asked the Minister for Justice if any of the £100,000 reward proposed in the efforts to apprehend those involved with the Mountbatten killings has been paid out.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mountbatten Killings.
1.
I do not think that it would be in the public interest to say if reward money has been paid in particular cases. The Deputy will appreciate that if a precedent were established for givíng such information, a situation would inevitably arise sooner or later where there would be a disclosure of payment that would involve the effective identification of the recipient or recipients, and that in turn would result in their being put in serious jeopardy, all the more so because of the seriousness of the crimes in relation to which special rewards are liable to be offered. It would not be enough to refuse to give any information in a particular case where such a problem would arise as such a refusal, given the precedent that had been established in other cases, would be tantamount to an admission that money had in fact been paid. Furthermore, the risk of disclosure, if it existed—or, to put it another way, any doubt about the ability of the authorities to give an effective assurance of confidentiality—could result in people not responding who might otherwise do so. In those circumstances, I think it necessary to ask the Dáil to accept that this is not the sort of question that could be answered without the risk of serious repercussions in the future.
There were serious repercussions over another £100,000 and we did not get the answer to that either.
Despite the fairly tortured logic of the Minister's reply, does he accept that the money involved here is public money; that there is a right not to disclose any detail, or suggestion of detail, about to whom it was paid; whether or not some parts of it were paid; that that does not in any way create a precedent and that the Minister should judge each case on its merits?
Making these facts known would be a very dangerous precedent to create in the interests of the people or persons involved. The question of accountability for the money is not at issue and, should it ever come to be an issue, we can discuss it at that time.
Under what vote would this money be payable?
The Secret Service provisions are there.
The Secret Service provisions are very much smaller than £100,000 and obviously they would not be adequate for this purpose. When the Government introduced this they must have envisaged some other source.
In such a situation the moneys are available.
This is a parliament; no money is available that this Parliament does not vote under specific headings. It is for the Committee of Public Accounts to make sure it is not spent under any other headings, whichever £100,000 it may be. Therefore, I think the Minister is attempting to do something he cannot do. This £100,000, or any part of it, must be accounted for.
(Interruptions).
It is correct that the Secret Service fund could be used for the payment of rewards of this kind but the amount available in that fund is in no way compatible with this, so that that could not be the source of it. Under what heading would this money be paid? The Dáil is entitled to know that; it is a parliamentary assembly.
I would earnestly ask the Deputy not to pursue the matter having regard to the serious risks involved in such situations.
The Minister of State is talking poppycock. This money, if paid, would have to be paid from some fund open to this House and to the Public Accounts Committee. It is no good fooling people about that. Under what heading would that money be paid?
Would the Deputy like to put down a question about that; I think that would be the appropriate line.
I shall.
Arising out of the non-reply so far, may I ask whether or not the Minister will confirm or deny that there is at present an internal Garda inquiry going on into the question of the payment of this type of reward?
I will not make any comment and it is a separate question.
Does the Minister accept that this House is entitled to some information about the payment of public moneys in circumstances where it could be disbursed in a manner which would not be acceptable to many people in this House?
I do not accept the unwise approach the Deputy has taken in this particular, serious matter.
(Interruptions.)