Committee Reports::Final Report - Northern Ireland Relief Expenditure::13 July, 1972::Appendix


	HOME Baile
	COMMITTEE REPORTS Tuasascálacha Coistí

Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1972 > Committee of Public Accounts > Final Report - Northern Ireland Relief Expenditure

APPENDIX 4.

Correspondence

									Page
1. Aer Lingus Teo:
To 25th November 1971			..	..	..	..	..	..	227
From 30th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	227
2. Allied Irish Banks Limited:
From 26th January 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	228
1st February „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	228
15th March „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	230
19th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	235
14th April „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	235
3. Blaney, Mr. Harry (including solicitor for):
From 5th March 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	237
To 12th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	237
From 18th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	237
22nd „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	238
To 31st „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	238
31st „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	239
From 19th April „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	239
4. Blaney, Deputy Neil T. (including solicitor for):
From 19th April 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	240
5. Brady, Mr. Seamus J:
To 14th July 1971	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	241
29th „ „	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	242
From 1st August 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	242
6. Cléireach na Dála:
From 8th March 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	242
12th „ „ (enclosing minute of 11 March 1971 from
Department of Finance)					..	..	..	..	242
To 15th „ „	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	243
From 23rd „ „	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	244
7. Devlin, M.P., Mr. Paddy:
To 3rd June 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	244
From 14th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	244
8. Finance, Department of:
(a) Correspondence re letter of 21.5.70 to Secretary, Department of Finance from the then Secretary, Department of Justice
From 28th April 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	246
To 6th May „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	246
From 19th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	247
To 31st „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	247
From 1st June „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	247
To 14th Feb 1972		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	248
From 21st „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	248
To 23rd „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	248
From 3rd March „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	249
To 8th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	249
From 29th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	249
To 13th April „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	250
From 13th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	250
To 8th June „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	250
From 22nd „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	251
(b) Other correspondence with Department of Finance:
To 30th June 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	251
From 5th July „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	251
14th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	252
To 16th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	252
21st „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	253
23rd „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	253
29th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	254
From 30th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	254
30th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	254
To 18th May 1972		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	255
From 30th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	255
To 1st June „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	256
From 1st „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	256
To 8th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	256
8th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	257
From 21st „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	257
22nd „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	257
To 29th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	258
From 11th July „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	258
9. Fleming, Chief Superintendent John P.:
From 5th July 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	258
From 31st „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	259
To 28th October „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	259
To 4th November „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	259
10. Gibbons, Deputy James, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries:
From 1st March 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	260
From 3rd August „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	261
From 25th November „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	261
To 24th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	261
From 25th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	262
11. Haughey, Deputy Charles J.:
From 12th February 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	262
12. Haughey, Mr. Paraic (including solicitor for):
To 30th June 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	263
From 6th July „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	263
To 8th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	264
From 28th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	265
13. Hefferon, Colonel Michael J.:
From 19th July 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	266
To 21st „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	268
From 23rd „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	268
To 29th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	269
From 4th August „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	269
25th October „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	269
To 4th November „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	270
From 7th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	270
To 10th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	272
From 11th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	272
14th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	273
To 24th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	273
From 10th January 1972		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	273
To 23rd February „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	274
14. Justice, Department of:
To 17th June, 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	274
From 22nd „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	275
5th July „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	276
To 16th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	279
23rd „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	280
From 30th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	280
4th August „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	281
To 4th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	281
From 2nd September „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	282
15. Kelly, Captain James J.:
From 9th July 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	284
To 14th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	284
From 15th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	285
To 21st „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	285
29th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	285
28th October „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	285
16. Kelly, Mr. John (including solicitor for):
From 7th February 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	286
To 30th June „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	286
From 5th July „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	287
To 6th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	288
7th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	288
From 7th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	289
To 8th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	289
From 13th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	290
To 14th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	292
28th October „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	292
16th December „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	292
From 17th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	293
To 20th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	294
26th January 1972		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	294
From 8th March „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	294
To 23rd „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	295
From 28th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	295
17. Luykx, Mr. Albert A.:
From 1st March 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	296
18. Mac Eoin, Lt. General Seán, Chief of Staff:
To 28th January 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	300
From 2nd February „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	300
19. Malone, Mr. Patrick, Assistant Commissioner, Garda Síochána:
To 24th November 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	301
From 27th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	301
20. O’Malley, Mr. Joseph, Editor “This Week”:
To 5th May 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	302
From 10th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	302
21. Ó Móráin, Deputy Micheál:
From 10th June 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	304
To 10th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	305
From 11th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	305
To 7th July „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	305
From 8th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	306
15th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	306
To 21st „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	307
To 28th October „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	307
22. Posts and Telegraphs, Department of:
From 25th January 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	308
23. Radio Telefís Éireann:
From 19th July 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	309
24. Seanad Éireann:
To 18th December 1970		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	309
From 22nd „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	310
25. Taoiseach:
To 3rd February 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	310
From 4th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	311
26. Wymes, Mr. Michael J. Commissioner, Garda Síochána:
To 19th February 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	311
From 23rd „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	311
To 26th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	312
From 3rd March 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	313
To 24th November „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	314
From 26th „ „		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	314
10th February 1972		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	315

1. Aer Lingus Teo.

25th November 1971

Mr. N. G. Weldon

Secretary

Aer Lingus

Head Office Building

P.A. 8

Dublin Airport

Co. Dublin

Dear Sir,

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann acting under the powers conferred on it by Section 3 (1) (c) of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act, 1970 to require you to send to it not later than Wednesday 1st December photostat copies of the ticket counterfoils relating to the account of Mr. Charles J. Haughey T.D. for the amount of £166.12.0, which Mr. Richard Murnane, Simla Lodge, Strandville Ave. Clontarf, Dublin 3, has stated to the Committee was paid by him on the 11th. October 1969.

In this regard Mr. Murnane has stated that he and four others viz. Mr. P. Haughey, 25 Foxfield Ave. Raheny, Mr. J. Teeling, 13 Castle Grove, Clontarf, and Messrs. Desmond and Eamonn Francis, 52 Collins Ave. West, travelled to London on 17th August 1969 on tickets obtained by Mr. Murnane from Aer Lingus on the account of Mr. C. J. Haughey, T.D. Mr. Eamonn Francis came back to Dublin on the same day and the rest of the party returned on 18th August 1969. Mr. Murnane has also stated that subsequent to that date Mr. P. Haughey and Mr. J. Teeling made a further trip to London and that he paid the account for the seven tickets by a cheque drawn on his own bank account on the 11th October 1969.

I enclose a copy of the Act referred to.

Yours faithfully,

J. TOBIN

Secretary of the Committee of Public Accounts

The Secretary

Committee of Public Accounts

Leinster House

DUBLIN 2

30 November 1971

Dear Sir

I refer to your letter of 25 November requesting photocopies of the ticket counterfoils relating to the account of Mr. Charles J. Haughey, T.D., for the amount of £166.12.0d. I enclose coupons bearing the following serial numbers—0532/2267211/2/3/4/5, 0532/2267514/5—which relate to the tickets charged in the account referred to.

I should point out that these coupons, called “auditors” coupons, are extracted at the time of purchase of a ticket, and do not necessarily establish that a person travelled on the dates shown therein. This is because the coupons relating to each sector of travel may be later endorsed for travel on a flight other than that indicated at time of purchase.

The dates on which a passenger actually travelled could be ascertained only by a search through approximately 25,000 “flown” coupons (relating to Dublin/London travel during the month of August 1969). “Flown” coupons, unlike “Auditors” coupons, are not stored in numerical order.

Yours faithfully

Niall G Weldon

Secretary

Note:

Details of coupons furnished:—

No.	Date	Passenger
0532-2267211	17/8/69	Mr. Haughey
2	do.	Mr. Murnane
3	do.	Mr. Francis
4	do.	Mr. Francis
5	do.	Mr. Teeling
2267514	22/8/69	Mr. Haughey
5	do.	Mr. Teeling

2. Allied Irish Banks.

E. Rory O’Connor	LEGAL DEPARTMENT,
Solicitor and Commissioner for Oaths	Allied Irish Banks Limited,
group law agent	at 35/36 Fleet Street,
	Dublin 2.

26th January 1971.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Proceedings 26/1/71.

Dear Sir,

I have received your letter of the 25th instant* with enclosures as therein mentioned for which I am very much obliged. In compliance with my undertaking to the Committee I have directed that twenty copies of the attachment to the specimen card related to the account in the name of Ann O’Brien which bears three specimen signatures on unofficial paper, be prepared and sent to you and I understand that you may expect to receive them in the course of a day or so.†

I have also directed the branch Manager to go through the correspondence (outwards) relevant to the period 1st November to 30th April with a view to having confirmation of any advices for the payment of money on any of the named accounts which might have been arranged by telephone.

You will be advised in due course of the outcome of such investigation.

Yours faithfully,

E. RORY O’CONNOR

Group Law Agent.

J. Tobin Esq.,

Dáil Éireann,

Leinster House,

Dublin 2.

Par. 72 Final Report.

E. Rory O’Connor	LEGAL DEPARTMENT,
Solicitor and Commissioner for Oaths	Allied Irish Banks Limited,
group law agent	at 35/36 Fleet Street,
	Dublin 2.

1st February, 1971.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Proceedings 2/2/71.

Dear Mr. Tobin,

Further to my letter to you of the 26th instant, I now enclose 20 copies of each of three letters dated 17th, 21st and 27th November, 1969, addressed by the Manager, Munster & Leinster Bank Ltd., Lr. Baggot St., to National Provincial Bank Ltd., Piccadilly Branch, London, in reference to banking facilities arranged for Mr. George Dixon, I believe this discharges my undertaking to the Committee in full, and perhaps you would be good enough to confirm that this is the case.

Yours faithfully,

E. RORY O’CONNOR

Group Law Agent.

J. Tobin, Esq.,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Dáil Éireann,

Leinster House,

DUBLIN 2.

The Manager,	Enclosure 1	17th November 69
National Provincial Bank Ltd.,
Piccadilly Branch,
208/209, Piccadilly,
London, W.1.

Dear Sir,

George Dixon.

Further to our telephone conversation of to-day, we would be grateful if you would kindly facilitate our above-named client by cashing his cheques on to-morrow, the 18th instant, up to a maximum of £11,450. We enclose specimen of his signature and regret that there is not sufficient time to direct this request through the usual channels.

Our client has been issued with cheque book No. 925376/400.

Yours faithfully,

Initialled H.T.D.

Manager.

The Manager,	Enclosure 2	21st November 69
National Provincial Bank Ltd.,
208/209, Piccadilly,
London, W.1.

Dear Sir,

George Dixon.

We refer to our letter of 17th instant requesting you to cash Mr. Dixon’s cheques up to a maximum of £11,450. Our client has not yet availed of the facility but will probably require to do so within the next week. We should be very much obliged if you would kindly facilitate him when he calls.

Yours faithfully,

Initialled J.N.

Manager.

The Manager,	Enclosure 3	27 November 69
National Provincial Bank Ltd.,
208/209, Piccadilly,
London, W.1.

Dear Sir,

George Dixon.

Further to our telephone conversation to-day we wish to confirm that our above-named client no longer requires facilities for cashing cheques at your office.

We thank you for your assistance in this case.

Yours faithfully,

Initialled V.R.

Manager.

E. Rory O’Connor	LEGAL DEPARTMENT,
Solicitor and Commissioner for Oaths	Allied Irish Banks Limited,
group law agent	at 35/36 Fleet Street,
	Dublin 2.

15th March 1971.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Par. 72 Final Report.

Dear Sir,

In compliance with the undertaking recently given by Mr. H. T. Deacon, Manager, Munster & Leinster Bank Ltd. at 2, Lr. Baggot Street, Dublin, I now furnish the following information:—

(1) The originals* of three letters dated 17th November, 1969, 21st November, 1969, and 27th November 1969, addressed by the Manager, Munster & Leinster Bank Ltd., 2 Lr. Baggot Street, Dublin, to the Manager, National Provincial Bank Ltd. Piccadilly Branch, London.

(2) The names of the officials who acted as tellers at the branch from the inspection of the accounts under investigation until the closure of the Banks on the 1st May, 1970.

D. N. Ryan.	W. D. Bennett.
J. J. Kelly.	T. D. Crotty.
T. O. Moloney.	R. Heywood-Jones.
W. Thornhill.	L. D. Carroll.
J. N. Nolan.	Miss Anne Meade.
M. V. Coyne.

As the letters mentioned at (1) above were obtained from the National Provincial Bank Ltd. on loan I shall be obliged if you would note to return them to me in due course.

Yours sincerely,

E. RORY O’CONNOR

Group Law Agent.

J. Tobin Esq.,

Committee of Public Accounts

Dáil Éireann,

Dublin 2.

1/D

Notation on back of preceding letter.

E. Rory O’Connor	LEGAL DEPARTMENT,
Solicitor and Commissioner for Oaths	Allied Irish Banks Limited,
group law agent	at 35/36 Fleet Street,
	Dublin 2.

19th March 1971.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Dear Sir,

Questions 9495-6.

I am directed to refer to the Minutes of Evidence taken on the 2nd March, 1971, (Questions 9495/6) and to state for the information of the Committee that the initials appearing on the undermentioned copy letters now before the Committee are those of the persons whose names are mentioned opposite each of such copy letters, namely:—

Letter 17th November 1969 Munster & Leinster Bank Ltd. to National Provincial Bank initialled by Mr. H. T. Deacon.

Letter 21st November, 1969, Munster & Leinster Bank Ltd. to National Provincial Bank initialled by John Nolan.

Letter 27th November, 1969, Munster & Leinster Bank Ltd. to National Provincial Bank initialled by Vincent Reynolds.

I have further to state that the only significance of the initials is to ensure that the letters have been read over before being presented to a signing official.

I am further directed to refer to Paragraph 9511 of the same report and to confirm that Messrs Ryan, Moloney, Thornhill, Nolan, Coyne, Crotty and Heywood-Jones were considered to be regular tellers.

Final Report.

In regard to question 9474 it now appears from the notations on the reverse side of the original letter that two payments of £1500 and £100 respectively were in fact made at foot of the Advice Note sent to the National Provincial Bank.

Yours faithfully,

E. RORY O’CONNOR

Group Law Agent.

J. Tobin Esq.,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Dáil Éireann,

Leinster House,

Dublin 2.

E. Rory O’Connor

Solicitor and Commissioner for Oaths

group law agent

LEGAL DEPARTMENT,

Allied Irish Banks Limited,

at 35/36 Fleet Street,

Dublin 2.

14th April 1971.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Proceedings 20/4/71.

Dear Sir,

I am instructed that on the further examination of Mr. H. T. Deacon, Manager, Munster & Leinster Bank, Lr. Baggot St. Dublin, by the Committee on the 23rd ultimo, an undertaking was given by the witness to procure from the National Westminster Bank (Piccadilly branch) explanations of the various notations appearing on Mr. Deacon’s letter of the 17th November 1969 addressed to the then National Provincial Bank Ltd. and in particular the identification of the officials who initialled notations on the reverse side of that letter in regard to payments of £1500 and £100 made on the 19th November, 1969, and 21st November 1969 respectively.

In compliance with that undertaking I am now directed to enclose for the information of the Committee, a letter of the 6th April 1971 received from the National Westminster to which is attached a copy of the relevant letter of the 17th November 1969 with the explanations as to initialling parties and other notations subscribed on a separate page.

Yours faithfully,

E. RORY O’CONNOR

Group Law Agent.

J. Tobin Esq.,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Dáil Éireann,

Leinster House, Dublin 2.

Enclosure

	NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK LIMITED

Please address reply to the Manager	208 Piccadilly, W1 Branch
CORRES/WJR/M	208 Piccadilly
	London
	WIV OAB
6th April, 1971	Telephone 01-734 1274 and 4401
	Telegraphic Address Passbook London W1

The Manager,

THE MUNSTER & LEINSTER BANK LIMITED,

2, Lower Baggot Street,

Dublin 2.

Dear Sir,

GEORGE DIXON

With reference to your letter of the 24th March and our telephone conversation this morning, I now have pleasure in returning a photo copy of your photo copy letter, from which you will also see my red ink notes* explaining the overwritten notes on the original letter of the 17th November. You are right in presuming that the number referred to tellers involved on counter duties at that time, and I also confirm that the two dates and amounts related to payments effected by Cashiers on the days mentioned.

You will notice that although four names appear as Cashiers, one of the names who was involved in the encashment does not appear in this list as she was a relief Cashier at the time.

Yours faithfully,

W. J. Rathcliffe

Sub-Manager

3. Blaney, Mr. Harry including Solicitor for).

	Rossnakill
	Letterkenny
	Co. Donegal
	5th March 1971

The Chairman

Committee of Public Accounts

Leinster House

Dublin 2

With reference to your letter of the 3rd. March* requesting my attendance before your committee. I find it impossible to attend on Tuesday the 9th March, due to other urgent commitments, and in view of the fact that I only received your letter to-day Friday the 5th March.

I would be grateful to be afforded an early opportunity to appear before your committee to nail (as far as is possible) the lying allegations made by Mr. Fleming.

HARRY BLANEY

Mr. Harry J. Blaney,

Rossnakill,

Letterkenny,

County Donegal.

A Chara,

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to refer to your letter of 5th March in connection with the summons issued to you to attend before it. As requested by you an alternative date has been fixed i.e. Tuesday 23rd March, 1971, at 11 a.m. at Leinster House, Dublin 2.

Please present the summons issued to you together with this letter to the Captain of the Guard on your arrival at Leinster House.

J. TOBIN

Clerk to the Committee of Public Accounts

12th March 1971.

	Rossnakill
	Letterkenny,
	Co. Donegal.

	18th March, 1971.

The Secretary,

Public Accounts Committee,

Leinster House,

Dublin.

Dear Sir,

Proceedings 23/3/71.

Reference to your Summons to me to appear before the Public Accounts Enquiry, I wish (1) to be legally represented and that my Counsel be afforded the right of addressing the Committee and (2) that Chief Superintendent Fleming be recalled to the enquiry and be subject to cross-examination by my Counsel.

HARRY BLANEY.

MÍCHEAL B. O’CLEIRIGH & CO. SOLICITORS
INCORPORATING PATRICK J RUTTLEDGE & CO
MICHEAL B. O’CLEIRIGH COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

16 Molesworth Street,

Dublin, 2.

22nd March, 1971.

Surgeon Hogan T.D.,

Chairman,

Public Accounts Committee,

Leinster House,

Dublin, 2.

Dear Sir,

We act for Mr. Harry Blaney who has been called upon to give evidence before your Committee on Tuesday, March 23rd.

We are instructed that you have already been sent a letter dated 18th March, 1971 by our client in which he seeks information concerning the attitude of the Committee concerning certain points raised in that letter, in particular our client’s request that Chief Superintendent Fleming be recalled for cross-examination by Counsel on behalf of our client.

We have advised our client that his constitutional rights may have been infringed by the manner in which the Committee has received evidence concerning him. We have also advised our client that the Act under which the Committee is operating may be unconstitutional. These constitutional issues and other legal questions are, of course, still before the Courts and have not as yet been finally determined.

In the present circumstances, and pending the replies to the points raised by our client we have advised him not to attend on Tuesday 23rd March.

While we appreciate that you may have not had an opportunity of replying to our client’s letter of the 18th inst as yet we would request that a reply be sent to us at your earliest convenience.

In the meantime we would request that you for your part postpone calling our client so that he may be fully advised in the light of your reply to his said letter.

Yours faithfully,

M. B. O’CLEIRIGH & CO.

31st March 1971.

Micheal B. O’Cléirigh & Co.,

Solicitors,

16 Molesworth St.,

Dublin 2.

Dear Sirs,

Proceedings 31/3/71.

The Committee have considered your letter of the 22nd. March relative to the summons to Mr. Harry Blaney to attend before the Committee to give evidence, and Mr. Blaney’s letter of the 18th instant.

I have to-day addressed a letter (copy enclosed) to Mr. Blaney on behalf of the Committee.

A copy of the Interim Report of the Committee dated 15th December 1970 is enclosed for your information together with a copy of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act, 1970.

Yours faithfully,

P. HOGAN

Chairman of the Committee.

31st March 1971

Mr. Harry Blaney,

Rosnakill,

Letterkenny,

Co. Donegal.

Dear Sir,

Proceedings 31/3/71.

The Committee have considered your letter of the 18th March 1971. They wish to draw your attention to procedure (iii) of procedures adopted by the Committee set out in Appendix 3 of the Interim Report of 15th December 1970. As you will observe, this procedure does not permit counsel to address the Committee nor to examine or cross-examine any witness.

You will be afforded an opportunity of giving evidence on matters relevant to the investigations of the Committee and to the expenditure which is the subject of the Committee’s examination, and an opportunity of contradicting, denying, explaining or commenting on the evidence of witnesses who have already given evidence before the Committee.

The Committee have fixed Tuesday, 20th April 1971, at 7.30 p.m., in lieu of the the date previously notified to you for your attendance before the Committee. You should present the summons already issued to you together with this letter to the Captain of the Guard on your arrival at Leinster House.

I have sent a copy of this letter to your solicitor Michael B. O’Cleirigh & Co.

Yours faithfully,

P. HOGAN

Chairman of the Committee.

MICHAEL B. O’CLEIRIGH & CO.
solicitors
incorporating
patrick j. rutledge & co.
Michael B. O’Cleirigh
Commissioner for Oaths

16, Molesworth Street,

Dublin, 2.

19th April, 1971.

The Chairman,

Public Accounts Committee,

Dáil Éireann,

Dublin, 2

The Secretary,

Public Accounts Committee,

Dáil Éireann,

Dublin, 2.

Dear Sir,

Proceedings 20/4/71.

We are in receipt of your letter dated March 31st 1971 and copy letter sent to our client Mr. Harry Blaney. We regret that we have not replied to your letter earlier but the delay was largely due to the Easter vacation and the fact that our client lives in Donegal which necessitates some delay in consulting him.

We are disturbed at the Committee’s ruling on the question of Counsel appearing before the Committee and your refusal to permit Counsel to cross-examine any witness as we feel that this is a grave injustice to our client having regard to the evidence given by Superintendent Fleming and the manner in which it was given.

Having considered the Committee’s ruling in this matter and having regard to all the circumstances we have advised our client that it would be wrong and unjust if he were required to appear before the Committee at this point in time. Some of the reasons for this is that there are at present proceedings pending before the Supreme Court in which the Constitutionality of the Committee’s powers and procedure, including the constitutional rights of witnesses and other legal matters are in issue.

The outcome of these proceedings may recognise and establish the right of a witness to be represented by Counsel and to have other witnesses cross-examined on his behalf, as well as recognising other rights of witnesses appearing before the Committee.

Having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature of the evidence which has been received in connection with our client in the Committee’s ruling on the question of Counsel and the Court proceedings which have not yet been finally determined we would request the Committee to postpone calling our client until after the court proceedings have been finally determined by the Supreme Court.

We respectfully hope the Committee will consider that this is a fair proper and just request on the part of our client.

We have also informed our client of your recognition of a witness’ right to deny or comment on the evidence of other witnesses who have appeared before the Committee. So that our client may be advised as to how he should best exercise his rights in this regard it is necessary that we have the transcript of evidence of any person who has given evidence concerning him. Accordingly apart from the evidence already published we would need a transcript of the evidence of any witness who gave evidence in private concerning our client. We understand that Superintendent Fleming has given evidence in private. We would be willing to favourably consider any request you may wish to make in regard to treating such evidence as confidential.

Yours faithfully,

M. B. O’CLEIRIGH & CO.

4. Blaney, Deputy Neil T. (including Solicitor for).

MICHEAL B. O’CLEIRIGH & CO.
solicitors

incorporating
patrick j. ruttledge & co.

Michael B. O’Cleirigh
Commissioner for Oaths

16, Molesworth Street,

Dublin, 2.

19th April, 1971.

The Chairman,

Public Accounts Committee,

Dáil Éireann,

Dublin, 2.

The Secretary,

Public Accounts Committee,

Dáil Éireann,

Dublin, 2.

Dear Sir,

Proceedings 20/4/71.

We act for Mr. Neil Blaney who has been requested to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts.

We have informed our client of the Committee’s ruling concerning the question of Counsel appearing before them. Since evidence has been received by the Committee in which certain allegations have been made against our client and which have injured his reputation our client, as a result of legal advice, is anxious to test such evidence and make submissions concerning it through his Counsel.

While our client is anxious to be afforded the right to have Counsel appear before the Committee on his behalf he is, of course, equally willing to appear in person.

Having considered the Committee’s ruling in this matter and considering all the circumstances we have advised our client that it would be wrong and unjust if he were required to give evidence before the Committee at this point in time. Some of the reasons for this is that there are at present proceedings pending before the Supreme Court in which the constitutionality of the Committee, including the constitutional rights of witnesses, and other legal matters are in issue. The outcome of these proceedings may establish the right of a witness to be represented by Counsel and to have certain other witnesses cross-examined on his behalf as well as recognising other constitutional or legal rights of witnesses appearing before the Committee. Having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature of the evidence which has been received in connection with our client, the Committee’s ruling on the question of Counsel and the Court proceedings which have not yet been finally determined we would request the Committee to postpone calling our client until after the Court proceedings have been finally determined by the Supreme Court.

We respectfully hope that the Committee will consider that this is a fair, proper and just request on the part of our client.

We have also informed our client of your recognition of a witness’ right to deny or comment on the evidence of other witnesses who have appeared before the Committee. So that our client may be advised as to how he should best exercise his rights in this regard it is necessary that we have the transcript of evidence of any person who has given evidence concerning him. Accordingly apart from the evidence already published we would need a transcript of the evidence of any witness who gave evidence in private concerning our client. We understand that Superintendent Fleming has given evidence in private. We would be willing to favourably consider any requests you may wish to make in regard to treating such evidence as confidential.

Yours faithfully,

M. B. O’CLEIRIGH & CO.

5. Brady, Mr. Seamus J.

14th July, 1971.

Mr. Seamus Brady

St. Anthony’s

Nashville Road

Howth

Dublin

Dear Sir,

Proceeding 13/7/71.

The Committee of Public Accounts has directed me to acknowledge receipt of your letter * of the 7th instant and enclosure in relation to evidence given before the Committee and to say that, as you will appreciate, a letter of this kind does not constitute evidence on oath.

Yours sincerely,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary.

29th July, 1971.

Mr. Seamus Brady

St. Anthony’s

Nashville Road

Howth

Dublin

Dear Mr. Brady,

Proceedings 28/7/71.

The Committee has directed me to inform you that it is arranging for the early conclusion of the taking of evidence and will be commencing preparatory work on its report next week.

Yours sincerely,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary.

St. Anthony’s

Nashville Road,

Howth, Dublin.

August, 1st, 1971

The Secretary,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

Dublin 2.

A chara,

Proceedings 4/8/71.

Thank you for your letter of July 29th. In view of the second submission which I have sent to the Committee and fact that it has not been offered so far as evidence on oath, I would be glad if you would put before the Committee my request to be allowed to swear this second submission as evidence.

I do not consider that this will occupy much of the Committee’s time, but it will have some bearing when they come to deal with the section of their report which concerns me.

I am tied up as press officer at the Dublin Horse Show all this week, but will be available anytime after 8 p.m. each evening.

Yours sincerely,

SEAMUS BRADY

6. Cléireach na Dála.

8 Márta, 1971.

Par 87 Final Report.

Mr. Tobin

Clerk to Committee of Public Accounts

Proceedings 9/3/71.

I have been informed that the Minister for Finance has decided that as from next week financial sanction cannot be given for the employment of Reporters from abroad on the minutes of evidence of the Committee of Public Accounts. The Minister also is not disposed to give sanction beyond this week for the employment of outside editorial staff on the work.

P. Ó CONAILL,

Cléireach na Dála.

12/3/71

Clerk

Committee of Public Accounts

Proceedin 23/3/71.

Please see attached minute dated 11th inst. from Department of Finance on subject of reporting arrangements for the Committee in its investigations into Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief 1969-70.

I may say that before the issue of the minute of 8th inst. to you the text of it was read out to and approved of by the officer of the Department of Finance who conveyed the instruction.

P. Ó CONAILL,

Cleireach na Dála.

AN ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(Department of Finance)

Enclosure

72/76 FAICHE STIABHNA,

(72/76 St. Stephen’s Green)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH, 2

(Dublin, 2)

11 Márta, 1971.

Cléireach na Dála

Proceedings 23/3/71.

I am directed by the Minister for Finance to refer to your minute dated 8 March 1971 to the Clerk to the Committee of Public Accounts concerning reporting arrangements in connexion with the investigation by the Committee into the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief, 1969-70. As a misunderstanding would appear to have arisen in the transmission to you of the Minister’s views on this matter, he has asked me to clarify the position.

The Minister is concerned at the expense, estimated to be of the order of £3,000 by 31 March 1971, involved in employing reporters from abroad to report the Committee’s proceedings. He would suggest that the Committee might arrange its sittings so that they would not coincide with days (usually Wednesdays) on which both the Dáil and Seanad are meeting. On this basis it would seem probable that the necessity for engaging reporters from abroad would not arise and that the Committee’s reporting and editorial work could be discharged adequately by the reporting and editorial staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. In any times of pressure beyond their capacity these officers could be supplemented by the employment on a fee basis of local casual staff.

The Minister trusts that on consideration the Committee will adopt this suggestion.

S. Ó CONAILL.

15 Márta, 1971.

Cleireach na Dála.

Proceedings 9/3/71.

1. On 9th instant the Committee considered your minute of the 8th relating to the reporting of evidence taken by the Committee. They took into consideration also my intimation to them that the Ceann Comhairle’s private secretary had informed me that the Minister for Finance at a meeting on other matters with the Ceann Comhairle had inquired whether the Committee might consider meeting on days other than those on which both Dáil and Seanad sat.

2. The Committee decided that you should be informed that their general intention was to sit where necessary on Dáil sitting days since meeting on days other than those would severely inconvenience the Committee, and that they presumed that in the event that staff adequate to enable them to so sit to discharge the duties placed on them could not be provided by the Ceann Comhairle, he would so inform the Dáil.

3. Before conveying this decision to you, I learned from you that the Finance position you indicated in your minute of the 8th instant was in effect being reconsidered. The Finance minute of the 11th March on the matter which you have sent to me, I have shown to the Chairman. He has directed me to put it on the Agenda for the next meeting of the Committee which has been fixed for the 23rd instant.

4. To enable the Committee to consider the matter fully on the basis that reporters from abroad would not be engaged but that local casual staff could be employed, the Committee would require to know the extent to which evidence could be reported on each week day (a) where neither House was sitting, (b) where only one House was sitting, (c) where both Houses were sitting on the same day and (d) where both Houses were sitting on the same day but assuming that the Committee could accept a delay (including the extent of the delay) in transcription and printing. The Chairman would be obliged if you could forward the required information.

J. TOBIN,

Cléireach an Choiste.

Clerk to the Committee
Committee of Public Accounts	23 Márta, 1971.

In reply to your queries at paragraph 4 of your minute of 15 Márta about the reporting of the proceedings of the Committee of Public Accounts on each week day on which the Committee meets I wish to tell you that

(a) when neither House is meeting

All Reporters will be available

(b) when only one House is meeting

Sufficient Reporters will be available to keep the flow of evidence to the printers in train

& (d) This is something which the Editor of Debates would have to arrange having regard to the staff available to him.

P. Ó CONAILL.

Cléireach na Dála.

7. Devlin, Mr. Paddy, M.P.

3 June 1971

Par. 18 Final Report.

Mr. P. Devlin M.P.

39 Green Avenue

Shaws Road

Belfast

Dear Mr. Devlin,

Proceedings 2/6/71.

The Committee have directed me to inform you that evidence has been given to them to the effect that you had some knowledge of transactions relating to the account in the Munster & Leinster Bank, Lower Baggot Street, Dublin in respect of the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress. They would appreciate your assistance in, inter alia, clarifying this matter.

The Committee would, therefore, be glad if you could indicate at your earliest convenience a date which would be suitable for you to give evidence before them. They have arranged to meet in the week commencing 14th instant, and if the Friday of that week, e.g. 18th June, would suit you, I will make the necessary arrangements.

Yours sincerely,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary.

Secretary	39 Green Avenue,
Committee of Public Accounts	Shaws Road,
	Belfast 11.
	14/6/71.

Dear Sir,

Proceedings 15/6/71.

I write in response to your letter of 3rd June inviting me to give evidence before the committee of inquiry on what knowledge I am alleged to have of transactions relating to an account in the Munster and Leinster Bank, Lower Baggot Street, Dublin in respect of the Belfast Fund for the Relief of Distress.

I have already stated the extent of my personal involvement on oath before the Scarman Tribunal and I have stated it last Autumn in Dublin to officials from the Ministry of Finance, who, at that time, were engaged in preliminary investigations into the account. However, I will reiterate it for those who have not read my evidence to that Tribunal.

I did not know that the Irish Government had placed money in a bank in Lower Baggot St. for use in the North until I read of it in newspaper reports on the Arms Conspiracy Trial last year.

My limited involvement in these transactions was, as part of delegation, I went to Mr Charles Haughey in September 1969 to seek help in coping with the enormous amount of distress created by families losing their homes and breadwinners losing their jobs as a result of troubles in Belfast in August 1969.

Subsequent to this visit, I was informed by letter from the Irish Red Cross that £5,000 was lodged in a Bank Account in Clones for this purpose. Sometime later, I am uncertain of the date, I was informed that a further £5,000 was lodged.

I signed three or four cheques which were drawn from this account. I never handled one single penny of this money. It was disbursed by other reliable people who had the time, the ability and the organisation to do it, whereas I had not. I am entirely satisfied that the money was used purely for welfare purposes and not for the buying of arms.

I recall that after a few weeks of the fund being set up I was asked to sign a form to transfer the account to another bank. I signed the form though I did not know where the Bank was. I knew that money was still coming in for people in need beyond the time when that account should have run out. Since I had no personal involvement, nor was I invited to have any, I let it drop out of my range of consciousness.

Regarding the question of giving evidence before your Committee, I refuse to do so while it is in the present form. Having followed the course of the Enquiry closely it appears objectionable to me on a number of counts:—

(1) Evidence has been given which would not be acceptable in any court of law. This evidence of a most injurious kind has not been subjected to the searching cross-examination which one would find in a court of law particularly where personal reputations are impugned. In this respect may I refer you to the views of Mr Justice Salmon in the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Enquiry as an illustration of how such matters should be undertaken.

(2) Some people appear to be using the Tribunal as a cynical political exercise in character assassination without regard to the short term or long term consequences on the political situation in Northern Ireland.

Lest my motives be misunderstood, let me state that I have a great personal and political antipathy to many named at the inquiry. But I consider that such personal and political thoughts should not enter into a consideration of principle.

I believe that some allegations and certain statements made at the present inquiry and at the earlier Arms Trial have increased individual fears and heightened communal tensions in Northern Ireland.

Moreover, I am certain that these particular events which received full publicity treatment in Belfast were not unrelated to the Unionist Government decisions to increase enormously the number of new Gun Clubs and the number of gun licences held by their supporters. I am equally certain that these same events influenced the decisions of the Conservative Government at Westminister to double the strength of the army stationed in Northern Ireland, to be selective in the areas where the army would operate and to give the army a free hand in the methods they would adopt in dealing with the residents of these areas.

It is regrettable that an inquiry of this loose form should be established. Apart from the principle being wrong, it enables the sharp politicians to exploit advantages on issues that should transcend the political arena. The Grant was made available, however hastily, in good faith and for the best of humanitarian motives to families in great distress. Of course there were anomalies created. The political hairsplitter will be covered to his ankles in them.

What is of concern however is the demoralising effect of the committee’s workings on the confidence of the beleagured people in the north and on their hopes that they will not be abandoned but continue to receive comfort and encouragement from the South in their bid to survive.

The sheer pettiness of the present inquiry and arms trial has helped to frustrate the high moral purpose and dignified resistance of the civil rights movement into misguided support for a sectarian extremist rabble.

In the light of my holding these views on the inquiry I would be less than honest to give it my unequivocal support in its present form. Meanwhile I am prepared to be interviewed by an official from the Department responsible for the expenditure of the money.

Yours faithfully,

PADDY DEVLIN, M.P.

8. Finance, Department of

Proceedings 27/6/72, 13/7/72.

(a) Correspondence re letter of 21.5.1970 to Secretary Department of Finance from the then Secretary, Department of Justice. In the light of the letter of 22 June 1972 from the Department of Finance (page 251), the Committee decided not to publish the extracts from the letter of 21.5.1970 received from the Department. For the same reason the Committee decided not to publish a letter of 14.3.72 from the Department and to delete passages (indicated by dotted lines) from some of the correspondence printed below.

	ROINN AIRGEADAIS,
	(department of finance)
Cléireach an Choiste	BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 2.
An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí	(dublin 2)

Proceedings 22/4/71

With reference to your oral inquiry, I am not aware of any correspondence, official or unofficial, between the Department of Justice and this Department which is relevant to the question of the source of finance for the illegal purchase of arms.

I might mention, however, that on 21 May 1970 I received a secret semi-official letter from the then Secretary of the Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I do not consider the letter in question, or my reply, to be relevant to the Committee’s inquiry. I would, however, be glad to appear before the Committee in connection with this matter, should the Committee so wish.

28 April 1971

C. H. MURRAY

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

Proceedings 4/5/71.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to require you to send to the Committee as soon as possible a copy of the extracts from the secret semi-official letter received by you on 21st May 1970 from the then Secretary of the Department of Justice which you read out to the Committee on the 4th instant, and a copy of the reply thereto.

This communication is in confirmation of a verbal request of the 5th instant.

J. TOBIN

Cléireach an Choiste.

6 Bealtaine 1971.

ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(department of finance)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 2.

(dublin 2)

Cléireach an Choiste

An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

Proceedings 28/5/71.

You wrote to me on 6 May 1971 requesting that I send to the Committee a copy of extracts from the secret semi-official letter dated 21 May 1970 from the then Secretary of the Department of Justice, which I read to the Committee on 4 May, together with a copy of my reply.

I have brought this request to the notice of the Minister for Finance. Before coming to a decision, the Minister asked me to enquire whether it is the intention of the Committee to publish this correspondence, or to refer to it in its report. I would be glad if you would let me know what the Committee has in mind in this respect.

19 May 1971

C. H. MURRAY

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

Proceedings 28/5/71

With reference to your letter of 19 May 1971 regarding the secret semi-official letter dated 21 May 1970 from the then Secretary of the Department of Justice, the Committee have directed me to inform you that, before receipt of the letter, they are unable to give an explicit undertaking on the question of publishing it or referring to it in their report.

31 Bealtaine 1971	J. TOBIN,
	Cléireach an Choiste.

ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(department of finance)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 2.

(dublin 2)

Cléireach an Choiste

An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

Proceedings 28/5/71.

I have brought to the Minister’s notice your further letter of 31 May regarding the secret semi-official letter of 21 May 1970 from Mr. Berry, the then Secretary of the Department of Justice. The Minister has asked me to say that, since extracts from the letter have been read twice to the Committee, he had hoped that the Committee would already be in a position to indicate what use they would make of the document if a copy of it were to be given to them If it would be of any assistance to the Committee the Minister has authorised me to read again to them the extracts from Mr. Berry’s letter.

C. H. MURRAY

1 June 1971

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

Proceedings 8/2/72.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to refer to previous correspondence relating to the secret semi-official letter of 21 May 1970 addressed to you by the then Secretary of the Department of Justice. The Committee has recently given this matter further consideration, and has directed me to request again that you send to it a copy of the extracts from the letter which you read out to the Committee on 4 May 1971.

14 February 1972	J. TOBIN,
	Cléireach an Choiste.

ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(department of finance)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 2.

(dublin 2)

Cléireach an Choiste

An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

Proceedings 22/2/72.

I have brought to the Minister’s notice your letter of 14th February 1972 requesting a copy of an extract from the semi-official letter of 21 May 1970 from Mr. P. Berry, the former Secretary of the Department of Justice.

The Minister directs me to say again that he does not consider that the letter in question is relevant to the Committee’s inquiry. ...................................... ...................................... When I appeared before the Committee in connection with this matter I drew their attention to the fact that the letter did not produce any new fact not already before them ...................................... ......................................

The Minister is surprised to learn that, in spite of the contents of the letter being conveyed twice to the Committee orally, they still wish to have a copy. In previous correspondence the Minister indicated that before coming to a decision on the Committee’s request, he wished to know whether the Committee proposed to publish the letter. He still awaits an indication of the Committee’s views on this point. Since the Committee know the contents of the letter, it would be helpful if they would say why, in their view, it is relevant to the inquiry.

21 February 1972

C. H. MURRAY

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

Proceedings 22/2/72.

I am directed by the Committee to refer to your letter of the 21st instant relating to its request for a copy of extracts from the semi-official letter of 21 May 1970 addressed to you by the then Secretary of the Department of Justice. The Committee desires me to say that it has already indicated by minute of 31 May 1971 its position regarding publication, viz., that before receipt of the letter it was unable to give an explicit undertaking on the question of publishing it. Extracts from the letter were since read out to the Committee by you at its meeting of 4 May 1971 but the speed of the reading did not enable it to receive an accurate picture of the contents. From what it was able to absorb, it did, however, form a provisional opinion that the extracts were relevant to its proceedings. It cannot resolve the issue satisfactorily without being in a position to study the text. In the circumstances, the Committee has directed me to seek again a copy of the extracts read out.

J. TOBIN,

Cléireach an Choiste.

23 Feabhra 1972

ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(department of finance)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 2.

(dublin 2)

Cléireach an Choiste

An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

Proceedings 7/3/72, 7/6/72.

I have shown the Minister your letter of 23 February in regard to the semi-official letter of 21 May 1970 from the former Secretary of the Department of Justice.

The Minister is still of the opinion that the document is not relevant to the Committee’s proceedings. Since, however, the Committee state that they have formed a provisional opinion that the extract is relevant, the Minister is prepared to make it available. I now enclose a copy [not printed] of the extract in question and wish to draw particular attention to the final sentence of the second paragraph of my minute of 21 February.

The document is being made available on the basis that, should the Committee wish to publish it or give the substance of it in their report, the approval of the Minister will first be sought.

C. H. MURRAY

3 Márta 1972

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

Proceedings 7/3/72.

I am directed by the Committee to refer to your letter of 3 Márta forwarding a copy of the extract from the semi-official letter of 21 May 1970 from the former Secretary of the Department of Justice.

The Committee would be glad to have in the form of a statement any observations you may wish to make on the content of the extract, ...................................... ......................................

The Committee would appreciate it if you could furnish the statement in time to allow of its consideration by the Committee at its meeting of Wednesday next 15th instant. Having considered the statement, the Committee may wish to have a consultation with you on the matter.

J. TOBIN

Cléireach an Choiste

8 Márta 1972

Proceedings 15/3/72.

Note: Reply of 14 March 1972 to above letter not printed (see 8(a) page 246).

ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(department of finance)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 2.

(dublin 2)

29 Márta 1972

Cléireach don Choiste

um Chúntais Phoiblí

Proceedings 12/4/72.

On 22 March, 1972 when the Committee asked me* to give evidence in connection with the secret semi-official letter dated 21 May, 1970 from the former Secretary of the Department of Justice, I stated that I wished to reserve my position. I had earlier, in consultations with the Committee, stated that in my view the proper procedure for the Committee was first to take evidence from the writer of that letter. I have since considered the matter further and have sought legal advice which has confirmed that the view which I gave to the Committee is in accordance with the laws of evidence as applied in the Courts. While, therefore, I am prepared to give evidence in connection with the letter, I would only be prepared to do so if evidence had first been given to the Committee by the writer of the letter, and a copy of that evidence had been made available to me.

C. H. MURRAY

13 Aibreán 1972

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

Proceedings 12/4/72.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to refer to your minute of 29 Márta 1972 on the matter of the secret semi-official letter dated 21 May 1970 from the former Secretary of the Department of Justice. The Committee desire me to state that its interest relates to your exercise of your responsibilities as Accounting Officer. It wishes to put questions to you regarding the question of the initiation of action for the recovery of any moneys from the Grant-in-Aid that might have been put to improper use, ...................................... ......................................

The Committee’s next meeting has been fixed for 11 a.m. on Thursday next, 20 April, and the Committee wish to take evidence from you in private at that meeting on the matters referred to. Should your duties in connection with the Budget render the time fixed too inconvenient the Committee would defer the taking of evidence to the nearest more convenient date. Perhaps you would let me know the position in this regard.

J. TOBIN,

Cléireach an Choiste.

ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(department of finance)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 2.

(dublin 2)

13 April 1972

Cléireach an Choiste

An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

Proceedings 12/4/72.

I note from your minute of today’s date that the Committee wishes to take further evidence from me in private.

Because of prior commitments, I would not find it convenient to attend the next meeting of the Committee on Thursday, 20 April. I will be abroad on official business the following week but could attend a meeting of the Committee in the week beginning Monday, 1 May. Perhaps you would let me know as soon as possible whether it would be convenient for the Committee to see me in that week, and if so the date and time of the meeting.

C. H. MURRAY

8 June 1972

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

Proceedings 7/6/72.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to refer to your minute of 3 Márta 1972 in regard to the semi-official letter of 21 May 1970 from the former Secretary of the Department of Justice. I am to inform you (1) that the Committee considers that the extract from the letter furnished to the Committee is relevant to its examination, (2) that it will refer in its Report to issues raised by it and (3) that accordingly it considers that it may be necessary to publish the text of the extract.

J. TOBIN,

Secretary.

ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(department of finance)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 2,

(dublin 2)

22 June 1972

Cléireach an Choiste

An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

Proceedings 27/6/72, 13/7/72.

I am to refer to your minute of 8 June 1972 in regard to the extract from the secret semi-official letter of 21 May 1970 from the former Secretary of the Department of Justice.

In view of the form of authorisations given heretofore, the publication of this document in whole or in part would be contrary to Section 4 of the Official Secrets Act 1963 since authorisation has not been given for publication.

C. H. MURRAY

(b) Other Correspondence with Department of Finance.

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

30 Meitheamh 1971.

Proceedings 29/6/71.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to state that at its meeting yesterday, it decided to engage solicitor and counsel to attend at its meetings where the circumstances warrant it. As the Committee requires to be in a position to engage solicitor and counsel in respect of its meeting on Tuesday next, 6th July I am to seek the early sanction of the Minister for Finance in respect of the necessary expenditure.

For the information of the Minister I am to state that this application is a consequence of the decision of the Committee to rescind procedure (iii) set out in Appendix 3 of the Interim Report of 15th December 1970 (copy enclosed) and to adopt the following new procedure:—

“The Committee allows witnesses to be accompanied by counsel, solicitors or advisors. A witness who states to the Committee that his conduct has been impugned as part of the subject matter of the examination may apply to the Committee to be allowed the right to have his Counsel cross-examine the accuser and to address the Committee”.

J. TOBIN,

Cléireach an Choiste

Cléireach

An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

Teach Laighean

Baile Átha Cliath 2

5 Iúil 1971

I have laid your minute of 30 June, 1971 before the Minister for Finance.

Proceedings 6/7/71.

In reply, the Minister has directed me to say that the Committee’s proposal to engage solicitor and counsel “to attend at its meetings where the circumstances warrant it” is not sufficiently precise to enable him to judge the appropriateness of authorising the expenditure of the relevant fees from public funds.

In the Minister’s view the altered procedure set out in the Committee’s minute should involve the employment of solicitor and counsel only where a witness “states to the Committee that his conduct has been impugned as part of the subject matter under examination” and the members may require the services of counsel (and solicitor) to assist with or carry out the questioning of the witness and “the accuser” or advise them in relation to such matters.

Par. 86 Final Report.

On the information furnished the Minister is prepared to sanction expenditure on the employment of counsel and solicitor only in the circumstances referred to above and he has directed me to state that he requires a separate proposal for expenditure (giving necessary details) to be submitted for prior sanction in relation to each such occasion.

JOHN McGARTOLL,

An Roinn Airgeadais.

ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(department of finance)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 2.

(dublin 2)

14 July 1971

Cleireach an Choiste

Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

When I appeared before the Committee on 2 June last I undertook to forward to the Committee some information regarding the payment made in respect of emergency relief to the Irish Red Cross Society in 1968/69, from the Grant-in-Aid administered by the Department of Defence. The big increase in the payment in that year was due to the fact that it included £100,000 for relief of distress in Nigeria. A Supplementary Estimate for this amount was approved by Dáil Éireann on 9 July, 1968, and the payment was made to the Society on 23 July, 1968. Payments for emergency relief other than to Nigeria came to £10,300 in 1968/69. I take it that the Committee does not require a breakdown of this amount but I shall be glad to ask the Society for details if the Committee so wishes.

C. H. MURRAY

Mr. George Colley T.D.

Minister for Finance

16th July 1971.

Dear Minister,

Proceedings 13/7/71.

The Committee of Public Accounts has directed me to inform you that two persons who have been summoned by it to attend before it have requested through their respective solicitors that certain documents be made available to them.

The solicitors for one of these persons namely, Mr. Páraic Haughey, has informed the Committee that they “require (in accordance with Law) ...................................... copies of all written statements made to the Committee which allege that our client was in any way a party to the handling or disbursement of any of the monies issued from subhead J, Vote 16 (Miscellanous Expenses) for 1969/70.”

The solicitors for the other person, namely Mr. John Kelly, state that they have been informed that “documents have been filed with the Committee and referred to in the evidence, such as Garda Reports etc. and my client, accordingly, requires copies of any such documents or reports which in any way refer to him.”

On 6th January last, you forwarded to the Committee through your Private Secretary copies of the Garda Report by reference to which your Department’s submission of 9th December 1970 to the Committee was prepared. This Report contains references to Mr. John Kelly.

You also forwarded to the Committee through your Private Secretary copies of a Garda Report dated 2nd. December 1970 dealing with the views of a handwriting expert. This Report contains references to both Mr. John Kelly and Mr. Páraic Haughey.

The Committee has directed that, in the light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, it is required of it to make the two Reports referred to available to the solicitors for Mr. John Kelly and to make available the Report dated 2nd. December to the solicitor for Mr. Páraic Haughey.

The Committee would be glad to learn that you have no objection to such course. The Committee would appreciate an early reply.

Yours sincerely,

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

21 July, 1971

Proceedings 20/7/71, 28/7/71.

Par. 42 Final Report.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to draw your attention to evidence given by Col. Hefferon at Question 4215 volume No. 8, 2 February 1971 in which he makes reference to a letter which “must be in the Department of Finance files”. The Committee has this week been given the following information about the letter by Col. Hefferon.

“(1) The letter is dated some time about mid-September, not later I would think than the 20th. is probably classified as SECRET, inscribed on official paper.

(2) The disbursement of the original £100 grant is no doubt referred to and I believe that the immediate requirements of the Office as to equipment are listed, with an estimate of cost.

(3) Figures for a projected six months period are quoted, and whilst it is made clear, I believe, that these figures are minimal, the recommendation is made that the Department of Finance support, apart from the £500 immediately required, for equipment, be frugal. Every effort should be made to have the organisation running the office to become self-supporting by various fund raising activities.

(4) As I did not at that time consider the office in any sense an intelligence responsibility, although it had obviously a potential in that field, I am pretty certain that I made suitable recommendations based on that assessment, I saw it as a useful institution from the viewpoint of the Government’s interest in the “taking of statements” from refugees operation, and not less so from the viewpoint of the Government propaganda exercise then in full cry.

I am sure that in consideration of these factors I made a recommendation that some small committee be set up to control it.

(5) A report on the possibilities of a radio communications scheme to harmonise with the general set-up was attached as a separate document. One further point that needs stressing—the letter which is the subject of this submission, was indited at a very early stage of the setting up of the fund for relief of distress in the North and therefore has value above and beyond the specific matters dealt with in it.”

The Committee has directed me to require you to send to it the letter referred to so as to reach it by Monday 26th instant.

J. TOBIN

Secretary,

Committee of Public Accounts.

23rd July, 1971.

Seoirse Ó Colla, Uas, T.D.

Minister for Finance

Dear Minister,

Proceedings 20/7/71.

A witness who appeared before the Committee prior to the proceedings in the High Court and the Supreme Court enquired of the Committee whether he would be reimbursed the cost of employing counsel for the purpose of cross-examining other witnesses. He was informed that the Committee does not provide reimbursement in respect of the employment of counsel by witnesses. He has now requested permission to personally cross-examine two persons who have given evidence. Before coming to a decision on the issue of personal cross-examination, the Committee wish to have the benefit of legal advice on the matter. The Committee has, therefore, directed me to request your sanction for the expenditure involved in the engagement of counsel.

Yours sincerely,

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Seoirse Ó Colla Uas. T.D.,

Minister for Finance.

29th July, 1971.

Dear Minister,

Proceedings 29/7/71.

The Committee has granted a request received from Captain James J. Kelly to personally cross-examine Mr. James Gibbons, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and Chief Superintendent John P. Fleming. Summonses have been issued to both of these gentlemen to attend before the Committee for this purpose at 4 p.m. on Wednesday 4th August 1971. The Committee has decided that it is necessary that it have the benefit of the advice of counsel during the course of the cross-examination and it accordingly requests your sanction for the expenditure involved in the engagement of counsel for this purpose.

Yours sincerely,

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.

OIFIG AN AIRE AIRGEADAIS

(Office of the Minister for Finance)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 2

(Dublin 2)

Mr Patrick Hogan TD

Chairman

Committee of Public Accounts

Leinster House

Dublin 2

30th July, 1971.

Dear Chairman,

Proceedings 4/8/71.

With reference to your letter of 29 July, I note that the Committee wishes to have the benefit of Counsel during the course of the cross examination of witnesses at its meeting on Wednesday, 4 August, 1971. I hereby sanction the expenditure involved in the engagement of one Junior Counsel for this purpose.

I was about to reply to your earlier letter of 23 July when your later communication arrived. I am taking it that you do not now require a reply to the earlier letter.

Yours sincerely,

GEORGE COLLEY.

OIFIG AN AIRE AIRGEADAIS

(office of the minister for finance)

BAILE ATHA CLIATH 2.

(dublin 2)

30 July 1971

Mr Patrick Hogan TD

Chairman

Committee of Public Accounts

Leinster House

Dublin 2

Dear Chairman,

Proceedings 4/8/71.

You wrote to me on 16 July asking if I had any objection to the Committee’s proposal to make available to the Solicitors for Mr John Kelly the Garda reports which my Private Secretary forwarded to the Committee on 6 January last, and also to make available to the Solicitors for Mr. Paraic Haughey the Garda report which my Private Secretary forwarded to the Committee on 12 January last.

I note that the Committee has directed that, in the light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, it is required of it to accede to the request for these reports. I am legally advised, however, that the Supreme Court judgment does not require the Committee to make these reports available. Apart altogether from this consideration, any publication of reports of this nature would be seriously contrary to public policy. I regret, therefore, that I cannot agree to the Committee’s proposal to release them.

Yours sincerely

GEORGE COLLEY

18 May 1972

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

Proceedings 17/5/72.

The Committee of Public Accounts has directed me to require you, in accordance with section 3 (1) (c) of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act, 1970, to send to it so as to reach it by Thursday 25 May 1972 the complete Department of Finance file containing the papers relating to the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief issued from Subhead J. Vote 16 (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969/70.

J. TOBIN,

Cléireach an Choiste.

ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(department of finance)

Baile Átha Cliath 2

(Dublin 2)

30 May 1972

Cléireach an Choiste

An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

Proceedings 31/5/72.

With reference to your minute of 18 May and my reply of the same date, the Minister has considered further the request of the Committee of Public Accounts for the complete Department of Finance file containing the papers relating to the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief.

I have already made it clear to the Committee, at its private sittings on 22 March 1972 and 17 May 1972, that this file contains material of a highly confidential nature relating to Northern Ireland but not relating in any way to the Grant-in-Aid. The only papers on the file relating to the Grant-in-Aid which the Committee have not yet seen are four internal Department of Finance minutes, one of which is the Brief prepared for the former Minister for Finance in connection with the Supplementary Estimate on the Grant-in-Aid. It will be recalled that this document has already been offered to the Committee on the basis that it would not be published. The Committee have not accepted or rejected the offer.

Proceedings 7/6/72.

Copies of the other three internal documents are enclosed. Should the Committee wish to publish these, it would be necessary to have the Minister’s approval under the Official Secrets Act.

C. H. MURRAY

1 June 1972

Runaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

Proceedings 31/5/72.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to refer to your minute of 30 May 1972 (and three enclosures) in reply to the Committee’s request for the complete Department of Finance file containing the papers relating to the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief.

With regard to the Brief prepared for the former Minister the Committee desires me to state that it is unable to give an explicit undertaking on the question of publication before seeing the document. The Committee, does, however, undertake to communicate with the Minister on any proposal to publish the document.

In the circumstances the Committee requests that a copy of the Brief be forwarded to it so as to reach it by Wednesday 7 June 1972.

J. TOBIN,

Cléireach an Choiste.

ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(department of finance)

Baile Átha Cliath 2.

(Dublin 2)

1 June 1972

Cléireach an Choiste

Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

Proceedings 7/6/72.

I am directed by the Minister for Finance to refer to your minute of 1st June 1972 and to state that the Minister is prepared to make available to the Committee a copy of the Brief prepared for the former Minister for Finance in connection with the Supplementary Estimate on the Grant-in-Aid, on the same condition regarding publication relating to the three other internal Finance documents made available on 30 May namely that it would be necessary to have the Minister’s approval under the Official Secrets Act.

C. H. MURRAY

8 June 1972

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

Proceedings 7/6/72.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to refer to your minute of 1 June 1972 in relation to the Committee’s request for a copy of the Brief prepared for the former Minister for Finance in connection with the Supplementary Estimate on the Grant-in-Aid, and to state that the Committee agrees, as a condition for its being made available to it, not to publish the text of the Brief.

I have accordingly to request that the Brief be now made available to the Committee.

J. TOBIN.

Secretary.

8 June 1972

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

Proceedings 7/6/72.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to refer to the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief under subhead J, Vote 16 for 1969/70 and to enquire whether in connection with the issue of money to the Irish Red Cross Society you sought a direction from the then Minister for Finance as to whether this money was to issue to the Society under section 2 of the Red Cross Act 1938 or not.

J. TOBIN,

Secretary.

ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(department of finance)

Baile Átha Cliath 2.

(Dublin 2)

21 June 1972

Cléireach an Choiste

An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

Proceedings 27/6/7.2

I am directed by the Minister for Finance to refer to your minute of 8 June 1972 and to say that he notes that the Committee of Public Accounts agrees not to publish the text of the Brief prepared for the former Minister for Finance in connection with the Supplementary Estimate on the Grant-in-Aid.

A copy of the Brief is now enclosed subject to non-publication of the Brief, or any part or any summary of it.

C. H. MURRAY

ROINN AIRGEADAIS,

(department of finance)

Baile Átha Cliath 2.

(Dublin 2)

22 June 1972

Cléireach an Choiste

An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

Proceedings 27/6/72.

I am directed by the Minister for Finance to refer to your minute of 8 June 1972 in regard to the issue of money from the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief to the Irish Red Cross Society.

The Government decision of 16th August 1969 was that

“A sum of money—the amount and the channel of disbursement of which would be determined by the Minister for Finance should be made available from the Exchequer...”

That decision was the basis of the then Minister’s authority to disburse and in accordance with that decision the Minister determined that the funds would be administered mainly by the Irish Red Cross Society. As he indicated in reply to questions by the Public Accounts Committee, the Society was used as a channel by which assistance was given towards the relief of distress in the North, and the Government and he accepted responsibility for this.

In view of these circumstances the question of getting a direction from the Minister under Section 2 of the Act did not arise.

C. H. MURRAY

C. H. Murray

Rúnaí

An Roinn Airgeadais

Proceedings 28/6/72.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to state that it would be glad if you would send to it for possible publication in its Report a statement containing the information given to you during the visit by you to Belfast on which you gave evidence in private to the Committee. The Committee would appreciate receipt of the statement in time for its meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday next.

J. TOBIN

Secretary

29 June 1972

ROINN AIRGEADAIS

(department of finance)

Baile Átha Cliath 2.

(Dublin 2)

11 July 1972

Cléireach an Choiste

An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

Proceedings 13/7/72.

With further reference to your request of 29 June 1972, I enclose a report* containing the information given to me during my visit to Belfast in January 1971.

I have no objection to the Report being published.

C. H. MURRAY

9. Fleming, Chief Superintendent John P.

AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN AREA,

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT’S OFFICE

Special Detective Unit

DUBLIN CASTLE.

5th July, 1971.

The Secretary,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Dáil Éireann.

Sir,

Proceedings 6/7/71.

With reference to the summons received by me on Friday evening last to attend before the Committee on to-morrow, Tuesday, 6th July, 1971, I am instructed by my Authorities to say that, having regard to the judgements delivered in the recent case before the Supreme Court, in which reference is made to me, and having regard also to various other references that have been made, before the Committee and otherwise, to evidence already given by me, it will be necessary to consider the matter fully, and possibly to seek legal advice. The time allowed is insufficient for that purpose and at least a further week would be necessary.

As a courtesy to the Committee, I am quite willing, if the Committee so desire, to appear before them to-morrow, to repeat formally what is said in this letter but it will not be possible for me to give any further evidence at this point. I request, therefore, that the Secretary of the Committee should telephone me to say if a formal attendance, for this limited purpose, is desired.

Yours faithfully,

JOHN P. FLEMING,

Chief Superintendent.

AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

OIFIG AN CHOIMISINEARA,

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH.

31 July, 1971.

Mr. J. Tobin

Committee of Public Accounts of

Dáil Éireann

Leinster House

Dublin 2.

A Chara,

Proceedings 4/8/71.

Chief Superintendent Fleming has been on Annual Leave and will be for a further week.

There are, as you will appreciate, various aspects to be considered and it is not possible to deal with them until the Chief Superintendent has resumed duty. A further communication will be sent you as soon as possible.

Mise, le meas,

A. I. FLOOD.

Deputy Commissioner

Acting Commissioner

Mr. John P. Fleming

Chief Superintendent,

Special Detective Unit

Dublin Castle

Dublin 2

Proceedings 27/10/71.

At its meeting yesterday, the Committee of Public Accounts fixed next Wednesday, 3rd November at 4.15 p.m. in lieu of the date notified to you by the summons of 29th July last for your attendance before the Committee.

Please present this communication to the Captain of the Guard on your arrival at Leinster House.

P. HOGAN

Chairman of the Committee

of Public Accounts

Dated this 28th day of October 1971

Mr. John P. Fleming,

Chief Superintendent,

Special Detective Unit,

Dublin Castle,

Dublin 2.

Dear Chief Superintendent,

The Committee has directed me to inform you that, further to your request to cross-examine Captain James J. Kelly, Captain Kelly has been summoned to attend before the Committee at 4.15 p.m. on Tuesday 9th November for this purpose.

J. TOBIN

Secretary of the Committee

of Public Accounts

4 November 1971

10. Gibbons, Deputy James, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

OIFIG AN AIRE TALMHAÍOCHTA AGUS IASCAIGH

(office of the minister for agriculture and fisheries)

Baile Átha Cliath 2

(Dublin 2)

1 March 1971

Par. 19 Final Report.

Dr. Patrick Hogan T.D.

Chairman

Public Accounts Committee

Dáil Éireann

Dublin 2.

Dear Deputy Hogan,

Proceedings 2/3/71.

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.

OIFIG AN AIRE TALMHAÍOCHTA AGUS IASCAIGH

(office of the minister for agriculture and fisheries)

Baile Átha Cliath 2

(Dublin 2)

3 August 1971

Mr. P. Hogan T.D.

Chairman

Public Accounts Committee

Dáil Éireann.

Proceedings 4/8/71.

Par. 19 Final Report.

Dear Deputy,

I have received your letter of 29th July 1971.*

Since I have already given evidence of all matters in my knowledge relevant to your inquiry, I do not propose to attend before your Committee again.

Yours faithfully,

JAMES GIBBONS.

OIFIG AN AIRE TALMHAÍOCHTA AGUS IASCAIGH

(office of the minister for agriculture and fisheries)

Baile Átha Cliath 2

(Dublin 2)

25 November 1971

Mr. P. Hogan T.D.

Chairman

Public Accounts Committee

Dáil Éireann.

Proceedings 30/11/71.

Par. 19 Final Report.

Dear Deputy,

I have received your letter of the 24th November 1971.†

Since I have already given evidence of all matters in my knowledge relevant to your inquiry, I do not propose to attend before your Committee again.

Yours faithfully,

JAMES GIBBONS.

Mr. J. Gibbons, T.D.,

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

Dear Minister,

Proceedings 23/11/71.

As you are aware, Colonel M. J. Hefferon has requested that the Committee make available to him the note handed in by you to the Committee during your attendance before it on 22nd April 1971.‡ You have already informed the Committee that you were not able to agree that the note be made available as considerations of national security were involved. To assist the Committee in considering the matter further, they would appreciate if you would let them know before the week end whether the contents of the note are protected against disclosure by the Official Secrets Act 1963.

Yours sincerely,

P. HOGAN.

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.

24th November 1971

OIFIG AN AIRE TALMHAÍOCHTA AGUS IASCAIGH

(office of the minister for agriculture and fisheries)

Baile Átha Cliath 2

(Dublin 2)

25 November 1971

Mr. P. Hogan

Chairman

Public Accounts Committee

Dáil Éireann.

Dear Deputy,

Proceedings 30/11/71.

I have your letter of 24th November concerning the note handed in by me to the Committee on the 22nd April 1971.

Since this note concerns Secret Service funds, I consider that it would be against the National Interest to disclose its contents. It is not for me to say whether its contents are protected by the Official Secrets Act of 1963.

Yours sincerely,

JAMES GIBBONS.

11. Haughey, Deputy Charles J.

DÁIL ÉIREANN

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH

(DUBLIN)

12 February 1971

Deputy P. Hogan,

Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

Dublin 2.

Dear Deputy Hogan,

Proceedings 16/2/71.

I have read the newspaper reports of what is stated to have been given in evidence by Chief Superintendent Fleming to the Committee of Public Accounts on the 9th February. I state, without qualification, that the statement of the Chief Superintendent Fleming that I met a leading member of the I.R.A. in August or September, 1969, and promised to pay a sum of money to the I.R.A. is untrue. No such meeting ever took place, and no such promise was ever made by me.

Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence, if one may properly so call it, includes such phrases as—“I had other confidential information”—“I take it that”—“I am not sure but”—“I would imagine”—“as far as my impression goes”—“as far as I am aware” all, plainly, indications that his ‘evidence’ was based on rumour, reports, and other hearsay. No Court would ever permit such an abuse of privilege quite apart from the fact that such ‘evidence’ would be inadmissible.

The Oireachtas has entrusted you, as Chairman of the Committee, with the task of presiding over a proper inquiry into the spending of public money voted as a Grant-in-Aid for the relief of distress in Northern Ireland. You have permitted this witness, Chief Superintendent Fleming to give unsubstantiated hearsay evidence against me, which has, under the privilege of the Committee, been widely reported in the Press.

It is, I feel sure you will agree, significant that at the recent arms trial when he would have been subject to cross examination by Counsel, Chief Superintendent Fleming did not mention this matter.

I have been notified that I may be required to give evidence to the Committee. If so required, I shall attend for that purpose. I regret, however, that I must now state to you, as Chairman of the Committee, that any findings of the Committee based on the allegations of Chief Superintendent Fleming or other ‘evidence’ of a similar kind, can be of no value.

I am issuing copies of this letter to the Press.

Yours sincerely,

CHARLES J. HAUGHEY.

12. Haughey, Mr. Páraic (including Solicitor for).

Par. 18 Final Report.

Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann sitting to examine specially the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief issued from Subhead J. Vote 16 (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969/70 and any moneys transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to a bank account into which moneys from this vote were or may have been lodged, pursuant to Order of Dáil Éireann made on the 1st day of December 1970.

Mr. Páraic Haughey,

25 Foxfield Avenue,

Raheny,

Dublin 5.

Sir,

Proceedings 29/6/71.

You are hereby summoned to attend before the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann at Leinster House, Kildare Street, Dublin on Tuesday the 6th day of July, 1971 at 4 p.m. and so on from day to day as indicated by the Committee to give evidence on the matter being examined.

In regard to the procedures set out in Appendix 3 of the Interim Report of the Committee dated 15th December 1970, a copy of which is enclosed, the Committee has rescinded procedure (iii) and substituted the following procedure:

If you intend to avail yourself of the above mentioned procedure you are requested to give 24 hours notice to the Committee of such intention.

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee of

Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann.

Dated this 30th day of June 1971.

Liam D. McGonagle	KENNEDY & McGONAGLE
Desmond E. M. Matthews	solicitors
Francis P. Malone	29, Molesworth Street
Michael J. O’Shea	Dublin, 2
	Telephone Nos. 61918/9 & 67071
	Our Ref. D/C
	Your Ref.

6th July 1971

Dr. P. Hogan, T.D.,

Chairman,

Dáil Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

Dublin, 2.

Dear Sir,

Re: Committee of Public Accounts.

Re: Examination of Expenditure of Grant-in-Aid

for Northern Ireland Relief.

Proceedings 6/7/71, 13/7/71.

We act for Mr. Paraic Haughey of 25 Foxfield Ave., Raheny, Dublin, and have been handed your document of the 30th June 1971 inviting our client to attend before the Committee at Leinster House, Kildare Street, on Tuesday 6th July at 4 p.m.

Before advising our client, we require (in accordance with Law) all statements made to the Committee, whether made in public or private, and copies of all written statements made to the Committee which allege that our client was in any way a party to the handling or disbursement of any of the monies issued from subhead J. Vote 16 (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969/1970. The statements referred to in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Re: Paraic Haughey may of course be excluded from service on us. We would be pleased if you would furnish us with this information as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully,

KENNEDY & McGONAGLE

Messrs. Kennedy & McGonagle,

Solicitors,

29 Molesworth Street,

Dublin 2.

Dear Sirs,

Proceedings 6/7/71, 13/7/71.

The Committee has requested me to refer to your letter of the 6th July in which you specify certain requirements “in accordance with law”. It is not agreed that the law entitles you to these requirements.

You must surely appreciate that the Committee cannot disclose any information which would be classified as “Official information” within the meaning of the definition in Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, 1963, nor can they disclose any information which might be prejudicial to the safety or preservation of the State.

Any other information which the Committee received privately was given and accepted in confidence. If you wish to press the matter, the persons who gave this information will be requested by the Committee to repeat it in the presence of your client at, it is suggested, a private sitting. You will appreciate, of course, that if such persons refuse to do so or refuse to allow themselves to be cross-examined, the Committee will have no power to enforce them to do so.

The Committee appreciates your client’s wish to have Superintendent Fleming cross-examined and will request him to present himself for this purpose at a convenient date.

Please let me hear from you as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully,

P. HOGAN

Chairman of the Committee

of Public Accounts.

8 July 1971

KENNEDY & McGONAGLE

solicitors

29, Molesworth Street

Dublin, 2

liam d. mcgonagle

desmond e. m. matthews

francis p. malone

michael j. o’shea

Telephone Nos. 61918/9 & 67071

our ref F/C

your ref

BY HAND

28th July 1971.

Dr. P. Hogan, T.D.,

Chairman,

Dail Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

Dublin, 2.

RE: COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

RE: EXAMINATION OF EXPENDITURE, GRANT IN AID FOR NORTHERN IRELAND RELIEF.

Dear Sir,

We have considered your letter of the 9th inst.

Proceedings 4/8/71, 5/8/71

Firstly, we must point out that the Official Secrets Act, 1963, is not relevant, nor can it be relied on by the Committee to endeavour to defeat the citizens rights (now clearly defined) under Article 40 of the Constitution. It cannot be said that, if any allegations were made to the Committee suggesting that our client received into his possession power or control or was involved in the expenditure of any of the £100,000 grant in aid, furnishing this information to the person so accused could be prejudicial to the safety or preservation of the State.

The Committee is not and never was entitled to receive privately and “in confidence” information purporting to make serious charges and allegations against any citizen without disclosing such information to the person so accused. The attitude adopted by the Committee on this matter is so dangerous that it can only be described as alarming.

It is now established by the Supreme Court in the clearest possible terms that the proceedings of the Committee and the modes and procedures adopted have violated the provisions of the Constitution and in particular the provision by which the State guarantees to respect in its laws and by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen and in which the State undertakes to protect by its laws from unjust attack the person and good name of the citizen. The Court has expressly said that these provisions guarantee basic fairness of procedures and are not political shibboleths. In addition to the denial of constitutional justice of which the Committee have been found guilty in their conduct at this enquiry the Committee have acted contrary to natural justice as the Court has also found.

We note that an attempt is now being made to alter some of the procedures originally adopted by the Committee. In our view this amounts to no more than closing the door after the horse has bolted. The Committee has been sitting in public since the 7th January 1971 and has heard a very great deal of evidence in public most of which has appeared in the public newspapers. The “evidence” is riddled with hearsay accusations of various kinds against a large number of citizens which reflects upon their personal character and good name and infringes their personal rights. Moreover, the nature of the hearsay evidence which has been entertained, whatever be its value, if any, as a line of enquiry, has no probative value whatever.

In the result we have advised our client that the procedures adopted and the nature of the evidence admitted entirely vitiates’ the enquiry which the Committee have purported to make. The damage which has been done and which has been found to be done is irreparable and the evidence entertained cannot legally entitle the Committee to present a report in Dail Eireann based on the information obtained in the manner above stated.

Since the Supreme Court Judgment, in our view the position of the Committee has become more impossible and unreal. Two of its members have resigned and have been replaced by Deputies who have not even been present during the “hearing of evidence” whether in public or private. We wonder how they can form an honest and objective judgment on any issue or matter where there is any conflict.

We are unable to understand or follow the penultimate paragraph of your letter. Our letter of the 6th July expresses no wish to cross-examine Superintendent Fleming nor did we allude to him at all. The evidence which the Superintendent was permitted to give has been found by the Court to be completely hearsay and such as would not be entertained in any Court of Law. While refusing to disclose his sources the evidence contains serious allegations concerning the character and good name of citizens including our client. We are not prepared to advise our client to afford the Superintendent a further opportunity to continue this charade, nor are we prepared to advise him to assist in the continuance of an inquiry which has been found to have disregarded the basic principles of justice.

The infringement of the Constitutional and civil rights of citizens by witnesses or members of the Committee will no doubt be rectified in the fullness of time. We have nothing further to add.

Yours faithfully,

Kennedy & McGonagle.

13. Hefferon, Colonel Michael J.

67 Ballytore Road,

Rathfarnham, 14.

19th July, 1971.

Public Accounts Committee Investigations—

THE MONAGHAN OFFICE

Dear Mr. Chairman,

Proceedings 20/7/71, 28/7/71.

Par. 42 Final Report.

Please refer to Book no. 25—question 11400 et seq.

From the queries posed here by Mr. Treacy, and indeed other queries and comments posed during the progress of your investigation I detect a note of bemusement on the part of the Committee in regard to expenditure under the above heading.

In my pre-examination statement, supplemented by my evidence before your Committee I had felt that I dealt both adequately and clearly with the matter. Manifestly, this is not so, and in the confident expectation of assisting the investigation so that proper conclusions will be arrived at. I feel that in fairness to both myself and the Committee that no vestige of doubt should surround this rather important aspect of the matters you are enquiring into.

Firstly let me draw your attention to my evidence—Book no. 8—answer to question no. 4215, where I specifically direct your Committee’s inquisition to a letter sent by me to the Department of Finance at the time when the financial accommodation for the Monaghan Office was being sought. This letter, in my submission is of first rate importance, because it is best evidence on a matter with which the investigation is concerning itself twenty two months later. I am further convinced that an examination of the letter will remove from the minds of the Investigators any shade of dubiety that may exist as to the proper application by me, or under my authority, of the Funds for the North to this purpose. Further, if my recollection is not at fault, it will throw a light on the whole matter which cannot but be helpful in your consideration of the wider aspects of the Inquiry.

I do not know whether you have sought this document, or if having sought it, you were successful in having it produced. I assure you that the original exists on a Department of Finance file, and a copy exists or should exist on an Intelligence file in the Directorate of Intelligence file at the Red House, in the Department of Defence.

The lead up to the matter is as follows.

On 21st August 1969 I was summoned to the office of the Minister for Defence, Mr. Gibbons, and in the presence of the Secretary of the Department Mr. O’Cearnaigh given explicit instructions to have statements taken from the refugees in our refugee camps on their experience of atrocity, inhuman conduct and grave violation of accepted code of civilised behaviour any of them might have been subjected to or have witnessed during the disturbances in the six counties. Such assistance as my teams of Intelligence officers might need in the line of tape recorders, casettes etc. would be made available by immediate purchase. It was stressed that this was an instruction from Government—indeed either that day or a few days later Mr. Cearnaigh showed me a document which purported to be a written Instruction on the same lines stressing that these statements were to be taken by “Intelligence Officers”. Some days later at a conference in McKee Bks Officers Mess at which were present both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Defence Mr. Gibbons, as well as the Chief of Staff, Gen. MacEoin, the Adjutant General and the Quarter Master General, I adverted to this matter of the refugees and some of our problems with them, and was given an assurance by the Minister for Finance of a sympathetic attitude on the part of his Department to any requests for financial support I might find it necessary to make in the interests of the Refugees as well as of Intelligence.

About the 7th of Sept. I had a phone call from—and here I speak from memory a Mr. Breathnach of the Department of Finance who wished to be apprised of the financial implications of assistance to the Monaghan Office together with my recommendations. This letter was delivered to Mr. Fagan I believe about mid-September, and is the one that I request the Committee seek production of. I believe that a second letter dealing with communications, accompanied it, which may or may not be of interest to the Committee. The subject matter at any rate was germane to the Monaghan Office, at least to certain projected activities of that Office.

Let me again state, because a sum of £1100 is being bandied about that the total expenditure on the Monaghan office was £250 (two hundred and fifty pounds) and that the balance of the £600 drawn was lodged to the credit of the Department of Finance.

Lest for any reason, this letter may be denied to you I have reconstructed from recollection a precis of the main points covered in the document as well as some aspects of the general tenor. It is necessarily incomplete, but owing to the exhaustive nature of my researches at the time and the importance I attached to its operation I am satisfied that I give a fair summary of its contents. I invite verification of this in the only possible way that will give certainty, that is by the production of the original or its copy for the scrutiny of the Committee.

A brief comment before starting, in reference to Mr. Treacy’s examination of Mr. Gibbons—Book no. 25, question 11401—“the office at CLONES” is referred to by both questioner and witness. My presumption is that in the context of the questioning, the reference should be to the office in Monaghan.

Hereunder then, is my recollection of the correspondence.

(1) The letter is dated some time about mid-Sept, not later I would think than the 20th. is probably classified as SECRET, inscribed on official paper.

(2) The disbursement of the original £100 grant is no doubt referred to and I believe that the immediate requirements of the Office as to equipment are listed, with an estimate of cost.

(4) As I did not at that time consider the office in any sense an Intelligence responsibility, although it had obviously a potential in that field, I am pretty certain that I made suitable recommendations based on that assessment. I saw it as a useful institution from the viewpoint of the Government’s interest in the “taking of statements from refugees” operation, and not less so from the viewpoint of the Government propaganda exercise then in full cry.

I am sure that in consideration of these factors I made a recommendation that some small committee be set up to control it.

(5) A report on the possibilities of a radio communications scheme to harmonise with the general set-up was attached as a separate document.

One further point that needs stressing—the letter which is the subject of this submission, was indited at a very early stage of the setting up of the fund for relief of distress in the North and therefore has value above and beyond the specific matters dealt with in it. I trust therefore that the Committee will spare no effort in seeking to obtain it for association with the proceedings.

If for any reason not at present clear to me they either fail to seek it, or having sought it, are denied it, then I request that this submission be fully accepted. I am convinced however that the original document may and probably does contain other material of assistance to the Committee, and the flavour of a recollected reconstruction, however accurate, cannot satisfactorily substitute for the original.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am engaged at the moment in examining the evidence of Mr. Gibbons before your Committee, and as much of it concerns his dealings with myself, I hope to supply you in the near future with a commentary on it which may be useful in resolving some of the very apparent contrarieties which emerge vis-a-vis my own testimony.

Is mise, a Chathaoirligh,

The Chairman,	M. J. HEFFERON,
Public Accounts Committee,	Col. (Retired).

Col. Michael Hefferon,	21st July 1971
67 Ballytore Road,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.

Dear Colonel Hefferon,

Proceedings 20/7/71.

The Committee has asked me to say that careful consideration is being given to your letter of the 19th inst. I have to add, as you no doubt appreciate, that a letter does not constitute evidence on oath and that in the case of additional evidence arising, particularly where it may be in possible conflict with evidence already given, it should, before the Committee considers its report, be recorded on oath in accordance with the procedures of the Committee.

Yours sincerely,

J. TOBIN

Secretary of the Committee of Public Accounts

An Rúnaí,	July 23, 1971.
An Coiste Um Chuntais Phoiblí,
Teach Laighin.

Dear Mr. Tobin,

I am obliged for your letter of the 21st inst. in reply to mine of the 19th. idem, to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and the assurance that careful consideration is being given by the Committee to its contents.

In addition to the references given in my letter, I wish to draw attention also to Book No. 19—answer to question no. 9791—in particular to the words “This was made clear by my writing in to the Department.” In the context it is quite obvious that this is the same letter referred to by me in the submission of the 19th. (Book No. 8— Qn 4215) I was under the impression that when giving evidence before the Committee, that I used the word “my” before the word writing, but it is possible that having referred to the letter already, I omitted the pronoun.

I note your advices re the giving of evidence on oath which I take it have application to the final paragraph of my submission.

Is mise, a Rúnaí,

M. HEFFERON

29 July 1971

Col. M. Hefferon,

67 Ballytore Road,

Rathfarnham,

Dublin 14.

Dear Col. Hefferon,

Proceedings 28/7/71.

The Committee has directed me to inform you that it is arranging for the early conclusion of the taking of evidence and will be commencing preparatory work on its report next week.

Yours Sincerely,

J. TOBIN

Secretary of the Committee of Public Accounts

67 Ballytore Rd.

Rathfarnham, 14.

4th. August 1971

The Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Teach Laighean.

Dear Sir,

I wish to acknowledge receipt of your Secretary’s letter of the 29th July, informing me of your intentions re the early conclusion of the taking of evidence.

Whilst assuring of my eagerness to make available to your Committee the material referred to in mine of the 19th ult., as soon as possible, you will I am sure appreciate the burdensome nature of the task of re-reading the evidence given before you, in addition to the mass of other documents such as records of the Court trials etc. Nonetheless I hope to forward my submission at an early date.

Certain reports prepared by me in the period August 1969 and April 1970 are on file in the Headquarters of the Intelligence Branch. In particular, copies of reports exist, which themselves were of such a SECRET nature that only three copies were typed— one for the Minister for Defence, Mr. Gibbons, one for the Chief of Staff and the third put on file. When my researches on this and on other matters are completed, I will be communicating further with you. As of the moment, I am convinced that knowledge of these reports, would be of material assistance to your Committee’s investigation.

Is mise,

M. HEFFERON

(Col. Retired)

67 Ballytore Road,

Rathfarnham, 14.

25 October 1971.

An Cathaoirleach,

An Choiste Um Chuntais Phoiblí,

TEACH LAIGHEAN.

Proceedings 27/10/71, 3/11/71.

A Chathaoirligh,

Further to my letter of the 19th July, and related correspondence, I attach hereto my commentary on the evidence of Deputy James Gibbons as promised. It is set out in the form of a Military Paper.*

If I have not ranged more widely in contesting the truth of many more statements made by Mr. Gibbons before your Committee, it is only because of two very potent limiting factors, which are—

(i) My verbal discussions with Mr. Gibbons as Minister for Defence were always directly to him, without the benefit of intermediary or witness.

(ii) Since my retirement from the Army, I have had NO access to the massive documentation which exists on the period, in the Archives of the Intelligence Branch.

The matter of credibility, which came up in an acute form during your questioning of Mr. Gibbons—particularly in regard to my own evidence—is of paramount importance in this Inquiry. I believe the facts set out in this paper should go far in solving your dilemma.

Again on the matter of Authority, which plays such a significant part in the subject of your enquiries, I wish to draw your attention to evidence given in the Central Criminal Court during the progress of the first Arms Trial. The date is the 28th Sept. and the witness is Mr. Micheal Ó Móráin, Minister for Justice, during the period August 1969-April 1970.

During examination by Counsel, Mr. Ó Móráin states—

...“Certainly at one of these stages I thought it was an official importation. It would be a few days before April 18th.”

In a previous letter I indicated to you that I was studying the question of certain ‘High Sensitivity’ written reports submitted by me to Mr. Gibbons on a fairly regular basis from August 1969 to Spring of 1970. I expect to be in touch with you further on these matters within the next few days.

Is mise le meas,

M. HEFFERON, Colonel (Ret’d).

4 November 1971.

Dear Colonel Hefferon,

Proceedings 3/11/71, 9/11/71.

The Committee at its meeting yesterday considered your letter of 25th October 1971, and enclosure and they decided to hear you in public session on the matter at 4.15 p.m. on next Tuesday 9th November 1971.

J. TOBIN,

Secretary of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Colonel Michael Hefferon,

67 Ballytore Road,

Rathfarnham,

Dublin 14.

67 Ballytore Road,

Rathfarnham, 14.

7th November 1971.

An Cathaoirleach,

An Choiste Um Chuntais Phoiblí,

TEACH LAIGHEAN.

Proceedings 9/11/71.

A Chathaoirligh,

I am in receipt of letter from the Secretary of the Committee informing me that the Committee have decided to hear me in public session on the matter of my letter of the 25th October 1971 on Tuesday the 9th November.

There are, however, certain matters which I would like to clear with the Committee before I appear before them again. From my point of view—and I am sure that in this the Committee will be in full agreement—it is highly undesirable that I should find myself compelled time and again to make or seek to make further appearances before you. I understand that in the present instance your decision that I should make an appearance before you is motivated by my request that my letter of 25th October should be published by the Committee.

The first matter that I would like to clear with the Committee is the rather important one of the relations that existed between the Military Intelligence Branch of Army Headquarters and Garda Síochána Headquarters. At quite an early stage of my evidence it appeared to me that owing to my reluctance to comment in public session on aspects of the operation of the Intelligence services, including those of the Garda Síochána, that I would be afforded an opportunity at some later stage of meeting the Committee in private session—in fact on several occasions during my examination various members of the Committee indicated that matters which I showed reluctance to expand on, would or could, be gone into at the private session which appeared to be taken for granted. Further, when I expressed my fears that any of my evidence might infringe the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, and requested that I get an opportunity of consulting the Attorney General on my position before the Committee my application was turned down. The combination of these two factors quite naturally inhibited my answering, because it was not quite clear to me whether the powers vested in the Committee extended to overriding the provisions of this Act, which a public statement might give grounds for fearing. On any of the matters that transpired before the Courts during the Arms Trial I felt quite free to testify because as I reminded you, sir, I had the Attorney General’s WRITTEN AUTHORITY absolving me from the provisions of the Act, and all this material was already published.

The relations between the Army Intelligence Branch and the Security Arm of the Garda Síochána has been quite an important issue in your investigations. Reading, as I have done recently again the record of these proceedings, it appears to me that the Committee have little appreciation of the structure or responsibilities of either Service’s Security Arm. The position and responsibility of Chief Supt. Fleming is very much a case in point. It appears to me that the Committee accepted him as the Chief Security officer of the State, directly responsible to the Commissioner or the Minister even.

It is reported that both the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and the Officer who liaised with Army Intelligence, the Chief Superintendent in charge of C.3, that is Chief Superintendent Patrick Malone who operated in that capacity during the latter part of my Army service have both given evidence before you in Secret Session. The testimony of these two Officers is of course of concern to me, because as Head of Army Intelligence I think I should have been given the opportunity of being present during their evidence or supplied with a copy of such portions of it as related to Army Intelligence. It is even possible that evidence given by me was put to them, and that their comment on such evidence was at variance with mine. It is also possible that hearsay evidence was accepted.

If this is so, I submit it is an outrage. During my thirty eight years service in the Army, I have some experience of the conduct of Courts of Inquiry. The regulation governing their procedure as well as the Rules of Procedure made under the Defence Acts specify that where the character or military reputation of any officer or soldier appears to be adversely affected by the evidence of any witness before the Court he must be afforded the opportunity of being present to hear the evidence.

This is bare natural justice.

I am fully confident, sir, that if anything affecting myself personally, my evidence or any matters that would reflect on the efficient management of the affairs of Army Intelligence transpired at the Secret Sessions I speak of, you will without hesitation supply me with a transcript of such evidence. The concept that evidence given in Secret Session behind locked doors should be accepted without giving an opportunity of examination to persons affected is I am sure as repugnant to the Committee as it is to all who subscribe to the democratic ethic.

In saying all this, I want to make it clear that no reflection is intended on the Garda witnesses mentioned. In fact my relations with both Officers have been extremely cordial, and my concern is that statements made in good faith but still possibly inaccurate or that hearsay should not form the basis of an opinion by the Committee without my having the opportunity of correcting them if they are inaccurate.

Until I have heard from you on this matter and have had an opportunity of studying such reply as you send me there is not much point in appearing before the Committee.

There is also another Submission on the written reports sent to Mr. Gibbons by me during the August-April period which may be coming up in any future appointment I may be seeking with the Committee. I am delivering this Submission also to day under separate cover.*

Finally, can I have a copy of the written document which Mr. Gibbons handed into the Committee during his evidence on the 22nd April. I have already made a verbal request for this.

COL. HEFFERON (Col. Retd.).

10 November 1971

Colonel Michael Hefferon

67 Ballytore Road

Rathfarnham

Dublin

Dear Colonel Hefferon,

Proceedings 9/11/71.

The Committee have taken note of the fact that you did not avail yourself of the arrangement made by the Committee to hear you yesterday in connection with your submission to them. As you are aware, they are at present engaged in the preparation of their report and in view of this and of the fact that they have had the benefit of a considerable amount of oral evidence and of written submissions from you they have decided that it will not now be necessary for you to attend before them.

J. Tobin,

Secretary,

Committee of Public Accounts.

67 Ballytore Road,

Rathfarnham, 14.

11th November 1971.

An Cathaoirleach,

An Choiste Um Chuntais Phoiblí,

Teach Laighean.

A Chathaoirligh,

Proceedings 17/11/71, 23/11/71, 17/2/72, 22/2/72.

To acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 10th. inst. conveying the decision of your Committee, that despite your previous intimation to me that you would hear me at 4.15 p.m. on Tuesday, you have now decided NOT to hear me at all.

Since communicating with you last, Mr. Gibbons has used the privilege of Dáil Éireann to launch a bitter personal attack on me. Knowing as you do, from my submission of the 25th. October that I have furnished you with unimpeacheable evidence of the truth of my testimony and the unreliability of the evidence of Mr. Gibbons, I can only conclude that the defamation and character assassination indulged in by Mr. Gibbons before your Committee is not going to be balanced by your affording me an opportunity of defending my character and conduct, so maliciously impugned by him in his evidence before the Committee. Since writing you last, I have on request to the Secretary of the Committee, been provided with a copy of rules of procedure adopted by your Committee in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court, and it appears to me that even by your own written standards, you are acting ultra vires in this matters. See paragraph III of the document on “Procedures adopted by the Committee.” Incidentally, I was not provided with a copy of this document until I asked for it—which when one considers its vital importance to witnesses whose character has been impugned is to say the least of it, strange.

I am studying now the implications of this document very fully, and hope to be further in touch with you very shortly.

Meantime, I request as a matter of urgency that the Committee reply to my requests that

(a) I be provided with a copy of the document handed in by Mr. Gibbons during his evidence on the 22nd April 1971.

(b) A transcript of that portion of the evidence given in Secret Session before your Committee, which deals with the relations between Army Intelligence and the Security Services of the Garda Síochána, and such other portions of it as may reflect on me personally, or on my management of the Army Intelligence Service.

I will be obliged for an early reply.

Is mise,

M. HEFFERON.

Col. Retired.

67 Ballytore Road,

Rathfarnham. 14.

14th. November 1971.

An Cathaoirleach,

An Choiste Um Chuntais Phoiblí,

TEACH LAIGHEAN.

A Chathaoirligh,

Proceedings 17/11/71, 23/11/71.

Further to my letter of the 11th. November. Having studied the document setting out the procedural rules adopted by your Committee, I as a person whose conduct has been impugned as part of the subject matter of the examination of Deputy James Gibbons, a witness before the Committee, I now formally apply to have Mr Gibbons, brought before the Committee for cross-examination on these matters in accordance with your written rules of procedure. I further claim the right in accordance with the same rules of addressing the Committee.

Is mise,

M. HEFFERON,

Col. (Retired).

24 November 1971

Colonel M. J. Hefferon,

67 Ballytore Road,

Rathfarnham,

Dublin 14.

Dear Colonel Hefferon,

Proceedings 23/11/71.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to refer to your letter of the 14th instant, and to inform you that it has decided to grant your request to cross-examine Mr. James Gibbons T.D. Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The Minister has, accordingly, been summoned to attend before the Committee on Tuesday next 30th November at 7.30 p.m. for this purpose.

With reference to your request for certain documents the Committee will communicate with you later on this matter.

Yours faithfully,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary,

Committee of Public Accounts.

67 Ballytore Road,

Rathfarnham

10 January 1972.

An Cathaoirleach,

An Choiste Um Chuntais Phoiblí.

A Chathaoirligh,

Proceedings 19/1/72.

Reference Book No. 33, I wish to offer the following corrections.

Page 950. In right hand column the date 13th January should read “13th February”.

Page 954. In every place where the letters C2 occur substitute the letters “G2.”

The words “signed postage” in both paras 12294 and 12295 (page 957) should read Signposted.

In respect of the reports mentioned by me as of the 8th. Sept and the 6th October, which were written reports and copies of which were deposited on file in the Intelligence Archives. I have since my appearance before you succeeded in locating some notes which indicate that written reports emanating from the same source were given to the Minister for Defence, Mr. Gibbons, on 26/28 October and again on or about the 15th. February. Of the other reports I gave him from the same source, some were undoubtedly verbal, but I am morally certain that there were other written reports as well.

As these reports have such a tremendous bearing on the extensive and accurate nature of the high-level briefings I gave to the Minister, I now formally request that the Committee seek their production for examination by them.

I have not yet got any reply from the Committee about the requests which I have repeatedly made i.e. that I be provided with copies of the document handed in by the Minister for Defence (Mr. Gibbons) during his evidence and copies of the evidence given by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and Chief Superintendent Patrick Malone on matters dealing with the liaison between Army Intelligence and the Garda Síochána during Secret Session.

I will thank you for an early reply.

MICHAEL HEFFERON, Col (Retd.)

23 February, 1972

Colonel Michael J. Hefferon

67 Ballytore Road

Rathfarnham

Dublin 14

Dear Colonel Hefferon

Proceedings 22/2/72.

I am directed by the Committee to reply to your letter of the 10th day of January 1972. The Committee is most grateful for your recent detailed submission and thank you for drawing its attention to the corrections to be made in the Minutes of Evidence for the 30th of November last.

The Committee has re-read the evidence to which you refer and is satisfied and is of the opinion that nothing therein impugns your good name.

With regard to your request for a copy of the note handed into the Committee by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on April 22nd 1971, the Committee is of the opinion that it cannot release this information. Accordingly I am directed by the Committee to inform you that it cannot accede to your request.

Yours sincerely,

J. TOBIN

Secretary of the

Committee on Public Accounts.

14. Justice, Department of.

To:

Desmond O’Malley, Esq., T.D.,

Minister for Justice.

Proceedings 15/6/71.

1. The Committee desires me to state that Mr. Mícheál Ó Móráin, T.D., former Minister for Justice, who is a witness before the Committee in connection with the Order of the Dáil of 1st December 1970 has intimated to the Committee that to assist his memory he requires to see before he gives evidence, and to have before him when giving evidence, the following documents:—

(a) Files comprising reports from the Garda Special Branch and/or Mr. Wymes dealing with the alleged importation of arms and sums alleged to be offered to procure arms, and files touching on these matters from whatever source, for the period from August 1969 to the time of Mr. Ó Móráin’s resignation as Minister for Justice.

(It is understood that at least three files are involved here, the final one being the subject matter of a special interview in the Department of Justice between Mr. Wymes, Chief Supt. Fleming and Mr. Ó Móráin).

(b) Reports sent to Mr. Ó Móráin by members and ex-members of the Garda Síochána as a result of visits by them on the Minister’s instructions to the North of Ireland for the period from August 1969 to the time of Mr. Ó Móráin’s resignation as Minister for Justice.

(c) The reports and files on subversive activities, from any source, sent to Mr. Ó Móráin for the period from August 1969 to the time of his resignation as Minister for Justice.

(It is understood that some of these reports and files dealt with arms and money.)

2. The Committee has decided that it should take such steps as are open to it to facilitate the witness. It has accordingly directed me to require you to send to it in accordance with section 3(1)(c) of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act 1970, so as to reach it by Wednesday 23rd June 1971, the documents described at (a), (b) and (c) in paragraph 1 above.

3. The Committee is aware that considerations of national security and of the public interest may arise in this matter. If this is so, it will be acceptable to it that due precautions be taken to restrict access to the documents. Essentially they are required for the assistance of the witness and, subject to what follows, the Committee’s intention is that only the witness shall have access to them. The sole requirement on the Committee’s part will be to ensure that in so far as the witness, in evidence, intends to rely on any document or portion of a document, the Committee can be independently satisfied as to the contents of such document or portion thereof. The Committee is not committed to any particular form of corroboration but it would consider it acceptable that in the case only of any document that the witness intends to rely on corroborative evidence in relation to such document be given to the Committee by the Secretary of your Department who could be in attendance during the taking of evidence from the witness. As an alternative the Committee would also consider it acceptable that a small number of its members be enabled to inspect the relevant passage of such document.

4. I enclose for your information that uncorrected transcription of the public proceedings of the Committee on 15th June 1971.

P. HOGAN

Chairman of the Committee of

Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann.

Dated this 17th day of June 1971.

OIFIG AN AIRE DLÍ AGUS CIRT

(Office of the Minister for Justice)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH

(Dublin)

22nd June 1971

Dear Chairman,

Proceedings 22/6/71.

With reference to your communication of 17th June, the receipt of which I have already acknowledged, I note that the Committee ask for a reply by to-morrow.

It seems clear from the third paragraph of your communication that the Committee themselves appreciate that the production of all reports for the period August, 1969, to April, 1970, in relation to subversive activities would affect national security and the public interest. I confirm that this is in fact the case and that their production could not be contemplated.

On the other hand, I note that the Committee suggest alternatives and I, for my part, am of course anxious to assist them. Having read the transcript, which you sent me, as well as your own communication, I am of opinion that I can assist the Committee in the clarification of a number of points. So that I may be able to assist the Committee as far as possible, it is essential that all available documents that might have any relevance should be gone through and—contrary to what might be inferred from some comments in the transcript—the number of documents is such that this cannot possibly be done by to-morrow.

The work is, however, in hand and is being treated as urgent and I hope to let you have a full reply before the end of this week, if at all possible.

Yours faithfully,

DES O’MALLEY

Minister for Justice.

Patrick Hogan Esq., T.D.,

Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Dáil Éireann,

Dublin 2

OIFIG AN AIRE DLÍ AGUS CIRT

(Office of the Minister for Justice)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH

(Dublin)

5th July, 1971.

Dear Chairman,

Proceedings 6/7/71.

1. I refer again to your communication of 17th June, 1971, regarding certain documents sought by the former Minister for Justice, Mr. Micheál Ó Móráin, T.D. In my interim reply sent to you on 22nd June, I said that I hoped to let you have a full reply by the end of that week (i.e. by Friday 25th) if at all possible. I think it right to explain that I had a reply drafted by the Thursday of that week but, as you are aware, the decision of the Supreme Court was announced that day and I thought it necessary both to consider how that decision might affect the position relating to my reply and to await the Committee’s own decision regarding their future proceedings.

2. So that this reply may be complete in itself, I formally re-state what has been said in my interim reply, namely, that considerations of national security and the public interest make it impossible to comply with the Committee’s wishes in so far as they involve the production of reports on “security” matters. However, the Committee themselves have suggested that there may be other satisfactory ways of assisting them and I trust that this reply will be of assistance. As a second preliminary point, I would explain that, when I refer to matters recorded in the transcript of evidence, I do so on the basis that the transcript helps to identify more specifically the points on which information is sought.

Visits to the North

3. In paragraph 1 (b) of your communication, you specify, as documents sought by Mr. Ó Móráin:

“Reports sent to Mr. Ó Móráin by members and ex-members of the Garda Síochána as a result of visits by them on the Minister’s instructions to the North of Ireland for the period from August 1969 to the time of Mr. Ó Móráin’s resignation as Minister for Justice”

In the transcript, Deputy Ó Móráin is recorded as making the following points in connection with his request for their production (i) that these reports were discussed from time to time by the Government; (ii) that he himself made notes in some of them; (iii) that their existence—and a Government discussion of them—had been denied; and (iv) that these reports were highly critical of Army Intelligence and were “mainly about conditions in the North and about the work of Captain Kelly.” On the last-mentioned point, Deputy Ó Móráin was asked if the reports might have “touched on the question of Captain Kelly’s authority”, and he is recorded as replying that “they were certainly critical of him” (i.e. Captain Kelly). Deputy Ó Mórain is also recorded as saying that he wished “to show beyond all doubt that these reports are there”.

4. The facts are (i) that the reports in question were made by members of the Garda Síochána—not ex-members and, as it happens, not by any member or ex-member of the “Special Branch” or Special Detective Unit; (ii) the existence of these reports is not in issue: Deputy Ó Móráin did not give the reference to the alleged denial but information about the reports was given by me in reply to a Parliamentary Question on Thursday, 5th November, 1970—Vol. 249 Col. 858; (iii) there are no notes by Deputy Ó Móráin on (or, as far as can be traced, associated with) any of the reports; and (iv) the reports contain no references of any kind to Army Intelligence or to any member of it nor anything that could possibly be construed as being such a reference; neither do they contain any reference that could possibly have any bearing on the moneys the Committee are investigating. The Committee are no doubt already aware either from published material or from evidence already given before them that over a particular period the Special Detective Unit were concerned about a person serving in the Army Intelligence Unit. This, however, was subsequent to the period of the visits to the north—these visits were arranged before any such question arose and had no connection with it. To put the matter more clearly in perspective, I can say that the records show that the visits were completely discontinued as early as September, 1969, at a time when, according to the available records, no report of any kind had been made to the then Minister in relation to the member of the Army Intelligence Unit.

5. In these circumstances, it will be apparent that the reports made by these members are not relevant in any possible way to any of the Committee’s work. Neither could they in any way provide any assistance to Deputy Ó Móráin for the purposes of his evidence, over and above whatever assistance the statements in the preceding paragraph may provide. On the other hand, the contents of the reports are, of their nature, confidential, consisting as they do of impressions of the situation then obtaining in the North—impressions recorded by persons acting in the belief that what they said would not in any circumstances be disclosed outside a very limited circle.

Reports on subversive activities

6. In reference to paragraphs 1 (a) and 1 (c) of your communication, you refer to reports and files and in particular to “at least three files”. The text of Deputy Ó Móráin’s evidence suggests that what he may have been referring to was three reports—as distinct from files—and this seems to be inherently the more probable meaning in the particular circumstances. In the present context, the word “file” may only be misleading, at least in the sense that it conveys no precise meaning. Deputy Ó Móráin will no doubt, if necessary, be able to confirm to the Committee that almost invariably these reports were not presented to him on a “file” but were presented—singly or in groups, as the occasion demanded—in a hard-covered folder which was used in the Department only as a temporary cover and was re-used as a folder for the next reports when they were being presented. Accordingly, I think it will be clearer if I use unambiguous terms such as “Garda report” or “record”, the latter being used as an all-embracing term to include Departmental documents.

7. I have already indicated that reports on subversive activities and associated matters cannot be produced because of their highly confidential character but I think it right to add that, in any event, the great majority of such reports have no possible relevance to any aspect whatsoever of the Committee’s work or to any points raised by Mr. Ó Móráin. Taking account of the matters mentioned by Deputy Ó Móráin as the matters of possible concern to him, and of any other matter of possible concern to the Committee, I have had a full re-examination made of all records (including Garda reports) that could possibly be in issue and the following is the factual position:

(a) There are some references in Garda reports to arms and to associated matters but nothing that could throw any light on the source of funds for arms or that could assist the Committee in pursuing that question.

(b) There is nothing in any of the Garda reports concerning the question of “the authority of Captain Kelly”—it is a matter of public knowledge that the Garda Síochána referred to him but the reports made no reference to the question whether he was acting with the knowledge of his authorities.

(c) Deputy Ó Móráin refers to notes made by him on Garda reports. Certain reports that were submitted to him are either initialled by him (to indicate that he had seen them) or bear an endorsement by an officer of the Department to the effect that he (Deputy Ó Móráin) had seen them. Apart from that form of notation, there is no note by Deputy Ó Móráin on (or associated with) these reports as far as can be traced except in one instance and in that instance, where a note was made by him, the note has no connection with any matter of possible concern to the Committee.

(d) There is no note by Deputy Ó Móráin either on a Garda report or, as far as can be traced, elsewhere in the Department’s records of any discussion between him and the then Minister for Defence, such as he mentions. As it appears that what is in question is not the fact of such a discussion but when it (or, if there were more than one, when they) took place, perhaps it should be mentioned that no record has been found that would help in that respect either.

(e) As regards the meeting of December, 1969, between Deputy Ó Móráin, the Commissioner and the Chief Superintendent in charge of the Special Detective Unit, no “report” or other document of the kind Deputy Ó Móráin seems to be referring to can be found. Perhaps, for clarification, I may mention that my understanding is that no officer from the Department was present at that meeting and that there is no suggestion on anybody’s part that any report either about or arising from the meeting was sent to the Department (or to the Minister) by the Garda authorities between then and Deputy Ó Móráin’s retirement. The Committee are already aware of the existence of manuscript notes, comprising a foolscap-size page, which according to the testimony of both the Commissioner and the Chief Superintendent were read to the Minister at the December meeting. While Deputy Ó Móráin may have himself read the manuscript during the December meeting, there seems to be no suggestion on anybody’s part (and there is nothing in the Department’s records to indicate) that any copy was made by or supplied to him then or subsequently. There is a copy in the Department but it was supplied subsequent to Deputy Ó Móráin’s retirement. I am aware that a typescript copy of those notes, subject to certain deletions made on security grounds, has already been supplied to the Committee by the Commissioner, on the understanding that they would not be published. There would, however, be no objection from the Garda point of view to the Committee letting Deputy Ó Móráin, on his appearance before them, read the text of the notes as supplied by the Commissioner and informing him also in private of the Commissioner’s testimony relating to names mentioned in the deleted portions, in case it is those notes the Deputy has in mind. It might perhaps be helpful to mention to him also that the original was a manuscript on ruled foolscap, on one side of a page.

(f) No record has been found of any communication between Deputy Ó Móráin and the Taoiseach concerning or arising out of the meeting of December, 1969, which is referred to in the preceding paragraph. Neither is there any record of any directive to any officer of the Department to communicate with the Taoiseach in relation to that meeting, or any record that any such communication took place before the events of the week-end of 17th—19th April. It appears from Deputy Ó Móráin’s evidence that he has a general recollection of having, at some time between the December meeting and his retirement, directed the then Secretary of the Department to communicate with the Taoiseach and therefore, in so far as Deputy Ó Morain’s recollection may be related to the days immediately preceding his retirement, it may be relevant to mention that there is a note of two meetings between the Taoiseach and the then Secretary of the Department in the days following the events mentioned (and immediately before Deputy Ó Móráin’s resignation). The note does not, however, indicate the matters discussed, except in the sense that it is clear from the context in which the note appears that the discussion arose from the events of the preceding week-end.

General

As will I am sure be apparent, the foregoing statements are made having regard to various specific points raised by Deputy Ó Móráin. In those statements, in referring to some reports, I have made reference to matters that might be of possible interest to the Committee (e.g. references to arms) so, in order to remove any doubt, I wish to make it clear that these are reports that have already been the subject of correspondence between the Committee and the Commissioner and accordingly the question of the supply of relevant material from them has already been dealt with by the Commissioner. The Committee already have, substantially, what is recorded because, subject to certain deletions that were necessary in the interests of national security—deletions which, if I may be permitted to express an opinion, did not involve the deletion of anything significant as far as the Committee’s work is concerned—the Committee have already been given the material by the Commissioner. There is no objection from a Garda point of view, to Deputy Ó Móráin’s being permitted to look at that material when he appears before the Committee.

The only other point that occurs to me is that, in the evidence Deputy Ó Móráin has given, his references to notes may be intended as references to notes made by him otherwise than on or in association with written Garda reports. No such notes that are relevant to the Committee’s enquiry (or that could be classed as possibly relevant) have been found. One set of notes has been found which may possibly be what the Deputy was thinking of but if so the position is, as with the reports on visits to the North, that the Deputy’s recollection must be placing the notes later in time than their actual date because their date (apart altogether from their content) is such that they could not possibly throw any light on any matter of concern to the Committee. Nothing else has been found that would correspond in any way to the Deputy’s recollection.

Yours faithfully,

DES O’MALLEY,

Minister for Justice.

Patrick Hogan, Esq., T.D.,

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts

of Dáil Éireann.

Mr. D. O’Malley, T.D.

Minister for Justice.

16th July 1971

Dear Minister,

Proceedings 13/7/71.

The Committee of Public Accounts has directed me to inform you that the solicitors for Mr. Páraic Haughey who has been summoned by it to attend before it have informed the Committee that they “require (in accordance with Law) … copies of all written statements made to the Committee which allege that our client was in any way a party to the handling or disbursement of any of the monies issued from subhead J Vote 16 (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969/70.”

The Committee received at its request on 12th March last from Chief Superintendent John P. Fleming a report from the State Handwriting Expert. This report contains a reference to Mr. Páraic Haughey.

The Committee has decided that in the light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, it is required of it to make the report available to the Solicitors for Mr. Páraic Haughey. The Committee would therefore be glad to learn that you have no objection to this course.

The Committee would appreciate an early reply.

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.

23rd July 1971

Mr. D. O’Malley, T.D.

Minister for Justice.

Dear Minister,

Proceedings 20/7/71.

Thank you for your letter of the 5th instant regarding certain documents.

In my letter of the 17th June I stated that Deputy O Móráin had intimated that he required certain documents to assist his memory before giving evidence. The Committee in view of the lapse of time involved considered his request a reasonable one and were anxious that every facility should be given to Deputy O Móráin to assist him in giving the best evidence possible.

The Committee communicated to him* the terms of your letter of the 5th instant, and he has again stated to the Committee that he can only give evidence when he has had the opportunity to refresh his memory.

The Committee as you know were conscious of the security and public interest aspects involved and informed you that it would be satisfied that only Deputy O Móráin should have access to the files. In view of this step and bearing in mind that the Deputy as Minister already had access to these documents, the Committee considers that it must press its request.

For your information I should refer to the fact that Deputy O Móráin has informed the Committee that he has a written note in his possession taken from one of the files, referred to in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 and the final paragraph of your letter, of the 5th instant, at the time it came before him. He states that he took this note before going to a Government meeting in order to quote to his colleagues the actual descriptive adjectives used “in this report”. The words used in the report, as stated by Deputy O Móráin, were inter alia that the Army Intelligence men were “Indiscreet”; that their methods were “clumsy”; and that they were “Indiscriminate” in their approach to people in the North. Deputy O Móráin also stated that the words quoted are taken from the original report and were quoted by him to the Government at that time. He states that he can categorically assure the Committee “that this file did exist”. You will observe an apparent contradiction between this and the statement in paragraph 4 (iv) of your letter of 5th July.

Yours faithfully,

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.

OIFIG AN AIRE DLÍ AGUS CIRT

(Office of the Minister for Justice)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH

(Dublin)

30th July 1971.

Dear Chairman,

Proceedings 4/8/71.

I have your letter of 16th July, 1971, stating that the Committee had decided that, in the light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, it is required of it to acede to a request for production of a report by the State Handwriting Expert. I am legally advised, however, that the Supreme Court judgment does not require the Committee to make such a report available. Moreover, you will recall that the report arises from and is linked with a Garda report which was supplied at the Committee’s request. That report was, of course, supplied on the assumption that it would not be published to anybody outside the Committee. The handwriting report itself was likewise obtained for the Committee by the Garda Síochána. In these circumstances, any publication of the report would be seriously contrary to public policy. I regret, therefore, that I cannot agree to the Committee’s proposal.

Yours sincerely,

DES O’MALLEY,

Minister for Justice.

Patrick Hogan, Esq., T.D.,

Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

DUBLIN 2.

OIFIG AN AIRE DLÍ AGUS CIRT

(Office of the Minister for Justice)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH

(Dublin)

4th August 1971.

Dear Chairman,

Proceedings 4/8/71.

1. I have your further letter, dated 23rd July, 1971, regarding certain documents.

2. I am not clear whether the Committee are still suggesting that an indeterminate (but substantial) number of reports or other documents relating to subversive activities, covering a period of some nine monhs, should be produced on the off-chance that some unspecified ones might have some relevance to the Committee’s work or whether the issue is now effectively narrowed to the question of reports from members of the Garda Síochána who visited the North. The production by me of a substantial number of reports that obviously and almost by definition affect national security is quite out of the question. The reports made by the members who visited the North, though they are confidential for the reasons stated in my previous letter, do not affect national security in the same way. Furthermore, it is these reports that are specifically identified and that raise a specific question of fact which can be resolved. It so happens that, from the nature and the dates of the documentation on the file, it is not only possible to prove that the file contains no such words as Deputy Ó Móráin suggests and no reference of any kind to Military Intelligence, but also possible to establish that there is no possibility (as Deputy Ó Móráin, according to a newspaper report, has suggested) that the apparent conflict could be accounted for by the “gutting” of any file. I, therefore, now make you the offer that you, alone and personally, may visit my Department, examine the reports in detail and ask any relevant questions of the officer who has (and has had) charge of the file. This offer is on the understanding that, on the one hand, you would not disclose to anybody any material in these reports on your being satisfied, as you will certainly be, that they have nothing to do either with Military Intelligence or with the Committee, and, on the other hand, that you will not only communicate your findings to the Committee but, since certain assertions have been made in the public press, that your findings will be published.

Yours sincerely,

DES O’MALLEY,

Minister for Justice.

Patrick Hogan, Esq., T.D.,

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts

Dáil Éireann.

Des O’Malley, Esq., T.D.,

Minister for Justice.

4 August 1971

Dear Minister,

Proceedings 4/8/71.

1. Thank you for your letter of the 4th instant in reference to certain documents. The Committee has directed me to write to you as under in reply.

2. At the outset I should say that the documents which the Committee require are those described at (a) (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of my letter of 17th June 1971.

3. The Committee is very conscious, as will be clear from my letters of the 17th June and 23rd July, of the national security aspects of its request. It was indeed because of this factor that the Committee decided as indicated in both my letters that it would be satisfied that only Deputy O Móráin, who as Minister already had had access to the documents, should have access to them. The Committee’s only qualification was that it should have corroboration and it suggested to you a number of ways of securing this. It would have been, and still is fully agreeable to considering any other method of corroboration which you might suggest. You do not appear in your letters to have adverted to these aspects of the Committee’s request.

4. With respect to the offer made in the second paragraph of your letter of the 4th instant the Committee’s view is that it could not, of its nature, meet Deputy Ó Móráin’s reasonable requirements.

5. The Committee hopes that, on reconsideration, you will be able to accede to its request on the basis set out in my letter of 17th June. Since, however, its only purpose is to put itself in a position to secure the best evidence from Deputy O Móráin, it would be prepared to accept as meeting its requirements that both the Chairman of the Committee and Deputy O Móráin should together be enabled to inspect the documents concerned.

6. As the Committee is arranging for the early conclusion of the taking of evidence, it would be glad to receive your reply to this letter as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

P. HOGAN,

Chairman, Committee of Public Accounts.

OIFIG AN AIRE DLÍ AGUS CIRT

(Office of the Minister for Justice)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH

(Dublin)

2nd September 1971.

Dear Chairman,

Proceedings 27/10/71.

1. May I refer to your letter of 4th August 1971, in reference to certain documents.

2. I regret that the Committee do not appear to appreciate fully my responsibilities in relation to confidential Garda reports. I have already explained that there can be no possible question of my allowing access to a large number of reports which are, at one and the same time, both highly confidential and wholly irrelevant to the Committee’s work. The Committee do not even suggest—and obviously would have no ground for suggesting—that the reports, as a group, are relevant. The basis for their request is that they have been informed that on, or in, some unspecified one, or perhaps a few, of the reports, there is some material alleged to be relevant. Since it is not open to dispute that the reports in question are in fact highly confidential, I find this approach to the matter difficult to understand and an unfortunate result has been that I have been made to appear to be refusing to produce relevant material to the Committee. As far as I am concerned, I have not—even on grounds of national security— declined to produce relevant documents or any documents that might be classified as possibly relevant. I cannot accept the implications of the Committee’s reference to “Deputy Ó Móráin’s reasonable requirements”. I suggest, on the contrary, that if reasonable criteria are to be applied in relation to any request for documents and especially in relation to highly confidential ones, the first condition should be that there should be at least some evidence of relevance and also a sufficient description to enable the person who has charge of the documents to know what is being sought. I also have no doubt—and I say this solely because of the use by the Committee of the expression “best evidence”—that if this matter were being dealt with by a Court rather than by the Committee, the Court would insist on these as preliminary conditions. Except in relation to one set of documents which I shall deal with, there is nothing in the Committee’s letters (or in Deputy Ó Móráin’s published evidence) to identify particular documents alleged to be relevant, or otherwise to confine the approach to some reasonable extent.

3. In my letter of 5th July last, I gave, on the basis of a careful check of records by my Department, a detailed factual account of what is and what is not on record in my Department in respect of each and every point raised by Deputy Ó Móráin. I appreciate that Deputy Ó Móráin does not, apparently, accept that what I said is accurate and that the Committee have no independent evidence in corroboration of it. On the other hand, if—as appears to be suggested—there were in fact an omission of relevant information from what was supplied by me to the Committee, the procedure suggested, viz. that access should be allowed to all confidential records covering a nine-month period, would do nothing to resolve the difficulty. This is so whether or not the suggestion is that that information was omitted deliberately because, while an examination of these records would support what I have said, it would still be open to anybody to allege that not all documents had been produced and as long as the demand extends to an indeterminate number of reports identified only by general subject matter, there is no effective way in which such an allegation could be refuted. Specifically, if I were to produce a number of reports on subversive activities, I have no way of proving that my Department did not receive others as well. Neither, of course, can I prove that they did not receive more reports on the Garda visits to the North than would be produced to you but it so happens that the reports available on these visits not only do not support Deputy Ó Móráin’s contentions but are irreconcilable with them. (If it be suggested that the testimony of an officer of my Department that all documents had been produced would suffice, I would point out that, in that event, such testimony would be equally valid as evidence of the facts as stated in my letter of 5th July and, if that were what the Committee had in mind, such testimony could be given by an officer who has charge of the records and who has fully checked them.) The only effect, therefore, of allowing access to all the records in question would be that a large number of highly confidential reports, wholly irrelevant to the Committee’s work, would be shown to a person or persons not ordinarily entitled to see them (a situation which I could not in any event agree to) and the Committee would be in no better position than now to assess the statements in my letter of 5th July. Unless or until a document or set of documents is identified, there is no way in which this difficulty can be resolved.

4. It is quite clear from the official record of Deputy Ó Móráin’s evidence—and this is recognised by the Committee—that the Deputy’s assertion that he has a written note of words taken from one or more Garda reports relates to the reports made by the members who visited the North. This is clear not only from the words used (e.g. questions 11763 and 11765) but from the entire context. Nevertheless, because I appreciate the Committee’s difficulty about Deputy Ó Móráin’s categoric assertion on the one hand and my denial on the other, I had a search made of all other reports in my Department’s possession that were made at any time during the period August 1969 to April 1970 in relation to subversive activities. Nothing of relevance was found. I have also consulted the Commissioner, Garda Síochána and he, having had the matter checked in relation to the whole of the same period, has stated categorically that no such words were used about any member of Army intelligence in any such report. I have felt it necessary— because of the allegations made—to have these points clearly stated. On the other hand, I believe that there is at least one possible reasonable explanation of the apparently direct conflict of evidence and, in the particular circumstances, I venture to put it as a hypothesis to the Committee, while at the same time emphasising that it is put forward solely as a possibility that occurs to me. The possible explanation that I refer to is that Deputy Ó Móráin’s notes may be of words used to him in the course of an oral report or discussion.

5. I have already made it clear that while, as far as I am concerned, it is quite out of the question that I should be asked to produce a large group of highly confidential reports which have no relevance to the Committee’s work, I am prepared, subject to the safeguarding of national security, etc. to consider means of positively satisfying the Committee even in relation to documents that I know are irrelevant if they, for their part, have some basis for thinking they are relevant, provided they specify or identify the particular documents in question thereby making it possible not only to keep the matter within a reasonable compass but also to establish in a positive way whether or not the documents contain the material alleged. One (and only one) set of documents has been so identified already, namely, reports by Gardaí who visited the North in 1969. Whether Deputy Ó Móráin would be helped in his evidence before the Committee by being given access to these particular reports must depend on whether there is any relevant material in them—if there is no relevant material in them, and if that fact is established beyond any doubt, there can be no benefit to him or to the Committee in his seeing them. The proposal which I have made and which I now repeat is, therefore, that that preliminary question be settled by having those identifiable documents examined by you personally. If, on the basis of what you will have seen for yourself, you can confirm to the Committee (as I have no doubt you will be able to) that the position is that they contain no such material as Deputy Ó Móráin alleged and that what they do contain is irreconcilable with the Deputy’s allegations so that no question can arise of such material having been removed deliberately or otherwise from them, that surely must be conclusive.

Yours sincerely,

DES O’MALLEY,

Minister for Justice.

Patrick Hogan, Esq., T.D.,

Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

DUBLIN 2.

15. Kelly, Captain James J.

98 Wainsfort Rd.

Terenure

Dublin 6

9. 7. 71

The Secretary

Committee of Public Accounts

Dáil Éireann

Dear Sir,

Proceedings 13/7/71.

The recent Supreme Court decision would seem to indicate that I am entitled to cross-examine such witness as Mr. Gibbons, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Chief Superintendent Fleming.

Would the Committee please clarify if the cost of employing Counsel for such cross-examination would be reimbursed from official sources.

Yours faithfully,

JAMES J. KELLY Capt.

Captain James J. Kelly,

98 Wainsfort Road,

Terenure,

Dublin 6.

14 July, 1971

Dear Captain,

Proceedings 13/7/71.

With reference to your letter of the 9th instant, the Committee of Public Accounts has directed me to inform you that it does not provide reimbursement in respect of the employment of counsel by witnesses.

Yours faithfully,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary of the Committee of Public Accounts.

98 Wainsfort Rd.

Terenure

Dublin 6

15. 7. 71

Secretary

Committee of Public Accounts

Leinster House

Dublin 2

Dear Sir,

Proceedings 20/7/71.

As the Committee does not provide for reimbursement in respect of Counsel, I request permission to personally cross-examine Mr. Gibbons, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Chief Superintendent Fleming.

Yours faithfully,

JAMES J. KELLY Capt.

21st July 1971

Captain James J. Kelly,

98 Wainsfort Road,

Terenure,

Dublin 6.

Dear Captain Kelly,

Proceedings 20/7/71.

The Committee of Public Accounts has directed me to acknowledge your letter of 15th July requesting permission to personally cross-examine the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and Chief Superintendent Fleming.

The matter is receiving attention and a further letter will be sent to you as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary of the Committee of Public Accounts.

29 July 1971

Capt. James J. Kelly,

98 Wainsfort Road,

Dublin 6.

Dear Captain,

Proceedings 28/7/71.

The Committee has directed me to inform you that it has decided to grant the permission requested by you in your letter of the 15th instant to personally cross-examine Mr. James Gibbons, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and Chief Superintendent Fleming. Both have been summoned to attend before the Committee at 4 p.m. on Wednesday 4th August for this purpose.

J. TOBIN,

Secretary of the Committee of Public Accounts.

28 October 1971

Captain James J. Kelly

98 Wainsfort Road

Dublin 6

Dear Captain Kelly,

Proceedings 27/10/71.

The Committee has directed me to inform you that, further to your request to cross-examine Chief Superintendent John P. Fleming, Mr. Fleming has been summoned to attend before the Committee at 4.15 p.m. on Wednesday 3rd November for this purpose.

J. TOBIN,

Secretary of the Committee of Public Accounts.

16. Kelly, Mr. John (including Solicitor for).

13 Dartmouth Sq.

Dublin 6

7/2/71.

The Committee of

Public Accounts

Dear Sir,

Par. 18 Final Report.

Proceedings 9/2/71.

It should be obvious to your Committee that in the light of recent events I could not assist their inquisition.

Yours sincerely,

JOHN KELLY,

Note: The above letter was received in reply to a notice that the Committee might require Mr. John Kelly to attend before it and a request for preliminary statement of evidence, issued to Mr. Kelly on 29th January 1971.

Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann sitting to examine specially the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief issued from Subhead J, Vote 16 (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969/70 and any moneys transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to a bank account into which moneys from this vote were or may have been lodged, pursuant to Order of Dáil Éireann made on the 1st day of December 1970.

Mr. John Kelly,

13 Dartmouth Square,

Dublin 6.

Sir,

Proceedings 29/6/71.

You are invited to send to the Committee as soon as possible, or, if this is not practicable, to bring with you and produce to the Committee at the time and place aforesaid all documents in your power or control relevant to the matter.

You are also invited to send to the Committee as soon as possible a preliminary statement of your evidence.

If you intend to avail yourself of the above mentioned procedure you are requested to give 24 hours notice to the Committee of such intention.

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee of

Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann.

Dated this 30th day of June 1971.

Coimisinéir Mionn.	Teileafón	779326
Commissioner for Oaths.	Telephone	773650

CIARÁN MAC an AILÍ

solicitor aturnae

5th July, 1971

36 Wicklow Street,	Teileafón
36 Sráid Chill Mantáin	Áth Cliath 2.

	mo thag.	do thag.
	my ref.	your ref.
	K-48/NMC

Committee of Public Accounts

Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief

A Chara,

Proceedings 6/7/71, 13/7/71.

Your letter of 30th June addressed to John Kelly at 13, Dartmouth Square, Dublin 6 has been passed to me for attention.

It is noted that the Committee have summoned my client to appear before it at 4 p.m. on 6th instant to give evidence on the above matter, and that in addition my client is invited to send to the Committee or produce to it at the hearing, all documents in his power and control relevant to the matter and is invited to send to the Committee a preliminary statement of his evidence.

I should say that my client received this Summons on the 2nd instant only and this leaves much too short a time for my client to prepare for the hearing in question or to be adequately advised on the various legal issues arising out of the recent Supreme Court decisions on the jurisdiction and powers of your Committee. In that connection, my client considers that the material published in the official reports of your Committee has been obtained in an unconstitutional manner, contrary to natural justice and in breach of the minimum requirements governing the taking and assessment of evidence. He has reason to believe that he has been mentioned under a code initial both by members of the Committee and by witnesses who appeared before it. He has also been informed that there are secret reports in existence relating to secret sessions of the Committee and that he may, likewise, have been mentioned in the course of those proceedings by witnesses who appeared before the Committee.

My client cannot adequately instruct his legal advisors, or in turn be adequately advised by them, until he has been furnished with the following information and documents by your Committee:

(1) Copies of all the reports of your Committee so far published in relation to its proceedings.

(2) Copies of the secret reports relating to evidence or statements made before the Committee in camera.

(3) Confirmation as to the code of initials used by the Committee. A full list of the code is necessary if my client is to ascertain how he is affected by any statements so far made by any witnesses.

Apart from the above consideration affecting my client’s personal rights in the matter, there is a difficulty confronting his legal advisors by reason of the fact that an approved or authenticated copy of the Supreme Court Judgment is not yet available and until it is available, my client cannot be fully advised as to what power (if any) the Committee have to require him to appear before it or to answer questions put to him by the members of the Committee.

Pending receipt of the official text of the Supreme Court Judgment, my client takes the view that it is not permissible for your Committee to refer to materials or information it has already gathered in a manner which the Supreme Court has condemned as unconstitutional or contrary to natural justice.

For all the foregoing reasons, my client seeks an adjournment of the proposed hearing scheduled for the 6th instant. He will attend with his legal advisors at the time indicated in your Summons for the purpose of seeking this adjournment and on the foregoing grounds and such other grounds as may be advanced at the hearing.

Mise, le meas,

CIARÁN Mac an AILÍ.

P. Hogan, Esq.,

Chairman,

Public Accounts Committee,

Dáil Éireann,

DUBLIN 2.

H/D

Mr. John Kelly,	6th July 1971.
13 Dartmouth Square,
Dublin 6.

A Chara,

The Committee has directed me to refer to the summons to you to attend to give evidence today at 4 p.m.

Proceedings 6/7/71.

A letter was received from your Solicitors by hand shortly after noon today raising certain questions. This letter was copied and laid before the Committee at its scheduled meeting at 3.45 p.m. today. It was necessary for them to consider the issues raised in the letter before asking you to come before them. They had almost concluded their consideration at approximately 4.40 p.m. when they were informed that you had intimated that you would not remain any longer and had left Leinster House.

They regret that you took this course and request you to attend before them on Tuesday next 13th. July at 4 p.m.

Mise le meas,

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.

By hand

Ciarán Uas. Mac an Ailí

36 Wicklow Street

Dublin 2

7 July, 1971

A chara,

Proceedings 6/7/71.

With reference to your letter of the 15th instant addressed to the Chairman, I am directed by the Committee to enclose for your information a copy of a letter sent by the Committee yesterday to Mr. John Kelly.

Mise le meas,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary

Committee of Public Accounts.

Coimisinéir Mionn.	Teileafón	779326
Commissioner for Oaths.	Telephone	773650

CIARÁN MAC AN AILÍ

SOLICITOR

ATURNAE

	7th July, 1971
36 WICKLOW STREET,	36 SRÁIS CHILL MANTÁIN
DUBLIN 2.	ÁTH CLIATH 2.

	mo thag.	do thag.
	my ref.	your ref.
	K-48/NMC

John Kelly

A Chara,

Proceedings 13/7/71.

I am in receipt of your letter of 7th instant which I received by hand earlier today and for which I thank you.

With reference to the meeting of your Committee on 6th instant, I confirm that my client, his Counsel and myself considered that having waited for over half an hour past the time mentioned in the Committee’s Summons that we were not under any obligation to wait any further, in view of the fact that this is the second occasion on which my client was called before the Committee and kept waiting.

On the previous occasion he and I waited for over an hour on the Committee and were then informed that the Committee did not wish to hear my client on that date.

In view of the fact that my letter of 5th instant indicated that my client’s attendance was purely for the purpose of seeking an adjournment I would have thought that the Committee could have interrupted its deliberations to deal with that matter.

Would you please let me know as a matter of urgency whether or not your Committee are agreeable to furnish the documents mentioned in my letter of 5th instant and if so, when I may expect to receive them.

I am informed since writing you on 5th instant that there are other documents which have been filed with the Committee and referred to in the evidence, such as Garda Reports etc. and my client, accordingly, requires copies of any such documents or reports which in anyway refer to him.

Mise, le meas,

CIARÁN MAC an AILÍ

Secretary,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

DUBLIN 2

C. Mac an Ailí Uas.	8 July 1971
Solicitor,
36 Wicklow Street,
Dublin 2.

A chara,

Proceedings 13/7/71.

The Committee has requested me to refer to your letters of the 5th and 7th July. It is presumed by now that you will have received an approved copy of the Judgment of the Supreme Court. It is not agreed that the material published in the official reports of the Committee has been obtained in an unconstitutional or unjust manner or in any way improperly.

With regard to your specific requirements:—

(1) Copies of all the reports of the Committee so far published are available for purchase at the Government Publications Sale Office.

(2) You must surely appreciate that the Committee cannot disclose any information which would be classified as “official information” within the meaning of the definition in section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, 1963, nor can they disclose any information which might be prejudicial to the safety or preservation of the State.

Any other information which the Committee received privately was given and accepted in confidence. If you wish to press the matter, the persons who gave this information will be requested to repeat it in the presence of your client at, it is suggested, a private sitting. You will, of course, appreciate that if such persons refuse to do so or refuse to allow themselves to be cross-examined, the Committee will have no power to enforce them to do so.

(3) The code used in relation to your client is—. A full list of the code will be available for inspection by your client during his attendance before the Committee.

The Committee appreciate that you may not have time to consider your client’s position in the light of this letter so as to enable him to attend on the 13th inst. If this be so, a reasonable adjournment can be arranged.

Please let me have an early reply.

Mise le meas,

P. HOGAN

———————————

Chairman of the Committee

of Public Accounts.

13th July, 1971

K-48/NMC

John Kelly

A Chara,

Proceedings 13/7/71.

I am in receipt of your letter of 8th instant herein and having regard to the contents of same, I agree that it will be necessary to have a further adjournment of the proposed attendance of my client before the Committee.

I confirm that I have obtained an approved copy of the Supreme Court Judgment and your letter has been considered in the light of same. I must express disappointment and surprise at the decision of the Committee not to make available to my client copies of the secret reports which exist in relation to its sittings in camera and I cannot see the relevance of your reference to the Official Secrets Act, 1963 in relation to this issue. During the Arms Trial the Attorney General very fairly, through his Counsel, indicated to the Court that the prosecution would not seek to invoke the Official Secrets Act against any defendant who might need to refer to matters in the course of his defence, that would normally be covered by the Act. The issue before the Court dealt with the alleged illegal importation of arms and the hearing was in public and yet the Official Secrets Act was not invoked and cabinet minutes and other confidential matters were given in evidence.

Your Committee is dealing merely with financial matters, is sitting partly in camera and yet it now invokes the Official Secrets Act.

The Supreme Court has held in its judgment that persons against whom evidence or allegations of a prejudicial kind have been made in the proceedings before your Committee, come before that Committee not merely as witnesses but in the category of accused persons and they are entitled to all the rights and benefits which the criminal law guarantees to a citizen to enable him to vindicate his character.

It is evident from the published reports of your Committee that prejudicial references have been made to my client under the code initial mentioned in your letter. My client has reason to believe that he has also been mentioned in the secret reports. A person put in his position cannot possibly deal with or refute such allegations unless he knows in detail what they are and he is, therefore, entitled to know precisely what has been said about him in the secret sittings of your Committee and in the reports. I, therefore, repeat my request for copies of these reports as a matter of urgency and of fundamental importance.

The offer in your letter to recall the witnesses who gave evidence in camera is not understood. These persons have already given evidence and their evidence is on record and I am informed that the secret reports are printed in the same manner as the published reports. The information, therefore, has been made available to the printer, type-setters, secretarial staff of your Committee and to the members of your Committee— yet a person who may be prejudiced by allegations made against him in the course of those reports, is denied access to the reports and is denied any knowledge of what is alleged against him. This procedure is unacceptable to my client.

I would further point out that a Mr. Dowling was recently elected to your Committee to replace Mr. Briscoe who resigned and I am informed that it is the intention to elect another new member to your Committee to replace Mr. Keating who resigned. These two new members of the Committee will presumably come to some opinion about the matters under investigation and contribute to a Report based on the written reports of the proceedings so far completed. I assume that all the witnesses will not be recalled so that these two members of the Committee can hear them viva voce and have the opportunity of putting questions to them. If these two new members are going to express an opinion and contribute to a report, and possibly vote on matters that may be in dispute among the members of the Committee themselves, on the basis of what they will read in the published and secret reports, why is my client denied the reports and why is it suggested that the witnesses who gave evidence in camera should now be recalled so that he can hear their evidence viva voce?

I must also repeat the request for a full list of the code initials used by your Committee, or as a minimum requirement, a list of the code initials of such persons who in the published and secret reports have referred to my client in any way. How can he possibly instruct his legal advisers or prepare for a hearing before the Committee if he does not know who has made references to him or possibly allegations against him in the course of the evidence?

Again, it would seem to me that your Committee is ignoring the Supreme Court ruling in relation to the obligation to give effect to equitable procedures in the course of their enquiries. You will note that Mr. Padraic Haughey submitted to the Court that among the minimum protections that he should be afforded in the course of the hearing was that he should be furnished with a copy of evidence which reflects on his good name. The Chief Justice, in giving the judgment of the Court (P.41 of approved Judgment) assumed that no real difficulty arose in relation to this requirement and the Judgment of the Court proceeded on the basis that Mr. Haughey would have been so furnished with all the evidence reflecting on his good name. The Court further expressly states that the means which a citizen has of defending himself include those set out in paragraphs (i)-(iv) on P.41 of the approved Judgment. These rights include the right to be furnished with a copy of the evidence affecting him.

For the foregoing reasons, I have to repeat the requests for the information and documents mentioned in my letters of 5th and 7th instant herein and pending receipt of same, have to request an adjournment of my client’s proposed attendance before your Committee. I suggest an adjournment of one week in the first instance in the hope that the information and documents will be furnished to me promptly.

Mise, le meas,

CIARÁN Mac an AILÍ.

Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

DUBLIN 2.

Ciaran Uas. Mac an Ailí,	14th July 1971
Solicitor,
36 Wicklow Street,
Dublin 2.

A chara,

Proceedings 13/7/71.

The Committee of Public Accounts has directed me to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 13th July addressed to the Chairman (ref. K 48/NMC) and to say that a further letter will issue to you in due course.

Mise le meas,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary

Committee of Public Accounts.

Ciarán Mac an Ailí Uas.,

Solicitor,

36 Wicklow Street,

Dublin 2.

28 October 1971

Dear Sir,

Proceedings 5/8/71.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to state for the information of your client, Mr. John Kelly, that it has summoned Detective Sergeant McDonald, Special Detective Unit, Dublin Castle to appear before it on Wednesday next, 3rd November at 4.15 p.m. to give evidence in connection with the matter referred to it by Order of the Dáil of 1st December 1971.

Yours faithfully,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary

Committee of Public Accounts.

Your Ref. K—48/NMC

Ciarán Mac an Ailí Uas.,	16 December 1971
Solicitor,
36 Wicklow Street,
Dublin 2.

A Chara,

Proceedings 15/12/71.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to refer to previous correspondence with you on behalf of your client John Kelly. The published reports of the Committee’s Inquiry have already been made available to you. As your client did not attend before the Committee when advised that Detective Sergeant McDonald would give evidence on 3rd November, 1971, it is taken that your client is no longer pursuing the various requests in earlier correspondence.

I should inform you that at that date the only unpublished information relevant to your client in reports received by the Committee (which they have not been empowered to publish) was in relation to the matter subsequently fully covered in Sergeant McDonald’s evidence.

Mise le meas,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary

Committee of Public Accounts.

CIARÁN MAC AN AILÍ

Solicitor

Aturnae

coimisinéir mionn.	teileafon	779326
commissioner for oaths.	telephone	773650

36 Wicklow Street,		36 Sráid Chill Mantáin
Dublin 2.	17 December 1971	Átha Cliath 2.

	mo thag.	do thag.
	my ref.	your ref.
	K/48/EG

Committee of Public Accounts.

A Chara,

Proceedings 19/1/72.

I am in receipt of your letter of the 16th inst., and would hasten to correct some false impressions conveyed by your letter.

With reference to the evidence of Sergeant McDonald, your letter of the 28th October addressed to me did not state that Sergeant McDonald was going to give evidence relative to my client. Your letter merely stated that Sergeant McDonald would be giving evidence in relation to “the matter referred to by the Order of the Dáil of the 1st December, 1971”. I presumed that the date of course should have read 1st December 1970 but apart from this your letter was merely an indication to me that the Committee was resuming its enquiry and if your letter intended to convey that Sergeant McDonald was going to give evidence relative to my client, you should have stated so.

It is quite wrong of you to assume that my client “is no longer pursuing the various requests in earlier correspondence”. I wrote you fully in relation to this matter having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court and in my letter of the 13th July, 1971 again asked for the information and documents mentioned in my previous letters of the 5th and 7th July. It should have been clear to you from that letter that my client would decline to come before the Committee unless the requisite information and documents were furnished and your reply of the 14th July, 1971 stated that “a further letter will issue in due course”.

In fact no such further letter was sent to me and the next letter I had from you was the cryptic note of the 28th October, 1971 relating to Sergeant McDonald.

Your present letter under reply is also incorrect in stating that “the published reports of the Committee’s Enquiry have already been made available to you”. I asked for copies of these reports but you refused to furnish them to me. These had to be bought at my client’s expense. Your statement therefore that these reports have been made available to me is not understood. It is quite incorrect.

With reference to the last paragraph of your letter, I am informed and believe that the statements therein are not correct. In your letter of the 8th July, 1971 you stated that my client is referred to in the code as —. I am instructed that my client is thus referred to on numerous occasions and in relation to numerous incidents in the secret printed but unpublished reports of the hearings in Camera held by your Committee. Are you asserting on the authority of your Committee that the only reference in the secret reports to my client is in relation to the evidence of Sergeant McDonald finding two cheques in my client’s possession at the time of his arrest?

I repeat the requests for documents and information contained in my previous letters.

Mise, le meas,

CIARÁN Mac an AILÍ.

Secretary,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

DUBLIN 2.

Your Ref. K/48/EG

Ciaran Mac an Ailí, Uas.,	20 December 1971
Solicitor,
36 Wicklow St.,
Dublin 2.

A chara,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 17th instant in relation to your client Mr. John Kelly. It will be considered by the Committee at its next meeting after the recess.

Mise le meas,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary

Committee of Public Accounts.

Your Ref. K/48/EG

Ciaran Mac an Ailí, Uas.,	26 January 1972
Solicitor,
36 Wicklow Street,
Dublin 2.

A Chara,

Proceedings 19/1/72

The Committee of Public Accounts desires me to refer further to your letter of the 17th December 1971 in relation to your client Mr. John Kelly.

I have to state that the Committee have nothing further to add to their letter of 16th December 1971, save to say that unless you or your client wish to appear before the Committee to make an address or give evidence, they do not seek the attendance of you or your client.

Mise le meas,

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.

CIARÁN MAC AN AILÍ

Solicitor

Aturnae

36 Wicklow Street,		36 Sráid Chill Mantáin
Dublin 2.	8 March 1972	Áth Cliath 2.

Coimisinéir Mionn.	Teileafón	779326
Commissioner for Oaths.	Telephone	773650

	mo thag.	do thag.
	my ref.	your ref.

K-48/EG

Mr. John Kelly

A Chara,

Proceedings 22/3/72.

I refer to your letter of the 26th January, in this case and I must say I do not understand the procedure being adopted by your Committee in this matter.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I have alleged in my letter of the 17th December, 1971 to you that the statement in the last paragraph of your letter of the 16th December, 1971 is incorrect. I am informed that there are many references to my client in the secret unpublished reports which affect his interest and that it is not true to say that the only matter referred to, affecting him, or relevant to him is that set out in the published evidence of Sergt. McDonald. I do not think your Committee can afford to leave this matter on the basis that they have “nothing further to add to their letter of the 16th December, 1971”.

Either the allegation I am making on the basis of express instructions is incorrect, or the statement in your letter of the 16th December, 1971 is incorrect.

In view of the fact that your Committee are not prepared to make a positive statement about this matter, and are denying my client access to relevant evidence given in relation to him and affecting his interest, and thus ignoring the direction of the Supreme Court in relation to the Committee’s duties and obligations, my client does not propose appearing before your Committee, nor do I, on his behalf.

Secretary,	Mise, le meas,
Committee of Public Accounts,	CIARÁN Mac an AILÍ.
Leinster House,
DUBLIN 2.

Your Ref. K-48/EG

Ciarán Mac an Ailí Uas.	23 March, 1972
Solicitor
36 Wicklow Street
Dublin 2

A Chara,

Proceedings 22/3/72.

We acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th March 1972. We note the decision set out in the final paragraph of your letter. The Committee does not accept the contentions offered in your letter.

Mise le meas,

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee

of Public Accounts.

Coimisinéir Mionn.	Teileafón	779326
Commissioner for Oaths.	Telephone	773650

CIARÁN MAC AN AILÍ

Solicitor

Aturnae

36 Wicklow Street,		36 Sráid Chill Mantáin
Dublin 2.	28 March 1972	Átha Cliath 2.

	mo thag.	do thag.
	my ref.	your ref.

Mr. John Kelly.

A Chara,

Proceedings 12/4/72.

I am in receipt of your letter of the 23rd inst. herein, contents of which are noted. I note that while your Committee “does not accept the contentions” stated in my letter of the 8th inst., neither do they deny them.

Mise, le leas,

CIARÁN Mac an AILÍ.

The Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

DUBLIN 2.

17. Luykx, Mr. Albert A.

WELUKS LIMITED

	Agents for HOESCH EXPORT GMBH
67 CAPEL STREET DUBLIN 1.	SUTTON HOUSE SUTTON DUBLIN
Telephone 45790	Telephone 322885 322520

The Clerk,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

DUBLIN 2.

1st March, 1971.

Dear Sir,

Further to your Committee’s request of the 4th February, I have pleasure to submit herewith 3 Bank Statement from the Dresdner Bank in Dortmund dated respectively 31/3/’70, 8/4/’70 and 9/4/’70 showing my payments made to Otto Schluter, as stated by me on the 9th February last, question 5810.

Receipt of same will oblige

Yours faithfully

A. A. LUYKX.

encls.

18. Mac Eoin, Lt. General Seán, Chief of Staff.

Proceedings 27/1/71.

Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann, sitting to examine specially the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief issued from Subhead J. Vote 16 (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969/70 and any moneys transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to a bank account into which moneys from this vote were or may have been lodged, pursuant to Order of Dáil Éireann made on the 1st day of December 1970.

Lt. General Seán Mac Eoin,

Chief of Staff

Parkgate

Dublin 8

Sir,

You are hereby summoned to attend before the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann at Leinster House, Kildare Street, Dublin on Tuesday the 2nd day of February 1971 at 4 p.m. to give evidence to the Committee on the matter being examined.

You are also required to send to the Committee as soon as possible or, if this is not practicable, to bring with you and produce to the Committee at the time and place aforesaid all documents in your power or control relevant to the matter. The Committee specifically require the directive issued by the Minister for Defence to you on 6th February 1970 and such documents as set out the position regarding the chain of command in relation to the Intelligence Section.

You are invited to send to the Committee as soon as possible a preliminary statement of your evidence.

A copy of an interim report of the Committee dated 15th December 1970 is enclosed for your information together with a copy of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act, 1970.

Please present this document to the Captain of the Guard on your arrival at Leinster House

JUSTIN KEATING,

Member of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann.

Dated this 28th day of January, 1971.

SCS 29/1

Chief of Staff’s Branch

Army HQ,

Parkgate St.,

Dublin, 8

2 Feb ’71.

Dr. Patrick Hogan, T.D.,

Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Eireann,

Leinster House.

Dear Dr. Hogan,

Proceedings 2/2/71.

Regarding the summons of 28 Jan 1971 to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann, I enclose herewith a preliminary statement (Appendix 3 (12)) of my evidence in regard to the chain of command of the Intelligence Section.

I should inform you that I have been directed by the Minister for Defence to claim privilege in regard to the Directive of 6 Feb 1970.

For the information of the Committee I should also say that none of the matters covered by the Directive is in any way relevant to the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid or any funds, the subject matter of the Inquiry. The Directive gave no authority whatever, direct or indirect, to the Department of Defence, or to any other body, officer or person to purchase procure or acquire arms or equipment.

S. Mac EÓIN Lt. Ghinearál

CHIEF OF STAFF

19. Malone, Mr. Patrick, Assistant Commissioner, An Garda Síochána.

Mr. Patrick Malone,

Assistant Commissioner,

Garda Siochána,

Garda Depot,

Phoenix Park,

Dublin 8.

24th November, 1971.

Dear Assistant Commissioner,

Proceedings 23/11/71, 19/1/72.

You will recollect that on 30th March 1971 you gave evidence in private to the Committee. Colonel M. J. Hefferon has made a request to the Committee that he be supplied with any evidence given in private that affects himself personally or that would reflect on the efficient management of Army Intelligence. The Committee have been legally advised that, having regard to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act 1970 re Páraic Haughey, evidence given in private must be made available to Colonel Hefferon if its contents in any way impugned his character, unless it is specifically protected by the Official Secrets Act 1963.

If the evidence given by you is not so protected, the Committee will have to consider granting Colonel Hefferon’s request. The Committee would, therefore, appreciate hearing from you, by this week end if possible, whether your evidence is specifically protected.

I should add for your information that if any question arises of cross examination in relation to your evidence the Committee would propose that it be conducted in private.

Yours sincerely,

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.

AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

CONFIDENTIAL

OIFIG AN ARD-CHEANNFOIRT

(Chief Superintendent’s Office)

Waterford.

27th November, 1971.

Mr. Patrick Hogan,

Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

Dublin, 2.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter of 24th November, 1971, relating to my evidence to the Committee of Public Accounts given on 30th March, 1971, and the request of Colonel Hefferon to be supplied with any evidence given in private which affects him personally or would reflect on the efficient management of Army Intelligence.

I am at present on annual leave in the Waterford area and am due to resume duty on 4th December, 1971. On my return to duty, I shall go into the issues raised in your letter with my authorities and shall communicate with you further as early as possible.

Yours sincerely,

P. MALONE,

Assistant Commissioner.

Note: See also 26 Wymes, Mr. Michael J., Commissioner, An Garda Síochána.

20. O’Malley, Mr. Joseph, Editor “This Week”.

5th May 1971.

Mr. Joseph O’Malley,

Editor,

“This Week”.,

Creation House,

Rotanic Road,

Glasnevin,

Dublin 9.

Dear Sir,

Proceedings 4/5/71.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann acting under the powers conferred on it by Section 3 (1) (c) of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act 1970 to require you to send to it, so as to reach it not later than Tuesday, 11th instant, the article about the activities in relation to Northern Ireland of Captain J. Kelly written by Mr. Jack Dowling, before Captain Kelly’s arrest, for publication in “This Week” but not so published.

I enclose a copy of the Act referred to.

Yours faithfully,

J. TOBIN,

Committee of

Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann.

THIS WEEK

CREATION HOUSE,

BOTANIC ROAD,

GLASNEVIN,

DUBLIN 9.

Tel.: 303511.

10 May 1971

J. Tobin Esq.,

Clerk of the Committee of Public Accounts

of Dáil Éireann,

Leinster House,

Kildare Street,

Dublin 2.

Dear Sir,

Proceedings 19/5/71.

I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 5th May written on behalf of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann. In reply, I would be grateful if you could be good enough to inform the Chairman and members of the Committee as follows:

The Editor of a newspaper or periodical, as part of his professional responsibility, owes a duty to the journalists who contribute news reports, interviews or articles; this responsibility includes the duty not to disclose information which might endanger the journalist involved or his sources of information. Journalists must be able to work secure in the knowledge that the reports they furnish to their Editors will be treated in strict confidence, until the reports have been considered and subedited in accordance with professional ethics and legal requirements; it is only then that the material is published. In this particular case, after taking legal advice and in the exercise of my editorial discretion, I decided not to publish the article in question. The decision to withhold publication, imposes upon me an even greater duty to respect the confidential and privileged nature of the document in question.

In a democratic society, and, indeed, under international law the right of the news media “to receive and impart information without interference by the public authority” is guaranted subject to certain specified exceptions. This right, and indeed the duty, to receive and impart information would be rendered illusory unless the confidential relationship which exists between a journalist and his Editor is effectively protected.

Generally, the news media must safeguard itself from being utilised as a criminal detective agency by the police or the public authority. Subject to compliance with essential legal formalities, the function of the news media is to receive and impart information for publication to the public. In the discharge of his functions, the Editor has to exercise a delicate choice in which he has to balance his professional ethics and legal considerations.

Finally, as the Committee is no doubt aware the Supreme Court has been seized of an Appeal which will involve consideration of a number of issues relating to the status and powers of the Committee of Public Accounts. The hearing by the Supreme Court of this case is due to begin tomorrow, the 11th May. I would prefer to have an opportunity of reading and considering the Judgement of the Supreme Court before reaching a final decision in regard to the Committee’s request to me.

As the Committee may not have appreciated the full extent of the issues involved in its request to me, I would most respectfully ask the Committee to reconsider its request in the light of the consideration set out in this letter. The Committee may then find is unnecessary to raise such fundamental issues involving the freedom of the Press and the professional ethics of Editors. In most democratic states, headlong confrontations between the professional ethics of journalists and the requirements of the public authority are usually carefully avoided.

Accordingly, for all or any of the considerations set forth, I regretfully find myself unable to comply with the request of the Committee at this stage.

Yours sincerely,

JOSEPH O’MALLEY,

Editor.

21. Ó Móráin, Deputy Micheál.

DÁIL ÉIREANN

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH, 2.

(Dublin, 2).

10th June, 1971

BY HAND

To P. Hogan, Esq.,

Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Dáil Éireann.

A Chara,

Proceedings 15/6/71.

I have only received your summons dated the 3rd of June on Tuesday the 8th instant.

The notice given to me to appear before your Committee on the 15th instant is utterly inadequate. I would need at least a month’s notice in order to read the voluminous evidence already given before your Committee and to get some idea of what I may be called upon to answer.

Having read your terms of reference, I feel there is very little assistance that I can give to the Committee within these terms. Any knowledge that I had of these events was fully reported both by me and, on my express instructions, by Mr. Peter Berry, (then Secretary of the Department of Justice) to the Taoiseach at all material times. However, from occasionally reading press reports of the proceedings before your Committee, it appears to me that your Committee’s Inquiry may have ranged outside your terms of reference from time to time, and I accordingly do not know, nor can I anticipate, what matters I will be asked to cover in my evidence, or what questions I may be asked. I particularly refer to paragraph 3 of your letter under reply inviting me to send a preliminary statement of my evidence to your Committee.

As I have already said, I believe I can give very little assistance within the terms of reference, as I understand them. If, however, I am to deal with any matter which came to my knowledge as Minister for Justice, then it is imperative that I get a sight of the files in the Department of Justice dealing with these matters. I want these files produced before I give any evidence, and I want to have them before me when I am giving evidence.

Without having these files before me to assist my memory after the lapse of so much time, I could not in conscience swear to the accuracy of any evidence that I might be asked to give to your Committee, without reservations. On a former occasion, when I was summoned to give evidence before the Central Criminal Court, I was not allowed by the Minister for Justice and/ or the Government to inspect these files which I needed to do to refresh my memory before giving evidence to that Court. I should perhaps mention that I made some personal notes on some of these files.

I am prepared to give evidence to your Committee and to assist them in every way within the terms of reference under which your Committee has been established pursuant to the order of Dáil Éireann. In view of the foregoing, however, it is impossible for me to give a preliminary statement of evidence as invited by you, or to give evidence on oath before your Committee without reservations, if the files to which I have referred are not made available to me. I would therefore ask the Committee if they will assist me as to (1) the nature and scope of the evidence which they require me to give and directing my attention to any specific matters in respect of which they feel I can assist them (2) whether they will make arrangements to have the Department of Justice files made available to me for the purpose set out herein.

In view of the foregoing, I wish to know immediately whether I am to appear before you on Tuesday the 18th instant. Please let me know by return, or, at latest, before 2 p. m. on Monday next. I will be available here at Leinster House to-day and to-morrow up to 6 p. m., and in Castlebar on Monday next (’Phone Castlebar 42).

Mise, le meas,

MICHEÁL Ó MÓRÁIN, T.D.

Mícheál Ó Móráin Uas. T.D.,	10 June 1971
Leinster House
Dublin 2

Dear Deputy,

The Chairman of the Committee has asked me to refer to your letter of the 10th instant in relation to the summons which was sent to you by registered post at your address in Castlebar on the 3rd instant.

He desires me to say that the matter on which they wish to have your assistance is defined by the Order of the Dáil of 1st December 1970. As to the files of the Department of Justice, he considers that this is a matter in the first instance between you and the Department.

The Chairman will of course place your letter before the Committee at its meeting on Tuesday next at 4.30 p. m. He regrets that in the meantime he has no power to change the decision of the Committee in relation to your attendance.

Yours sincerely,

J. Tobin,

Clerk of the Committee of Public Accounts

DÁIL ÉIREANN

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH, 2.

(Dublin, 2).

11th June 1971

A Chara,

Proceedings 15/6/71.

I am in receipt of your letter of the 10th inst., and note what your Chairman says. As a Senior member of Dáil Éireann, I am anxious to co-operate fully with your Committee and will accordingly be present at 7.30 p.m. on Tuesday next.

It is nonsense to say that the question of the files in the Department of Justice is one for me. I have already been refused access to them. You have specific power to get them under Section 3 (1) (c) of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann. (Privilege and Procedure) Act 1970.

If therefore you wish to get my evidence about any matter arising out of these files, it is your duty to obtain them for me.

As your committee saw fit to widely publicise thro’ the media the fact that you have summoned me to appear before you, I am also giving a copy of my reply to your Summons dated the 10th inst., to the Press.

Mise, le meas,

MÍCHEÁL Ó MÓRÁIN, T.D.

To. J. Tobin,

Clerk of the Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

Dublin.

7 July 1971

Mícheál Ó Móráin, Uas., T.D.,

Leinster House,

Dublin 2.

Dear Deputy Ó Moráin,

Proceedings 6/7/71.

The Committee of Public Accounts has directed me to refer to your letter of 10th June 1971 and to your evidence before the Committee on the 15th June 1971. Subsequent to your attendance the Committee addressed a letter on the matter to the Minister for Justice, (copy enclosed)* and it has received a reply thereto dated 5th July 1971 of which I also enclose a copy.*

The Committee will be glad to accord you the facilities agreed to by the Minister and for that purpose requests that you attend before it on Tuesday next 13th instant at 7.30 p.m. in Room 91 Leinster House.

Yours sincerely,

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.

DÁIL ÉIREANN

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH, 2.

(Dublin, 2).

8th July 1971

Dear Mr. Tobin,

Proceedings 13/7/71.

I only received your Chairman’s letter with enclosure from the Minister for Justice last night.

I am looking into the matters raised in this letter and will write you as soon as possible.

I will therefore be unable to attend before the committee on Tuesday evening next.

Yours sincerely,

Mícheál Ó Móráin, T.D.

Dáil éireann

Baile átha Cliath, 2.

(Dublin, 2).

15 July, 1971

Dear Chairman,

Proceedings 20/7/71.

I have your letter of the 7th instant enclosing a copy of letter to you from the Minister for Justice, purporting to give his interpretation of what is contained in the files requested by your Committee.

Neither your Committee nor I asked the Minister for his comments on what these files contain. In your letter to the Minister dated the 17th June last, you made it quite clear what was being requested in the following terms:—

“Essentially they (the files) are required for the assistance of the witness, and subject to what follows, the Committee’s intention is that only the witness shall have access to them.” This is in fact all I ever asked for from the Minister.

It is quite clear that the Minister either does not or cannot appreciate the position of either the Committee or myself. The Committee, no doubt appreciate that these files contained, inter alia, reports made personally to me by my then subordinates in the Department of Justice. What is more, at the times these files were compiled, I was the Minister responsible for the actions of these people in the carrying out of their duties.

From reading the evidence already given, it is clear that former officials and garda officers could freely refer to the files with which they were concerned, including some of the files requested by me. This procedure was also applied to even a retired official of the Department of Justice. This, of course, was very proper and is the practice in all the Courts of our land where public officials are giving evidence. I know that Mr. Gibbons, Minister for Agriculture, had full access to any files he had, or wished to see, before giving evidence.

The Committee will no doubt appreciate the alleged helpfulness of the Minister for Justice in refusing me access to these files, while innumerable Civil Servants and Typists, who were officials of the Department of Justice, when I was Minister have had free access to them. I have served for very many years as a Minister of State in different Ministries. It was never suggested until now that I could not be trusted to see any Government file in the alleged fear that I would disclose confidential irrelevant material from any such file. This childish excuse for refusing me a sight of my own files will fool nobody.

The Minister is his letter to you of the 5th of July purports to give you a summary of what is contained in these files. In my opinion, this was utterly improper on his part. As a lawyer, I have respect for the law, and the laws of evidence in particular. The Minister’s letter and comment is the worst of hearsay evidence. I could of course, submit my interpretation of what I remember to be on these files, but unlike the Minister, I have sufficient respect for the laws of evidence not to do so.

I must, however, refer to a single item in the Minister’s comment which may help the Committee to evaluate the worth of the Minister’s reference to my evidence and indeed, on the worth of his letter generally. He alleges in Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and the final paragraph, that in no file or report is there a reference to the Garda authorities being critical of Army Intelligence Personnel in the North. Luckily, I have a written note in my possession, taken from one of these files at the time it came before me. I took this note before going to a Government meeting in order to quote to my colleagues the actual descriptive adjectives used in this report. The words used in the report were inter alia, that the Army Intelligence men were “Indiscreet” that their methods were “clumsey” and that they were “indiscriminate” in their approach to people in the North. The words in italics are taken from the original report and were quoted by me to the Government at that time. No doubt, the Minister is finding great difficulty in locating this file. I can however, categorically assure your Committee that this file did exist.

I have already made it quite clear that I am prepared to give evidence to this Committee and to assist them in every way, but only in accordance with the rule of law concerning best evidence. I accordingly, will only give evidence when the files, or their remnants, are produced as requested by me, and whether they are gutted as suggested in the Minister’s letter or otherwise.

I now write to call for the production to me of any file that I require which was compiled during my term of office as Minister for Justice. It is, I respectfully suggest, a question for your Committee either (a) to get the full co-operation of the Minister for Justice in carrying out the work you were required to do by Dáil Éireann or (b) using such powers as you possess to compel the production of these files to me.

You will no doubt contact me when you have further information about these elusive files.

Yours faithfully,

MÍCHEÁL Ó MÓRÁIN, T.D.

21st July, 1971.

Dear Deputy O’Moráin,

The Committee of Public Accounts has directed me to acknowledge your letter of 15th July addressed to the Chairman.

The Committee will communicate with you again in the matter as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Mícheál Ó Moráin Uas. T.D.

Leinster House

Dublin 2

28 October 1971

Dear Deputy Ó Moráin,

Proceedings 27/10/71.

Further to your letter of 15 July the Committee of Public Accounts has directed me to state that it has been in correspondence with the Minister for Justice in reference to certain documents.

The Committee addressed letters to the Minister on 23rd July and 4th August and received replies thereto on 4th August and 2nd September respectively. * Copies of these letters are enclosed for your confidential information.

The Committee would be glad to have your observation on the matter as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

P. HOGAN

Chairman of the

Committee of Public Accounts

22. Posts and Telegraphs, Department of

AN ROINN POIST AGUS TELEGRAFA

(Department of Posts and Telegraphs)

ARD OIFIG AN PHOIST

(General Post Office)

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 1

(Dublin 1)

25 Eanáir, 1971.

The Clerk to the Public Accounts Committee

Leinster House

Kildare Street

Dublin 2

Proceedings 21/1/71.

Please refer to your telephone request for particulars of telephone trunk calls made from the Branch Office of the Munster and Leinster Bank at Lower Baggot Street, Dublin, during the period November 1969 to April 1970.

The Department has no details of trunk calls obtained by STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialling) Such calls are recorded automatically on subscribers’ meters as so many local call units, depending on the distance and the duration of the call.

Details of trunk calls made via an operator during the month of April 1970 from the office in question are given in the attached statements.† (Names and addresses of called subscribers are shown where calls have been made to subscribers in this Administration; special enquires would be necessary to ascertain this information in respect of subscribers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland). It is regretted that it is not possible to give particulars for similar calls made in the period November 1969 to March 1970 because the relevant telephone tickets are no longer available. Our practice is to have telephone tickets which are no longer required sent for pulping about 8 months after the end of the quarter to which they refer and it has been confirmed by the contractor that the tickets for the period prior to April 1970 have been pulped.

S. Ó SÉAGHDHA,

Accountant.

23. Radio Telefis Éireann.

19th July, 1971.

RADIO TELEFÍS ÉIREANN

DONNYBROOK

Dublin 4

Surgeon Patrick Hogan, TD

Chairman

Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann

Dáil Éireann

Dublin 2

Dear Surgeon Hogan

Proceedings 15/7/71, 20/7/71.

As I indicated to Mr. Tobin, the Secretary of the Committee, it was my intention to include your statement, which you so kindly gave us and about which we put you to so much trouble, in the programme on the work of the Committee of Public Accounts.

As you have probably seen from the programme your statement was not transmitted. This was due to no fault in anything you gave us. The position was that when I returned from recording your statement, the Government Information Bureau had been on to my office, at about 12.30, to indicate that the Minister for Justice, with whom we had requested an interview earlier in the week on the “Law and Order” issue, had decided to grant us an interview. This news came entirely unexpectedly to us and the interview had to be recorded in the early part of the afternoon. That left me in the position that were I to include both your statement and his interview I was going to be five minutes over on the programme running time. As it was I had to pare down the Minister’s interview by about 30%. Due to circumstances beyond my control RTE is most unwilling to transmit beyond 12.00 midnight because of trade union difficulties. Under those circumstances, I had no alternative but to adhere strictly to the running time of the programme, and accordingly I had to omit your statement from the programme.

I regret that this was so and apologise most profoundly to you for any inconvenience which I caused.

I would like to thank you, and through you, the members of the Committee and the Secretary, Mr. Tobin for all the kindness which they gave us during the preparation of our programme.

Yours sincerely,

MUIRIS MAC CONGHAIL,

Editor 7 DAYS.

24. Seanad Éireann.

Cléireach an tSeanaid

Proceedings 10/12/70.

The Committee of Public Accounts has directed me to ascertain whether the Seanad Chamber and ante room and Room 106 could be made available for the purpose of meetings of the Committee when Seanad Éireann is not sitting.

J. Tobin

Cléireach an Choiste um Chuntais Phoiblí

18 Nollaig 1970.

Cléireach an Choiste,	22 Nollaig, 1970.
An Coiste um Chuntais Phoiblí.

Proceedings 7/1/71.

I am directed by the Cathaoirleach to refer to your minute of 18 Nollaig enquiring as to whether the Seanad Chamber and ante room and room 106 could be made available for meetings of your Committee and to say that the matter was brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

The Committee was desirous of facilitating your Committee but after careful consideration formed the opinion that problems arising from the use of the Chamber by your Committee could not satisfactorily be resolved. It decided, accordingly, with regret, that the Chamber and the ancillary accommodation sought could not be made available.

SEÁN Mac GABHANN

Cléireach an tSeanaid

22 Nollaig, 1970.

25. Taoiseach.

3 February 1971

Dear Taoiseach,

Proceedings 2/2/71, 3/2/71.

At our meeting this morning, I spoke to you of a difficulty facing the Committee arising from Capt. James J. Kelly’s references in evidence to the directive of the Minister for Defence to the Chief of Staff of 6th. February 1970. He appeared to represent the directive as further authorising his actions in relation to the importation of arms. The Committee were of opinion that it was central to their inquiry to establish whether his actions were so authorised. They accordingly under the provisions of the Committee of Public Accounts (Privilege and Procedure) Act 1970 sent a communication to the Chief of Staff informing him that they required the directive of 6th. February.

As you know the Chief of Staff, by letter to me of the 2nd. instant, informed me that he has been directed by the Minister for Defence to claim privilege in regard to the directive.

The Committee asked the Chief of Staff when he came before them yesterday if he would inform the Minister of the Committee’s purpose in seeking the document, that they would not insist on retaining it, that it would in fact suffice for their purposes if they were in a position to say that they had seen it and were satisfied that it gave no authority for the purchase, procurement or acquisition of arms. Neither would they in any circumstances refer to any other matter that might be contained in the directive.

The Chief of Staff, having consulted the Minister for Defence, informed the Chairman that the Minister had felt unable to vary his direction in relation to the document.

The Committee then instructed me to seek a meeting with you, to draw your attention to their difficulty and their proposed solution, and to put the matter to you in the context of the statements by the Minister for Finance, during the Dáil debate on the motion referring the Grant in Aid expenditure to this Committee, to the effect that the Government’s approach was to ensure that the inquiry was effective and to take such steps as were necessary to make a full investigation possible. I put these points to you at our meeting. You expressed the view that it would be a dangerous precedent to accede to the Committee’s request and that in any case it was a matter that would require further consultation with the Government.

The Committee have given consideration to the points raised by you. They have instructed me to ask if you would be good enough to put to the Government the purpose for which they have asked to see the directive and the limitations which they are prepared to observe in relation to their use of it, and in the circumstances to ask the Government to meet the wishes of the Committee.

Yours sincerely,

P. HOGAN

Chairman of the Committee of

Public Accounts.

Roinn an Taoisigh

Department of the Taoiseach

Baile Átha Cliath 2

Dublin 2

4 February 1971

Dear Deputy Hogan,

Proceedings 9/2/71.

The Government have carefully considered the request made by you on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee in your letter of 3rd instant.

I am to say that, for the reasons I conveyed to you at our interview yesterday morning (3 February, 1971), the Government regret that they cannot alter their decision.

Yours sincerely,

J. LYNCH

Deputy P. Hogan, Esq., T.D.,

Chairman,

Public Accounts Committee,

Dáil Éireann,

Leinster House,

Dublin 2.

26. Wymes, Mr. Michael J., Commissioner, An Garda Síochána

Mr. M. J. Wymes,

Commissioner,

Garda Síochána,

Garda Depot,

Phoenix Park,

Dublin 8.

Sir,

Proceedings 17/2/71.

I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to require you to send to it on or before Tuesday the 23rd. of February 1971 twenty copies of the reports stated by Chief Superintendent John P. Fleming in the course of his evidence before the Committee on Tuesday 9th February. 1971 to have been made by him.

I enclose a copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on 9th February.

J. TOBIN,

Clerk of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann.

Dated this 19th day of February 1971.

AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

OIFIG AN CHOIMISINEARA,

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH.

23rd February 1971.

Mr. J. Tobin

Clerk of the Committee of Public

Accounts of Dáil Éireann

Leinster House

DUBLIN 2

A Chara:

Proceedings 25/2/71.

I have your letter of 18th February relating to reports made by Chief Superintendent Fleming.

I am aware of the power of the Committee to require production of papers and, apart from that, I recognise that it is the duty of the Garda Síochána to assist the Committee where such assistance can be given. There are, however, special difficulties about compliance with the Committee’s requirement and I should be glad if you would have this fact placed before the Committee.

I have examined both the record of Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence and a large number of Garda reports submitted by him and the following is the position that emerges:

(a) Several of the reports referred to by him in his evidence were made orally and were not put in writing even at a subsequent date.

(b) Where written reports of matters referred to by him were made, they were not confined to those matters but dealt also with others that have no connection with the Committee’s work. As far as I have been able to ascertain since receipt of your letter, this is true of every one of the reports in question. While the additional material has no connection with the Committee’s work, I would be quite willing to disclose it to the Committee were it not for the following considerations. Firstly, it includes material affecting national security. Secondly, in my considered opinion, disclosure of the additional material would involve a definite risk of identification of sources of Garda information and this identification would result not only in damage to the effectiveness of the Garda Síochána but in serious personal risk to certain persons. Thirdly, the disclosure of what the Gardaí do or do not know about certain kinds of activity would, of itself, be a serious disservice to the public interest even if there were no question of disclosure of sources. Some of Chief Superintendent Fleming’s statements were based on information which was obtained over a period and which (in so far as it was recorded) was recorded according as it was received in separate reports, no one of which could be said to be, by itself, a report of the matters to which he referred. Accordingly, the number of reports to which the Committee’s requirement could apply is high and the amount of highly confidential material unconnected with the Committee’s work that would be incidentally disclosed would be very substantial.

I assume that the Committee did not appreciate that the position is as I have stated it to be and, in particular, that it was not the Committee’s intention to seek the production of any material additional to that which was the subject of Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence, at all events if the disclosure of such additional material would have the consequences I have mentioned including damage to national security and danger to particular persons. I do not, therefore, interpret your letter as having been intended to apply to the only Garda reports which in fact exist containing material corresponding to evidence given by Chief Superintendent Fleming.

If it appears to the Committee that there is some way in which I might be able to assist them without leaving the way open for the consequences I have mentioned, I shall, of course, be glad to see if I can do so.

Mise, le meas,

M. J. WYMES,

Coimisínéir

Mr. M. J. Wymes,	26th February 1971.
Commissioner,
Garda Síochána,
Garda Depot,
Phoenix Park,
Dublin 8.

Dear Mr. Wymes,

Proceedings 25/2/71.

Thank you for your letter of the 23rd instant relating to reports by Chief Superintendent Fleming.

The Committee does not, of course, require material which has no connection with its work. The requirements of the Committee would be satisfied if you could make the reports available to it in a form which would not include the additional material you refer to and which would not leave the way open for the consequences you mention.

The Committee would very much appreciate the receipt of the documents by 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday next, 2nd March.

Yours sincerely,

J. TOBIN,

Secretary.

AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

OIFIG AN CHOIMISINEARA.

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH,

3rd March, 1971.

Mr J. Tobin

Clerk of the Committee of Public

Accounts of Dáil Éireann

Leinster House

DUBLIN 2

A Chara:

(1) I refer to your letter of 26 February 1971.

Proceedings 25/2/71.

(2) May I first of all express my regret that it was not possible for me to forward documentation by the time requested by the Committee. As explained to you on the telephone, I was absent from duty because of influenza during part of the period. On resuming duty, it was necessary for me personally to give very careful consideration to each individual item because I wished to give the Committee all the material I could give them, but I had to take into account even where the material did no more than confirm that Chief Superintendent Fleming had made a report as stated by him, that the handing over of a copy of the written record might, through a disclosure of the period in which it was written, cause a risk that sources of information would be identifiable.

(3) Minute of Evidence, No. 5628: Chief Superintendent Fleming stated: “First, in about the last week of September 1969, Captain Kelly met Cathal Goulding, Chief of Staff of the IRA, in Virginia, County Cavan, and he agreed to get him a regular supply of arms and ammunition for use in Northern Ireland. He also promised to provide training facilities for Northern Ireland members of the IRA in Gormanstown Camp.”

Enclosures 1 and 2 refer.

(4) Minutes of Evidence, Nos. 5675/6/7: Chief Superintendent Fleming stated: “One consignment of arms at least came through Dublin Airport some time in early October.”

Enclosure No. 3 refers.

(5) Disclosure of the precise dates on which the reports referred to in the aforementioned three enclosures were made cannot in the interessts of security be given as it could assist in identifying the source of the information, but in each case a two-months’ period is specified as the period within which the report was made and I trust this will be sufficient for the Committee’s purpose.

(6) Document No. 4 attached: This document is a typescript copy of an original memorandum in manuscript which Chief Superintendent Fleming had with him on the occasion of his visit to the Minister for Justice in December 1969 and the contents of which were communicated orally to the Minister in my presence.

(7) It will be apparent to the Committee from my previous letter that there is additional written material which goes to confirm Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence that he reported certain matters to his superiors but which cannot be divulged for one or other of the reasons mentioned in my previous letter. This applies also to the memorandum prepared by Chief Superintendent Fleming prior to the meeting which he and I had with the former Minister for Justice and the contents of which he disclosed to the Minister in my presence. At points indicated in the copy, I have found it necessary to delete from that memorandum certain references to matters not referred to in Chief Superintendent Fleming’s evidence, and it was not in all cases possible to make a deletion that did not extend beyond these matters.

(8) In forwarding this material, I have assumed that the Committee’s object is to obtain confirmation, as far as possible, that reports were in fact made within a reasonable time of the events and not just in the recent past. Accordingly, I assume that the Committee will be able to accept the enclosures as being intended for their own information only and I request that they should not be published.*

Mise, le meas,

M. J. WYMES,

Coimisinéir.

Mr. M. J. Wymes,

Commissioner,

Garda Síochána,

Garda Depot,

Phoenix Park,

Dublin 8.

24th November, 1971.

Dear Commissioner,

You will recollect that on 23rd March 1971 you gave evidence in private to the Committee. Colonel M. J. Hefferon has made a request to the Committee that he be supplied with any evidence given in private that affects himself personally or that would reflect on the efficient management of Army Intelligence. The Committee have been legally advised that, having regard to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act 1970 re Páraic Haughey, evidence given in private must be made available to Colonel Hefferon if its contents in any way impugned his character, unless it is specifically protected by the Official Secrets Act 1963.

I should add for your information that if any question arises of cross examination in relation to your evidence the Committee would propose that it be conducted in private.

Yours sincerely,

P. HOGAN,

Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.

AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

OIFIG AN CHOIMISINEARA,

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH.

26th November, 1971.

Deputy P. Hogan,

Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts,

Leinster House,

Dublin, 2.

Dear Chairman,

I have received your letter of 24th instant dealing with the evidence given by me in private to the Committee on 23rd March, 1971.

In view of the importance of the issues raised I would require some time to consider my position. I will, however, deal with the matter urgently and will communicate with you again as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

M. J. WYMES,

Commissioner.

AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

OIFIG AN CHOIMISINEARA,

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH.

10th February, 1972.

Dear Chairman,

I would refer to your letter of 24th November regarding the evidence given by me in private to your Committee on 23rd March, 1971.

In principle, I have no objection whatsoever to being cross-examined on any evidence that I gave to the Committee, which, as far as I am concerned, was a statement of facts to the best of my knowledge. However, this question of cross-examination can arise only on the basis that there was an impugning of Colonel Hefferon’s character and, having carefully studied the transcript of the evidence, I can find nothing in it that in any way impugned Colonel Hefferon’s character or that could reasonably be construed in that way. The fact that some item or items in my evidence may have conflicted with evidence given by Colonel Hefferon does not, in my view, mean that my evidence impugned his character (just as I do not regard his conflicting evidence as impugning mine). Accordingly, it does not seem to me that the disclosure to Colonel Hefferon, or to anybody else, of any portion of my evidence, which the Committee invited me to give in private, is called for as a result of the Supreme Court judgment to which you refer.

As Commissioner, I have been consulted by Assistant Commissioner Malone to whom a similar letter was sent by you. This reply also speaks for him and I assume that it is unnecessary for him to trouble you to read a separate reply in identical terms.

Yours sincerely,

M. J. WYMES,

Commissioner.

Patrick Hogan, Esq., T.D.,

Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts

of Dáil Éireann.

* Enclosing copies of Minutes of Evidence

†Appendix 5 (22).

* Reproduced on pages 231-4.

* Details of the notes, in relation to the numbers and initials of the tellers indicated on the letter (reproduced on page 231) of 17 November 1969 to the National Provincial Bank, Piccadilly, are as follows:—

Front of letter

Number	Initials	Name	Position
1	—	—	—
3	DCG	Mr. D. C. Green	Chief Cashier (Designate)
5	KRM	Mr. K. R. MacKenzie	Clerk
7	A McN	Miss A. McNamara	Clerk
8	PNH	Mr. P. N. Hobbs	Cashier

Back of letter

Entry	Name
19. 11. 69	K. R. MacKenzie
21 November 1969	Mrs. B. Waterson

* Summons signed by Chairman requiring Mr. H. Blaney to attend before the Committee on 9 March 1971.

* See Appendix No. 3 (3) Brady, Mr. Seamus J.

* During evidence in private.

* Reproduced as Appendix 7.

* Summons to attend before the Committee on 4 August 1971 for cross-examination by Captain James J. Kelly.

† Summons to attend before the Committee on 30 November 1971 for cross-examination by Colonel M. J. Hefferon.

‡ See Question 11402

* Note. Commentary set out in Minutes of Evidence for Tuesday, 30 November, 1971.

* Submission referred to not received.

* See Appendix 4 (21)

* See Appendix 4 (14).

† Not published.

* Enclosures not published.