andMr. Keating asked the Minister for Justice the Vote from which it was proposed to pay the £100,000 reward offered in the efforts to apprehend those involved with the Mountbatten murders.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mountbatten Murders Reward.
10.
Dr. FitzGerald, Mr. P. Barry
The question of what particular Vote such money would be paid from was not gone into when the decision was made. The Government's concern at the time was to make people aware that a sum of £100,000 would be available, if necessary, to pay for information. However, since it is obviously open to the Deputies to ask if any decision as to the source of payment was made by anybody at any later date, I propose to deal with that point.
First, however, in view of some apparently persisting misunderstandings concerning the offer, I should like to make a few points clear. There was not at any time a reward fund of £100,000, or of any other sum, in existence for this purpose and suggestions that I refused to say what happened to a reward fund are totally misconceived. No question of accountability arises from the making of an offer that money would be made available if the need arose. Accountability arises in respect of, but only in respect of, voted moneys.
In the course of a reply given on my behalf of 21 May 1980, I explained to the Dáil that information of a certain kind could not be given without jeopardising the prospects of offering rewards in the future. I did not say that it would not be given but that, if it were given, certain consequences would follow. The reasons I gave were dismissed as "tortured logic" by an Opposition spokesman who suggested that I could deal with each case on its merits. That, however, is precisely what I could not do. I repeat the reasons briefly, because they can involve matters of life and death. Disclosure that a reward was paid can be made directly or, with equal certainty, indirectly. If I were to say in some cases that no reward was paid and, having established that pattern, if I were then in another case to refuse to make a statement, the change in the pattern of answering would itself confirm that reward money was paid in that case.
It has been suggested that disclosure that a reward was paid does not involve disclosure of the name of the recipient. In fact it would be quite likely to do so. More specifically, it would be likely to involve a high risk of disclosure, not to the public at large but—what is more to the point—to some organisation or group who would know that, if the Garda had got information at all, the source must have been such-and-such a person. The consequences of that need no elaboration, and that is the reality that has to be taken into account and that cannot be brushed aside for a life could depend on it.
Having said that, I also am fully aware of the fact that, apart from the Secret Service Vote, moneys voted by this House are subject to accountability. Of course, the institutional arrangements for accountability are through the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee and not at Question Time, but I do not wish to take any stand on that.
Accordingly if, despite what was said on the last occasion and today, it is the considered view of spokesmen for either of the opposite parties that I should say whether, pursuant to the offer made in this case, reward money, whether of £100,000 or any lesser sum, has been paid from any Vote apart from the Secret Service Vote—and it is obvious that the full sum of £100,000, whatever about some lesser sum, could not have been paid from the Secret Service Vote—then I am prepared to answer.
However, I shall do so on the clear understanding that as far as I am concerned a situation will then have been created in which any future governmental or ministerial offer of a substantial reward would, in all honesty, have to be supplemented by a specific warning that, if the reward were paid, that fact would be likely to become known to the guilty party and his associates, and could lead to the source of the information being identifiable, at least to their own satisfaction, by the people responsible for the crime, and that anybody accepting the reward would have to take the risks involved. That, in my view, is as good as saying that we might as well abandon any idea of such an offer in the future. I am sure the nation would survive such a situation, but offers of rewards have at times in the past apparently been beneficial. I recognise that, in principle, there is a possibility of misuse of public funds if there is not public disclosure, and there is no easy answer.
I am therefore in the hands of the parties opposite. I do not wish to be unfair in this matter and it might be later alleged that Deputies were taken unawares and had not been given time to assess the implications properly.
That is a disgraceful answer. The Minister is the Minister responsible and he should answer to the House.
Would the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party please allow me the courtesy of giving the answer to the question?
He did not open his mouth. He is not here.
I am sorry, the Deputy Leader of the Fine Gael Party.
The Minister to conclude.
Accordingly may I summarise by saying that, as I understand it, they have three options. One is to let the matter rest on the basis of what I have said and if necessary on the understanding that there might be some discussion between the parties as to how it might be possible to deal with the conflicting pressures that arise where there is a need both for confidentiality and accountability. The second option is to ask me here and now for further information relating to any payment from a Vote other than the Secret Service Vote. If I am so asked I shall regret it because of the consequences I have outlined but I shall feel obliged to answer. The third option is to take time to consider the situation and, if they think it appropriate, to put the question later. While it would, of course, be a matter for the Ceann Comhairle to decide, I think that such a question would be admissible as a separate question that would not contravene the six months rule.
This "hit me with the baby in my arms" answer is not acceptable to the House. There is a procedure for funds to be accounted for to the House. I should like to know what the Minister means by the alternatives he is putting. Is he suggesting that in some way we should collaborate, without the knowledge of the country, in not identifying a sum of money under some other Vote when it comes before the Committee of Public Accounts? As things stand at present with our procedures if money is——
A supplementary, please.
——to be paid by way of reward from a source other than the Secret Service fund, as the Minister said, that would have to come out in the accounts unless the Minister is proposing to suppress it——
The Deputy is making a statement.
——contrary to the rules of public accounts and the Constitution. What is the Minister proposing?
I have given three options to the Deputy.
Constitutional options.
I have given the Leader of Fine Gael the three options which I believe I could give him. I have also given the consequences. I recognise the necessity for accountability but I also would request that the necessity for confidentiality be appreciated. If the Deputy, having clearly heard what I said, wants to ask me straight out here and now—I will go back on it again: the three options are, one is to let the matter rest on the basis of what I have said and if necessary on the understanding that there might be some discussion between the parties as to how it might be possible to deal with the conflicting pressures that arise where there is need both for confidentiality and accountability; the second is to ask me here and now for further information relating to any payment from a Vote other than the Secret Service Vote and, if I am asked, I would regret it because of the consequences which I clearly outlined but I would feel obliged to answer; the third is to take time to consider the situation and, if they think appropriate, at a later stage I will gladly be prepared to answer another question on the matter.
That is exactly a repetition of what the Minister said.
That is exactly the position.
Had we not raised this matter at all——
A supplementary please, Deputy.
——or were we not to take the matter further the sum of money paid would have to come out in disclosure in the public accounts. The Minister knows that and is trying in some way to put the blame for the public accounts system and what it would disclose on the Opposition.
The Deputy must ask a supplementary. It is Question Time.
The Deputy is aware that the Secret Service Vote and details of how these moneys are spent are not, and have not, been given.
The sum is too small for this purpose.
In the past, when offers of rewards were made and information was given to the police which helped them do their job and, when moneys were paid, the moneys were paid out of the Secret Service Vote. I should like to tell the Deputy that this is not a new practice; it is a practice that has been in operation since the foundation of the State.
Why change the practice?
Perhaps there was good reason why this precedent was there. If the Deputy wishes to break this precedent let him do so.
Nobody is suggesting breaking that precedent. The Minister suggests that there is a second option, that we ask him if the money has come from some other vote and that by so asking, and he replies, somebody's life could be put in danger. That can have only one implication, that some money has been paid from another vote but that if we stay quiet the Minister will suppress this in an unconstitutional manner.
The Deputy will have to ask a supplemetary question.
Deputy FitzGerald is being grossly unfair to himself because I believe he misunderstands the situation. Perhaps the third option is the one that should be considered at this stage by him, to wait until such time as he analyses what is in my reply and come back to me again on this. I honestly believe the Deputy has misunderstood my reply. In fairness to the Deputy I should like to state that I appreciate fully what is involved as much as the Deputy does. I am not trying to wrong-foot the Deputy in any way. I am anxious to convey to the Deputy that he would be wrong if he read into what I have said that money has already been paid under another heading. He cannot assume that.
This arose from a question about a month ago in which we asked the Minister who was standing in for the Minister for Justice under what vote the £100,000 reward promised by the Government last year after the Mountbatten killings would be paid.
Surely the Deputy appreciates that one does not have to designate under what vote moneys will be paid, particularly moneys that were just an offer, as in this case. The procedures for the payment of this money were not made at the time.
I am not asking the Minister who got the money or how much of the £100,000 was paid but surely, as Deputy FitzGerald stated and the Minister agreed, eventually that money will have to be accounted for before the Committee of Public Accounts? If it comes from a source other than the Secret Service Vote it will have to be accounted for.
If the moneys were paid from any vote other than the Secret Service Vote then, naturally, they would be open to scrutiny by the Committee of Public Accounts. That is something we all understand, but the Deputy must also be aware that moneys paid under the Secret Service Vote are not gone into by the Public Accounts Committee.
I want to be sure I understand this matter. Does this problem, or a large part of it, not arise because the Secret Service Vote is a separate heading in the Estimates and the sum, which is usually a relatively small sum, is public property?
It is £33,000.
That is part of the problem.
Is it not correct to state that the only reason we have a separate Secret Service Vote in which this sum is public property is that the British do it, like everything else in the country.
That is a separate question.
That is the reason. Are there not other democracies in Europe? We should consider seeing how they run their affairs. Day in and day out we get this type of answer.
That is a separate question. This is Question Time and I do not give two hoots what the British do.
In view of the fact that the sum allocated to the Secret Service Vote is substantially less than £100,000 I should like to know how £100,000 could be paid as a reward for information given unless it was allocated under a different heading which would emerge either through the Committee of Public Accounts or through the scrutiny of the Auditor General? Otherwise, the Secret Service Vote would have to be substantially increased and then it would become——
The Deputy should ask a supplementary question.
There is less time spent on supplementaries than is wasted on interruptions.
The Chair must endeavour to keep Question Time moving. This is not a time for debate.
I should like to ask the Minister how this amount could be concealed in those circumstances even if it was paid out under the Secret Service Vote?
The difficulties the Deputy sees are real and present. They are the difficulties I was referring to. An offer of up to £100,000 was made for information but a situation could arise whereby moneys less than £100,000 would be paid for information. The full reward might not be paid. We would be acting on the advice of the Garda Commissioner who would put a value on the information given. It is possible that a situation could exist whereby moneys paid for information could be contained within the present Secret Service Vote. I accept that there are serious difficulties.
As far as I am aware the full amount allocated to the Secret Service Vote is £15,000.
It is £35,000.
That is substantially less than the £100,000. If only half of the reward was paid it would be necessary to increase the allocation to the Secret Service Vote and by virtue of that alone it would become known to organisations such as those referred to by the Minister that money had been paid out by way of reward. The real logic of the Minister's position, as he outlined it, is that the Government were totally irresponsible in initially offering a reward.
That is precisely the point.
The Deputy is making a statement.
I do not accept what Deputy Cluskey said.
That is the logic of the Minister's argument.
If I am interpreting the Minister's reply correctly he is trying to establish for us the principle of the Opposition having the right to know, if they wish to push this question. Am I interpreting him correctly?
I have given the options, two of which I have repeated. The other is that if I am asked now a straight question I will give a straight answer but I feel I have a definite responsibility to explain what I believe the consequences of giving that information would be.
This answer now is a lot more fulsome and helpful in some respects but why was it not given some weeks ago when the question was asked first?
I would have to look at the two questions to compare them. I do not know if they are the same. Is the Deputy complaining that I am giving too much information?
This could all have been avoided if we had been given the answers we have been given today four weeks ago.
We must move on to the next question; we cannot spend all day on the one topic.
I am honestly and sincerely trying to be as helpful as possible. I am not trying to wrong-foot Deputies FitzGerald or Barry in any way. I am prepared to let them analyse what I have said and the consequences and I am prepared to discuss with them in the House any of the options I mentioned.
The Minister's kindly old granny voice is very disarming.
All the better to eat you my dear.
He has succeeded as far as I am concerned.
There is no doubt that there is a genuine problem which is lurking somewhere under that mass of words the Minister produced and we sympathise with it but I should like to ask the Minister if he would get his officials to consult other small friendly countries, like Holland and Denmark, which are not noted for brutal or disgraceful police procedures, to see how they run their affairs in this connection. We should not be finding ourselves daily shackled by the remains of what the English do, of which this is only the most recent example. This all arises because we have a system of producing in our Estimates——
Deputy Kelly has been given information.
I do not believe that is done in every other EEC country.
My interpretation of what Deputy Kelly has said is that in other countries the Secret Service Vote is not published at all.
What I am saying is that I do know that the British have the same system as we have and the reason we have it is because they have it. I want the Minister to see whether there is some better way of doing it and I am not asking him to go to the Soviet Union to find a better way. What about Norway and the countries we are supposed to trust?
In reply to Deputy Kelly, I certainly would be only too willing—and I hope I do not sound old grannyish in this——
It is the Minister's biggest asset.
I thank the Deputy very much.
It is the Minister's only asset.
Everybody is conditioned against being rude to his granny.
I would be prepared to make inquiries in other European states in regard to how they manage a situation such as this. No matter who the Minister for Justice may be I would certainly have a certain amount of sympathy for him if he found himself in a position like this.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is trying to get off the hook.
The Minister knew he could not pay.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister not agree that this is a straightforward question which he has complicated, in a little Red Riding Hood fashion, by his answer.
I do not think Deputy Harte was here for my full reply.
I was here for the Minister's full reply.
Then I apologise.
I am not willing to take the chance that what the Minister says is correct, that I might do some damage if I pursue that. But this us very unsatisfactory. The Minister is deliberately trying to throw a number of words into complicating the whole issue far beyond what is necessary.
I have given three options to the Deputy.
The Minister is putting the onus on us to us to do this job.