asked the Minister for Finance if any payments were made from the Northern Ireland Relief Fund between its setting up in August, 1969, and 9th October, 1969; if so, the amount and date of each payment; whether the payments were made to persons or bodies without or within the jurisdiction of the Dáil; and, if the latter, the name and address of such person or body; and if he will give similar information regarding payments from the fund after 9th October, 1969, to persons or bodies other than the Irish Red Cross Society.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Relief Fund.
20.
Other than payments to the Irish Red Cross Society, the following payments were made from the Northern Ireland Relief Expenditure (Grant-in-Aid) Fund during the period August, 1969, to 31st March, 1970:—
|
20/8/'69 |
£1,000 |
|
20/8/'69 |
£5,000 |
|
26/8/'69 |
£500 |
|
26/8/'69 |
£500 |
|
—/9/'69 |
£166 12s |
|
7/10/'69 |
£1,000 |
|
29/1/'70 |
£1,000 |
All of these payments were made to persons or bodies outside the jurisdiction of this State with the exception of the payment of £166 12s which was in respect of air fares for a number of people who, I am informed, travelled to London at the request of my predecessor to co-ordinate relief for Northern Ireland among Irish bodies and associations in that city.
In addition three payments, totalling £1,100, were made to the Director of Intelligence of the Defence Forces. These payments were made as follows: £100 on 9th September, 1969; £500 on 3rd October, 1969, and £500 on 15th October, 1969.
Who authorised the payment to the Director of Intelligence?
As far as I know, they were payments made with the authority of the Minister for Finance.
Were they made out of the Northern Ireland Relief Fund?
Yes. These payments I have mentioned were all made on the Grand-in-Aid fund.
Is there any record in the Minister's Department that the Director of Intelligence entered to what use he put these moneys?
I am not certain there is such a record in the Department.
Would the Minister seek for such a record and give the information to the House?
I would remind the Deputy that, from what has been said previously in regard to this matter, it should be clear that all the facts available in regard to this fund will be made available to the House and the House will decide what procedure it wishes to follow in regard to it.
How far advanced is the inquiry and when is it expected to be concluded?
That is a matter for the Minister for Justice. A day or two ago, he indicated it would be a matter of some weeks, as far as I recall.
(Cavan): What exactly does the Minister mean by saying that, as far as he knows, certain payments were made to the Director of Intelligence on the authority of the Minister for Finance? Surely the Minister replying is the Minister for Finance and it should be within his knowledge whether, in fact, these payments were made with the approval of the Minister for Finance?
I do not anticipate that this matter will be one of contention but it is conceivable that it might be. If so, I do not wish to prejudge the issue.
(Cavan): Does that simply mean that the Minister is playing safe?
The Deputy could put it that way if he wishes. There is another way of putting it.
Was it made personally to the Director or to his agent?
As far as I know — personally to the Director.
Therefore, the cheque could be cashed only as Director?
Yes.
21.
asked the Minister for Finance what Ministers requested payments of sums from the Northern Relief Fund; the dates and amounts of such requests; the dates and amounts of the sums so transferred; the purpose to which these sums were put; and whether these transfers were directly from the fund under the control of the Department of Finance or from the account in Clones or Baggot Street to which funds were transferred by the Department of Finance via the Irish Red Cross Society.
No payment was made to any Minister from the Northern Ireland Relief Expenditure (Grant-in-Aid) Fund.
A recommendation was made by one Minister for relief to be sent to two areas in Northern Ireland. This was done by sending money for the relief of distress direct to responsible persons in the areas involved from the Northern Ireland Relief Fund.
The dates and amounts are as follows:—
|
20/8/1969 |
£1,000 |
|
26/8/1969 |
£500 |
|
26/8/1969 |
£500 |
|
29/1/1970 |
£1,000 |
Would the Minister state (1) which Minister made this recommendation and (2) could he explain the discrepancy in the evidence given on oath by the official in his Department that more than one Minister requested — not recommended— amounts to be issued through this fund and that these Ministers did not include the Minister for Defence?
In regard to the first part of the Deputy's supplementary, the Minister concerned was the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
So we suspected.
In regard to the second part of the supplementary, I think the Deputy is under a misapprehension due to the fact that the evidence given at the trial on this point was not fully reported in the Press. As far as I understand the position, it was that the witness in question, Mr. Fagan, indicated in court that, in addition to requests from Captain Kelly, requests for moneys came from other sources. The question which was put to him by counsel was if these requests included requests from Ministers on behalf of various people for various purposes, and Mr. Fagan replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Fagan said in evidence on oath that there were requests from Ministers, in the plural.
I think that is what came out in the reports.
I realise the newspaper reports may have been incomplete but when asked whether the requests came from Ministers, Mr. Fagan replied "Yes". I want to know who were the Ministers. The name of one Minister has been disclosed. Is the Minister suggesting that the official in question gave wrong evidence?
No. My inquiries indicate that the only request that came in the category with which the Deputy is concerned was from one Minister, the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and the reply which was given in court by Mr. Fagan was referring to that situation and not referring to Ministers, plural. Not having been in court, I cannot say precisely what was said.
This is a matter of some importance. Would the Minister read out again what he read out as the question to which Mr. Fagan replied "Yes"?
That was the question put by counsel——
And the answer was "Yes" on oath — yes, simpliciter.
The Deputy is indicating a meaning he takes from simpliciter. There is enough confusion about this without confusing it further on terms. As far as I am aware, not having been in court, the position is that a request was made by one Minister and by no other Minister and that this was indicated in court by Mr. Fagan.
The Minister has made two contradictory statements. He has read out what he says was said in court. It should be read out again. "Did Ministers request money", and the answer was "Yes", on oath. The Minister then says he understands that what Mr. Fagan said referred to a Minister.
Is the Minister suggesting Mr. Fagan was wrong?
I am not. Could I suggest to Deputies that before they go making allegations about people in this House——
The Minister is making allegations.
Will the Deputy listen to what I have to say? Before Deputies make allegations about people not in this House to defend themselves that such people have not told the truth on oath——
We made no such allegations.
Deputy FitzGerald has made that allegation. I am suggesting that before he makes such allegations he should make sure of what was said in court. I have been able to tell the Deputy only what I understand to have taken place in the court, because I was not there. There may be a verbatim record of it and in the absence of that it is unfair, as the Deputy has suggested, to say that the evidence given by the witness——
I want to know——
Question No. 22
How dare the Minister come in here and give his account and then accuse us of making allegations? He has said the report in the newspapers was incorrect and he has purported to quote what was said. Then he accuses us——
If the Deputy will look back on the records of this House of what was said here in questions and answers he will find that I am correct in saying that he made——
Has the Minister seen the verbatim report?
No.
We cannot have this cross-examination.
That is what Question Time is for.
I have such evidence as is available to me in my Department.
Not from the newspapers, not from the verbatim report.
From my Department.
From whom in the Department?
That is not a matter on which I am prepared to give a reply— as to which officer in my Department was consulted by me about any aspect of the work of the Department.
The Minister first challenges the Press report as having been incorrect, he then tells us what he says he understands Mr. Fagan's reply to be on oath, and then he accuses us of saying that the word "Ministers" was used.
May I point out again that I have not denied the use of the word "Ministers". What I have said, and I repeat it, and I think the Deputy will find it if he checks the record of these questions and answers, the records of this House, about what was said — would the Deputy listen before he hurls further allegations?
Questions.
He will find that he made the allegation that the witness in question did not tell the truth.
No, no.
Check the records and you will find it.
We cannot continue with this. Question No. 22.
I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment in view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply.
The Minister might hang himself but he will not hang Mr. Fagan on top of it.
Scandalous. This is a shocking business. An allegation was made over there against the witness. I tried to defend him. It is a downright disgrace.
The Minister would hang his own civil servants.
We will check the records before the Adjournment debate.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.