asked the Taoiseach by whom the decision was taken to allow the m.v. Claudia to leave the jurisdiction approximately 12 hours after her arrest off Helvick Harbour, County Waterford.
2.
Ceisteann—Questions. Oral Answers. - Claudia Arrest.
1.
asked the Taoiseach the action taken by the Attorney General in relation to the m.v. Claudia before it left the jurisdiction.
3.
asked the Taoiseach if the reason given by the Minister for Defence in his reported remarks for the release of the m.v. Claudia namely, that the captain and crew were doing it for money, was the only reason for the release of the ship.
4.
asked the Taoiseach if the Attorney General or the Minister for Justice directed that the captain and crew of the m.v. Claudia should be thoroughly questioned to enable all the circumstances of that ship's voyage up to its arrest of Helvick Harbour, County Waterford, to be fully investigated; and, if not, why.
With your permission, Sir, I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4 together.
The decision to let the m.v. Claudia resume her voyage was taken by me. I had considered the facts reported to me as well as confidential reports which it would not be in the public interest for me to disclose.
The remark made by the Minister for Defence, as referred to in Question No. 3, related to the fact that no charges were preferred against the captain or crew of the vessel. That course was adopted after consideration of a number of factors including the confidential information which I have already mentioned. Quite properly, the Minister did not refer to my reasons for advising the adoption of that course.
The Attorney General had no function in relation to the boarding of the vessel or to letting her proceed on her course. It is not the practice nor is it necessary for the Attorney General or the Minister for Justice to give directions relating to the questioning of persons suspected of criminal offences or who can assist in the investigation of crimes. That is a matter for the Garda Síochána. I am satisfied that the gardaí carried out their duties in relation to the incident referred to in these questions in a competent and proper manner, as did the members of the Defence Forces and the staff of the Revenue Commissioners who were involved. I wish to take this opportunity to commend them all publicly.
I am somewhat at a disadvantage because I could not hear everything the Taoiseach said. Is he aware that the five tons of arms found on the Claudia were only a small fraction of the arms that were on that ship and which in fact, were landed in this country?
There is no proof whatever that any arms were landed. That is an assertion by the Deputy.
I have information that is correct beyond any question.
Perhaps the Deputy would give that information to the Garda.
I think the Garda are well aware of that fact. It is well known. Is the Taoiseach aware that the five tons are only a small fraction of the arms that were landed in the country? The Government made a monumental blunder in this matter and the reason the ship was released was to cover up this fact because it would become even more apparent if the captain and crew, who were perfectly well aware of what they were doing, were detained.
There is no information whatever to support the Deputy's assertion; in fact, the contrary is the case. If the Deputy has some information that is not available he has an obligation to disclose it. As a former Minister, he knows that allegations of this sort, entirely unfounded, reflect on everyone concerned. What he has stated is not the case.
Will the Taoiseach state why such an extensive search was carried out on one of the Saltee Islands within the past ten days, it being the island beside which the Claudia anchored on the night before it was arrested?
The Deputy is bringing in some new matter.
The Deputy is being very energetic in Opposition.
It is a separate question.
I take it the Taoiseach does not want to answer that question? I think that is very significant. The Garda are as aware as I am——
If the Deputy wants a reply to a specific matter I shall endeavour to get the information. There is no suggestion whatever, on the basis of the information available to me, that any arms other than those captured were landed from this ship.
Would the Taoiseach state if the widespread search of one of the Saltee Islands had any connection with the Claudia?
Not that I am aware of.
Would the Taoiseach state the purpose of the search of one of the Saltee Islands?
The Deputy is aware that the Garda and the Army authorities made extensive efforts to locate what it was suggested had been dumped. So far all the investigations have proved nugatory and that is why I am interested in the assertion by Deputy O'Malley that he has information. If he has this information there is an obligation on him to give it to the Garda.
Is it not true that immediately after the Claudia was released a search of the sea in the immediate area was undertaken, osten sibly for the purpose of finding arms that may have been dumped over the side of the Claudia? If that is so, why were the captain and the crew not detained at least for questioning?
As I have said, for security reasons I am not prepared to disclose the reasons. The answer still stands. The Garda and the military authorities carried out a search because of their suspicions that arms had been dumped, but without any results which would indicate that arms had been dumped.
Would it not be a reasonable consequence of that suspicion that those who may have been able to confirm or deny that suspicion should have been questioned and a reasonable opportunity should have been presented to the Garda and Army authorities for such questioning instead of releasing people who might have been in a position to give information?
The Garda and Army authorities discharged completely the obligations on them in this matter.
We must pass on from this matter. I think it has been ventilated pretty fully and I am sure Members will agree——
No, Sir, I had four questions addressed to the Taoiseach. It is a very complicated matter.
This must be the Deputy's last question on the matter.
Has the Taoiseach seen the statements made to the press in Hamburg by the owner and captain of the ship to the effect that approximately 100 tons of arms were loaded on the ship at Libya and that when they got near the Irish coast most of the arms were taken off?
Did the Deputy see them put on the ship?
I am not responsible for any statements made. The fact is that all the arms on the ship were impounded by the Garda; in addition, the persons involved were apprehended and have since been convicted.
Not all the persons involved were apprehended. If the cargo that was on this ship had been fish and was illegally caught, would the ship not have been impounded and not released until the case against the captain was over? Why should this situation be different?
I am not prepared to answer hypothetical questions. The fact is that all the arms located on the ship were seized and the persons involved were convicted by the courts. So far as that is concerned, the Deputy is well aware that it contrasts very markedly with the events in which the Deputy's Government were involved.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The Chair has been very patient in allowing a considerable number of questions. The Chair must bring this matter to a close.
With respect to the Chair, after the second supplementary the Chair sought to stop the supplementaries. There have been questions put down——
That is not so. I allowed at least six supplementaries——
Questions were put down on successive weeks and attempts have been made to debate this matter on sucessive weeks. Now it appears we are being limited to five or six minutes——
The matter was sub judice.
The Taoiseach indicated that the operation was carried out by the Garda and the Army authorities within their discretion and that they acted according to that discretion. Is the Taoiseach not aware from the statement at a press conference by the Minister for Defence that he was personally involved in the surveillance and arrest of this ship and therefore is it not reasonable to assume that any actions taken by the Garda and the Army were taken under his direction?
I am aware of all the circumstances and what I said is that I am not prepared in the public interest, for security reasons, to disclose anything other than the reply I have given which covers every aspect of the matter.
Mr. Kitt
Could we find out on whose authority the captain and crew of the Claudia were let go?
If only the Deputy had been as constructive in Government as he is now destructive in Opposition. His party were prepared to play ducks and drakes with security.
That is why they are over there.
Deputy Briscoe to take up the final supplementary question.
These questions are being put in a constructive way and we do not deserve this clack from the opposite side.
Are you sorry the boat was caught, Jack?
No, it is bags of guns we want.
(Interruptions.)
Order, Deputy Briscoe to put the last question on this matter.
Do the Government have any commitment to the maintenance of national law and order? In other words, the Claudia, which was committing an offence under international law, was allowed to go. Does the Taoiseach say his Government lent themselves to this lack of commitment to international law?
We abide by all the requirements of international law.
I am calling Question No. 5. I have given a quarter hour to these questions. We cannot have a debate on this matter.
As Deputy O'Malley pointed out——
I have pointed out that we cannot have a debate on this matter.
——the Taoiseach's original reply was very difficult to hear and I should like to ask the Taoiseach if he would read again the portion of the reply relating to Question No. 4.
Not at this stage.
It is a pity the Taoiseach did not let us hear his reply.
The Deputy appears to be disappointed that we got the arms.
(Interruptions.)
Order. Question No. 5 has been called.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Taoiseach's reply I wish to give notice that I intend to raise the subject matter of these questions on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy.