asked the Minister for Justice if he will state whether in addition to the officers of the Garda Síochána, the officers of any Department of State, other than the Department of Justice, were engaged in the investigation of the occurrences referred to by him in the course of his reply on the 22nd March last to Question No. 37; and, if so, of what Department were the persons so engaged officers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Allegations of Fraud.
On the 22nd October, 1947, the Garda authorities asked for the assistance of a representative of the Department of Industry and Commerce and a representative of the Board of Works.
On the 28th October, 1947, the Board of Works appointed an officer for this purpose.
On the 11th November, 1947, the Department of Industry and Commerce appointed an officer for the same purpose.
This officer, however, within a week of the appointment himself fell under suspicion of offences relating to petrol rationing and was suspended from duty and later was prosecuted and convicted of such offences.
Were there any officers of any other Department than those the Minister has mentioned concerned?
No.
Can the Minister say whether the records of all the cases were available?
That, I think, is a separate question.
They have not been found. Portion of them for an earlier date has been found.
There are some records missing.
A statement is not a supplementary question.
asked the Minister for Justice whether his attention has been drawn to a statement published in the daily Press of the 23rd March by Deputy Boland to the effect that there was no file before the change of Government in the Department of Justice concerning allegations made in September, 1947, by a firm of solicitors on behalf of one of their clients concerning certain frauds in connection with Government contracts relating to turf and breaches of rationing and price control Orders in relation to petrol; and, if so, whether the said statement was true.
I have seen the statement referred to in the question. The statement is not true. A file relating to these allegations was opened in the Office of the Minister for Justice in September, 1947.
Mr. Boland
Does the Minister say that there was a file in the Office of the Minister for Justice? I want to say that, if that is so, I was not aware of it. The Minister said that my statement was untrue. What I say is perfectly true that I handed the letter I got to the chief superintendent of police and I understood that any file there was was a police file, and if there was one in the Office of the Minister for Justice I was unaware of it. I do not believe that there was. I want to go further. I would ask for an inquiry into that. The Minister for Finance need not laugh. This is a very serious matter. I am an ex-Minister. I have been accused of publicly stating a thing that was untrue. What I say is this, that if there was one in the Department, I was unaware of it.
Could not you raise this on the Adjournment?
Mr. Boland
There was none in my office.
Will the Minister now read the documents in the file?
I think Deputy Boland is unfair to himself. He got these documents and he pretends that he handed them to the chief superintendent and that he never did anything about them. Here is the fact: It was opened in his office on the 27th day of September, addressed to him by the Secretary to the Taoiseach, Mr. Moynihan. Again, on the fifth day that he spoke about the last day, there is a report handed to him by the superintendent of the Civic Guards and on the 3rd October there is a minute from his secretary in which it is sent to the Civic Guards and on the face he has written "Minister approves." I asked that officer did he write that without the Minister's approval and he said no, that the Minister did approve of it and saw that letter. You did operate the file.
Mr. Boland
My memory must be gone altogether.
There is the file.
Mr. Boland
Is that not a police file?
There is the police file.
Mr. Boland
If that is the case, I am caught out.
You are.
Mr. Boland
I am, but I would like to see it. I have nothing to hide whatever. What I said here, I said fairly. It is very important for me. What I said here was true. I believed that when I handed that letter to the chief superintendent there was only a police file there. If I am wrong, I am very sorry, not alone for myself. I would not deliberately say a thing that was not true, but I am surprised to hear that there was a file in my office or in the Department. It may be the custom to have a parallel file with the police file, but I did not know of that.
Does the Minister allege that the documents which he stated on the last occasion that this matter was before the Dáil were destroyed were documents removed from that file?
No.
So——
If the Deputy has a supplementary question, he may ask it, not make a speech.
There is an innuendo and, as a personal explanation, I say that from a file relating to one of the people who got petrol there were documents removed. There were other documents missing from other files. I have the two files here from which documents were also removed.
We will find out where these are.
Mr. Boland
If we raise this on the Adjournment, we will get more time. Would I be in order?
Certainly.
On a point of order, if the matter is to be raised on the Adjournment, as the question is tabled by me, if anybody is to raise it, I should be the one.
Mr. Boland
There is objection taken. I would like to raise it.
Anybody can raise anything on the Adjournment if the Ceann Comhairle thinks it is in order.
Deputy Lehane was not the first.
asked the Minister for Justice whether his attention was drawn to a statement in a daily newspaper of the 26th March, attributed to Deputy Boland in relation to alleged breaches of petrol rationing Orders, in which he was reported as stating that the chief superintendent, a man trained in the law of evidence, told him that there was not a title of evidence against the persons; and, if so, whether the Minister can say (a) whether the chief superintendent in question admits to having made that statement, and (b) whether or not there was evidence against the persons referred to.
I have seen the statement referred to. I have inquired from the chief superintendent and he informs me that he furnished a report to the then Minister on the 2nd October, 1947, and that he saw the Minister on that date, and that he cannot agree that he told the then Minister that there was not a tittle of evidence against the persons complained of. In fact, the actual Garda investigations had not then commenced and were not in fact started till the 6th October, 1947. The chief superintendent has no recollection of having any other conversation with the then Minister on the matter.
Mr. Boland
On that, again, I would like to say that that is entirely in conflict with my recollection. That is all. I only saw the chief superintendent once but it is entirely in conflict with my recollection.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will state what prosecutions were instituted and convictions obtained in relation to petrol rationing offences as a result of the information conveyed to him in September, 1947, by a firm of solicitors in Dublin, on behalf of one of their clients; and the total amount of penalties inflicted.
As a result of this information one person, who was a director of a firm, was fined £1,750 in the District Court, and on appeal this was reduced to £1,000, and on a second charge the same person was fined £675 and on a third charge £100. These two later fines were reduced on appeal to £525, making a total of fines against that person of £1,525.
Two other firms were convicted and fined. A firm that I will call A was convicted and fined the sum of £1,250 on five summonses. No appeal was made in this case.
Firm B was convicted and fined the following sums in the District Court: £775 in respect of ten summonses and £75 and £100 under Emergency Powers (Control of Prices) No. 181 Order, 1943, and Emergency Powers (Motor Spirit Rationing) Order, 1943, respectively. All these fines were reduced on appeal to £525.
Mr. Boland
Will the Minister say whether any of these firms convicted were in any way connected with the previous Government?
You will have to put down another question. I did not look at the book of words on that.
Mr. Boland
The Minister cannot say that of his own knowledge?
Will the Minister say that the investigation of these charges preferred in the letter in September was going on actively and that the Minister for Justice handed over the letter to the Guards?
That has nothing to do with it.
I am asking a supplementary. These fines were the result of the Minister's action in getting the Guards on the job in September and did not depend on the charge of corruption hurled by the Minister for External Affairs on the eve of the election.
It was very active after the 4th February.
According to the file it started in September. The prosecution did not wait for the hurling of a charge by the Minister for External Affairs on the eve of the poll.
Do you want an answer to that question?
Of course I do.
I will give it to you. The then Minister for Justice thought so little about this letter which he received that instead of sending it to the Commissioner of the Gardaí to deal with it in an official manner, he turned around to a superintendent of the Gardaí, who is at present in his office, and says: "keep that." He keeps—according to himself —no record and there is no record of his giving any instructions—according to himself—or of having ordered anything. An investigation started, and when a complete report was made after the change of Government and after its only beginning after the change of Government——
Mr. Boland
What about the second of the tenth?
Is the Minister accusing the Gardaí of not having taken the usual action as to the report of the Minister for Justice?
You have put your foot in it this time.
asked the Minister for Justice whether the Fianna Fáil Senator and the chairman of a public board referred to in his reply to a question on the 22nd March, 1949, were invited to make statements by the Gardaí; and if so, the date upon which they were approached by the Gardaí and the nature of the statements made by them.
The allegation against the chairman of the public board and the Senator was made on the 27th September, 1947.
The Guards did not ask for statements in the case of the chairman until the 15th December, 1947, and in the case of the Senator until the 6th February, 1948.
I do not consider it would be proper to make public statements made to the Guards in the course of investigation of alleged criminal offences without the consent of the persons involved.
Will the Minister say whether, in view of the fact that the Senator in question was not approached until two days after the general election and almost five months after the original complaint that was made, he is satisfied that there was avoidable delay?
On investigation and re-examination, I must say that there was avoidable delay. They could have hurried it.
Was the avoidable delay which he alleged took place on the part of the Garda officer from whom a report was received on 2-10-47?
The then Minister was the responsible person because we do not know what instructions he gave to that Garda officer at all, and he says—we have only his word for it and his memory has been found at fault to-day——
Mr. Boland
Not yet.
On his word he said to the superintendent to do this.
Will the Minister state whether any effort was made to get the papers involved in these matters and, if so, on what date?
Mr. Boland
Is it not the proper practice that a complaint involving criminal charges should not be investigated by the Minister but by the police, and was it not correct procedure for the Minister to hand that letter to the police for investigation, as I did? I think it would be most improper for the Minister to interfere in what was a matter purely and solely for the police. That was the attitude I took. I handed him the letter and said: "That is a matter for you people."
That is the correct procedure, but it should be through the Commissioner. The Minister, when he receives a complaint, does not usually have a superintendent at hand to hand it to.
Mr. Boland
He happened to be there.
Could not an ordinary Guard carry out the investigation as would happen throughout the country? Why send for a superintendent?
Since a member of the Oireachtas and a chairman of a public body has been referred to by the Minister in his reply, will the Chair permit me to ask another question? Is it a fact, regarding the gentleman referred to, that when the documents were referred to the Attorney-General he advised that a prosecution did not lie?
He did not make that recommendation. I have already given my answer.
Then why was the prosecution not brought?
Because the documents were taken.
Mr. de Valera
We have already given public time to a very serious charge against an ex-Minister. I came into this personally because I was the person to whom the letter was originally addressed. I gave it to the Minister in charge and he told me that the letter was in the hands of the police. As these charges have been made against the ex-Minister, I think we should have more public time for them.
It is very unfair for the ex-Taoiseach to come in and make a statement at this particular time. No charge was made. A question was asked of me by a former Minister which I answered. He charged me with making false statements. After the thing over here, he gave an interview to the Irish Press in which he said I was untrue. Then he went down to Naas and made a charge there that I was untrue. He invited me to read it in the Press. I did not go into Press or go to the public cross-roads to meet the charge. I am standing here as Minister and saying what are the facts and I am making no charge.
Did not the Minister for External Affairs on the eve of the election say that this thing was being covered up and charge corruption against the Minister?
That has nothing to do with the Minister.
That is what happened.
As my name has been brought into this matter, I would ask leave to read what I did say.
Would it not do on the Adjournment?
Will you give me an opportunity to do it on the Adjournment?
As a charge has been made by Deputy Aiken, in reference to a speech of the Minister, he should be entitled to speak here and now, as he may not get an opportunity on the Adjournment.
Well, all right.
Mr. de Valera
Will the Taoiseach give us some time to make some arrangement?
The Minister for Justice gave Deputy de Valera his answer. I have nothing to add to it.
The King's Counsel.
Now do you hear them squealing?
I shall hear the Minister, if I may be allowed to be heard, at the end of Question Time.