Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Oct 1970

Vol. 249 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Expenditure of State Funds.

106.

asked the Minister for Finance if his Department opened a bank account in the Bank of Ireland, Clones Branch in or about October 1969; if the account was transferred to any other bank or branch; and if he will state in relation to the original account or to transferred account (a) the amount of money lodged to the account by his Department, (b) the amount of money drawn on the account, (c) the number of persons authorised to draw on the account and if these persons were known to his Department and (d) if any such like account is at present being maintained.

107.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will now state what moneys, if any, from State funds were diverted for private importation of arms.

With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 106 and 107 together.

My Department did not open a bank account in the Bank of Ireland, Clones, in or about October, 1969.

My predecessor authorised the making of two payments to the Irish Red Cross Society from the Northern Ireland Relief Fund set up in August, 1969, by the Government to provide aid for the victims of unrest in the Six Counties. These payments were transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to an account held by three persons in the Bank of Ireland, Clones, in October 1969. The total amount involved was £10,000.

A second account was opened for the same purpose in November, 1969, in the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot Street, Dublin.

Further payments were made to the Irish Red Cross Society from the Northern Ireland Relief Fund and, from these, sums totalling £59,000 were re-transferred by that society to the account in the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot Street, Dublin.

No money was lodged by my Department to either of the two accounts mentioned.

As the Department of Finance had not any control over, and did not exercise any function in relation to, either of the two accounts or any such like accounts, I am not in a position to reply to parts (b), (c) or (d) of Deputy Cooney's question.

As stated by the Taoiseach on 26th October, a departmental investigation of these payments has been made and the Garda authorities are also carrying out an investigation. Pending the outcome of these inquiries, I do not propose to make any further comment.

Can the Minister say if any Department had responsibility for these accounts if his had not?

It depends on what the Deputy is referring to. If he is referring to the subject matter of the question, which is certain banks accounts, I pointed out that no such accounts were opened by the Department of Finance, but if he is referring to the——

The actual money.

——account voted by the Dáil, of course the Department of Finance had responsibility for that.

Let me put it this way to the Minister: can the Minister say had this House voted authority to the Minister to pass this money to the Red Cross at the time it was passed?

I am sorry. Would the Deputy repeat that?

Had this House voted authority to the Minister to make these payments to the Red Cross for the purpose for which the payments were made and at the time they were made?

My recollection is that the authority of the House was obtained subsequent to this operation which was carried out as a matter of urgency originally in August.

Are the Minister and the Government prepared even after the Garda investigation, or in the future, to refer this matter for special investigation by the Committee of Public Accounts?

That is a separate question.

It is a separate question.

It is not. It is mentioned specifically in Question No. 108 put down by Deputy Liam Cosgrave.

We have not yet reached Question No. 108.

I am sorry.

Am I to take it that the total amount which was paid—he mentioned two figures: £59,000 which was paid by the Red Cross to a bank account in Dublin and £10,000 to a bank account in Clones—represents the total amount paid to the Red Cross?

Can the Minister say what was paid to the Red Cross?

I have not got that information here.

108.

asked the Minister for Finance if, in view of the growing public disquiet at the disclosure of irregular expenditure of money voted by Dáil Éireann being applied for purposes other than those covered by the Vote of the Dáil, he will refer the matter for special investigation by the Committee of Public Accounts as a matter of urgency.

I assume that the Deputy is referring to moneys voted by the Dáil for Northern Ireland relief. I would refer him to my reply to Deputy Cooney's question on this subject.

May I now ask if the Minister or the Government, even after the Garda investigation, will be prepared to have a full inquiry into this scandal by the Committee of Public Accounts or a committee of this Dáil?

The question of what action, if any, should be taken can only be decided when the inquiries are completed. I think that is self-evident.

Surely the Minister will agree that it was sworn in the Four Courts that this money went to buy arms? Surely when that charge was made——

That is not accurate but I am not prepared to get into a discussion on that in the circumstances where Garda inquiries are pending. I am not prepared to comment any further except to repeat that any decision as to what action, if any, should be taken can only be taken rationally when the inquiries are completed.

Does the Minister agree that the type of inquiry sought here by Deputy Cosgrave is quite a different type of inquiry from the one which is at present in progress by the Garda Síochána, and for a different reason?

It could be but, as I say, it is not possible to make any rational decision as to what the correct course of action would be, if any action is called for, until a full inquiry has been made and all the facts that can be ascertained are brought to light.

Does the Minister agree that it is a normal function of the Committee of Public Accounts to make investigations into the use of money voted by this House? Does the Minister agree that is a normal function of that body?

It is of course.

Does the Minister not see a case for making this an urgent consideration of theirs?

Obviously, since the moneys were voted by this House, any investigation which the Committee of Public Accounts wish to carry out will be open to them in the normal way. Whether any other inquiry or steps should be taken is a matter that can only be decided when the present inquiries are completed.

Will the Minister say whether it is now open to the Committee of Public Accounts to set about this inquiry without further reference to him?

I cannot say that. I do not know what the procedures involved are.

The Minister has a fair idea.

The Minister states: "in the normal way". Would the Minister not be prepared, as this is of such importance, when the Committee of Public Accounts meet, to give them any other report he may have from the Garda authorities or from the Government to help them in their investigation?

I am not prepared to give any further undertaking in regard to this matter until the inquiries are completed. When that has happened a decision will be taken by the Government as to what is the appropriate action and the House will be so informed.

The Minister is not telling the House that because there is a Garda inquiry into this it is sub judice?

I have not said that.

That is the insinuation.

Is it not a fact that the investigation is a matter primarily for this House which voted the money, and not for the Government?

That is a matter for this House.

Top
Share