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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Máirt, 27 Aibreán, 1971

Tuesday, 27th April, 1971

The Committee met at 4.40 p.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.

Examination of Deputy Neil T. Blaney continued.

11480. Deputy E. Collins.—Deputy Blaney, on the last evening we were discussing your association with Captain James Kelly and if you do not mind I should like to go back further on that issue. Were you aware that Captain Kelly had access to the accounts in Baggot Street?

—No, I was not, at any stage that I can recall.

11481. Were you aware that he had access to State moneys or moneys emanating from State sources?

—No, I did not have any knowledge that he had access to funds of that nature through any of these accounts nor in fact do I recall that I was aware of these various accounts.

11482. What was your purpose in introducing Captain Kelly to Mr. Luykx?

—I think Captain Kelly wanted somebody who knew Continental languages and who knew his way around and that was it.

11483. Did he tell you for what purpose?

—No, there was no purpose discussed.

11484. Were you aware that Captain Kelly was to go to the Continent at any time?

—No, I would not have been aware of his going.

11485. He telephoned you from the Continent on one occasion, from Dortmund, I think?

—On one occasion, yes.

11486. Did he discuss with you the nature of his business on the Continent?

—No. In fact there were two calls as I have discovered since. When I got home on the evening of the Ballymurphy confrontation, there was a call for me—I imagine it is the same incidence, it must have been, it is the only one I can recall —I got home rather late in the evening, at 9 or 9.30 to find that there had been a call from the Continent. I am not sure that it was from Dortmund. I thought myself it was from Frankfurt but it probably was Dortmund. The call was to the effect that I should ring back to the Continent by 10.30 or at 10.30 that night. However, I was relieved of having to decide to make the call because a call came through before 10.30 and that call, so far as I can remember now, was merely to inquire as to what was the state of things in Ballymurphy at that particular time. That was all.

11487. Did it not strike you as being rather peculiar that a serving army officer should be telephoning you from Germany?

—I do not think that what struck me as being peculiar or otherwise is of any consequence.

11488. When did you become aware that Captain Kelly was involved in the illegal importation of arms?

—Does this really arise on this matter?

11489. Yes, in so far as there are some funds involved which emanated from sources within the Government.

—Perhaps in that regard I should say that I was not aware personally of the knowledge that he was engaged in the illegal importation of arms at any stage.

11490. Would you say that again please?

—That I was not personally of the knowledge that he was involved in the illegal importation of arms at any stage.

11491. At any point in time?

—Yes.

11492. At what point did you know that he had taken money to the Continent to purchase arms?

—I did not know he had taken money to the Continent.

11493. He has since said so himself?

—It is not for me to comment on what he has said.

11494. You were not aware in say April or May of 1970 that this was so?

—That he had taken money to the Continent?

11495. Yes.

—I had no personal knowledge of this.

11496. Were you aware that Captain Kelly was reporting to, among other people, the then Minister for Finance?

—Reporting—I could not say——

11497. Or had discussions?

—I was aware of Captain Kelly having talks but what they discussed would not necessarily come to my knowledge but that he talked to Ministers including the Minister for Finance I would have had no doubt.

11498. What was his role generally, do you see, during this period in his reporting to Ministers of State?

—As I think I said at the early outset I came to know him, I think, through our dual roles, if you like, of both of us seeking perhaps the same thing and that was what was the state of things inside in the Six Counties and what might we expect and what could we advise and what was the best informations we could bring back he, I suppose, to his authorities and I to mine, and I take that in his discussions with others that perhaps it was the same thing that he was trying to sort out there as he and I had talked on several occasions.

11499. Did he have any discussion with you about the Northern people requiring arms or requesting arms?

—Sure, there was no question of identifying discussions. These various Northern people, people coming from the North, they came down here on many occasions, varied people, and almost invariably, I would not say in absolutely every case, but certainly almost invariably, they were seeking arms.

11500. In point in time, say, take March-April, 1970, did you ever discuss with him the possibility that people in the North were requesting arms or looking for arms?

—I am sure I must have.

11501. And he discussed this matter with you as well?

—Well, if I discussed it with him I take it it would be a two-way thing, although I am only answering for myself.

11502. Did he ever mention the fact that he was going to get arms on behalf of people in the North?

—Not that I can recall, no.

11503. Did you ever discuss Captain Kelly with Mr. Haughey, the Minister for Finance, at that time, March-April?

—A sort of three-way discussion?

11504. No, two-way discussion between Mr. Haughey and yourself.

—That would be hard to say but I have no clear recollection of such.

11505. Captain Kelly has mentioned in his evidence that he was a victim of a change of Government policy. It is not for us to inquire into Government policy and I do not want to. He claims that he was working under the authority of his Minister?

—Yes.

11506. Is this possible? Say, certainly after the 6th February, the Government directive?

—A serving Army officer, I would presume, is working under the authority of his Minister, any Army officer.

11507. As far as you are concerned he was working under the authority of the Minister for Defence at that time?

—That would be my assumption.

11508. You were aware of the directive of the 6th February?

—What directive?

11509. In relation to certain matters which——

—Is there anybody aware of it?

11510. Of?

—Of the directive?

11511. We have nothing produced here, fortunately.

—I thought so.

11512. We have had reference to it. Indeed his immediaite superior, Colonel Hefferon, alluded to it on a number of occasions?

—I could not comment on it, Deputy.

11513. Deputy FitzGerald.—Captain Kelly, you are aware, has claimed authority from various sources and it would appear that one of the claims is authority to act in relation to the liaison committee, sorry, as a liaison officer to the sub-committee of the Cabinet of which you were a member. Now, it is in that respect that a number of the questions that I want to put to you are relevant with a view to seeing to what extent anything he did was as liaison officer with that committee. Could I ask you first of all is he correct in saying that he was liaison officer? You may recall his statement that, this emerged in the trial, that the counsel for Deputy Haughey referred to some Cabinet discussion in which allegedly Captain Kelly was appointed liaison officer. This was not pursued in court because it was regarded as irrelevant. Is it in fact the case that he was acting as liaison officer between the sub-committee of the Cabinet and people in the North, as he claims?

—I am afraid I could not comment on that in any useful, helpful way.

11514. You were a member of the sub-committee?

—I was, yes, certainly.

11515. Well, he states that he got in touch with you and that he acted as liaison officer to that sub-committee, keeping contact between it and people in the North and he claims that this claim of his was validated by a statement by the counsel of Mr. Haughey in court, at a period when the jury was absent?

—Well if you put it, you know, was there a formal appointment and was it on a formal basis I have no such recollection, but on the other hand in so far as his furnishing me as an individual, or as an individual member of that committee, it could be I think fairly claimed that it could be regarded as liaison in that sense, in that I got I think a lot of information from him to add to the information that I myself was getting in my own way and which in turn I would have been giving to him for what it was worth.

11516. Yes. I would like to take you through the events that seem relevant, in chronological order, so that we can see how the thing unfolds. The first question I want to ask you relates to a meeting at the Border which Mr. Gearóid MacEoin says he arranged for you to meet people at the Border. Do you recall this meeting?

—I can recall a number of meetings but at the same time, may I ask what is the point of these, where does this come in?

11517. Well, we have a statement by a witness to this effect and I simply wanted to check if it is correct.

—I would say that a number, quite a number.

11518. He claims to have arranged a meeting on your behalf with a cross section, he said, of the community in Dunmanus?

—Yes, well not on the border; it would have been inside the border.

11519. In a border town?

—That would be more like it, yes.

11520. I did not picture you standing by the road. There was such a meeting in any event and he arranged it?

—You said such meetings—certainly a meeting there would have been, yes.

11521. Your first meeting with Captain Kelly—he came to see you on his initiative we understand. Is that correct?

11522. Quite candidly I do not remember on whose initiative or whether he came or I sought him or exactly what time it was, I have no recollections.

11523. You have no relevant impression looking back as to how you made your first contact with Captain Kelly?

—No.

11524. Can you recall that you knew of his existence by name before he came to see you?

—That I don’t even recollect either for the simple reason that events were happening rather quickly from the sort of blowup in August, 1969 and I was pretty heavily involved departmentally and constituency-wise and then this new serious situation that had arisen. From then on, indeed for many many months after, the telescoping of events was such that I am afraid I haven’t very clear order of happenings and indeed not very clear recollections of many things which might have been important at the time, may even seem important now but in the succession of events they weren’t important the day after.

11525. I can understand that. In any event nothing in your recollection contradicts his statement that he initiated this contact and got in touch with you?

—No. I would say that we came in contact. I have said that already as a result of our dual roles with somewhat similar purpose. Which of us or how or where or when and exactly in what circumstances, I just don’t recall.

11526. He claims you put him in contact with Deputy Haughey the same night that he came to see you.

—That again is quite possible but again I am not in any position to absolutely say that that was so.

11527. He claims to have been in very regular contact with you thereafter?

—Yes, I would go at that.

11528. Almost weekly?

—It could be weekly on average. I would say certainly weekly.

11529. Your discussions with him were obviously on Northern affairs?

—I would say pretty mainly so.

11530. Exclusively?

—Well, I wouldn’t say exclusively because naturally once you get to know a person in frequent meetings perhaps you can sort of leave the more important things aside once in a while and I would not say that it was exclusively.

11531. But that was the purpose of your meetings?

—I suppose, by and large, yes.

11532. When did the question of arms importation into the North first come up in discussion with you?

—I am afraid I could not give you that one either. I have no recollection there because, as I say, the request for arms from there was pretty well continuous and when, if at any time, he would have discussed it at a stage early or late with me I just don’t have any clear personal recollection.

11533. Except that there must have been quite a lot of talk about people in the North wanting arms. You could not easily put a date on that but if at some stage, as he suggests, he, as an Army Intelligence officer, came to you and said that he was involved in or contemplating involvement in an arms importation, surely that would stick in your recollection?

—Not particularly, it wouldn’t, no.

11534. You would not regard that as a rather startling development?

—Not in the circumstances of the time.

11535. So you would have difficulty in dating when that could have happened?

—I cannot even say it did happen.

11536. Do you quarrel with his version that he did?

—I am not commenting. I am merely trying to answer the questions you are asking me and so far as commenting on the evidence given by others is concerned that’s not for me.

11537. You did the last day. You commented in this sense that you did say when someone put something that Captain Kelly had said to you, you said: “Oh I don’t doubt Captain Kelly’s word”. At another stage you said: “if either Captain Kelly or Mr. Luykx say something …”. You commented in that sense, that you accepted the last day when put to you the validity of their evidence? You said in one case: “I don’t doubt Captain Kelly’s word”, accepting something that was put to you that he had said.

—Yes but on the other hand, while I would have said that in the normal context I would still continue to say it in regard to anything Captain Kelly might say, this isn’t quite the normal context in that I am here under oath to give evidence in reply to questions and it is somewhat different.

11538. So that you are not in a position to confirm his statement that he did discuss with you proposals for arms importation?

—Not as to tying down any specific discussions.

11539. I can quite see the difficulty about putting a date on it or remembering a particular discussion but his assertion that he did discuss with you at some stage or stages involvement in arms importations—is this something you can confirm?

—I would have to go back again, I am afraid, to start at the beginning. How far on these things brings us I do not know in time but arms were being sought continuously and I have no doubt that Captain Kelly was getting the same sort of request from his contacts as I was from mine and indeed as other members of the Government were getting from those same contacts that were coming to see me and in many cases were merely coming to me to vote as somebody else to arrange to have them see the Taoiseach or the Minister for External Affairs or the Minister for Finance or what have you. Discussion of arms was so much the topic of the day that there would be nothing unusual about it and indeed nothing would stand out in my mind as to when or to what time or in what context or circumstances Captain Kelly would have talked to me about arms.

11540. We are not talking here generally about vague ideas of people looking for arms but we are talking about a concrete proposal to import arms and to visit the Continent with a view to that and to use funds available to people in Northern Ireland for that purpose?

—No this is not my recollection as I remember it.

11541. You are aware of Captain Kelly’s evidence on this. In one case he referred to general discussion—“I would have had a general discussion with him and I am quite sure, for example I was going to the Continent in February to check on arms and I would say his comments would be accepted …” I am not quite sure what he meant by saying your comments would be acceptable?

—Neither am I at this remove from it.

11542. I suggest a discussion with you however about his visit to the Continent? There was a visit to the Continent in February, that he had discussed it with you?

—I haven’t a clear recollection at all of this. If there was a discussion in regard to going to the Continent I do not recollect it.

11543. With regard to the question of funds do you recall discussing with him the availability of funds to people in Northern Ireland for a contemplated arms importation?

—What are you quoting from, Deputy?

11544. I will give you the quotation. It is only fair in each case exactly what is concerned. There are a number of quotations. One is: “I would say—I think I said this previously——

11545. Chairman.—Would the Deputy give the number of the quotation and the number of the book.

11546. Deputy FitzGerald.—I will, 6537: “I would say—I think I said this previously —that Mr. Blaney would know that the money was coming from the North of Ireland. They would have told him that.” It is not clear who “they” are from the context “As regards the details I do not know.” Then, referring to yourself and Mr. Haughey in reply to 6538, he says: “I would say that they” which in this context is yourself and Mr. Haughey “they knew that the Northerners had bank accounts for these purposes. As regards the details of them, I do not think so.” Then asked again about it in 6539, he says: “All I can say is that certainly I would have said—” which in the context is I think to you or Mr. Haughey; it is not clear which “—that the Northern Ireland people had money for the purchase of arms”. And then on 6540, apparently distinguishing between yourself and Mr. Haughey at this point, he said: “The mechanism of the thing was that I would have been more likely to explain it to Mr. Blaney because I met him more often.” Those are general references. Then at 6878:

Did Mr. Blaney know about the account in Baggot Street?

And the answer was:

I would say he did.

Then the next question, 6879:

Can you tell us more definitely?

And he said:

What I said about Mr. Blaney was that I met him fairly regularly and quite possibly I would have told him.

Then at 6680:

You are satisfied he did know?

And the answer was:

Yes.

—If you want an answer to that at this stage I did not know.

11547. Finally, at 6904:

What did you tell Mr. Blaney? Did you tell him of the subsidiary account?

The answer was:

I am sure I did, because I saw him regularly and I would certainly go as far as telling him that they had an arms account, I would imagine, at the bank here.

Then No. 6905:

When did you tell him?

The answer was:

I would have told him, I suppose, shortly after it was opened—I imagine.

At 6906:

Did you?

He answered:

Once again, I have no specific recollection of telling him. This is a particular point of time. But I would see no reason to hide it.

Those are the references which in varying degrees of specificness and certainty— some of them expressed in rather vaguer language—suggest that he did tell you that the funds were available and indeed of the account in Baggot Street and perhaps the subsidiary accounts. What is your recollection of all that?

—If I might answer those various ones in my own way and my own sequence. I would so far as hearsay is concerned, which I do not think is relevant, I think I could say on hearsay basis itself I would have known there would have been money available for the purchase of arms for the Six Counties and within the control of the people in the Six Counties, but I would also have felt of my own belief that there would have been money available and could have been got for the purchase of arms, if arms were, in fact, needed, were being produced by the Six County people for their own protection in the Six Counties. Insofar as the accounts are concerned, I have no recollection. I do not know of my own personal knowledge that I was aware of these accounts—these varied and various accounts—and if I did know or when I come to know that there was even one account—whether it was supposition on my part that there should be or must be, or whether I was told and by whom, I am afraid I cannot help but I did not know that there was a number of accounts and I did not know that there was a Baggot Street account.

11548. So that your position is that although Captain Kelly says he discussed his involvement in arms importation with you and his Continental visits with you, the existence of the fund with you, the Baggot Street account with you and the subsidiary accounts with you, do you not recall any of these discussions with him?

—It is not a question of recalling—I have not got a clue as to recalling any of the particular discussions with him, as I tried to explain to you, and at this remove and this length of time from it it is even difficult to conceive such discussions if they did take place could, in fact, not appear as important things or be retained as important things, but what I do want to say is that I was not aware—had not the knowledge—that these accounts were … that there was a number of accounts in existence here.

11549. You are clear on that—whatever may or may not have taken place, knowledge of the number of accounts …?

—The number of accounts I did not know.

11550. Chairman.—The Deputy has made a number of points and perhaps it would be better if he could put each point specifically and get a specific answer.

11551. Deputy FitzGerald.—I was summarising, as I thought, the previous answers but if you wish me to recap again on them …

11552. Chairman.—Perhaps it would be better—each question individually.

11553. Deputy FitzGerald.—You have no recollection of Captain Kelly discussing his involvement in arms importation with you?

—No clear recollection of a discussion on the arms—this is vetting or importing arms?

11554. Either vetting or importing arms or involvement in the process on his part?

—He may have discussed or mentioned his request or a request to him to aid the Six County people in vetting or procuring or seeing, or looking at, arms. That I do recall.

11555. If such a request reached him, did he indicate to you any intention to respond to that request by doing what they asked him to do or did he consult you as to whether he should?

—I feel you should get it clear here—I am sure you have it quite clear—that he was not responsible in any way to me. I had no authority over the man, or responsibility for him, and therefore this question of discussing with me or asking me and getting my authority, or something such as that—that does not, and could not, arise.

11556. I did not actually use the word “authority”. I raised it more on whether he discussed it with you as to whether he should or should not do it by consultation and advice, which he might do with anybody.

—I would not think so.

11557. You do not recall such a discussion?

—No.

11558. Do you recall his indicating any intention of proceeding to assist the people in the North by either vetting or helping to importing arms?

—I do not recall that he would have specifically done so, but I would recall that I came to that knowledge but where and from whom I do not know.

11559. Or when?

—Or when, for that matter.

11560. Can you give any indication of the when—before or after some of the major crises that occurred in this affair—before or after it all broke?

—No. I should think if it was of any sort of relevance that it would necessarily be before. There would be nothing new about it afterwards.

11561. So the position is you feel he told you of requests that he should help the people in the North but you do not recall any consultation or discussion on the subject of whether he should or not? You do not recall his saying he intended to do so but recall hearing it from some other unspecified source that perhaps he was going to get involved? Is that a fair summary?

—This thing of getting involved ….

11562. That perhaps he was going to get involved?

—As to whether he might accede to the requests being made or not and that I think I would not have learned from him but rather from some of the people who had been seeking his aid in this regard.

11563. Some of them may have mentioned to you that he was going to help them?

—I think so.

11564. If that happened, what action would seem to you appropriate in those circumstances? You learn from another source that an Army officer is proceeding to engage in activity upon which up to this point he has been carrying on an intelligence operation on behalf of his own government. Did you feel that any action was necessary on your part?

—None whatever.

11565. The next point—recapping at the request of the Chairman—I understood you to say that you do not recall his telling you of an intention to visit the Continent at any stage?

—I do not think so.

11566. And you do not recall his telling you that the Northern people had funds available to them in bank accounts or a bank account?

—I did not know about bank accounts, nor do I recall that he would have told me, but I certainly feel that I was aware, from some source or other, that such was the case.

11567. You do not recall him mentioning an account in Baggot Street?

—No.

11568. And a fortiori you do not recall him mentioning subsidiary accounts in Baggot Street?

—No. I do not remember those. In fact, I feel that I did not know of these accounts.

11569. You have a fairly clear negative recollection?

—Pretty clear in a sense, yes.

11570. Turn to the introduction of Mr. Lukyx to Captain Kelly, did I understand you to say that Captain Kelly asked you to introduce him to him or to somebody who would help him linguistically?

—Again, I do not know whether it was Captain Kelly might have asked me or not. It could have been some others who could have asked me. There could have been discussion of it on the lines of somebody who would be versed in languages abroad and would know his way around, and it could be that it was through that. I do not recall clearly.

11571. Would that have been people asking you to introduce somebody to Captain Kelly, or to introduce somebody to them?

—Perhaps to indicate if I knew of anybody of that nature who would be useful in that respect.

11572. Indicate to the people who approached you?

—Yes.

11573. What we are concerned about is what then happened which was that, through you, Luykx met Captain Kelly?

—Yes.

11574. How did that come about?

—That I cannot recall—whether I would have been asked by Captain Kelly.

11575. How did that come about?

—That I cannot recall—whether I would have been asked by Captain Kelly or whether those whom I feel may have raised this at some previous time would have indicated to Captain Kelly that perhaps I had somebody in mind who could be a useful guide as an interpreter, or whatever you wish to call him, and that, through that, he may have come.

11576. To you?

—Yes.

11577. You suggest, therefore, that he may not have been the initiator but that other people having raised it may have told him you did know somebody?

—That is possible. Rather than being specific, he may have come to me and I may have sent him to Luykx.

11578. When these people approached you on this and you had these discussions, and when Captain Kelly followed them up and came to you, for what purpose was this linguistic accomplishment acquired? It was in connection with the visit to the Continent, first of all?

—Undoubtedly, I should think so.

11579. For what purpose was the proposal put to you to the effect that this man was needed?

—I do not think this was discussed, so far as I can recall, in that context at that time.

11580. You mean that people came to you and said they wanted to know of somebody who could act as interpreter on the Continent but that no purpose of a visit was mentioned?

—That is my recollection.

11581. Captain Kelly came to you and although you knew nothing about his visit to the Continent—he came to you from people who had approached you to know the name of an interpreter and to be introduced to such interpreter—the question of his visit to the Continent did not arise?

—I have not said—that is exactly as I recall it. I have been trying to help in suggesting that it may have been other than Captain Kelly who came to me initially. Therefore, summing it up that Captain Kelly came to me positively through having been positively informed by people whom I would have requested possibly to get such a person or to suggest such a person is rather making positive what, in fact, I am not positive of in relation to the sequence.

11582. Captain Kelly came to you possibly arising out of some other encounter that people had with you?

—Quite possibly.

11583. What he came to you about was introducing him to somebody who would act as interpreter on a Continental visit?

—Yes.

11584. You have said you are not aware that he contemplated any Continental visit?

—I said he didn’t tell me. I think that is what I was asked.

11585. So that you were aware of his intention to go to the Continent although it was not he who told you so but it was he who went to you and asked for an interpreter?

—Again, this is not necessarily so in that his coming to me whether as a result of somebody else speaking to him or whether coming directly does not necessarily mean that he himself was positively going to the Continent.

11586. I understood you to say that you didn’t know he was going to the Continent —that what you said was he didn’t tell you he was going but that you knew from some other source he was contemplating going. In those circumstances he comes to you seeking assistance about an interpreter. Have I got the right sequence?

—I am not sure that you have. You have indicated there that he contemplated going.

11587. I understood you to say that although he didn’t say to you he was going, you had heard from someone else that he was contemplating going and then he came to you——

—I haven’t said that I heard from someone else he was contemplating going.

11588. I am doing my best to piece it together. Perhaps you would give it more fully in your own words?

—If the Deputy tells me exactly what he wants to know that has to do with the expenditure of this money, I shall do my best to help him.

11589. Captain Kelly went to you, you think, because, perhaps, somebody else told him, as a result of conversation with you, that you knew somebody who could help as an interpreter on a Continental journey. Kelly had not told you of his intention to go to the Continent but he comes to you looking for an interpreter for this Continental journey?

—I do not think there was a journey specified as of that particular time. It may have been that it was a journey that might come about but I do not think there was anything positive in my mind associated with my introduction or suggestion of Luykx being a man who could do this chore. In so far as my recollection is concerned, there is no real tie-up between the seeking, whether by Kelly or by others and a journey immediately to the Continent or in the immediate future.

11590. I accept “immediately” because Captain Kelly’s and Mr. Luykx’s evidence suggested the introduction took place in January which, according to Captain Kelly’s account, would be at a rather early stage in the contemplation of this affair and that in fact it did not take place until about three months later. However, he comes to you because he understands you to know of a man who would act as interpreter on a Continental visit that might take place sometime in the immediate future?

—That would be the gist of my recollection.

11591. When he raised that question with you, did you ask him what the Continental visit by a serving Army officer was to be about?

—No.

11592. You did say the other day that you accepted the evidence both of Captain Kelly and of Mr. Luykx. If I understood you correctly, you said that if either of them say so, you had no comment to make. I take that in the context of you meaning that you would not contradict them?

—Certainly, without having a clear recollection, I would hesitate to contradict them.

11593. During his evidence at the Arms trial, Mr. Luykx stated that he was a personal friend of yours and that you had asked him to assist in having the arms and ammunition taken to Dublin. Would you like to comment on that?

—The only comment I should like to make on that is that it was part and parcel of the court hearing and I have no comment to make on the evidence given there by any witness.

11594. Did you ask Mr. Luykx to assist in having the arms and ammunition taken to Dublin?

—Perhaps I should ask the Chairman if we are having a rehash of the arms trial or whether we are having an inquiry into the expenditure of this money. This is very relevant in so far as my being able to help the Committee is concerned.

11595. I did explain at the outset the reason why I was asking these questions. They arise under Captain Kelly’s claim to have undertaken activities in his capacity of formal or informal liaison officer with your sub-committee. I am trying to follow through the sequence of events in chronological order.

11596. Chairman.—The evidence we have is that money from the £100,000 was expended on the purchase of arms.

—On that could I say that I have no personal knowledge of such having taken place. I was not aware of the £100,000 or any part of it being used for this particular purpose. Therefore, my aid and assistance can only revolve around that lack of knowledge.

11597. What question was the Deputy specifically putting to the witness?

11598. Deputy FitzGerald.—I was asking Deputy Blaney a question in connection with the visit when I think £10,000 was taken but my recollection of the four visits is confused and I could be wrong. I was asking whether Mr. Luykx’s statement to the effect that he was asked by Mr. Blaney to assist in having arms and ammunition taken to Dublin is correct, because clearly these are the arms and ammunition that were bought with the money that was taken out. Therefore, it is relevant whether Deputy Blaney knew that arms were to be brought in on that occasion?

11599. Deputy McSharry.—He has said he didn’t know.

11600. Deputy FitzGerald.—I have not yet elicited a reply.

11601. Chairman.—Perhaps if the Deputy would put a straight question

11602. I asked Deputy Blaney if it is correct that he asked Mr. Luykx to assist in having the arms and ammunition taken to Dublin on, I think, the occasion on which the £10,000 was taken out?

11603. Chairman.—Yes, that is a relevant question. It deals with the expenditure of money.

—It depends on what visit and what arms are being talked about here at the moment.

11604. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am talking about the visit of Mr. Luykx when he accompanied Captain Kelly, he says at your request, to assist in having arms and ammunition taken to Dublin and which was paid for, according to Captain Kelly, in part—£10,000—taken from the George Dixon account and which appears to have been fed from the main account, financed by the Department of Finance?

—As I have said already I have no knowledge of this £10,000; I have no knowledge of where it came from or what account it went into or what account it came out of, in any respect in so far as arms mentioned there or in any other context is concerned.

11605. That was not, of course, the question I asked and which the Chairman ruled was relevant. The question I asked was whether you did ask Mr. Luykx to assist in having the arms and ammunition taken to Dublin?

—In so far as the relevance of the question is concerned I have answered it in a relevant way.

11606. I submit, Chairman, I have had no answer to that question, never mind a relevant one. I have had an answer on a different point.

11607. Chairman.—Deputy, you appreciate the point that Captain Kelly has given us evidence here that he took £10,000 out of the Baggot Street account in English £10 notes, that he went to the Continent, that he went to Dortmund, that he deposited it there in a bank, the name of which he forgets the street in which he does not know, but he said he deposited there to the credit of Herr Schleuter for the purchase of guns, or for the purchase of arms, and then later on he was accompanied on his third and fourth visits to the Continent by Herr Luykx and on the third visit Herr Luykx parted with a cheque for £8,500 of his own. A reimbursement was attempted by Captain Kelly of that £8,500 later, again from the Baggot Street account. That is the relevance of Captain Kelly’s statements and his claimed expenditure to the question he is asking you.

—I, as I have said, I have no knowledge of this £10,000, I have no knowledge of Luykx’s involvement in so far as his £8,000 odd was concerned until I have heard it as you heard it, or others heard it, during evidence that was given in another court.

11608. That is evidence given here before us?

—I do not know where it was given, I could not tell you, but I have heard it before and I did not hear it before the events, let me put it that way.

11609. Deputy FitzGerald.—I simply asked Deputy Blaney whether Deputy Blaney asked Mr. Luykx to assist in having the arms and ammunition taken to Dublin?

—I do not recollect this. I do not.

11610. What did you ask Mr. Luykx to do?

—I think my role in so far as Mr. Luykx and Mr. Kelly were concerned is as you have elicited already and indeed as was given evidence of elsewhere and that was it.

11611. We know that your original contact was in January, when the introduction was originally effected, did you discuss this matter subsequently with Mr. Luykx, this matter of the Continental visits?

—I do not recall it but I have had many meetings with Mr. Luykx, not meetings, if you like, I know Mr. Luykx well, I know him for a long time, I meet him quite frequently.

11612. You do not recall that discussion about assisting in having the arms and ammunition taken to Dublin occurring the day before Mr. Luykx left for Frankfurt?

—I do not, no.

11613. You are aware that Mr. Luykx has said that you asked him to assist in that and he would be travelling to Frankfurt on the following day? I am not, therefore, talking of the January discussion when the introduction took place.

11614. Chairman.—Would the Deputy quote the reference to that?

11615. Deputy FitzGerald.—Mr. Luykx’s evidence. In the Trial Book of Evidence Mr. Luykx said he would be travelling to Frankfurt on the following day with Captain Jimmy Kelly. I am asking do you recall a discussion, not in January, but in April on the day preceding Mr. Luykx’s departure?

—I do not, no.

11616. Do you recall telling Mr. Luykx that this was a secret Government assignment that he was being asked to assist in?

—I do not, no.

11617. You are aware that he has asserted this both I think at the trial and certainly in evidence here? You do not recall ever saying that to him?

—I do not recall, no.

11618. Do you assert that you did not say it to him?

—I am not asserting anything. I just say that I do not recall it.

11619. It is just a question of memory. I see. You introduced Captain Kelly to the then Minister for Defence, Mr. Gibbons.

—It is quite possible.

11620. You got in contact with Mr. Gibbons and asked him to see Captain Kelly?

—I do not recall the details at all. I do not even recall if I specifically was the one to introduce him.

11621. I see. You are aware that Captain Kelly and, I think, Mr. Gibbons both say that that was how the contact was made?

—I am not even at this moment aware——

11622. That it was not.——

—but I am not disputing it.

11623. Quite, I understand. With regard to Captain Kelly’s retirement we have had evidence from Colonel Hefferon that he asked Captain Kelly, or suggested to Captain Kelly, that he should consult yourself and Deputy Haughey on whether he should retire from the Army. Did he consult you on that?

—Again Deputy I do not want to be unhelpful but Chairman where does this fit into the role of your Committee’s inquiry?

11624. Chairman.—In this respect, Captain Kelly claims that he had authority for all his activities in regard to, not alone that he had authority as regards the funds for what he calls the Northern Ireland people, and he got authority as regards his activities in helping these people towards the importation of arms, he claims, from the Minister for Defence and he has given us this evidence that his own Colonel asked him to retire from the Army and to consult yourself and Deputy Haughey?

—No, I——

11625. Deputy FitzGerald.—The question was whether in fact Captain Kelly did consult you about the question of his retiring from the Army?

—He certainly talked to me about it, yes.

11626. Did Mr. Gibbons discuss it with you?

—Again, is this really a point at issue here?

11627. Chairman.—It is up to yourself to answer it, Deputy. I think Deputy Gibbons mentioned, claimed, that he discussed it with you?

—He did at some stage or other. He did discuss it and it may have been very short.

11628. Deputy FitzGerald.—He has suggested that you were not very enthusiastic about getting Captain Kelly into the Department of Agriculture?

—I think he has misread the situation. I would have been delighted to have had Captain Kelly for an assignment that was then being pushed very hard by my friends in the farming community, of trying to find some ways and means of preventing what they alleged was large-scale smuggling to the detriment of the Irish pig producer here and indeed at a stage I did say to them that I had something in mind which naturally if it was to be effective would not be suitable to be disclosed publicly, and some such appointment as has been suggested later for Captain Kelly was in my mind at the time but my reluctance if such has been detected by the Minister for Defence or anybody else would not have been that I did not want Captain Kelly for this job; it was because I was so absolutely sure Captain Kelly was so much needed where he was in Army Intelligence because of the work he had done, the contacts that he had already established and the trust I felt he had established as a result of this over many trying months; it was that I didn’t want him going from the Army rather than that I didn’t want him in this particular role.

11629. I think this is confirmed by Mr. Gibbons who says that you indicated to him at some stage that you didn’t think Captain Kelly should leave the Army at all?

—That is right.

11630. Do you recall Deputy Gibbons mentioning to you the possibility of Captain Kelly being picked up in Northern Ireland by British and Northern Ireland forces and saying to him or your attitude indicated to him because he says: “Neil Blaney’s attitude was: let him be picked up. We can say he is our intelligence officer”?

—This is a possibility, I think probably not quite in those terms but I haven’t a clear recollection of it.

11631. The words are open to misinterpretation. Would you like to indicate why you reacted in that way?

—I am not going to comment on that at all.

11632. Do you recall learning of the attempted importation of arms through Dublin docks?

—I certainly recall I became aware of it, yes, but when——

11633. Did you become aware of it before the whole think broke?

—When or how or that I just don’t recall.

11634. You don’t recall mentioning it to Deputy Gibbons before the crisis arose?

—Before which?

11635. Before the whole thing broke, the crisis arose? Around the time or shortly after the consignment failed to arrive at Dublin docks on 25th March, do you recall mentioning to Deputy Gibbons about this attempted importation, telling him about it?

—I may well have done.

11636. Could you indicate where you would have learned of it if you did tell him.

—I doubt if I did.

11637. You might well have done, but you doubt if you did. That’s a rather imprecise answer?

—It may well be but I mean that is what I am trying to convey to you what my reply to your question is as nearly as I can to my knowledge.

11638. Does that mean that you don’t recall mentioning this to Mr. Gibbons?

—I don’t precisely recall it, no.

11639. And you don’t recall knowing about it at that time nor when you first learned of it?

—No, I don’t.

11640. I am taking these things in chronological order as there may seem to be a lack of sequence but it is, as far as I can make it, a chronological sequence to try to facilitate memory. The phone call to Deputy Gibbons at Naas—from some evidence it appears that what you said to him was to get in touch with the Chief of Staff who knew about it. Had you been in touch with the Chief of Staff before that?

—Sorry, Deputy, what was the question?

11641. Some evidence given, I think by Deputy Gibbons, but I haven’t got the exact reference here, seemed to be suggesting that when you rang him that you had been in contact with the Chief of Staff already and that you told him: “Get in touch with the Chief of Staff; he knows about it”. Is that correct?

—First of all, Chairman, I should suggest that I don’t see the point in this but in order that what the Deputy has suggested as being the case I would like to correct it but at the same time indicating that I don’t see the point of a continuance of this particular train, if I may. No. There has been reference to the Chief of Staff and just to put the records straight in so far as I am concerned reference to the Chief of Staff would have arisen solely and simply out of my seeing Mr. Gibbons in his own office to find that he was gone that particular evening, that he wasn’t long gone, that he would be going home through Naas and there being a headquarters for an election, a bye-election, there I naturally reckoned this was the way to get him if he was passing through that town. I did this immediately and got back on to his secretary again to say what I had done and also suggested to his secretary that as the Chief of Staff would likely be needed would he or could he sort of get where he’d be and this he did and whether he phoned me back to say he is at such a number or whether I hung on and got this or rang him back to get it, at any rate I had the information as to the number at which the Chief of Staff would be available when Mr. Gibbons did ring me as a result of being waylaid, as it were, in Naas. That really is the sequence as far as I can clearly recall and it is somewhat at variance with what the Deputy put to me, that I had him sort of closeted away and that he knew about something or other. I wasn’t in contact with him; I wasn’t talking to him and he would not have known from me certainly as to why his Minister would, in fact, be talking to him.

11642. I am glad you have clarified that because the point seemed obscure. Your explanation makes it perfectly clear. Do you recall around early April discussing this question of gun running with Deputy Gibbons and putting it to him somewhat obliquely, conveying to him that you knew that he could authorise the customs-free import of arms and asking him if there were any circumstances in which he would consider issuing such an authority irregularly?

—Could I just be excused for one moment.

11643. Yes?

—No. Again, Chairman and Deputy I could explain that but I am foregoing the opportunity of doing so for the reason that I feel that we are getting outside our depth in so far as our inquiry proceedings themselves are directly concerned.

11644. I do not press the issue. Does the Chairman feel I should not press it?

11645. Chairman.—What is it. I was discussing here another matter.

11646. Deputy FitzGerald.—What I am putting to Deputy Blaney arising from a statement by Deputy Gibbons in connection with the trial, which is in the book of evidence but which didn’t emerge at the trial, as to whether he had approached Deputy Gibbons with a view to sounding him on the irregular issue of a licence for the import of arms as I thought these arms if this happened might well be the arms financed by this money.

11647. Deputy Blaney.—And I have replied to that, Chairman, on the basis that I could and indeed would desire in a sense to explain that particular episode but because of my feeling that the trend of discussion in that direction is getting well removed from our immediate concern, I am refraining from doing so.

11648. Chairman.—The only point I would make about that is if you look at paragraph—have you got the last book of evidence?

—Which one is that?

11649. No. 24. If you look at the paragraph on page 831 on the right-hand side— you have the page, have you?

11650. Deputy FitzGerald.—Which paragraph, Chairman.

11651. Chairman.—The paragraph is 11067 and the page is 831 and it reads, 11067—it was interrogation of Deputy Gibbons and it says:

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?

And Deputy Gibbons replied:

Yes.

I wish to draw that paragraph to your attention in case you wish to comment on it. You are free to do so as you wish or make no comment?

—I would like to, but——

11652. Chairman.—To be fair to you I thought it better to draw it to your attention.

—I am inclined to refrain from doing so much as I would like to.

11653. Deputy FitzGerald.—I do not press the point. Do you recall an occasion in Sutton House, in April, I think, when, Mr. Luykx said, he had met you there with other Ministers?

—Again I am rather inclined to wax eloquent on this occasion but is this really pertinent—is there a point in it?

11654. Assertions were made then and I was merely trying to see whether you would like to confirm, or deny, the assertions made at that time, to clarify them. It is not a material point, but I thought I would give you a chance to clarifying everything, if you are in a position to do so. If you would prefer not to, I accept it?

—No. Again I would be in a position to confirm, generally, what Mr. Luykx said, but I do not want to comment on it.

The Committee adjourned at 10.32 p.m.