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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 21 Aibreán, 1971

Wednesday, 21st April, 1971

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY P. HOGAN in the chair.

ORDER OF DÁIL OF 1st DECEMBER, 1970.

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

Deputy James Gibbons, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, sworn and examined.

10796. Deputy J. Gibbons.—Before we begin, can I ask, please, for a copy of the terms of reference of the Committee? I presume also that the Committee have had circulated to them my letter of 1st March and the statement that I made to the Committee on 19th January last.

10797. Chairman.—Yes. Do you want to elaborate on any of these points at this stage?

—I merely want to ascertain whether the points I raised, especially in my letter of 1st March, have been brought to the notice of each member of the Committee.

10798. Yes, everybody got a copy at the time.

—Good enough. Forgive me while I look through your terms of reference.

10799. I have been asked to read out your letter and your statement, for the records. I will read the letter first. It is dated 1st March and addressed to the Chairman of the Committee. It is as follows:—

I have received your summons to appear before your Committee on Wednesday, 3 March.

As you must be aware, the Annual Farm Review between my Department and the N.F.A. has already begun and is due to be resumed on Wednesday, 3 March.

My presence at these vital discussions is essential. I anticipate that these discussions may be protracted over several days. Urgent talks are also being arranged between the I.C.M.S.A. and myself (week commencing 8 March) which may in fact have to run contemporaneously with the N.F.A. talks. While these discussions are in progress, I shall have to devote my exclusive attention to them.

I would therefore suggest that the Committee fix a new date at such time as will enable me to give them my undivided attention for as long as they may require.

A matter which I will be raising is the fact that at the present time there is a motion on the Dáil Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Fine Gael Party in the following terms:—

“That Dáil Éireann, having regard to the manner in which Mr. J. Gibbons, now Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, misled the Dáil on 8th May last, when he was Minister for Defence, is of opinion that his conduct was unworthy of a member of the Government and of a member of Dáil Éireann.”

In the light of this motion and its implications against me personally and bearing in mind some of the statements about me by members of the Committee in the various debates and on radio, I cannot see how I can be regarded with impartiality by some members of this Committee.

Further, I can take no assurance that the evidence that I shall give before the Committee will not be used to influence the Dáil on the motion already referred to, relating to me.

If, however, you still believe that it is right and proper in all the circumstances to hear my evidence, perhaps you could indicate to me when the Committee wish to hear me— giving me reasonable notice.

Yours sincerely,

James Gibbons.

I wrote on 2nd April:

Dear Minister,

You will remember that you received a summons to attend the Committee on 3rd March last. You were kind enough to write to me in advance of that date intimating that you were engaged on vital discussions at that time and suggesting that a new date be fixed.

The Committee considered the question of your attendance again yesterday and decided to fix Wednesday 21st April at 11 a.m. as a substitute date for the taking of your evidence.

Yours sincerely,

James Gibbons, Esq., T.D.,

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries,

Government Buildings,

Upper Merrion Street,

Dublin 2.

As I have said already this letter was circulated at that time to all the members. The other letter is dated 19th January, 1971, from the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and reads:

On April the 30th, 1970, I sent for Captain James Kelly who had submitted his resignation from the Army. I met him in my office in Leinster House. It then seemed clear to me that he had been an active agent in an attempt to import arms into this country.

Among other questions, I asked him from what source the money for this operation came. He replied that it came from the Fund for the Relief of Distress in Northern Ireland. This was the first intimation that I had received as to the source of the money. Up to that time I had no knowledge whatever as to the means of dispensation of this Fund or to whom payments were made. I knew nothing whatever about it nor have I any document relating to it.

James Gibbons.

10800. Mr. Minister, I understand that in the question of the arms trial the prosecution was initiated by the Attorney General for one or two reasons. First, you had made a statement that you had asked Mr. Haughey to stop the illegal importation of arms and Mr. Haughey said he would stop it for a month. The second reason, I understand, is that Mr. Berry, Department of Justice, made a statement saying that Mr. Haughey phoned him to let an arms consignment through on Mr. Haughey’s assurance that it would go through to the North, and Mr. Fagan, Mr. Haughey’s private secretary, made a statement that Captain Kelly phoned from Vienna.

—Yes.

10801. That would be correct, would it? Well, this Public Accounts Committee investigation arose, as I understand, because statements were made by Captain Kelly in that arms conspiracy trial to the effect that the relief fund—this £100,000—was used in part at least for the purchase of arms with a view to importing them. When Captain Kelly wished to explain his position—when Captain Kelly was here before us in respect of the fund and in respect of his activities in that regard, he adhered all the time to the idea that he got his authority from the Northern people, in other words, the fund holders. The other matter, his authority in respect of the importation of arms, he maintained that he got that authority from you as Minister. To put it briefly, those were his two lines of country. He derived his authority in respect of the manipulation of the funds from the funds holders, who are here before us under code names, and he derived his authority in respect of his activities in regard to continental visits and his activities in regard to the attempt to import arms from you. In respect of the letter you sent to us on the 19th January you make two observations here which I think are of importance. One is that it seemed clear to you that Captain Kelly had been an active agent in attempting to import arms into this country. That was on April 30th?

—Yes.

10802. At the same time you discovered that the money for that operation came from the Fund for the Relief of Distress in Northern Ireland?

—Yes, that is what I understood Captain Kelly to say. I do not purport to quote him verbatim but that is what I understood him to say.

10803. Mr. Minister, I would draw your attention to Dáil debates and I am sure you will probably remember it as well. I will draw your attention to Volume 246, No. 9. I will read it out and I will pass it on to you then. The Taoiseach, in replying to the source of the money for the purchase of the arms, stated:

I do not think the House could expect nor could I give any more information about the disposal of Secret Service funds. However, I want to add that I made specific inquiries as to whether any moneys could have been devoted or could have been paid out of Exchequer funds or out of any public funds in respect of a consignment of arms of the size we have been dealing with and I am assured that there was not nor could not have been.

That was on the 14th May, yet in the document you sent you say you were aware of this?

—I had been told by Captain Kelly.

10804. You had been told by Captain Kelly that this Fund was a source of the money?

—That is right.

10805. Had you informed the Taoiseach at that stage?

—The Taoiseach had not asked me that question, as far as I can recall.

10806. When it was being discussed in the Dáil and the Taoiseach said that he could not find out where the money came from and that he was satisfied that it did not come from public funds did you not, at that stage, inform the Taoiseach?

—The communication between me as a member of the Government and the Taoiseach is a matter of privilege. I think in recollection that the main emphasis of the investigation that was then in progress was not specifically in any way related to the source of the money but rather to the attempt itself to import arms. I would like to say that at no time did I consciously conceal from the Taoiseach or anybody else any relevant information. In fact, I can demonstrate this. I can prove this.

10807. Deputy Tunney.—On a point of clarification on that, did we not have evidence from the Secretary of the Department of Finance, that it was he who assured the Taoiseach that not one penny out of this fund had been spent on the importation of arms? We accepted that and indeed I questioned, having regard to information which we may have had, why the Secretary so informed the Taoiseach. I think it was quite obvious to us that the assurance which the Taoiseach got in respect of that statement was given to him by the Secretary of the Department of Finance.

—Might I inquire whether your general suggestion is that I concealed the statement that Captain Kelly made to me from the Taoiseach deliberately. Is that your suggestion?

10808. Chairman.—No, Mr. Minister. This is your own submission to us and this report is in the Dáil. Enquiries were then being made and everybody was wondering where the money came from. The Taoiseach, apparently, did not know and was reassuring the House at that time that it did not come from public funds. I want to give you an opportunity of commenting on the fact that you had been told by Captain Kelly on 30th April that it came from this public relief fund and yet there was some ambiguity about where it was coming from up to the middle of May?

—When the investigations were going into the disposal of the fund as such I was asked by this Committee for any relevant information that I had. I immediately furnished this and you have it in front of you.

10809. You will have received a copy of all the evidence taken up to date?

—Yes, I have it but I must tell you I have not read them, possibly for understandable reasons. They are not very pleasant reading.

10810. If there are any others you want will you let me know?

—Yes.

10811. Colonel Hefferon, in giving evidence here, stated that he advised Captain Kelly in mid-January to do two things. Firstly, he advised him to retire and, secondly, to consult Messrs. Haughey and Blaney. This was subsequent to his being informed by Captain Kelly that he had decided to give help to the Northern people and to assist them in the importation of arms. Did he inform you at that time?

—Might I enquire how that question of yours is relevant to the terms of reference here beside me? How is this question related to the expenditure of the £100,000?

10812. Captain Kelly is associated with the expenditure of this £100,000. Is that not so?

—Yes, it would appear to be so.

10813. It would appear to be so and he was an officer under your Department?

—He was an officer of the army.

10814. Of the army, but this activity which he engaged in was not army activity?

—That is correct.

10815. Therefore, is it not relevant to enquire how did he come to get into this position?

—Many officers occasionally find themselves engaged in positions of that kind. I do not feel accountable in any way for the actions of Captain Kelly, certainly not to this Committee.

10816. Colonel Hefferon stated that to the best of his recollection he informed you of these matters.

—Of what matters?

10817. Of his advice to Captain Kelly to retire and his advice to him to consult Messrs. Haughey and Blaney. He says he informed you shortly after mid-January to that effect.

—I have no recollection of that but I fail to see its relevance to the task of this Committee.

10818. If you say you have no recollection that will suit me.

—I also would point out, Mr. Chairman, that I have given sworn testimony on these points in another place at another time and I am sure that this testimony is available to you. The testimony that I gave as to the information that was conveyed to me by Colonel Hefferon about Captain Kelly is on record but it has no relation whatever to the expenditure of money.

10819. Colonel Hefferon has come in here since and, under oath, has reiterated his statements. I am merely giving you an opportunity to refute them. If you do not want to, that is quite all right.

—What statements do you refer to?

10820. The ones I have asked you now?

—Ask them again, please?

10821. That Colonel Hefferon came to you in mid-January. Let me put it this way: Captain Kelly went to Colonel Hefferon in mid-January and he offered to retire and Colonel Hefferon advised him to retire and to consult Messrs. Haughey and Blaney and he states that to the best of his recollection he so informed you shortly afterwards.

—I have no such recollection.

10822. That is all right. He also stated he mentioned to you in that respect the question of an alternative job for Captain Kelly and he said you were sympathetic. Is that correct?

—Mr. Chairman, I must point out again that I fail to see the relevance of these questions of yours to the terms of reference of the Committee. I must point out again that I feel in no way accountable for what Colonel Hefferon has said to this Committee or to anybody else, but I am perfectly prepared to answer any question that the Committee cares to ask as to the task before it, to inquire into the expenditure of the Grant in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief issued under Subhead J, Vote 16, Miscellaneous Expenses.

10823. Mr. Minister, I am only giving you an opportunity to reply to statements that have been made here and they are all through these green books.

—I have not studied these green books, Mr. Chairman.

10824. Statements have been made by other witnesses. We merely asked them did they wish to comment on them. They were free to say yes or no.

—Yes. I look upon my function, having given about 15 hours sworn testimony on the general matter of the importation of arms at the arms trial, I look upon my function here today strictly within the confines of the terms of reference of this Committee and it is not my business nor my intention nor my wish to comment on statements made by other witnesses and I repeat that I have not studied these books at all. I do not wish to say that I have not looked at any of them at any time but it would be, broadly speaking, true to say that I have not made any study whatever. It was not my practice to open the envelopes in which these documents came. I have made no detailed study of the proceedings of this Committee since it began.

10825. Captain Kelly has laid tremendous emphasis here on the question of his authority. He has been less open in this regard on the question of money. He says it was merely a matter for the Northern people, but on the question of authority he has again and again deliberately gone back to this and maintained he had authority for everything he was doing.

—Yes.

10826. If you do not wish to say otherwise——

—I have already given sworn testimony about this, Mr. Chairman, and that testimony is on record.

10827. Captain Kelly came in here and he said he submitted his resignation towards the end of January?

—Not to me, he did not.

10828. And he submitted it in writing?

—I saw no form of application for resignation until 30th June. When Captain Kelly’s application for resignation made on an official form came to me this was the first time I saw this document and it was as a result of seeing it I sent for him to talk to him.

10829. Colonel Hefferon also says he got this document and that there was a request that it would not be activated until February 13th. That, I understand, was a verbal request?

—I received no verbal request. I want to repeat again—it seems to be necessary—that what Colonel Hefferon or Captain Kelly transacted on February 13th is, with all due respect, not the business of this Committee, only in so far as it relates to the expenditure of the money that the Committee is commissioned to examine. What business they transacted on 13th February I do not know, because my first encounter with Captain Kelly did not take place until about the middle of March.

10830. Deputy Keating.—Could I say here that it has been the custom, and I hope it will remain so, for the Committee to decide what is relevant and what is not. We cannot be guided by any witness in that matter. If there is the affirmation by the present witness that the content of your questioning is irrelevant we could discuss this matter in private at this moment. If the Committee decides it is relevant we could proceed with the normal form of questioning and if the answers are refused we could proceed to the normal sanctions. But we cannot have people coming in here and telling us what is relevant and what is not relevant. That is for us to decide.

10831. Deputy H. Gibbons.—I second the proposal that we go into private session.

The Committee deliberated.

Examination of Deputy James Gibbons, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, continued.

10832. Chairman.—Mr. Minister it is open to you to challenge the relevancy or otherwise of any question that may be put to you.

Deputy J. Gibbons.—Thank you Mr. Chairman.

10833. We have to put the questions.

—Yes.

10834. Deputy FitzGerald.—I think we should explain to the witness that while he can challenge the relevancy of any question, if the Chair rules that the question is relevant, it is not proper for the witness to persist in challenging the relevancy but he is, of course, entitled not to answer any question. If, in the view of the Committee, he refuses to answer any questions that are relevant, the Committee are entitled to consider what action they will take. That is the procedure.

—Could I get a direction on the strictly legal position as they effect my rights as a citizen to the protection of my own good name? I think, this would be under section 40 of the Constitution. In the matter of questions that may be put to me by the Committee and which may be deemed by them to be relevant but which may be deemed by me to be irrelevant, I have a right, too, to exercise my judgment. I would like to know what is the legal position in that regard?

10835. Chairman.—We have explained to the witness that he is entitled to refuse to answer a question.

—I have no intention of refusing to answer any question that bears relevance to the Order of the Dáil of the 1st December 1970. My purpose in coming here is to answer every relevant question that is put to me in connection with that. I have no intention whatever of evading any relevant question.

10836. The difficulty here is that we may rule that something is relevant but the witness may not agree and if he does not agree he is entitled, rather than persist in challenging the matter, not to answer it. If we regard the matter as being relevant and being of sufficient importance, it is open to us to take the matter further and the question of whether we were right would then be a matter for the courts.

—I merely wish to say that in relation to many of the questions that have arisen already, I have given sworn testimony and I consider that to be sufficient. I should imagine that the record of that testimony is available to members of the Committee. I do not have such a record myself.

10837. Well, you see, there are two facets to it. There is the question of Captain Kelly’s authority to participate in the movement of the funds——

—Yes.

10838. And then there is the question——

—Captain Kelly’s authority to?

10839. To participate in the movement of the funds.

—Yes.

10840. And that is one which you would not be concerned with.

—Yes.

10841. And then there is his claim that he got his authority to try to import arms, irrespective of where the funds came from, and that is the one——

—And in each of these cases I have given sworn testimony which is on record.

10842. Could we take you to paragraph in Book 6?

—Paragraph?

10843. Paragraph 3496 (a), page 264.

—Page 264. The top paragraph?

10844. 3496 (a). This question was put——

—I cannot find the reference.

10845. Page 264.

—I beg your pardon. Yes.

10846. The question put there to Captain Kelly was: “You considered it proper for you on an official intelligence mission to get finance from outside this State from which your loyalty lies?” And the reply was: “I went to the Minister for Defence, at least through the Director of Intelligence it was put to him that Captain Kelly was going to Germany to investigate if any arms in fact existed, to vet arms I think was the term used by both the Minister and Colonel Hefferon. This was put to the Minister and they knew Colonel Hefferon knew, I assume, where the money was coming from because I got the money from the people who were importing the arms”?

—Yes.

10847. Would you wish to make any comment on that?

—Yes, I refer you to my statement of the, whenever it was, the 19th of January, that the first intimation I got that the source of the money for these arms was on the date stated.

10848. Then could I refer you to page 270 of the same volume?

—Of the same volume?

10849. 271, rather. Paragraph 3623. Deputy Briscoe, questioning Captain Kelly, put this question: “I think you have already said, Captain Kelly, but I should like this strictly for the record, that your trips to the Continent, you categorically stated, were authorised by the Director of Intelligence?” And the reply was: “They were authorised by the Director of Intelligence and my very first trip was authorised by the Minister for Defence. I categorically state that also”?

—Yes. I would also like to say in this regard, Mr. Chairman, that I have already given sworn testimony about this which is on record.

10850. But with all due respects, Mr. Minister, the Committee is still entitled to require answers to questions, even though evidence may have been already given elsewhere on these questions?

—I have already answered that question in another place.

10851. Deputy FitzGerald.—Mr. Chairman, the problem of reference is here; in a case like that, if the witness has answered and gives us the reference to the particular column in the newspaper, the newspaper report, we can check it but clearly we cannot just accept a vague statement that he has answered that precise question somewhere else unless we have a reference?

—I answered that precise question in the court. I cannot refer the Committee to the newspaper reference at all, because I have no such record, as I have already said.

10852. Then I suggest——

—But I am assuming that the Committee must have a record of the court proceedings.

10853. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we could not have carried on our business if this kind of answer was given by everybody and we had to scour through the newspaper reports to find the reply to every question and whether it was phrased in exactly the same way. If there is not a newspaper reference we must ask the witness to answer the question.

10854. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Mr. Chairman, why not raise the question in a different way and ask him, ask the Minister, did he give authority to Captain Kelly to go to the Continent to purchase arms illegally, and I think this covers the whole situation?

—Is this the question, Mr. Chairman, that I am required to give an answer to?

10855. Chairman.—I will put it to you in another way. Captain Kelly’s evidence was to the effect that he paid four visits to the continent. One was on February 19th and the other March 10th——

—I beg your pardon, February——?

10856. 19th. Well, it might be the 18th. The other was on March 10th. The other was from April 1st to the 4th and the other was on April 17th.

—I was not aware of this fact until you have just said it now. What happened, in fact, is that Colonel Hefferon told me that he was becoming increasingly anxious about Captain Kelly. Mind you, I have said this before under oath but I am repeating it to clear up this particular matter—and that he had applied for leave to visit his sister who was sick in Frankfurt. I asked Colonel Hefferon if, in fact, Captain Kelly had a sister in Frankfurt, and Colonel Hefferon said yes, he had. I asked Colonel Hefferon could it not be a perfectly legitimate visit of a brother to a sister and he said yes, of course it could. And there the matter rested. Even at that, I didn’t assume that Colonel Hefferon was consulting me as to the advisability of the granting of this leave but he did mention his anxiety about Captain Kelly’s intention of getting arms. I said this before and I said it on oath and I am repeating it now. Does that answer your question, Mr. Chairman?

10857. I think so, yes. I mean you were just vaguely suspicious?

—I am extremely suspicious, as I said in my letter, of the intentions of the Committee, as you must understand. I have stated my doubts as to the intentions of the Committee in my letter to you of 1st March.

10858. Deputy Treacy.—Of all members of the Committee?

—If you put it that way, certain members of the Committee. This is a Committee composed of politicians. There is a large majority present present here of opposition politicians. I am a member of the Government.

10859. Deputy Keating.—A large majority present where of these politicians?

—In this room.

10860. Deputy FitzGerald.—Legally constituted.

—I see only three members of my own party and I see six of the others.

10861. Deputy FitzGerald.—I don’t think we are to be held responsible for the nonattendance of members of the Minister’s party?

—I have only mentioned this en passant.

10862. Deputy E. Collins.—While we are on the subject of the doubts in Mr. Gibbons’s mind about some of the members of the Committee I wish to state that I take exception to the contents of what he said in his letter of 1st March.

—I would be less than frank, Mr. Chairman, if I did not state that this was my view.

10863. Chairman.—I don’t think the remark is merited.

—It is not my intention to give offence but merely to point out my view.

10864. Deputy E. Collins.—May I finish?

10865. Deputy Treacy.—Could we adjourn this and go into private session?

10866. Deputy E. Collins.—Well, no, since this letter is being made public I think the matter should be dealt with in public. Can I continue, Mr. Chairman?

10867. Deputy Nolan.—Well, I think this is a matter not merely for one individual member but for——

10868. Deputy E. Collins.—But I wish to make a statement on my own behalf.

10869. Deputy Nolan.—Yes, but we as a committee can decide whether we go into private session to discuss this matter or not.

10870. Deputy E. Collins.—Well, I appeal to the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, can I have your attention?

10871. Chairman.—I wonder could we— this is going to be acrimonious. I wonder could we——

10872. Deputy E. Collins.—I wish to make a personal statement.

10873. Chairman.—Could we proceed with the business?

10874. Deputy E. Collins.—I still wish to make a personal statement.

10875. Chairman.—If you insist, bit I would prefer you wouldn’t.

10876. Deputy H. Gibbons.—I object to any personal statement.

10877. Deputy J. Gibbons.—I have stated my reasons, Sir, in my letter for my objection and it is this: that the Leader of the Fine Gael Party has on the Order Paper now a motion which is presumably backed up by every member of his party which impugns my veracity and this, in any logical sense, implies that there is a prejudice on the part of the members of Mr. Cosgrave’s party on this Committee to my veracity. Therefore, they cannot be completely objective. I have stated this as politely as I could in my letter but I felt that it was necessary to state it.

10878. Deputy FitzGerald.—One comment— I think that if the Minister had read the evidence, and one understands why he didn’t he might have formed a different impression. I think that seeing that if he had read the evidence and the questions asked and seen how members of the Opposition have probed and pressed witnesses in a manner which can only be helpful to the Minister’s point of view in many cases, and to the Taoiseach’s in others, I think he would not have made that statement.

10879. Deputy Treacy.—Might I suggest that this procedural haggling might cease and that we would proceed with the question.

10880. Chairman.—Mr. Minister, were you informed beforehand of each visit made by Captain Kelly to the continent?

—No, sir, no, I wasn’t.

10881. You were informed about the 19th? You knew about that one?

—No. I knew that Captain Kelly had applied for leave to visit his sister in Frankfurt.

10882. Yes?

—And of Colonel Hefferon’s anxiety about it but I didn’t know whether, in fact, the trip ever took place or not.

10883. So you got no report afterwards about it?

—No.

10884. Now, the visit of March 10th?

—I didn’t know that there was such a visit.

10885. Obviously you got no report afterwards about it? Is that right?

—Yes.

10886. April 1st to 4th. That was his third visit?

—Yes.

10887. Were you informed beforehand about that?

—No.

10888. April 17th—I beg your pardon, did you get any report afterwards about this visit of April 1st to 4th?

—Captain Kelly—again I have given testimony about this—told me towards the end of March of an abortive attempt that had been made to import guns through the port of Dublin but he was talking about a thing that had already occurred. He told me nothing of his intentions in the future.

10889. You understood, at that time, that Captain Kelly was implicated in this abortive attempt?

—In some way. I did not know in what way.

10890. Was any action taken then in respect of Captain Kelly? What did you do?

—I had for some time, again Mr. Chairman we are departing very widely from the terms of reference of this Committee, but as I have testified already I had been seeking very diligently to remove Captain Kelly from the army as quickly and as quietly as possible. I must call your attention Mr. Chairman to the fact that we are departing very, very widely indeed from the terms of reference of the Committee.

10891. Captain Kelly came back after his second visit to the Continent towards the end of March and told you about an abortive attempt to import arms. I take it that would be the attempt of 25th March. I think that was the date, do you recall it?

—That was the date he mentioned to me. Rather, he did not mention the date, as far as I can recollect I got the date from the gardai who interviewed me afterwards. Might I inquire at this stage Mr. Chairman how this relates to the Order of 1st December of the Dáil?

10892. Captain Kelly asserts that he had authority to participate in the manipulation of funds from what he called the Northern Ireland people. He maintains that he had authority to participate in the importation of arms from you. He went to you in March and I am asking you to comment on it. You have stated he went to you towards the end of March telling you an abortive attempt had been made to import arms into Dublin. Would it be a logical thing to assume, when nothing was done at that stage, that he had authority to continue?

—I cannot see what assumptions Captain Kelly would draw from anything that he would—I cannot account for his assumptions.

10893. This is his argument.

—Captain Kelly did not tell me what part he had in this particular affair. I had been told previously by the then Minister for Finance that he would likely be able to find a situation for Captain Kelly outside the army and I had hoped that this would happen in a matter of days.

10894. This was a pig smuggling operation appointment?

—Yes.

10895. Captain Kelly’s contention is, when his offer of retirement was not acted upon, which was made at the end of January, and when he subsequently went to you towards the end of March, that he had authority to continue at what he was doing?

—What was he doing?

10896. Attempting to import arms?

—He did not tell me what he was doing. I knew and I have already said both in the Dáil and in the court that I had reason to suspect his activities but what even the approximate nature of his activities were I have no knowledge.

10897. Had you any knowledge as to where he was getting the money for these visits?

—I have told the Committee both in writing and I have attested here on oath that I had no conception of the source of the money for arms. This is a relevant question Mr. Chairman.

10898. You did not know that he was being financed from the funds in Baggot Street?

—No, I did not know of the funds in Baggot Street. I knew of no funds. I have made a written statement to that effect to this Committee. I have already attested it on oath before God and I am doing it now again.

10899. You did not ask him where he was getting the money for all these activities?

—I did not know enough about his activities. My first interview with Captain Kelly mainly concerned the procurement of alternative employment outside the army. I was not aware as it appears to have been the case that he had been withdrawn from service in the North of Ireland. I was under the impression up to the first time I met him in, I would say, about mid-March, I would not be accurate about the date, that he had been on duty as an Intelligence Officer in the army there all the time, but I have learned since it appears that all officers had been withdrawn from the previous October, but I had not been told this.

10900. You did know that he was acting as liaison officer between the Minister for Finance and certain groups?

—I did not Sir, no.

10901. Did you not?

—No. When I spoke to the Minister for Finance about him I was totally unaware of the fact that there was any connection between the two.

10902. Did you know that he was also visiting the Minister for Agriculture?

—I did, because I can only recall two occasions that I met Captain Kelly before the 17th April and that was the day on which my Department was asked if the army were importing material from Vienna. Up to that time I can only recall meeting Captain Kelly on two occasions and on each of these two occasions it was at the request of the then Minister for Agriculture that I met him.

10903. Captain Kelly went to the Continent on 17th April—you were not acquainted about that either were you?

—No. I was not. The first intimation I got, unless my records are completely wrong and I do not think they are wrong, of Captain Kelly’s presence on the Continent, that I got was from the Secretary of the Department of Defence, Mr. Kearney, who had been rung by the Department of Transport and Power with a query as to whether the Department of Defence were expecting a consignment of material or not.

10904. When was that?

—I think that was the 17th April.

10905. It is true, is it not, that an officer cannot leave the State without permission?

—Yes, I think so.

10905(a). Colonel Hefferon had retired on 9th April?

—Yes.

10906. I understand, perhaps you will correct me on this, that details of Captain Kelly’s activities were not passed on to the new head of Military Intelligence, Colonel Delaney, I think it was?

—Colonel Delaney would be able to clarify that point.

10907. You are not familiar with that?

—I do recall the occasion when Colonel Hefferon handed over to Colonel Delaney in my office. There was a decided, what I thought to be, a lack of sympathy between the two officers and Colonel Delaney very emphatically said that he would be bringing in his own methods and his men into the Intelligence Branch. I was unaware also of the fact that Colonel Hefferon had overstayed, had foregone his previous charge leave and remained there— well, about 28 days or so—longer than he need have. I was unaware of this fact. I was also unaware of the fact that Colonel Delaney had been installed in G2 for at least a month. I did not realise that he had arrived in G2 at all.

10908. What I am trying to get at is the point how did Captain Kelly get permission to go away on April 17th if, for example, you as Minister did not know about it? Colonel Hefferon had retired. Colonel Delaney had not been briefed as to Captain Kelly’s activities. Did he go officially or unofficially?

—I have no idea. I was not aware of the fact that he had left the country at all.

10909. So all his activities on the Continent, his journeys with Mr. Luykx on the last two occasions—he went with Mr. Luykx on both occasions?

—So it would appear.

10910. They were not reported to you at all?

—No.

10911. Do you know if it was reported to Colonel Hefferon?

—I don’t know.

10912. Could I take you to Book A?

—I beg your pardon.

10913. Book A, page 335. I suppose I had better read it because it is again Captain Kelly’s submission to us in evidence here and I should begin at the second column on page 335:

There are various concrete facts which can be verified to support that there was authority for this importation. Also, of my own firsthand knowledge I can give evidence on this. So I would like to run quickly through the various points.

No. 1 is the directive of 6th February which gave the formal basis for the operation. No. 2 is the movement of rifles to Dundalk of 2nd November carried into effect as part of this directive. This was a physical act. Further, the knowledge of the Minister, admitted by himself in the High Court on 19th February, of my activities. I base this on the fact that he was informed of my trip to the Continent to vet arms. Also in the court he referred to the importation of arms on 25th March …

Shall I read the whole lot and let you comment on it then?

… He also said in court that he knew this was going to be followed up, which means he had knowledge and that he had been told by me of this point. He spoke about the port of Trieste, and so on. He had been fully briefed. He admitted this in the court, which means the Minister knew what was going on. Furthermore, on the foot of a report that a possible sale of arms by the army would get into the hands of the U.V.F., this was suspected, this was brought to the notice of the Intelligence Section and the Minister stopped the sale of these arms. And later on, when this question of untraceable arms came up, the Minister discussed the possibility of setting up a fictitious company to purchase these arms so that they could be used for the purpose for which the untraceable arms were being bought in Germany. That is, they would be bought by a fictitious company therefore if they were used for distribution in Northern Ireland they could not be traced back to the Irish Government.

This is the material offered us here as proof that he had authority?

—Yes.

10914. And I thought it only right to ask you to comment on it?

—Yes. It is totally untrue.

10915. Which?

—Which bit?

10916. Which bit is untrue?

—Substantially it is totally untrue and, again, Mr. Chairman, I must appeal to you that I feel in no way accountable for what Captain Kelly has told this Committee. I cannot perceive of the remotest connection between these journeys of his and the Directive of the Dáil of the 1st December and so I want to ask you to point out the relevance of your series of questions before I proceed.

10917. I can only repeat what I have said already. Captain Kelly says he got instructions from what he called “the Northern people” as to the financial requirements?

—Is this not self-evidently a foolish statement. Whoever he was answerable to he was not answerable to these undefined people known as “the Northern people”.

10918. The account owners?

—What?

10919. The account owners?

—I did not know there were such people in existence.

10920. There were three account holders.

—So I gathered from reading the newspapers months after the events.

10921. He drew his authority as regards the source of the money and its disposal from these account holders; he drew his authority, according to himself.

—This could not be possible in the case of an Army officer. Army officers are not—do not— in the first place, the Army do not purchase their supplies in the way that Captain Kelly has described. In the second place, they purchase their supplies from their own Vote and if Captain Kelly asserts that he was in any way acting on my authority I would certainly need to know the source of the money or the existence of such money at least and I did not know of the existence of such money.

10922. Yes, but these are the two legs he is standing on. That is one leg. The other leg is that he had your authority and was doing these things with your knowledge and that is why I raise these points with you?

—Yes. This is untrue.

10923. But he did inform you of the abortive attempt to import arms on March 25th?

—Yes. He did not tell me who the parties involved were or what part he himself had played but it was plain from what he told me that he played some part or that he was in full knowledge of the proceedings that had gone on.

10924. Well, it would be an illegal act?

—Obviously.

10925. Of his? Would it be an illegal act? Would it be illegal for anybody apart from you as Minister to import arms?

—Yes.

10926. And he reported to you then that he was some way involved?

—That he knew of.

10927. He knew of?

—Yes, and it was plain that he was in some way connected with this. This was my reason for being so anxious to have Captain Kelly removed from the Army.

10928. In the same book, Book 8, could I refer you to Question No. 4692, page 352? I think it was Deputy Briscoe questioning and the question is:

Who, in essence was the Army as such?

Was it you representing the Army?

Captain Kelly’s reply was:

I will explain it in this way. When the arms were due to come in on 25th March I went to Colonel Hefferon and we had a chat and I put the suggestion that they should be lodged at Cathal Brugha Barracks, collected by the Army in the normal way. There were various reasons put up why this was not possible, largely administrative and largely because people would be alerted. Then a place of safety was selected, which was mentioned in the court, where these arms would be stored, and this was reported by Colonel Hefferon to the Minister for Defence.

—This is totally misleading. On the same day that Captain Kelly informed me of the actual source of the funds which purchase these arms he told me then, and not until then, where it was proposed to store the arms. By then I knew and so did the authorities know—I knew from the—I had instructed Colonel Delaney on the 20th April to prepare a complete report on this whole affair and we are now talking about ten days later and it was on that day that Captain Kelly told me when I asked him what it was proposed to do with the arms had they come in, that he did in fact tell me, so that that statement, as it stands there, is, to say the least of it, very, very misleading indeed.

10929. Why?

—In that it implies that at the time he is talking about, the time of the 25th of March or that particular area in time, that there was a semi-official plan to keep these guns in Cathal Brugha Barracks. I did not know about that until you referred me to this text at this moment. But when I asked Captain Kelly, having discovered from him, at least elicited an answer from him as to the source of the funds, I then asked him what it was proposed to do with the arms if they had come in and then he told me and not until then, on the 30th April.

10930. So this information that you got was post hoc information?

—It was after the evett?

10931. After the event?

—Yes, I am a bit wary of Latinisms but I am telling you that on the 30th April I got the information as to the hoped for destination of the arms and that is the first time I heard of it.

10932. Were you aware that Captain Kelly had ceased to draw his travelling expenses?

—I never knew anything about Captain Kelly’s travelling expenses or any other captain’s travelling expenses because I was unaware largely of Captain Kelly’s travels. I was under the impression that Captain Kelly was on duty as an intelligence officer in the north of Ireland but this I discovered much later was quite wrong or appears to have been quite wrong anyway because I think it has emerged that all intelligence officers were withdrawn from the previous October. I was unaware of this. I know nothing whatever about his travelling expenses.

10933. Perhaps I could take you to Book 9, page 370?

—Yes.

10934. Well, there is the question of adjournment for lunch?

—Will we do this one?

10935. You might be able to handle it better after lunch. We have Deputy Blaney as a witness at 4 o’clock.

—Mr. Chairman, there is one consideration I would like to bring to your attention. There are important Government meetings proceeding at the present time, pre-Budget meetings, and I would be grateful if the Committee would bear this in mind.

10936. We will try to facilitate you in any way we can.

—I myself want to finish with the Committee as soon as possible but after that I would like if the Committee could see their way to be as concise as possible because I have other things to do. I do not propose to opt out now and opt in later on. I do not want to do that if the Committee are agreeable.

10937. Would 7.30 meet everybody’s wishes? How are you for 7.30 tonight?

—I would like to resume after lunch if you——

10938. We have another witness, Deputy Blaney.

10939. Deputy Nolan.—The Minister will have questions?

—Oh, I could get those taken by somebody else.

10940. Chairman.—Would 7.30 suit you?

—All right. Mr. Chairman, how long do you usually proceed?

10941. Deputy Nolan.—7 o’clock in the morning.

—If it is all right with you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to get on with it. It would suit me fine if we bashed away from 7.30 onwards.

10942. Chairman.—As you say. We will bash away.

10943. Deputy FitzGerald.—We do not normally sit after 10 o’clock.

The Committee adjourned at 1 p.m. until 4 p.m.

The Committee deliberated.

Deputy Neil T. Blaney sworn and examined.

Chairman.—Deputy Blaney?

10944. Perhaps I might at the outset say there are a few remarks I should like to make to the Committee. Firstly, I would wish to say I had no hesitation in co-operating with a properly constituted inquiry into the spending of the grant-in-aid voted by the Dáil. However, I should like to express my sincere concern at the manner in which the Committee have allowed my character and reputation to be attacked by hearsay evidence without giving me, or indeed anybody else, a fair opportunity of testing the veracity or indeed the reliability of such evidence. I have in mind, of course, Chief Superintendent Fleming’s statement to the Committee in which he alleged that I supplied arms and money to the IRA.

I want here to state categorically that I did not supply arms or money to the IRA as suggested and alleged by Chief Superintendent Fleming. Any suggestion that I did aid, abet or support the IRA is, in my estimation, not only false but scurrilous and perhaps also malicious either on the part of Chief Superintendent Fleming or on the part of his secret informer. I may also say, and it seems fair to me to say so, that the Committee allowed this individual to usurp the functions, if I may put it that way, of the Committee as a whole by permitting him to draw conclusions and to make conclusions from informations that he had. If such informations exist they have been gleaned from unknown sources and neither the Committee nor anybody else can know the character, reputation or interests of the unknown source in order to test before the Committee its truthfulness, nor can the Committee evaluate how reliable the alleged source is. Equally, I should think the Committee, in not allowing Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence to be tested by way of examination by counsel on behalf of me, or indeed of any others against whom allegations were made—statements which were supposed to have been checked and indeed double-checked, if I recall the phraseology used. This evidence was given a full run and a lot of publicity not only on the first occasion but also on the second, and this same evidence, according to the Chief Superintendent’s words, contained assumptions and speculations. I should like to say as well that he seemed unsure of his dates and in some instances his evidence was contradictory. As far as I know, it has been the invariable practice of inquiries whose procedure has recognised the basic principles of justice, that such evidence be open to examination on behalf of those against whom it is directed. We have had recent instances in the Scarman Tribunal in the Six Counties and in the RTE inquiry in Dublin. The procedure—I would be wrong if I did not say this—under which this Committee have operated in this regard can only give rise to fears and indeed have a disturbing effect on the general public who look to the Constitution and the safeguards enshrined in our laws. They can only look on these with some foreboding and some fear of being disturbed in that their reputations cannot be protected as is the normal practice in our courts here in this country.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I hope the Committee will seek out the truth, the real truth, in regard to the sweeping allegations made by Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence and especially that the Committee will take the opportunity of comparing the report or reports made by Chief Superintendent Fleming to the former Minister for Justice concerning the import of arms with his evidence here, concerning the same subject and covering the same period. In so far as the Grant-in-Aid is concerned, I would like to say that initially and originally in reply to your first request to me to submit evidence or documents I replied to the effect that I had neither documents nor evidence that I felt were of any use to you.

I still feel this, but in so far as my recollections can go I feel I should say that in the early period after the disruptions in the Six Counties in 1969 I went to the Six Counties, which is not unusual for me—I can’t go home without going through the Six Counties—I went specifically to the Six Counties to Belfast and to Derry. I think it was the week after the Falls Road problems and the burning out in Bombay Street and so on—I am not quite sure of the dates but I do not think the dates are material. During my visit there I met various people and tried to elicit what the situation was in so far as the need for aid and help was, and what sort of help was needed, and arising from this I decided before I left Belfast that Saturday— and I am almost certain it was a Saturday evening—that the need was so urgent in the Ardoyne and Clonard areas particularly that I would leave behind money drawn on my own bank account and before doing so I considered where and with whom it might be best left.

Without using names here, which I do not propose to use, I left two cheques of a similar amount with two religious leaders in those areas in the belief that because of the week-end they would need this money and that it was so badly needed it could not await my return to Dublin to try to arrange to have it submittde through the channels that were being set up at the time, namely, the Red Cross. I did this and later that day I went on to Derry and ascertained there from various people that I know as to what the situation was in regard to our being able to be of any assistance to them there. The result of that was that while the need, no doubt, existed the same urgency for money or other aid was not as evident there, but at the same time they did need it.

I came back to Dublin after the week-end and got talking to the Minister for Finance on the Monday morning, I think, and informed him of my movements, both what I had ascertained and what I had in fact done— which, I should have said at the outset I hope to get back because it was not that I was giving this large amount of money off my own bat. In any event I told the Minister and the upshot of it was that the money was to be re-imbursed to me as to the amounts I had left in Belfast, but before that took place, I was in contact with Belfast to find that while they may have spent on the strength of the cheques I had left with both religious leaders they had not in fact, cashed them.

I got through to them the information, in fact, there would be official aid coming to them equal to that which I had left with them or maybe more and would they, just as a handy way out, tear up the two cheques—each of them in turn—and that was that.

So far as I know the money to meet the amount I had left on the Saturday evening would have been sent through by Tuesday. I cannot be exactly accurate about this but I think it went through. I do not have any doubt that it ultimately went through. So far as I was concerned I was not at the loss of the two cheques that I had written at that particular time. In so far as Derry was concerned, I also know that, on either that Monday or Tuesday, an amount of money which had been indicated to me while I was in Derry that would do to be going on with at any rate and which they would be very glad to get and arrangements were made to have this money transmitted to some bank or other in Derry. I think that was done also without any question. Apart from those three transactions which you call them, although I call them two, Derry and Belfast, on the last week in August—although I may be wrong in that—I had no other transaction in relation to or in any way connected with as far as I am aware, any personal knowledge of money that would be said to be coming from any official Government or Red Cross sources.

10945. Did you introduce Captain Kelly to Deputy Haughey in the Autumn of 1969?

—Did I introduce him?

10946. Yes.

—Quite honestly I cannot recall whether I did or not. If somebody says I did, either Deputy Haughey or Captain Kelly, I will accept I did. I just do not recall.

10947. You knew Captain Kelly before that time?

—No. I came across Captain Kelly some time after the troubles really began up there. Let us say I did not know him before August, 1969.

10948. You did meet him not infrequently after that?

—I would say perhaps quite frequently.

10949. Did you become aware of the subsequent role he played via-à-vis the Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey?

—I do not quite get the question?

10950. He acted as liaison officer between the Minister for Finance and certain groups in the North as regard the disimbursement of some of the £100,000?

—I would not have been aware of that as such as any sort of a particular arrangement.

10951. Were you aware of the bank account in Clones?

—Not that I can in any way recall. In fact I would say—I have been thinking about this— I cannot recall when, if, at any time before the events of last year that I knew of this or any other account, although it is just possible that I may have by some rumour or otherwise heard of such. So far as knowing of such accounts I knew of no account in Clones, Baggot Street or the persons concerned in those accounts at any time until I really heard them coming across as the general public did during the trial that subsequently took place.

10952. So, during all this time when Captain Kelly was seeing you fairly frequently he did not disclose to you any of his activities in respect of the Baggot Street account?

—No he did not. Perhaps I should put it this way. I would say Captain Kelly and myself met as a result, in probably different ways, of similar interests, his being on the intelligence side quite naturally seeking any information he could get as to the situation up there and mine from a personal and indeed as it were a semi-Government point of view in that I was one of a number of people who were deputed, not that I needed any deputing, to keep in touch with what was going on in the Six Counties, to try to know as best we could just what the situation was, what it was likely to be. I think it would be in that way that Captain Kelly and I would have become acquainted. Indeed through our respective roles we would sort of come together and as a result would probably have met as you have said not infrequently afterwards.

10953. When were you first made aware of any association between the Grant-in-Aid fund and the alleged importation of arms?

—I have not a personal knowledge of this matter other than what is available to the public.

10954. Such as in the newspapers?

—I suppose newspapers or listening to it and so forth.

10955. There are some names which we mention under code. We will pass up the code to you now?

—Could I say before I even see the code that I will do all possible to help you in this regard but I have a particular mind about this matter of the code where it affects people outside our immediate jurisdiction. I am not at all satisfied —indeed I am of the other way round—that the code is any protection to some of the people who may be on it. I would like the Committee, before I even see this code, to realise that I have this view in respect of many people who are so coded that come from outside the jurisdiction but to what degree I can help I will certainly try.

10956. You need not use the code. You may say No. 1, 2, 3 down the list. That would satisfy?

—Without any reflection on anybody, and I certainly would not want it to be taken as such, I think it is fairly evident that I have not yet seen the code but I know names and their code letters. I take it I am not the only one who has not been before you who may be of the same knowledge. It is because of that that I feel the code is not a real protection and that I may have reticence about certain people I may recognise or know of on that coded list. As I say, to what degree I can help, I certainly will but I want to make that point clear.

Document handed to witness.

10957. Chairman.—On the 20th August, 1969 I understand that £1,000 was paid from the Fund to No. 1 on this list on your recommendation. Is that correct?

—That would have been a recommendation of mine but on getting back to Dublin I found that in fact it must have been otherwise ascertained because I understood that it was already being done without my recommendation or additional to my recommendation. That would be the matter referred to earlier.

10958. That money was purely for the purpose of what we might call Red Cross aid to people?

—As far as I understand, this money was given to those people, or put in charge of certain people, for the relief of distress.

10959. On January 30th we understand that there was a further £1,000 given on your recommendation or sent to some person from the Munster and Leinster Bank to the Northern Bank?

—That one I do not know. I think really that it is the first one. Although I may be wrong in my dates—I did say that I was not too sure of what the dates are—but I rather think it would be the first one. That would be the one I mentioned at the outset.

10960. You cannot recall that one?

—No. You are saying to me that there were two?

10961. I thought there were, yes—is it only one?

—I do not recall it. That is not saying that it did not happen because in discussing the situation of these people in the initial stages, this was, if you like, in my estimation, merely a start and if they needed more, they could get it.

10962. It does not state specifically there …?

—I am afraid I cannot help you there, but if somebody says categorically that it was done, I would not say that it was not because my anticipation would have been that there might have been, and probably was, an issue of money paid subsequently if the need was indicated.

10963. Would you turn to page 6, paragraph 28?

—Yes, I see it.

10964. If you can recall it later, you can tell us about it?

—Without being very definite about this, I think that that gentleman referred to in paragraph 28 may have contacted me at some stage merely to verify was the direction in which it was being sent sort of reliable as far as I knew. I have an idea in the back of my mind that there was some such occasion, and that might be the occasion, but I do not recall myself as having initiated and requested and had acted upon, on the second occasion.

10965. You have in the code there certain names—F, G and H. Were you aware that they were the account holders at Clones?

—No, I was not.

10966. And that they had been selected by Mr. Haughey?

—I did not have anything to do with the selection or choosing of them.

10967. When did you become aware that Captain Kelly was interested in the importation of arms?

—So far as I can recall. … I am afraid that this whole period is so telescoped that to be even within an ass’s roar, one might say of any particular dates of some of these things that may seem very important to others—I am afraid I do not find it so because of the succession of events, perhaps because of the situation in the particular times we were then going through, which I was very keenly aware of—I do not recall when or in what personal way or knowledge I would have had at any time of this particular operation.

10968. Were you aware that he was in receipt of money other than his Army Captain’s pay and allowances?

—Pardon?

10969. Were you aware that he was in receipt of any other money other than his Captain’s pay and allowances?

—No.

10970. Did you make Mr. Luykx available to Captain Kelly for his first continental visit?

—I would, according to the evidence given elsewhere, have been the person who would have made it possible for Captain Kelly to meet Mr. Luykx or indicated to Mr. Luykx that Captain Kelly wanted to meet him.

10971. Had you any idea of the purpose of the visit?

—What ideas I had, Chairman—these are hardly fact or knowledge in so far as I personally am concerned.

10972. Had you any notion how the visits were being financed?

—No, I did not know.

10973. Did Mr. Luykx give you any indication afterwards as to the purpose of the visits?

—Not that I recall, Chairman.

10974. You had no idea that these visits by Captain Kelly were for the purpose of trying to get arms?

—Could I perhaps at this stage indicate that what my ideas and opinions are or were with regard to those matters that have already been before another court or tribunal—I scarcely think these arise in this particular instance.

10975. Captain Kelly claims that he financed these two visits to the Continent and that the money came out of this Grant-in-Aid—that is the relevance of it?

—If Captain Kelly said so, I do not doubt his word for it.

10976. I assume that Mr. Luykx and Captain Kelly met you after they returned from the Continent?

—I know Mr. Luykx for 16 or 17 years—I am not sure; it could be 18 or 20 years, but I know him for a long time and know him quite well. In recent years I have been living on the same side of the city, not too far from him, but even apart from that, I have known him for so long, and all his family, and if it is meeting him before or after or during any of the periods, this would be quite normal. As you already know not infrequently did I meet Captain Kelly.

10977. Mr. Luykx did not tell you Captain Kelly financed both continental trips?

—In that I have any recollection, if either of those people say this, that or the other was done, I have no comment to make on it.

10978. Mr. Luykx said that he passed over £8,500 to Herr Schleuter on the Continent. Did he tell you that?

—No. If he says he passed it over I take it he passed it over. I will not comment on it, take from it or put to it because of my own knowledge I do not know.

10979. Had you any discussions with Deputy Gibbons about Captain Kelly’s visits to the Continent?

—Not that I recall.

10980. Had you any discussions at all with Deputy Gibbons about Captain Kelly?

—As to the quality of his officership and the service he was giving to the nation, yes, on more than one occasion. I thought extremely highly of Captain Kelly and I understood his Minister to think likewise.

10981. Were you aware of any report that was made prior to Christmas, 1969, by Chief Superintendent Fleming and the Commissioner to the Minister for Justice in regard to the importation of arms?

—I do not know whether I was aware of it then nor indeed can I be sure I am even aware of it now other than by hearsay and I do not think that is good enough.

10982. Would you agree that arms purchased otherwise than by the Defence Forces would be irregular?

—I am afraid that is a very broad point, so broad that I do not know where it is coming from or where it is going.

10983. Do you know Mr. J?

—You are aware, of course, of my general reticence in regard to such codes as Mr. J. That is so evident that it would not take too long to ascertain and indeed that was one of your codes that was first broken. I do know the man and everybody knows I know him so there is no point in pretence on the code basis.

10984. Did you know of his connection with the importation of arms?

—Not to my knowledge.

10985. Had you a phone message from the Continent from Captain Kelly?

—Again, if I might point it out—I do not think it is necessary to point it out—the connection between such a phone call, if it did take place, and the expenditure of the £100,000 does not seem very evident.

10986. Captain Kelly’s evidence in respect of this Continental business, in respect of his first visit, was that he went to Dortmund and that he took £10,000 from the Baggot Street account in English £10 notes and lodged them in a bank in Dortmund with a view to the purchase of arms, so all Captain Kelly’s visits to the Continent are linked with the fund, as far as we can judge here?

—Of course that is for you to assert but I certainly do not necessarily make the same deduction.

10987. But he says so?

—If he says so that is quite different. Incidentally, I have not read this evidence, believe it or not. I have read no evidence except references to myself, and that only last night and this morning.

10988. Can you recall he phoned you from the Continent?

—Does he say he did? I am not being factious about that. I would not wish you to think that I was. I asked that sincerely.

10989. Did Captain Kelly consult you about his position in the Army in the spring of 1970?

—Again I do not want to appear to be uncooperative but I cannot see how any discussion of that nature could be part and parcel of the expenditure of the voted moneys which we are here trying to clarify.

10990. Are you aware that on his asserting that he was anxious to assist Northern people in the procurement or the importation of arms, on Colonel Hefferon’s advice he tendered his resignation and Colonel Hefferon advised him to consult Deputy Haughey and yourself?

—About what?

10991. About alternative employment for him, and work?

—Again, as I say, where does this include the money we are inquiring into?

10992. At this time he had some access to the Baggot Street account. This money was to facilitate in operating towards helping the Northern people in the procurement of arms.

—I am not of that knowledge.

10993. Was there any mention of a pig smuggling job being offered to him?

—There was a suggestion of that, yes. I think that has been fairly well publicised.

10994. Deputy MacSharry.—Pig smuggling protection.

—That has been fairly well publicised. I should say that we badly needed one such person at that time, or so I was being told— not by Captain Kelly—very vehemently.

10995. Chairman.—I think Mr. Luykx has stated in his submission that Captain Kelly phoned you from Dortmund on 2nd April?

—Don’t try me on dates. Might I just have a word for a moment?

(Witness spoke to his adviser).

Would you repeat the question please?

10996. Dortmund—the evidence given here by Mr. Luykx was to the effect that Captain Kelly phoned you on 2nd April from Dortmund. He was over there trying to buy arms, according to his own statement.

—He did ring me, yes.

10997. Can you recall the circumstances of it?

—I am not too sure, but I think it had to do with the Ballymurphy riot situation. I am quite open to correction on this so far as dates were concerned. I think that was the days or the nights of the Ballymurphy confrontation, so far as I can recall. This has nothing to do with a reluctance to answer this question—nothing to do with the expenditure of money. It was a question of that particular night—I do not suppose there was any other continental call— it would not escape me—it was not a usual happening. It was a question of whether or not he was required in connection with the Ballymurphy situation. I think that was it, so far as I recall.

10998. Your evidence is to the effect that you were not aware that Captain Kelly’s visits to the Continent were for the purpose of purchasing arms?

—So far as I am concerned, Chairman, the answer to that and any similar question is that Captain Kelly and others have had this matter before the courts and what evidence there is recorded there is available to all and sundry. In so far as my answering as to my knowledge of these events is concerned, it can only be in the case of where the matter that has been inquired into here is of issue. I am not of the knowledge that the money, or part of this money, was, in fact, being utilised in the manner suggested or in the manner which has been put forward.

10999. Captain Kelly states he took £10,000 from the Baggot Street account and I wanted to see could that be corroborated?

—So far as I am concerned Captain Kelly could have taken ten times £10,000 out of that or any other account, but not to my knowledge.

11000. Captain Kelly did not speak German. He looked for an interpreter. You introduced him to an interpreter who accompanied him to Germany on his third and fourth visit. On the plane over he disclosed in detail, according to his evidence, his mission. You have no knowledge at all of that mission?

—I have no personal knowledge of this or any other mission of a like nature.

11001. Deputy R. Burke.—Deputy Blaney, did Captain Kelly meet Mr. Gibbons in your office on 23rd April, 1970?

—I hate to keep repeating, particularly to your first question, what I have been saying to several other questions. His meeting with me is scarcely relevant to the expenditure of this £100,000. I do not see where it is relevant.

11002. It may be, really. It is for us to decide on the relevance of questions. I am sorry—for the Chairman of this Committee.

—I do not dispute that. The relevance of a question must have perhaps two connotations, one for those who ask and another for those from whom the questions are asked. If I can help you in this, I will endeavour to do so. I do not see where it arises.

11003. There may be an impression going abroad that the only function of this Committee is to investigate simply and solely bank accounts and the expenditure of money. There is a little more than that involved. Certain people have come before us and given evidence and they suggested that they had authority to do certain things. We, as a Committee, have to make our own investigation of this and to make our own decision in the matter. I am referring to the time which you probably recall fairly well when investigations were being conducted into the alleged importation of arms. Evidence before us suggested that Captain Kelly and Mr. Gibbons met in your office. I am asking you did this happen?

—I would say not only once did it happen, but more than once.

11004. Did he on that occasion make any reference to “hot seats”? Did Mr. Gibbons in reference to Captain Kelly make any reference to “hot seats”?

—I am with you now, Deputy. I was not up to now. I did not get where you were at all. No. I was talking—I am usually accused of talking anyway, rightly or wrongly but so far as I recall having heard this episode recounted in the courts my recollection then was—and I have no reason to have altered it since that— that there was cross-talk going on and I must honestly say that I did not hear the particular reference which has been much publicised although I was apparently present during the conversation which took place. I personally do not have a recollection now, nor when I heard this recounted first did I have a recollection of it.

11005. I quote from Page 259, Book No. 6, Question No. 3424. The words of Captain Kelly were:

I had suspicions from the 23rd April from a meeting in Mr. Blaney’s office when he indicated to me that he was going to put me on the hot seat.

“He” meaning Mr. Gibbons, was going to put——

—Excuse me for a moment (witness consulted with his adviser).

—What is the reference again?

11006. The reference is Page 259, No. 3424, the top of the page half way down where he said:

I had suspicions of Mr. Gibbons from the 23rd April from a meeting in Mr. Blaney’s office where he indicated to me that he was going to put me on the hot seat.

It was suggested here that the then Minister for Defence was backing out of his responsibilities. I consider this relevant and I want to ask you if you can recall that meeting, first of all?

—I recall a meeting but to tie it down to a particular date I am afraid you will have to accept that it is not a denial of the meeting when I say I do not exactly remember the date.

11007. The reason I put some stress on it is that the “hot seat” motif, if I can so call it, has come forward recently in remarks of your own.

—It was not original as you can readily appreciate from the publicity over the previous reference to it. Much as I might even wish to say that I recall such reference, I do not.

11008. It was quite coincidental to use that phrase?

—No. It is public property since the time it was used in the court in evidence. The words “hot seat” as far as I can recall were used then. There is no necessary tie-up between the two things. It is not an unusual phrase. It was not original even in its first usage during the past year. If I have used it again I am probably just merely repeating it. It was not, if I may say so, in any way intended to be connected with the reference that was made here.

11009. Why should the meeting have taken place in your office?

—Why should it have taken place in my office?

11010. Why not in the office of the Minister for Finance or in the office of the Taoiseach? Why in your office?

—The Minister for Finance, if I can place this rightly, was back at that stage in hospital. I think I am right in that although I am not absolutely sure. That is about it.

11011. Was there not a sub-committee formed consisting of the former Minister for Finance, yourself, the present Minister for Labour and the present Minister for Education? Did that committee meet?

—Once.

11012. That was all?

—That was all.

11013. Was it by any reason because of your being on that committee that this particular meeting took place in your office?

—Not that I recollect.

11014. In your opening statement you invited the Committee to compare, if I understand you rightly, Chief Superintendent Fleming’s report given here with the report given to the former Minister for Justice. Am I right in thinking that you said that? How can we get the report given the former Minister for Justice?

—It is not for me to tell you how to get it. I am sure that you will devise your own ways and means. You have a fairly extensive facility available to your committee.

11015. Yes. You think it is sufficiently serious for us to ask for that report and sufficiently important that we should get it?

—I think it would be most interesting to compare a report that was allegedly made to the Minister on the subject of the importation of arms at a time which corresponds to the time that Chief Superintendent Fleming has talked about to your Committee. The report now made to the Committee is months removed whereas I would understand, and I think Chief Superintendent Fleming did say, that he so reported to the Minister. This would have been much nearer to the time and therefore, as I say, it would be interesting to have comparisons between we will say today’s statement and the statement of last December 12 months, I suppose it would be, which would be right up against or quite close to the event now being related.

11016. Just for the record, you have said you did not know of the expenditure of money from this Fund we are investigating for the purchase of arms prior to the events of April-May of last year?

—That is right, I said so.

11017. It would therefore follow that the people who came to visit you from the North— we have evidence that people did come—did not mention this fact for obvious reasons. If they did you would have known about the connection?

—Not specifically that I have any recollection of or any knowledge of.

11018. Did you have any knowledge of the Red Cross being used as a means of transferring funds from the Government?

—The only thing I recall, as I related at the outset, is that in those early days, in the beginning, I do not think there is any doubt whatever about it that the Red Cross was to my belief the vehicle through which this aid or any sort of aid which was available would be transmitted. On that Monday I talk about in August, after the Falls Riots, in talking to Deputy Haughey I feel certain—although maybe my memory may not serve me too well, although I feel fairly clear—that I had a conversation with him early on that Monday morning after returning from Derry and Belfast and that I had a subsequent call or talk on the telephone with him and in the meantime he had been in consultation with the Red Cross. That is my recollection. The Red Cross were really part and parcel of what it was hoped to be done by way of aid and relief at that particular time. Again, as I say it is quite a bit ago. It did not seem important to me at that particular time. The only importance was to get aid there where it was needed as I had ascertained, and as others had ascertained, as fast as possible. I think the Red Cross very definitely came into it on that Monday morning.

11019. You are aware, because you have mentioned it, when Chief Superintendent Fleming was giving his evidence here on the first occasion I asked him: “Are you absolutely sure that your sources are correct?” and from recollection he said: “They have been checked and double-checked”?

—I remarked on that.

11020. You remarked on this already. Can you offer the Committee anything that would help them to evaluate as between your categorical denial and that explicit statement of checking and counterchecking?

—I am afraid I cannot. I can only deny as emphatically as I can the content of the allegations that he has made of my participating in or having a hand in either the giving of arms and/or money to the IRA as he suggested here. I can only deny that as emphatically as I can. I cannot help you and I cannot help myself beyond that.

11021. Deputy Collins.—As you know this fund was set up in August 1969 and in a number of statements from the Government Information Bureau, it was stated the vehicle through which it was to be put through was the Irish Red Cross Society. In fact the Irish Red Cross Society did not distribute the money?

—Again, if I may say so—and this is only a matter of my own recollection of what was my mind on this at the time, but just back somewhere in my mind I have the feeling that the Red Cross was intended to be used and there was some little “shemozzle” on the international plane as to its operational functions inside in the Six Counties vis-a-vis the British Red Cross. After that, I do not know how it came to operate or where it came from or how it was channelled thereafter. I must say that I was not in the slightest concerned or interested, so long as it got where it was needed, that is, the aid. In what the mechanics were I was not in the slightest interested.

11022. When did you become aware of the position of the Irish Red Cross Society vis-à-vis the International Red Cross Society?

—I have not a clue, Deputy. It could have been quite early on or a quite considerable time removed. As I say, I did not, and do not yet, regard that as of any great importance. This was merely the machine or the mechanics to do the job.

11023. You appreciate that from our point of view, from the point of view of the Public Accounts Committee, it is important?

—I certainly accept it if you say it is important to you, yes, but….

11024. In fact, the Irish Red Cross Society did distribute money directly into the Six Counties but not the moneys from this distress fund—in fact, some of the moneys were sent to an account in Clones. Were you aware at that time that there was any account in Clones?

—I was not, Deputy, no.

11025. Were you aware at any time that there was an account opened in Baggot Street?

—No. I do not think I knew about Baggot Street, even by rumour, until I heard it in evidence or submissions to the courts.

11026. You were involved, I think, in introducing a number of delegations from the North to various Ministers?

—Various Ministers, yes.

11027. And to the Taoiseach, in fact?

—Yes.

11028. Did you discuss with any of the delegations their money problems?

—Oh, I am sure I must have, Deputy. Could I just add this at this juncture, Chairman? It perhaps may or may not seem terribly important to you but perhaps it is to me— from ever the troubles broke out in the Six Counties, and indeed I was rather fearful of their outbreak before the actual August of 1969 but certainly from August 1969, I was, I could say, right up until the events of last May—and indeed I have not ceased since then, for whatever use it may be—I was taken up so much with the events in the Six Counties that really in essence I was a sort of clearing house for all sorts of people, and not only on their seeking but on my seeking, because this committee you mentioned is not quite as readily rubbed out as the fact that we only met once, in that it was set up to liaise and inform and build up a contact with all sorts of people in the Six Counties, so that in fact we would never find ourselves as a Government in the position that we were in in 1969, bereft of any real knowledge, to my mind, on what was going on. I pursued this very diligently, not because of orders only but because of the fact that I was naturally very concerned and interested in what was going on in the Six Counties, and all to do with it, and the result of this was perhaps twofold, that being a Donegal man, being an Ulster man being a Northerner myself, I suppose it was only natural that people coming to Dublin, perhaps for the first time and having no other introductions, would naturally gravitate towards me, whether in my office in the Dáil or in my home. At a very early stage I made it quite clear and well known to any and all contacts that I was available, including phone numbers and addresses where they could get me if they wanted to get me, any time of the day or night, but the situation continued right along and has continued right through the period. I might say at this juncture that during the time from 1969 up to last May, in addition to my Departmental and Governmental duties, I would have been carrying a full load if I never had any such job to do as a Minister’s job, in trying to cope with and meet these people, whether in the Six Counties or here in Dublin, to facilitate them in any way I could by making introductions possible for them and introducing them to various other Members of the Cabinet and indeed to various TDs in the House, and this whole situation perhaps has got to the stage over that time that I may have become involved to a very deep degree, as I think I always have been, in Six County affairs. Perhaps I am a bit bugged by the attitudes that have been adopted by perhaps well-meaning writers and correspondents who can readily attribute motives to all I have to say today, yesterday or the day before, without fully comprehending the involvement in a really personal way which I have had with this matter and the time, the effort and indeed the hardship, if you like, that it was to me during all that particular period. Perhaps if there was a little more appreciation of the situation as I knew it and tried to grapple with it and to do whatever little I could in it, in trying to enlist the aid of others to help, there might not be the same cynical sort of approach to any of the things that I may have said during the last couple of years in regard to this whole Six Counties situation; but that is a dissertation which perhaps the Committee may not find in any way helpful in finding where the £100,000 went to, but you have sparked it from me and there it is.

11029. I hope, Deputy, that you are not saying that this Committee is cynical of the work you have done?

—Quite honestly, I am not sort of impugning anybody in this way, I suppose but just coming to understand and to accept that the best intentioned people can and will be blackguarded when it suits and—right—that is perhaps the situation.

11030. Here in this Committee?

—No, I have not found it with the Committee as yet anyway, Deputy, and I hope I do not. This is a rather general … as I say, I have interjected this arising from whatever you sparked off but it is no remedy for the Committee and I just want the Committee to feel that this is so.

11031. You appreciate that we do have to account for money spent from this Fund and also to account for whatever authority was given to spend the money?

—Might I say at this stage that I neither blame nor envy any member of your Committee in the chore you have had to undertake.

11032. Deputy MacSharry.—That is the truth anyway.

—Thank you.

11033. Deputy Collins.—You introduced a number of deputations to the Taoiseach and various Ministers and I assume that most of the deputations asked for money, which was forthcoming, I should think?

—They were looking for aid, Deputy and, as has been referred to in the courts, they were looking for arms.

11034. I was going to mention that?

—But do not ask me to identify—not even if I could.

11035. I have no intention of asking you to identify anyone who requested arms but what was the official reply given to the people who did look for arms?

—They have these replies and these replies, the alleged replies, have been given some prominence and it is not for me to comment on these.

11036. In so far as public money would be involved in the financing of such purchases of arms, it would be important that you as a Minister would give us some information, and also a member of the Cabinet sub-committee?

—Again, do not read too much and do not read too little, but do not read too much into the Cabinet sub-committee because they met only once. In so far as my role in it is concerned, I was too busy trying to ascertain the information the committee wanted and which would be important then, to sit down with two or three colleagues to discuss it between ourselves. I only got the information as it related to the problems in the Six Counties.

11037. Can you give any indication if any Minister, apart from the Taoiseach, was favourable towards giving arms?

—I could, Deputy, but I will not.

11038. In so far as it would involve public funds I think it is important. However, I will move on. Did you meet Captain Kelly many times between August 1969 and April 1970?

—I did indeed, quite a number of times. As I explained earlier the manner in which we met I felt was in our mutual interest. Later, as I met Captain Kelly it was hard to know where any official meeting ended and one of a social nature began because I became quite friendly with him. I admired him and I formed a very high opinion of him. I might add that I have met Captain Kelly since as well as before. It is not one of those things that pass in the night.

11039. Did he discuss with you his activities in the North, his connections with the Northern association?

—What I will say might put the thing in better perspective. Perhaps it was in an official or semi-official manner that we met the first day but we gravitated towards each other. He would undoubtedly have been seeking to know anything I could find out and of course I would have wanted to know anything he had found out. This would be Captain Kelly’s stock-in-trade. It was also my wish to get anything he would have got because I would have wanted to add to my overall understanding of what was happening or likely to happen.

11040. Did he indicate that he was becoming involved with the intended inportation of arms?

—In so far as the inquiry into the expenditure of this money is concerned, no.

The Committee adjourned at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

Examination of Deputy J. Gibbons continued.

11041. Chairman.—Before proceeding I wish to make a statement.

The present witness made a reference this morning to the party political affiliations of the members of the Committee then present.

I wish to state on behalf of the Committee that the individual members of the Committee were moninated to serve on it by the Committee of Selection and that they were so nominated as to six members representing the Government party and six members representing the opposition parties.

It will be unavoidable from time to time that some members will not be present and that in consequence the proportions as between the parties will vary. Such unavoidable and temporary absences from time to time cannot be held to affect the impartiality of the Committee as constituted.

A recognition of the fact that it may not always be possible for all members of the Committee to be in attendance at any given time is indeed to be inferred from the Standing Order which prescribes that the quorum of the Committee is four, that is, that once four members are in attendance, it is in order for the Committee to proceed.

This is the basis on which the Public Accounts Committee has been constituted since the foundation of the State.

I should also say that I am satisfied that all Members of this Committee have behaved with absolute impartiality and the Committee rejects any suggestion that in the performance of their duties members of the Committee have been influenced by party political considerations to show favour or prejudice vis-à-vis witnesses.

—I do not propose to elaborate on that statement. I made my points clear in the letter which I addressed to you on the 19th March or whenever it was.

11042. If you turn to the green book No. 19, page 727, paragraph 9608, a question was being put to Colonel Hefferon by me. The question was:

Yes, but you and the Minister——

the reply was:

I made it quite clear he was going to vet arms.

11043. I will go back to question 9607:

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

The reply was:

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

11044. I have read question 9608 and the reply. Question 9609 reads:

You knew and the Minister knew?

The reply was:

Yes.

11045. Do you wish to make any comment?

—It is inaccurate. It implies the meaning that Colonel Hefferon’s apprehension was more than apprehension, that it was a certainty. This was not the impression which I got from what Colonel Hefferon told me. He undoubtedly told me he was apprehensive but he readily agreed when I suggested that a person would normally visit his sister and that the visit could be a perfectly legitimate one.

11046. Am I to take it that you did not know he was going to vet arms?

—Yes, and you can take it further that I did not understand Colonel Hefferon to be seeking my endorsement or otherwise in this matter. He conveyed his general anxiety about Captain Kelly to me.

11047. Turn to the next page—728. Paragraph 9620, in which I asked as follows:

Now, Captain Kelly’s second visit—this ended up, I think, in Antwerp, March 10th.

Did he discuss this with you beforehand?

—Did who discuss this?

11048. Captain Kelly?

—No, it was I who elicited the identity of the Belgium port by suggesting it might be Antwerp. It was the only port in Belgium I could think of readily.

11049. I do not know whether you are following me or not. The reply Colonel Hefferon gave to me when I asked him did Captain Kelly discuss the second visit with him, Colonel Hefferon, he said:

Yes, he told me he was going to Antwerp.

I asked him:

You gave him permission?

He said:

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

As 9622:

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

The reply was:

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

Question 9623 reads:

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

—Yes, I understand that. I disagree with its content. I was not aware he was going to Belgium.

11050. A further question I asked him at 9624 was:

You knew the purpose of his going?

Colonel Hefferon replied:

Yes.

At 9625 I asked:

And the Minister knew the purpose of his going?

He replied:

Oh yes.

11051. Is that true?

—This statement is not true.

11052. At 9629 I asked a further question:

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

Colonel Hefferon replied:

Yes, that they had been coming.

At 9630 I asked:

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

—I did.

At 9631 I asked:

Did you give a report of that to the Minister?

His reply was:

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

—No. The first I heard of the proposed shipment from Antwerp was from Captain Kelly after the event was supposed to have taken place, which would have been the last days of March or possibly early April. I cannot recall the date accurately.

11053. On page 729, paragraph 9646 I put the question to Colonel Hefferon:

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

Colonel Hefferon replied:

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

11054. Is that correct?

—I cannot recall the first date on which I met Captain Kelly. I very much doubt it was on 4th April because it was on 3rd April, the previous day, that I met a delegation at the request of Neil Blaney, who had come from the North of Ireland and who had met other members of the Government as well.

11055. Deputy Gibbons.—The 4th March was the date. You said 4th April?

—Sorry, it was the 4th March. I would have thought that at least a week between the visit of the Northern delegation and my first encounter with Captain Kelly would have taken place but I am not certain of the first time I met Captain Kelly. Is that the point you want to clear?

11056. Yes, I want to give you an opportunity to comment on it?

—The question of reporting. I was rung by Deputy Blaney and asked to meet Captain Kelly and I met him.

11057. Page 730, paragraph 9651 my question to Colonel Hefferon was:

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

Colonel Hefferon replied:

—Yes.

At paragraph 9652 I asked:

And you acquiesed and informed the Minister for Defence accordingly.

His reply was:

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

Is that correct?

—That is incorrect.

11058. At paragraph 9657:

Can you recall whether he——

that is Captain Kelly

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

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

Paragraph 9658 I asked:

Did he mention the fact that he arranged for Herr Luykx to pay a cheque for £8,500 for 400 extra submachine guns?

His reply was:

I do not have any memory of that.

Paragraph 9659:

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

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

Did he in fact report this?

—I heard nothing at all about this apart from what I have already told the Committee that Captain Kelly said that there had been an abortive attempt to land arms—the 25th March turned out to be the actual date—but that in fact they had not come. That is all he told me apart from the fact they were on the Continent and other efforts would be made to get them.

11059. On page 731, continuing with Colonel Hefferon’s evidence, at paragraph 9669 I put the question to him:

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

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

Is that correct?

—My impression, Mr. Chairman, is that it was I who broached the question of an alternative situation for Captain Kelly when I was made aware of his suspicious activities, because on my first interview with him, the subject matter of our conversation was mainly about himself and his family and how he would subsist outside the Army and I undertook to see if I could find alternative employment outside the Army for him.

11060. At paragraph 9670, I put the question to Colonel Hefferon:

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

Colonel Hefferon replied:

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

—That statement is not accurate either. The first intimation I got of Captain Kelly’s intention to visit the Continent was from Colonel Hefferon and I think that was in February, and whether the visit in fact took place or not I am not aware, but there is an implication in this section 9670 that there was a visit about the 19th March and of this visit I was totally unaware.

11061. He probably means the 19th of February there—I imagine that is an error?

—I think I have already expressed my impression of Captain Kelly’s application to go on leave to Frankfurt at that time, if the reference is to February rather than March. I take it that 19th March in that case is a misprint.?

11062. Yes, I think it is probably 19th February. At paragraph 9672, there is a question by me to Colonel Hefferon:

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

That is, the failure to accept his resignation——

—A failure on whose part to accept his resignation? It certainly did not come to me until a day or so before I actually signed it, which was in the end of April.

11063. Deputy Keating.—Just to elucidate the normal details—would it be normal in the case of the resignation of an officer for the Minister to have to sign his resignation?

—He signs the application.

11064. In all cases?

—I think so, yes—I am not certain of this but I think so. It is a matter for the President finally to … Deputy Nolan as an ex-Army officer will know about this, but the application form comes up before the Minister—at least Captain Kelly’s did. I would say on the 29th or 30th April and not until then.

11065. Chairman.—In any event, the reply to the question at paragraph 9672 by Colonel Hefferon was:

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

We may take it that in early April Captain Kelly told you about the abortive effort to import arms at Dublin docks?

—It may have been early March—I am not sure of the date.

11066. About the same time did Mr. Blaney tell you the same story?

—Yes.

11067. And was it about the same time that Mr. Blaney asked you or sounded you on your willingness to use your office for the importation of arms?

—Yes.

11068. And it was on April the 20th, I understand, that you phoned Mr. Haughey asking him to refrain from importing arms?

—I am not able to recall that. Certainly— whether it was on the 17th which was a Friday or the 20th which was a Monday—I made this request to Mr. Haughey.

11069. This information which you had in early April from Captain Kelly and from Mr. Blaney and the sounding—I think you used that expression—by Mr. Blaney—you kept all that information to yourself?

—More or less.

11070. Which is it more or less?

—I find it difficult to remember whether I consulted anybody about it. I may have done.

11071. Apart altogether from Captain Kelly’s offer of resignation which you told us you did not receive personally, did you not regard it as a very serious thing for an officer in the Army to be involved in these matters?

—This is the reason I was so anxious to get him out of the Army.

11072. Why did you not get him out there and then?

—I thought that in the particular circumstances of the time—firstly, of Captain Kelly’s particular duties and secondly, because of the national security considerations involved—the more quietly and unobstrusively Captain Kelly were removed from the Army the better.

11073. Did Colonel Hefferon inform you that he advised Captain Kelly to seek customs clearance from the Minister for Finance for the importation of arms?

—No.

11074. Were you made aware at any time of the proposals to store arms here outside Army supervision, say in some other place outside the State or in the State?

—I have already told the Committee this morning, as you may recall, Mr. Chairman, that on the 30th of April, I was told of a proposal, if the operation had been successful, and by then it was quite patent to everybody that it was unsuccessful and was in fact the subject of a police investigation. It was only then that I discovered——

11075. That the suggestions were on foot?

—Yes.

11076. Deputy E. Collins.—I should like for a moment to deal with the setting up of the Distress Fund. You were aware at the time that the £100,000 was being allocated?

—Yes, I was a member of the Government.

11077. Were you consulted about its administration?

—No.

11078. Were you under any impression as to its proposed administration?

—No. I think it would be correct for me to say that it did not come within my bailiewick. It was the business of others to administrate it.

11079. You gave evidence at the arms trial and you were being cross-examined by Mr. Neil McCarthy:

Question: It was Government policy to provide a Distress Fund for the North?

Answer: Yes.

Question: And you yourself said it was to be administered through the Red Cross?

Answer: Yes.

Question: But the Irish Red Cross could not operate in Northern Ireland?

Answer: Yes.

Question: There was some other means found?

Answer: Yes, some other device was found.

You were aware that some other device was found?

—What the other device was I did not know but I think the arrangement was that a committee of reputable people in the North were set up and that the dispensation of the £100,000 was made in consultation with them, but I was not consulted personally about this.

11080. Were you aware at the time that this was the method?

—I do not think it would be true to say that I was aware of the method, the decision having been made to make the Fund available and that it would be administered through the Red Cross. My information thereafter would have been very scant.

11081. You were aware that some people in the North had been contacted and had formed a committee?

—It would depend on the period you are talking about.

11082. I wanted you to elaborate on the evidence you gave: “Yes, some other device was found”. Apparently it was intended the money was to go through the Red Cross?

—Yes.

11083. In fact the Red Cross did not administer it because of some difficulty with the British Red Cross. But the Irish Red Cross were able to administer a substantial amount?

—Some means was found.

11084. Apart from this, the Red Cross did administer other funds within the Six Counties?

—I was not aware of that.

11085. It has been stated here in evidence by, I think, Bean de Barra, that substantial funds were administered by the Red Cross. Some came from the GAA?

—I should like to say that this was a matter of marginal interest to me. How it was administered was of no great consequence to me.

11086. I am looking for information.

—And I am trying to furnish such information as I can.

11087. You were not a member of the Cabinet sub-Committee on Northern Affairs?

—No.

11088. You were aware of its existence?

—As far as I know, every member of that Committee, as far as I can recall, was a Deputy from a Border constituency. I am not absolutely certain about this. I certainly attended no meeting.

11089. Are you aware of Captain Kelly’s association, of his liaison duties or assumed liaison duties as between a number of Ministers here and those in the Six Counties?

—No. I was not aware of that. My understanding of Captain Kelly’s duties was that he was an intelligence officer of a rather special kind. He was referred to by Colonel Hefferon as “My young man”, and, as Colonel Hefferon’s young man, he was arranging in the Six County area to collect such information as would be helpful to the authorities here.

11090. When were you aware of his existence as an intelligence officer?

—Quiet early on, I would think. I went to the Department myself in, I think, July. Civil conditions began to deteriorate especially in Derry and Colonel Hefferon reported to me about reports to him from his young man. I assumed this to be normal Army practice.

11091. I refer you now to paragraph No, 4287 of the proceedings of the Committee. during the evidence of Colonel Hefferon:

I am talking about prior to March 4th when Mr. Gibbons met Captain Kelly for the first time, I mean, when to your knowledge did Mr. Gibbons first become aware of the existence of Captain Kelly?

—Well, to my knowledge he became aware of it I think sometime in November or maybe October, end of October, early November.

Would that be right?

I could not pin it down with any accuracy. Colonel Hefferon would refer to his young man and I cannot even recall when I became conscious of the fact that there was a man whose name was Kelly moving about the Six County area.

11092. You did not inquire into it?

—No. I thought this was Colonel Hefferon’s job as Director of Intelligence.

11093. Did Colonel Hefferon report to you often about Captain Kelly’s activities?

—I could not pin it down. He showed up from time to time and sometimes he gave me information of a general kind about the political situation in the North.

11094. I should like to quote from your evidence in court, as reported in the “Irish Times” of 10th October last:

Mr. Gibbons agreed Captain Kelly told him there was a plan to import arms into the South and that he was taking a part in it. He (Mr. Gibbons) made no comment and asked no questions about it.

When did you get the information?

—I am not certain whether it was on the first or the second occasion on which I met Captain Kelly. The reason that he gave me for his desire to leave the army was that he wished to help the people in the North and he felt his leaving the army would be a prerequisite for this.

11095. About what date would that be?

—I think the first time I met Captain Kelly would be about a week or so after the delegation, but I would not be certain.

11096. That would be 1969?

—No, March 1970.

11097. Did you not feel that he should have been made resign?

—In the circumstances, as I have said, I judged the best thing to do would be to have him leave the army quietly.

11098. This was delayed from the middle of March to the end of April?

—Until mid-April.

11099. A lot transpired in that period?

—Yes, indeed.

11100. Captain Kelly has maintained in his evidence that he had authority to act as he did?

—Yes.

11101. In his evidence at the second trial—I quote from page 22 of our transcript:

I claim that the whole thing was an intelligence operation as such and that I was acting with due authority and that I was acting under the authority of Mr. Gibbons because at all stages I reported to the Director of Intelligence what was taking place.

—I have no comment to make on that. I do not feel myself obliged to comment on what Captain Kelly’s interpretations of his duties were.

11102. Would it be fair to say that Colonel Hefferon kept you fully informed of Captain Kelly’s activities at all times?

—No, it would be untrue to say I was aware of all his activities. I most certainly had suspicions about his activities and they were growing steadily from the first day I met him.

11103. Which was?

—Mid or early March. I was in touch with the Minister for Finance on several occasions about getting this man out of the army.

11104. What made you suspicious of Captain Kelly’s activities?

—I had really only one source of information, Colonel Hefferon—and Captain Kelly himself. Colonel Hefferon told me at the time we discussed the application for leave to visit his sister that he had a vague suspicion that his real intention might be to vet arms. I have already testified to this in the arms trial.

11105. I thought Captain Kelly made it clear that he was going to vet arms and was only using his sister as a pretext?

—It was by no means clear to me.

11106. When the delegation from the North came down they requested arms?

—Yes.

11107. Was there an official reply given to this request?

—An official reply?

11108. Yes. From the point of view of the use of State funds?

—They could not have them. There was no mention of funds. There was a mention of arms.

11109. It appears from Colonel Hefferon’s evidence that he first told him of the attempt to import arms around the middle of January 1970?

—To whom?

11110. Colonel Hefferon.

—To whom did he make this report?

11111. Captain Kelly made this report to Colonel Hefferon.

11112. I was not aware he made it. This is the first I have heard of that.

I quote from question 4130, volume 7:

And when did you become so aware?

The answer was:

This is difficult to say because in, I think, January-mid-January Captain Kelly told me for the first time that the Northern people were interested in importing arms.

This information was not passed on to you?

—The first indication that I can recall from Colonel Hefferon of his anxieties in this regard was in February on the occasion for the application for leave. I should say too, Mr. Chairman, that at all times Colonel Hefferon took great pains to emphasise to me that Captain Kelly was an officer of the very highest standing.

11113. Question 4146, again Colonel Hefferon’s reply, reads:

What date was that?

—13th February and I did see Mr. Gibbons about this and I told him that I had Captain Kelly’s retirement form on my desk.

—He mentioned that Captain Kelly was contemplating retiring. He felt that Captain Kelly would be foolish to retire—that he was a married man with a family.

11114. He told you why he was retiring?

—Yes.

11115. The reply continues:

and I also did say to Mr. Gibbons that I felt some endowment might be provided for him.

—As I said I thought the initiative in the matter of finding alternative employment for Captain Kelly outside the army came from me but I do not want to make an issue of it. I should remind the Committee, Mr. Chairman, that I was under the impression all the time that Captain Kelly was on active duty in the North and that he had become emotionally involved but it appears that this was not, in fact, the case and that all army officers were ordered out of the Six Counties area from the previous October. It affected my judgment of Captain Kelly’s case—that an officer who had been exposed to the conditions that had obtained at that time in the North for so long a period could readily become emotionally involved.

11116. Were you aware at any time that Captain Kelly was getting moneys from sources other than Government sources?

—No.

11117. At Question 4164 he was asked:

Would you regard receiving money from outside Government sources as irregular?

His reply was:

In the climate of the time, I had made my position clear to the then Minister for Defence on this matter on two occasions and had not been told to stop it. I did not feel it was my job to stop it.

—I would like to see that reference.

11118. Book 7, page 314, paragraph 4164.

—This is the interrogation of Colonel Hefferon?

11119. Do you see the reply:

In the climate of the time, I had made my position clear to the then Minister for Defence on this matter on two occasions.

—What time was this, may I ask? Anyway, it is in connection with the receipt of money.

11120. Yes.

—I had no knowledge of the receipt of money.

11121. And engaging in activities outside the jurisdiction of the State? The reference to both?

—My impression about that was that as an intelligence officer collecting intelligence, which was in fact outside the State, that he had to go outside the State to collect it.

11122. In relation to the question of the purchase of arms outside the country?

—Yes. I have already told the Committee my impression that the first indication I got of Captain Kelly’s intention to leave the country was the occasion of the visit to Frankfurt to his sister. It seemed to me to be at the least an open question with a very strong possibility that it was a bona fide visit to his sister who was ill in Frankfurt. It struck me that it was rather odd, that it was certainly unusual, that he would have a sister in Frankfurt. When I discovered that, in fact, he had I thought it might very well be a perfectly legitimate exercise and said so to Colonel Hefferon to which he agreed.

11123. In book 8, page 322, question 4251, Colonel Hefferon was asked:

Was that not an extraordinary position, for an Irish Army officer to be receiving moneys from people outside the jurisdiction?

His answer was:

Yes, I would regard it as an unusual position; but I think you must tie this up with Captain Kelly’s first approach to me about this matter, where he informed me he was intending to help out these people and I invited him to retire because he could not do so as an Army officer. And it follows from that, I reported to the Minister for Defence on this matter.

—I have not the reference.

11124. It is question 4251.

—It really does not matter because I was unaware that Captain Kelly was getting money anywhere from anybody except the ordinary Army pay and whatever allowances that went with his special duties.

11125. At question 4360, of the same book, in the matter of authority again, Colonel Hefferon was asked:

You felt that he was working under ministerial direction, did you?

He replied:

I felt, certainly after 6th February, that the possibility might arise, that this directive was a very plain and very responsible statement of policy by the Government, as I understood it, conveyed to the Chief of Staff at the time, that the Army would make preparation for incursions into Northern Ireland and I had told the Minister for Defence and put him in the picture about it at this time and I certainly did not feel at that time that I should do anything to stop him, to stop Captain Kelly from——

—This is the marrying of two totally different subjects. I gave certain instructions to the Chief of Staff on 6th February but they were totally unrelated to anything that Captain Kelly was doing. It was a mere coincidence that Colonel Hefferon was present while I was conveying verbally to the Chief of Staff the instructions I wished to convey.

11126. Apparently Colonel Hefferon was under the impression that after 6th February Captain Kelly was working under your direct authority?

—He got no reason whatever for such an impression. This is verified and I am sure the man who was then Chief of Staff was also present and his testimony I am sure would be valuable in this regard.

11127. Did Captain Kelly report to you frequently?

—No. As I have told the Committee I can only recall meeting Captain Kelly twice up to 17th April, which date I discovered, or shortly afterwards, he was actually in Vienna. I cannot recall meeting him more than twice before then. When I say meeting him I mean having a conversation with him. I actually saw him on the occasion of the first visit of the Northern delegation in Deputy Blaney’s office but I only called in for a very short period and saw a man who subsequently turned out to be Captain Kelly disappearing through the door. That could hardly be called a meeting. In fact, I did not discover his identity until he presented himself in my office some time, I would say, about a week or so after 4th March. As I said already, I am not certain about this.

11128. Apparently Colonel Hefferon was under a different impression. In reply to a question in book 19, paragraph 9645, he was asked:

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

Colonel Hefferon replied:

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

—That is incorrect.

11129. It depends on which Minister you mean. Was Captain Kelly reporting to other Ministers?

—It appears that he was, but I did not discover that at the time, but I told the Committee several times already today that I can only recall two occasions on which I met Captain Kelly and on each of these occasions my purpose in talking to him was to talk to him about getting him a job and my purpose in getting him a job was to get him removed from the Army.

11130. What discussions did you have with other Ministers about removing Captain Kelly from the Army or transferring him from the Army?

—I spoke to Mr. Haughey several times. I have no record of the number of times but it was to Mr. Haughey, as Minister for Finance, that I turned my attention and I recall that Mr. Haughey, with some elation, said to me on one occasion “I have got a job for that officer of yours. I was watching your boys marching past last Tuesday …”—I think it was either St. Patrick’s Day or Easter Sunday when he was reviewing the parade and that is what he meant by referring to these boys marching by—“and suddenly struck me”, he said, “we will make him a pig smuggling prevention officer”. I did not quite know what he meant but I welcomed it as an out.

11131. Were you at a meeting on April 23rd at which Mr. Blaney——

—I was. I was asked by Mr. Blaney to call to his office and when I arrived there, I discovered Colonel Hefferon and Captain Kelly already there before me—the 23rd. This would have been a Thursday but it does not matter.

11132. Apparently the attempted importation of arms was discussed at this meeting?

—The failure of the attempt was discussed.

11133. Was the financing of the attempted importation of arms discussed?

—I do not recall any reference to it. In fact, I am certain no reference was made to it because this statement which I have made to the Committee and attested on oath I made with the greatest care and this would preclude any reference to the financing of the operation prior to that date.

11134. You were aware of both attempts to import arms—the March attempt and the April attempt?

—I became aware of it when I was informed by the Secretary of the Department of Defence.

11135. Were you aware that Captain Kelly was involved?

—Yes, because his name was mentioned.

11136. Did you not take any steps to take him off duty?

—He was not on duty. He was unassigned from 9th April, from the time Colonel Delaney took over as Director of Intelligence.

11137. But he was in fact involved——

—I did have a conversation with Colonel Delaney about getting him in.

11138. Deputy FitzGerald.—I would like to start by dealing with your statement to us of the 19th January, the written statement which we discussed this morning about your first knowledge of the funds, of the financing of this operation. You were asked this morning as to whether you had communicated this to the Taoiseach and your reply, a part of your reply, was that he did not ask you to do so. I wonder do you recall that in the Dáil on the 9th May the Taoiseach made a statement, in his closing speech on the occasion of the all-night debate on this subject—I think you were present, as everybody in the house was present at the closing of that debate—and told the House “I made specific inquiries as to whether any exchequer moneys would cover roughly a transaction of this size.” He went on to say that he checked the Secret Service funds and the Department of Defence, and he ended up: “Therefore I do not know where the moneys came from that paid for these goods, if they were paid for”. You did not consider it your duty, when you had knowledge as to where the money came from and the Taoiseach obviously felt he would like to know and did not know, to tell him that?

—I would say, first of all, that communications between a Minister and the Taoiseach are not a privilege, but I would also point out that at that time the main preoccupation was not the source of the fund with which the arms were bought but the general question of the attempted illegal importation of arms, and I want to say that I in no way deliberately withheld information of any kind from the Taoiseach or anybody else.

11139. But you did hear the Taoiseach making the statement that he did not know where the money came from on behalf of the Government in which you shared with him collective responsibility and the Dáil was deprived of information at that moment which it could have had if you had volunteered it?

—And the matter was also the subject of police investigation and I was not quite certain whether it would be proper for me at that stage, in such a public place, to disclose what Captain Kelly had said to me.

11140. I was not suggesting that you should hop up in the Dáil in the middle of discussing this subject and volunteer the information, but having heard the Taoiseach express his ignorance on the subject, it would have been sort of normal for you to go and tell him. We come then to the 14th May, and again you were in the House of the closing speech on that occasion, when the Taoiseach made a most explicit statement that not alone had no money come from any public funds but it could not have come from any public funds. You heard the Taoiseach make a statement which unintentionally, as we now know, misled the Dáil because in the course of our discussion we have discovered that he was given ground by the Secretary of the Department of Finance for making that statement and was quite entitled to make it on the basis of the information he was given. You heard him make that statement misleading the Dáil and as a member of a Government with collective responsibility, you did not feel any obligation to clarify the matter?

—This is somewhat, possibly inadvertently, to misrepresent the situation. As I have already said, the main question was the attempted illegal importation of arms. The Taoiseach had instituted an investigation which was proceeding and which had thrown up no information about the use of State funds. As against that, I had Captain Kelly’s declaration that—I do not recall, as I said already today, literally what he said, whether it was Red Cross money or Northern relief money or what—I do not know what he said—but I think it is true to say that I understood him to say that it came from the fund for Northern relief.

11141. The statement you gave us in writing, which you, I think affirmed on oath shows that he replied that it came from the funds for the relief of distress in Northern Ireland?

—Yes.

11142. You say that it was not the main preoccupation—I did not suggest it was, although indeed it is difficult to think of any greater preoccupation that that the Dáil should be misled?

—Allow me to inform the Committee that a short time after, I was visited by two members of the police who were investigating this case and they asked me a great many questions, and when they were finished, I said to them:

“There may be some matters of great importance in this case which I have failed to tell you and which you may wish to know and I now invite you to ask any question you wish to ask.” I invited them to question me on any particular aspect. They did in fact ask me questions.

11143. Your defence is, having referred to the Taoiseach and to detectives, that you were not necessarily intentionally misleading the Dáil?

—I want to make it quite clear, as I have already done, that neither then nor now did I intentionally suppress information. If that had been my intention I would not have made that statement.

11144. You made the statement on 19th January to the Committee?

—Precisely when I gave this information to the authorities I cannot say.

11145. You cannot say it precisely. What about approximately?

—No. There were certain aspects of this case that I remembered at different times.

11146. To whom did you give the information when you eventually gave it?

—Honestly, I do not recall, Possibly to the Department of Justice but I honestly cannot tell you. I certainly showed this statement to the Taoiseach.

11147. Had you told him before then?

—I do not know.

11148. You supplied this statement to the Committee after we had started work but before we had received evidence from most of the witnesses. We had not had evidence from Captain Kelly. Did you anticipate that Captain Kelly would recollect——

—No. Are you suggesting there was some subtlety?

11149. I want to put it to you in fairness?

—There is no subtlety. A Committee had been set up by the Dáil on 1st December. On 1st December the Dáil itself got round to investigating this matter. They asked me to make available any information I had about it and I gave it without any delay. There are a great many details of this whole affair that I cannot recall.

11150. I now want to bring you through the events in the order in which they happened, to make sure that I understand them correctly. You appreciate the basic difficulty we are in that while there is broad agreement on the shape of events, there are also two broad divergences—your own, and Colonel Hefferon’s and Captain Kelly’s. Our difficulty is to decide which is true or which part is true. I should like to start at the beginning and quickly to bring you to each point. First of all in regard to the Bailieboro meeting. Did you know about it?

—This meeting was mentioned at the Arms trial. As I recall it, I said I had no recollection of any description of having been told about that meeting. I have thought a great deal about that since; I racked my brains for any detail about it, the purpose of it, the people who attended it, what was decided, and I am absolutely certain that I was never informed of the Bailieboro meeting and that the reference to it in the Four Courts is the first reference I can recall.

11151. You told us that you had only one source of information for your suspicions of Captain Kelly, apart from meeting him, and that was Colonel Hefferon?

—Yes, and the observations of other people as well.

11152. Whom?

—Some of my colleagues and their general conversation.

11153. Which of your colleagues? Deputy Blaney?

—Particularly.

11154. Deputy Haughey?

—Colonel Hefferon mentioned his name to me once or twice, not in any particular way, but I was vaguely apprehensive. I actually asked Deputy Haughey sometime in April if he were in any way implicated in the gunrunning attempt and he told me he was not.

11155. You were apprehensive because Colonel Hefferon told you of contacts between Captain Kelly and these two Ministers. It arose out of the fact that you heard from him that they were in contact?

—Colonel Hefferon and Deputy Haughey had a meeting. In fact it had my approval at the time. I think it was around October, 1969. I felt it desirable that the Minister for Finance would be briefed on the general situation especially as I was anxious to make the Minister for Finance aware of the shortcomings of our army equipment of all kinds. I was aware that Colonel Hefferon and Deputy Haughey had a meeting on that occasion.

11156. But that would not have given you grounds for any particular worry?

—No.

11157. But there was a suggestion by Colonel Hefferon that Captain Kelly was in contact with these two Ministers. Or was it the type of contact that worried you?

—Colonel Hefferon told me that Deputy Blaney had contacts of his own in the North and that Deputy Haughey was also actively interested in activities in the North. He was in no way precise as to what either Minister was doing.

11158. Nevertheless, you told me just now that apart from what Colonel Hefferon had told you about Captain Kelly’s attitudes and actions, you were also concerned because of something to do with Deputies Blaney and Haughey. Was that something that concerned you or was it that Captain Kelly was in touch with them?

—No. It was instinctive. It was an apprehension conveyed to me by Colonel Hefferon. This was of a light and general nature. I might paraphrase something that Colonel Hefferon would say in order to illustrate the type of thing I mean. I do not quote him verbatim. He would say: “Oh, yes, he has a lot of friends up there. He is in close contact with people up there”. This would be accompanied by a kind of knowing grin.

11159. You are not very definite——

—I also got some intelligence reports in which the names of Mr. Blaney and Mr. Haughey occurred but they were of a general and somewhat inaccurate nature.

11160. Your reference to a paraphrase about someone—that was meant about Mr. Blaney and not about Captain Kelly?

—I used that purely as an illustration.

11161. As the kind of thing he might say about one or other of the Ministers?

—Yes, in general conversation.

11162. This arose from my asking you why you were suspicious of Captain Kelly and the fact that you suspected the Ministers does not give you grounds for suspecting Captain Kelly unless you knew he was in contact with them?

—I did not know anything about Captain Kelly until after Christmas.

11163. All we are discussing for the last five minutes arises because you said you had reason to suspect Kelly?

—My knowledge of Captain Kelly’s existence did not take real shape until 1970.

11164. I misunderstood you. Are you saying in addition to your suspicion of Captain Kelly you had also suspicions of the two Ministers and not related to Captain Kelly?

—Yes, Captain Kelly at that early stage was a very nebulous figure.

11165. You say that you had written reports about Mr. Blaney and Mr. Haughey. They were intelligence reports. Were they from Army Intelligence?

—These would be from a confidential source which I do not think it would be in the national interest to disclose.

11166. All right, I will accept that. So far as Captain Kelly was concerned, the only ground you had for suspicion was what Colonel Hefferon said?

—Yes.

11167. Even though——

—And the fact that when the deputations of people from the North arrived he seemed to be in the background on each occasion.

11168. I am bothered about a statement by Colonel Hefferon that in November you called him in—volume 15, paragraph 7891, page 598, bottom of the first column:

The last question I asked you—the second last actually—was about a complaint from the Department of Justice from Mr. Berry in relation to Captain Kelly’s activities. Can you give us any indication as to the nature of the complaints?

The reply was:

Yes. It was some time, and I am not clear specifically on the date—it could be November—Mr. Gibbons, my Minister, asked me to see him and told me that the Taoiseach had had a report from Mr. Berry that Captain Kelly had attended a meeting in Bailieboro, or had attended a meeting at Cavan—I do not think he was specific about the place—at which there were IRA people present, that he had there waved a wad of notes around, promising money to them.

What emerged after that is that Colonel Hefferon said he investigated the matter and reported back to you. I would have thought a report of that kind would have aroused some suspicions in your mind?

—I am glad you raised this question. I want to tell you my recollection of it. As I have said, Colonel Hefferon from time to time made reference to Captain Kelly who was then in the North and in the course of making a very bitter complaint about Mr. Berry, who was then Secretary of the Department of Justice, he told me in great indignation that Mr. Berry had alleged that Captain Kelly had been accused by Mr. Berry of handing over a large sum of money to an IRA man in Cavan and Colonel Hefferon was very very definite indeed to the point of saying that Mr. Berry was “mad” and that his own police were bedevilled in their work by his mental condition and that Mr. Berry’s assertion that a man of such high standards as Captain Kelly would do such a thing was absolutely bunk. There was no question of a complaint from the Taoiseach that I can recall—absolutely none.

11169. I had thought, in fact, that was established by other evidence but I cannot find it at the moment. I thought we had some support for this particular statement. Perhaps the members of the committee can help.

—We are speaking from recollection of 12 months back, but I am certain about this. I recall Colonel Hefferon’s indignation about Mr. Berry.

11170. The word “poppycock” was used by Colonel Hefferon. We can get back to this again. Did that not arouse your suspicions?

—No, because of the vehemence of Colonel Hefferon’s denial. He also at that time told me that the operations of G2—this is the Army Intelligence service—were being constantly bedevilled and interfered with by Mr. Berry and that he found it difficult to carry out his own duties because of Mr. Berry’s overall activities. He suspected everybody. Colonel Hefferon told me that he not only maintained a special branch but a super-special branch of his own.

11171. That is where that came from. Mr. Berry may have turned out somewhat saner than was then thought.

—That was what Colonel Hefferon told me.

11172. Communications between Colonel Hefferon and yourself in January, February and March—here the discrepancies are considerable. He claimed a number of meetings with you. I want to know whether the following statements made by him are in your view incorrect. He was incorrect in saying that he came to you in January and said about Captain Kelly’s interest in importing arms at the end of January?

—I have no recollection of that.

11173. Chairman.—Some members have asked for a break of a quarter of an hour.

—Could I repeat my request to the committee that if at all possible we should conclude the business tonight, everybody being in agreement.

11174. Deputy FitzGerald.—It may not be feasible. I am not nearly finished.

11175. Chairman.—We will adjourn for ten minutes.

11176. Deputy FitzGerald.—I was putting it to you, from what you say, quite a number of statements from Colonel Hefferon are incorrect. As I recall, he claims to have discussed with you in January the question of Captain Kelly’s interest in the importation of arms. He discussed it again in February, before Captain Kelly’s first visit and he claims also that you knew of the purpose of the visit of 10th March, the second visit?

—The 10th March?

11177. Is that the right date? Yes, the visit of 10th March?

—I did not know of that.

11178. He came and told you about it and also that you knew of the purpose of the third visit, which was the visit of 1st April.

—In fact I knew of no visit to have taken place.

11179. Those were visits in contemplation?

—The only one I knew was in contemplation was the one Colonel Hefferon told me about in relation to the Frankfurt application for leave to visit the sister.

11180. I think that was the first one?

—Yes.

11181. You see, he, in fact, implies it was necessary to get your permission in each case, if I understand correctly, and he came to you in each case for this purpose except in the fourth case when he was no longer there.

—I say I have no recollection whatever in fact of those alleged visits.

11182. You also said he raised with you the question of another job but I understood you to say, and I would like this to be clarified, that the initiative here came from you and not from him?

—This is my recollection but I would not be absolutely positive about this. I thought, having discussed the general situation and Colonel Hefferon’s apprehension about Kelly together, that I postulated the idea of this officer, who had become emotionally involved, because of over-exposure to the extreme conditions in the North, that a job should be sought for him in the public service with comparable rates of pay which would not in any way reduce his standard of living. I recall distinctly on my first interview with Captain Kelly asking him about his family situation. I asked him what he proposed to do if he left the Army and he answered me rather vaguely that he would go into business and rather ruefully too, I thought.

11182a. The thing is that there is a difference not only on who initiated it, which can very often happen in conversation, but also as regards the timing. His position is that Captain Kelly raised with him in January this question and at the end of January he came to you and put to you that another post should be found. He came back to you again before the first visit to the Continent and broached it with you again—I think that is his word—but had some difficulty in getting anywhere with you on the subject as you did not seem to accept it?

—This is not my recollection of it. My recollection of that is that I would think in the conversation I had with Colonel Hefferon with regard to the application for leave to go to Frankfurt it developed into a general conversation about Kelly’s increasing involvement to the point of intolerability and either then or to Kelly directly I put it that the best thing that could be done for this officer would be to find him civilian employment.

11183. You see, one can accept a certain difference of recollection on the emphasis of this kind as being genuine but it is difficult when the conflict gets quite as great as it is here and so consistent, to reconcile the two viewpoints. You see, Colonel Hefferon would appear to be saying that he came to you and put those problems to you but that you were quite happy for the operation to continue and therefore there was no problem?

—That is not a true representation of the facts.

11184. Apart from the use of the word “suspected” that Captain Kelly was going to get arms there is no word or phrase he used which implies he was unhappy, concerned, worried or suspicious but rather that he did not want Captain Kelly to engage in these activities within the Army but that apparently you were not terribly concerned about it. As long as it was cleared with you he was not too worried but that is not at all the impression we get from you.

—What I distinctly recall of the interview with Colonel Hefferon with regard to the application for leave to go to Frankfurt was asking Colonel Hefferon “Has he a sister in Frankfurt?”—I can almost remember this particular aspect verbatim because of its unusual nature—and he said “Yes, he has,” and I asked him, “Might this not be a perfectly legitimate application to visit a sick sister?” and he said “Yes, it might”.

11185. He said “Yes, it might” but he goes on to say in reply to the question:

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

that

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

—This expression “cover story” is absolutely new.

11186. To be fair, the question is being put to Colonel Hefferon at this point and it is the questioner who uses the words “cover story”?

—Yes, but Colonel Hefferon did not convey the idea that this was a cover story.

11187. My point is, in fairness to Colonel Hefferon, that in this section it is not he who uses the words. It is the questioner who uses the words; he does not quarrel with their use but it is not his phrase. I do not want to suggest that he is saying it was, and was put to you as “cover story”, so do not put too much emphasis on that, but when it was put to him, “What was your reaction to this question of the cover story?” he said “As far as I know he said that it is a natural thing for him to visit his sister, is it not”. That corresponds with your recollection?

—That is right.

11188. The questioner went on:

Yes, but you and the Minister—

and Colonel Hefferon replies:

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

Then he was asked:

You knew and the Minister knew?

and the answer was yes.

—No, this is not so.

11189. Chairman.—From what is the Deputy quoting?

11190. Deputy FitzGerold.—I am quoting questions 9607 to 9609 of volume 19.

—He did not make it quite clear that his real purpose was to vet arms but he did undoubtedly use the expression “vet arms” and voiced the suspicion that his real purpost might be to vet arms but allowed at the same time that it might be a perfectly legitimate visit.

11191. Our difficulty here is that there are two different interpretations of the whole relationship between you and Colonel Hefferon. From your discussion, it sounds as if you and Colonel Hefferon are worried about this man—he is concerned too— and you are both bothered what to do. But you are not sure how seriously to take them but Colonel Hefferon’s position is entirely different. Apart from once using the word “suspect”, which he did not sustain subsequently, everything he said was not that he suspected this but that he knew what Captain Kelly was doing and put it to you.

—There was no question of knowing. Knowing is a positive thing and the way it was put to me by Colonel Hefferon was extremely vague and allowed—and I think readily allowed—that there was a distinct possibility that the visit to Frankfurt was a perfectly ligitimate visit.

11192. You realise how grave is the discrepancy? It is possible for a misunderstanding to arise in relation to the discussion before the first visit and the visiting of his sister—you both agree that there was discussion but with a difference of emphasis —but Colonel Hefferon says that he came and he cleared the second visit and cleared the third visit. If those visits were cleared at that stage, you could not but know that he was up to something?

—Yes.

11193. And Colonel Hefferon’s insistence on the fact that they were cleared clearly involves that?

—As I have said several times, I did not know that Captain Kelly had gone abroad at all even on the Frankfurt one, the one to which my attention was drawn.

11194. But you see the implications of this because while conflicts of recollection are possible, when we have Colonel Hefferon saying he cleared each visit and you say he did not raise them at all, it suggests, if your contention is correct, that this has implications with regard to Colonel Hefferon which are disturbing?

—That is right.

11195. And there is no way of reconciling these two conflicts?

—That is true.

11196. I have gone a little out of the sequence of events because I moved ahead a little. Going back to mid-February when you had a meeting with one of these groups in the North and again on March the 3rd, Captain Kelly was at these. This is his statement and it corresponds broadly with your own recollection, but are not sure that you can name dates and I am not sure you knew him at the first meeting and at the second you mistook him for somebody else?

—I did.

11197. So that the first meeting with him would be after 3rd March?

—That is right.

11198. You have said on several occasions here this evening that you only met him twice up to 17th April. Does that mean two meetings, plus one on the 17th?

—No. The 17th in my mind is a key date because it is the date on which Mr. Carney, the Secretary of the Department of Defence, made me aware of the fact that a man who styled himself Commandant Kelly of the Irish Army was in Vienna and an inquiry was made of the Department of Defence as to whether in fact the Department were expecting a consignment of material from Vienna by air. That is why it is a key date. Afterwards I would say the next time I saw Captain Kelly, I think, would be in Mr. Blaney’s office about the 23rd.

11199. We will come to that. I take it that there is no conflict there. The difficulty is that Captain Kelly has given a circumstantial account of meetings, of which there were at least four, in lieu of your two. I say “at least”, because one phrase he used implies another meeting. It does not fit in with anything else he said. The first of these he claims to have been on the 4th March. This was the one arranged for Mr. Blaney. He claims to have told you of the arms importation proposal and the proposed visit to the Continent?

—Is this the one … this possibly is the one after the abortive 25th of March——

11200. I will give you the four in sequence because it will be easier if you have the full picture. He claimed that between March 5th but before March 25th, he saw you and that was the first occasion on which in his account there was a suggestion of his leaving the Army. In that he said that you suggested he should live in the North, if I have it right.

11201. Chairman.—Is the Deputy quoting from something?

11202. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am quoting from the papers of 16th October—the Cork Examiner—and it is from page 14, column 3, for the meeting of March 4th and column 4 for the meeting between March 5th and March 25th—from the trial. He went on to speak of another meeting between 25th March and 1st April. These dates are implicit because it must have been after 25th March, the one in reference to Dublin docks, but before 1st April, before he went away?

—Which is the date of the third one?

11203. The fourth one is between April 4th and 17th in which there was a discussion about Ballymurphy and the movement of rifles and that you agreed with him when he put it to you that the rifles should not be traceable. These are the four meetings he has mentioned. Could there be a fault in your recollection?

—When I gave information to the Garda at the beginning of the arms trial I said that up to 17th April I had met Captain Kelly either twice or three times, probably only twice.

11204. Up to 23rd April?

—The first meeting was after the Northern delegation. The second I recall was after the Dublin docks affair. Those were the only two meetings I can recall. As for the reference you made to the Ballymurphy riots and that the rifles should not be traceable, I have no recollection about it and I do not believe it took place.

11205. So there is a divergence as regards the number of meetings and as regards a number of points in relation to them—first that he did not tell you about the arms plans and his proposed visit to the Continent at the first meeting and secondly that there was not a meeting at which the Ballymurphy riots and the movement of rifles were discussed?

—I have not the slightest recollection of that.

11206. That brings us up to 17th April. I wanted to be clear about this job position. At which stage did that develop? When was this being sought as a proposal? When did you start looking for another job for Captain Kelly?

—Almost immediately.

11207. After the first meeting?

—Yes. I felt that he was hot in the sense of being no longer suitable for service as an Army officer. I spoke to Deputy Haughey and told him about the situation, that I wanted to get Captain Kelly out of the Army as quickly as possible because of his public duties as an Intelligence Officer and also because I felt a certain sympathy because I was under the mistaken impression that he had been constantly on duty in the Six Counties all that time and that he should not be unceremoniously bunged out of the Army and that a civilian job should be found for him quickly.

11208. In your evidence to the police you said you thought Charles Haughey did not take the request very seriously?

—On one occasion, I think it must have been after St. Patrick’s Day, Deputy Haughey spoke to me, and I was then daily expecting a vacancy to be produced for Captain Kelly——

11209. You also said when you discovered the position was in Deputy Blaney’s Department that Deputy Blaney was not very enthusiastic about getting Captain Kelly into it.

—It was Deputy Haughey who told me that.

11210. You said:

I spoke to Neil Blaney about it and he was not very enthusiastic about it.

You also said that Deputy Blaney at some stage said he did not think Captain Kelly should leave the Army at all. You went on, in the statement to the police, page 70 of the book of evidence.

When I spoke to Neil Blaney about Captain Kelly’s proposed resignation from the Army and mentioned the possibility of his being picked up in the North of Ireland by British or North of Ireland forces, Neil Blaney’s attitude was: “Let him be picked up. We can say ‘Yes, he is our Intelligence Officer’.”

Why did he say that? What did you think he was getting at?

—I do not know.

11211. You must have got some impression. Would you say what impression?

—I cannot account for his attitude.

11212. When he said that, surely your instinct would be to query him on it. To have a Minister callously say “Let him be picked up”, surely such an attitude is one that would cause you immediately to challenge him and to query him in the national interest.

—In the case of Deputy Blaney, not necessarily.

11213. Is that a reference to your relationship with him?

—Yes, I would think so.

11214. Could I ask in general terms to what extent your relationship with him influenced your course of conduct in this affair?

—This is far removed from the terms of reference of the Committee.

11215. I do not press it. You brought it up?

—I certainly did not.

11216. If you think you can answer it in a way that can be helpful to us please do so?

—I do not think so. I noticed an increasing interest by Deputy Blaney in me personally. We even joked about it at home.

11217. Interest?

—Yes. I joked about it, that I had a newfound friend.

11218. You seem cynical?

—It was meant to be. You asked me and I am giving it to you.

11219. I asked the question because in trying to get a rational view of what happened, to fit things together so as to make some sense, one at certain points is led to the view that you felt that your relationship with Deputy Blaney meant you were not as free as you would otherwise have been?

—Generally, that is accurate enough.

11220. That brings us to 17th April when you had this communication from the Secretary of your Department arising out of the communication from Vienna. Up to a point towards the end of March or 1st April you have said you had suspicions, generated by Colonel Hefferon?

—I had increasing apprehensions about Captain Kelly.

11221. Surely these apprehensions must have risen to a peak when Captain Kelly told you he had been at Dublin docks in an attempt to smuggle arms?

—Yes.

11222. Why did you do nothing about that?

—I balanced what I hoped to be the daily anticipation of his removal from the Army against the implications of ordinary disciplinary measures.

11223. You had a situation potentially critical in the national interest——

—I discovered that the attempt to land weapons at Dublin was a failure and felt that it was a great deal more difficult to land weapons in Dublin than it might first appear to Captain Kelly as events have proved. I felt that by the time he had done anything about it, he would be a civilian.

11224. You appreciate——

—I did—I was very apprehensive about what might happen if Captain Kelly were subjected to the ordinary disciplinary processes of the Army because he had access to a great deal of Army Intelligence information and I felt that to ruffle him unduly would be unwise.

11225. I understand your reasons. You will appreciate in putting these questions to you I am working on the basis of accepting what you say in order to carry the thing on. You will appreciate that in order to follow your story through I am working on the basis that your story is correct, without prejudice. As Minister for Defence you had growing suspicions of Captain Kelly. They are confirmed when he is involved in an arms importation plot. You have information about two Ministers which suggested that they might be involved in varying degrees. You hold all these cards close to your chest and decide how you will play them yourself and do not consult anyone on it. Did it not occur to you to go to the Taoiseach in this potentially grave national crisis? I can understand why you might have reasons for not exposing the whole thing by phoning the police. Did it not strike you, in view of the great danger involved, to discuss it with the Taoiseach?

—I was increasingly apprehensive about this, but at that particular point there was no concrete thing which could be pointed to. I was unaware of any particular part of the smallest kind which Captain Kelly had played in the actual attempt at importation of arms.

11226. Chairman.—If you were in doubt, did you never say “Stop”?

—No.

11227. Deputy FitzGerald.—I do not understand——

—I felt that this would not be the correct thing to do at that stage.

11228. I can understand you forming that judgment of playing this thing gently rather than precipitate a crisis. That was such a dangerous thing to do. I am puzzled that you did not go to the Taoiseach when you had direct knowledge of Captain Kelly’s involvement in this attempt. He had described to you his involvement.

—You misunderstand me possibly. I had no evidence of any kind of the nature of his involvement.

11229. You had his statement that he was deeply involved.

—He did not tell me he was deeply involved. It was plain from what he said that he was of this group of people—this group of anonymous people—and that he was sympathetic to them. What part he played himself I could not say.

11230. He described to you, and you gave a graphic description to the court, of his going down to the docks to collect the arms and other Army units being there and staying in the background so that he would not be seen, and then the failure to get the arms. How could you say you did not know he was involved? How more involved could you be than by seeking to collect the arms importation?

—I did not know he was physically collecting at the docks. There were no guns physically present.

11231. He told you he went down to collect guns. Is that correct?

—I think so, I cannot recall his words to me at that time. He went to very little pains to conceal the fact that he was sympathetic to and probably physically present——

11232. There is no “probably” about it. He gave a graphic description. The conflict seems to be with yourself in the evidence.

—Tell me about it.

11233. I want to try to find the relevant evidence. That may be difficult on the spur of the moment. The Irish Times, September 29th, page 8, end of column 1 and column 2. Mr. Finlay was speaking. He said:

Did he tell you that he had gone down to meet them at the docks?

The reply was:

Yes, well, he implied it.

Mr. Finlay said:

and that they had not left Belgium.

Your reply was:

That is right.

Mr. Finlay said:

Did you not then know that he had taken an active part in what would have been an importation, had some snag not arisen in Belgium?

You replied:

I did.

There is a more graphic description of going into the shadows when the army units were there.

—I recall that myself.

11234. I will read that to you. You were asked:

You told us that he made a remark about the army being there and that he disappeared into the shadows?

You replied:

Yes.

You were asked:

And he came to you at that time and told you, it is clear, that he had been down to meet an importation of arms at the docks?

Your reply was:

Well, “clear” is rather an overstatement. He told me that there had been an attempted importation of arms.

You were asked:

And that he had been there?

You replied:

I am not quite certain of that.

You were further asked:

Are you suggesting that this is not so?

You replied:

No, what I am suggesting is that, in his telling of it, it was not clear to me what part he had played. I also want it to be clearly understood that he was at no pains at all to conceal the fact that he was in some way concerned.

You were asked:

And that he was down at the docks?

You replied:

I am not clear on that. I have said that he was at no pains at all to conceal the fact that he was in on this.

You were asked:

You know that he was participating in it?

Your reply was:

In some undefined capacity.

You were asked:

You told us that he made a remark about the army being there and that he disappeared into the shadows?

—May I interrupt? This is important— some undefined capacity—I don’t know what capacity he was there in.

11235. The question was “Was he there?”

—Evidently he was.

11236. You suggested in the replies to three questions that he did not say definitely he was there. You are not certain if he was there. Then you say he made a remark about the Army being there and he disappeared into the shadows. You cannot say that “the Army was there and I disappeared into the shadows” unless you are saying “I was there”. That is in conflict with the vagueness of your earlier remarks and with the first statement I read out.

—In that statement you read out from the Irish Times it is clear that the definition of the precise part played by Captain Kelly in this Dublin dock operation is not easy to pin down.

11237. Your description of it is not easy to pin down.

—Neither was his.

11238. I can appreciate that.

—Mine was an attempt to reconstruct what he had told me several months previously.

11239. The crucial thing seems to me that when asked “did you not then say no that he had taken an active part in what would have been an importation had some snag not arisen in Belgium?” you replied “I did”. Secondly, you were asked “you told us that he made a remark about the Army being there and that he disappeared into the shadows and you replied “yes”. I cannot reconcile that last statement with anything other than his being present and therefore it seems to me in your replies to other questions you seem to be trying to minimise the certainty of your knowledge but that when you come to be asked a specific question about something definitely said you have to answer “yes”.

—What is the burden of your question?

11240. The burden of what I am saying is that your replies to the first and last questions I mentioned clearly imply that he said “I was there and I was taking an active part”.

—No, Captain Kelly did not say anything of that kind. He conveyed the idea to me, as far as I can recall, of a rather minor operation, of a small group of people going down to the Dublin docks possibly with a car to collect a half dozen revolvers or some type of thing like this. This was the general picture he gave me.

11241. But he went down to the docks to collect one gun and he was a serving Army officer illegally importing a gun. Is that not something approaching a treasonable activity?

—Yes.

11242. He described it in terms that when he saw the Army there he disappeared into the shadows so it was quite clear he was there.

—Yes.

11243. You see, what bothers me, with that knowledge and with the information you had concerning two other Ministers you not only decided not to take any action yourself but decided not to inform anybody, particularly the Taoiseach, about it. I find it hard to understand this and I would be glad if you could give us some reason why you acted in that way. Is it related in any way to your relationship with Deputy Blaney?

—No. It is partly that the operation itself had been a failure. It is partly that I was in daily expectation of Captain Kelly’s becoming a civilian. There was a mention of a further attempt being made to extricate this assignment possibly through Trieste and I envisaged this as being a long-term operation which would afford me ample time to have Captain Kelly removed from the Army. Mr. Kelly Esq. being involved in the illegal importation of arms and Captain Kelly of the Irish Army being involved in a similar operation were two quite different things. I was confident enough at the time he would be Mr. Kelly before anything happened.

11244. That brings me to another question. Both Colonel Hefferon and yourself seem extraordinarily pre-occupied with one issue only and that is ensuring the Army is not involved and yet you were both responsible members of our public administration. you a Minister and he the Head of Intelligence, whose primary function in your jobs one would have thought was the preservation of the security of the State against anybody importing arms illegally or illegal activities.

—Very soon afterwards, in fact at that time, I was aware of the fact that the police had Captain Kelly under surveillance and I was so informed within days after this.

11245. By whom?

—By the then Minister for Justice.

11246. Nevertheless, in all you said, in all Colonel Hefferon has said, the emphasis has throughout been on: “Let us get him out of the Army” and yet here was somebody who engaged in activity which in or out of the Army was illegal and dangerous to the security of the State. Yet neither of you seemed concerned to stop the activity but only to protect the good name of the Army?

—One very relevant thing there was the fact that his activities were known to the police.

11247. That was only discovered apparently a short while after this.

—I got verbal confirmation of it I would say within days.

11248. Days of what?

—Days of his informing me of these activities.

11249. That is when he came at the end of March to inform you of them?

—Yes.

11250. So that in early April you were told about this?

—Yes. I think it would be true to say that Mr. Ó Morain had made some reference to me before that about Kelly because I have already told you that Mr. Berry’s attention was directed to Captain Kelly as early as October.

11251. Yes, although you did not pay any attention to it in the light of Colonel Hefferon’s assurance.

—Yes.

11252. What I am concerned about is that in everything you have told me to date you are now telling us about the police being interested and in all that you did up to that point your only preoccupation, on your own account of it, and the time is true of Colonel Hefferon, was to ensure that army officers did not do those things, not to prevent them being done.

—It does not necessarily follow but there is a vital difference between a civilian— there are civilians, I suppose, all the time attempting to import arms illegally—and a serving Army officer attempting the same thing.

11253. But when one discovers there is anybody, be he civilian or otherwise, attempting to import arms illegally, as a citizen, never mind as a Minister of the Government, surely one’s duty is to inform the appropriate authorities, who are of course in this instance the police.

—If that action does not precipitate a worse situation.

11254. Yes, and if in doubt on that——

—It had implications of the gravest national security.

11255. If in doubt on that score one would presume that you would inform the Taoiseach. Could you perhaps expand because you did not, in fact, I think, answer me on the question of why you did not inform the Taoiseach. You answered me negatively in saying “it had nothing to do with Deputy Blaney” but you did not explain why you did not adopt that course of action.

—It was an extremely complex and difficult problem. I remember very soon after that speaking to Deputy Haughey and asking him whether there was something afoot about guns and whether he was involved. He assured me absolutely that his views about this were the same as my own, that any importation of this kind would have to be irregular importation and I recall my relief at hearing this.

11256. You believed him?

—Temporarily. I think I believed him because I wanted to believe him but my belief faded.

11257. It is a very curious position where you have this information and you do not tell the Taoiseach. You go and talk to one of the people you suspect and accept his assurance. Deputy Moran we are told also——

—Deputy O Morain told me.

11258. Yes. He also allegedly went to Deputy Haughey, whom he suspected, and asked him to tell the Taoiseach, but did not himself inform the Taoiseach?

—Who went to Deputy Haughey?

11259. My recollection of the evidence given is that Deputy O Morain asked Deputy Haughey to inform the Taoiseach. I could not quote the reference on that at this moment but I recall seeing this.

—I did that.

11260. You asked Deputy Haughey to?

—Yes. Having got Deputy Haughey’s assurance that he was in no way concerned in the importation of illegal arms I asked him to raise this matter with the Taoiseach and he said that he would.

11261. Yes, but why did none of you communicate with the Taoiseach and why did you both seek to communicate with the Taoiseach only through one of the people you suspected?

—Deputy O Morain told me he was going to talk to the Taoiseach himself. I must say, although he told me this, I was not certain that he would actually do it.

11262. In fact, instead he went to Deputy Haughey, one of the suspects, and asked him to do so. You also went to Deputy Haughey, one of the suspects, and asked him to do so and neither of you did, in fact, inform the Taoiseach. There must be some reason for this extraordinary procedure. Have you any explanation why the Taoiseach should not be told, and we know that Mr. Haughey was suspect at this stage because the Minister said that he had private information about Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney which he had received from private sources?

—No, this is slightly to distort the situation. Several months previously, in the autumn or winter of 1969, I got certain intelligence reports which named Mr. Blaney and Mr. Haughey but which were vague in nature, and, I would say, inaccurate, from a source I would prefer not to disclose.

11263. This led you, as you told us earlier, to be suspicious of both, and I think you said increasingly so?

—Suspicious is a strong word.

11264. You had doubts, were the words you used?

—Yes.

11265. Here you are in the position that both Mr. Haughey and you and Mr. O Moráin, as I understand, have doubts about Mr. Haughey and yet you would only communicate with the Taoiseach in this critical situation, a situation which is so delicate, through one of the people about whom you have doubts. Why should the Minister for Finance be the channel for that information anyway even if you had no doubts?

—A situation of this complexity requires, from me anyway, a certain period of thought. On 17th April, I discovered beyond any shadow of doubt that Captain Kelly was in Vienna and I acted quickly then by instructing that a report be prepared.

11266. When was that submitted to the Taoiseach?

—Immediately it was written.

11267. When was that?

—This is a matter that concerns a Minister and the Taoiseach and it is a matter that I prefer not to answer, but I lost no time.

11268. I do not follow your answer—it is a matter that concerns a Minister and the Taoiseach?

—I made a confidential report to the Taoiseach. I am not prepared to tell the Committee when I made it or the nature of it because I feel that it is a privileged matter.

11269. I can understand your not disclosing the contents but I do not understand why the date should be privileged?

—Immediately it was presented.

11270. You see the importance of knowing when, because you claim to have acted very quickly. In this country “very quickly” means different things to different people. Could we have any guidance as to how long, in your opinion?

—Preparation of the report itself took four days, I think.

11271. And it was transmitted to the Taoiseach?

—Immediately.

11272. So that your position is therefore that as soon as you had concrete evidence on 17th April, you acted expeditiously but did not feel it necessary to do more than tell Mr. Haughey and ask him to speak to the Taoiseach up to that time, in the light of the doubts sown in your mind by Colonel Hefferon and the evidence of Captain Kelly’s involvement in the attempted importation of 25th March?

—Yes.

11273. I think you have clarified the chain of events at any rate. Now, I want to come to that weekend of the Vienna telephone call. You have difficulty in recalling whether your talk was on Friday or Monday with Mr. Haughey? Does that mean that you cannot help us at all on this conflict between himself and Mr. Fagan? You recall that Mr. Fagan claims to have been told by Mr. Haughey that he had got the information required of Captain Kelly and that he could ring Captain Kelly on Monday morning. You recall that Mr. Fagan said that Mr. Haughey told him on Monday morning that he had spoken to you?

—Yes.

11274. And he did ring Vienna on that morning, according to himself?

—My recollection—and I am not certain of it but it is my recollection—is that I spoke to Mr. Haughey on the 17th, on the day I was informed by Mr. Carney of the presence of Captain Kelly in Vienna. By now, I had come to the conclusion that Mr. Haughey was in some way involved and might possibly be in a position to prevent the importation taking place and I asked him to prevent the importation taking place, and he said he would prevent it for a month and I then asked him to prevent it altogether.

11275. I recall that, but that, you think, was on the 17th?

—I do, but I am not certain of that.

11276. My query relates to a matter closely connected with it, though not quite identical, that is, after the communication from Captain Kelly to Mr. Fagan, Mr. Fagan consulted Mr. Haughey and claims that Mr. Haughey on Monday morning said “I have been in touch with Mr. Gibbons and you can ring Captain Kelly at Vienna”, and he did so. Mr. Haughey said, however, that this could not be correct because he had not seen you in fact until Monday evening?

—Yes.

11277. Can you reconcile these stories?

—Yes. They seem to be irreconcilable because of the fact that I am unable to say with certainty whether it was on the Friday, the 17th, or the Monday, the 20th, that I actually spoke to Mr. Haughey but I rather think it was the 17th.

11278. Where did you speak to him?

—In his own office.

11279. Was this the occasion when there were civil servants present—do you recall that?

—I went into Mr. Haughey’s private office through his general office.

11280. Was there not some reference on the night of the Monday to several civil servants being present discussing the Budget?

—I do not know.

11281. You cannot place it more accurately?

—I cannot.

11282. The next event then, as I can trace it, is the meeting of April 23rd.

—Yes.

11283. At this stage, on your own account, your suspicions were very far advanced?

—Yes.

11284. You had got a report?

—Beyond doubt.

11285. And had sent it to the Taoiseach, I suppose?

—No, not until the following day.

11286. But you had got a report and went to this meeting?

—It was not … it is important for me to point out that this was not a meeting? I was invited by Mr. Blaney to call to his office and I did so, and when I got there, I discovered that Captain Kelly and Colonel Hefferon, who was now a civilian, were both present.

11287. And in the subsequent discussion, was this “hot seat” phrase used by you?

—I do not recall that.

11288. What do you recall of the discussion?

—Very little, oddly enough. It centred around the abortive attempt to have the consignment flown into Dublin Airport and Mr. Blaney was the main spokesman, sitting at his desk. I cannot recall anything of any great substance that passed at that meeting, except that it was generally recognised that the situation was now extremely grave.

11289. What did you visualise it as? You had been brought in to a meeting of the conspirators—was it that you decided that you would lie low and say nothing to them or were you working with these people to prevent the thing getting out?

—I was not working with them.

11290. To prevent the thing getting out, I was going to say?

—If I could find something to prevent the implication of Government Ministers and Army officers in an illegal importation of arms I would have thought it the right thing to do to prevent this information getting out.

11291. So you are playing a double role. You would use the meeting to prevent anything damaging being done in public but at the same time, without telling them, you had a letter to the Taoiseach?

—I had to do that.

11292. I understand that. Then there were two more visits by Captain Kelly to you?

—Two more?

11293. He says: “One, I think, on 27th or 28th”. The reference to this is in the Cork Examiner of 16th October, page 15, column 1?

—It is on a newspaper.

11294. It is the report of the trial in the Cork Examiner. It is also on the issue for 17th October at column 5. I am not certain I have got the correct notation. I have, of course, a record of Captain Kelly giving evidence of going to see you and also of going to see you the next day at your request?

—The only time I saw Captain Kelly at my request was when his application for resignation came with the ordinary Government papers for my signature. It was the only occasion I recall sending for Captain Kelly. The second meeting, after the 23rd, I do not recall and I doubt if it happened.

11295. I cannot find the reference offhand but I think he claimed there were two meetings. There is no great significance in it?

—There is no great significance in it but I want to say I have no recollection of this meeting and I doubt very much if it happened.

11296. It is a pity I cannot find the reference, but the suggestion is that you had a meeting with him the next day and called him back again?

—I called him only once. To my recollection that is the only time I sent for him— when his application for resignation came in. My advice to him at that time was to remain in the Army for the time being.

11297. I misread my writing. It is on page 14 of the Cork Examiner. It is stated that that conversation took place in Leinster House on the evening of what he would call his arrest that morning by the Army authorities?

—I remember that. That is true. I do not remember whether it was the same meeting as the one at which he presented his resignation but I remember him making a rather bitter complaint about what he called his arrest. I thereupon told him that the application for the Army to bring him in was on my instructions.

11298. He said he put in his resignation documents in view of what you had said the previous night?

—I gave Colonel Delaney certain instructions about Captain Kelly and it was on these instructions that he was brought in to, I think, Collins Barracks and confined to some duties and given orders in respect of his previous connections—that he was to sever them. On the following day his application appeared on my desk. I may be in error but I think it was countersigned by the Adjutant-General. It seemed that as far as the Army were concerned they wanted this man out and I thought that at that stage Captain Kelly should remain in the Army and I advised him to take up some inconspicuous post in the Army to avoid any unnecessary attention but he told me then he was determined to leave the Army. I signed the document and it went through the ordinary channels. The normal procedure is that it goes from the Department of Defence to the Government and to the President finally.

11299. In view of the fact that you had told him you had ordered his arrest——

—Not his arrest. At the transition period in the office of the Director of Intelligence, Colonel Delaney had said, somewhat to Colonel Hefferon’s discomfiture, that he proposed to introduce new methods and new men and this by implication meant that he would exclude Captain Kelly from Intelligence duties and that meant that from 9th April to the period we are talking about——

11300. Which period?

—The 28th or 29th. From then, Colonel Delaney took over and he had nothing to do with Intelligence.

11301. That concludes the chronological picture?

—You will appreciate I am reconstructing from memory. Once you understand that——

11302. I have the greatest sympathy for people who have to do so?

—I may have some carts before horses. I am trying to avoid it. I am working from certain key dates. One is 3rd March, the Northern delegation; another is 17th April, the end of the thing; another is 25th March, the docks thing.

11303. I can understand that. The reason why I did it chronologically was to facilitate your recollection. There are just a few other points to clarify Captain Kelly’s claim to have acted as liaison to two members of the sub-committee?

—Which two Ministers?

11304. Deputies Blaney and Haughey. When did you get knowledge of his working with them. My impression of the celebrated sub-committee was that it had only one meeting. I think that only two members attended and that it met no more. I do not know whether I am in breach of Government privilege in saying this.

11305. That has been said already. When did you become aware that he was working with the two Ministers in whatever role or capacity?

—At no time to my knowledge was Captain Kelly ever assigned duty of a liaison officer to “liaise” with anybody. To my knowledge, he was Colonel Hefferon’s staff officer, Colonel Hefferon’s young man.

11306. His claim here rests a good deal on a repeated reference by him to a statement by Mr. Haughey at the time, but after the jury had gone out. We have that transcript but I have not got it with me. I do not know whether it is readily accessible. It is an additional two pages to the transcript which we were given when Captain Kelly raised this point.

11307. Deputy Keating.—Through the Chair, can I ask who was speaking to who?

11308. Deputy FitzGerald.—Mr. McCarthy was the person talking, but to whom I do not know.

11309. Deputy Keating.—Mr. McKenna or Mr. McCarthy?

11310. Deputy FitzGerald.—Both on different occasions.

11311. Deputy Keating.—Were they talking to Colonel Hefferon or to Mr. Gibbons, the Minister?

11312. Deputy FitzGerald.—The statement made by Captain Kelly was that it was Mr. Haughey who made this statement. Presumably whoever the counsel was was addressing Mr. Haughey. We are trying to track down a reference to put it to the Minister. I will read the statement. It is made by Mr. McCarthy on behalf of Mr. Haughey. It reads as follows:

J. The jury has now left the Court, Mr. McCarthy.

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

J. I must disallow discussions of the Cabinet. You may establish, if you wish, that there was a Committee set up, but the conversations that took place in the Cabinet room of the Government is irrelevant to any issue the jury has to decide in this case.

Mr. McC. With great respect, My Lord, it is highly relevant to the credibility of Mr. Gibbons which is a singularly large issue in the case.

—Will you read the first part again?

11312(a). It reads:

Now the evidence I propose to tender is in regard to information given by Mr. Gibbons to the Cabinet …

—How could Mr. McCarthy know of any information given by Mr. Gibbons to the Cabinet?

11313. Through his client?

—His client would have entered into an obligation on joining the Government that he would not disclose any Government information.

11314. It is not for me to judge that.

—Do you want me to comment on the information given?

11315. Yes, if you wish.

—No such information was ever given. The information you got is totally incorrect.

11316. He suggests that you gave information in August 1969 about Captain Kelly.

—That is absolute nonsense, particularly in view of the fact that at that time I was hardly aware of the existence of Captain Kelly. This, I think, emerges even from the mass of the evidence.

11317. Chairman.—Captain Kelly appeared after mid-August.

—That is right.

11318. Deputy FitzGerald.—I want to ask you to sum up Mr. Blaney’s and Colonel Hefferon’s roles, as you see it. In the evidence you gave you said—and I want to ask you when you say these things happened— and your evidence reads:

About early April it became apparent to me that some kind of gun-running project was under way. About this time I asked Charles Haughey if he knew anything about a gun-running project and he said that he didn’t, that his views were the same as mine and that any action would have to be taken by the Government collectively. About this time, also, i.e. early April, Neil Blaney had a conversation with me, generally on the subject of gun-running. I do not remember the exact words he used but, although he spoke somewhat obliquely, I clearly understood that what he was conveying to me was whether I knew whether the Minister for Defence could authorise the Customs-free import of arms and if there were any circumstances in which I could consider issuing such an authority irregularly. I told him I would not consider it under any circumstances. He said “You wouldn’t?” and I replied “No”. He seemed angry and disappointed at my reply. Also about the same time, i.e. early April, Captain Kelly told me of an abortive effort to send in arms by sea. He said that a consiginment of arms was to be met at Dublin docks. I understood from Captain Kelly that this illegal consignment never left Belgium. Neil Blaney also mentioned this incident to me at about the same time. It was about this time too that Mr. Blaney sounded me on my willingness to permit the importation of arms by use of my office as Minister for Defence.

Would you like to sum up your view of Mr. Blaney’s role as you see it in the light of that?

11319. Deputy Tunney.—I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings. I must give expression to an uneasiness which I, as a member of this Committee, can no longer contain. We have been here for over an hour listening to this examination. I have not heard any reference at all to the question of money. We have a statement from this witness that he did not know of there being any question of money until the end of April. What I am at a loss to understand is, presumably, if this witness or any other witness had that information at that time when I can see the absolute relevance of all these questions, but, in circumstances where we know that he and other witnesses have said they had not knowledge of the use of this money for the alleged importation of arms I, Mr. Chairman, am at a loss to see why so much time should be spent on matters referring to the importation of arms and not on matters of the £100,000.

—So am I and so, I am afraid, are you, Mr. Chairman. Having protested so fruitlessly all day until Deputy FitzGerald took over the only conclusion I can come to is the conclusion mentioned to the Committee earlier that this is a replay of the Arms Trial and, I suspect, an attempt to detect some discrepancy between my sworn evidence which I gave then and the sworn evidence I have given here in order to further the motion of Mr. Cosgrave that is now on the Order Paper before the House so that my character and my veracity can be later challenged on these grounds if there are some slight discrepancies. This is the only thing I can see. As Deputy Tunney has quite rightly pointed out, this charade has gone on since we re-assambled at 7.30 p.m. and practically no reference at all has been made to the matter before us. I look on it as your function as Chairman of this Committee to carry out the instructions of the Dáil of the 1st December, 1970, and you are not carrying them out, Mr. Chairman.

11320. Deputy Tunney.—Again, lest there be any misunderstanding, I would ask you to bear with me. I have made similar interruptions on the evidence given by Colonel Hefferon and, I intimated the same on the evidence given by other witnesses. On either of those occasions we did not give a firm decision on it. I hope, before we proceed with the examination of any other witnesses, that the length of time we are going to spend on matters related to the importation of arms and on the amount of time we are going to spend on matters directly concerned with the expenditure of this £100,000 should be looked into.

—The only reason that I have not protested since 7.30 in this regard is that I am reluctant to have it alleged by members of Deputy Cosgrave’s Party or any other Party that I am reluctant to answer any question on this matter that they care to ask. The relevance of the proceedings since 7.30 p.m. escapes me completely. The only reason I tolerate it, this total irrelevance, is to indicate to you, to the Committee, to the public and especially to your Party who have challenged my veracity that I am not afraid of any question you care to ask me.

11321. Chairman.—In view of what has been stated would Deputy FitzGerald endeavour to show the relevance of his line of questions.

11322. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am quite happy to terminate the examination in view of the protest. I think I made it clear in private session earlier that if, at any stage, I asked any question—this is true of all of us —which anybody judged irrelevant then I would submit immediately to the verdict which had been challenged. I think the witness is also clear of his right to challenge any question.

11323. Chairman.—Before we go any further on that it is now 10.30 p.m. and I have been asked if we could adjourn at 10.30 p.m.

11324. Deputy FitzGerald.—May I continue what I was saying?

11325. Chairman.—Very good.

11326. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am entitled to reply briefly. I do not propose to ask any more questions of the witness in view of his complaint but I would like to make my position clear. I stated at the outset the reason why I proposed to proceed in the way I did. I explained there were two interpretations of the events and it was important for us to establish which was true. I then put it to the witness that I would proceed chronologically to do that. We made it clear to the witness at the outset of this session in the statement which you read out that he could challenge the relevancy of any question. I said in private session if I asked any irrelevant question I would be more than happy to be ruled out of order. I do not, therefore, understand this belated protest. If it was thought that anything I asked was not relevant to the question of establishing whether Captain Kelly had the authority of the Minister or not it could have been challenged at any moment. As it is now challenged I will not ask any more questions.

—May I say in reply to this that I do not know whether Deputy FitzGerald was present when our proceedings began this morning but I submit that the statement I made to the Committee on the 19th January, 1971, and that I attested here on oath, covers the ground as far as I am concerned. I feel under no obligation whatever to explain discrepancies between my sworn statement and the statements of other witnesses. This is my testimony and I attested it on oath. I stand over it and any question that relates to it that the Committee want to ask me, as I have said this morning, I am perfectly prepared to answer. We have been chasing about Bailieboro’ and all sorts of irrelevancies like this all the evening. I reminded the Chairman today that at this particular time I am extremely busy in my capacity as Minister for Agriculture and that a great deal of time has been needlessly dissipated.

11327. Deputy E. Collins.—As one of the members who asked the Minister a number of questions since 7.30, and who is now accused by the Minister, I think, of partiality I would like to point out that one of our major tasks here has been to establish one way or the other the authority which Captain Kelly had to spend some of the moneys which apparently came from this Fund.

11328. Chairman.—Which Captain Kelly claimed.

11329. Deputy E. Collins.—Yes. I make no apology for asking any questions which, I understand, necessarily go into the field of politician’s problems. I make no apology for doing so and I am acting, not because of any motion which may be on the Order Paper of the Dáil, but because of my position here on this Committee. I am anxious to find the truth about this and I have no apologies to make to anyone on this matter.

—I have sworn many hours ago that the first intimation I got of the expenditure of moneys for arms was on the 30th April. Surely this should answer Deputy Collins’s question.

11330. Deputy FitzGerald.—I wonder if Captain Kelly would agree?

11331. Deputy Keating.—May I make some observations on this as someone who has not yet asked any questions and as someone belonging to another Party. I think we are faced with a very difficult problem of making up our minds, whom we ought to believe. It is a problem which is genuinely difficult, even though the Minister may believe we have made up our minds in advance. There is the matter of the detailed operation of the bank accounts but there is also the matter, which seems to me to be relevant since we are going to produce a report and offer our beliefs and opinions, of whether people were acting in good faith, believing that they were acting on authority, or whether they were part of a conspiracy which was designed to flaunt that authority. I do not see that we can form valid opinions as to the correctness of the expenditure without being able to answer that central question. Was there a conspiracy to flaunt authority or was there a chain of authority in which people could creditably believe? The reason that I feel this evening’s testimony was relevant, and I must say to be extraordinarily interesting, was that until tonight we had heard one version of that situation. I would put it to the Minister that his side of it, hitherto, had gone entirely unrepresented. We cannot escape having to disbelieve someone who came here on oath and in facing that task, in trying to discharge it honourably, I have found what the Minister had to say here tonight extraordinarily valuable. I would have been very regretful if he had not said it. If he chooses now to insist on irrelevance, and, if he is upheld by the Chairman, then this questioning cannot be pursued. I would feel very much the poorer in the task I am trying to discharge, and we are all trying to discharge, if we had not heard the Minister’s testimony.

11332. Deputy R. Burke.—As one who has not spoken at all yet I can only offer an opinion that the Minister has not done himself any disservice by his forthright answering of the questions put to him, I would suggest impartially, by Deputy FitzGerald.

—Yes, I accept that Deputy FitzGerald’s questions were impartial but irrelevant.

11333. You are not doing yourself any disservice in this and I am at a loss to understand why the question of relevancy should raise itself here and why not before. I strongly appeal to the Minister to allow the questions to continue.

11334. Deputy FitzGerald.—But challenge any question he wishes.

Mr. Gibbons.—Can we go on now?

11335. Deputy FitzGerald.—The Minister has just said, as I understood him, that he accepted that my questioning was impartial but irrelevant. The matter of relevancy is one for the Chair but I welcome the Minister’s statement—he did seem to be saying something different in a moment, perhaps, of irritation. I intended my questioning to be impartial and I asked every question that would help to clarify things in the Minister’s favour just as much as against him. I am glad he now accepts that my questioning was impartial.

—My situation is this, that, as I understand the terms of the Order of the Dáil of 1st December 1970—if you would permit me to read it (Order read). Now, plainly to me this concerns the money voted under subhead J and nothing else, except any moneys transferred to the Irish Red Cross Society. My purpose in coming here was to make my declaration of my knowledge of that subject and I could have done it in five minutes, and, in fact, did do it.

11336. Deputy H. Gibbons.—The only comment I wish to make is that I am very conscious of the fact that this is probably the third time the Minister has given evidence. Of all the people giving evidence, he is the only person coming before us who will have to answer to the Dáil on behalf of this particular Vote and no matter what we may think about his attitude, I am sure he must be conscious of this himself. This is one of the things which you cannot prove until you see the pudding; in other words, if this motion comes before the Dáil, it will be just interesting to see how much use will be made of this. Anybody who is human must appreciate the Minister’s position. He is the only one who will have to face up to both occasions and I am glad to see that his attitude is that he is prepared to do so. We were in secret deliberation during the day and I did not say this, for the obvious reason that I am a member of the Minister’s party and I felt that we are here to discharge a duty, trying not to express that much sympathy one way or another with any witness. In view of what has been said, I put this on record.

11337. Deputy Tunney.—I am not questioning at all the rights of the members of the Committee to interpret their functions here in the same fashion as I do. I look upon all the witnesses coming before me in exactly the same fashion. I must admit that I am not concerned about other matters that may ensue. I am anxious to see the situation as it is presented by witnesses who come before us and here I would disagree with the members who were talking about evidence being interesting. We have had very interesting evidence; we have had very entertaining evidence; and I am not questioning the impartiality of the questioning. What I am questioning is the direct relevancy of questions to what I think I have been asked to do as a member of this Committee, and having regard to the amount of time that was spent in the last questioning, which undoubtedly was very interesting, I was expressing my unhappiness and uneasiness at it. If other members disagree, I am quite happy to take their view of it— a majority of them—but I felt impelled to express my own view on it.

Mr. Gibbons.—The issue seems to me to be this; do we confine ourselves to the Order of the Dáil of 1st December or do we range far and wide to enable Deputy Keating to establish the comparative veracity of various witnesses? I am not particularly interested in this; the only thing I wish to do is——

11338. Deputy Keating.—It is our job to establish it—the comparative veracity of various witnesses. You may not be interested but we are.

—My task here is to attest on oath to the completest degree possible all I know about the Order of the 1st December. I am prepared, as I have said before a number of times already—this is why I came here, but I think we have been chasing irrelevancies for a great part of the day and I would appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, that in your application of the rules of procedure when we resume, I hope, to-morrow morning, some restraint should be exercised. I do not say that restraint should be exercised on my being questioned in any manner in which any member of the Committee wishes to examine me, only in so far as it should be relevant. This is my attitude. I wish to repeat that the only reason that I did not protest about the prolonged interrogation by Deputy FitzGerald was that I did not wish anybody to think that I was reluctant to answer any particular question about any aspect of this matter.

11339. Chairman.—You have answered all the questions put to you.

11340. Deputy FitzGerald.—Very fully.

11341. Deputy Nolan.—There is no doubt in my mind about this question—since this Committee examined the first witness, hundreds of questions have been asked that were irrelevant. There is no doubt in my mind on that, in the minds of the other members of the Committee, and indeed, the minds of the public, but at this stage I think we should carry on for the next eleven or twelve minutes until eleven o’clock—in other words, to have a jumping off ground, to resume to-morrow.

11342. Deputy FitzGerald.—May I put it to the Minister that if he does feel a question is irrelevant, he has the right to challenge and nobody is going to feel that he is trying to dodge questions. He has answered extremely fully, but on the matter of the relevancy of questions——

—I would prefer to leave that to the Chair.

11343. You must put it to the Chair if you think something is relevant.

11344. Deputy H. Gibbons—The first thing I would like to put to you is this: in your document, you said that on April 30th Captain Kelly replied to you that the money came from the fund for the relief of distress in Northern Ireland. This is a bit of a surprise to me because Captain Kelly, in his evidence here, said, when it was put to him, that whatever he had done with the money, it came from the northern people, that he got money from people importing arms and I think the gist of Colonel Hefferon’s evidence, any time he was asked about this, was that he was under the impression that Captain Kelly was getting money through the northern people. Still, on 30th April he said to you it was the Fund for the Relief of Distress in the North? Are they exactly the words he used?

—I pointed out this to the Committee already. I said I was not repeating verbatim what Captain Kelly said but that this is the understanding I had of it. Possibly earlier it could have been worded more accurately, but I am now telling the Committee that this is what I understood Captain Kelly to say.

11345. You did not gather on that occasion, on 30th April, that Captain Kelly was getting money from Northern Ireland rather than southern Ireland, which in fact was the position—it was being taken from the banks in southern Ireland?

—I knew nothing about the banks at that stage, about the famous bank accounts in Baggot Street or elsewhere. I did not hear about that until shortly before the Arms Trial.

11346. Captain Kelly was an intelligence officer and there was this question of his going down to the docks when arms were to be imported. There are two possibilities: that he went there in the ordinary course of his intelligence duties, standing in the shadows so that he would not be observed while he was observing, or the other, that he had been there acting illegally. Had you any difficulty in deciding which?

—Not a great deal. Let us contrast two things here. At the time when Colonel Hefferon complained to me of the passage of money between Captain Kelly and a member of the IRA in Cavan, I accepted Colonel Hefferon’s indignant protestations on Captain Kelly’s behalf and agreed with his contention that an intelligence officer, in order to carry out his duties, must have contacts with unusual people such as members of the IRA and must indeed establish relationships with them which would enable him to carry out his functions as an intelligence officer. I was not unduly worried about that at the time, especially in view of Colonel Hefferon’s vehement assurances of Captain Kelly’s loyalty and reliability which he said were exceptional. On the other hand, by the time of the expedition to the Dublin docks I had very little doubt that Captain Kelly had more or less espoused the cause of people whom he calls “the Northern people”. At that stage I was pretty frantically looking for a civilian job for Captain Kelly.

11347. Captain Kelly stated that at the end of April you changed your mind. In paragraph 7270 of the Minutes of the Committee’s proceedings I asked him as follows:

Why did Mr. Gibbons change his mind?

What did he change his mind about?

—Mr. Gibbons should answer that.

7271. No, there is only one circumstance in which I could see that Mr. Gibbons changed his mind.

Would you say you changed your mind at that time?

—I can tell you straight that the facts are at variance with that general assertion. When I was asked by Deputy Blaney early in April if I would be agreeable to allow my Department to be used as a facility in the illegal importation of arms I told him I would not. I should point out as well that if I had given such agreement to such an arrangement to allow my Department to be used for this illegal purpose it would have facilitated the importation of illegal arms greatly.

11348. Did you at any time authorise anybody, by writing or orally to a third party, arrange with anybody to spend money?

—My statement of 19th January should cover that. Until that time the question of money simply did not enter my head. I knew of the existence of money for the illegal importation of arms but I did not think such a thing would be possible. I thought that the Department of Finance accounting system would render such an operation impossible. In any event, I knew nothing about the money.

11349. Deputy Keating.—I should like to ask you if we are to take it that your letter of 19th January, 1971, to this Committee stands and that you will stand over what is in it?

—Yes.

11350. I want to come to the sentence relating to money, when you asked Captain Kelly the source of the money and he said it came from the fund for the relief of distress in Northern Ireland. Is that your testimony?

—I have told the Committee that I did not purport to quote Captain Kelly verbatim but that that was the meaning I understood him to convey.

11351. Are you aware it is his contention that in fact the moneys did not come from this source but that the fund was used as a cover—that a switch was operated and that the money came from sources in Northern Ireland?

—No, I am not. I have told the Committee earlier today that I have not followed the proceedings with any great care. I am not aware of what Captain Kelly has said about this. I have given the meaning I took from what he said to me.

11352. Accepting that this is a rather concise way of expressing the sense of what was said, was it quite clear to you that this was money for the relief of distress?

—Yes.

11353. Did he indicate this to you clearly —that it was money voted by the Dáil for relief of distress?

—If I were required to go as near as I could to giving a verbatim account of what Captain Kelly said to me, of the conversation that took place, it would go something like this: “Where did the money for this operation come from”? And he would have replied: “Either Red Cross or Northern Ireland Relief Fund”. It was either one or the other. I endeavoured to express in that document the meaning of what I took from him.

11354. Was it clear to you from the form of words which he used that money had been diverted from its intended use for the relief of distress, to the purchase of arms?

—It was, yes.

11355. It was a diversion of funds from their intended use?

—It was, yes.

11356. He made that clear to you?

—Yes.

11357. Did you immediately draw the conclusion when he told you that this was a misapplication of these funds?

—Yes.

11358. You knew that straight away?

—I thought this was another track and extraordinary story. The other salient feature of that conversation which I had with him on that occasion arose earlier today. That was when I asked him what the final destination of these materials was to be if they had arrived. The Committee is aware of that destination.

11359. Did he, without an effort at concealment, indicate to you that funds had been diverted from a purpose for which they were voted by the Oireachtas?

—He did, yes.

11360. Did you recognise immediately on 30th April the significance of that admission by him? Did you recognise that this was a diversion of funds to arms contrary to the intention of the vote of the Oireachtas?

—In short, that it was theft of a kind.

11361. Let me not use that word, but “a diversion of funds” from the intention of the Oireachtas. Did you realise that?

—Yes, I did.

11362. I am nearly through. I want to warn the other people how long I will be. This was 30th April?

—Yes.

11363. On 9th May were you present when the Taoiseach gave the Dáil an assurance that the moneys for the purchase of arms could not have come from public funds?

—I can’t say that, but I probably was. Was it a reply to a Parliamentary Question or during the course of a general debate? The likelihood is that I was present.

11364. I hope I am correct in saying that 9th May was the night when the long debate was being closed by the Taoiseach.

—The fat part of the book.

11365. My recollection is that practically every Deputy of the House was present.

—I would have been in for the Taoiseach’s speech. I would also have been out on my feet at that time of the evening.

11366. It was a Saturday. I was going to say were you so shocked by events at this stage that you were not aware of what was going on?

—What shocked me most of all was that allegations of the most serious kind were being made against me personally. My main preoccupation was that allegations, many of them of the most outrageous character, had been made in the course of that long debate and the significance of what Captain Kelly had said—in my mind its proportion was small enough. I know quite well that an investigation was going on and in due course the police arrived and made their investigation.

11367. I am concerned with whether you realised that on 9th May the Taoiseach had said something which was contrary to information in your possession.

—I can truly say I was not so aware. I am not denying that I knew what I had said I knew but the Taoiseach, when he was speaking, said what he knew.

11368. Had you been present for a great deal of the long debate?

—I was not present for much of it at all. To be quite honest with you, most of it was heavily directed at me personally and I did not want to be there.

11369. Did you realise that there were rumours that a press conference had been given and there was some basis in statements made outside the Dáil for these accusations?

—I saw Captain Kelly being interviewed on television and using the expression he used describing me as an “unmitigated scoundrel”. It was against this background of general suspicion that I absented myself from the House a great deal until my personal courage demanded that I was in the House.

11370. Were you aware that members of all parties were casting around in a time of great turmoil for an explanation of the extremely serious and profoundly nationally threatening events?

—Yes.

11371. Were you in the House on 14th May when the Taoiseach again rejected the possibility that these moneys could have come from a public source?

—I cannot recall that. If it were at Question Time I suppose I was. It is normal for Fianna Fáil Deputies, especially front benchers, when the Taoiseach is speaking, to attend.

11372. The point I am coming to is that the effects of these explicit denials twice by the Taoiseach was to produce very great confusion and a good deal of doubt in the minds of the population at large and of Opposition Deputies. That resulted in the scenes of fury and frustration which were expressed at that time.

—I have assured the Committee today that at no time did I attempt to conceal any relevant information or information of any description.

11373. Do you admit that this information was relevant?

—In its proportion to the general question before the House at that time, it was relatively insignificant. First of all, it was made by a comparatively junior officer to me privately. Secondly, this officer, so far as I knew, had not been charged with any crime at that time. I was in doubt as to whether it would prejudice his legal position if I said publicly before the nation what he had told me.

11374. Did you tell the Taoiseach privately?

—I recoiled from the general tenor of the debate—the long debate—and the debate that preceded the appointment of Mr. O’Malley as Minister for Justice because the Opposition were really out after my skin.

11375. Apart from the Dáil debate, did you tell the Taoiseach, either after his denial of 9th May or the denial of 14th May, of what Captain Kelly had told you?

—These denials that the Taoiseach had made—I was not aware of them until they were mentioned here today. They did not impinge a great deal on my consciousness.

11376. Did you tell the Taoiseach after 9th or after 14th May what Captain Kelly had told you?

—I had several conversations with the Taoiseach. I am certain if the Taoiseach denied any knowledge of the expenditure of the money that Captain Kelly had said was expended—I had not told him. In other words, I will accept without reservation what the Taoiseach said as being true so far as he knew it.

11377. Did you tell anyone what Captain Kelly told you on 30th April prior to this writing it to us on 19th January, 1971?

—I think so, but just when I simply cannot recall. I wish I could recall because I have no reason to conceal the time at which I made this known. Possibly it can be established from the various State security agencies.

11378. You mentioned urging Garda officers who were requesting you to range more widely?

—Yes.

11379. Were those events in your mind when you urged them to do this?

—No, they were not. In a question like this, where allegations of the most fantastic kind are made against you personally and about various people, the scale of an assertion of this kind drops very much. What I want to assure the Deputy and the Committee is that I at no time deliberately concealed information for any purpose but what was under discussion in the early days of May was the dismissal of Ministers on suspicion of their being implicated in the importation of arms illegally. The question of money was not impinged on.

11380. Did it occur to you in the months between the May debate and the opening of the trial that you possessed information which was contrary to the statements of the Taoiseach and contrary to the opinion of all those who were concerned to find the true solution?

—No, because so many statements had been made all through the summer, let us say from May onwards, that this had receded in my mind. I am being subjected personally to such a tremendous battering that it had receded in my mind. When I was asked by the Committee to say all I knew about this fund I did it immediately. If I had any intention of concealment I would have continued to conceal it.

11381. Are you telling us now that until the Committee’s request you had no thought of the significance in the whole story of what Captain Kelly told you on 30th April?

—No, nor am I telling you that I am certain that I have not disclosed it to the authorities. What I am telling you is that I cannot recall when I did it if I did it at all.

11382. Deputy Nolan.—Are we adjourning now?

11383. Chairman.—I think we should.

11384. Deputy Treacy.—I would like to help the Minister in indicating at this stage that I would not wish to detain him unduly long here. I am conscious of the fact that he has been with us a long time and that he has been subjected to a pretty long, detailed and exhaustive examination.

11385. Chairman.—It is a question of staff as well.

The Committee adjourned at 11.15 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 22nd April, 1971.