I move:
Recognising its responsibility as the primary democratic forum of this State, Dáil Éireann notes the allegations made in Magill Magazine, in relation to present and former members of the Government, and seeks clarification of the matters raised by these allegations.
This debate relates to fresh matters, and only to fresh matters, that have been raised during the past six months with regard to the events of May 1970. Those events involved an attempted arms importation with the alleged complicity of Government Ministers, the dismissal of several Cabinet members and the resignation of others.
The issues now raised involve, first of all, the honour and credibility of Members of this House, Ministers of the present Government and former Fianna Fáil Ministers — and thus of the House itself. They are issues that cannot be dismissed lightly when the people involved are active in public life. Second, the strains deriving from these fresh allegations are widely known to be affecting the capacity of this Government to act coherently, as a team. I shall give four examples.
The effects of the divisions that date back to 1970 can be seen from the fact that it has been reported without contradiction during the past ten days that the leader of the Government, as a major protagonist in the events of 1970, is not permitted by his second-in-command, the Tánaiste, to choose his own security Ministers but that the Tánaiste holds a right of veto over these appointments in the public interest. Ordinary citizens are worried by such reports of mutual distrust and many have expressed this worry to me.
These effects can also be seen from the fact that the aftermath of 1970 still has an evident and profound effect on the Government's Northern policy, for it blocks off the option of a political opening towards the Northern majority. The Taoiseach is thus forced, because of the way he knows he is regarded by the Northern majority following the events of 1970, to pursue a policy based exclusively on dependence upon British goodwill. This policy is patently unwise for any Irish Government.
Moreover, the doubts and questions raised by this affair are reflected in the difficulties and dangers that could arise again in the event of an outburst of large-scale violence in Northern Ireland. The questions now being raised serve to remind us of the uncertain and ambivalent way in which a Fianna Fáil Government reacted to the situation in 1969-70. This must raise questions as to how the present divided Government would react, and with what degree of cohesion and good judgment, to a similar situation in Northern Ireland should it arise again — with the respective roles of Taoiseach and Ministers perhaps reversed.
Nor are the effects of these internal divisions relevant only to the Northern issue. They are reflected in the lack of unity with which the Government are facing the economic crisis. On the one hand, we hear speeches by the Tánaiste ruling out future borrowing on the basis of putative oil reserves, and by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism in the no confidence debate, on the need to face reality. On the other hand, there is the tone of complacency and optimism so unconvincingly struck by the Taoiseach in the same no confidence debate and since. These opposing approaches to our situation betoken a deep division on economic policy, reflecting, one must note, the 1970-based divisions within the Cabinet, which arise for discussion in this debate. They endanger the coherence of the Government's whole economic policy in the face of a grave financial and employment crisis.
These are all considerations vital not only to this House but to the nation. They justify — indeed demand — a debate on the new allegations recently made concerning the events of 1970 that caused these divisions. I am aware, of course, that a contrary view exists and that, if we in Opposition had chosen the easy way out by ignoring this issue in this House, many people might, especially in the current atmosphere of the country, have been happy to see the matter let slide. But the day when such a consideration is put first by an Opposition, ahead of the interests of our democratic parliamentary system, is the day when we shall really need to start worrying about our future.
Before listing the fresh issues that have been raised I want to make some remarks about the character of the fresh allegations that have been made and remain to be answered. To enable those concerned to be clear as to the issues in respect of which we shall be seeking clarification on behalf of this House and the electorate, I have circulated to those to whom I am directing questions in this debate a copy of this speech. These allegations consist in part of statements made by the author of the Magill articles on the basis, apparently, of interviews with persons who had been involved in this affair, though without the authority being given in a number of cases for the actual sources of these allegations. Further allegations are based on the Berry Papers, prepared by Mr. Peter Berry, who had been Secretary of the Department of Justice. In relation to these papers the following points must be made in fairness to those referred to in them.
First, what is published is incomplete. We know from the published data of several omissions, one of them in relation to a discussion between the present Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy O'Malley — then Minister for Justice — and Mr. Berry. This followed the Minister's meeting with the present Taoiseach, at that time awaiting trial. There may be other omissions of which we are not aware and which could be significant.
Second, the documents published are not in fact diaries, and are not presented as such, but represent an account, reconstructed about four or five years after the events in question, apparently from papers and notes kept by Mr. Berry, which may in some instances — though we do not know this — have been backed by contemporary record. They are self-evidently not themselves a contemporary record of events.
Having said that much about the sources of the allegations in the Berry Papers or elsewhere in the Magill articles, those against whom these allegations have been made owe it to themselves and to this House to rebut any allegations that may be false, even though the allegations made cannot be regarded as compelling evidence, save where they may be corroborated by other witnesses — and people can and will draw their own conclusions if and when no such rebuttals are forthcoming.
Mention of the Committee of Public Accounts necessitates, I believe, one further point of clarification before proceeding to list the fresh issues raised by these articles. I refer to an allegation, in an article about the Berry Papers in the July issue of Magill, that in the course of his consultation with the Committee of Public Accounts in 1971 Peter Berry told the Committee that he had “revealed that he had information of the arms plot to the Taoiseach on October 17th 1969”. There is no record of this consultation by the Committee with Mr. Berry, for it was an informal consultation; Mr. Berry did not gave evidence to the Committee. I can only state that I have no recollection of Mr. Berry stating this to us and that others present on that occasion whom I have consulted have no such recollection. It is possible that Mr. Berry may have intended when he arrived to inform the Committee of this recollection of his interview with the then Taoiseach on 17 October, but that he failed to do so, and in recording his recollections some years later, may have written down what he had intended to say rather than what he actually said.
I turn now to the fresh questions that have been raised by these articles and to which this House and the country seek answers. In relation to Deputy Lynch, the following matters arise: First, referring back to similar statements made in earlier debates, Deputy Lynch told this House on 14 May 1970 that "the first evidence I had of illegal or unauthorised importation of arms was on Monday, 20th April 1970".
Mr. Berry on the other hand asserted that he told the then Taoiseach on the previous 17 October 1969 "of Captain Kelly's prominent part in the Bailieboro meeting with known members of the IRA ... and of the sum of money — £50,000 — that would be made available for the purchase of arms", and that they exchanged conjectures as to where this money might come from, several prominent members of Taca being mentioned. Mr. Berry also stated that on 13 April he was called by the then Taoiseach to Government Buildings and, there mentioned inter alia, “the participation of Ministers in supplying arms to the IRA”.
In respect of the first alleged conversation that is said to have taken place at the hospital on 17 October 1969, apparent corroboration is supplied by a reply by Colonel Hefferon to questions put to him by the Committee of Public Accounts. Colonel Hefferon replied to Question 7891 "It was some time, and I am not clear specifically on the date — it could be November — Mr. Gibbons, my Minister, asked me to see him and told me that the Taoiseach had had a report from Mr. Berry that Captain Kelly had attended a meeting in Bailieboro, or had attended a meeting in Cavan, I do not think he was specific about the place — at which there were IRA people present, that he had there waved a wad of notes about, promising money to them". There are further confirmatory references by Colonel Hefferon in reply to Questions 8593 and 8596. In his reply to Questions 11163, however, Deputy Gibbons gave a different version of these events, alleging that Colonel Hefferon had told him about Mr. Berry's complaints. It is alleged in Magill, however, that Colonel Hefferon has backed up his account of the matter by a reference to Deputy Gibbons having told him that when the Taoiseach saw Mr. Berry he, Mr. Berry, was in hospital. Perhaps Deputy Gibbons, as well as Deputy Lynch, can offer further clarification of this point.
The second issue that arises in regard to Deputy Lynch is that Magill reports that Mr. Ó Moráin, then Minister for Justice, claimed to have kept Deputy Lynch as Taoiseach fully informed about everything he became aware of in relation to the arms plot and related activities during the winter of 1969-70. In particular he stated that, after being told by the Commissioner and the Head of the Special Branch on 10 December 1969 about the involvement of the present Taoiseach, and Deputy Blaney, in a plot to import arms, he reported this to Deputy Lynch. Magill reports that Deputy Lynch told them that he had “specific proof” to refute these claims by Mr. Ó Moráin. Did Deputy Lynch make such a statement to Magill, and if so will he now furnish this House with the “specific proof”?
The third point that arises in regard to Deputy Lynch is that Deputy Gibbons stated on a radio interview on 27 July last: "I did pass on the information to the Taoiseach at that time in 1969 that there was questionable activity on the part of certain members of the Government. ... That was in October, November, 1969. I would not be able to fix it accurately but certainly it was before Christmas 1969." Deputy Gibbons added that while these reports did not refer to the import of arms — unlike Mr. Ó Moráin's alleged reports — they spoke of "contacts and meetings between members of the Government and people liable to be suspected of subversive activities". Can Deputy Lynch confirm Deputy Gibbon's allegation, and if so can he indicate why he took no action about these reports until late April 1970?
The fourth point that arises from these fresh allegations is what happened at the meeting of Ministers — I do not say of the Government — on 1 May 1970, when according to Magill several of those present claim that the then Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, said that allegations of ministerial involvement having been denied, the matter was now closed, despite his having allegedly asked for Deputy Blaney's resignation two days earlier. Can Deputy Lynch confirm that he told Magill that what he said at that meeting was that this matter was closed for now as there was no action he could take just then as the Ministers had denied their involvement, and if so did he intend to convey by that statement that he had indicated to the meeting an intention to pursue the matter further and that it was not closed.
I recognise that the details of these four points are complex and may be somewhat difficult to follow for people not already familiar with this matter, but it is necessary that the allegations be set out in full and the authority given for each if the person against whom they are being made is to have an adequate opportunity of answering them.
I now turn to Deputy Gibbons. Deputy Gibbons in his radio interview on 27 July last accepted that there was a "glaring conflict" between his evidence and the present Taoiseach's evidence at the trial. He claimed that when they both returned to the Fianna Fáil Front Bench in 1975 he said to Deputy Haughey that he would like this matter clarified once and for all. He added that after Deputy Haughey had said that this was not possible, as it would seem that he was purchasing his way back to the Front Bench, he, Deputy Gibbons, proposed that Deputy Haughey would clarify the matter later, and got the impression that he would do so, and Deputy Gibbons added that Deputy Haughey had conveyed his intention to do this to another member of the Front Bench at that time. Who is this other Front Bench member and will he confirm or deny this allegation by Mr. Gibbons? Deputy Gibbons added that he had some months ago, during this year, reminded the present Taoiseach that "It would be simple to clarify — a declaration from him that the evidence I gave in Court was the truth"— which would of course imply the opposite with respect to the present Taoiseach's evidence. And, he stated, with apparent reference to the present Taoiseach "You cannot go on indefinitely living a lie". Deputy Gibbons may wish to develop these references further in this debate.
One outstanding issue arises with respect to Deputy O'Malley, which was not referred to in his explanatory statement published on 25 July last. This relates to the report in the Berry Papers that, as Minister for Justice, he met Deputy Haughey in Leinster House on 9 September 1970, two weeks before the start of the arms trial in which Deputy Haughey was one of the defendants. The House is entitled to know whether such a meeting took place, what its purpose and justification was, and what proposals, if any, the then Minister for Justice put to Mr. Berry, Secretary of his Department, after this meeting. Deputy O'Malley in his July statement reiterated his loyalty to Deputy Lynch as Taoiseach. Can we then take it from this that the Taoiseach of that day, Deputy Lynch, was informed in advance, and also afterwards about this meeting and about what transpired at it?
Finally, there are fresh issues that have been raised about the present Taoiseach himself. I note that the Taoiseach is not in the House. I would have thought, in the light of the nature of the debate, that he would have felt it necessary to be present and would have been man enough to be so. However, his absence cannot preclude the points being put and, having seen the text of my speech which I have made available to him, he has, of course, the opportunity to reply to them later in the debate.
First, there is the question of his discussions with Deputy Gibbons in 1975, and earlier this year. Did the Taoiseach in these discussions admit to Deputy Gibbons that he had not told the truth in court under oath in 1970, and did he in 1975 say to Deputy Gibbons that he intended in due course to "clarify" this by admitting as much? Only he can answer this question. In the nature of the case no one else can do so by proxy, and, should the Taoiseach fail to reply himself to Deputy Gibbons on this point, the account given by Deputy Gibbons with all apparent sincerity in his radio interview will stand. And, a further point, which the Taoiseach is called on to answer: did he confirm to another member of the Front Bench that he intended to "clarify" the matter?
Next there is the allegation on page 41 of the May issue of Magill, which does not appear to be based on the Berry Papers. From internal evidence, it seems rather to be based on an account given by people present at a meeting around September 1969, between the present Taoiseach and people from Northern Ireland. At this meeting, following a reference to arms, the present Taoiseach is alleged to have indicated that he knew clearly the purpose for which the fund was being set up — this fund being apparently that which eventually financed the purchase of arms. This is a fresh allegation, not previously made, running totally counter to the Taoiseach's own evidence at the trial. The Taoiseach should have the opportunity to reply to it.
Finally, there is the statement in Magill that the person by whom Kevin Boland had earlier stated — without naming him — that he was informed about the proposed arms importations in early March 1970 was in fact the present Taoiseach. This is an allegation not previously made against the Taoiseach personally, to which he would also have to reply if he wishes at this stage to maintain his credibility with respect to his evidence on oath in the arms trial.
There is one other fresh allegation — and a very serious one — with which any or all of the four people I have named might be in a position to deal, that is the allegation in the June 1980 issue of Magill that the Berry Papers contain a statement by Mr. Berry that the gun that shot Garda Fallon was imported through Dublin Airport in September 1969 with the knowledge of a member of the then Government. The seriousness of this allegation needs no emphasis from me. The Garda Síochána, who have recently lost three members as a result of armed attacks similar to those on Garda Fallon, are entitled to know whatever can be known about this allegation. If Deputy Lynch, from his knowledge as former Taoiseach, can clarify it, he has a duty to do so. If Deputy O'Malley, as former Minister for Justice, or Deputy Gibbons, as former Minister for Defence, can do so, they ought to say what they know. If the Taoiseach or the present Minister for Justice have any information on this subject, they too should furnish it to the House. And if the allegation is without foundation, then in the interest of Garda morale it should be cleared up conclusively, even if this means, as I think it would have to mean, opening certain Garda files to inspection, for example by a judge appointed by the Chief Justice.
The House and country await clarification of the issue raised here. There are many other pressing problems which must have our attention at this time — the rapid decline of our economy and ever-continuing rise in unemployment, and the danger to peace and human life now posed by the confrontation that could be looming in Northern Ireland between the two communities there, which could be especially dangerous to the beleagured minority isolated in parts of Belfast and other towns in East Ulster.
Let us use this brief three-hour debate, in which my party will not take up time that speakers on the Fianna Fáil benches might wish to make use of to answer the outstanding queries, to clear the air that has been polluted by allegations and counter-allegations during the past six months since this issue was first reopened in the press. The country is entitled to be told the truth now. If it is not, if a number of vital questions have not been clarified by the end of this debate, or if answers to yet other questions conflict with each other, then it will be clear that this Government, by its very composition, and the nature of the support on which it relies for its majority in the House, is not in a position to govern coherently in the public interest.
