Vol. 249 No. 14
asked the Minister for Finance whether he will give the text of the Government direction concerning the Northern Ireland Relief Fund and of any other document which lays down the purpose for which the sum of £100,000 voted by the Dáil was to be applied.
13.
asked the Minister for Finance what steps he proposes to take with respect to any contributions by members of the public, made on the proposal of his predecessor, to the Irish Red Cross Society which were subsequently paid into the account in the Munster and Leinster Bank, Baggot Street, Dublin, which had been opened as a result of a communication from the secretary of his predecessor to the manager of that bank and out of which sums were paid in respect of illegal arms purchases.
14.
asked the Minister for Finance whether he will state on whose authority his predecessor's secretary communicated with the manager of the Baggot Street branch, Dublin, of the Munster and Leinster Bank in respect of the opening of an account in three names.
With the permission of the Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 13 and 14 together.
On 18th November I was asked a number of Parliamentary Questions about the Northern Ireland Relief Expenditure (Grant-in-Aid) and various associated transactions. Replying to supplementary questions I expressed the view that Parliamentary questions and answers are not the appropriate way to inquire into transactions assoiated with the Grant-in-Aid. I added that the House would be given an opportunity soon to decide on a more appropriate form of inquiry.
There is a motion on the Order Paper—
That the Committee of Public Accounts shall examine specially the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief issued from Subhead J, Vote 16 (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969-70 and shall furnish a separate report on this expenditure as soon as possible.
If this motion is adopted the Committee of Public Accounts will be in a position to examine the various transactions connected with the Grant-in-Aid. While a detailed account is not, generally speaking, submitted to the committee in respect of expenditure from a Grant-in-Aid, my Department will, in this case, provide for the committee full details of the payments made, together with all other information available from its records or obtained from the gardaí.
The three questions addressed to me today about the Grant-in-Aid can be more appropriately examined in detail by the committee who will be able to have full regard to the circumstances relevant to each transaction.
Having regard to the foregoing, I trust that the Deputy who tabled these questions will accept that it is better that the information sought should, in so far as it is available, be provided as part of a comprehensive statement to the committee rather than by way of replies to Parliamentary questions.
The Deputy does not so accept. I want to be clear: the Minister is refusing to disclose any more information about this before the by-elections. It is to be kept hidden until afterwards. These questions are not to have a reply.
What does the Deputy mean they are not to have a reply? If the Deputy wants a reply, will he sit down?
Certainly.
Answer the question.
If the purpose of Deputy FitgGerald is to ascertain the truth and maintain the position of this House in relation to moneys voted by it——
Yes.
——he will, of course, be quite satisfied with the reply he has got. If, however, his purpose is simply to indulge in sensationalism and getting some particular benefit for his party in the forthcoming by-elections out of this matter, then he will take a different view of the matter, but it is not the view I take.
Do not be so superficial.
These questions are in order. That is accepted. They are normal questions and the Minister refuses to answer them before next Wednesday. May I ask what question No. 13 has to do with the £100,000 and why he is covering up on it? That question relates to statements on oath by witnesses in reply to questions by counsel that public contributions were directed into this fund and used for the purchase of arms. Why is the Minister refusing to answer that question? These funds were given to the Red Cross because the Minister for Finance at the time called on the people to give the money to the Red Cross in order to be assured that the money would not get into the wrong hands or be used for wrong purposes.
In order to get at the truth about these transactions it is necessary to see all of them in perspective. By taking single aspects one does not get the truth. Question No. 13 is, of course, involved in all the transactions relating to that Grant-in-Aid and a study of all the matters involved will reveal that that is so. However, I also want to point out that the attitude now being adopted by Deputy FitzGerald makes it quite clear—I am sure the public will note it—that his protestations with regard to this House, its authority and its control over expenditure voted by it, are an absolute sham and he is concerned only with trying to secure political capital. This is quite clear; he has demonstrated it himself.
Is that allegation in order?
Allegations are normal in this House.
In reply to questions?
It is a personal attack.
May I ask the Minister if he has had any intimation from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach as to when the motion on the Order Paper will be taken and, more particularly, in view of the public nature of the matter, whether the Committee of Public Accounts will also meet in public?
In regard to the first part of the question, I understand the position to be that under the Rules of the House four days must elapse before the motion can be taken——
I know that.
The Deputy did not know that.
If Deputy Desmond would allow me to finish my reply, I also understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach indicated to the other parties that he would be willing to take it if they would be willing to waive the notice to take it immediately. The Parliamentary Secretary did not get any such response from Fine Gael.
That was not the question I asked.
Maybe the Deputy does not like the reply but it is an answer to the question he asked.
Perhaps Deputy FitzGerald should join the Labour Party.
This matter has not arisen yet in formal discussions with the Whips.
So it was another untrue allegation.
Deputy FitzGerald is now accusing me and, by implication, the Parliamentary Secretary, of telling lies. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to say something on this matter as he has personal knowledge of it.
I think Deputy FitzGerald should withdraw the allegation. I have already discussed this matter with the Fine Gael Whip informally on a number of occasions and there has not been any information forthcoming from Fine Gael.
It was not discussed in the formal meetings we usually have regarding these matters. In informal discussions, yes, but not in formal discussion with the three Whips.
When will the Government move the motion?
We will move it as soon as we can. The only thing holding us up is that we have not, as yet, got any intimation from Fine Gael that they would be willing to let us do it.
No such request was made at a meeting of the Whips.
The Deputy may continue his efforts to try to get out of it, but the truth has been established that it was discussed with the Whip of his party.
I take it that Deputy Burke was speaking the truth. His statement has not been contradicted.
It was contradicted. I mentioned this matter to Deputy Burke on a number of occasions.
At a meeting of the Whips?
It is wrong that this matter should be brought up in this fashion in the House by the Deputy.
It is more of the Deputy's under-graduate stuff.
I am calling Question No. 11.
I want to get it clear that it is the Government's intention to refuse to answer questions——
We cannot have a debate on this. The Deputy may put a question.
Is it the position that there will not be any further public discussion until this matter is dealt with by the Committee of Public Accounts?
The position is quite clear, not only to this House, but it will be clear also to the public.
I am again calling Question No. 11.
Is the Minister in order in refusing to answer the question?
The Chair has no responsibility.
I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
The Deputy has damaged for all time the integrity of dealings between the Whips.
I am calling Question No. 11.
