2307. Again, you do not remember to which official you gave it?

—No.

2308. So, in respect of these three accounts, in which you prepared statements on the 16/3/70, you are not able to help us as to who requisitioned the statement or to what official you gave the envelope when you had completed and sealed it?

—I am not.

Mr. Power withdrew.

Patrick Joseph Morrissey sworn and examined.

2309. Chairman.—You are assistant manager at the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot Street?

—That is correct.

2310. How long have you been in this particular branch?

—In Baggot Street since 1962.

2311. So you have been there all the time while this business was being transacted?

—I was not in the branch from, I think, September, 1969 to 31st December, 1969.

2312. From September, 1969, to 31st December, 1969?

—During that period we had a temporary office, No. 14 Lower Baggot Street. I was in charge down there and I would be there all day. I would call to the parent office in the morning to see letters and correspondence but that would be only a matter of about five or ten minutes. What took place in the office during those days I would not have any knowledge of.

2313. Then, you were not in the Baggot Street office as such when these particular accounts were being opened?

—No.

2314. So you are not able to help us as to the circumstances in that regard?

—As to the opening of them, no.

2315. You mentioned here about a cheque for £12,000 drawn on the account of George Dixon, in favour of cash?

—That is so.

2316. Could you tell us in your own words the circumstances of that?

—It is part of my normal duties in the office on any particular day that certain cheques would be brought to my notice for some reason or other, lack of funds or something wrong with the make-up of the cheque. In this particular case it was a case of lack of funds. Some cheques I would have the discretionary power to look after myself, to go direct to the customer and try and arrange it by telephone or something like that. In this particular case the amount involved was outside my discretionary power and I would bring it to the manager. Having shown it to the manager he would then instruct me to take some line of action.

2317. Mr. Morrissey, you have just been furnished with——

—Code.

2318. With code and if you have occasion to use any of these names in the course of any statement you may make or any replies you may make we would request you not to use the names but to use the code.

—Yes.

2319. You appreciate why we are doing that I take it?

—Yes, Mr. Chairman.

2320. And if you are in any doubt you may consult your solicitor behind you before you reply. Now I am nearly finished with you actually. There is not going to be a detailed examination in that respect. You have mentioned this question of a demand for £12,000 that had to be met urgently.

—Could you repeat that again? I do not catch it, Mr. Chairman.

2321. You mentioned this £12,000 drawn on the account of George Dixon in favour of cash, and it seems to me there was some urgency about it, that that was your impression?

—Well, any account that, normally a credit account, suddenly springs up into a figure of, say, £10,000 overdrawn, a certain amount of not urgency but you would have to take immediate action as to what is going to happen to know where the funds would come to put it into credit again. I mean, as I can see these accounts, there was no arrangement at all for any of these accounts to be overdrawn.

2322. The amount was payable to George Dixon. The cheque, I beg your pardon, was payable to George Dixon, is that correct?

—It was a cheque on George Dixon’s account.

2323. On George Dixon’s account, yes. Who presented the cheque?

—Now, Mr. Chairman I would not know who would present that cheque. He could have been passed direct to a teller on the instructions of the management, and here again a teller would not pay out a large amount without permission, so who presented the cheque I would not know.

2324. But you were worried about the funding of the account?

—The funding, yes.

2325. And in that context, although you were worried about the funding of this account——

—I would not say “worried” would be the right word, because we would look back on an account and go through its history and see that this was an account all the time credit and certain funds were coming into it from a certain quarter, and we would be quite happy in this occasion that if as it did arise that funds were needed we could go to a certain quarter and be sure of getting funds to put it back into credit again, though I would not say it was urgent.

2326. Well, there was no curiosity on your part as to whom you paid it out to?

—No. Well, at the time of course I would ask in any cheque, if this was a particular case where it was a cashed cheque and I would go, I may have gone to the teller and said: “You paid out this amount of money. Did you know anything, why you did it? Did you know it was lack of funds?”, something like that, and I would get, but in this particular case I am sure that I went first to the manager with it and there it rested. I took my instructions from then on from the manager and I would not have to go to the teller and find out anything about it.

2327. The paying out of £12,000 in cash, would that be a frequent or an infrequent occurrence in a bank of your size in Baggot Street?

—Oh, it is a transaction that takes place fairly frequently for one reason or another. You must remember cash can come under the heading of wages or anything like that, you know, and as such in the payment we would be involved with much larger sums weekly.

2328. But this payment would not come under that heading?

—No, well then you see these accounts were exceptional. These accounts were set up for a specific purpose and the relationship to them regarding others would not fall into a pattern.

2329. Deputy H. Gibbons.—I would just read part of your statement, Mr. Morrissey, covering this £12,000:

I recollect that in or about the month of February, 1970 a cheque for £12,000 drawn on the account of George Dixon in favour of cash was referred to me as there was insufficient funds in that particular account to meet it. Neither were there funds in the joint account in the names of John White, John Loughran and Roger Murphy adequate to cover it. Since the cheque had to be dealt with immediately a certain amount of anxiety arose.

I think it is fair to say that you can infer from this statement that you knew of the association between these two accounts?

—Oh yes, to a certain degree.

2330. I wonder could you explain just how you knew?

—Well if you go through the account, George Dixon’s account, you will see that I think I am right in stating that it was being fed from the account of White, Loughran and Murphy. That is the only source that I could see that the money was coming from, and the way I was looking on it then, if anything sprung up which did, I would look first then to see what way the other account that the funds normally came from and having seen that it did not hold funds, then I would have to take a different line of action.

2331. Well I take it then that at this particular time had the White, Loughran and Murphy fund been OK you would not have worried at all about the subsidiary fund?

—Not immediately, no, I would still put something in process to get the money from that account.

2332. Well now, you mentioned that you rang Mr. Fagan’s office and you were talking to Miss Morrissey and you emphasised that no figures or names were mentioned?

—Yes, that is so.

2333. I take it that this is part of your training in dealing with——

—With customers, yes.

2334. ——Customers, yes. It is a difficult problem for a customer, that a certain amount of tact and diplomacy is exercised? —That is so.

2335-6. And also that you would be very discreet as to how you would mention the name of the account over the phone and that kind of thing. In this case you mentioned that no names or amounts were given. If the account were to be mentioned, would you be more likely to mention one rather than another?

—I would not mention any.

2337. In the course of your business would you have many cases analogous to this whereby a subsidiary account drawn on a parent account would have run out? Would you have many such cases in the course of your work from one week to another?

—In designating a parent account, normally it would be the same name as the subsidiary. It would be either one account or two accounts. It would be an office account, a wages account or a client’s account. Therefore, you would see the relationship immediately but it would be a different matter altogether where there were three different headings—it would not be normal.

2338. I take it then that in dealing with a client’s business under the heading of one, two or three accounts, if the overall picture were OK you would not be very worried?

—No.

2339. Deputy Nolan.—In your statement you said you rang the Department of Finance and asked for Mr. Fagan and when he was not available you spoke to a Miss Morrissey and told her that the account was overdrawn?

—No.

2340. You said you were short of money? —No.

2341. You explained discreetly to her that funds were required by the bank?

—I may not have used these exact words but I would say that certain funds were required and by that I would hope that Mr. Fagan would get the message.

2342. But would you mention a particular account?

—No.

2343. In the course of your statement you said you cashed approximately five cheques and took lodgments now and again. Can you recollect how many people you met in dealing with this?

—With the help of these photostatic copies of cheques—there were five instances where individuals came to me with the cheques. If you have copies there you will see that there were two for George Dixon, one of £200, another of £200. Anne O’Brien, £500; White, Loughran and Murphy account, one for £1,200 and the other for £1,000. In the case of these five cheques I think I am right in saying that certain individuals came into the office with these cheques completed as such and would have gone to a teller. Being the amounts there mentioned the teller would not pay out ad lib. He would have to send it to be verified. He would not be in a position to leave his box and find out if there were funds in the account so the normal practice is to send it up to me. I would then look at the ledger cards and see if there was money in the account. Then, I would initial the cheque, for funds only. In these particular cases, five cheques are open cheques and I would have no occasion or reason to question the holder of the cheques.

2344. You would not meet the person who presented the cheque?

—Yes, the holder of the cheque would come to me.

2345. You state that you did meet certain persons but the names you mention there are fictitious?

—You are saying that now. So far as I was concerned, George Dixon was a fully alive person—the same for Anne O’Brien and the other three gentlemen.

2346. How many of the persons did you meet?

—Three.

2347. Could you tell us who the three persons were?

—I can only tell you——

2348. Using the code.

—One was Mr. J. The name of one of the other gentlemen has been mentioned here, J. J. Kelly. I am afraid I cannot let you have the name of the third person unless you are prepared to squeeze it from me. My training does not permit me to mention his name. I have to protect the person concerned so I am not free to mention his name.

2349. Deputy E. Collins.—Is he a citizen of the Republic?

—Yes.

2350. Deputy Keating.—Could his name be written down and circulated to us? If there are views subsequently perhaps we would then have time to deliberate on it.

2351. Deputy Nolan.—This is very important.

2352. Chairman.—Would you tell us in private session?

Mr. Morrissey.—If you permit me to do so, I will write the name down.

2353. Deputy E. Collins.—You are aware that we may publish it?

—This person came to our office with a cheque drawn on one of these accounts. I know him very well personally. We were very busy. It is part of my job that if I see people whom I know but who would not be known to the tellers—there are six tellers —we do not like people going up to the teller and being sent back to me to have a cheque initialled so if I see such people around and if I can help I would meet the person in the hall, initial the cheque there and then and tell him to go on the queue. This happened in this particular case.

2354. Deputy Nolan.—Perhaps Mr. Morrissey would let us have the name in writing and before we would use it in public we would have to consult again with Mr. Morrissey?

—Thank you.

2355. Chairman.—It deals with these funds which we have been charged to investigate. While we appreciate the confidential relationship between a bank officer and a client, I think the other matter supersedes that consideration.

—Here again I am only an employee.

2356. Perhaps if you wrote out the name for us and handed it around? Would that satisfy you, Deputy?

2357. Deputy Nolan.—Yes.

(Name circulated.)

2358. Deputy Nolan.—You do not know who got any of the statements or the pay cheques?

—I have been here all day yesterday and this morning and heard all the questions involving the statements and the cheques. The two gentlemen that were here this morning during that period were upstairs in what we call the cheque room and it would be their job to prepare statements. In this way a request would come through certain channels, several kinds of channels, from downstairs through the intercom, through a telephone coming in, or from some member of the management, requesting to get up a statement and in this particular case it was asked for in three accounts apparently at the one time—I do not know, I imagine that it is—and their duty would be to come downstairs, collect the statement, go to the ledger, compare the balance and go upstairs with the statement, get the cheques and mark off all the cheques, see that the cheques, are the same as what is on the statement and put it into an envelope, address it and here, may I add, in addressing, it is up to themselves how they address it. They may have different ways—Mr. or Miss, Esquire. The account is in White, Loughran and Murphy and my idea is that the envelope should be to Messrs. White, Loughran and Murphy.

2359. What was the value of the cheque that was presented by the person whose name you have just given us?

—£1,200.

2360. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am sorry, I did not hear that.

—£1,200.

2361. On which account?

—On the Loughran, Murphy, on the 28th of April.

2362. Deputy Tunney.—In connection with the overdraft you know that we did have evidence at some other stage from your manager and the impression was, I thought, given by him that he had contacted Mr. Fagan in connection with the overdraft. If that arose did it arise from the fact that you did not get satisfaction resulting from your inquiry?

—No, I would not think so. It would be rather that when I informed my manager of the state of the account with this cheque he would take prior action if he thought fit and, knowing Mr. Fagan and knowing the set-up of the accounts much better than I did, he would himself at this time approach the customer concerned at all times. This is a figure that is outside my discretion to talk to people because if I had got on to Mr. Fagan and was able to contact him or if it was yourself that was concerned and I contacted you I would have to go back to my manager and say what happened and it would be a case of then you go back again so the manager would come in direct.

2363. You do say that you made the effort at contacting Mr. Fagan?

—Subsequent I would say. Mine was a subsequent one. The manager would have and having failed and he would be busy, he could not be all day waiting on the phone, waiting to get Mr. Fagan, so I would then try to get on to Mr. Fagan and if I succeeded in getting Mr. Fagan I would say: “The manager wants you for a certain purpose”.

2364. Yes, but that did not occur?

—That did not occur. Failing that then I gave the message to Miss Morrissey to tell Mr. Fagan that certain funds were required and I just left it at that.

2365. But that would indicate that the manager had not spoken to Mr. Fagan?

—I would say so, yes.

2366. I see. And if you mean the manager did speak to Mr. Fagan would you expect him—again I know one can only speak for oneself—but as far as bank etiquette would be concerned——

——If the manager spoke to Mr. Fagan that would be a matter between the two of them. I would not necessarily be informed of what took place. The manager would come out to me and he would say: “Paddy, pay that” and that would be the end of it.

2367. I know, but I was following another line. Presumably if he spoke to him he would speak in the same terms in which you indicate people speak about bank accounts?

—Oh, yes. Discretion would be very much up on top.

2368. And as far as you were concerned, and you would have been instructed into this account in so far as you were absent when it was opened, the nature of this account was told to you presumably by the manager or some other official in the bank?

—The point about this is where any account you learn a terrible lot in the office in the involvement of the people around you. You do not go into a huddle or nobody comes along to you and says: “Mr. Morrissey, this account has been opened and this person and that person and so-and-so. VIP treatment”. You just learn it through the ordinary motions inside in the office. Some little incident will come up about a cheque. I do not know—we have several thousand accounts in the place and while I am there since 1962 I would not say that I would know the set-up of every account.

2369. I understand.

—It is only when something comes up in the morning’s post or during the day’s work —somebody says: “Do you know anything about this?” and somebody will chirp up and say: “Oh, do you not know who that is?” and that is how we all learn.

2370. One final question, Mr. Morrissey, and maybe I should not ask this at all, but earlier on you said that you understood, that you were fully aware of the fact that this fund had been set up for a specific purpose. Now, in circumstances where those two words would have been used elsewhere with, perhaps, a different connotation would you elaborate on what you mean by “specific purpose”?

—It is a general expression—that these funds, if you like, the whole set-up of these three accounts, were set up with the help of the Government for the good of certain people in another part of their country where we could not go in and hand it out.

2371. For relief?

—For relief, yes. For the good of the people—whatever. As far as I was concerned——

2372. Deputy Tunney.—OK. Thank you.

2373. Chairman.—Mr. Morrissey, in regard to the issue of statements on these accounts, the main account or either subsidiary, would you post them out?

—Here you are again. There is no set way of sending statements. It is always at the request of the client. We get our instructions usually on opening the account. We would say to a person—this is average I am talking about—“What way would you like the statement of your account? Would you like it weekly or monthly or whatever way?” If they say: “I do not mind” we might suggest then monthly. On the other hand, if nothing occurs when the statement sheet is full it automatically would go out to the customer. We do not hold if possible an accumulation of statements, sheets in other words. We would get choked up. To avoid that position we send out a statement when the sheet is filled unless customers state otherwise.

2374. I see. I was drawing attention to the cautionary note that had been written on the top of each ledger card?

—Which card are you talking about?

2375. The cautionary note?

—Do not send out statement?

2376. Yes?

—Well, here you are again. That could— I was listening to the statements of my colleagues yesterday here; I agree with them in everything they say, but here there is one little aspect in this that I brought out this morning. When a statement sheet is booked and filled up down to the end and, if we have no specific instructions, that would automatically be got out in due course and sent out to the client with the bank cheques.

2377. By post or messenger?

—Usually by post. To avoid that happening, we would put a notation at the top in some form or other saying that no statement was to be sent out. It also could mean that no statement should be sent out at all unless a specific request for it was made. The statements are a vital part of the relationship between client and banker and you cannot be sending out a statement unless he wants it.

2378. And you in the course of your duties did not hand a statement to anybody?

—No.

2379. In respect of these three accounts? —In respect of these three accounts, definitely not. I do not recall it and I would be very surprised if I did hand it out and I could not recall it because I do not hand out very many statements.

2380. The handing out of statements is done by several people in the office, I take it?

—Yes. If I got a request to send out a statement I would ring upstairs and say Mr. So-and-So wants a statement, get it ready and bring it down. That would be done, brought down, but it would not necessarily mean I would hand out the statement myself. You see, the office is huge —where I am concerned, you do not—if I am dealing with a person who wants something specific, I do that and there is an interval and I step on to the next person. I might have three or four more people to deal with by the time the statement would come down and if the clerk came along with the statement I would say “There is Mr. So-and-So there; hand him out the statement” and he himself would pass over the statement over the counter to him.

2381. Mr. Morrissey, statements were prepared and returned cheques were, with these statements, put into envelopes on several occasions. You have told us you did not hand it to anybody so I presume you did not post them or send them by messenger to anybody. Can you tell us have you any knowledge of anybody else who may have done so?

—Hand out statements?

2382. These statements in respect of these accounts?

—Now this is something that has come up and there is no answer to it. We have no reason at all to offer as to where these statements, once they were made up, put into envelopes and the envelopes posted, from that moment on where they went to or what next, or whose hands they were delivered into or what way they were delivered—we have no record at all of it.

2383. Are there officials who may not have been in the bank at the time this could presumably have been handed over who may be in another bank now?

—In other words, transferred out?

2384. Yes, apart from Mr.— ——Mr. Walsh?

2385. Mr. Walsh, or any others?

—Yes, one other official was transferred out during that period. That is Mr. Gleeson.

2386. Mr. Gleeson will be coming here before us later?

—That is all I can recall of a transfer of an official since 1st January and it was since that period the statements were handed out.

2387. I wonder would you look now— you have them there together—at the lodgment forms, the Munster and Leinster Bank. There are five lodgment forms which deal with the Dixon account. They cover all the Dixon account after part of the first entry?

—Dixon?

2388. Yes?

—One, two, three, four, five lodgments, Mr. Chairman.

2389. If you take the one—I am trying to pick out the ones you are familiar with— for £4,000, the lodgment to current account of George Dixon?

—Yes, on the 13th March. It may not have come out very well in your copy.

2390. That was lodged by J. J. Kelly? —Yes.

2391. Who took that lodgment? What teller?

—I would have taken it.

2392. Mr. Morrissey —now we have one for £1,000 lodged by Mr. F—the teller’s stamp is——

——What account is that, Mr. Chairman?

2393. They are all George Dixon accounts?

—Oh, yes, for £1,000—yes.

2394. It was lodged by Mr. F—would you compare the name with your code?

—That is correct, yes.

2395. It was lodged on the 25th March according to the teller’s stamp; who was the teller then?

—No. I—you want the name of the official?

2396. The name of the official who took that lodgment?

—I would say it was a Mr. Thornley, judging by the initials overhead.

2397. Mr. Thornley?

—Mr. Thornley, yes.

2398. A new one?

—There are about 37 of us in the office and at various stages we would be involved. You will have us all here in time.

2399. Now, Mr. Morrissey, there is the one for £12,000?

—£12,000, yes.

2400. That was lodged by Loughran and Murphy?

—It is a cheque. There is a little pencil notation here—a cheque, Loughran and Murphy. In other words, I would assume that £12,000 was made up of a cheque drawn on White, Loughran and Murphy.

2401. Then Loughran and Murphy did not appear in person?

—I would not think so, no.

2402. That is the one we were discussing a moment ago, is it?

—Yes.

2403. The one in relation to which you handed around the piece of paper?

—No, no. That was a £1,200 cheque. It was an encashment of a cheque.

2404. And who was the teller in that particular case?

—No teller would be involved in that. That was a personal transaction with the manager, Mr. Deacon. It could have happened that a cheque would have been sent in by post, or something like that, and it would not necessarily mean that somebody was outside talking, or anything like that. That could have got in the post and he made out the lodgment.

2405. There is another lodgment for £11,450 which was lodged to the payment of the account of George Dixon and it was lodged, according to your lodgment note, by George Dixon. Who was the teller there? —The gentleman I would say was involved in that was Mr. Walsh.

2406. And then you have one for £13,000. It was lodged by Mr. K?

—I had better put in K. I hope I am right. I will say yes, then.

2407. Who was the teller on that occasion? Who dealt with Mr. K?

—That was handled by Mr. Dixon, the manager.

2408. To go back to the previous one which was lodged by George Dixon, does that mean that the person, George Dixon, must appear outside the grille, or does it mean that anybody can come and say “I am lodging this for George Dixon”? —I do not think that would be such. Anybody can come in and lodge to George Dixon’s account but I personally myself— and I think this the normal procedure— when a person comes in and says “I want to lodge to George Dixon’s account” I would say “Certainly, how much?” and I would fill it up and I would pass him a lodgment docket—to whoever was outside the counter and say “Would you sign along there for me please?”

2409. This is all in the same handwriting? —I would not think so. I do not think it.

2410. Would you not?

—No. If you look at the D of both, the one on the top, the George Dixon, and the George Dixon signature, they are very much different and the X in the Dixon on top is a completely different X formation from the one below.

2411. Your opinion would be that it was the person outside the grille who would sign that, who made that signature “George Dixon” and that that person purported to be George Dixon?

—If that was the normal thing, I would say yes. I would assume the gentleman was signing his correct name.

2412. I think that is all, Mr. Morrissey, thank you.

2413. Deputy Barrett.—In regard to these bank returns which were handed out would you have regarded Captain Kelly as being entitled to get these if he asked you for them?

—No. Certainly not. He would not have been entitled.

2414. Deputy Briscoe.—Money was taken out on 17th April on all three accounts? —17th April?

2415. 17th April, 1970—£1,000, £600 and £900.

—17th April—£600, £900 and £1,000.

2416. They were all taken out on the same day?

—Yes.

2417. You would have signed the cheques?

—The relevant cheques?

2418. Authorising the withdrawals? —No, not unless—

2419. Do you remember if you did? —Wait until I see. No, I have one here now. No.

2420. You do not know who drew out that money?

—Well, here you are—you have a copy, I presume, of the cheque?

2421. Yes.

—You have a photostat of it, and also on the back would be a photostat of the person who drew it out.

2422. That is on the three of them? —It is only on this particular one.

2423. It is possible he drew out the other two, by deduction?—It is an open cheque payable to cash. You may not endorse it at all.

2424. We have heard that according to proper procedures, the bank would not be authorised to hand statements out to anyone other than those on the ledger card. Is not it reasonable—and no one would be too critical of you in normal circumstances if someone who came in and who was working the account—in this case I am thinking of Captain Kelly in particular who was a frequent visitor—came and said “By the way, could I have the statements on these two accounts?”—it would not have crossed your mind to say “We are not authorised to give them to you” since, as you have said yourself, you realised this was an operation backed by the Government.

—Are you asking me as Assistant Manager of the Bank if J. J. Kelly came to me and asked me for the three statements——

2425. You said you would not have given the statements?

—I would not have.

2426. It is quite possible that a teller could have?

—Somebody could have.

2427. Deputy E. Collins.—Was there any investigation in your office as to by whom, and why, a statement was given out in relation to these accounts without proper authority?

—Yes. I made that personally myself when this question arose. I am—my duty is Staff Officer. Anything appertaining to the staff or about the staff is my duty to investigate.

2428. What was the extent of your investigation?

—I went to everybody—everyone in the office—who was associated with the operation of giving statements out.

2429. On what date did you undertake this operation?

—Recently, very recently. It is only recently that this came up so far as I was concerned.

2430. In the normal course of events it was noticed that the statement had been given out to somebody?

—There is no doubt whatever in my opinion that the statement has gone out.

2431. You usually undertake the charging of accounts half-yearly?

—Yes.

2432. In the middle of June?

—15th June and 15th December. That is when the charges go on to the accounts.

2433. You send statements as a matter of courtesy?

—We send statements at the end of the month—a couple of days after the end of the month.

2434. At the end of June, 1970 was it not noticed that statements had been taken out by somebody without proper authorisation?

—Here again the overall position—we have several thousand accounts in the place. We have several thousand accounts in the place and the going out of statements is not an involvement of mine, to inquire whether they go out or not or what has gone out.

2435. I would accept this in relation to ordinary commercial accounts but surely here on the heading of the ledger account page there are very specific instructions which had been recorded. Surely it would come to your notice that something had been done without proper authority in relation to the statements?

—Very senior staff are in charge of these. The girl who operates the accounts and does this part of it is supervised by another senior girl, and this is where you delegate your authority to them. It is only in a case like this that it comes up that somebody has slipped up if you like, in any aspect of banking procedure. In an office of our size one individual cannot go around and keep control of the business we have. You have to delegate certain departments. It is their duty. You do not worry about it anymore. You assume everything is going along smoothly until something rears its head and people come in saying “How the so-and-so does this happen?”

2436. When this account came to your notice did you assume the money was coming from Government sources?

—I did not assume in this way because I could see from the lodgments it was coming through the Bank of Ireland. The money was being funded by certain funds under the charge of the Government—some Government Department.

2437. Did you discuss the account with anyone in your office early in 1970, say? —Well, when I came back into the office in January, 1970, that is came back from 14 Lower Baggot Street to resume my normal duties in the office, at some stage this did come up and I met the accounts in some way or other and I was told that this was money being provided by the Government in a certain way and that it was to be given a certain amount of treatment which normally would not be given. There were no questions to be asked, no embarrassing questions regarding where the money was or what it was for.

2438. Who told you this?

—The management.

2439. Mr. Deacon?

—Well, it was a case of an account that everybody knows now the money was being provided to get up there.

2440. Pardon?

—It was being provided from the Government to get up to a certain part of the North, to help the people in the North.

2441. You were aware of that even at that early stage?

—Yes. It was self-explanatory, if you like, because it is there on top of the ledger—“Belfast Fund for Relief of Distress”.

2442. And still you just treated the account as a normal account from the point of view of statements and it did not occur to you at any stage to be very very careful in relation to statements?

—Oh! Lord yes, because it was put on the ledger card but here if I give an instruction or the management give an instruction to the staff that such and such a thing is not to be done and about three months afterwards or maybe—this is what often happens in offices.

2443. It often happens?

—Well, something will happen, you know, that due to the staff having done something contrary to what they have been told. They are human. This is what we are all in the element of errors, all the time cropping up.

2444. Something in favour of the computer then, is not there?

—Well——

2445. You had a discussion in February, 1970 with a Miss Morrissey of the Department in relation to £12,000?

2446. ——You did not explain the nature of your discussion?

—No, none whatever.

2447. You do not recollect?

—I recollect ringing the Department to ask for Mr. Fagan.

2448. Who was not available?

—Who was not available. I then asked for Miss Morrissey. I am under the impression that Miss Morrissey is Mr. Fagan’s secretary and I asked her to convey a message to Mr. Fagan that certain funds were required and I left it at that. I said words to the effect that I am sure he will understand what I want to get at.

2449. Did she understand what you wanted to get at, in fact?

—Did she?

2450. Yes, was she aware of the activity or of the existence——

—She did not ask any questions. She did not come back with any questions so I would say a certain amount that she might have known. She did not quiz me as——

2451. But you explained this briefly to her—your request? Was she aware of——? —Well, she did not come back with any pertinent questions as to what funds or who, or the nature of the funds or anything like that. She did not come back with any questions to me. She just only took my message and said: “That is all right, Mr. Morrissey. I will look after it” or words to that effect.

2452. In other words, that she would pass on the message to Mr. Fagan?

—Yes.

2453. She did not seem aware of the account at all or familiar with it.?

—Oh, no, no. She made no remarks at all regarding it.

2454. You have given us the name of an anonymous person who at this point of time shall remain anonymous. You were very friendly with this person?

—Oh, I know him for a number of years and it was of such that I went out and met him. At the moment of going out to meet him I had not a clue what he wanted.

2455. How many times did he appear in the bank?

—Once, to my knowledge.

2456. Did you have a discussion with him?

—Oh, well now I might be misleading there. He may have been in the office. Over a number of years, he may have been there several times. I would not say this was the first occasion he came into the office.

2457. When you found out the reason for his being in the office, did you have a discussion with him as to the nature of the activity on the account?

—No, no. I only went up and—we will call him Mr. A at the moment if you like—I went up and I said: “Hello, Mr. A. How are you? Can I do something for you?”

And he proffered this cheque to me and I initialled it and I said: “Go to the teller and that is the end of it.”

2458. Chairman.—Perhaps we will call him Mr. X. We are running out of letters.

—I will, right. Oh, you mean—I am only putting a name on this individual of my own.

2459. Deputy E. Collins.—It is not our Mr. A.

—I did not know you have a Mr. A.

2460. We have a Mr. A.

—You have not used X?

2461. Deputy Nolan.—The last on is Mr. X.

—We will call him Mr. X, then. When he appeared in the office, knowing him so well I just naturally went to him to find out if I could do something for him rather than delay—he would be delayed. It was the last day. The banks closed——

2462. Deputy E. Collins.—What was the date of——?

—The 28th April. This is why it is so vivid in my memory. It was the last day that the banks were opened before the closing down.

2463. This was very late in the account. The account had been opened since 11th November, 1969 and this was April, 1970 and this is the first time Mr. X appeared in your office. Did you not feel that this was peculiar or unusual?

—Oh!, no, not at all, none whatsoever, just a normal banking transaction, so far as I was concerned, with Mr. X. Whatever cheque he offered to me I would have initialled it without any comment.

2464. On the belief that he is a very substantial man?

—Oh! Lord yes.

2465. Any other reasons?

—A personal friend of mine, well known to me, undoubted for any cheque he would offer for cashment.

2466. You mentioned a discrepancy in the signature of Dixon?

—Yes. That is my own personal observation.

2467. When did it come to your notice? —Just now, when I was being questioned.

2468. Had you at any time cause to examine the signatures in the normal course of your duties in the bank in relation to this account?

—No.

2469. Who would do so or would any details be kept in this matter?

—When any cheques would go down to the ledger operator it would be her duty to be familiar with the signature of all the cheques.

2470. There appear to be different signatures, different spellings, especially in the O’Brien account, and the name White has been spelled White and Whyte?

—Yes. Regarding the spelling Whyte I would say somebody said: “Who is this account, the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress?” And somebody would—this is the part of a set-up in the office somebody you could not name would say: “Oh, that is White, Loughran and Murphy” and the person then, it is the way they would come to their mind, White, W-H-Y-T-E or W-H-I-T-E. It would be in different. But going down along through the whole process, going down to the ledgers, when it would arrive at the ledger clerk she would just nautrally assume too it was an error of somebody’s and would not be unduly worried.

2471. Well, in relation to the name O’Brien certainly there were deviations of quite a large extent of an unusual nature “-ien”, “-ein” and “-e” or possibly “-on”.

—Wait till we have a look at these cheques. I will try to help you but I would like to see the cheque. The cheques or copies of the cheques that I have here seem to be all drawn in the same way. I think there may be a bit of confusion here regarding a cheque, Ann O’Brien’s, for £8,500, “copy” written on it. That is not Ann O’Brien’s signature. I was wondering were you gentlemen being confused.

2472. No. No danger of that at all?

—The cheques I have here seem to be all written in the same way. There is not much of a variation.

2473. Deputy FitzGerald.—“ein”?

—Well, that is a matter of opinion because the “n” is not completely—the formation of the “n” is lacking.

The Committee adjourned at 11.50 a.m. until 12.20 p.m.

Examination of Patrick Joseph Morrissey continued.

2474-5. Deputy E. Collins.—We finished on the problem which I mentioned about the signatures. As far as you are concerned there was no appreciable difference in the signatures on the cheques?

—No.

2476. None that would give cause for examination?

—None whatsoever.

2477. Deputy FitzGerald.—On the question of the issue of the statements the question has been raised several times as to whether they might have been given to Captain Kelly in view of the fact that he was such a frequent visitor. In that connection it seems to me there were something like 35 separate dates on which money was withdrawn from these accounts and while some of these differences in date could be accounted for by a delay in the transaction going through the books, there do seem to have been a lot of transactions and if he was involved in most of them he would have been a pretty frequent visitor to the bank. Now, given the number of counter staff you have, how likely would it be that any one member of the counter staff would have got to know him so well as to identify him with the account to such an extent as to meet his request for a copy of the statement for the three accounts?

—Here you have the position—it is not the person behind the counter it is rather the person coming into the office and going straight to the person he knows, or she knows. It is not the person inside the counter specialising in, say, coming to me, it is the other way round.

2478. Yes?

—It is the person coming into the office will look around and he will see or she will see who attended to her or him the last time——

2479. Yes?

——and look out, or if they know the person by name they will ask for Miss So-and-So or Mr. So-and-So and I would say that was, whoever that person was, I——

2480. That is what I wondered. It struck me that Captain Kelly may have had a favourite teller, somebody he had got to know—one does the first time he goes into a bank and the man he gets to know he tends to go back to if he is free. Surely that is something we could establish as to is there any teller or tellers to whom he went more frequently?

—That is so. He could become intimate with——

2481. ——Yes. But I wonder, you have not in your inquiries got any information that would help us there?

—None, none whatever.

2482. Do you think it would be possible to inquire further and see whether if there were some tellers who dealt more frequently with him and who would have known him particularly well?

—Well, we have a permanent staff in the office but for some reason or other they would be switched around from different jobs to accommodate our requirements.

2483. Yes.

—We would have one or two tellers, they would be permanent all the time in a teller’s box but the others, the other three or four or two, would be changed from day or week to week. We could tie it down maybe to three for you.

2484. Yes? The others would have had such sporadic duty at the counter that it was unlikely that they would get to know him so well as to identify him with the account? —I would not think so.

2485. Yes. So really it is possible that there are two or three people whom we could talk to in more detail and see if we can possibly in some way prompt their memory, because it is obviously such an easy thing to forget but things that are easy to forget are sometimes easy to remember——

—That is so.

2486. If you can just say something that stimulates the memory in a particular case, some little thing, event, connected with it would just make a person remember it. I understood from previous evidence that when cheques came in from the bank-sorry, lodgments, or the relevant type of form, whatever you call it—came in from the Bank of Ireland that in cases where these were not made out to the account, and there appeared to have been about five or six such cases, it was your function to get on to the Bank of Ireland and to ask them who was the money for, or to confirm your guess as to who the money was for. Is that the case? If we look perhaps at the lodgment dockets——

——You mean the lodgment for the White, Loughran Murphy—?

2487. Yes, that is right, it is the White Loughran, Murphy account I am talking about now. The relevant ones, as I recall, are 21st November, I think 19th December —I am just looking at my notes now—6th and 12th February, 5th and 25th March. Now, if we take these, perhaps, one at a time and you may remember them more easily. The first in order appears to be 21st November. Can we find it?

—24th.

2488. The 24th, is it?

—Yes. The 24th.

2489. That is just my handwriting obviously. Well, it is the 24th with you but the date on it is the 21st. I was going by the date at the top?

—This document would be prepared in the Bank of Ireland on 21st.

2490. That is right, yes. I am sorry.

—We would only be interested from the time it arrived in our office.

2491. Is this your handwriting?

—No, none of it is mine.

2492. Do you recall whether you are the person who had to get back to the Bank of Ireland to decide to whose account this should be lodged?

—No. In my earlier evidence I pointed out how I was not in the office at that time. You have to come from 1st January for my period.

2493. Do you know whose handwriting it is?

—I can tell you whose handwriting it is. It is that of Mr. Moore.

2494. Yes, we had him yesterday. The first one in the New Year was 6th February, the Bank of Ireland date?

—Yes.

2495. Is this your handwriting?

—No, it is Mr. Ryan’s.

2496. And you did not make inquiries about this one?

—No.

2497. The 12th February? —That is not mine.

2498. The 5th March?

—This is a peculiar lodgment.

2499. This is the £4,000? —Yes.

2500-1. There is no date. There is no date written on it, no stamp date?

—That is 5th March. That lodgment was done by telephone. Apparently the Bank of Ireland transmitted that money to our office in Dame Street and Dame Street transmitted it to us by telephone.

2502. You have no idea why?

—That would be a matter for the Bank of Ireland—why they did it in that way.

2503. The phone call derived from the fact that the money went to the wrong branch. There is no special significance attaching to that?

—No.

2504. Did you inquire about it?

—I had occasion to inquire about this particular lodgment at the time because I got the message and it did not fall into the pattern of the names. The Belfast A Account was mentioned and I wanted something more specific and I got back to Dame Street to confirm whether this was money being transferred to the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress.

2505. In contacts like that, in any other contacts with the Bank of Ireland, did you have occasion to mention White, Loughran and Murphy?

—No.

2506. Had you any reason for that?

—Yes. In that respect, as far as I was aware, going back through the accounts, the Belfast A Account——

2507. Other lodgments had been to it? —Yes.

2508. This appears to be one of the strangest features of that. For a period of six months the Department of Finance, the Red Cross and the Bank of Ireland were all busy lodging money to the account in names quite different.

—I appreciate that.

2509. On 25th March were you in contact with them about the last transaction? —No.

2510. So that as far as you are concerned there was only one?

—Yes, and it was because it came through the telephone, through an official at the other end of the telephone. When you get a call on the telephone you normally ring back to see if it was correct.

2511. But you wanted the official to get back to the Bank of Ireland to explain why the lodgment of money occurred in such a strange way. You would have said, “For God’s sake lodge the money properly”, but as different officials at the other end were getting back, no one person was aware that the money was being lodged in this odd way. That explains it, I think?

—Yes.

2512. Have we photostats of the three different O’Brien signatures handed to the bank?

—I think you have.

2513. My impression is that we have only one.

—There are 22 photostats of all documentation we handed in.

2514. Deputy Tunney.—We have a photostat of the signature that was stuck on.

2515. Deputy FitzGerald.—We have only got the actual signature document itself. Perhaps if we had photostats of the three signatures.

—Do you want to see the original now?

2516. No but we should like to have the photostats for the records. Were you interviewed by the police?

—Yes.

2517. Have we your statement? I do not recall having seen it.

—I did not make a statement.

2518. Was there any reason—was it a matter of policy?

—I was not asked.

2519. They interviewed you but did not ask you to make a statement?

—That is so.

2520. Deputy H. Gibbons.—There is just one question I should like to clear up. It is a question of lodgment. You mentioned that in the Dixon account you passed out the lodgment document to be signed by the person lodging the money. Is this procedure absolutely necessary in lodgments?

—No, unless it was not completed. I accept it if the lodgment is completed, but in this George Dixon case I filled up the form and had then to get somebody to sign it.

2521. Deputy MacSharry.—We have heard in evidence that a kind of general discussion takes place in relation to accounts in the bank, possibly with people who are involved in lodgments and withdrawals from any account. You stated this morning that you met one other person who had not been involved, so far as we knew. Could it be possible that there were others? You may not have met them but in conversation were there any other people, other than the people who are mentioned?

—I do not know of anybody.

2522. Deputy Treacy.—The witness has already adverted to our secret code. He is familiar with it—A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K?

—I would want to see the code. I have not got the code with me at the moment.

2523. I think the witness should be made familiar with it.

(Document handed to witness.)

2524. Deputy FitzGerald.—Has the witness been given all the names or only certain names?

2525. Chairman.—Certain ones—F, G. J. K.

2526. Deputy Treacy.—He has been given the code as is known to us.

2527. Deputy FitzGerald.—He has not got that.

2528. Chairman.—Would it suffice if he got F, G, H, Deputy Treacy?

2529. Deputy Treacy.—I want to ensure that the witness is familiar with those people who had any dealings with the various accounts under his charge at the Baggot Street branch of his bank. I am in the hands of the Chair as to how many he feels are appropriate in the circumstances.

2530. Chairman.—The witness has F, G and H?

—I have not got H, J or K.

(Document handed to witness).

2531. Deputy FitzGerald.—Actually, the witness has written down K himself but it is incorrect.

2532. Chairman.—The witness has F, G, H, J and K. If Deputy Treacy wishes another one to be given to the witness perhaps he would specify it?

2533. Deputy Treacy.—I want the witness to be as familiar as possible with the appropriate discretion involved in this matter, with all the people who are known by code.

2534. Deputy E. Collins.—With all of them?

2535. Deputy Treacy.—With as many as are appropriate.

2536. Chairman.—To clarify the matter I will tell you what we have given the witness—F, G, H, J and K. We do not wish to give too many. Is the Deputy satisfied?

2537. Deputy Treacy.—I think so. I would only be concerned with those people who had dealings in the witness’s bank. I want to be satisfied that all the people on the code are such that might conceivably have gone to his bank at some given time. Can the witness throw any light on this elusive lady, Anne O’Brien?

—None whatsoever.

2538. You can give us no information concerning the true identity of George Dixon?

—No.

2539. Can you say that at any time you or any member of your staff had any dealings with John Loughran?

—No.

2540. Have you met or done business with Roger Murphy?

—No.

2541. Have you any knowledge as to the identity of John White?

—No.

2542. Did you, or anyone to your knowledge, ever identify the signature of any of those people—John White, Roger Murphy, John Loughran, George Dixon and Anne O’Brien?

—No.

2543. From the list of names identified by code before you, is there any other person whom you may have had dealings with other than the Mr. X, to whom you adverted earlier? Is there any other person who had recourse to, or business transactions in the various accounts under your charge, not so identified here?

—No. The people I dealt with are identified to this Committee.

2544. So that other than Mr. X there is, to your knowledge, no other person who had any dealings at all with the accounts in question?

—No.

2545. One of the payments, if not the last one, was on the 28th April—Mr. X. At that time most information appertaining to the issue involved was known to the public at large in this country. Accepting your version of the personal knowledge you had and the integrity of the individual concerned—which I accept fully—are we to understand that a payment of £1,200 was made over on 28th April last without question, having regard to the very controversial aspect of the whole matter, nationwide if not internationally?

—You are assuming that I had that knowledge which you have mentioned now, nationwide and internationally.

2546. It was public property at this time.

—I do not think so, as far as I am concerned. The first time I had any knowledge of anything was when I was recalled from my holidays down in Glenbeigh, in the middle of June. That was the first intimation I had of any involvement at all. Personally, I had none before that.

2547. Apart from your personal knowledge of the man concerned, certainly some inquiries had been made about this fund and some suspicions had arisen in connection with the transactions. Did you make any inquiries as to the legitimacy of this man’s entitlement to withdraw £1,200 at that time?

—I could not do that.

2548. No questions were raised?

—No. I could not do that.

2549. Deputy Tunney.—One question, Mr. Chairman, slight repetition here, Mr. Morrissey, if you will forgive me, but again I would like you to confirm that in connection with the ’phone call to the Department you referred specifically to the fund? —Funds.

2550. Yes, but just as a matter of interest, I notice that you name here the lady with whom you had the conversation?

—Yes.

2551. I notice that she has the same name as yourself, but how did you discover that?

—This again would amount to, I would say to somebody around: “Does anybody know who I will ring up in the Department?” and I was informed that Miss Morrissey would look after me.

2552. Well, would you take it from that then that people in the bank had been ringing up Miss Morrissey in connection with this account?

—Ah, no, no, definitely not. It would not be because I was told to ring up Miss Morrissey that they had been doing it frequently. It would be just only a contact to get in touch with Mr. Fagan. That is what it would be.

Mr. Morrissey withdrew.

Mr. Bernard Gleeson sworn and examined.

2553. Chairman.—Mr. Gleeson, you are an official in the Munster and Leinster Bank at Baggot Street?

—I was at Baggot Street, Mr. Chairman, until last November. I am now in Limerick.

2554. You were in Baggot Street until last November?

—Yes.

2555. In what capacity were you in Baggot Street?

—My job was known as manager’s secretary.

2556. Yes, and what kind of duties would that entail?

—It entailed, briefly, dealing with correspondence on behalf of the manager. I would attend certain interviews with the manager dealing with applications for overdrafts principally. I would prepare the application, if it had to go to Head Office I would prepare that for the manager and deal with other correspondence for him.

2557. Well, you had nothing to do with the cashing of cheques or the making of lodgments?

—No, not that I can recall.

2558. Now you mention here in your submission, Mr. Gleeson, and I quote:

On one occasion I was instructed to telephone the National Provincial Bank in London (the bank’s agents) requesting them to cash cheques up to a maximum of £6,000 for George Dixon if required on a specific date.

—Yes.

2559. Perhaps you could, in your own words, enlarge on that a little bit?

—Well, I presume that the manager asked me to do this. Somebody would have asked him if money could be made available to George Dixon in London on a specific date and probably on that day or the following day, and he asked me if I could make the arrangements. I would phone the National Provincial and ask them would they cash cheques drawn in our office, drawn by George Dixon and tell them it would be in order, that the cheque would be met when presented to us.

2560. You made that ’phone call?

—Yes.

2561. With what result?

—Oh they agreed to do it but again, from memory, I am not certain of this, but I do not think it was availed of at that particular time anyhow, possibly subsequently, but the ’phone call I remember making. There may have been more than one ’phone call. I think it probably happened that I rang up and said: “Will you cash these cheques tomorrow?” and I think I probably had to ring the next day saying: “Mr. Dixon is not in London. He will be there the next day.”

2562. In making your telephone call with a view to providing banking accommodation for Mr. Dixon in London, could you tell us the date on which you made this telephone call?

—I am sorry, I could not.

2563. Could you tell us the month?

—I could not from memory.

2564. Would there be a record in the bank as to when this telephone call was made?

—I doubt it.

2565. Does your bank not get returns from the Post Office——

—We do but——

2566. ——of telephone calls made and would that not show, that would be classified as a trunk call?

—It would but, you know, trunk calls from an office like Baggot Street would be quite frequent and it could happen even several calls to London or cross-Channel would be made over a period.

2567. Can you specifically tell me does your bank avail of that accommodation provided by the Post Office of making returns, I think they do it quarterly, of ’phone calls which may go from your office?

—No. We just get the return which shows a list, but it does not say where the calls were made to.

2568. When I get a return from the Post Office showing the calls and the numbers, dates and numbers, and the cost, and that——

—It shows, Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, it shows the date and the cost but does not show what number you ’phoned unless you have made special arrangements with the Post Office.

2569. The return which I personally get does show the number. Can you tell us whether, from your knowledge—you may not know this—but from your knowledge of the position in the Munster and Leinster Bank in Baggot Street, is that type of return made to them?

—It is not, Mr. Chairman, no.

2570. Can you make any suggestion as to how we could find out when you made this particular ’phone call to provide this accommodation, bank accommodation, for George Dixon in London?

—I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see how it could be traced now.

2571. Deputy Keating.—Mr. Gleeson, you made this ’phone call arranging money to be available in London to soneone that, so far as we are aware, does not exist, and that is, you know, I am making that——

—As far as I was concerned, Mr. Keating, this was just an account.

2572-3. Now I have been in the circumstances myself of being out of Ireland and having money sent to a number of cities for me to collect and I could never go into a bank and pick up the money without identification, in fact against passport. You get advice from one’s own bank. I mean, I had always done this, get advice from my own bank in Dublin to whoever their agent was in whatever city I was in and I had to go in and present the passport. Now there is no George Dixon passport so far as we know. Did you have any conversation with the person to whom you spoke in the National Provincial about the way in which George Dixon would make himself known to them? There was a fair sum of money involved which they would not pay to somebody who would come in and say “I am George Dixon, let me have the money”?

—I did not. What I thought would happen and perhaps suggested to them was that when he came in—for instance, they could not be certain that it was the Munster and Leinster Bank ringing up—what I would suggest, I am not certain that I did, was that when the occasion arose they would put a call through to me at the Munster and Leinster to confirm that the advice had come from us. The question of identifying himself—so far as I thought at the time this would not normally present any great difficulty. It was a problem for the client himself.

2574. Had you any inkling at the time that someone acting for George Dixon might have presented himself to collect the money rather than George Dixon himself?

—No.

2575. You did not suggest to them that it might be collected by George Dixon’s agent?

—No.

2576. Would it be proper, as normal banking procedure, for you to ring the National Provincial in London and say “We have an account here in the name of George Dixon and someone acting for him will collect money from you in London on such-and-such a date”? Could that mechanism be operated?

—It could.

2577. But you had no advice as to setting up a mechanism such as that?

—No, I do not think so.

2578. Can you recollect anything in relation to your conversation with the National Provincial which would have suggested there was any mechanism at work other than the direct appearance of George Dixon?

—I cannot say that there was.

2579. Nothing put a doubt in your mind that someone might have been acting for him rather than George Dixon himself?

—No.

2580. In other words, it was completely simple as an arrangement?

—So far as I was concerned it was.

2581. The instruction to do it came from Mr. Deacon?

—So far as I can remember it did.

2582. You do not know where Mr. Deacon received the request to set up the arrangement?

—No.

2583. Deputy Nolan.—You did say that the bank when they get an account from the post office get the date and the amount?

—Yes.

2584. Are you aware that if the bank requested the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to send them the date, the amount and the number that they could get that for a small fee?

—Yes.

2585. Deputy Treacy.—I am anxious to ascertain from you whether, to your knowledge, the National Provincial Bank in London ever again communicated with your bank in Baggot Street in connection with the transaction which you sought to arrange for the payment of £6,000 to George Dixon? Was there anything more about that matter that you can remember?

—From memory I think that possibly I made a few telephone calls, two, anyhow, the first one to make the arrangement, the second one to say that he would not be availing of it on the day I had requested them to make the funds available and possibly changing the day saying that he would avail of it, maybe, the following day. I do not know whether it was availed of.

2586. You were instructed to telephone the National Provincial Bank in London in connection with this transaction. Who told you to carry out this task?

—So far as I can recall it was Mr. Deacon but I am not sure.

2587. Would it be fair to assume that Mr. Deacon was acting on instructions from some public or State official? This was a State account.

—I do not know who gave the instructions really.

2588. Can you remember what transpired in respect of the £6,000 mentioned? It was never availed of?

—So far as I can recall, it was not.

2589. In your statement you say also that you recollect having, on at least one occasion, telephoned Mr. A. J. Fagan of the Department of Finance. On the instructions of your manager, Mr. Deacon, I should imagine?

—Yes.

2590. The purpose of the telephone call was to request a lodgment to an account in relation to the Northern Ireland Relief Fund. On that occasion you did not get to speak to Mr. Fagan?

—So far as I can recall, I did not.

2591. But you did get in touch with some lady in the Department?

—On one occasion I remember speaking to a lady.

2592. What transpired as a result of that telephone call? Did the lady communicate with you again or did Mr. Fagan perhaps telephone you?

—I do not remember. I would have left a message for Mr. Fagan to ’phone me at the bank but I am not quite sure of what transpired. It could be that when he got the message he decided to ring Mr. Deacon or it could be that he would be in the office and come and see Mr. Deacon. I do not recall that he spoke to me.

2593. I think the Committee would be interested in ascertaining how important was this telephone call. Can you tell us the nature of the call? You wished to contact Mr. Fagan urgently. What was it all about?

—It was probably to request him to arrange to have a lodgment made to the account.

2594. For whom?

—For the account, I presume, of White, Loughran and Murphy.

2595. Can you recall the details in more precise fashion?

—I am sorry, I cannot.

2596. I observe that you have no knowledge as to the identity of John White, John Loughran, Roger Murphy, George Dixon or Anne O’Brien?

—No.

2597. Deputy Treacy.—I wonder, Chairman, is the witness familar with the identity of Mr. X, referred to by the previous witness? I wish to ascertain whether he is?

2598. Chairman.—We will write down the name and hand it to the witness. Without uttering the name, perhaps he will tell us whether he is familar with the man referred to as Mr. X.

(Name handed to witness).

Mr. Gleeson.—Yes, I know this gentleman.

2599. Deputy Treacy.—In what capacity do you know him?

—I did meet him scoially some years ago and I have seen him from time to time in the city. This is how I knew him.

2600. Am I to take it he does have a personal account at your bank?

—No, I met him socially.

2601. Socially?

—Yes. This is how I knew him.

2602. Have you met him at your bank in Baggot Street?

—I have. Again, it was a social occasion.

2603. Have you seen him carry out business there?

—I did see him in the office on one occasion, probably the occasion that Mr. Morrissey referred to.

2604. To your best knowledge and belief has Mr. X had any association with the accounts here referred to—the George Dixon, Anne O’Brien or the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress?

—No, not to my knowledge.

2605. Deputy Tunney.—Looking at the statement in respect of the George Dixon account there is a note here in longhand “Cashed NPB 21/11/69?

—Yes.

2606. Is that the bank to which you have already referred?

—It is, yes.

2607. So we can take it then that following your telephone conversation a cheque in respect of £1,000 was presented and cashed?

—Probably as a result of my telephone conversation.

2608. So, therefore, that would help you to remember that your call must have been in the week prior to Christmas or thereabouts?

—This is November, the 21/11. So my phone call would very likely have been a few days prior to that or possibly I could have made a phone call on that day.

2609. And you think that you only made one phone call conveying this instruction?

—No, I think there were at least two phone calls. I made a call—the first call I remember quite distinctly and I requested the cash, cheques——

2610. Up to?

—Up to a maximum of £6,000. Now, my memory is not too clear exactly what happened after that but I think the facility was not availed of on the day I requested it but we were probably asked to arrange it for maybe the following day or some other day and probably as a result of this the cheque was cashed there.

2611. In this instruction regarding the total of £6,000 was it indicated to the English bank that one man or more than one might call or were you able to say to them?

—I was not able to say to them.

2612. So in circumstances where the request made to the bank here was that an amount up to £6,000 might be drawn presuming then it was assumed that there was only one agent who would be drawing?

—Yes.

2613. Have you, Mr. Gleeson, a recollection of making a phone call to Mr. Fagan in connection with a cheque payable to Seamus Brady?

—I have no recollection of that.

2614. This would be towards the end of April? You have no recollection of that?

—No.

2615. If I were to say to you that Mr. Fagan has recollection of receiving a phone call from you saying that a cheque drawn in March, 1970, payable to Seamus Brady and because of the “go slow” in the bank it had only been presented for payment, this was in April, the account it was drawn on had no funds and you wanted to know whether or not you should pay?

—This is quite possible but it is just that I do not recall it.

2616. At this stage?

—At this stage.

2617. Further, Mr. Fagan would indicate that he suggested that he would contact Mr. Kelly, Captain Kelly that is, and Captain Kelly would indicate to the bank what might happen?

—I am sorry. I have no recollection of that.

2618. You have no recollection of that phone conversation at all?

—No.

2619. In circumstances where you would at any stage on instruction or arising from your own assessment of the circumstances contact the Department of Finance in connection with this fund was it your custom to talk about the Belfast fund or would you speak about individual accounts?

—Well, over the phone, as is the usual practice, I would avoid mentioning the name of an account if at all possible, if I thought I could convey the message otherwise.

2620. Yes. So presumably then when speaking with Mr. Fagan or anybody else in the Department of Finance you would refer to the Belfast fund?

—If I were speaking to Mr. Fagan, and I do not recall that I did ever actually contact him on the phone, but if I were speaking I would probably say: “There is a cheque in for £1,000, £2,000” whatever it was “We would like to have a word with you about it” or “Are you arranging a lodgment?” I would ask him. I would presume that he knew which account I would be speaking about.

2621. Yes. You would presume that but you yourself looked upon it as the main account?

—Oh yes.

2622. Deputy E. Collins.—In your statement relating to the National Provincial Bank in London your instructions were requesting them to cash cheques up to a maximum of £6,000 to George Dixon. On the 22nd December which was the day on which there was a cashing from the National Provincial Bank there was only £8,000 to credit on the George Dixon Account?

—Yes.

2623. This would not have permitted of more than one cheque being cashed to a maximum of £6,000 without the account going into an overdraft position?

—One or more cheques totalling a maximum of £6,000 is what I would have conveyed.

2624. Well, this is slightly different then in your statement? You can interpret it two ways.

—There might be some slight ambiguity but I would read it that they would cash up to a maximum of £6,000.

2625. That is the only thing I wanted to clear up. Thank you.

2626. Deputy FitzGerald.—I notice that although the handwritten entry—is it in your handwriting by the way?——

—It is, yes.

2627. ——refers to a cheque cashed by the National Provincial Bank on 21st November it is not through your accounts until 22nd December. Was there a “go slow” at that time or how would that be accounted for or does “Cashed NPB 21/11” mean that it was cashed on that date or that you authorised them on that date to cash it?

—It would mean that it was cashed on that date. There is an entry on the 11th December for £1,000 cheque.

2627(a). Yes.

—Perhaps this is the one. It would be most unusual that it would take over three weeks to reach us from London.

2628. Over a month in fact?

—Over a month, in fact, yes. That would be most unlikely.

2629. I do not suppose it could be a mistake and “eleven” should read “twelve”?

—Again, it would be most unlikely that it would reach us on the 22nd.

2630. Quite, and you can offer no explanation offhand of that delay?

—I cannot really.

2631. Were you about to suggest that, perhaps, the cashed NPB on the 21st November related to the cheque above, the £1,000 one?

—Yes, No. 382.

2632. And that you could have written this underneath, and 381 not being there, and far below 380?

—Excuse me just a moment. The pencil note on the ledger is, I think, £100. It is nearly blotted out by the——

2633. You see, we have not got the original?

—I have the original here.

2634. There is something under the “self”?

—That, I think, is £100 and that cheque is entered on the 26th November on the ledger card.

2635. Why would you have written is so far below the £100?

—Because the reason for writing this note is to make sure that there were funds reserved to meet this cheque.

2636. Yes?

—And, when I was writing this, I went down a bit on the page because, for instance, that day there could be three or four cheques in and I did not want to have my pencil note blotted out, as you see it was subsequently. Part of it was blotted out. That is the only reason I went down the page.

2637. Yes, I see. This is all coming back to you at this stage, as to what happened, or are you reconstructing it?

—Oh, no. That is what would happen and what obviously did happen.

2638. So the picture of this account then is that on 26th November this amount is typed in and you then at that point, there being nothing in between 379 and 381-380 not being there at that time—you wrote in well below £100 cash NPB 30th November? —Sorry. I do not think this is quite right. What I presume happened is that on the 21st November the National Provincial Bank phoned me or I phoned them. They probably phoned our office and said: “Can I cash a cheque for £100” and we said “Yes”.

2639. I see?

—Arising from that—we wanted to be quite sure; this is normal practice when we advise them—that there would be £100 in the account by the time the cheque arrived in Baggot Street.

2640. Yes?

—So you make a little pencil note. When the cheque arrived in on the 26th, I think, it was entered up in the ledger and, in fact, my pencil note could have been rubbed out at that stage; it no longer had any significance.

2641. In fact this was the very first debit on that account because the only item is cheque book issued?

—There is a cheque for £1,500.

2642. That is 24th November?

—That is correct.

2643. And this account, on 21st there is nothing on it except amount lodged, 450, and then well below it NPB and everything physically in between was entered actually subsequently?

—Yes.

2644. Does the fact that you adopted that procedure on this occasion mean that there were no other occasions when money was cashed in London and they rang you up?

—I can see from the original ledger sheet that there were other pencil notes which could have been there they are all rubbed out as this one—

2645. Should have been?

—Probably should have been rubbed out.

2646. Could I see?

—Certainly.

(Document produced)

2647. I am afraid the photostat has many deficiencies, Mr. Chairman. I wonder—there appear to be a number of these; in fact, in one case the date can be seen—would it be possible to have this examined by some scientific process that would bring up these so that we could see them. There appear to be a number that were rubbed out. It is quite clearly 24th November but it is not clear what was written after it. There are a number of entries. Would it be possible for the original to be submitted for forensic examination?

2648. Deputy Tunney.—Could we not find out instead if cheques were cashed?

2649. Deputy FitzGerald.—That may be.

2650. Deputy Tunney.—It would be a handier way.

2651. Deputy FitzGerald.—How do we know where they were cashed? This is the only evidence we have as to what cheques may have been cashed in London and in what banks. Do you recall any communication with any other bank apart from the National Provincial?

—I do not, no.

2652. And who do you communicate with in a case like this? Who would you ring?

—Probably the accountant or the assistant manager or I would probably ask the telephonist who should I speak to.

2653. What number do you ring—head office?

—I would ring a particular branch of the National Provincial Bank in London.

2654. Which bank?

—It would depend on what was suitable for the client. If he suggested the centre of London we might pick on Piccadilly.

2655. You do not recall what branch? —I do not, no.

2656. And these entries give no indication? —No.

2657. The entries were only to ensure that there was enough money in the account. It did not matter what bank it was?

—Exactly.

2658. And you can offer no guidance? —No.

2659. I think the Post Office records should have these. Even if records were not furnished to the bank the Post Office should have these themselves and we could, perhaps, ask the Post Office if they have these? That would identify the branch.

2660. Chairman.—We would ask for them.

2661. Deputy FitzGerald.—It might be possible to bring up these dates because the dates will tell us around what period the calls were made because I am sure your bank had on other occasions to ring the National Provincial?

—It is possible that one or more of these advices may have been confirmed by us in writing.

2662. Will you look for that for us and see if you can find it?

—Yes, we will—yes.

2663. If you have any documentary evidence—

—Yes.

2664. —and, if there is any way you can remember or remind yourself, or by talking to other people, the telephonist, who might remember it, you could get us further information, this could be of considerable importance for a variety of reasons?

—Yes.

2665. Would it be possible for us to have the original of this or for it to be lent to whatever experts could help to bring this up and decipher it. You have said that you recall seeing Mr. X in the branch on one occasion?

—On one occasion.

2666. And you said that it must have been the time he was also seen by your colleague?

—Yes.

2667. You cannot help us there at all by remembering when because the occasion that has been identified by your colleague was the end of April in respect of a transaction—I think he said 28th April?

—To the best of my knowledge it was late on.

2668. You feel it was late on in these events?

—Yes.

2669. Are you clear as to whether you rang Mr. Fagan on one or more occasions about this account?

—I am not perfectly clear but I would say I tried to contact him on certainly more than one occasion.

2670. Yes. The reason I asked that is because when you were asked before in respect to what account you were trying to contact him you said you presumed that it was the White, Loughran and Murphy account.

—Yes.

2671. Whereas Mr. Fagan has indicated that the contact he recalls with you was in relation to the Seamus Brady cheque which was on the Ann O’Brien account. When you say you presumed it was about the main account, is this because you do recollect on some occasion getting on to him about the main account or is it just a pure presumption?

—It is only a presumption, really.

2672. It would not surprise you if your contact was about the O’Brien or Dixon account?

—I do not recall contacting him or having any conversation with him.

2673. You do not recall him ringing you back?

—I do not, but I cannot say he did not, but I do not recall him.

2674. It appears that more than one of your colleagues rang Mr. Fagan about the statements on different occasions. Mr. Deacon and Mr. Morrissey, if I remember correctly. Do you remember having a discussion with them? I have some impression that at least in respect of one of these overdrafts it has been stated that several people rang about the account. Presumably they must have inter-communicated. Do you remember communicating with anybody in the bank in respect of the occasions on which you rang?

—The manager would have asked me to get in touch with Mr. Fagan. This would be the most likely. This is why I would ring.

2675. Going back again to the original call to London about George Dixon, first of all do you recall was there one occasion when you rang London about authority for up to £6,000 followed by separate transactions within that limit or, did you ring London to initiate such approval on more than one occasion?

—I rang London on the first occasion to request them about paying £6,000 on a specific day—up to £6,000 on a specific day, and as I recall it was not available on that date specified, but probably part of it was available. Subsequently arrangements were made.

2677. It looks from the original record as if cheques may have been cashed there on a number of occasions, so whoever represented himself to be George Dixon went to some bank in London, identified himself on the strength of the original phone call, satisfied them and then was able to go back on subsequent occasions to draw more money within the limit of £6,000?

—No. The £6,000 limit would not have held over a period.

2678. How could he draw more money? On each occasion did they ring you back?

—Either I made special arrangements or somebody at the bank made special arrangements, or the National Provincial phoned us.

2679. To recap, somebody asked Mr. Deacon to contact the bank in London to say George Dixon would be calling and would want up to £6,000. You contacted London to tell them this. You think you recontacted them about a change in date. He goes there and gets a sum of money which was apparently £100. Subsequently, having established his identity in London by whatever means he did, he goes back to the same branch and they ring you, and the original £6,000 limit having gone you checked the account each time and say “OK”——

—That is likely to have happened.

2680. In your view, who could, in the circumstances of this account, have legitimately sought from your branch this action? Who could have asked you to take this action?

—I do not know, because so far as I can recall I never had direct contact with any of the people who have been mentioned dealing with this account.

2681. I realise that.

—I do not know or I would not have asked Mr. Deacon “who asked you to do this?”

2682. You obviously do not know who it was. If a man has an account in a name like this, could anybody other than that man or on written authority from him come in and ask to have £6,000 made available to him in London? Under what circumstances would a bank agree to do such a thing, other than with the authority of the man whose name the account is in, or on written authority from him?

—It is very difficult to say. Certainly the normal thing would be that the man himself would come in and ask, or perhaps ring up, and make arrangements.

2683. Remember that nobody had ever seen George Dixon in the bank or knew anything about him other than his signature. A phone call from George Dixon saying “Fix up £6,000 in London”—the bank is not likely to act on that without asking “What is your address and your telephone number?” if they had never met George Dixon?

—Yes.

2684. This arrangement is one of the strange features—that anybody could have persuaded the bank to do this when no such person as George Dixon existed.

—I do not think I can throw any light on it.

2685. I think we will have to ask Mr. Deacon again. We did not put that question to him. Those are all my questions.

2686. Deputy H. Gibbons.—You are Mr. Deacon’s secretary. There is an endorsement here on this and a letter of 4th inst. refers you have no recollection of receiving any letter?

—No, I have not.

2687. I put this to Mr. Deacon yesterday and he suggested it was Red Cross. As secretary to the manager did you have anything to do with the correspondence of the Deputy Manager?

—I could have.

2688. On 10th November Miss Murphy wrote to Mr. Walsh. There was a covering note addressed to Mr. William Walsh, Deputy Manager.

—I do not recall seeing it.

2689. Deputy Keating.—I want to clarify your evidence in regard to the presence of Mr. X in the bank. Did I misunderstand you when you said that you met him or saw him in the bank on a social occasion?

—That is correct.

2690. Would you tell me what you mean by a social occasion?

—We had a new office and it was for the opening of the new office.

2691. This was then distinct from the occasion when he was in—we were told by Mr. Morrissey that Mr. Morrissey had seen him on the occasion of cashing a cheque.

—Yes.

2692. The social occasion was the opening of a new office in the bank?

—Yes.

2693. Was that social occasion attended by any political personalities? Was there a large number of people at it?

—Yes.

2694. Fifty, 100, 200?

—More than 100, I would say.

2695. Would you have recognised a fair number of these people? Were well-known people among them?

—It was mainly clients of the bank.

2696. Were there any political personalities among them?

—I cannot recall that there were. I really do not think so, but I am not certain.

2697. When was the occasion of the opening of this new building?

—I think it was February 1970. I know that some political figures, at least two Ministers, were invited to attend but they could not come.

2698. Are the two persons still Ministers?

—One of them is not a Minister now.

2699. Is it Mr. Haughey?

—Yes. Mr. Haughey was invited.

2700. Was Mr. Blaney invited?

—No.

2701. This was the occasion in February, 1970, when a new building was opened?

—Yes.

2702. Deputy MacSharry.—You did say the reason for the pencilled note of £100 being drawn in London was so that the account would have funds?

—Yes, that is correct.

2703. I do not notice any pencilled note on the account when on two occasions the account was—large sums were drawn from the account and it immediately went into debit balance?

—Well, the reason for my pencilled note is the money was drawn in London. It can take, say, up to a week for a cheque to come from London, certainly if a week-end intervenes, or it can take a few days. This is merely a normal precaution.

2704. I accept that.

—We have to have the funds available.

2705. Because it was going to be a week hence you wanted to know that there was going to be £100 or whatever the amount would be there.

—Yes.

2706. But nevertheless when money was being handed out across the counter and it was only a matter of turning round to check was there funds there, nobody seemed to be concerned about that?

—Well, it was not really my concern. I was dealing with this one transaction, the London transaction.

2707. There is a pencilled note under the lodgment that this put this Dixon account in credit again after it was £10,200 overdrawn and I can make out some of the pencilled notes still—“phone message from Kelly.” This is what I can make out here, anyway: “Phone message, Kelly” is all I can make. It would suggest that the lodgment was re-directed from the main account to the George Dixon account by Mr. Kelly. Would that be the purpose of the pencilled note?

—I have no recollection of that at all.

2708. Deputy Nolan.—You mentioned that you met Mr. X in a social, at a social occasion—that was the opening of the bank —but am I right in saying that Mr. X was not a customer of the bank?

—Of the bank, yes; not of our branch.

2709. He was not a customer. Well, in what capacity then was he invited to the opening of the new premises?

—If I mention that I may as well give his name, in fact. It would identify him so completely.

2710. Well, no. But it was not as a client. The reason I asked you that question was because you did say that it was clients of the bank that were invited to the opening?

—It was mainly customers of Baggot Street.

2711. Deputy Treacy.—I have just one question, Sir. It is rather a direct question. Has this document Sir, (produced) with which you are, I feel, very familiar, been to your knowledge and belief altered in any material way, by addition of erasure?

—Not to my knowledge, except, of course, as you can see pencil notes rubbed out which they should be when they are no longer relevant.

2710. What would you say, Sir, if we suggest to you that there was evidence here of an erasure, perhaps a relevant erasure?

—I would be very surprised.

2713. Superficially. Perhaps the witness might like to have a look at it himself?

2714. Chairman.—Yes, if you want to draw his attention to any point.

2715. Deputy Treacy.—Would you like to examine it yourself, Sir, at this stage?

Mr. Gleeson.—I will, yes.

2716. Chairman.—Perhaps you could direct him to what you want him to comment on. Perhaps the Deputy would put his question now, the particular point he wants to make specifically.

2717. Deputy Treacy.—Well, observing the account at very close quarters now, Sir, Mr. Gleeson, I repeat my question: Do you feel that there has been an alteration made in that account by way, in particular, of an erasure of any kind?

—No, certainly not. It seems to me quite obvious that these are the pencil notations which I mentioned that have been rubbed out. I cannot see that there is any type rubbed out in this or any machine printing.

2718. Is there not a date visible there, under the magnifying glass?

—24/11/69.

2719. And are there not two words visible, “phone, Kelly”? “Phone message … Kelly”?

—“Phone message” and what looks like “Kelly”, yes. Of course this is not my writing and, in fact, I am not very familiar with this card because I have not seen it since I left the branch last November but certainly I would just comment that there is certainly no erasure there of any print on the card, that anything that is rubbed out here is just a pencil note.

2720. There is, I think, you will agree the impression of pencil writing?

—Oh, yes, which I pointed out.

2721. Of the words which I have mentioned?

—Yes.

2722. Whose handwriting does that seem like?

—I would say it is probably Mr. Walsh’s.

2723. I see. I think that is all, Chairman.

2724. Deputy Tunney.—Normally the bank would have some—much regard for the moneys of the client. In circumstances the bank looked upon this account as a Government account which would be used for the relief of distress in Northern Ireland —that would be correct?

—I believe so, yes.

2725. While I know you said earlier on that it was not your right to question your manager but in circumstances now where the possibility of £6,000 of this money being cashed maybe, as you said yourself, in Piccadilly, that did not seem strange to you or the bank manager?

—It may have seemed strange to him. I do not know, but if he asked me to do this I just went and I made the arrangements as best I could because he is not going to— I would feel that he would not ask me to make this arrangement unless he knew exactly what he was doing.

2726. And in your position as secretary to the manager and in circumstances, as I have outlined, of money which you knew to be intended, and actually I can mention myself one or two reasons where it might have been possible to spend it in Piccadilly, but on the surface, would you not think it would have been strange that you were making arrangements to have £6,000 of these moneys spent in London?

—Well, I was not making arrangements to have them spent in London. I was making arrangements for them to draw the money in the National Provincial.

2727. In London?

—In London.

2728. Yes, well presumably if they were intended for spending in Belfast or in any northern place it would have been more appropriate to have them cashed there rather than in London?

—I would agree as far as normal business transactions would be concerned but if you came in to me and you wanted to make this arrangement to draw money in London, you know, it is your business not mine, provided you have the money in the bank.

2729. Deputy Tunney.—OK. Thank you.

2730. Chairman.—Mr. Gleeson, a number of the Members are anxious to retain this document for the present?

—Which document? The ledger card?

2731. For examination?

—I do not mind if Mr. O’Connor has no objection.

2732. Chairman.—Your solicitor has agreed that it is all right.

2733. Deputy FitzGerald.—On a point of clarification, first of all perhaps I did not hear him correctly but Deputy Tunney put a question to you about a branch in Piccadilly. I had not heard you mention Piccadilly. Had you done so?

—No, I said it could have been Piccadilly.

2734. Deputy Tunney.—He said it might have been. He said it might have been in London.

2735. Deputy FitzGerald.—I see. The other question is this. About these pencil notes, are there any other circumstances in which pencil notes would be put on the account except to note that a cheque had been cashed elsewhere for an amount.

—I am just trying to think of some other circumstances.

2736. I understand?

—They do not readily come to mind.

2737. So that if, in fact, the wording here is “24th November, 1969, phone message, Kelly”—more perhaps we cannot decipher —on the face of it that looks like being related to some cheque being cashed elsewhere?

—Well, not necessarily.

2738. You cannot think——?

—I mean, there could be—it is very hard to say—you could put a pencil note about a number of things. For instance, say, if you post-dated a cheque by mistake, or something, and you rang up the branch, a note would be taken and it may be convenient to put it on the ledger so that it would not be overlooked. It would not necessarily—all those notes would not necessarily mean that there were bad cheques being cashed elsewhere.

2739. Deputy FitzGerald.—Yes, I see.

Mr. Gleeson withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.55 p.m. until 3 p.m.

Mr. Anthony James Fagan sworn and examined.

2740. Chairman.—Mr. Fagan, what is your present position in the Civil Service?

—I am a Principal Officer in the Department of Finance.

2741. Were you always in Finance?

—No, I was previously Assistant Principal in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, since 1963. Before that I had junior grades in the Department of Agriculture going back to 1934.

2742. Have you worked in other Departments besides Finance and Agriculture?

—No.

2743. You have experience of the operation of Grants-in-Aid in the Department of Agriculture?

—No, Chairman, I was mainly engaged on, most of my career, on personnel work and in the, since 1966, or 1964 to 1966, when I entered the Department of Finance I was engaged on protocol and public relations works which included the looking after visitors and that type of thing, but I never, except as a very, very junior officer, when I was a cashier for four or five years as a young clerical officer in the Department of Agriculture, but apart from that I did not have anything to do with financial work.

2744. Have you any knowledge of any other Grant-in-Aid being administered and operated in the same fashion as this one?

—No, not to my knowledge.

2745. Would you agree that in the eyes of the public, it would be assumed by them in other words, that the Red Cross would largely administer this fund?

—Yes, I would assume so in the light of the Press release issued by the Government Information Bureau at the time that the Government stated that this money was being made available to provide aid for the victims of current unrest in Northern Ireland.

2746. Would you agree that in the event this did not occur?

—I would, but in the special circumstances of the time I would feel myself that there were—fairly good reasons for it not working in this fashion.

2747. Would you agree that the technique used to by-pass the Red Cross as an administrative unit was not in conformity with the Red Cross Act?

—No. I have not got a legal mind but to say that it would not be in conformity with the Act, I would not say that. The Minister for Finance himself, on the powers delegated to him by the Government, that he was the man who should decide on the sum of money, and the channel of disbursement would be determined by him. If the Minister made this decision, following from be Government delegation to him, I do not now myself that this would be an illegal ing in itself and would contravene the Act.

2748. You would not agree, then, that the Red Cross Act clearly envisaged the Red Cross acting as an administrative unit of any funds passed to them for the relief of distress and not as a vehicle to be used for the passage of money into some bank account?

—No. I have a very limited knowledge of the provisions of the Red Cross Act as such, but I think from my own general knowledge that the Red Cross have been and are often used as a vehicle for the passage of moneys in this way. I have in mind the Peruvian earthquake disaster last year. I think what happened was that the Government said they would make £1,000 available for this and that they would give it to the Red Cross, and the Red Cross just passed it on. No one could immediately say that the Red Cross here could not administer money intended for South America, but they were, in fact, acting as a post office, as a vehicle, for the Government giving the money. The Government, for instance, could have passed it to the International Red Cross in Geneva or the Peruvian Red Cross. In the circumstances existing in the Northern Ireland situation, where we know the Red Cross had been stopped from acting or could not get the agreement of the British Red Cross to act there, this was something of a similar nature, the Red Cross merely being the instrument, or post office, or channel through which the money could pass to a bank account. Subject to correction, there was a rather similar situation in existence in regard to Biafra: Dublin made money available here and I think the Red Cross just passed it on.

2749. To whom were the Red Cross people directed to make the payments?

—They were directed by the ministerial authority, the authority of the Minister for Finance, to make the payment originally to a bank account in Clones and I think, after a time lag, to the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress in the names of Messrs. F, G, H. The document which authorised me to do this was handed to me by the Minister personally, I think in the presence of Captain Kelly. He was certainly there at the time but I cannot recall his physical presence in the room. You have the reproduction of the document and I have the original here if anybody cares to see it. It is reproduced on page 47 of the pink book. The £5,000 you see on the top there was written in my presence by the Minister, presumably as a mnemonic to me, with the direction, the verbal directive—first of all I wish to explain this. Sometime previously—this occurred subsequent to 8th October, 1969—he said that he had arranged with Mrs. Barry or Miss Murphy of the Irish Red Cross to pay from their own fund a sum of £5,000 into this fund. He had this document in his hand at the time and he asked me to get in touch with Miss Murphy of the Red Cross to ask the Red Cross to repeat the arrangement, in other words to get the Red Cross to pay a further £5,000 from their own funds into this fund.

I spoke to Miss Murphy on the telephone and she said she felt that at that particular time the Red Cross were rather short of funds because they had rather a lot of commitments in Northern Ireland and she did not think she would be able to meet it at that moment but that, in view of the Minister’s request, she would speak to Mrs. Barry. A few days later, she telephoned me to say that having consulted with Mrs. Barry they both regretted very much they could not meet this at that time and to give their apologies to the Minister. I went to the Minister on this and he said that I should draw £5,000 from the Northern Ireland Aid Fund, pay it to the Red Cross or arrange with the Red Cross to pay it and get them to transfer it into this bank account. That is where it all started.

2750. Was there any special reason why the cheque could not be sent directly from the Department of Finance to the bank at Clones?

—I think what the Minister had in mind —he did not spell this out for me at that time or at any specific time—but in general his attitude around the September and October earlier period was that these people —F, G and H and the people they represented in the North—were in a very bad way. They were very much afraid of the situation that had developed up there. It was a near disaster situation as far as they were concerned; the situation seemed to be virtually on the brink of civil war and they were afraid of any direct contact with officialdom here.

The Minister, I think, felt that we, as a Department, or the Government here should not appear to be in direct contact with these people. I have heard since—I had not this knowledge at the time but arising from the Arms trial—that it was the Minister himself who suggested that this particular fund be set up in Clones and it was he who discussed it with these people and possibly others at a meeting, I think in his home but I cannot be sure of that. Resulting from that and the fear they expressed to him at the time it was decided that it should be paid through the Red Cross so that if they were asked where this money came from or there were any questions in the North then they could say “We got it from the Irish Red Cross”. There was no connection then with the Government here and these people; in other words, it was a ruse, if you like, but a deliberate one to protect these people.

May I add that, of course, it did net apply wholly and solely to this particular bank account. When the other people we call the housing committee came along to look for money—these are the people who got the £20,000 from the fund—they themselves wanted it done through the Red Cross. This particular committee was under the chairmanship of an eminent clergyman and they wrote afterwards to the Minister thanking him for making the money available and thanking him especially for making it available through the Red Cross because they themselves had the same fear. So that it was not the Red Cross thing specifically for the Clones account—it did apply in this other account too. There was a once-only payment to these people.

2751. The £20,000 previously paid—was that paid also through the Red Cross?

—It was.

2752. Was the Red Cross secretary or chairman informed that there were three names in the Clones account? Were they given the three names?

—I cannot answer that directly of my own knowledge but I think they were. If you refer to the Garda report of 31st October, in the back part of that there are questionnaires which the Red Cross filled out at the request of the Special Branch. I think on the two questionaires returned they do indicate that they knew these people. In any correspondence I had with anybody on this, including the Clones account and including the Red Cross on this, I think in my first letter— subject to correction—that I did say something to the effect of “the three people you are already aware of.” think the Red Cross replied actually indicating the three names and we substituted F, G and H for this.

2753. If the Members wish to check this it is in the special report under t evidence taken from Mrs. Barry on t first page of her submission—the Garda report.

2754. Deputy FitzGerald.—I think Mr. Fagan is looking for the relevant letter of his. I cannot find it myself.

2755. Deputy Briscoe.—This was the first letter that was missing?

2756. Deputy FitzGerald.—That was a later one. I have a recollection that we had not received a letter in respect of the first transaction but I could be in error.

—That is true. Now that I think of it, it was the second £5,000, I think. My recollection is that it was in the second letter that the Red Cross mentioned by names F, G and H in reply to my letter which said “the three names you already have”. The first transaction was basically a follow-up to the request to the Red Cross to make £5,000 available from their own funds and when they could not do that, or did not do that, then it was a verbal instruction that we should pay them.

2757. Chairman.—Mrs. Barry’s reply is to the effect “At the time the money was first made available I was made aware of the fact that Messrs. F, G and H were the responsible persons to operate the account”. Is that correct?

—That is correct.

2758. Was either the Red Cross secretary or chairman informed of the three names in the main account in Baggot Street?

—Not to my knowledge. Baggot Street is quite a saga in itself. With the permission of the Chair I should like to take it chronologically—I think it would possibly explain itself better in seeing how it all happened.

2759. If the witness wants to make a statement.

—No, Chairman.

2760. If you wish, by all means. Well, I will endeavour to do that. Well, the arrangement was in respect of Clones, and the Red Cross made a payment, a first payment in Clones on its own from its own funds and the second payments were made from funds that it got from the Vote——

—Yes.

2761. Through Finance?

—Yes.

2762. And the bank then lodged that money to the credit of Messrs. E, F and G in Clones?

—Yes. F, G and H.

2763. Yes, F, G and H, and later to the credit of Messrs White, Loughran and Murphy at Baggot Street, well, to the credit of Lee fund, with the other in brackets after it shall we put it that way?

—As far as I am concerned White, Loughran and Murphy emerged on 26th June, 1970.

2764. You understood that the three names in Baggot Street, the name, the account holders in Baggot Street, would be the same account holders in Clones?

—I had that distinct assurance from Captain Kelly that the account name was the same and that the three holders were the same.

2765. You have given us some further information now, I think more than you had before as to the origin of the account in Clones?

—Yes.

2766. Now in your submission—and correct me if I am putting it wrongly—in your submission you state that towards the end of March you gathered from Mr. Deacon and you the got the impression from Captain Kelly that there were other accounts available to Captain Kelly in the Munster and Leinster Bank at Baggot Street?

—Yes.

2767. Could you tell us in your own words perhaps what exactly transpired that you got the impression that these second accounts, you got it from two sources, you got it from Mr. Deacon——

—Yes.

2768. And you got it from Mr. Kelly himself?

—Yes. Well, it relates back to what Mr. Gleeson was speaking about this morning or rather what he could not recollect this morning. This phone call that he does not —Barney Gleeson of the Munster and Leinster Bank—he I think mentioned in his statement this morning that he had phoned me but he could not remember or had phoned my secretary, I think was the way he put it at the end of April or sometime about there, but I recall myself it was to the effect that the bank had a cheque payable to Seamus Brady and that they had no money to meet it, so I said to Mr. Gleeson on the phone that we could contact Captain Kelly. Now this was in the last week of April and a lot of things were happening that week.

As far as I can recall, I think Mr. Gleeson’s call to me was on the morning of the handing over of St. Enda’s to the State and I was the officer in charge of that particular ceremony, but I recall being pretty busy that morning I got this call in; I could not do very much about it. On the following day it came to my notice from a colleague in the Revenue Commissioners that the Special Branch were investigating the part that customs officers had played in what we now call the airport incident of the weekend of 18-19 April. As I was the officer, on the instructions of the Minister for Finance, who had directed, in the Minister’s name, the customs official to allow a consignment in without customs examination, this colleague in Revenue and myself decided to see the Taoiseach.

On Monday the Taoiseach was not available to see me but did see me on Tuesday. At the present point in the normal way I would not be able to reveal the nature of the discussions the Taoiseach had with me in the last week of April. However, in the circumstances of this inquiry I have been given permission to say what took place. The Taoiseach’s discussions with me were related solely to the incidents which ultimately led up to the arms conspiracy trial. So later in that week, in fact, it was the day the banks closed or Thursday, 30th April, I was across in the bank collecting some cheque books and cash for myself for the possible closure and I met Mr. Deacon when I was in the queue at the counter and he said: “Has Barney Gleeson been talking to you about the Brady cheque?” I said yes, he had, so he made a remark: “Do not bother about this” that there was £5,000 to £6,000 in the main account and that because of that there would be no problem with the Brady cheque. Now in the normal way I would have quizzed Mr. Deacon and got some indication of what it was about, but because of my discussion with the Taoiseach I felt that this was something I should not go further with. However, I gathered from Mr. Deacon, and I am not so terribly positive of this, that the word “accounts” plural was mentioned but I am not terribly certain of it.

Later that day Captain Kelly was in touch with me by telephone to say that he wished to see me urgently. He came along to ask me to tell the Minister for Finance, who was then in hospital following a riding accident the previous week, on Budget day, that he had been placed under virtual Army arrest, that he was putting in his resignation from the Army forthwith and he wished the Minister for Finance to be aware of this fact. Before he came to see me I had a message from the Minister for Defence’s office to say that the Minister for Defence wished to see Captain Kelly urgently, understood that he was coming to see me and asked would I have him taken to Leinster House as the Minister wanted to talk to him.

Captain Kelly was obviously very upset and very distraught. On the way to Leinster House from Government Buildings I mentioned to him the Brady cheque, not in any deliberate way but just something to talk about. Again, he did use the words “these wretched accounts” or something to that effect. Again, I did not pursue this with Captain Kelly. I am almost certain that this was on the 30th April and things very rapidly went on from there. That is what I meant when I told the gardaí on the 14th May what is quoted there.

2769. Chairman.—Were you the only official in the Civil Service who knew what was happening to the money after it had reached the Red Cross account in the Bank of Ireland?

—Yes, I would say so, apart from my office assistant.

2770. You mentioned that you first got suspicion of these other accounts in Baggot Street from the conversation you had with Mr. Deacon and later with Captain Kelly and I think you got the impression that Captain Kelly said “these accounts”?

—Yes. He may, of course, have been referring to the main account and what Gleeson and Deacon were talking about, a Brady account other than the main account.

2771. When Mr. Deacon mentioned “main account” would that not indicate that there were other accounts?

—Another account other than the main account. It need not be other accounts, plural.

2772. The expression “main account” would suggest this to you?

—Yes.

2773. Did you think of going to the Secretary of the Department at that Stage?

—I had already discussed the situation with the Taoiseach or, rather, the Taoiseach had discussed it with me. I did let the Secretary of the Department know that week or within a few days of what was happening in general terms. I used the word “suspicion” there but I think “knowledge of” the situation—in itself, I was not suspicious in the sense of thinking of anything wrong. It was not in itself a suspicious thing that Captain Kelly had accounts, plural, or account, singular, in the bank at that particular time. I think the authorities—meaning the Special Branch —and our law officers will agree that it was only as the thing developed subsequent to Captain Kelly’s resignation from the Army which took effect from the 1st May, I think, that there was no real suspicion of anything wrong or of any misuse or misappropriation of moneys.

I think the sequence of this is very important—that on the 14th May I made my first Garda statement. I told the guards of this money situation as I understood it. They were interested in this but it seemed to me not interested in it in a suspicious way. I made this statement to them off-the-cuff, so to speak. I had no documentation. I made it basically from my knowing Captain Kelly and how I came in contact with him first. They said at that time that it was possible they might want to go into this further and if they did would I be prepared to make a further statement based on the figures and facts and papers in my possession. I said I would. In fact, an arrangement was made that such a statement would be taken from me, I think, about the 26th May. I went across to Dublin Castle to make this statement but at that stage the Garda Authorities were more interested in the other aspects of what ultimately led up to the arms conspiracy trial. Chief Superintendent Fleming agreed that I need not and should not at that stage make a statement because I think—this is subject of course to these people being possibly asked by the Committee or giving information—that if they had any suspicions at all, they were very minimal.

On the 26th June when, as a result of bankers’ orders, accounts were made available for the first time and the gardaí and myself saw for the first time this Dixon account, the Anne O’Brien account and the obvious inter-connection between them, then this minimal suspicion became somewhat harder. But again as I think the authorities will bear out—again by authorities I mean the Special Branch and the law officers— it still was only a suspicion and that suspicion did not become a hard fact until Captain Kelly said in the Central Criminal Court on the 14th of October that some of this money was used to buy arms and that was the first real hard fact in the situation, that if he had not said this or refused to talk about this, the situation would be today, I feel, that it just could not be shown.

2774. Mr. Fagan, you will recall Mr. Murray in his evidence here stating that the Taoiseach inquired I think twice from him as regards an assurance that no public money could have been utilised or misappropriated in the way it had been suggested at that time?

—Yes.

2775. On the first occasion did Mr. Murray consult you in making his probe? He went to the Book of Estimates he told us and he looked round here and there.

—Yes. As I already said I think the sequence was during the week, that tragic week, tragic week for me and for everybody else, I put the Secretary in the picture. I told him in general terms of what was happening. Now the emphasis was on customs, involvement of Minister or Ministers, the events that basically led up to the Arms conspiracy trial and I am sure I told him of how I first met Captain Kelly but in regard to the possibility of this arms transaction that we know of now, because the thing was only starting to come out piece by piece, I certainly did not and could not have told him of any suspicions of mine of how these arms could have been financed because that thought did not strike me in any way because that would seem to me to possibly involve the knowledge or the agreement of the Minister for Finance and that would be the last thing I would have thought of or accepted or suspected. So while in general terms I am certain sure that I tell the Secretary of the Department of how I knew Captain Kelly that any tie between that and the misappropriation of funds or the buying of arms certainly did not arise.

2776. Mr. Murray came back a second time, did he not, in May?

—No, I think what he said in regard to May was that on the particular day that this question was put to him that I was in Dublin Castle all day from 10 in the mornning until almost the same hour at night making statements on various aspects of this including the one that you have there of the 14th on the financial aspects of it which I, as I say, was not asked to make but I made it myself.

2777. That was the day on which you voiced the mild suspicion you had?

—Yes.

2778. If you would call it a suspicion?

—If you would call it a suspicion.

2779. That there might be more than a single account?

—Yes.

2780. I think you stated somewhere, Mr. Fagan, that you were of an opinion that F and G got payment from the fund?

—Yes, that is the Baggot Street account?

2781. Yes.

—Yes.

2782. How did you come by that information?

—I was very much aware, at least I knew through Captain Kelly, during all of the period when Captain Kelly would come in to see me with a view to making a requisition for a sum of money, he would possibly be waiting in my room while I was waiting to get in to see the Minister—he might have a caller or visitor—and he would say: “I would like this hurried up because Mr. F will be down on Friday”—Friday seemed to be a favourite day—“and he will be anxious to take the money back to the North.” F came into it a lot. G was mentioned but rarely but I recall the following little account of Captain Kelly’s. I think it was round January, when he was in, he did say that F and G, while they had been co-operating very much in the beginning and were of one mind in regard to the distribution of this money, that they did not seem to be pulling quite so well together and this made it much more difficult for himself because he had to deal with them separately. I remember him telling me that little account while I was waiting to get in to see the Minister. So that seemed to indicate that G was getting or availing of moneys from Baggot Street but I never got from Captain Kelly at any stage that G was personally in Baggot Street or down at all but got money from it but F’s name certainly came up very often in it.

2783. Did you also state, Mr. Fagan, that you were confident that £1,000 paid to Mr. Brady was not drawn on the fund financed by the Red Cross?

—Yes, I gathered this from this short talk with Mr. Deacon in the bank queue when he said that there was enough money in the main account, I think he said £4,000 to £5,000, that would cover it. There was basically no problem involved so therefore it was not obviously on the main account.

2784. Yes, you had assumed then that Mr. Brady was being paid from a subsidiary account?

—Yes. May I continue answering?

2785. Yes, certainly?

—I was aware from the previous autumn that there was a connection between Seamus Brady and Captain Kelly, or Captain Kelly’s funds, in some way. This is how it arose: the Minister for Finance one day gave me a document; the document was an account; the account was addressed to the Director of the Government Information Bureau and, as far as I can recall, it set out in fair detail the costs of publishing a publication “Voice of the North”. The Minister said to me to ask somebody in the Taoiseach’s office could it be paid from the Department of the Taoiseach’s Vote. This was because the Government Information Bureau is part of the Department of the Taoiseach but, before speaking to an officer in the Taoiseach’s Department, I thought it better to find out from the Director of the Government Information Bureau how a document addressed to him was with the Minister. So he told me—the Director told me—that on getting the document he had given it to the Taoiseach and he assumed that the Taoiseach had passed it on to the Minister for Finance. I then discussed with an officer in the Department of the Taoiseach what might be done about it and they told me, I think some days later, that they had discussed it with the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach had definitely ruled that this was not a matter for payment out of Government funds, meaning funds in the Department of the Taoiseach’s Vote.

2786. Yes.

—I took it then to the Minister for Finance who said: “I will speak to the Taoiseach about it myself” but I noticed it on his table for quite a while and one day, when he was rooting through his papers, I came across it in his presence and I said: “What about this?” and he said: “This has been looked after”. At some later stage—I think following a call from Mr. Seamus Brady—the Minister asked me to ask Captain Kelly were Brady’s affairs all right and the Minister or, rather, Captain Kelly told me when he was next in that I could assure the Minister that it was all right. So, by deduction, possibly wrong deduction, I assumed that, and I think we have some confirmation of it from Mr. Seamus Brady’s letter in the “People”, that whatever costs he had in this were being helped in some way from funds in the Northern Ireland.

2787. Deputy FitzGerald.—From funds in Northern Ireland?

—No. From funds in the control of the Northern Ireland defence people—what he said in his letter.

2788. Chairman.—What letter is that, Mr. Fagan?

—Mr. Brady’s own letter. I am sorry, Chairman. Page 35.

2789. Deputy Briscoe.—Page 34. It is in the book.

2790. Chairman.—Yes. Mr. Fagan, you made two statements to the Garda?

—Yes, Chairman.

2791. When did you make your first statement, can you recall?

—Yes, on 14th May. This was the one that I had a——

2792. Yes, and the second was made? —On the 26th June.

2793. I do not quite follow some of your explanation and perhaps you could help us. Was your second statement of your own seeking or was it sought by the Garda themselves?

—I think it was possibly a meeting half way in the sense that I made the first one on the 14th May as a fill-in and they said “If we want a more detailed statement, backed by figures and papers, you will be able to help us” and I said “Yes”.

2794. Is it your evidence, Mr. Fagan, that your only connection with the accounts in Baggot Street was the fact that you phoned the assistant manager, Mr. Walsh, and asked Mr. Walsh would he take the account and Mr. Kelly, who was known to you, would call on him?

—Yes, Mr. Chairman. Not so much “take the account” but, my understanding from Captain Kelly—Deputy Keating was at this with the bank people; he asked the technical use of the word “transfer” or “change” account—my understanding from Captain Kelly was that it was a transfer of an account, meaning, as I would regard it, not being a banker, the taking of whatever money was in Clones and putting it in Baggot Street. But, it would appear from seeing these accounts that this was not the case. The account in Clones was just, in effect, allowed to remain dormant and I suppose basically, in effect, it was a newly opened account in Baggot Street; but, in regard to that, a pointer was on the day that Captain Kelly called about this, which I take myself from trying to fit in a few things—I will not be positive on it—was a Friday. On that day he came in (1) to ask to have this account, in effect, transferred from A to B, from Clones to Dublin, and also Baggot Street was only very incidental to this, because what he asked was did I know or could I recommend a Dublin bank because these people, meaning F, G and H, found, as he put it, Clones too inconvenient. We have their own words for that. We have their own version which is somewhat stronger than “too inconvenient”. But I suggested the possibility of his going to several banks, if they wanted a central Dublin bank. The Bank of Ireland in College Green was mentioned; the Munster and Leinster Bank in Dame Street was mentioned; the Bank of Ireland in St. Stephen’s Green was mentioned, and the nearest bank was Baggot Street. I said I would be known in all of these banks, but Baggot Street was around the corner, and I knew the management there pretty well, so I said “Take your choice, but if you think of Baggot Street, I think I can arrange for you to be seen straightaway”, so I made my phone call to Mr. Walsh. By the way on that, during all of this telephone call with Mr. Walsh, my personal assistant was present with me while I made the call and she was there when Captain Kelly left my room to go to Baggot Street to meet Mr. Walsh.

2795. Could you give me the name of the lady you mentioned?

—Miss Mary Morrissey, executive officer, Department of Finance. May I say something else?

2796. Yes.

—Later that day—I want to tie in with Clones in this—Captain Kelly either phoned or called again. I am almost certain he phoned, and what he said was that Mr. Walsh had been extremely helpful, but that he had forgotten to mention when he was in that to help the account get going that he would require £7,500 and there was no point in having this transferred to Clones, because it would have to come out and that it would obviously take some time to have the account set up in Baggot Street, so would I send, through the usual way, £7,500 marked to Mr. Walsh at the bank, and that he would take care of it pending the technicalities that would arise in getting it to the account in Baggot Street. I am in a bit of difficulty here. I stated categorically on many occasions that I have never paid one penny on this account without written or oral sanction of the Minister for Finance, and I still stand on that. I have also said in regard to the transfer from Clones to Baggot Street that I did not get, or go, to the Minister for Finance for this, and I have two reasons for thinking that. One is that I recall Captain Kelly being with me and my phoning the bank and he making this request, and he then left my room to go to Baggot Street. I do not recall going into the Minister and saying “Captain Kelly has requested this and is this all right?”

The other reason for my thinking and being fairly certain that I did not go to the Minister on this is as those of us who possibly know Mr. Haughey’s working arrangements know that if I went in, having got his authority in writing to have an account opened in Clones, and I had established from a person that he had obvious confidence in that, in effect, he wanted an account transferred from A to B where the same conditions applied, I would be told “This is not a matter for Ministerial sanction or approval” and it is on that basis that I think I did not get the sanction of the Minister for Finance but, on the other hand, I know that I did not make any payment from the fund without the Minister’s sanction.

Therefore, on that one day—of course, it could have been possible that Captain Kelly had called on a Friday or even a Thursday, but on the Monday I must have had the sanction of the Minister for Finance for this payment. It would seem to me there was an extraordinary circumstance if I went to the Minister and said “Captain Kelly wants £7,500” and failed to say it had only been arranged over the last few days that the account is now in Dublin. I cannot see this happening but I accept that it could have happened. My reason for getting the sanction—and incidentally about that £7,500—you will get from the red book that in writing I got his sanction eight days before the £5,000 payment in Clones, and eight days later I got his written sanction for £2,000 to Baggot Street, followed eight or nine days later for a payment of £5,000 to Baggot Street, so it is most unlikely that out of the blue, having got three written sanctions that I agreed myself to pay £7,500 on Captain Kelly’s say so.

There was also the added reason, for getting sanction each time and that was that the Minister himself did not always seem satisfied with these requests from Captain Kelly. I recall on three or four occasions that he did not readily give authority. On one occasion he just said “No” and I translated that to Captain Kelly as “He does not seem happy about this”. Captain Kelly said it was important and he must see him. An appointment was made, and Captain Kelly saw him and the Minister then told me to pay. On other occasions he would say “tell him to come in”, and after Captain Kelly would come in sanction would be forthcoming. In other words, the Minister was obviously being satisfied by Captain Kelly as to why it should be £5,000 or £6,000 or whatever he might be looking for. Another reason why I could not and did not—and as a principal in the Department of Finance I could take on myself, if the Minister had agreed to an organisation getting money, or to people getting money, automatic payments on my own authority—but, because of his own uncertainty in this, I did not make any payment. The other two factors were that I had no criteria to apply myself to these requests whether it was £5,000, £6,000 or £10,000. And thirdly, Captain Kelly would always ask or put it in the terms “Would I ask the Minister. . . .?” and Captain Kelly was known to me as an Army intelligence officer. I never took it on myself to ask him questions which might affect his work and he never told me. He never gave me much information. And, on that point, could I say that I never knew until the Arms Trial that Captain Kelly together with every other Army intelligence officer was under strict instructions from the Director of Military Intelligence not to go into Northern Ireland? I assumed wrongly that Captain Kelly was a frequent visitor and I also thought that he—I did not think of him as a kind of glorified military social welfare officer, that what he as an Army Captain was engaged on, just the distribution of aid, that I felt that somewhere he had a dual role and that this was peripherally something he was helping out in but that it was not wholly and solely what he was doing. Another thing I never knew until May was that he was ever away on the Continent or that he had ever been out of the country. So, he kept to himself as one, presumably, would expect, an Army intelligence officer not to be telling his business to me or being indiscreet about his work. He did not ask me about my work; I did not ask him about his and that included the administration of what he was doing on the Northern Ireland Aid. He put it always into the form: “Would I ask the Minister. . . .?” and I did precisely this.

2797. Chairman.—Mr. Fagan, the accounts were standing in the names of F, G and H at Clones. Ultimately, these accounts were transferred or allowed to go dormant and a new account was opened in Baggot Street at the request of Captain Kelly and which you understood to be a transfer?

—Yes.

2798. Did you get the permission or did you consult in any way the account holders?

—Did I—?

2799. Consult the account holders, the people in whose names the account was?

—No.

2800. You were satisfied?

—Captain Kelly’s request came in the form of that “they” meaning F, G and H —I asked him specifically were they—calling them by name—F, G and H. He said yes, they were.

2801. That they were satisfied?

—That it was they—that it was, that he was making the request for them on their behalf but I did not naturally check back. I might say at this stage that I have never met any of these people at any time before or since, F, G, H, I, J—I met once—or K.

2802. But you have not met F, G or H as yet?

—As yet, Chairman.

2803. You have heard in the evidence from the bank officials and particularly Mr. Walsh —did you, Mr. Fagan, make a second phone call to the Munster and Leinster Bank shortly after the first one with reference to the opening of this account? —Categorically, no, Chairman.

2804. So you reject completely Mr. Walsh’s statement that a second phone call was made for the purpose of the establishment of two further single accounts?

—I do.

2805. Your evidence is to the effect that you were not aware of the names, White, Loughran and Murphy or Dixon and O’Brien when these accounts were opened?

—That is so, and furthermore not aware of them until 26th June, 1970 when I got them from the Garda authorities.

2806. That was the first time you became aware of these five names?

—Of these five names. But there again, Chairman, there is a possibility—and here I have a slight problem—if I speak on this it will be hearsay evidence and while I do not imagine that court rules and procedure apply here, in a court I could not give hearsay evidence.

2807. Chairman.—You are prefacing your observations in this respect by stating that it is hearsay?

—Yes, but my personal assistant in my absence during the February period—and this may be what Mr. Deacon was at or was speaking about yesterday and Mr. Morrissey of the Munster and Leinster Bank was talking about this morning—I do not recall myself Mr. Deacon speaking to me on this as he said yesterday. This is about the £12,000 payment from one account to another but my assistant recollects that— and with the permission of the Committee she would be available to give this evidence —my assistant recollects that one day in February as I was leaving the office I got a telephone call from the bank, possibly Mr. Deacon. She says on completing the call I asked her to get in touch with the Red Cross because their last payment did not seem to have reached the bank. I went away. I do not think I was back for three or four days and this may be the period Mr. Morrissey was talking about this morning when he referred to the fact that Mr. Fagan—that I—was not available. But Miss Morrissey got in touch with the Red Cross to find that in fact their payment of £12,000 had in fact been made some days before. That would be the payment of 13th February and, by the way, I think in both Mr. Deacon’s statement and in Mr. Morrissey’s statement they refer to this payment as having been made on February 20th. I am subject to correction there but I think they did both say this.

2808. Deputy FitzGerald.—A possible explanation of that is that on February 20th this sum was paid to the George Dixon account?

—Yes.

2809. And they were concerned with putting that account in funds?

—Yes, but they did say, Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, that it was funded, I think—I have not got these documents; perhaps the secretary has them available—but they did say that on that date they were funded through the Irish Red Cross. Could I see Mr. Morrissey’s statement? Why I introduce it here is that it is rather important in the context. I think it was page 2 of Mr. Morrissey’s statement.

2810. Is it Mr. Morrissey’s statement you want?

—Yes, or Mr. Deacon’s. Either one or the other. I may have been misinterpreting it. The bottom of the first page. May I quote, please?

2811. Yes?

—“The account of George Dixon was subsequently on the 20th of February, 1970, put in funds with a lodgment of £12,000. According to the bank’s records the account was funded from the joint account in the names of John White, John Loughran and Roger Murphy which had on the same date been put in funds by a credit transfer from the account of the Irish Red Cross.” Am I right? I think Mr. Deacon had the same error yesterday.

2812. We can check that?

—It is rather important in the context.

2813. Deputy FitzGerald.—My recollection of the evidence yesterday was that a difference in dates emerged.

(Document handed to witness).

2814. Chairman.—Mr. Fagan, as far as I can interpret the accounts here, there was a deficiency of £10,200—overdrawn in the Dixon account on the 12th February?

—Yes.

2815. And that was made good on the 20th February by the lodgment of £12,000 in the Dixon account. Is that correct?

—Yes, but——

2816. You are making some point and we want to give you a chance to do it?

—Yes, please. My assistant got in touch with the Red Cross to find that they had made their lodgment a few days before to the Baggot Street bank and she, in my absence, got on to the bank to say, or to confirm this. The bank said to her that, “There must be some mistake about this or Mr. Fagan must have misunderstood this. We are not talking about the payment from the Red Cross which we have but it is a transfer between accounts.” May I go on?

2817. Yes?

—She said that she would get in touch with Captain Kelly. She was unable to find Captain Kelly for several days and then phoned the bank to explain the delay and the bank said: “Oh, it is all right. Mr. Blank has been in and fixed it up.” Mr. Blank means that it was not Captain Kelly and we have almost run out of initials. Now, the name was mentioned but she does not recall it. I asked her, when ultimately I did hear of this, had she mentioned it to me at the time. She said: “You were out several days and, as the problem had obviously been solved, there was no point, so I possibly did not”. My first knowledge of this was in June when the Guards made available the three accounts to me and I had seen for the first time George Dixon and Anne O’Brien. I asked my assistant when I got back to the office had—in any of the contacts she had with anybody, did she ever hear of these names being mentioned: White, Loughran and Murphy. She said she never heard of White, Loughran and Murphy but that the Dixon name did kind of ring a bell and then she recalled this—because it had been many months before—this kind of contact with the bank that solved itself. So, I immediately phoned Detective-Inspector O’Dea of Dublin Castle to say that I had an officer on my staff who possibly had heard the name of Dixon or a name other than the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress in connection with the Baggot Street bank and that she would be available to give them whatever information she could recall on it. The Special Branch thought about this and, I understand, consulted the law officers who decided in the then circumstances of not that much suspicion on this, that it would not be necessary to take a statement from this girl. But we, or I, took immediate action on this when it came to my notice. The officer would be available to appear before the Committee, if the Committee so wishes, to testify to that information.

2818. Chairman.—Thank you very much. Gentlemen, we agreed that we would finish at 5 o’clock and that was to include our private deliberations. It is now nearly 20 minutes to 5. Are you satisfied that Mr. Fagan should withdraw? Thank you very much, Mr. Fagan.

—Not at all, Chairman and Deputies.

Mr. Fagan withdrew.

The Committee deliberated.

The Committee adjourned at 4.40 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 26th January, 1971.