Mr. Chairman, just before Mr - The Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain ...

110:18:511 THE TRIBUNAL COMMENCED AS FOLLOWS ON WEDNESDAY,2 7TH APRIL, 2004 AT 10.30 AM:34 MR. McGARRY: Mr. Chairman, just before Mr. Gilmartin gives his evidence, I just10:45:415 want to make a very brief submission on behalf of Senator Mary O'Rourke because6 of concerns arising from certain of the events of yesterday, and in particular7 in light of comments made on the record of the Tribunal by Mr. Lawlor.89 My client gave her evidence to the tribal under oath on Monday and that10:45:5810 evidence was clear and unambiguous. All parties had the opportunity to cross11 examine my client and as can be seen from the record Mr. Lawlor availed of that12 opportunity to ask a number of questions on two separate occasions. My client13 is aware that under pressure from the Tribunal Mr. Lawlor withdrew the remarks14 made yesterday, however there was a statement made to the effect that this was10:46:1815 a political issue. It's not a political issue, in that it amounted to an16 allegation in relation to the veracity of the evidence given by my client to17 the Tribunal.1819 In light of these events and my client's desire to assist in the ongoing10:46:3320 inquiries carried out by the Tribunal, she remains willing and ready to return21 at any stage to provide further evidence should the Tribunal so require.2223 Thank you Chairman2410:46:4125 CHAIRMAN: Right, well as far as the Tribunal is concerned we are satisfied26 that Mr. Lawlor withdrew the remarks that were made, so as far as they go, they27 won't in anyway form part of the evidence which we will have to consider in due28 course.2910:46:5930 We don't require Senator O'Rourke to return, but if she wishes to come back toPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

210:47:081 clarify the matter it's a matter for herself, we certainly aren't requesting2 that she returns.34 MR. McGARRY: I understand that Chairman. Thank you Chairman.10:47:1756 CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Lawlor, in relation you applied in writing to the7 Tribunal to make a submission relating to the confidentiality of certain8 documents and if it suits you, and assuming that it's in general terms, no9 longer than the document that has been submitted to the Tribunal, we can offer10:47:4010 you half ten tomorrow morning to make your submission.1112 MR. LAWLOR: Could I just reflect on that matter and come back to you.1314 CHAIRMAN: All right you can mention it later this morning. All right good10:47:5515 morning Mr. Gilmartin.1617 MR. GILMARTIN CONTINUES IN CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LAWLOR.1819 MR. LAWLOR: There are just a few items I have to raise with you before10:48:0520 questioning Mr. Gilmartin.2122 Yesterday while questioning Mr. Gilmartin you suggested that I didn't have the23 right to question Mr. Gilmartin about the 50,000 pound payment and that it was24 more appropriate to Mr. Flynn.10:48:192526 CHAIRMAN: No. I think I was wrong. I accept that you are entitled to pursue27 that line with Mr. Gilmartin.2829 MR. LAWLOR: Yes well, could I just get your guidance please, because in terms,10:48:3230 the Terms of Reference on the plaque on the wall outside says Planning andPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

310:48:371 Certain Payments in that order, and what I have been attempting to do here, is2 deal with the planning aspect of your Terms of Reference which I, as a Member3 of Dail Eireann approved with my other, I think 165 colleagues. And the4 situation on this matter is that the planning aspects, the Tribunal may be very10:48:595 concerned, which rightly they should be, about payments, but planning in the6 first instance forms the cornerstone of the inquiries of the Tribunal.78 It's with some concern, when I raised yesterday, the maps and the relativity to9 the written statement, that I think on evidence and I don't want to attribute10:49:2010 comments to Mr. Gilmartin that are not correct, so I will just globally say11 that we concluded on that questioning, that he didn't have an understanding of12 the relativity and then you yourself Chairman interjected and asked what is the13 relativity?1410:49:3515 It goes to the very heart of what I believe the Tribunal's task is and the16 planning aspects in the first instance, and the potential abuse, corrupting or17 otherwise of the planning process is where the Tribunal starts, and it finishes18 relating to finances or payment of monies that may have been inter affected19 into the planning process. And therefore, it is my submission, my suggestion10:50:0620 to you Chairman, that the planning aspects and my pursuing, and the longevity21 of this questioning goes to the heart of what you are being asked to adjudicate22 on.2324 And I believe I was working up to a situation taking Mr. Gilmartin through the10:50:2325 planning process. This is a man that wanted to put forward 200 million plus,26 750 million according to the brochure document, and the only end product of27 that process was to go through the planning process. And there is a lot more28 that I wanted to do.2910:50:4030 In my simple contention, to prove that Mr. Gilmartin had no understanding ofPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

410:50:461 what he was trying to achieve, and it was at the heart of that that the failure2 came. Now going on from that, Mr. Gilmartin has conceded in his own evidence,3 that he gave the donation under whatever guise, west Mayo, Fianna Fail4 headquarters, or from assistance, but in his own evidence he suggested that he10:51:065 gave Mr. Flynn this 50,000 pound payment to in some way influence my decisions.6 That's his own evidence.78 And therefore I contend Chairman, that A) to establish, and I don't know what9 that interference with my situation was to be, was it that the Minister was to10:51:2510 direct me to vote for Westpark, and influence my exercising of my public11 duties, or what was meant by "get Lawlor off my back". And I have every right12 to go into it in the most minute detail, because it is a very serious13 allegation that Mr. Gilmartin has made against me, that I in some way14 interfered with the success or failure of this Westpark project.10:51:491516 So in stepping it through the planning process to start with and then this17 payment is what I am trying to explore with the Tribunal. And to put the18 Tribunal in the possession of the knowledge of what actually happened. So I19 just make that point to you and I think you have already conceded that I have10:52:0520 every right to pursue that line.2122 CHAIRMAN: Well you are certainly entitled to examine, or cross examine23 Mr. Gilmartin as to the reasons why he made the payment of 50,000 pounds. And24 the reasons why he believes it was sought by Mr. Flynn or anyone else. I don't10:52:3025 know, in relation to the planning, at the same time we don't want to drift into26 phase two of the inquiry, because that would only cause a variety of other27 problems. I think Mr. Gallagher, do you want to say anything?2829 MR. GALLAGHER: I would, well point out that the Tribunal is enquiring into10:52:5230 alleged payments, under paragraph 5 of it's Terms of Reference. The TribunalPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

510:53:001 is enquiring about payments in order to establish whether they do or might2 amount to corruption, the purpose, the reasons why they were made etcetera.34 It is not an oral hearing on an appeal on a planning decision. The role,10:53:215 purpose of the Tribunal is not to establish the merits or otherwise of any6 particular proposal. Whether or not that proposal would have ultimately7 obtained planning permission or otherwise is, in my respectful submission,8 probably not relevant in the context of why, whether payments were made and if9 so for what purpose.10:53:461011 If payments were made and if they were made for a legitimate purpose that's one12 thing. They were made for an illegitimate purpose that's something else. But13 it is, the function of the Tribunal in my respectful submission to focus on14 payments, whether they were made, why they were made, when they were made, in10:54:0915 what amount they were made, etcetera. The motive of the giver and the16 recipient and what was done or not done, and what was sought in return for17 those payments, if anything.1819 They are the areas and matters that the Tribunal should be concerned with10:54:2420 primarily. That's not to say that it can exclude in it's entirety, the fact21 and the history and the background against which events took place and22 applications were considered or ideas floated about or advices sought or given23 but it is not in my respectful submission necessary, or indeed desirable that24 the Tribunal should spend extensive, an extensive period looking at the merits10:54:5625 or otherwise of something that was not the subject of a planning application,26 although it had been intended to apply for planning permission. And of course27 we know that planning permission was sought and obtained. And the rezoning was28 sought and obtained at a later stage. That will all arise in the context of29 the second part of this module.10:55:2330Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

610:55:231 We'll be dealing with rezoning and planning applications, we'll be dealing with2 voting and who voted in what way. We'll be dealing with why they voted, we'll3 be dealing with allegations that payments were made to councillors, all of4 these things will be relevant. But whether or not a particular official took a10:55:425 particular view about a particular proposal is quite general, in general, and I6 don't say that it's not relevant in some circumstances, but generally speaking7 is not of any great relevance to the inquiries that this Tribunal has to make.89 CHAIRMAN: Well that's right but we have permitted, I think quite correctly,10:56:0510 Mr. Gilmartin to be cross examined by Mr. Lawlor and indeed other, as to the11 overall viability of his plan, given that Mr. Gilmartin has persistently12 alleged that people, including Mr. Lawlor, have interfered with his scheme and13 the suggestion follows that such interference, including interference from14 Mr. Lawlor was caused or at least was part of the cause of the demise of the10:56:4415 scheme. So to that extent you would be entitled to question, as he has done16 over the past number of days, Mr. Lawlor, as to the scheme and it's chances of17 success.1819 MR. GALLAGHER: I absolutely accept that --10:56:582021 CHAIRMAN: But what we would be concerned to do would be not to go too deeply22 into the planning aspect certainly until the next -- and secondly, there are23 certain areas that only planners and planning experts including those employed24 by Mr. Gilmartin, that only they can deal with.10:57:162526 MR. GALLAGHER: I do not for a moment suggest that Mr. Lawlor is not entitled27 to put it to Mr. Gilmartin that his scheme was much too elaborate, that it was28 premature, that it was contrary to the zoning, that it was ill thought out,29 that it was badly funded or not funded at all.10:57:3630Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

710:57:361 I quite accept that he is entitled to put all of those matters. But in general2 terms, rather than on a word, line by line, word by word analysis of a report3 that's prepared by some expert that may or may not have had any impact on4 the --10:57:5356 CHAIRMAN: Yeah well I think --78 MR. GALLAGHER: On the report in the ultimate.910:57:5910 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor has indeed instead of putting minute detail of reports11 of other people to Mr. Gilmartin, that he should summarise the content of those12 reports.1314 MR. GALLAGHER: The reason it is important to the Tribunal, I suggest with10:58:1215 great respect, it is important the Tribunal would bear in mind why this module16 is held and why we spent as long as we have at this module. It is because of17 allegations that have yet to be tested about alleged payments by Mr. Gilmartin18 and/or Arlington to Mr. Lawlor and demands and requests that were alleged to19 have been made.10:58:352021 Now we have spent six or I don't know how many days cross-examining22 Mr. Gilmartin in relation to planning and what some expert from London said and23 whether that expert was familiar with the Irish scene or not. We haven't once,24 in any respect, addressed the issues that are central to this module.10:58:552526 CHAIRMAN: I understand that Mr. Lawlor will come to those shortly. All27 right. Are you happy with that.2829 MR. LAWLOR: No. Mr. Gallagher never ceases to amaze. Mr. Gallagher now is10:59:0530 after listing out a catalogue of items. Where pray tell did they refer toPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

810:59:121 Mr. Gallagher's opening statement and questioning of Mr. Gilmartin?23 Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty are investigating this matter for the last five4 or six years and now Mr. Gallagher is trying to tell us, as far as Arlington is10:59:275 concerned, at the end of the process Mr. Gilmartin has confirmed that there was6 no political interference in the failure of the project, there was never a7 planning application made, so therefore under A5 of your Terms of Reference8 nobody could have sought inducement for interfering in the planning process.910:59:4610 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor at this stage we are not going to listen to submissions11 as to whether or not we are properly investigating this particular module. We12 are satisfied that the matters which have come to public hearing are matters13 which should properly be investigated by us. You can certainly make14 submissions at the end of the module as to views you might have as to the11:00:1715 relevancy of the evidence and so on, to the Terms of Reference. But a decision16 has been taken for some time that under the Terms of Reference we have to17 investigate the matters that are now being investigated and if it transpires,18 if it transpires at the end of the day, that the evidence does not support the19 case being made by Mr. Gilmartin, then so be it. And that would be part of our11:00:4020 report.2122 The fact that we are examining these matters doesn't necessarily mean that we23 are going to find fault with them.2411:00:4725 MR. LAWLOR: Well the only point is Mr. Gilmartin is on evidence in this module26 that I never received a penny regarding his Liffey Valley/Westpark project so27 that's one point I will make.2829 But in response to Mr. Gallagher who has been investigating the matter --11:01:0430 sorry, just that Mr. Gallagher is labouring on and trying to suggest that thePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

911:01:151 planning aspects are of a secondary importance, why are they in the brief,2 could I ask?34 CHAIRMAN: Well whether they are of secondary importance, as far as we are11:01:185 concerned they are matters which should more properly be gone into in detail in6 the second phase. And the second phase an this phase are all part of the one7 module. We certainly aren't going to start looking at the evidence in detail8 until we have heard all of the evidence from both. So we are not saying you9 can't do this or you can't -- we are saying for the sake of convenience and11:01:4310 from a housekeeping point of view, we have divided it into these phases in11 order to keep the thing on the rails. So --1213 MR. LAWLOR: Well Mr. Gallagher on 473 page 86:1411:01:5715 "Mr. Lawlor could I suggest in fairness Mr. Sheeran and Mr. Gilmartin to the16 Tribunal and in fairness to the public who are listening, Mr. Lawlor should17 continue with the following paragraph because he is reading selectively from18 paragraph 3 or 4". So I am being asked now to read into the record and now I19 am -- I paraphrased my questions11:02:172021 CHAIRMAN: Yes but it is being read into the record of a module of which this22 is only part. So it's not as if anything being read in into the record which23 is not necessarily being going to be dealt with now won't be dealt with at some24 stage in the future.11:02:332526 MR. LAWLOR: Well just a final point I want clarification on a different issue27 Chairman, that is it arose yesterday, it is regarding orders made by the28 Tribunal.2911:02:4330 Now I received an order and I believe lots of other people did. And 5B 16 thatPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

1011:02:501 I discovered, and the first date in that is November 1984 and there is another2 19 of those and they are every shred of tax information I have discovered. Now3 why was Mr. Gilmartin not given a similar order? And can somebody explain A4 was he given an order and B did he comply with the order?11:03:1456 CHAIRMAN: Well as I said yesterday that matter will be dealt with by the7 Tribunal, and if we deem it appropriate to the make an order we'll do so.8 Because this is only the early stages of the module there is plenty of time to9 deal with any discovered information that comes into the Tribunal in the weeks11:03:3510 or months ahead. So -- wait now, Mr. Lawlor, these are matters that can be11 dealt with, they don't have to be dealt with today. We are keen that, because12 we only have until lunchtime today and then again tomorrow, for you to conclude13 your cross-examination. Any matters that arise, any documentation that comes14 to the Tribunal in the weeks or months ahead and which are relevant to11:04:0215 Mr. Gilmartin's evidence will be dealt with, Mr. Gilmartin will be recalled if16 necessary in the future, even before phase two, to deal with matters that17 arise, and you will be given an opportunity to cross examine him in relation to18 any such documentation that comes to the Tribunal.1911:04:2020 MR. LAWLOR: I aye appreciate your flexibility in this matter Chairman but it's21 more fundamental than that. The Sole Member didn't adopt the same flexible22 attitude by any stretch of the imagination and the order that I got I would23 have thought Mr. Gilmartin should have got. And that whatever tax records he24 has should long have been discovered to the Tribunal. And I therefore asking11:04:4525 the chair and your two learned colleagues, did Mr. Gilmartin get a defective26 order or order that didn't embrace cheque stubs and tax returns which is an27 order I got and others got. It is not acceptable Mr. Gilmartin either didn't28 get an order or got a defective order. But there is something awry here when29 Mr. Gallagher has to start going off checking his orders. He has issued so11:05:1130 many orders he should be able to talk about them in his sleep. But yetPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

1111:05:161 Mr. Gilmartin doesn't seem to have had to meet the same standards that the rest2 of us have had to jump to.34 And therefore, I want to know and it should be answerable now by Mr. Gilmartin,11:05:275 or Mr. Gallagher did Mr. Gilmartin get an order the same as I did and everybody6 else that's attending or helping this Tribunal?78 MR. GALLAGHER: Mr. Gallagher has not made any order. The Tribunal has made9 many orders. It has made many orders against Mr. Gilmartin, Mr. Lawlor because11:05:4310 of his noncompliance with various orders. That situation has not arisen in11 relation to Mr. Gilmartin. Documents have been obtained, discovery has been12 made by Mr. Gilmartin.1314 Issues that, or documents that were not relevant or did not appear to be11:06:0115 relevant were not included in the discovery that was made, and a further16 affidavit is awaited. When that comes it will be dealt with by the Tribunal.17 There is no comparison and no basis of making a comparison between the B16 list18 and the other lists referred to by Mr. Lawlor, which were lists that arose in19 the compliance circumstances rather than in the normal circumstances.11:06:312021 MR. LAWLOR: So Mr. Gilmartin didn't have to comply with an order for tax22 returns is that what Mr. Gallagher is saying?2324 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor you have been told in clear terms different orders are11:06:4125 made against different people. The Tribunal decides, as it proceeds with it's26 inquiries, what type of order, and the extent of any orders to be made against27 people. An issue has in relation to how Mr. Gilmartin treated the 50,00028 pounds in his tax records, discovery will be sought and presumably will be29 forthcoming in due course.11:07:0830Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

1211:07:081 MR. LAWLOR: I just conclude on the point that it shouldn't be waiting for me2 to raise it to have it discovered. It had should be part of the investigation.3 I won't take it further411:07:175 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor the Tribunal would make these orders in any event.67 MR. LAWLOR: We'll leave it that Mr. Gilmartin seems to have got special8 treatment on the orders.911:07:2510 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor, he didn't get special treatment. Now please continue11 with your cross-examination.1213 MR. LAWLOR: We'll revisit this matter Chairman.1411:07:4415 Q. 1 Mr. Gilmartin, we were just finishing off on the Lichfield report and I am not16 going to dwell on it and pass on from it, but just that the conclusions was17 that the provision of Westpark would require the downgrading of Tallaght and18 Blanchardstown, do you agree with that recommendation?19 A. No, I didn't.11:08:0320 Q. 2 You didn't. Okay. If we can just go on to, I don't know whether we have21 established who produced the report at 2445 yesterday afternoon, we were just22 dealing with a response to the Lichfield report by some other expert that is23 you had advising you and I think you were going to try and establish overnight24 who was the author of that report, and it starts at 2446.11:08:4025 A. I still can't recall.26 Q. 3 Okay that's fine Mr. Gilmartin. It's not -- all I want to just put to you by27 way of paraphrasing the contents is that they are very serious reservations,28 would you agree, in this retail assessment, than what was in the Lichfield29 report?11:09:0030 A. Well it seems that way.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

1311:09:031 Q. 4 So you agree that this report is contradicting the Lichfield report?2 A. Well I hired professional people who was highly respected, both here and in3 England and I had complete confidence in their report.4 Q. 5 Well if we just quote very briefly, on the last paragraph on that first page.11:09:255 "The case being put forward would be destroyed in any planning appeal" Do you6 contend or accept?7 A. We didn't get there, did we? So that wasn't tested.8 Q. 6 Right so, okay. And just on the next page then, would you accept that it was a9 scheme very much related to half hour plus travel rather than for the immediate11:09:5010 co-terminus area of Clondalkin Lucan, would you agree that the Westpark11 proposal needed to have --12 A. It took in the catchment area which they referred to, ten minutes, five minutes13 and half hour travelling distance from the various areas to Bachelor's Walk, to14 Quarryvale.11:10:1715 Q. 7 Well would you further agree with me then that that was totally and seriously16 at variance with the County Development Plan?17 A. No I just put up a proposal, it was up to the County Council and whoever,18 whatever other authority to reject it or accept it.19 Q. 8 The question Mr. Gilmartin, would you agree that this report and the catchment11:10:3920 proposed in the scheme was totally at variance with the County Development21 Plan. You do contend or you don't?22 A. Not as I seen it or as most other people, including the government seen it.23 And that included yourself Mr. Lawlor.24 Q. 9 Well --11:10:5625 A. You had no problem with it whatsoever.26 Q. 10 I just put the question, do you contend that it was totally at variance with27 the then legal County Development Plan, Mr. Gilmartin?28 A. The only variance was that there was Neilstown site was zoned for the town29 centre from 1972. That was a failure, so consequently I am not going to agree11:11:2430 that my suggestion was wrong, because it was not. It was the right one.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

1411:11:291 Q. 11 So do I take it from that answer that you are saying it did comply with the2 County Development Plan?3 A. That was a matter for the County Council and the --4 Q. 12 We are talking about the County Council Mr. Gilmartin?11:11:415 A. Yeah well, that was a matter for them. I was not there to make decisions on6 their behalf. I just proposed a scheme that I believe was a winner, not only7 that, for the area, for employment. And as far as I was concerned it was8 right, so I am not going to sit here now and tell you it was wrong. And9 neither, that was not your opinion at the time Mr. Lawlor, as you well know.11:12:1010 Q. 13 Would you agree that the County Council at both official and elected member11 level saw this as a total contradiction of the County Development Plan?12 A. I believe Mr. Lawlor, it was you that had a survey of the councillors done and13 you faxed it to me where there was about 55 of the councillors wanted my scheme14 to happen. And I believe it was you that initiated that Mr. Lawlor.11:12:3815 Q. 14 Well could you give the Tribunal details of that now because you are raising16 matters --17 A. I have given them whatever papers I have on it. It was you Mr. Lawlor, that18 came to me and faxed me the survey you had done of the councillors who, there19 was 78 councillors and of them 56 of them, according to you, were totally in11:13:0820 support of the Quarryvale scheme that I had presented.21 Q. 15 Could I ask Chairman is the Tribunal in possession of that information.2223 CHAIRMAN: Of the fax?2411:13:1925 MR. LAWLOR: Well I faxed a letter and I did a survey and I don't know what26 else I am supposed to do.2728 JUDGE KEYS: Well did you?2911:13:2630 CHAIRMAN: Are you saying you didn't?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

1511:13:2812 MR. LAWLOR: I'm asking --34 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor, are you saying, Mr. Gilmartin said in plain English11:13:335 that you faxed to him a document indicating that you had conducted a survey of6 councillors and that 56 out of 70 odd were supporting his scheme. You now say7 has the Tribunal this document? We'll find out in a minute. But we want you8 to tell us if you did or didn't fax or send a document of that nature to9 Mr. Gilmartin.11:13:561011 MR. LAWLOR: Are you cross-examining me now?1213 CHAIRMAN: I'm asking to you tell the Tribunal.1411:14:0015 MR. LAWLOR: I will deal with that in my evidence when I'm in the box --1617 CHAIRMAN: But it would help the Tribunal. Either you sent this document or18 you didn't. Or you can't remember.1911:14:1420 MR. LAWLOR: Mr. Chairman, if you want to ask me questions I will answer them.21 I am asking Mr. Gilmartin who has now made a suggestion, or an allegation or22 whatever category it's put under, that I took some action to brief him about23 documents and about faxes. I am asking him has, well I address the question to24 yourself, I will ask Mr. Gilmartin, have you any evidence to support that11:14:4025 contention Mr. Gilmartin. Have you discovered any evidence?2627 MR. GALLAGHER: Sir, that is not the issue. Mr. Gilmartin has made a28 statement that Mr. Lawlor gave a document. Now that is either true or false.29 Mr. Lawlor should put it to Mr. Gilmartin that it is true, that he did or it is11:14:5830 false that he did not. And he should do so without searching around to seePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

1611:15:021 whether the Tribunal or anybody else has any document that might or might not2 stack up with what Mr. Gilmartin is saying. It's a simple straightforward3 matter.411:15:125 He is under a duty to put to Mr. Gilmartin and to every other witness, as6 Mr. Gilmartin would be to Mr. Lawlor, to put his side of the case. And I7 respectfully submit that he should be requested and compelled to do it at this8 stage.911:15:2910 MR. LAWLOR: Mr. Gallagher you won't be compelling me to do anything.1112 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor, we are compelling you now to put to Mr. Gilmartin, if13 you take issue with what he has just said.1411:15:4015 MR. LAWLOR: Mr. Gilmartin you have just informed the Tribunal of a serious16 pack of lies, to avoid answering a question which I put to you. I faxed you --17 listen I am now answering the Chairman so you just don't interrupt for two18 seconds if you can avoid it.19 I am putting it to you and to the Chair, that you just made this up, because11:16:0120 you wouldn't answer my question. And it shouldn't be pursued this way by the21 Chair or Mr. Gallagher.2223 So I repeat my question. Did you understand that this report and Westpark were24 totally in contravention of the County Development Plan?11:16:1725 A. No I didn't agree.26 Q. 16 You didn't, well I will move on then. I will move on you answered the27 question.2829 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor before you move on. You have asked the Tribunal if a11:16:2730 certain fax which Mr. Gilmartin says he received is in the hands of thePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

1711:16:301 Tribunal. It still hasn't been put by to you Mr. Gilmartin whether or not you2 sent a fax or a letter of the nature described by him. It's a simple --34 MR. LAWLOR: It's very simple, I never heard of the matter until Mr. Gilmartin11:16:475 answered a different question from the question I asked Mr. Gilmartin. And I6 would appreciate, Chairman if you would reciprocate the discipline to7 Mr. Gilmartin to answer my question.89 CHAIRMAN: Can we take it therefore11:16:591011 MR. LAWLOR: No the point Mr. Chairman --1213 CHAIRMAN: Can we take it Mr. Lawlor, that your case is that Mr. Gilmartin did14 not receive a document as he has described from you, at any stage?11:17:111516 MR. LAWLOR: It would be my suggestion and I can't take it further than that.17 That I would have faxed the 78 elected members to Mr. Gilmartin, with no18 survey, no tales no nothing. Mr. Gilmartin, enquiring of me as to who the19 councillors were so he could go and lobby them. My secretary as would have11:17:3420 done numerous times to various people would have sent a fax, extracted from the21 County Council annual diary, which detailed the name, addresses and phone22 numbers of the 78 elected members, that could have happened.2324 To suggest that I might have done a survey or anything else is pure bunkum.11:17:522526 CHAIRMAN: That's fine. That's all we want to know. We can now ask27 Mr. Gallagher if the Tribunal is aware of any such fax being discovered from28 Mr. Gilmartin.2911:18:0530 MR. GALLAGHER: We are searching for it just at the moment to see if such aPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

1811:18:091 document exists.23 CHAIRMAN: All right.411:18:115 MR. LAWLOR: Off on a search again.67 Q. 17 Now Mr. Gilmartin to Connell Sheerer Harris, who I think you had great respect8 for as expert fundraisers in the city of London, is that right?9 A. That's correct.11:18:2610 Q. 18 Right well --11 A. They were actually estate agent it's, auctioneers and they acted for numerous12 funds, pension fund groups, etcetera.13 Q. 19 Could I have 2464 please? You there Mr. Gilmartin on heading one that they,14 there is reference to your brochure and this could be used in a total concept11:18:5915 and goes on to qualify, that however retailers will only be interested in16 detailed shopping layout. What was your view of the benefit of the brochure to17 the retailers based on the comments in that paragraph?18 A. The brochure was just an illustration, they are referring there to the fact19 that the retailers at the end of the day, would be looking for the actual11:19:2820 layout when the complete architectural plans were ready.21 Q. 20 And were they ever made available to your advisers and the retailers?22 A. No they were not.23 Q. 21 Okay.24 A. Because we didn't get there, did we?11:19:4425 Q. 22 So we just, well the final paragraph just that there was a suggestion that you26 should produce additional display material, boards, coloured etcetera, mood27 boards in order to produce --28 A. Well we did and we had the presentation in the Berkley Court, not only did we29 have it on major display units, we had it on video.11:20:0830 Q. 23 But was that the Berkley Court was to attempt to convince selected members andPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

1911:20:131 other interested parties.2 A. That's correct.3 Q. 24 And also would you contend then that that was to show your competition the4 vastness and scale of your project?11:20:235 A. No I was showing, since I didn't lobby anybody.6 Q. 25 I will come back to that.7 A. Since I didn't lobby anybody I, we had a display and let them make up your8 their own minds.9 Q. 26 Sorry, this is -- I am dealing now Mr. Gilmartin --11:20:4110 A. We made a presentation. Gave a complete display of what we were proposing,11 including we had a model, a scale model as well and let them see for themselves12 and they could make their own minds up.13 Q. 27 The question Mr. Gilmartin, was that presentation made to retailers in London?14 A. The brochure and that was made available to retailers in London and any other11:21:1215 information that they needed.16 Q. 28 Could we go to page 2465 please? Now just, you have referred to the model in17 the first paragraph, don't want to get into time delay reading it, but under18 heading three:19 "At the same time we need to give some thorough specific retail brochure". Was11:21:3720 that ever produced, aimed at a marketing, purely to the retailers?21 A. There was outline plans which were made available as to the floor areas which22 was outlined in the brochure. The brochure was in quite good detail already.23 Q. 29 Well if we go down to four then and --24 A. Actually that brochure, both brochures that you have there won the11:22:0725 international design award two years running.26 Q. 30 For theory in shopping centres, would that be right?27 A. That brochure as presented won the international design award two years28 running.29 Q. 31 Very hollow victory isn't it to win an award for a brochure when you are really11:22:3030 interested in building a project?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

2011:22:301 A. Well you know, I didn't even turn up for that meeting, I don't go in for that2 kind of adulation or that, but I can have a little bit of pride in what I am3 capable of producing.4 Q. 32 But just on the next paragraph, which is sort of, we are now suggesting here so11:22:525 that you can make progress, is that you, before we approach the retailers, it6 is important we produce Demographic material etcetera etcetera and the7 suggestion is that you might hire Management Horizons, they are used by the8 majority of department stores, if they were convinced that there would be 509 per cent of the convincing achieved in persuading retailers to look at11:23:1710 Westpark. Did you ever employ Management Horizons?11 A. I did yes, and it was they who organised the presentation in the Berkley Court.12 They organised the video and most of the material that was put together for the13 display in the Berkley Court with the exception of the model which was done by14 Taggarts of Belfast, had it done.11:23:4415 Q. 33 Could I just point out Mr. Gilmartin, this is dated the 31st of July 1989, that16 you are getting this report, from I think Mr. Harris?17 A. That's correct and the display was on the 4th of July 1990.18 Q. 34 Would you accept that this report is contradicting your previous evidence that19 you had all these retailers listed and available?11:24:0620 A. No no, this was -- as I mentioned earlier with the due diligence, this was our21 due diligence to make certain that we had every T crossed and I doted.22 Q. 35 Could I put it to you Mr. Gilmartin, this letter is putting back your23 contention that you had every retailer signed up for 1.5 million square feet,24 this plan is only suggesting --11:24:3325 A. We had the numbers of people and I think we may have, may have survived the26 list of people who had their names down for space in the shopping centre and I27 would safely say it amounted to over a million square feet -- we have actually28 got evidence, I am hopefully it is still intact, to prove that. And the square29 footage they were requiring.11:25:0530 Q. 36 Is there any chance, belatedly that that evidence might be made available toPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

2111:25:091 the Tribunal?2 A. I believe they may have it. I am not a hundred per cent certain. But it may3 be amongst the papers that survived.4 Q. 37 Could I ask Chairman, where rests this matter?11:25:2356 CHAIRMAN: Well --7 A. I don't know what it has to do the Tribunal incidentally.8 Q. 38 Everything to do with it, I will decide what it has to do --911:25:3210 CHAIRMAN: Sorry Mr. Lawlor, Mr. Gallagher is, have we the documentation that11 Mr. Gilmartin refers to?1213 MR. GALLAGHER: I will arrange to have a search carried out for it. I don't14 know whether we have it or not.11:25:441516 CHAIRMAN: Very good.1718 MR. LAWLOR: Would it have been covered by the discovery order?19 A. I am not sure you have, I am just saying hopefully it did survive and it might11:25:5420 be amongst the pile of document that I gave the Tribunal, it just might.21 Q. 39 And where might it be if it's not discovered?22 A. It's burned long ago, if it's not. In '96.23 Q. 40 Is it possible to establish what is available, you have given the Tribunal24 everything or have you not?11:26:1525 A. I have given them everything I have got. Everything.26 Q. 41 So how might you suggest Mr. Gilmartin that it might have survived but we27 haven't seen it?28 A. Pardon.2911:26:2530 MR. GALLAGHER: The Tribunal hasn't circulated all documents, it circulatedPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

2211:26:291 documents that it considers to be relevant. And only documents that are2 considered to be relevant are and will be circulated.34 MR. LAWLOR: Well could I just put to you Chairman that the availability of11:26:395 such a list of retailers and confirmation of their commitment to take up space6 in this project goes to the very heart of Mr. Gilmartin's evidence in this7 module, at the very cornerstone of everything that Mr. Gilmartin is claiming8 and I am pointing out here, that at this date in July 1989, a very respected9 financial advisor and property agents, which he has commented on favourably are11:27:0510 only setting out what they should be going about doing to try and establish11 this information, which is totally at variance with the evidence provided to12 date.1314 CHAIRMAN: Well Mr. Lawlor just in relation to documents generally. The11:27:1715 Tribunal circulates documents which it believes to be relevant. You or any16 other interested party, if it believes or if you believe that there are other17 documents which might be relevant, you are entitled to request the Tribunal to18 consider that they be circulated and documents that are mentioned from time to19 time by Mr. Gilmartin and/or indeed by any other witness, because this arises11:27:4620 in every module and which do not appear to have been circulated are checked,21 subsequently by the Tribunal, if they are available and if they are deemed22 relevant they are circulated and that's the practice of the Tribunal.2324 We are dealing with millions of pages.11:28:022526 MR. LAWLOR: I appreciate that. Could I just make the point why I believe it27 is relevant? It goes to the heart of the credibility of the witness of the28 that the witness has claimed that he had 1.5 million square feet of users for29 his scheme and he has repeatedly given that in evidence and if it is in11:28:1830 existence it supports his evidence. But if it is not in existence it certainlyPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

2311:28:231 undermines his credibility as to the truthfulness of his evidence.23 CHAIRMAN: Well it doesn't. Because Mr. Gilmartin's evidence always has been4 that a lot of documentation was destroyed by him. Or by his family --11:28:3856 MR. LAWLOR: Maybe I am not making myself clear Chairman, the point I am trying7 to convey to you is that if and even if Mr. Gilmartin -- Mr. Gilmartin could re8 cast that evidence in his statement if it was fact and he would be listing down9 the Marks and Spencers and the John Lewis and House of Fraser, and all these11:28:5510 names that have been bandied about as being of interest in ending the Westpark11 scheme.12 A. Marks and Spencers are already in it.13 Q. 42 And on that point Mr. Chairman the veracity of the truthfulness of14 Mr. Gilmartin's evidence could be tested by enquiring of these people is his11:29:1315 evidence correct.1617 CHAIRMAN: Well we'll, we take on board any request that is made by you or18 anyone else and we follow it up in due course. Now that's as much as we can19 do.11:29:262021 MR. LAWLOR: Fine. I appreciate that Chairman. I understand the burden of22 documentation is vast because, I understand it.2324 Well I will just go down, you refer to Mr. Stephen Roberts or the writer, of11:29:4025 Marks and Spencers and they were one of the people which I had contended to you26 discovered the site and were interested in the project. We'll forget about the27 detail.28 A. That's a lie.29 Q. 43 Obviously Marks and Spencers, well Mr. Foreman can answer that for us. But11:29:5330 Marks and Spencers very interestingly were interested, that's fine I have noPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

2411:29:581 contention with that. I will go onto the final paragraph.23 "One major difficulty" just if I could be indulged to read this because I think4 it goes at no time heart of everything we are discussing here in evidence.11:30:1056 "One major difficulty which I believe we could experience in approaching the7 retailers at this stage is one of confidence. With a scheme of this size and8 magnitude before such operators as John Lewis give too much consideration to9 the project, they will require a measure of comfort that this development will11:30:2910 take place. They will be looking to the experience of the development team or11 possibly the developer in having the ability to provide the right type of12 retail environment and arranging the necessary finance for it".1314 Now could I put to you Mr. Gilmartin, that that's wholly at variance with your11:30:4915 strategy that these people were all signed up and they were prepared to invest16 up to 500 million pounds in this country. That here is your advisor telling17 you that you are a mile away from what you had been contending is the facts18 A. No he is giving me the advice or expectations of the various would be tenants19 or the people who would take space in the things. He's just advising, he is11:31:1820 advising me. Actually Sheerer Harris was one of the top retail people in21 England.22 Q. 44 Well would you agree with me that their abilities were reflected on the23 provision of the information about the possibility of the developer an his24 track record in such developments and such vast schemes?11:31:3925 A. We had no problems with that because this Sprucefield centre in Northern26 Ireland was already done by Taggarts and their team, the team of people I had27 was and I would say second to none. And the advice I had, and the engineers I28 had were second to none.29 Q. 45 But would you agree, I would accept the professionalism of the professional11:32:0430 team. But somebody at Sprucefield would have appointed Taggarts, that's thePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

2511:32:091 kernel of my question and the company that appointed Taggarts would be the2 people that the retailers would be looking at their track record in development3 of retail schemes?4 A. No no. The people the retailers would be looking at would be the people who11:32:245 funded it, which would be the institutions and it was up to them, it was their6 money, it was up to them as to who their professional team was. Nothing7 whatever to do with me or anybody else.8 The brochure, etcetera was there to promote the scheme, just to promote the9 scheme when the institutions or the investors we had lined up to invest in it11:32:5310 took over, they would be wholly responsible for what professional team was on11 it. If they were satisfied with my team they would continue with them, if not12 they would bring in their own. Which was the normal practice.13 Q. 46 Sorry, I was looking at my notes. Could you repeat the answer to my question14 please?11:33:1515 A. I did. I just went to great lengths to answer your question Mr. Lawlor.16 Q. 47 I don't, I will ask it again. Mr. Harris is saying that you would need to17 provide documentary evidence of the track record of the developer, which was18 you?19 A. No, no I was not the developer. I have stated that from the very first time.11:33:4120 My role was only to bring in investment to Ireland. The developer eventually21 would be the people who funded it and who they appointed, the team they22 appointed. I have just gone to great lengths to answer that question. I was23 irrelevant once it got to that point.24 Q. 48 But is it your --11:34:0225 A. My only purpose was to bring investment in to Ireland.26 Q. 49 You are suggesting that the investment was the pension funds and such27 institutions, is that right?28 A. That's correct and despite everything that was done to me, I honoured that29 commitment.11:34:2030 Q. 50 Could I put it to you Mr. Gilmartin that those investment funds tend to enterPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

2611:34:241 the scene when the scheme has been built and has let?2 A. No that's a lie.3 Q. 51 That's a lie is it.4 A. That's an absolutely. The Grosvenor Developments took over Quarryvale before a11:34:365 brick went on the ground.6 Q. 52 I think Chairman, we are into the next module now?7 A. Or before planning was in place Mr. Lawlor.89 CHAIRMAN: Yes but Mr. Lawlor you asked the question. You put it to him that11:34:4710 a developer or the institutions wouldn't produce any money until the buildings11 were constructed. So anyway, it seems --12 A. Quarryvale was built by Grosvenor Developments, they took it over and paid the13 money to take it over before a brick went on the ground, or planning was even14 granted.11:35:1315 Q. 53 You see Chairman, could I put it to Mr. Gilmartin if you want to go down that16 road. Grosvenor Developments are developer and therefore were putting in their17 money as developers you are continually contending that this money was at the18 end of the rainbow?19 A. These are the people I lined up Mr. Lawlor and brought in to invest in Ireland.11:35:3420 Q. 54 Is Grosvenor --21 A. Hammerson was there before them. Amongst a number of other people, like22 Arlington Securities and there was a number of pension funds who also23 participated with those developers.24 Q. 55 I just have to ask you do you agree with me, Grosvenor Developers are11:35:5625 developers not institutional, not pension fund. Do you agree that they are26 developers?27 A. Yes, so is British Land and is Heron, who built the Cork centre, and so is28 Hammerson who was one of the contenders for Quarryvale. And with them came29 quite a substantial number of major institutions, all lined up by me and11:36:2430 brought in to invest in Ireland.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

2711:36:281 Q. 56 Well back to your, the question being posed to you hereby me and posed as a2 result of this report. Is that there was a necessity at that time to provide3 the information to the retailers to instil confidence.4 A. This was before the actual second brochure, the brochure which we have seen11:36:475 now, was been put together. That was put together for the presentation in the6 Berkley Court, as was all the other information that was presented that night7 in the Berkley Court.8 Q. 57 Sorry Mr. Gilmartin --9 A. These were my advisers.11:37:0310 Q. 58 Your advisers --11 A. They have been for a number of years, but those were my people who were giving12 me and advising me on the complete scheme.13 Q. 59 So could I just ask, what information would you provide in answer to the final14 paragraph of that page, the developer, who would you inform Mr. Harris is the11:37:2815 developer?16 A. The developer would be whoever came in and took over the scheme.17 Q. 60 But he is asking here and now who is the developer now, in the advancing the18 scheme, who would you put forward as the developer at that juncture to answer19 his question?11:37:4420 A. There was no developer at that juncture other than my proposal and the team21 that I had to bring it to that stage.22 Q. 61 Could I have day 463, page 16 line 14?2324 Now just there, would you provide to Mr. Harris your answer that you gave on11:38:3725 that day in response to his question about the name of the developer who was26 going to -27 A. Yes --28 Q. 62 I am not a PLC, I am just an odd job man. Is that what you tell them?29 A. Exactly and I always told Richard foreman that. I am not interested in big11:38:5430 money, big schemes or anything, I am just an odd job man. If a particularPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

2811:39:001 proposition is put to me or a problem I set about solving it and I can do it.2 Q. 63 So you convey to Mr. Harris, do I --3 A. Yes exactly.4 Q. 64 That's what you would --11:39:145 A. They knew me for years, they understood me.6 Q. 65 That you were an odd job man.7 A. An odd job man. Yes. When I say on jobs they were very odd Mr. Lawlor.8 Q. 66 That's getting more obvious by the minute.9 A. Most peculiar, one day I'll explain them to you.11:39:3410 Q. 67 Very odd is right.11 A. One day I'll explain them to you perhaps.12 Q. 68 I don't think I would give you the time somehow.13 A. No you'd be too busy otherwise.1411:39:4515 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gilmartin --16 Q. 69 Now if we just have line 13A there. Maybe that might be a better description.17 456, line 13. I don't know whether I have the right page or not. 456 sorry it18 is yes. Page 58, what am I saying? Is that page 58 yes. Sorry Mr. Kavanagh.19 Yeah. So instead of giving him, or giving that description, then you could add11:40:3420 on to it. "That is correct, I was only just should I say a general dog's21 body".22 A. Correct. I don't go with fancy titles or anything like that.23 Q. 70 Could we have --24 A. I don't have to justify myself to anybody on this earth.11:40:4925 Q. 71 I am not asking you, I am just quoting your own evidence, I am only asking you26 these questions, because if we can have page 2627?2728 Now you have been promoted here Mr. Gilmartin from being an odd job man and29 general dog's body to a property investor and developer. You see your heading11:41:2030 there, printed at your instructions?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

2911:41:211 A. Yeah well I could probably take on that mantle if needs be. I had already2 built and been involved in --3 Q. 72 50,000 square feet in Milton Keynes, isn't that right?4 A. Two office blocks in Milton Keynes, I built my own factories within three years11:41:425 of arriving in England and I built them and paid for them, Mr. Lawlor.6 Q. 73 But they all failed in 1978 and Margaret Thatcher got the blame for that, isn't7 that right?8 A. They didn't fail because of my fault. They failed because of.9 Q. 74 Margaret Tatcher.11:41:5710 A. The winter of discontent. Nothing to do with Margaret Tatcher it started long11 before that.12 Q. 75 You referred in your evidence, you gave credit or blame to Margaret Thatcher in13 your evidence I don't want to waste time, but that's what you said.14 A. Yes she destroyed the major industry, rightly or wrongly, the steel industry,11:42:1515 the motor industry, everything stopped, came to a stop and since I was a16 service to those industries we were very very badly hit.17 Q. 76 I don't dis--18 A. Apart from the winter of discontent and the militant tendencies and the strikes19 we couldn't work for the best part of two or three years.11:42:3520 Q. 77 I don't disagree that times were pretty difficult in trading terms and I am not21 going to waste the Tribunals time and I concur with you that things had failed22 for very good reason?23 A. If you want a little bit of, if you want a little bit of evidence on24 credentials Mr. Lawlor the last scheme I done --11:42:562526 CHAIRMAN: All right Mr. Gilmartin, Mr. Lawlor can you get back on track.27 Q. 78 I will just ask Mr.2829 CHAIRMAN: But Mr. Lawlor this seems to me ridiculous that you are here arguing11:43:0830 whether he calls himself an odd job man or a dog's body. He made it quitePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

3011:43:151 clear how he sees himself, the Tribunal is well able to decide what in fact he2 might have been or what cloak he operated under when he was concerned with3 Quarryvale.411:43:265 MR. LAWLOR: Well you see the problem I have Chairman is that elected members6 such as myself and council officials were having to decide whether we put our7 faith and trust in a gentleman to develop a town centre for us. That's what I8 am trying to establish, is how viable and why should I vote for it or switch9 the zoning from Balgaddy to Quarryvale which is a momentous planning decision11:43:4810 to change a 20 year plan, we were confronted with the choice and had to make a11 choice and eventually did make a choice.1213 So I will move on Chairman.14 Q. 79 I just want if go on Mr. Gilmartin and I won't be very long, the land11:44:0115 valuations associated with your various transactions. You said in evidence16 that you recognised maybe in a fit of pique that the Balgaddy lands were only17 worth 10,000 pounds an acre. Now would you concur with that or withdraw that?18 A. I wasn't referring to the Balgaddy lands.19 Q. 80 What lands were you referring to?11:44:2020 A. Lands in that area.21 Q. 81 Okay.22 A. I wasn't, if you are referring to the Neilstown site I was not referring to23 that.24 Q. 82 Okay. You would agree with me because it's in the documents Mr. Gilmartin that11:44:3325 Mr. Gubay's contract put the value at 90,900 when he successfully put a26 proposal to the Corporation, wouldn't that be right?27 A. He didn't successfully, he withdrew and didn't go ahead because it wasn't28 viable.29 Q. 83 No the question is the price paid to the Corporation was 90,900 per acre in the11:44:5530 documents let's not get bogged down with the rights and wrongs. There isPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

3111:44:591 documentary evidence Mr. Gilmartin in which I don't want to open and delay,2 puts the value at 90,900 an acre, do you agree with that?3 A. That was the actual 33 acres not the 119 acres.4 Q. 84 That's correct.11:45:155 A. The 33 acres which was zoned town centre around and he had such a loose6 contract that if a crow sat on it he could withdraw.7 Q. 85 I see.8 A. We have the contract, so we know.9 Q. 86 Now the crows -- and then you were prepared to pay Mr. O'Callaghan per11:45:3410 contract, through documents, 106,000 pounds an acre, isn't that right?11 A. Well there was good reason for that.12 Q. 87 I am just asking you that you were prepared it's just a simple question, not a13 trick question, you were prepared to contract to buy for 106,000 pounds an14 acre, isn't that right?11:45:5515 A. That's correct.16 Q. 88 Good.17 A. And wasn't that a waste of money.18 Q. 89 Now would you, well it was your money you were wasting. Would you agree with19 me that the price of 40 to 41 thousand pounds per acre that Mr. McLoone had11:46:0820 negotiated with you on an exclusive bases was quite low in the context of the21 area?22 A. No. It was over the top actually at the time because I had just bought23 Bruton's land which was the prime site and sharps land. Fronting the Galway24 Road, for that figure. They thought Santa Clause had arrived.11:46:2825 Q. 90 Well could we have 2498 please? This is your estate agent of the day26 Mr. Gilmartin.27 A. We have been through all this.28 Q. 91 Well, you know --29 A. With Mr. Redmond.11:46:4730 Q. 92 I will decide whose through or not today. You would agree with me would youPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

3211:46:511 there, that Mr. Gunnes agencies gave you a valuation at 97,222.00 per acre?2 A. Yeah the scheme, it was based on the potential of the footprint that I had put3 together.4 Q. 93 I put it to you Mr. Gilmartin that's incorrect.11:47:095 A. That is correct.6 Q. 94 It's incorrect Mr. Gilmartin.7 A. That's correct.8 Q. 95 Okay. We'll go through it so if it is and try and establish the truth.911:47:1810 Situation here if we can go.1112 Now valuation the last heading in our opinion subjects to the content of the13 above report the current open market value of the lands as outlined above is in14 the region of 17.5 million pounds.11:47:3515 A. That's correct, that was the footprint --16 Q. 96 Sorry I will comply with Mr. Gallagher's wishes and read the rest of it for you17 now then you can answer the question.1819 "We would welcome an opportunity to revise our opinion of value in the event11:47:5020 that the proposed planning application is successful for a large retail,21 business park".22 So would you concede to me now that what you have just given by way of evidence23 is incorrect.24 A. No.11:48:0225 Q. 97 No?26 A. I have -- I stand by any evidence I give here.27 Q. 98 Well I have to --28 A. As incidentally there was no planning on it at the time. It was based on the29 fact that it was industrial land and so therefore the reference to a retail11:48:2030 park which is DIY, is absolutely correct, because I also had people lined upPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

3311:48:271 for that. So it was based, that valuation was based on the potential.2 Q. 99 Mr. Gilmartin I contend and put it back to you Mr. Gunne is saying something3 given or his agent. He is saying that the current market value on the day was4 79, 222 pound per acre giving a gross valuation of 17.5 million pounds on the11:48:545 current value on that day and had nothing to do with potential going forward,6 do you agree with me on that?7 A. Yeah you have just referred there to - just pick it out.89 CHAIRMAN: Well Mr. Lawlor --11:49:0510 A. To a retail park.1112 CHAIRMAN: Sorry Mr. Lawlor in fairness the Gunne valuation is stated to be13 the current open market lands as outlined above if you look above under14 general, it is stated this is at present, the largest potential shopping centre11:49:2115 site assembled in the Republic of Ireland.16 A. It was on the potential yes.17 Q. 100 Potential. But I am just asking Mr. Gilmartin to agree, because its to do with18 his own credibility or values?19 A. The land was not sold with potential other than industry, it was unconditional11:49:4020 because Dublin Corporation needed money at the time in the tighten your belt21 era.22 Q. 101 I have to press you on this matter Mr. Gilmartin because it is to do with23 correctness. From a valuation viewpoint, we have based our opinion of value on24 the site as it stands with the benefit of the existing industrial residential11:50:0125 zoning.26 A. That's correct and the potential for the site which was referred to above.27 Q. 102 There is nothing do to do with the valuation vis-a-vis the potential.28 Mr. Gunne is putting in his ore to hope he would get a second chance if you got29 what you were looking for on the lands?11:50:1630 A. Now Mr. Gunne is trying to hustle in on the deal, according to you.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

3411:50:201 Q. 103 Well we would welcome an opportunity to revise our opinion of value in the2 event that the proposed planning application is successful. I am putting the3 question, Mr. Gunne or his agents valued your land at 97,222 pound per acre4 without any potential further planning endorsement to the lands. Do you agree11:50:455 or not agree?6 A. That's the valuation Mr. Gunne gave.7 Q. 104 You agree that's fine. You agree let's leave it at that.8 A. How can I disagree with that?9 Q. 105 That's fine.11:50:5510 A. But it was on the footprint that I had put together.11 Q. 106 No no, no footprint.12 A. Yes it is on the footprint of the whole. As I said before the value of the13 whole was greater than the some of the parts. Because the Dublin Corporation14 land was, to all intents and purposes more or less land bound, there was access11:51:1515 onto the Irishtown Road which devalued it immensely.16 Q. 107 That's not even part of the question. I will just move onto the next valuation17 then on 2596. And this is Lisney's valuation I think, instructed by one of the18 bank's Mr. Gilmartin, isn't that correct?19 A. Probably.11:51:3420 Q. 108 They have put two values on it I won't delay. They have put 12 million pounds21 or 66,666 pounds per acre, or on a break up value 16 million pounds which is22 88,888 pound per acre. Do you agree that that was what Lisneys valued the23 lands at at that time for the bank?24 A. That's -- well correct. I think this document came from my documentation, that11:52:0525 I supplied.26 Q. 109 Fine. Okay. We are agreed. Now could we just -- now can I just go on to27 3269? Maybe you could have up along side it 2558 please? Now this is your own28 letter heading I gather Mr. Gilmartin, for the Westpark project and you are29 writing to AIB. This is a schedule, I think this is prepared by Mr. Foreman on11:52:4330 the right and your letter on the left.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

3511:52:4512 Now if we go down to the bottom of the page there on your letter, and it's just3 quickly as "As you are aware we were approached by Hamilton" so you are4 suggesting to the bank you were approached by HOK, looking for I think it's 3511:53:005 acres somewhere in there on the Western Parkway. Now you are asking the price6 of 200,000 pounds for the land as is, is that right? 200,000 pounds, yeah7 A. No that, the condition of that was that it had planning for the purpose they8 wanted it.9 Q. 110 Sorry. Could you repeat that answer?11:53:3210 A. If they -- the 200,000 pounds per acre would have been with the planning.11 Q. 111 No --12 A. If it was sold. But I was not selling other than that was an inquiry made of13 me.14 Q. 112 I just, well I am going to pursue it in detail to get an answer from you, if I11:53:4915 can. It's just stating that you have this inquiry from Hamilton Osbourne King16 and they are interested in the land as is, industrial land near the Western17 Parkway, which is what it was and we have agreed offer for sale some 30 acres18 of the Coldcut Road end of the site which is surplus to our requirements and we19 are asking the price of 200,000 pounds per acre, is that right or wrong, this11:54:1420 is your letter Mr. Gilmartin?21 A. Yeah. Obviously at the time it would have been correct.22 Q. 113 So now you have gone from acquisition at a 40,000 pound price per acre, through23 the valuations which is up around the 100,000 give or take and now you are24 looking for a hundred per cent profit on the industrial land which on the11:54:3825 Coldcut Road was on the back end of the site.26 A. No I am not looking for it because I wasn't selling. It was simply. I was not27 selling the land until the whole scheme was put in place.28 Q. 114 You are selling here Mr. Gilmartin. You are interested in selling what's29 surplus to your requirement.11:54:5230 A. Well it seems to be ten times more than you suggested I could have had the landPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

3611:54:571 for had I you on board. At 20 grand an acre with you and George Redmond on2 board I should have listened to you.3 Q. 115 But you didn't and that's unfortunate and not on this issue?4 A. That is my unfortunate --11:55:135 Q. 116 Could you give some evidence to the Tribunal to support that claim please.6 Where it happened, how it happened and how you think I could have achieved it?7 A. It happened on the site the day that you met me on the site. And I should have8 listened to you and George I could have had the land for --911:55:2910 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gilmartin what, just explain to us again, what happened on the11 site?12 A. Mr. Lawlor wanted 20 --1314 MR. LAWLOR: Nothing because I was never there with him11:55:401516 CHAIRMAN: Yes you were.1718 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor you asked for the detail. What happened on the site?19 A. Mr. Lawlor, I was down on the site somebody told him I was there. So he came11:55:5120 along the Fonthill Road, I was in walking on the part of the site.21 Mr. Lawlor's car was parked on the Fonthill Road as he I came out he was22 waiting of the and he still was insisting on him getting a 20 per cent stake in23 it. Which I told him, I asked him that, did he realise what he was asking for?2411:56:1625 He told me straight that I had at the time put in the tender, this was 19 --26 July or thereabouts, 1990. And I had put in the tender and he told me how27 stupid I was that had I him and George aboard I could have had it for 20 grand28 an acre. As was the asking price incidentally. Before I paid Mr. Bruton 4029 grand an acre. Mr. Lawlor didn't give up easy. He still insisted on getting11:57:0130 his 20 per cent stake and him being taken on board.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

3711:57:0812 MR. LAWLOR: And you bribed a Minister to try an rectify that, is that right?3 A. Pardon.4 Q. 117 And you bribed a Minister to try and rectify that? Get me off your back. You11:57:165 gave the Minister 50,000 pound.6 A. No I did not give a Minister 50,000 pounds. I would never, and have never, as7 you well know Mr. Lawlor, because you have said and I have stated, you never8 got a penny, not without trying on your behalf. But you never got a penny from9 me. So there was no way I would pay any Minister or any elected member of a11:57:4010 government of this country, who was there to help the people of Ireland and11 stop the emigration, which they should have been doing an not hustling in on12 any investment that came into Ireland.13 Q. 118 Mr. Gilmartin, can I ask you, your evidence has been that you gave the 50,00014 pound to Mr. Flynn?11:57:5815 A. My evidence, I gave Fianna Fail 50,000 pound which I told the chief organiser16 of Fianna Fail only a short time later that I had already, when he asked me for17 a donation, as did the Taoiseach who was appearing here today, asked me for a18 donation. I informed them I had given it to the party, a donation, I gave19 nothing to Mr. Flynn, to you or anybody else Mr. Lawlor. And incidentally, you11:58:2520 have referred to disclosure, when I got a letter from the Tribunal --21 Q. 119 Sorry Chairman am I asking questions or is Mr. Gilmartin making speeches.2223 CHAIRMAN: If it's part of his answer he is entitled to give it.24 A. I won't be hustled Mr. Lawlor any more. I will answer the questions my way.11:58:452526 CHAIRMAN: Well if it's part of the answer you are entitled to give it, if not27 then it should rest there. This might be an appropriate time to take a break28 for a few minutes.2911:58:5730 MR. GALLAGHER: Sir before you take break, I have been handed a copy of aPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

3811:59:021 letter received by fax from Mr. Lawlor signed by his secretary today a fax2 apparently at 10.04 received to the Tribunal at 11.15 and it reads :34 "Dear Ms. Gilvarry, I refer to your fax of yesterday evening, unfortunately I11:59:215 have entered into commitments to travel to Prague which I had to previously6 cancel and am not in a position to make further cancellation, therefore I am7 not available on Thursday the 8th of April 2004 to attend at the Tribunal".89 I understand from Mr. Dillon, she had spoken with Mr. Lawlor before the11:59:3810 Tribunal sat, and he did not indicate to her at that stage that he had made11 travel arrangements.1213 MR. LAWLOR: Ms. Dillon told me she sent out a letter at half four I checked it14 came in the at half five on the fax. I was asked to respond, I responded and11:59:5715 that's my position. An hour of a drift between Ms. Dillon's suggestion to me16 and the receipt of the fax.1718 CHAIRMAN: But Mr. Lawlor when you spoke to Ms. Dillon this morning surely you19 knew you were going to Prague tomorrow.12:00:062021 MR. LAWLOR: Of course, yes. But I said I would reflect on it. She said you22 have a letter at your office, and would you respond to it. I said I would23 check with the office and respond to it. And I rang my office and asked them24 to read out the letter and when the letter was read out to me. I dictated a12:00:2125 response. And that's what the position. And I am not deviating from it.2627 CHAIRMAN: But could you have informed us at half ten this morning. I offered28 you an opportunity to make your submission tomorrow and you said you wanted to29 consider it. Presumably you knew at that stage that you wouldn't be here12:00:4030 tomorrow.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

3912:00:4112 MR. LAWLOR: Chairman I have had to cancel these arrangements because of the3 longevity of the cross-examination, I can't change that. This letter came in4 last evening. Ms. Dillon came to me did I get a letter, I didn't have the12:00:535 letter I said I would ring and find out what was in it.67 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor the point is you could have told us at half ten this8 morning, which was a half hour after you dictated this had letter.912:01:0210 MR. LAWLOR: I apologise for that Chairman but that's my position.1112 JUDGE KEYS: Mr. Lawlor that's not good enough.1314 MS. DILLON: The letter was faxed from Mr. Lawlor's office at 10.04 this12:01:1315 morning. That mean that is this letter was sent to the Tribunal before I spoke16 to Mr. Lawlor this morning because I didn't get down here until 25 past 10.17 That's the first.1819 MR. LAWLOR: That's a lie Chairman. That's a blatant lie. I didn't know the12:01:2720 letter, what was in the letter, Ms. Dillon came to me here and said did I get a21 letter and I said no. I didn't even know the letter was there.2223 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor did you know at 10 this morning or before half ten that24 the Tribunal was considering sitting, had decided to sit tomorrow?12:01:452526 MR. LAWLOR: When Ms. Dillon spoke to me, I rang my office to inquire was there27 a letter there, Ms. Dillon said it came in at half four, it came in at 5.2528 last evening, not half past four Ms. Dillon, I have responded as requested to29 the letter.12:02:0030Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

4012:02:001 CHAIRMAN: But forget about the letter. Wasn't it clear before half ten this2 morning that the Tribunal was sitting on Thursday?34 MR. LAWLOR: Well what, when I called my office I was contemplating could I or12:02:135 could I not change and I can't. You sprung this one on me.67 CHAIRMAN: But we are not criticising. We are criticising it because when we8 sat at half ten you knew the Tribunal had planned to sit tomorrow. You were9 contemplating making a submission tomorrow and yet you don't inform the12:02:3110 Tribunal.1112 MR. LAWLOR: I was to see could I change, when I rang and was asked what13 commitments I've entered into, you know, I just can't -- the Tribunal sprung14 this one on me last evening when you sent a letter. You know.12:02:441516 CHAIRMAN: I know. But Mr. Lawlor we accept we sprung it on you last night,17 it was for reasons of, to ensure that you were, might finish your18 cross-examination, but our criticism is that this morning at half ten when we19 sat you knew the Tribunal intended to sit tomorrow and you knew that you, that12:03:0620 you had a letter in the pipeline saying that you couldn't be available21 tomorrow. We are criticising you for not standing up and saying by the way I22 have a problem tomorrow.2324 MR. LAWLOR: All I can respond Chairman, I don't want to get into controversy12:03:2025 with you. Ms. Dillon presented herself here, said did I get a letter, I said I26 didn't.2728 MS. DILLON: Just so that there is no ambiguity about this in relation to29 Mr. Lawlor's, the fax from Mr. Lawlor's office to the Tribunal is dated 412:03:3430 minutes past 10 and is so recorded on the fax received by the Tribunal so it isPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

4112:03:391 a fact that at 4 four minutes past ten wherever the fax came from, the Tribunal2 was informed that Mr. Lawlor would not be coming here tomorrow because he is3 going to Prague.412:03:485 That is at least 15 minutes before I spoke to Mr. Lawlor. And that is the6 factual position.78 MR. LAWLOR: Not true. Not true. You came here and I didn't know anything9 about a letter and I told you I didn't know anything about a letter when you12:04:0210 presented yourself.1112 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Lawlor can I ask you did you know you were going to Prague13 this morning, when you arrived down. Did you know you were going to Prague.1412:04:1115 MR. LAWLOR: I know for the last ten days.1617 JUDGE FAHERTY: What the Chairman is putting, as I understand it, it would have18 been a matter of courtesy just to inform us at 10.30 this morning that you had19 a flight booked to Prague.12:04:252021 MR. LAWLOR: But when I spoke to my office I discussed the commitments I'd22 entered into and I will make a couple of calls to Prague and see can I cancel,23 but I have entered into those commitments and I will inform you before we rise24 at one if I can get answer from my office.12:04:422526 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well that's fair enough then.2728 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT BREAK29 And Resumed Again As Follows:12:04:5530Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

4212:04:55123 MR. LAWLOR: Ms. Dillon is right and I'm right. My fax, as they say in the4 country, was still "on auld time" that explains the difference of time Chairman12:21:035 it should have been 11.00 whatever was on the fax. Now I just, my office is6 speaking to a couple of people in Prague to see can we cancel.78 My intention was to travel on Czech airlines flight 675 at 7.15 in the morning9 so before we rise I will make a call to the office and see if we can cancel if12:21:2410 we can and make myself available to you in the morning as requested.1112 CHAIRMAN: But Mr. Lawlor we understand that you don't have a flight booked.1314 MR. LAWLOR: I have a seat reserved. I just reserved the seat but haven't paid12:21:3615 for the ticket. I will do it at the airport in the morning.1617 CHAIRMAN: Does that mean you have a flight booked?1819 MR. LAWLOR: I have a seat available, yes reserved. A telephone call from the12:21:4720 travel agent I reserved a seat but I wasn't absolutely certain.2122 CHAIRMAN: Can you tell us when this flight was booked or reserved2324 MR. LAWLOR: Just reserved by phone, I think yesterday afternoon or this12:22:0025 morning on the basis that we weren't sitting on Thursday.2627 CHAIRMAN: This is, although you had a fax from us from the Tribunal28 yesterday?2912:22:1030 MR. LAWLOR: But I didn't see the fax, I didn't go back to my office, it camePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

4312:22:141 in at 5.25. Now if it is timed on my fax it would have been 4.35.23 CHAIRMAN: I think you told us before the break that you had made these4 arrangements 10 days ago.12:22:2656 MR. LAWLOR: I cancelled arrangements twice already Chairman.78 CHAIRMAN: But the flight was booked this morning you say.912:22:3310 MR. LAWLOR: I have a seat reserved that I can take up if I wish if I was able11 to travel, on Chechz airlines flight 675.1213 MR. GALLAGHER: Perhaps Mr. Lawlor can tell Tribunal when he reserved the seat14 I don't know the difference perhaps he can tell the Tribunal when he reserved12:22:5215 the seat.1617 MR. LAWLOR: There is quite a big difference of the Tribunal asked me to make18 arrangements to be here in the morning and I am endeavouring to do so. I won't19 take it further than that, other than I will tell the Tribunal within a half12:23:0420 hour after phoning my office have I been able to cancel arrangements and21 rearrange for next week Chairman.2223 CHAIRMAN: We are concerned Mr. Lawlor that we, that you told us that you had24 plans to travel to Prague tomorrow, for ten days, and yet at the same time you12:23:2125 say you reserved a seat this morning for a flight to Prague.2627 MR. LAWLOR: Chairman I have plans to travel ten days ago.2829 CHAIRMAN: But why would you wait until this morning to book a flight?12:23:3630Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

4412:23:361 MR. LAWLOR: There is a seat reserved on the flight all I have to go and pay.23 CHAIRMAN: Since when.412:23:415 MR. LAWLOR: Whenever my office booked it yesterday sometime.67 CHAIRMAN: But why, if you have arrangements ten days ago, you wait until8 yesterday afternoon.912:23:4910 MR. LAWLOR: Because I am trying to facilitate the Tribunal by cancelling11 arrangements. If you don't want me to cancel them I will adjourn until after12 Easter with my cross-examination, so it is a choice that you have Chairman.1314 CHAIRMAN: If you Mr. Lawlor, can't see the difficulty we have in12:24:0415 understanding that on the one hand you say that you arranged that you made16 alternative arrangements to go to Prague for the last ten days, but you book a17 flight yesterday afternoon or this morning, it just doesn't --1819 MR. GALLAGHER: He reserves a seat Sir.12:24:192021 MR. LAWLOR: I have gone to the airport with no seat and reserved a ticket on22 the spot many the time. There is no rocket science about reservations or23 otherwise, if I was finished with the Tribunal I could be at the airport in the24 morning with no reservation providing there was a seat available and pay at the12:24:3525 airport and travel.2627 MR. GALLAGHER: Mr. Lawlor still hasn't answered the question that I have28 asked and the answer is, the question is this: What is the difference between29 reserving a seat and booking a flight? That's the first question. The second12:24:4730 question is when did he reserve the seat.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

4512:24:5112 MR. LAWLOR: You can reserve up to a point in time you don't have to pay if you3 cancel it, if you buy a ticket you have to pay and forfeit the ticket.412:24:595 MR. GALLAGHER: When was the seat reserved?67 CHAIRMAN: Yesterday evening or this morning.89 JUDGE KEYS: Even though the appointment was ten days ago, or made up ten days12:25:0810 ago.1112 MR. LAWLOR: This is your choice of putting in a fax yesterday afternoon for13 tomorrow morning.1412:25:1215 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor if you had been up front with us this morning and said16 at half ten I am sorry I have made arrangements to go we would have said fine.1718 JUDGE KEYS: No trouble.1912:25:2220 CHAIRMAN: We are criticising you because you allow us continue to nearly 1221 o'clock before we were told that, even though you know we are operating on the22 basis that we are going to sit tomorrow, you then tell us that for ten days you23 have had arrangements to go to Prague, you then tell us that you booked or24 reserved a seat yesterday afternoon or this morning, even though you had12:25:4325 arrangements ten days ago, which seems to us to be a peculiar way of making26 travel arrangements. That's all we are saying.2728 MR. LAWLOR: All I am saying is I had arrangements to try and travel last week,29 I was hoping I might travel on Monday of this week. That wasn't possible. Now12:25:5830 I am trying to facilitate the Tribunal and more than that I am not in aPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

4612:26:021 position to comment on.23 CHAIRMAN: All right well we'll revisit it at 2 o'clock.412:26:135 Q. 120 MR. LAWLOR: Could I just ask Mr. Gilmartin I was just putting the point to you6 that your letter is looking for a valuation of, you are looking for a price7 from HOK you have said you weren't selling yet your offer of a letter says you8 are selling at the current zoning at 200,000 pounds an acre, is that right? At9 326912:26:3010 A. I was not selling until the scheme was completely in place.11 Q. 121 Could I have 3269?12 A. That's only notification of an inquiry for the site.13 Q. 122 As you are aware we were approached by Hamilton Osbourne King on behalf of some14 clients of theirs who were interested in buying land near the Western Parkway.12:26:5215 We have agreed to offer for sale, some 30 acres at Coldcut Road end of the site16 which is surplus to our requirements for the shopping centre. The asking price17 for this land is 200,000 punts per acre, but of course, we'll listen to any18 reasonable offer to reduce our exposure. As far as I am aware, they have at19 least two interested parties.12:27:232021 Is that truthful or not?22 A. It is obviously truthful if I wrote the letter.23 Q. 123 But your evidence two seconds ago is you weren't selling the land now you agree24 you were selling the land.12:27:3525 A. No I didn't offer the land for sale, approach was made to me for some26 particular reason, in terms of what we were planning I would have had to know27 exactly what was going on the site before I would consider selling the land. I28 would not allow some shed or other to impede the, or should I say to downgrade29 what I was proposing on the site. So the 200,000 pounds an acre would have12:28:0930 been a price I put on it for the simple reason that I had no intention ofPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

4712:28:151 selling it at that time. I would have considered it probably later when we had2 the scheme in place.3 Q. 124 Could I have the date of the letter please, it's up on top I presume. 5th4 September, 1990. To Allied Irish Banks.12:28:365 You are bluffing Mr. Gilmartin. You were trying to giddy up the bank to try6 and keep them off your back, you were suggesting you had this offer and it was7 totally untrue. Your whole letter is pleading for time because you didn't have8 the money Mr. Gilmartin. And you were bluffing them into suggesting that you9 were selling land.12:28:5210 A. No I have always, and the any bank I dealt with, I am quite confident will tell11 you I was always totally up front with anything I said or told them. And12 totally accurate, because I would not have my name sullied by lying,13 particularly to a bank or anybody else.14 Q. 125 We'll hear the bank in time Mr. Gilmartin, I am just asking you, you are saying12:29:2115 that you had an offer. Was the offer in writing?16 A. Yeah, Hamilton Osbourne King who I actually was not really dealing with or had17 much to do with, approached for, to buy some land there, and I was not in the18 business of selling it at that time.19 Q. 126 Could I ask Chairman, that Hamilton Osbourne King will be approached to see if12:29:4620 they can recall making an offer to Mr. Gilmartin for 200,000 pounds? Could I21 have 2558 please?22 A. They didn't offer 200,000 pounds Mr. Lawlor, nor the letter doesn't say that.23 It said I put that price on it and probably the price was put on it as a24 deterrent because I was not selling at the time.12:30:0425 Q. 127 We've heard it all now.2627 2558. I think this is Mr. Richard foreman. Mr. Richard foreman is suggesting28 the valuation prepared by Gunnes of 17.5 million pounds and this result is a29 projected increase over cost of approximately 6.1 million pounds. You agree12:30:3430 with Mr. Foreman in that?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

4812:30:361 A. That was their professional opinion.2 Q. 128 No this is facts. He is dealing in hard facts here. He is dealing in actual3 outlay as against surplus on valuation.4 A. Well let's see what this is in respect of. This seems to be part of a bigger12:30:565 letter.6 Q. 129 It's what?7 A. The overall letter I would like to see.8 Q. 130 Well I don't know, we are dealing with what's here in front of us, that's all9 we can do.12:31:0710 A. No that's part of a, of a professional, of their professional thing on this,11 and you will find that it's part of an overall --12 Q. 131 No it's just Mr. Foreman telling you that your land valuation from Gunne's is13 17.5 million pounds and your outlay in assembling the site at 11.3 million of14 which 2.5 has already been paid?12:31:3815 A. Yeah but the site wasn't fully assembled when that was done. The outlay at the16 time, but I think you will find that the Rahilly land and other bits and pieces17 were not fully in the bag at that time.18 Q. 132 So the valuation was to show a surplus.19 A. Rahilly land came much later and one or two other bits and pieces.12:32:0320 Q. 133 Mr. Foreman is saying the land required to develop the proposed site has21 already been acquired or is under offer and the cost of the land which we22 assume under offer --23 A. There was 185 acres, the land to develop the shopping centre was which as you24 know was zoned was 120 acres, there was another 60 odd acres over and above12:32:2625 that Mr. Lawlor. He is referring to the actual footprint of the shopping26 centre we had proposed.27 Q. 134 No I think he is just dealing with the specifics of the situation at the time?28 A. No I said this is part, it's number 3 as you can see on what ever that report29 that he was doing at the time.12:32:4930 Q. 135 Okay. Just --Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

4912:32:511 A. As you say it's item 3, there is more to it than meets the eye here.2 Q. 136 Do you agree that it was a surplus valuation based on Gunnes valuation of 6.13 million pounds?4 A. The surplus valuation, the overall site was valued of 185 acres, of which12:33:115 Rahilly's land and one or two others --6 Q. 137 I am not interested in detail, I am asking you Mr. Gilmartin --7 A. Were not in place. The value was put on 185 acres and at the time, at the 118 million pound assembly of the site was, the footprint wasn't completed for the9 overall site.12:33:3710 Q. 138 Mr. Chairman I am putting the question again. And I will repeat it as often as11 I have to get an answer. Do you agree that this document by Mr. Foreman your12 property advisor is suggesting that your value of your acquisition was coming13 in or committed to outlay at 11.3 and that you have a 6.1 million pounds14 surplus in valuation, yes or no?12:34:0015 A. Yeah. The valuation was done on 185 acres, as I have said. So if you put,16 show me the complete --17 Q. 139 I just asked you --18 A. The complete document Mr. Lawlor. Not a little cherry picking pieces that you19 want to put before me. I want the overall document.12:34:242021 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gilmartin what do you say the complete document indicates?22 A. I am not a hundred per cent sure what the overall document, this is item three23 on that document.2412:34:3625 CHAIRMAN: Can we put up the document?26 A. So if you have the remainder of the document.27 Q. 140 I don't think there is any more to it Chairman, however they may be. I may be28 wrong.2912:34:4530 JUDGE FAHERTY: Look at 2352.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

5012:34:501 Q. 141 That's Green Properties interfering in the acquisition of Corporation land, as2 I understand it. Which is for a visit shortly now. So that's not anything to3 do with the document.412:35:055 I think this document just stands alone on that note.6 A. No that's item 3 as you can see. There is more to that document. That's7 provided it hasn't been lost or destroyed.8 Q. 142 Now it's -- well it doesn't really matter that's a different, that's a9 department document. Mr. Gilmartin it's, if there is ten more pages it's12:35:3310 irrelevant to my question. I am just asking you, do you accept that your value11 was showing you a mythical growth, gross profit or surplus to valuation of 6.112 million pounds, it's yes or no, do you agree or not agree?13 A. It was referring to the amount of money --14 Q. 143 I don't think what he is referring to just answer the question?12:35:5215 A. You want an answer Mr. Lawlor and I will give it my way.1617 CHAIRMAN: Let him give the answer.18 Q. 144 Okay let him at it.19 A. He is referring actually to the amount of spending I had done up to that point12:36:0720 on the land at, I believe, the O'Rahilly land and there was one or two other21 pieces that were not in place at that time. So at that particular time, also22 the St. Patrick's Trust land the piece we needed across the road was not23 included. But that wouldn't have been included in the footprint of this. This24 valuation was based on 185 acres at the time that this report was done I had12:36:3725 expended 11-- 11 and a half million or whatever it was.26 Q. 145 The question Mr. Gilmartin, do you agree that you were --27 A. No I don't agree. If that's the answer you want. I don't agree because the28 valuation was based on the 185 acres. Mr. Foreman is referring to the amount29 of money which we had, I had from Mr. Maguire calculated up to that time as to12:37:0630 what I had expended on the site.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

5112:37:1012 MR. O'DONNELL: Chairman, the full document is in fact an accountant's report3 it commences at page 2543. I think that Mr. Lawlor may be confusing the fact4 that two pages have been juxtaposed.12:37:255 Q. 146 I am asking a simple question does Mr. Gilmartin agree to the stark financial6 facts.78 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor Mr. Gilmartin has asked to see the full document and he9 is entitled to see it.12:37:371011 MR. O'DONNELL: And it is not a report from --1213 MR. GALLAGHER: The full document was not circulated presumably because --1412:37:4315 JUDGE FAHERTY: It is circulated.1617 MR. GALLAGHER: Sorry I beg your pardon. Yes.1819 MR. O'DONNELL: If you look, page 2547 is the same.12:38:032021 JUDGE KEYS: It starts at 2545 is an introduction.2223 CHAIRMAN: Now does that help you Mr. Gilmartin?24 A. I think there might be a little bit of a mix-up with those documents. That12:38:3125 one -- I think that particular document is Deloitte and Touche or Touche Ross26 in London.2728 MR. GALLAGHER: It's a document, Sir described at page 2543 as an accountant's29 report of Mr. T P Gilmartin and proposed restructuring of Barkhill Limited12:39:0130 October 1989.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

5212:39:021 A. Yeah that's correct that's it.23 MR. GALLAGHER: Go onto the next page, you see the index, the contents, there4 is an index there and you will see that the page number 3 is the Westpark12:39:135 Regional Centre and that is the page that Mr. Lawlor was questioning6 Mr. Gilmartin about. You will see that the number 3 is on it. If we go on to7 page 2547? You see it's page 3 at the bottom of the page, the Westpark8 Regional Centre and it is the same document that Mr. Lawlor earlier referred9 to.12:39:401011 MR. LAWLOR: The question Chairman is very simple, on this sheet there could be12 20 other pages, I am not -- I am asking Mr. Gilmartin will he confirm that13 there is a surplus in the Val --14 A. No that was the report to our accountants at the time and the site was not12:39:5515 fully assembled. The valuation was given on 185 acres. The O'Rahilly land had16 not been bought at the time, there was also a council yard, road maintenance17 yard and a number of other bits and pieces that were not assembled at the time.18 So it was based on my expenditure in a report to our accountants at the time.19 And we were at the time structuring Barkhill Limited.12:40:2820 Q. 147 Chairman I just have to repeat, can you accept Mr. Gilmartin, that whatever21 acreage is included in the valuation, let it be cemeteries or Coldcut Road or22 Irishtown or the total of 185 acres or not, the amount of land --23 A. I repeat once again. The valuation was on 180 acres or 185 acres, the total24 footprint of the Quarryvale site at the time this was given to my accountants,12:41:0225 it detailed my expenditure on the site up to that period. The full site was26 not in place, so that valuation could not possibly be the reference or the27 cross-reference between what I had spent and the valuation given on the full28 footprint was not a fair comparison.2912:41:3330 MR. LAWLOR: Mr. Chairman you know, we won't be finishing ever if we can't getPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

5312:41:371 an answer to a simple question.23 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gilmartin he is giving you an answer, he explained, it will be4 a matter for us to decipher12:41:4656 MR. LAWLOR: No Chairman, well running around the acreage, I am asking that the7 totality of the acreage referred to in the land that's referred to in this8 document, is showing it's valuation increase of 6.1 million pounds, does9 Mr. Gilmartin accept that or not, now I am not.12:42:0410 I don't want to listen about acreage and cemeteries and Curtis Stream, I want11 the question answered. Is Mr. Gilmartin agreeing that this document says his12 land holding referred to in this report is showing on valuation from Gunne13 Estate Agents Ballsbridge a 6.1 million profit or surplus, yes or no?14 A. No. It couldn't be a profit because this was my expenditure at the time. It12:42:2915 has no reference, it has no comparison whatsoever to valuations then or the16 comparison between the 185 acres which the valuation was done on. Because the17 site was incomplete.1819 CHAIRMAN: Well then he -- that's clear12:42:4820 Q. 148 Do you not agree that there is a surplus yes or no, does he agree?2122 CHAIRMAN: He doesn't have to give a yes. He can give his answer and qualify23 it, which he has done. And it seems quite clear what he has stated in relation24 to the question.12:43:0225 Q. 149 What is it? What has he stated?2627 CHAIRMAN: Well Mr. Gilmartin you explain again what your answer to the28 question --29 A. My answer to the question is this. I gave, to my accountants, my expenditure12:43:1930 at that time. As opposed to the valuation of the full site but the full sitePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

5412:43:251 was not in place and I was not, the money was not paid for parts of the land,2 such as the O'Rahilly land which was over 600,000 actually. And other bits and3 pieces on the site were not in place or paid for at that time.412:43:435 So this is, we got a complete costing, up to that date, which we presented and6 gave to our accountants. So this is an accountants thing during the process,7 or progress of the assembly of the site. And it has nothing whatsoever to do8 with profits over and above the valuation. That valuation was given on the9 full site, the complete site as an indication of what the whole site would be12:44:1710 worth when assembled.1112 JUDGE FAHERTY: You understand Mr. Gilmartin that Mr. Lawlor is putting to you13 that this document the 17.5 million, as I understand Mr. Lawlor's question,14 that the accountant is taking the cost of the whole acquisition into account,12:44:3515 even though you haven't yet acquire it had, that's as I understand his16 question. You are taking issue with that? That that only refers to lands17 already acquired by you, is that correct?18 A. That's correct.1912:44:4520 JUDGE FAHERTY: So there is a difference between your interpretation of the21 document and Mr. Lawlor's interpretation, as I understand it.22 A. Yes it was a progress report which was done and we supplied the accountants23 with what we had spent up to date, plus against the valuation of the overall24 site and I think somewhere in it there will be a reference to the, any12:45:1425 outstanding commitment as well. So this is not a profit and loss account.26 Q. 150 Nobody suggesting it was. I just repeat in it different way it might help you27 Mr. Gilmartin. This results in a projected increase over cost of approximately28 6.1 million pounds. Do you agree with that?29 A. That is correct it is over costs to that date.12:45:3630 Q. 151 That's the answer to the question, you do agree that you have paper valuationPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

5512:45:411 profit of 6.1 million.2 A. No. I have an agreement that it's the cost up to that date over the valuation,3 or vice versa.4 Q. 152 Okay. You know, you have made a point. I just go to page 2616? Just on the12:46:065 top there, just to concur, Mr. Druker is saying the scale of this proposed6 scheme is such that it will be the largest shopping centre by far in the7 Republic of Ireland and that it will dwarf all other shopping centres both8 existing and proposed. Is that how you saw Westpark?9 A. No I saw Westpark as I presented it. I didn't see it as compared with, or12:46:2710 against anything in Ireland or anywhere else in the world. It was my brain11 child as it were, and so consequently other people's opinions of it, well while12 I valued them, were irrelevant to my thinking.13 Q. 153 Okay. 2615, which is the same Druker Fanning valuation. Would you or could14 you, recall the thoroughness of this valuation Mr. Gilmartin, would it have12:47:0415 included site visits and so forth? How would they have gone about it do you16 think?17 A. Well in the normal way that a valuer, a proper valuer would go about his18 business.19 Q. 154 Okay. Could I just have the last paragraph there.12:47:222021 "We are aware that it is envisage that had a planning application will be22 submitted for the development of the west one shopping sentence or this site23 which will provide circa 1.1 million square feet of retail space" Etcetera24 etcetera.12:47:3625 A. It's one million now. 1.1 million.26 Q. 155 Yeah 1.1 million.27 A. And you have been talking about 2 million and 1 and a half million it's coming28 down.29 Q. 156 This is Mr. Druker Fanning's valuation to you.12:47:5030 A. Yeah.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

5612:47:501 Q. 157 Could I put it to you, Mr. Gilmartin, would you believe that is referring to2 the Blanchardstown town centre?3 A. I don't know.4 Q. 158 Well West One Shopping Centre was the name and title given.12:48:035 A. I thought you put this up and it had something to do with me so I would have no6 information whatsoever on what, on what advice Mr. Druker gave to --7 Q. 159 I am just putting it up for the following reason Mr. Gilmartin, all these8 valuations are just made up to try and keep the bank off your back?9 A. No. As a matter of fact when some of these valuations were done, if you look12:48:2910 at it Mr. Lawlor, some of those valuations were done prior to the bank putting11 up anything. They done the due diligence and so consequently the bank couldn't12 be on my back because some of these, if we find the dates of those, we find13 that they were before the bank put up any money.1412:48:5315 MR. O'DONNELL: Sir I don't think there is any evidence that this report was16 put into the bank.1718 CHAIRMAN: Sorry Mr. O'Neill, sorry Sir, I don't think there is any evidence19 that this report was received in the bank the other reports we have seen have12:49:0920 come from AIB discovery this is a T G document and Mr. Lawlor put it to21 Mr. Gilmartin this was a report prepared by him and put to the bank to get them22 off his back.2324 MR. LAWLOR: I withdraw, if it wasn't presented to the bank. I am just making12:49:2325 the point finally on this valuation it is not even referring to Westpark as a26 shopping centre and the square footage is wrong and name of the shopping centre27 is wrong, so it just strikes me as not being a very exhaustive valuation when28 they couldn't get a right shopping centre and square footage correct. We'll29 pass on, it is for Mr. Druker to answer. He is now a witness and we'll deal12:49:4530 with it then.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

5712:49:4612 Could I just have page 3282 please? This is submitted to you Mr. Gilmartin,3 fax to Tom Gilmartin from Ciaran O'Malley's office and he is setting out the4 terms associated with the government's decision to create international12:50:065 financial centre and he is setting out in the paragraph that's squared, that in6 accordance with the various legislation and planning control functions and7 planning schemes etcetera, bylaw, do you agree that it was one of your8 considerations that you might lobby for this type of facility at Westpark9 A. No. I didn't lobby for it at all. We have went through that yesterday. And12:50:3410 the document that was prepared after various articles referring to various11 numbers of the authorities were given to me by the Minister. Mr. Ciaran12 O'Malley deciphered it for me and we went through that document yesterday.13 Q. 160 Could I have page 3279 please? Mr. O'Malley is setting out in this letter14 which accompanied that document, Mr. Gilmartin, that and I will paraphrase12:51:1115 questions and just, Mr. O'Malley is stating in the letter under the last line16 of the first paragraph:17 "I don't quite see how the same thing could be done in our case" that was the18 request for, you concur that you agreed, you didn't see how could you be19 provide The with the same facility?12:51:2920 A. And I didn't ask for it. Mr. O'Malley was hired to give me planning advice and21 that's what he done, all aspects of it and under what section or what he22 enlightened me on what they were all about. It had nothing to do with my23 request for anything.24 Q. 161 Well he goes on to say "Could the Minister set up on authority for your area,12:51:5725 to do more or less what has been done at the Customs House Docks etcetera. If26 not planning will still be required".27 A. That's correct he was pointing out that under the docks scheme that I would not28 have to apply for planning it wouldn't go through the normal planning29 applications. That was ruled out, both by the government and as I have pointed12:52:2430 out before, because it would be very controversial and that certainly wouldPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

5812:52:311 provide you with some fodder Mr. Lawlor, wouldn't it?2 Q. 162 There is plenty of fodder to come, don't worry we'll get there. And talk again3 "by retail shopping planner who might yet change his mind and decide if he is4 able to act". Why did you feel you needed, or did you ever appoint the said12:52:485 retail expert?6 A. Yes I had Mr -- you were talking about him earlier.7 Q. 163 So you --8 A. Mr. Harris. And others, Mr. Sheerer, Guy Sheerer. Roy Harris.9 Q. 164 I think this is --12:53:0610 A. Who was one of the best in the UK actually.11 Q. 165 I think this is referring to Mr. O'Malley suggesting that you should take on12 board an Irish retail shopping planner, not to do with your UK connections?13 A. That would be a matter for the investor, whoever he was. I was only just14 putting the scheme together, which I done.12:53:2815 Q. 166 Could we just go on to 3285 please.1617 Just on the first paragraph I will be very brief, Mr. Gilmartin your views18 about the Myles Wright Report and the implementation that it is wholly wrong,19 that was the actual County Development Plan, would you agree with that?12:53:5120 A. No. I don't agree with anything. I had no views on it so I couldn't be wrong21 in views I didn't have. I relied on the people I hired to, such as Kiaran22 O'Malley to direct me on what the various machinations of the Irish planning23 system was.24 Q. 167 I don't want to open your statement, but you did suggest in your statement12:54:1525 Mr. Gilmartin, that you were following the Myles Wright Report?26 A. No, I did not read the Myles Wright Report ever.27 Q. 168 I am not saying you read it.28 A. I was only aware, I was only made aware of the Myles Wright Report which was29 referred to by the Corporation as being a failure.12:54:2830 Q. 169 Okay. Now the next item is, Mr. Gilmartin, his scheme extends to some 700Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

5912:54:371 acres, did you explain that it was 700 acres?2 A. Pardon?3 Q. 170 Mr. O'Malley is suggesting that Mr. Gilmartin's plans, his scheme extends to4 some 700 acres; even by international standards it's enormous and imaginative12:54:535 and represents a capital work investment of half a billion or more. Did you --6 700 acres? We are talking 180 acres.7 A. That's correct, that brochure is showing three, six -- yeah 700 acres.8 Q. 171 And just the last page. The package would include the dedication to public9 access and use in excess of 200 acres of the Liffey Valley. Do you recall that12:55:2310 you wished to acquire St. Patrick's property to build in the Liffey Valley?11 A. The, yes, I did. I was putting the sports and leisure centre there. Part of12 the monies that you say I was going to run away with.13 Q. 172 We will come to that Mr. Gilmartin. Don't worry, and it's going to take some14 time if you keep making mini speeches. We'll go on to page 3286. Go down to12:55:5115 the bottom, here we are into the paraphrasing of questions and the alternative,16 is that --17 A. If you want to read the complete statement, you see, not pick lines in it here18 and there, it is probably informative if we read the whole statement, since you19 want to waste time on it.12:56:1720 Q. 173 Mr. Chairman, you have requested that I endeavour to cooperate, but that's21 Mr. Gilmartin's wish. I will comply with it if it's your --2223 CHAIRMAN: Just repeat the question again?24 Q. 174 Sorry, just coming down to the end of the second page, where Mr. O'Malley is12:56:3325 setting out the various planning expert views, he is putting to Mr. Gilmartin26 about how to try and advance his project.27 A. That's what he was hired to do, give me advice.28 Q. 175 Yeah. And I was going to refer to the fact that down towards the end of the29 planning, he is referring to low density, he is referring to the '83 plan,12:56:5630 several proposed uses to contravene, etcetera. And I just pass on it. I willPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

6012:57:031 revisit it.23 Could I just have page 14 please? Mr. Gilmartin, this is an extract from the4 Dail debate, I think it's possibly in the second paragraph there, now if we12:57:305 want to go back and read it all, maybe just to be of assistance to you so that6 there is no suggestion --78 CHAIRMAN: Just --9 Q. 176 If we can have the full statement?12:57:401011 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor, just a second. Who is this --12 Q. 177 This is the Taoiseach addressing Mr. Gilmartin's allegations in Dail Eireann.1314 MR. GALLAGHER: Sir, I don't know what the -- what relevance this has to the12:57:5915 allegations that are made against Mr. Lawlor?1617 CHAIRMAN: What's the question that you want to --1819 MR. LAWLOR: I raised this morning again; is the allegation of the contribution12:58:0920 to Mr. Flynn not open to me to question?2122 CHAIRMAN: No. No, just, what's the question you want?2324 MR. LAWLOR: The question is very simple. The question is very, very, simple.12:58:1925 This man made the most serious allegations against the Taoiseach of this26 country, and was quoted here that he might survive last week or another week,27 but he won't survive what is coming down the line. And Mr. Gilmartin, well you28 know, if you only bear with me, but Mr. Gallagher's interjection --2912:58:4030 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor, just a second. Are you quoting now?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

6112:58:431 Q. 178 I know what's in it but I need it on the screen to read it and therefore I am2 suggesting if I start quoting I will be asked why don't I read the whole lot.34 CHAIRMAN: But what is the question arising?12:58:555 Q. 179 The question arising is; did you, on a radio interview, suggest, Mr. Gilmartin,6 that you would unseat the government and the Taoiseach of this country?7 A. No. A journalist actually put it to me that my evidence or allegations could8 bring down the government and I said, my answer was "I am not here to clean9 Dublin up". The following report in the papers said that I said I would bring12:59:2310 down the government.11 Q. 180 You said you would, did you?12 A. No.1314 CHAIRMAN: No. No, he said that --12:59:2815 A. The paper said. They asked me a question. They posed the thing to me that my16 allegations could bring down the government and my answer was "I am not here to17 clean Dublin up". I was not cooperating at the time with the Tribunal.18 Q. 181 Well, we'll just go to 4 pm there on the second column. If we can just go up19 to the bottom of the first paragraph and quote what you are quoted as having12:59:5520 said.2122 "I draw the attention of the House to some hostile political statements23 attributed to Mr. Gilmartin regarding the future of the government and of24 individual members. On FM 104 yesterday at 4 pm Mr. Gilmartin was quoted as13:00:1325 saying "Even if Bertie Ahern survives this week, he won't survive what I have26 coming down the line for him".2728 Now, did you or did you not utter those words? Yes or no?29 A. I may have done, yes.13:00:2730 Q. 182 You did or you didn't?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

6213:00:281 A. I might have done.2 Q. 183 You did or you didn't?3 A. I might have done, I'm not sure. These are quotes from media and --4 Q. 184 No, no. This is a radio programme out of your own mouth.13:00:395 A. No, I don't think. I don't think that, I don't think that I ever gave an6 interview on FM 104. The only interview I remember ever giving on radio was to7 Charlie Bird in Luton when I made a few comments.8 Q. 185 So --9 A. And that was RTE.13:01:0210 Q. 186 I won't entertain Mr. Gallagher trying to get wriggle room for Mr. Gilmartin.1112 MR. GALLAGHER: I'm not --1314 CHAIRMAN: Wait now. Mr. Lawlor, Mr. Gilmartin has said he may have said this13:01:1515 comment, he can not recall saying it, and that seems to be a complete answer to16 that question.17 Q. 187 Well no. The answer is then -- we'll get the transcript --18 A. I don't remember giving FM an interview. The only interview I ever gave, and19 if Mr. Bird has a tape of that, we can play it. But that was the only13:01:3720 interview I ever gave on radio.21 Q. 188 Now, you are saying the Taoiseach mislead the House?22 A. Pardon?23 Q. 189 You are saying the Taoiseach mislead the Dail.2413:01:4625 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor, he never said that. You asked him did he say words as26 quoted in that document. He says he may have but he can't recall giving FM 10427 an interview.28 Q. 190 Well that's easy to rectify. I suggest that the Tribunal request from FM 104 a29 tape, if they have it in existence.13:02:0930Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

6313:02:091 CHAIRMAN: Well, he is not denying that he gave, that he said those words or2 that he gave that interview. Anyway --3 Q. 191 You are not denying it, are you?4 A. I'm not denying it, I might have said it. I might have said that but I did not13:02:235 say it on FM 104, as far as I know I did not give any interview. I avoided6 publicity at that time, like the plague.7 Q. 192 Well you, we agree then that you felt that you had this power of allegation to8 bring down Mr. Ahern, is that right?9 A. No. I didn't feel I had any such power. As I have said it earlier, I am not13:02:5010 here to clean up Dublin and neither am I here in this Tribunal to clean up11 Dublin.12 Q. 193 Well you know, I don't know what that's supposed to mean in answer to the13 question.14 A. After years of, after years of being vilified and one thing and another, I felt13:03:0715 I decided that I would cooperate, eventually with the Tribunal. But it took16 them a fair bit of time to persuade me.1718 CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll adjourn until 2 o'clock.1913:03:1720 MR. HALPIN: Mr. Chairman, fellow members, before you adjourn I have a short21 application to make in relation to Mr. Joseph Burke? I understand the Taoiseach22 is giving evidence in the afternoon, and Mr. Burke is likely to be a feature of23 that evidence. I am instructed by Anglesea Solicitors, I am being lead by24 Garrett Cooney. My application is simply for limited representation.13:03:422526 CHAIRMAN: Certainly, granted.2728 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH.2930Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

6413:04:521 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS AFTER LUNCH:23 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lawlor I understand that you are now available tomorrow.414:01:565 MR. LAWLOR: I have made arrangements Chairman, to travel to Prague via London6 in the afternoon, late afternoon.78 CHAIRMAN: We'll sit then at 10.45 to conclude your cross-examination.914:02:0610 MR. LAWLOR: Thank you Chairman.1112 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gallagher.1314 MR. GALLAGHER: An Taoiseach please.14:02:121516 AN TAOISEACH, MR. BERTIE AHERN,17 HAVING BEEN SWORN WAS EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. GALLAGHER:1819 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon Taoiseach.14:02:4820 Q. 194 Good afternoon Taoiseach.21 A. Afternoon.22 Q. 195 I have a number of questions for you. And the first question I want to put to23 you arises from unauthorised disclosures of documentation and material that24 have been circulated by the Tribunal.14:03:182526 You may be aware that there has been such unauthorised disclosure since the27 brief was disclosed, was circulated and the Tribunal directed in the28 circumstances that all witnesses to whom the brief had been circulated would be29 asked to confirm on oath, whether or not they had released or authorised the14:03:4130 release of any documentation or information. All witnesses are being askedPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

6514:03:441 this question.23 So I will start by asking you that question in the first instance please?4 A. If I can, first, if I can thank the Chairman and Members of the Tribunal for14:03:555 facilitating me being here I deeply appreciate it, on the other side of Easter6 I have a huge EU schedule I appreciate that.78 The answer to the question is no. In no circumstances, in no way, in any9 document to the Tribunal did I authorise or participate in it's leaking or14:04:1110 circulation.11 Q. 196 Taoiseach, you have been involved in politics in this country for many years, I12 think you became involved in local politics as a representative on Dublin City13 Council in the 1970s you remained there for approximately ten years and then14 you became a Dail Deputy in the 1970s and you have remained as a Dail Deputy14:04:3915 representing, I think, Dublin central at the moment, is that right?16 A. That's correct. Chairman, I am in, elected in politics for 27 years. I was a17 member of Dublin Corporation from 1978 to 1988. And unusual for a politician,18 I went the other way around, I was elected in Dail Eireann in 1977 and I am19 still there.14:05:0320 Q. 197 And in the period from 1987 to July of 1989 you were a Minister for Labour.21 A. Correct.22 Q. 198 And you were also Minister for Labour in the succeeding government from the23 12th of July 1989 to the 11th of February 1992, you were initially Minister for24 Labour up to the 14th of November of 1991 and you then became Minister for14:05:3225 Finance.26 A. That's correct.27 Q. 199 And I think it's fair to say, without going through your complete CV, that you28 have held many different ministerial posts, you have been chief whip of your29 party, been treasurer of your party, you have been opposition spokesman at14:05:4830 different times in your political career.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

6614:05:491 A. Yes. I have, since 1981 I think, I have been a spokesman for my party either2 in government or opposition and I have been on the front bench of my party3 since March 1982. And I have been in, an office holder of the party, elected4 office holder of the party since January 1983.14:06:165 Q. 200 There was an election in June of 1989, the 15th of June, Seanad election the6 same year, can you confirm that?7 A. That's correct, 15th of June 1989.8 Q. 201 Yes. And there was a Presidential Election the following year on the 17th of9 November 1990.14:06:3310 A. That's correct.11 Q. 202 I think that in the mid 1980s, it is fair to say, that there was a significant12 decay in the inner city area, a lot of derelict buildings, significant13 unemployment, and a lack of investment.14 A. That's correct. From 1980 to 1987 effectively in this country we had14:07:0415 accumulative figures were negative growth. We had unemployment of almost16 300,000, we just about kept under the 300,000 mark. The national figure was 1817 per cent and the north inner city it ranged between 40 and 60 depending on what18 ward.19 Q. 203 And I think that in an effort to deal with urban blight the government14:07:3020 introduced an act in mid 1980s dealing with urban renewal to establish the21 Customs House Docks Development Authority and provided certain financial22 incentives for builders, the owners of land and developers etcetera to23 rejuvenate areas of urban, that required urban renewal.24 A. That's correct. I think the urban renewal scheme and the Urban Renewal Act is14:07:5925 probably about 1986 and the Dublin Corporation launched the urban renewal26 scheme in September 1986, I launched that as Lord Mayor of Dublin. And the27 scheme was effective from then, in many places in Dublin and elsewhere in the28 country were designated after that. For the simple reason, there was little or29 no construction, little or no investment, little or no activity whatsoever14:08:2730 anywhere in the country.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

6714:08:281 Q. 204 Can the Tribunal take it that the site which has been described as the2 Bachelor's Walk site, was it all material times within your constituency?3 A. All the time.4 Q. 205 And I think that part of that site was initially designated for renewal and14:08:495 subsequently that area was extended, can you remember that?6 A. So I understand. I am not sure exactly what part of it, but as I understand7 it, it was designated. I think it was the 18th of December 1987, I think the8 financial resolutions were signed by the Minister for Finance, Minister of9 Environment in the summer of 1988, May 1988 if I recall.14:09:1710 Q. 206 That is right. 1501. We have a note of the government decision to extend time11 the limits and to extend areas and to designate the Tallaght town centre and to12 set up as it were, a subcommittee of the government to consider and make13 recommendations in developing the North Wall docks area, you see the final14 paragraph in that document page two, sorry paragraph two, the Minister for the14:09:5115 Environment Industry and Commercial, Labour and Energy should be considered16 etcetera.17 So you were part of a group within the government, a small group of Ministers18 who had particular interest and concern with that, is that correct?19 A. That's correct and I specifically was the chairperson of the sub group, not14:10:1120 just that one but I was the driver of the one on unemployment measures seeking21 ways to try to deal with the unemployment issues of the day.22 Q. 207 Was there a concern in the government at that time, I'm talking about23 1987/88/89 perhaps, at the slow progress that was being made in the24 redevelopment of areas that had been designated in Dublin city?14:10:3825 A. Yes there was.26 Q. 208 I think there are a number of meetings held with the Dublin City Manager and27 his assistants at that particular times and Ministers of the time. And see for28 example if I can have 4434 there is a photograph of Mr. Feeley and his29 colleagues who attended a meeting with the Taoiseach and government Ministers14:11:0430 on the 21st of September 1988. That meeting is referred to again in documentPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

6814:11:121 1852, where Mr. Feeley is writing to the then Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, referring2 to the meeting with the Taoiseach and his colleagues on Wednesday last, that's3 the 21st of September.414:11:295 And there was a further follow up meeting it would appear, in February 1989, if6 we look to 2119. This is a memorandum prepared in the Department of Finance7 which refers back to the earlier September meeting and you will see some six8 lines or so from the bottom.9 "Tomorrow's meeting is we gather a follow up to September meeting but no14:11:5410 specific agenda has been made available"1112 Do you remember that meeting, Taoiseach?13 A. I certainly remember a number of those meetings. Yes I would remember.14 Q. 209 Mr. Redmond in a statement at 1048 has said that this meeting, the first14:12:1215 meeting, that's the September meeting, took place and that it was attended by16 Mr. Haughey, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Ahern, Mr. Burke, Mr. Reynolds and possibly17 Mr. McSharry. The Minister said that they were being told by enter present18 yours that the planning system was causing delay and frustration etcetera. And19 at the bottom of the page you will see part of the statement has been redacted14:12:3920 because it is not relevant to this, perhaps go down to the very bottom line.2122 "At this stage P Flynn referred to the proposal of Thomas Gilmartin to23 construct the largest shopping centre in Europe on lands situation between the24 western motorway and junction with the Lucan road. Both he and Mr. McSharry as14:12:5625 far as I can recall spoke about Mr. Gilmartin's UK enterprise and connection26 and I think Mr. Ahern made reference about Mr. Gilmartin's involvement in the27 rehabilitation of the north quay areas in Dublin" and later in that statement,28 half way down the page he says "A second meeting took place not long later"2914:13:1230 And I think before the end of 1988, I think probably that date is incorrect, itPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

6914:13:201 would appear to be early in February of 1989.23 "The same people were present with the exception of Mr. McSharry and in4 addition there was also present Mr. Flynn, Secretary of State I cannot remember14:13:335 his name. This meeting was obviously and principally to discuss T Gilmartin's6 plans for Quarryvale. The manager's immediately referred to the official town7 centre to the 30 acres disposed of to Owen O'Callaghans company. Mr. Flynn8 informed the meeting that there was no need to worry on that score as Mr.9 Gilmartin had taken Mr. O'Callaghan out".14:13:481011 I don't want to ask anything further really in relation to that, accept to12 really, as it were, identify that there were government meetings, that there13 was certain, that you were involved with the cabinet subcommittee that was14 meeting with the managers in Dublin city and were pressing to have action14:14:0915 taken.16 A. Yes. I remember those clearly. I am not sure how many meetings we had17 Mr. Gallagher, but we certainly had a number of meetings with Mr. Feeley,18 Mr. Morrissey and his senior officials.19 Q. 210 Have you any recollection of those meetings or do you disagree in anyway with14:14:2620 anything that has been said about, for example Mr. Redmond about what he21 recalls of those meetings?22 A. The purpose of the meetings was to try and stimulate and generate activity from23 employment terms, to get projects going to get activity going as I said24 unemployment was almost 300,000, almost a fifth of the population, of the14:14:5125 workforce was unemployed and the government were endeavouring to press things26 on as best we could. It wasn't that the senior officials, Mr. Feeley and his27 colleagues were doing anything wrong, it was there was no, very few investors28 around in those days and very few people were interested in investing in this29 city or in this country to be frank with you.14:15:1230 Q. 211 On the 10th December of 2003 in response to a request from the Tribunal youPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

7014:15:241 furnished a statement in writing. May I have page 49 please? I propose for2 the record, to read some portions of this statement to you and to the Tribunal,3 if there is any portion that I leave out or anything you want to emphasise4 please let me know.14:15:4856 You refer to the Tribunal's letter of the 18th of November 2003 which is at7 page 47. And you reply as follows.89 1. Mr. Thomas Gilmartin and Arlington.14:16:0210 My recollection of my meetings with Mr. Gilmartin is set out in detail in the11 course of my statement and exchanges in the Dail on the 27th of January 1999.12 Following on from my remarks in the Dail I sent the Tribunal a copy of my13 statement to the house. For your convenience, I am again sending you a copy of14 this material. I am also attaching an exchange of correspondence with former14:16:2215 Deputy Liam Lawlor from February to March 2002 relating to Mr. Gilmartin. I16 previously forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Tribunal at that17 time.1819 In regard to the Tribunal's specific inquiry that in or around early February14:16:3520 1989, Mr. Thomas Gilmartin attend at Dail Eireann for a meeting with members of21 the cabinet to discuss his plans for Quarryvale. I confirm that I have no22 recollection of attending any such meeting. It is my firm belief that did I23 not attend such a meeting. There is no record in my diary from the period of24 such a meeting taking place. More over, in all the time since I began to sit14:16:5925 on the cabinet table on the 10th March 1982, I have never witnessed a private26 developer attend a cabinet meeting to discuss a commercial project.2728 Prior to my statement in the Dail in January 1999 an exhaustive search was29 conducted through official records and ministerial diaries across a number of14:17:1530 government departments of the detail of this search is set out in my statementPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

7114:17:191 and remark of the 27th of January 1999 in Dail Eireann. As is clear from that2 statement there is no reference in any of those records to any such meeting3 between Mr. Thomas Gilmartin and a group of cabinet members.414:17:275 Three subsequent searches of records in my procurement also turned up no6 references to this meeting. The details of those search are.7 1 a search of records regarding the Quarryvale development in the Department of8 An Taoiseach, Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment, formerly the9 Department of Labour and the Department of Finance, as well as a search of my14:17:4510 own personal records and diaries that was carried out in May 2001. These11 searches were conducted as part of my label action against Mr. Denis "Starry"12 O'Brien. I attach details of the search for your information.13 2. A further search in March 2002 of my own records and diaries for reference14 relating to any meeting or meetings between myself and Mr. Gilmartin.14:18:0215 3. On foot of your correspondence I directed an official in my office to16 conduct a further search of my records an diaries.1718 It is my recollection that post 1987 that then Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey did not19 hold meetings involving Ministers and/or people on official business in14:18:1820 Leinster House. Such meeting would have taken place in his own office in21 government buildings.22 I do have a specific recall of one meeting with Mr. Gilmartin. This took place23 in Drumcondra on the 10th of October 1988. I have a diary record of this24 meeting. Towards the end of meeting, Mr. Tim Collins who was a friend of mine14:18:3525 and had a business in the area dropped into the office for a cup of tea as was26 his regular practice. He joined the meeting for a brief period.27 A. It is my recollection that Bachelors Walk was the development that28 Mr. Gilmartin wanted to brief me on. I met Mr. Gilmartin because the bachelors29 development would potentially have been a big project in my constituency with14:18:5330 considerable employment potential. My diary entry for that day refers to TomPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

7214:18:551 Gilmartin and Arlington. Arlington is the company that was investing in2 Bachelors Walk.34 I assume, based know my practice, that I then arranged with Mr. Gilmartin that14:19:055 he would meet me officially in my department on the 13th of October 1988. I6 have a diary record that have meeting. I also have a diary record of a meeting7 with Mr. Gilmartin on the 28th of September 1989 in the Department of Labour.8 I do not have any specific recollection of those meeting.9 This is not in itself surprising given that during my time as Minister for14:19:2510 Labour, I often had more than 20 meetings in a single day in the department.11 At that time I was a member of the ministerial task force on employment and12 therefore I held numerous meetings with groups & companies in an effort to13 encourage and stimulate employment create. It is most likely that I had these14 meeting with Mr. Gilmartin in this context.14:19:411516 At some point in the course of my contact with Mr. Gilmartin during this17 period, I believe that I suggested Mr. Joe Burke as someone who could assist18 Mr. Gilmartin in relation to the Bachelors Walk project. Mr. Gilmartin I19 assume had asked me for an introduction to someone in the council who could14:19:5820 assist him and I referred I am to Mr. Burke.2122 In regard to the meeting on the 28th of September 1989, I made the point in my23 remarks in the Dail in January 1999 that my meeting with Mr. Gilmartin took24 place on the same date as a separate meeting between Mr. Padraig Flynn the then14:20:1025 Minister for the Environment, Seamus Brennan, the then Minister for Tourism and26 Transport and a delegation from Arlington, including Mr. Gilmartin. This27 meeting took place in the conference room in Leinster House and was also28 attended by Jimmy Farrelly, who was then a senior civil servant in the29 Department of Environment. I expect Mr. Farrelly's minutes of this meeting14:20:2830 have been forwarded to the Tribunal. I thus assume that my meeting withPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

7314:20:331 Mr. Gilmartin occurred in connection with this meeting and to enable him to2 brief me on developments.34 I am also aware that Mr. Gilmartin has stated that he had a telephone14:20:425 conversation with me. I have no specific recollection of that telephone6 conversation. However, I can state with certainty that I never asked7 Mr. Gilmartin for money or donation. It is my invariable practice not to8 personally speak to people asking them for money or donations whether for9 myself or Fianna Fail. I thus would not have raised any issue about political14:21:0210 donations. If Mr. Gilmartin informed me, during the telephone call, that he11 had made a donation to Padraig Flynn, that fact would not in itself be12 suspicious as Padraig Flynn was the treasure of Fianna Fail to whom party13 political donations were made.1414:21:1815 I do not recall any other meeting or conversation with Mr. Gilmartin and I16 believe that I had no such other meeting or conversation with him.1718 I did attend a Fianna Fail fundraising event in London on the 23rd of November19 1989. I did not engage in conversation about any of the matters referred to in14:21:3420 your letter at this function. I do not recall speaking to any of the Arlington21 executives who were at this function. However it is my normal practice to22 exchange pleasantries with people attending such functions and I presume did I23 so on this occasion.2414:21:4725 2. Payments donations contribution or benefits.26 I have set out below details of any payment, donation, contribution or benefit27 that I may have received from the persons named in Ms. Gilvarry's letter.2829 Nothing from Mr. Gilmartin, O'Callaghan, Mr. Dunlop, although Mr. Dunlop did14:22:0530 attend functions in your Dublin central constituency and the total amount paidPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

7414:22:091 would not have been substantial. Shefran, Barkhill, O'Callaghan Properties2 Arlington, Riga, Merrygrove Estates, nothing. Mr. John Corcoran you say I3 believe he may have attend one of the annual fundraising events in the Dublin4 central constituency organisation made some form of small donation. I am14:22:295 disclosing this possible scenario for the sake of completeness.67 The above information is based on records available to me for the Dublin8 Central constituency where donations are sought by officers of the9 constituency. I understand the Fianna Fail furnished to the Tribunal records14:22:4210 of the payments donations contribution or benefits received by it.1112 In conclusion (page 54) I wish to say if I can be of further assistance to the13 Tribunal please do not hesitate to contact me. I do however wish to state that14 should any further documentation or information come to my attention which is14:22:5815 relevant to your request I shall furnish same to you.1617 This letter is based on my best recollection of event referred to.1819 Yours sincerely Bertie Ahern Taoiseach".14:23:082021 In that statement Taoiseach you referred to the Dail statement which you made22 and that statement, I think, was made on the 27th January 1999, is to be found23 commencing on page 13 of the brief.2414:23:3125 The first two paragraphs or paragraph and a half there are dealt with, are I26 think not controversial, there by way of introduction. If there is anything27 you wish to draw attention to, or Mr. Maguire thinks it's relevant then no28 doubt he will draw our attention to it.2914:23:5030 On page 14 you say "No one's memory is total or perfect and it will be possiblePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

7514:23:571 without huge resources to keep records of every meeting or encounter in a busy2 political life. Nonetheless, even where there are gaps in memory all of us3 would have a moral certainty about things that in particular situations we4 would or would in the have done. I repeat that I am certain I did not ask14:24:145 Mr. Gilmartin in September 1989 or at any other time to make a financial6 contribution to Fianna Fail or to me. It is not my way of doing business. I7 am not even clear from all the various statements attributed to him that that8 is what he is consistently alleging."914:24:3210 And you deal with a number of things and I will come to different passages in11 this statement to the Dail, and to the questions that followed it in a few12 moments.1314 I think the position insofar as Mr. Gilmartin is concerned is that you accept14:24:5515 that you had a number of meetings with Mr. Gilmartin.16 A. I do. The first time I met Mr. Gilmartin was the 10th of October 1988 in my17 constituency office which was then over Fagan's in Drumcondra. I remember it18 well, it was, he was talking about a very large development, very substantial19 development, he brought me through that. And then as I would normally do,14:25:2220 because in my constituency office, I just deal very briefly with people, but if21 it was a substantial development like that I would bring somebody, as I would22 then and do the same now bring them in to meet a wider group or officials. So23 three days later 13th of October 1988. I think Mr. Gilmartin from what he has24 said, and I think it's my recollection insofar as I have one to the meeting in14:25:4925 the Department of Labour was a far bigger meeting.2627 Now with the help of my diary I know that that meeting took place and I think28 Mr. Gilmartin as he said here, may have also attended with other people. We29 discussed the development again. That was the second meeting. And the third14:26:0530 meeting which I vaguely remember the passage of time, was Mr. Gilmartin calledPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

7614:26:121 in to my offices in September '89, 1989. I know there is a dispute, my diary2 says that meeting was in the department, Mr. Gilmartin, I think and I think3 Mr. Dadley said it was in my office in Drumcondra. My recollection in so far4 as I have one, I thought it was my Dail office. But I don't think that's too14:26:375 material where ever it was. But where ever it was, I accept that meeting took6 place and that was the day where Mr. Gilmartin was telling me that he had had a7 meeting with other Ministers and called in to brief me. So I accept those8 three meetings took place, as I said in my statement I also accept that9 Mr. Gilmartin had telephoned and I think Mr. Gilmartin says two telephone14:26:5710 calls, I accept he had telephone calls with me. Because one of our councillors11 Councillor Joe Burke when these issues came onto the newspapers in 199912 informed me that I asked him to go to see Mr. Gilmartin, so I accept that13 happened too.14 Q. 212 Mr. Gilmartin says that he first met you, he believes in October or the autumn14:27:2615 of 1987, that that meeting took place in Mespil Road and that you were a16 Minister for Labour at that time. Do you remember any, first of all were you17 Minister for Labour at that time?18 A. I was.19 Q. 213 Did you have an office in Mespil Road?14:27:4120 A. I did.21 Q. 214 Can you say where in Mespil Road? You had it, and what floor your office was22 on if you can recall?23 A. Mespil Road, just on the canal banks. It's now a hotel. My office was on the24 fourth floor, at the top of the building.14:27:5925 Q. 215 Mr. Gilmartin, and he doesn't say anything occurred at this meeting other than26 that he gave you information about his proposals for the Bachelor's Walk27 development. He says that he has a recollection that he met you there, that28 was the first time he met you in your office in Bachelor's Walk, do you have29 any recollection of that?14:28:1930 A. No, no. And I am quite positive, certain and definite, the first time I metPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

7714:28:251 Mr. Gilmartin was the 10th of October of 1988 over Fagans Bar in Drumcondra and2 nowhere else.3 Q. 216 How do you remember that meeting as the first meeting, how are you so certain?4 A. I am certain because first time he met Mr. Gilmartin he was the biggest14:28:415 developer I had met around. He was talking about spending several hundred6 millions in my constituency. In an enormous development, an enormous project7 and I remember him coming to meet me. To call in to me. I didn't know what8 project he was coming to meet me. Quite honestly if I had met Mr. Gilmartin9 previously, if I knew the enormity of the development and scale of the money I14:29:0710 wouldn't have been meeting him in my constituency clinic on a Monday morning.1112 So that obviously a meeting was arranged with me, but the people I met, the13 other people I met the other morning were all in community issues or small14 issues it wouldn't be practice to be one of the largest developments around14:29:2615 into the constituency clinic. So I hadn't met Mr. Gilmartin before then.16 Q. 217 The fact that you have a reference in your diaries 3332 and 3333 please? To17 Mr. Gilmartin at 11 o'clock or 11.05, in Drumcondra would suggest that this was18 a meeting that was prearranged?19 A. Yes, a meeting would have been arranged, the fact that it was in the diary for14:29:5920 the Monday morning it was, I'd say Mr. Gilmartin or somebody on behalf of21 Mr. Gilmartin had contacted my departmental office and it was arranged through22 there. The reason I say that Mr. Gallagher, because on Monday mornings then23 and now all my political life, I tended to meet community groups and24 constituency groups, not necessarily individuals, but groups and you could take14:30:2625 it that while there is only two meetings mentioned there, that I probably had26 nine or ten meetings.27 Q. 218 But you had some of them, some of them were prearranged and this one was in28 your diary, in two diaries in fact for that particular day and that particular29 time.14:30:4230 A. Well most of my Monday morning meetings would be pre -- my constituency clinicsPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

7814:30:481 are Saturday, but meetings that I would have normally residents groups or2 community groups, the one before that, Fr. Rafferty, All Hallows College, he3 was the President of All Hallows College. People that like that would drop in,4 they come in on appointment, but the reason all of those appointments wouldn't14:31:045 be in the diary were are looking at on the screen, is because that's my6 departmental diary not my constituency diary and my departmental diary would7 not be listing meetings I do in my constituency.8 Q. 219 Your departmental diary had Mr. Gilmartin listed on that occasion. Taoiseach,9 in response to an article in the Sunday Independent you issued a statement14:31:2510 which preceded the Dail statement which I have referred to and at that time11 your immediate response was that you could recall but one meeting with12 Mr. Gilmartin, isn't that right?13 A. That's correct. I was asked, that was on a Sunday, there were headlines, and14 quite a lot of media speculation and I answered that evening. I put out a14:31:5415 short statement having talked to the Tanaiste. I said I remembered well16 meeting Mr. Gilmartin and remembered meeting him on one occasion, and I did and17 that, that proved to be correct that was the first meeting I had with him and I18 remembered even though it was ten years earlier. That was without checking any19 diary whatsoever, that was on a Sunday evening that was issued.14:32:1220 Q. 220 And you were able to recall that without --21 A. Without checking.22 Q. 221 Without referring to any diary.23 A. Without checking anywhere because I remember it well. And for the reason Mr.24 Gallagher that a number of people might in my 27 years elected and over 3014:32:2925 years work, that come into my constituency and do a develop of 2 or 300 hundred26 million, I'll remember them very well.27 Q. 222 In the Dail statement that you made you seem to suggest that you were reminded28 by Mr. Tim Collins, who I understand is a friend of yours, who had a business29 or an office in the area, of having attended that meeting or at least being14:32:5730 present in your office on that meeting, or reminding you of that event?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

7914:33:011 A. That's correct. He did immediately when he saw the papers within a day or so,2 maybe even that day. He contacted me and told me, he wasn't at the meeting as3 such but he was in the office. He called in as was his practice. And he4 remembered me mentioning the development and the size of the development.14:33:225 Q. 223 Did you, in your initial reaction to the request, remember that Mr. Collins was6 there and did you tell anybody that any of the journalists that you spoke to7 that Mr. Collins would be able to confirm that you met Mr. Gilmartin on that8 occasion?9 A. I don't think I was asked that. I think the first time I mentioned Mr. Collins14:33:5010 was when I was in the Dail debate on the following Wednesday, which I think was11 on the 27th of January, but that's when I mentioned that. But between the12 Sunday and the Wednesday Mr. Collins had contacted me and told me that he13 remembered me having that meeting.14 Q. 224 On page 22 of your Dail statement you are quoted as saying.14:34:121516 "I did not recall who was with me in my office. However, one of my local17 supporters contacted me to say he was there when Mr. Gilmartin came in. And18 when I showed him the plans" The individual concerned is Mr. Timothy Collins19 who is a friend of mine. Mr. Collins furnished a statement to the Tribunal.14:34:312021 You didn't at that stage recall any further meeting with Mr. Gilmartin, that's22 the initial response to the newspaper articles when you were asked by them is23 that right?24 A. On the initial response Mr. Gallagher I made on the Sunday night. I think14:34:4825 Charlie Bird was hovering around as he would normally do trying to get quick26 answers and I probably stupidly gave a quick answer. I got wiser over the27 years, you are better off to check first, but anyway. I would have given a28 quick answer. But the following day we checked out and we checked the diaries29 in both Department of Labour and Department of Finance and my own offices.14:35:1230 Q. 225 And I think that you established that there were two meetings according to yourPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

8014:35:191 records, the one that we have just seen 3332 which occurred on Monday the 10th2 of October 1988, which Mr. Gilmartin confirms, he accepts that somebody whom he3 didn't see, who wasn't introduced to him, did enter the room over Fagan's when4 you were there, he is not disputing it may have been Mr. Collins. He also14:35:445 confirmed that on the 13th of October 1988, he met you again in the Department6 of Labour in Mespil Road.78 Now you say that you have no record of those, no recollection of those9 meetings. No specific recollection of those two meetings. I beg your pardon.14:36:0910 A. I remember the one --11 Q. 226 On the 10th?12 A. On the 10th of the 10th.13 Q. 227 But you have no specific recollection or memory of the meeting on the 13th of14 October or Tuesday the 28th of September 1989?14:36:2215 A. I have a vague -- can I say Mr. Gallagher the one I remembered straightaway the16 one of the 10th of the 10th I remember that well, it stuck in my mind for the17 reasons that I have given. It would have been my practice if somebody came in18 with a significant development like that, and probably, I don't dispute with19 Mr. Gilmartin on this he said he attended the meeting with other people and14:36:4520 broadened it out to officials and that's what I would have done, I have no21 dispute about that. And probably went through the same development. I can22 vaguely remember that. The meeting in September '89 I have no dispute about23 either. I remember meeting Mr. Danly isn't it, I remember --24 Q. 228 Dadley?14:37:0925 A. Dadley sorry excuse me. I remember meeting Mr. Dadley. So he called in at one26 stage to me and Mr. Gilmartin, I assume was with him, I have no dispute about27 that I am sure that was the September '89 meeting, the day they met other28 people I have no dispute and I think they told me that work was ongoing. We29 were talking about the Bachelors Walk development and all of those meetings.14:37:3130 Q. 229 Did you communicate with Mr. Gilmartin after you met him in 1988 certainly whenPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

8114:37:401 you had two meetings within a few days, it would appear, did you write to him2 or did you write to any other Minister or make representations on his behalf or3 summons a meeting of the subcommittee of the cabinet that had been set up or do4 anything like that to assist Mr. Gilmartin?14:37:545 A. I have no particular reference. But I think certainly I would have been6 supportive of the development, I mean I would have supportive of anything that7 was happening that was legally and above board at the time, definitely. And8 sure in any other meetings I would have been supportive of it, but I don't9 think Mr. Gilmartin was asking me to do anything in particular, other than be14:38:1710 aware of the development and be supportive of it, but I don't think I had any11 particular -- in all the checks we done in the various departments of records12 there doesn't seem to be any contact between me and them.13 Q. 230 Did you express this support in anyway, did you express it to Mr. Gilmartin for14 example?14:38:3315 A. Oh I have no doubt in the meeting on the 10th of the 10th and 13th of the 10th16 I would have been supportive of the development, there is no doubt about that.17 Q. 231 And did you tell him what form the support you were offering would take?18 A. Well I don't think he was asking me for any particular support. At that stage19 he long had designation, but I am sure he would have been finally going for14:38:5720 planning in the area and would have wanted to, the support if he was going to21 do a large development on Bachelors Walk and I as I normally would do any22 development in my area if it's going through the proper channels I would be23 supportive it have, it to this day.24 Q. 232 Did he tell you about discussions they were having with CIE and the possibility14:39:1925 of a CIE depot being built on top of the shopping centre complex that they were26 proposing for the Bachelor's Walk area.27 A. I am sure he did because he showed me the plans.28 Q. 233 So you were aware of that, was that something that was greeted with enthusiasm29 by you?14:39:3530 A. No, it wouldn't, but the development would have been. I think the chances ofPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

8214:39:401 getting through the depot was always going to be a very difficult thing to do.2 Q. 234 But apart from that, that really was a planning issue, an engineering issue an3 access issue, but generally speaking given that Mr. Gilmartin and Arlington4 which was a publicly quoted company in the UK, were seeking to develop the14:40:035 inner city to renew the inner city, were you supportive of that scheme?6 A. Of course I would have been, it would have been quite exciting, there was7 little or nothing happening in that entire area.8 Q. 235 Well can you recall for the assistance of the Tribunal, anything that you may9 have done to show that support or to, in practical terms assist the, it to come14:40:3210 to fruition?11 A. I don't think I had to because when they came to me they already had12 designation and they were already in discussion with my colleagues, the13 officials in numerous departments, both in environment and in the Department Of14 Transport and I would have been just generally supportive. But there was no14:40:4915 specific action that I was asked to do or in subsequently checking the various16 department records that I actually did do.17 Q. 236 When did Mr. Gilmartin first talk to you about his intention to develop a18 shopping centre complex at Quarryvale?19 A. I can't ever remember Mr. Gilmartin talking to me about it, about the14:41:1320 Quarryvale development. We certainly didn't do it on the 10th and the 13th of21 March, 10th and the 13th of October of 1988 because we were only at that stage22 talking about Bachelors Walk and on the other discussion, when him and23 Mr. Dadley came in to my office, which ever office it was, it was from a24 meeting that they were also discussing Bachelor's Walk so in those three14:41:3925 meetings I did not discuss a shopping centre the only discussion I don't recall26 with Mr. Gilmartin is a telephone call.27 Q. 237 Can you recall when you first heard about the Quarryvale proposal?28 A. The Quarryvale proposal was around for some considerable time. But it was not29 a proposal, it was way outside my area, and I didn't particularly take any14:42:0630 great interest in it, it wasn't in my constituency but I knew there was plans.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

8314:42:111 At the time they were talking about developing three town centres when one in2 Blanchardstown Quarryvale and Tallaght I would have been aware of those.3 Q. 238 But that had been, one of the, they had been the objectives of the Dublin4 County Council since 1973 or thereabouts and they had not come to fruition at14:42:315 that stage. There was much pressure, much frustration about the failure to6 open Tallaght, to build Tallaght to build Blanchardstown, do you remember that?7 A. I remember all of the, I remember all of the arguments. But I wasn't directly8 involved in any of those, I wasn't in a Ministry that dealt directly or9 indirectly with Tallaght, Blanchardstown or Quarryvale. Other than seeing14:42:5910 development in Tallaght or elsewhere. I was on the city council when Tallaght11 was being discussed.12 Q. 239 Well it would seem that in or about the time we are talking about, that's13 towards the end of 1989 or thereabouts -- sorry, yes. September, October 88,14 that there was debate with the Dublin City Manager and his assistant managers14:43:3015 about developing, carrying out development and speeding up the planning process16 generally in the Dublin area generally?17 A. Correct.18 Q. 240 And I have referred you to the meetings including the meeting of the 21st of19 September attended by Mr. Feeley and his assistants and the then Taoiseach14:43:4620 Mr. Haughey and yourself and others?21 A. Yes.22 Q. 241 And a statement of Mr. Redmond's who has set out his recollection of what was23 discussed which included the Quarryvale development?24 A. Those discussions with Dublin Corporation would have been about every14:44:0125 development. It, the issue was to try an get activity going to get work going26 and there were, there my recollection is there were several pending27 developments including many of the Corporation sites in my constituency that28 were mentioned and referred to, but what I am say something I wasn't involved29 in any discussions about either of those three town centres and they were not14:44:2630 ones that I had any ministerial involvement in and from constituency point ofPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

8414:44:291 view I would have been supportive to see development, but they were not ones I2 was involved in detail.3 Q. 242 I understand that Quarryvale was outside your constituency but it would appear4 from Mr. Redmond's statement for example that on the meeting of the 21st of14:44:445 September 1988, there was a specific discussion about Quarryvale. He says that6 you were at the meeting, that Mr. Flynn spoke, I suppose enthusiastically about7 it, talked about it as being the largest shopping centre in Europe, on land8 between the western waterway and junction with the Lucan road. Both he and9 Mr. McSharry spoke about Mr. Gilmartin's UK experience and connections and I14:45:0910 think, Mr. Ahern made reference to Mr. Gilmartin's involvement in the11 rehabilitation of the north quay area of Dublin.12 Now if that recollection is correct and it would appear that meeting certainly13 took place?14 A. Yes.14:45:1915 Q. 243 It would appear you attended it.16 A. Yes.17 Q. 244 It would appear as of that date, that's the 21st of September 1988 you were18 aware of Mr. Gilmartin's intention to build a very large shopping centre in19 Quarryvale?14:45:3220 A. I am sure so. I might have even been aware of the plans for the shopping21 centre generally long before that I was involved with the city council when we22 were discussing it. But Mr. Gilmartin's one, if it was mentioned, and if my23 colleagues had been talking, supportive of it. I would have been supportive as24 well because anything, as I said it was a development, it would have been well14:45:5525 supported.2627 MR. MAGUIRE: I'm sorry Chairman, could I just interrupt Chairman.28 Mr. Gallagher has put on a number of occasions now the question of his29 attendance at a meeting, the Taoiseach's attendance of a meeting on the 21st of14:46:0930 September of 1988 and he has and it's part of the Tribunal documentation whichPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

8514:46:131 is at 3869 the Taoiseach's diary which shows in fact he was in Athens on that2 day.34 CHAIRMAN: He was?14:46:2156 MR. MAGUIRE: In Athens. And nowhere other than in Mr. Redmond's statement is7 it suggested he was at that meeting.89 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman I am sure the Taoiseach can give this evidence14:46:3410 rather than Mr. Maguire giving the evidence.1112 CHAIRMAN: In fairness, Mr. Gallagher you might bring to the attention of the13 Taoiseach the fact that his diary suggested he might have been elsewhere.1414:46:4515 MR. GALLAGHER: Can I have 3869 --1617 MR. MAGUIRE: This is Tribunal documentation Chairman, that's the reason I18 interrupt.1914:46:5120 MR. GALLAGHER: Wednesday the 21st of October, sorry September, depart Athens,21 arrive London. Depart London arrive at 2.15 pm on EI 159 that would suggest22 that it was, that you returned from Athens on that day. Unless I am23 misreading, if I do please tell me. And that you arrived in Dublin at 2.10.24 And if, unless again my memory fails me, I think that -- would that assist you14:47:4525 Taoiseach, in remembering? You had a meeting at Dublin County Council, Dublin26 couple of trade union at 8 pm that day. There was a cabinet meeting,27 presumably fixed for 11.30 that had a line through it. And it would appear28 that you arrived back in Dublin at 2.10 pm. 2.10 in the afternoon, can you29 recall whether you were in Dublin for all or part of that day or not?14:48:1430 A. Well can I ask you Mr. Gallagher please, I don't have the information. WhatPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

8614:48:221 time was the meeting that you are referring to on the 21st?2 Q. 245 There isn't a time. I am not aware of a time. That has been fixed for --3 A. If that was, if that was an official meeting which it clearly was an official4 meeting then it would be in one of my diaries.14:48:405 Q. 246 I see. Now in any event there was a meeting with Mr. Feeley and others, as we6 see at 4434, there is no time, Mr. Feeley may be able to assist us and the7 other managers when they come to give evidence.89 In any event --14:49:0910 A. What I was saying Mr. Gallagher to be helpful there were a number of those11 meetings with Dublin Corporation officials and I was certainly at some of them12 and it would have been supporting development, it looks as if I wasn't at that13 particular one.14 Q. 247 Yes. Well -- Mr. Redmond at 1049, does go on to say there was a second meeting14:49:3215 not long afterwards and it would appear that's the meeting of the 2nd of16 February of 1989. The same people were present he says the meeting was17 obviously and principally to discuss T Gilmartin's plan for Quarryvale the18 manager immediately referred to the official town centre to the 30 acres19 disposed to Mr. O'Callaghan's company and there is a reference to Mr. Flynn14:49:5220 there.2122 I just want to put it to you Taoiseach, that as a matter of probability you23 were aware, even if you weren't at that meeting, that you were aware that there24 was a proposal to develop in the Quarryvale area in or about that time?14:50:0825 A. Yeah, I am sure. If any, of the big developments that were on I would have26 known about them. But as I said to you earlier I had no ministerial27 involvement in them, as Minister for Labour I could bring no specific action to28 assist them in a way. But I would have been aware of the developments, the big29 developments around in the government and would have been pleased that there14:50:3030 was developments around.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

8714:50:301 Q. 248 Now Mr. Gilmartin has told this Tribunal that he attended a meeting in Dail2 Eireann which was organised by Mr. Liam Lawlor and he says that that meeting3 took place on or about the 1st of February of 1989. He said that, and he has4 described to the Tribunal how he was taken into the Dail by Mr. Lawlor, no14:51:045 doubt you have heard this or read it perhaps.67 And that he was taken in a lift to a room where he met a number of then8 Ministers, and among those he met, he says were yourself and Mr. Flynn,9 Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Collins and others. You are aware of the that14:51:3410 claim he made in the evidence he has given in this Tribunal?1112 Now you have told the Tribunal that you have no recollection of attending such13 a meeting and you don't believe that you, it is your firm belief you didn't14 attend such a meeting.14:51:4915 A. That's correct Mr. Gallagher. Because I think if there was a -- I mean I have16 read, I can't say I have read everything about this, but I have read the17 reports and I have tried my best to wrack my own brains and to check the18 diaries to see if there was a reference to it and well firstly there is no19 references in the diary. I cannot recall it. It is confusing to say the least14:52:1620 but I can understand people being confused in the maze of what is Dail Eireann.21 About one room over another.2223 But Mr. Gilmartin's, appears to be talking about the 1960s block where the24 Fianna Fail deputies have their offices and the parliamentary party room. And14:52:4125 as I said in my statement to you, to the Tribunal Chairman, I have no26 recollection of ever a group of Ministers meeting anybody, not least27 Mr. Gilmartin, in the parliamentary party room.28 Q. 249 Well, whatever about the Parliament party room forget about a room.29 A. Or any other --14:53:0430 Q. 250 Or any other room.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

8814:53:051 A. If there was a, an official meeting Mr. Gallagher of a number of Ministers,2 with an individual that was organised, it would be in the diaries of a number3 of Ministers.4 Q. 251 Yes but if it wasn't organised in the sense of somebody meeting somebody in the14:53:235 corridor and saying to somebody come along --6 A. That wouldn't be in a diary.7 Q. 252 Well if that type of meeting had taken place, it could have taken place8 anywhere in the Dail presumably?9 A. Well respectfully, I wouldn't refer to that as a meeting at all.14:53:4110 Q. 253 All right call it an encounter or what you wish, I don't mean it as informal11 meeting, people can meet on the street, it's a casual meeting.12 A. Exactly. Well of course it could have happened. I mean if, I heard what was13 said the other day, those kind of meetings where somebody knocks at your office14 and asks you to drop out and say hello to a delegation or hello to group of14:54:0815 councillors or a parish committee or community committee, I would have sessions16 like that 20 before my breakfast and I don't have a breakfast but 20 in the17 morning you do that all of the time. But you know, that isn't a meeting. And18 quite frankly the kind of meeting mentioned the other day, and I have great19 regard for Mr. Haughey, but the idea of Mr. Haughey going into a Minister's14:54:3620 office and sitting down having a meeting -- he just wouldn't do that. He was21 too formal a person. If you wanted to have a meeting with Mr. Haughey you had22 it in Mr. Haughey's room you wouldn't drop off the corridor and sit down,23 accept it was a gathering, except it was a few people dropping in on the way24 back from question time or order of business.14:54:5425 Q. 254 Assume it was just a gathering. First of all did Mr. Haughey have any26 particular room or office available to him in Leinster House in 1989?27 A. Yes, he did.28 Q. 255 Where was that office to be found?29 A. It was across in the Department of the Taoiseach, it was in a different section14:55:1230 of the building, it was what was then the Department of Taoiseach but is nowPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

8914:55:161 the Attorney General's department.2 Q. 256 Did he have an office in the Dail building or immediately adjacent to the Dail3 building, as part of the Dail complex?4 A. Well it's not part of the Dail complex but it's the part of the government14:55:315 buildings which you get from the Dail to it.6 Q. 257 Did he have an office within, on the, on or near the ministerial corridor that7 Mrs. O'Rourke told us about?8 A. Well Mrs. O'Rourke is talking about straight opposite her office which is9 another Minister's office.14:55:4510 Q. 258 No just if we -- she says that as I understand it, a ministerial floor or11 ministerial corridor?12 A. Corridor, correct.13 Q. 259 Right. Did the then Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey have any office in or near the14 ministerial corridor?14:56:0315 A. No he was not, he was not in the -- he had no office on the ministerial16 corridor. His office was in the, what was the department of his government17 buildings Department of the Taoiseach, you could get there from the ministerial18 corridor.19 Q. 260 I see. And he didn't have the use of any office in the Dail or in the14:56:2420 ministerial floor, is that what you are saying?21 A. No he didn't require it. Because the distance wasn't very long Mr. Gallagher.22 Q. 261 How long, what distance was it approximately?23 A. Maybe a minute, maybe a minute walk. It's a bit like, my walk from the24 ministerial corridor now is about two minutes max.14:56:4125 Q. 262 Now if a meeting had been arranged with the Taoiseach of the day, according to26 Mr. Gilmartin he was told that he was, that the boss wanted to see him, he was27 being introduced to the boss and he described to the Tribunal in considerable28 detail how he was taken into the Dail by Mr. Lawlor, and taken up a lift to a29 floor other than the first floor, or other than the ground floor rather, and14:57:1030 going into a meeting.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

9014:57:1112 He says that he went into a room, you were there with some ministerial3 colleagues, and you greeted him and said hello Tom or words to that effect, you4 called him by his first name. He does not say that this was a formal meeting14:57:265 that had been organised in the sense that Ministers had been circularised and6 told be there at 11 o'clock or 3 or clock or 5 o'clock, because it's important7 or a cabinet meeting or what have you, or anything of that importance. But he8 says people were there. And he has a very clear recollection of it.914:57:4610 Now Mrs. Mary O'Rourke has a very clear recollection of it also. She says it11 happened. She says she was invited over. She has a very very clear12 recollection of it. She says you were there. And Ms. Freda Kelly has given13 evidence to this Tribunal. She says that she was told about this meeting by14 Tom Gilmartin, sometime later, he wasn't making any deal about it, nothing14:58:1615 happened at this meeting he said, just that he had met Ministers and he told16 her that among the Ministers he had met were yourself and Mr. Seamus Brennan17 for example, and the late Mr. Brian Lenihan and others. And she checked out,18 she says, with Brian Lenihan whether such a meeting had taken place, and he19 confirmed that it had.14:58:382021 Now, given the passage of time and that this may have been a gathering and22 Mrs. O'Rourke indicated she went in for ten seconds or nodded or didn't nod as23 the case may be, I don't think much turns on that, or perhaps the -- but24 perhaps the meeting itself -- but do you accept that Mrs. O'Rourke's14:59:0225 recollection of that being the case of that meeting is probably accurate, as26 she remembers it27 A. Well I am not -- if I can just say a few points Mr. Gallagher to be helpful.2829 I have read what Mr. Gilmartin's, as you said very clear view of the meeting14:59:2330 was. And what you have just said is Mrs. O'Rourke's very clear view of thePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

9114:59:301 meeting. There is one slight difficulty both their views are totally2 different. So they are very clear views are entirely different that's the3 first point I make.414:59:385 If you asked me the question that we are now not talking about a meeting at6 all, that there could have been a casual chitchat of a few Ministers as Mary7 O'Rourke described the other day, where Padraig Flynn went around into a few8 offices and pulled few Ministers out to meet, in this case Mr. Gilmartin, those9 kind of issues happen on the hour every day, where somebody brings somebody in15:00:0610 to meet somebody. But that's not a meeting in the formal sense or hardly the11 informal sense. That of course could have happened.12 Q. 263 So you accept that an informal meeting could have happened as described by13 Mr. Gilmartin and Mrs. O'Rourke, although you do point out that there are14 differences in their account?15:00:3115 A. The only point Mr. Gallagher is, I object to the word meeting, because a16 meeting in political terms is a meeting. Mr. Gilmartin's view is that he17 remembered precisely where it was, he remembers the doors in, he remembered the18 doors the, Mary O'Rourke remembered the doors in but there is only, if she went19 out that door she would have fell off the first floor because there is no door.15:00:542021 The fact is they are entirely different places, and Mr. Gilmartin remembered22 the order people were sitting down, it now, the fact is there are two different23 places, two different locations. If you asked me is it possible that24 Mr. Gilmartin was brought into Leinster House by somebody, that he was brought15:01:1425 over to the ministerial corridor, or somewhere else but more likely the26 ministerial corridor, I think Mary O'Rourke's view on that would be more right,27 we wouldn't in the party room, and somebody caught a few Ministers and said28 hello to somebody and shake hands with somebody or nodded to them, of course,29 of course is the answer to that. Because that kind of matter -- ministerial15:01:3730 corridor normally when the Dail is sitting, there is delegations about, MaryPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

9215:01:411 O'Rourke said about schools, but also about local authority, there are about2 every project that you can think of, delegations are coming or going and it is3 a regular occurrence for a ministerial colleague to pull a few Ministers4 together if they have a friend, or acquaintance or in this case somebody who is15:01:585 going to develop a lot and to shake hands. I mean that could well happen. But6 I would not, and if you asked me would I remember such an engagement, not a7 hope. Because I do something like that and as Mary O'Rourke said the other8 day, you just call in and you go out. The only thing I probably do is go in9 and shake hands.15:02:2110 Q. 264 Well in the letter from the Tribunal the Tribunal made clear it wasn't11 suggesting that this was a formal cabinet meeting of anything of that nature.12 In the letter of November 2003 at page 47, the Tribunal says in describing to13 you "The Tribunal understands that you have been present at this meeting the14 Tribunal believe that is this meeting was not an official cabinet meeting". So15:02:4615 it wasn't suggested that it was a formal meeting in that sense or a meeting of16 the cabinet.1718 But the way it has been described to this Tribunal, if the Tribunal were to19 accept the evidence in broad terms of Mr. Gilmartin and of Mrs. O'Rourke and of15:03:0820 Mrs. Freda Kelly it, would appear that an informal meeting, a usual meeting of21 some description a gathering, call it what one wishes, took place some place in22 Leinster House, in or about Leinster House, in or about the beginning of23 February of 1989. Would you accept that?24 A. No I would, as I say in the terms that I have put it, when you say it wasn't a15:03:3425 formal cabinet meeting, I know it wasn't a formal cabinet meets there is only26 one place they take place that's in the cabinet chamber or during the EU27 Presidency, somewhere like Farmleigh. A subcommittee of the cabinet would also28 take place in the designated subcommittee room. I can never recall the period29 under Mr. Haughey, Mr. Reynolds or Mr. Lynch that I worked under, where people15:03:5730 would use the ministerial corridor to sit down and it has changed over thePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

9315:04:001 years, but to sit down and have a meeting, so in all of those forms, that kind2 of meeting, if you asked me Mr. Gallagher will I agree with contention that a3 few people could have casually got together on the way back from question time4 on the way to question time, on the way to private members time and said hello15:04:195 to somebody, I can tell you that happens practically every minute of every day6 that Dail Eireann sits and there is Ministers there.7 Q. 265 In fairness to Mr. Gilmartin he wouldn't have been aware of what arrangements8 were made, he says who was there and who did the introduction. Mr. Flynn did9 the introductions and that you spoke to him. He spoke to Seamus Brennan, he15:04:4010 spoke to the Taoiseach who came up and spoke to him about his background in11 Sligo, and matters of that, a very short meeting at which Mrs. O'Rourke says12 she came in, looked around, introduced, this is Tom Gilmartin, this is Mary13 O'Rourke Minister for Education, they nodded to each other and she walked out.1415:04:5615 Now do you accept that her recollection of that event is, seems to be very16 clear?17 A. I do. Absolutely clear. If I was in there I was probably in there five18 seconds before her and back out five seconds after her.19 Q. 266 It may well be.15:05:1420 A. Of course that could have happened.21 Q. 267 Yes. So in the light of all that evidence, can the Tribunal take it that you22 are not disputing that such a gathering, a meeting, a casual encounter might23 very well have taken place, and you can't recall it and didn't recall it?24 A. No and to be frank I would not recall a gathering like that and no colleague15:05:4125 would. Once I am not going to say it's a meeting because I have a good memory,26 a very good memory and I have good knowledge of Leinster House and good27 knowledge of the formalities operated and as it was put for a long time, it's28 very different circumstances.29 Q. 268 Taoiseach, I mean I don't want to engage in semantics, if you and I happen to15:06:0530 meet in the street we would say afterwards we met, it was a meeting, it wasn'tPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

9415:06:111 a formal meeting, it wasn't a meeting to decide anything, it was a meeting. If2 somebody was taken in, as Mr. Gilmartin says he was, a man who had never been3 in the presence of the Taoiseach of the country, or indeed many of the4 Ministers or certainly Ministers in the block or a group, it was not15:06:335 unreasonable for him so describe that as a meeting with Ministers and with the6 Taoiseach, would you accept that?7 A. Yes, only for then, I think the problem for the Tribunal is that the two venues8 are so entirely different but that's, if you ask me could a casual meeting like9 that have taken place that would be something that would happen all of the time15:06:5710 where a Minister would ask a few colleagues to say hello to somebody. A group11 from a constituency something like that could well happen.12 Q. 269 The question I asked earlier is that in the light of the evidence of13 Mr. Gilmartin, Mrs. O'Rourke and indeed Ms. Kelly, do you accept that as a14 matter of probability such a meeting took place or such a gathering took place,15:07:2215 in Leinster House in or about the beginning of February 1989?16 A. It could well have happened in such a gathering, an informal gathering, hello17 chitchat like that could well have happened.18 Q. 270 I under that, it could have, I mean, almost anything could have happened, but19 as a matter of probability, given that Mrs. O'Rourke is so clear in her15:07:4220 recollection, do you accept that it probably happened although you don't recall21 it?22 A. Well I think Mrs. O'Rourke said because reference was made to her mother that23 she put a particular attachment and I totally would accept that sometimes you24 put an attachment to a particular issue. On that occasion, there are other15:08:0425 occasions I would remember something. Somebody would ask me to go out of my26 office and meet somebody I would remember because it would be somebody that you27 met before or met of course that could happen.28 Q. 271 But do you accept as a matter of probability given the evidence that29 Mrs. O'Rourke and Mrs. Kelly and indeed Mr. Gilmartin that a gathering or15:08:1930 meeting or casual encounter of the kind described, as a matter of probabilityPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

9515:08:221 took place?2 A. Could have well happened.3 Q. 272 I appreciate it could have happened but as a matter of probability do you4 accept it did happen in the light of that evidence?15:08:315 A. If you wish to, wish me to say on probability, how can I make that assessment.67 CHAIRMAN: I think it's --8 A. What I am saying is.915:08:4210 CHAIRMAN: That's a matter for the Tribunal.11 A. I am not disputing what you are saying Mr. Gallagher.12 Q. 273 All right.1314 MR. MAGUIRE: Sorry Chairman, on the assumption that Mr. Gallagher is moving15:08:5315 away from this I have deliberately waited until he concluded his questioning in16 respect of this.1718 If he is putting evidence supposedly given in the Tribunal here in relation to19 matters including this area, he should put what the evidence was, not suggest15:09:0820 that it was the same from three witnesses when it clearly wasn't. And he21 should refer to the evidence that was given by Mr. Gilmartin in respect of it's22 time, it's location, and it's form of the meeting that was being talked about23 here.2415:09:2225 He has neglected to do that and it's -- in fact he has given an impression that26 all three accounts that he has referred to were in fact the same. When it27 clearly is not the position. There is a clear contradiction between that. And28 I know the Taoiseach has dealt with that, but it has to be put on the basis of29 the contradictions he shouldn't be cross examined on the basis of a similarity15:09:4830 between evidence that was clearly dissimilar and contradictoryPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

9615:09:5212 CHAIRMAN: Well the differences in the evidence of Mr. Gilmartin and3 Mrs. O'Rourke is to the effect that the physical layout, the location was4 different.15:10:0756 MR. MAGUIRE: An the nature of the meeting of the and the way in which people7 were seated around the table and the way in which they were standing, and all8 of that. They are two not just different, but contradictory accounts is being9 suggested in effect that all three were the same. I have waited Chairman until15:10:2710 the Taoiseach dealt with this but it must be done on the basis of fairness, it11 is being done not on the basis of his evidence is lead but on the rather that12 he is being challenged on it1314 CHAIRMAN: All right. Mrs. O'Rourke her evidence is clear she believes she15:10:4115 came into towards the end of the meeting.1617 MR. MAGUIRE: There are certain aspects the Taoiseach dealt with and dealt with18 fully, my objection is the way in which the questions are being put to the19 witness, this is supposed to be leading the witness through his evidence of the15:10:5320 questions are being put to the witness on an incorrect basis.2122 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman if I can intervene with respect it is difficult to23 see how Mr. Ahern can comment on the differing versions indeed he referred to24 the fact that the version is different between Mr. Gilmartin's evidence and15:11:1025 Mrs. O'Rourke's evidence, it's difficult to the see how he can comment on those26 when he says he does not recollect the meeting.2728 MR. MAGUIRE: No Chairman. First of all I don't understand what part29 Mr. O'Neill has to play in this exchange between us. This is a Tribunal15:11:2730 witness whose evidence is being lead by Tribunal counsel. And if it's beingPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

9715:11:321 lead and there is a suggestion that evidence was given previously by different2 witnesses, that evidence should be put accurately, not necessarily verbatim,3 but it should be put accurately. And it's clear that in respect of the4 description of the meeting in question it is being suggested that they were the15:11:505 same when they were actually contradictory.67 Now the Taoiseach has actually dealt with that Chairman.89 CHAIRMAN: Well if you require that to be done it can be done, but it seems to15:12:0010 us that it's somewhat of a waste of time because the Taoiseach made it quite11 clear that he, that he has no recollection of any group of people coming12 together as described either by Mrs. O'Rourke or Mr. Gilmartin.1314 So it's clear that there is difference between the two.15:12:241516 MR. MAGUIRE: Yes Chairman.1718 CHAIRMAN: The Taoiseach made it quite clear that he can't say yeah or nay19 about either because he has no recollection. He accepts it was a very short15:12:3420 meeting, which is described by Mr. Gilmartin. Then it's possible that, or21 quite likely that it would have been similar to a lot of other meetings of the22 same nature, that he wouldn't expect himself to remember.2324 MR. MAGUIRE: Yes. Chairman my option objection is on a different basis. The15:12:5525 objection is that the evidence that is being produced to the witness in the26 witness box is on a basis of an incorrect basis. It's not accurately27 reflecting the evidence that was given. Now I waited until the exchange had28 been completed, but as far as the witness is concerned if there are29 contradictions they should be put --15:13:1430Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

9815:13:141 CHAIRMAN: All right if you require every detail Mr. Gilmartin's evidence2 about the meeting, about how he was taken in, across whatever corridor into the3 room, description of the room and then the same from Mrs. O'Rourke, do I4 understand that's what you are seeking?15:13:3256 MR. MAGUIRE: No Chairman I am not. All I am suggesting is that if the7 evidence is being put on the basis of what witnesses said that the difference8 should be highlighted. I am not suggesting you go through each and every bit9 of evidence that clearly wouldn't be practical. But as far as the evidence in15:13:4910 respect of Mr. Gilmartin's description of what he said occurred on the date, if11 it's being presseed if there is a small, a description of it, it shouldn't be12 presented as being the same evidence in respect of all three witnesses.1314 CHAIRMAN: Can you put --15:14:051516 MR. GALLAGHER: Sir, I just would like to say I didn't intend to put it on the17 basis to the Taoiseach that all the evidence was identical, I believe that I18 said that there were distinctions and differences between the evidence, but19 that essentially, essentially, if this felt to be unfair by Mr. Maguire I will15:14:2520 certainly go back on it.2122 The questions I am asking are asked in the following context, A that Mr, the23 Taoiseach Mr. Ahern has said I have no recollection of attending any such24 meeting, it is my firm belief that I did not attend such meeting. That's his15:14:4225 statement. And I accept that that is what he said. And I have read it into26 the record.2728 In cross-examining Mr. Gilmartin in response to you Chairman on day 46229 Mr. Maguire said as follows "No you were asked -- did Mr. Ahern recall the15:15:0230 meeting and Mr. Maguire said "Mr. Ahern has no recollection of the meetingPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

9915:15:071 taking place. Secondly he has no recollection of being present at such a2 meeting and thirdly on the basis of the evidence that he produced in the3 documentary evidence that has been produced he believes he was elsewhere"415:15:185 Now I was going to refer to the fact, and acknowledge the fact that there is6 evidence, or evidence will be called from persons who have come forward to say7 that the Taoiseach was at an award ceremony, award presentation ceremony on the8 evening in question. But I am just asking him, in the light of the evidence9 that has been given and given, acknowledging as I do, that there are difference15:15:4410 in the evidence, but they do say, there is one central matter about which there11 is agreement, that there was a gathering, a coming together of people, whether12 it was a gathering, a meeting, an encounter call it what one wishes, in or13 about Dail Eireann, and I mentioned in or about Dail Eireann and in or about14 the beginning of February.15:16:071516 Now I don't know whether it is necessary to go beyond that, acknowledging that17 there are differences.1819 CHAIRMAN: Well Mr. Maguire are you suggesting that the, that a more detailed15:16:1820 account be put to the Taoiseach as to the differences between the two accounts,21 given that at the end of the day the Taoiseach presumably is going to say or22 repeat that this was a very informal gathering, by the sounds of it, and he23 wouldn't expect himself to remember?2415:16:3625 MR. MAGUIRE: Chairman, I think you asked me whether he can say yeah or nay, we26 can't say yeah or nay to either Mrs. O'Rourke's evidence or Mr. Gilmartin's27 evidence. What the Taoiseach has been dealing with is what he understands the28 evidence to be of Mrs. O'Rourke and has drawn a distinction between that and29 what Mr. Gilmartin says. It is not a question, he has been asked as to his15:17:0030 recollection of events in or around that. And he has indicated what might havePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

10015:17:041 happened or could possibly happen. He has no recollection of it but he says2 what is could happen and he has drawn a distinction between that and what3 Mr. Gilmartin has said.415:17:135 Now my objection is that the way in which Mr. Gallagher is putting this6 evidence in the first instance is on the basis that they are all similar they7 are not, they are clearly contradictory.89 CHAIRMAN: No I think in fairness, Mr. Gallagher made it quite clear that15:17:2410 there are differences in the accounts of both. But where they converge is that11 there was a meeting of people or a coming together of people, a number of names12 have been given by Mr. Gilmartin and by Mrs. O'Rourke. It's only to that13 extent that the accounts are similar. There are wide number of, there are a14 number of differences in relation to other aspects of the meeting, or the15:17:5515 gathering or whatever.1617 Now if the Taoiseach is saying I have no recollection of a meeting anywhere in18 the building such as described by either Mrs. O'Rourke or by Mr. Gilmartin one19 has to ask what is the point then in going through both accounts in detail?15:18:162021 MR. MAGUIRE: Because there are, because of the distinctions drawn between the22 two accounts and because of the fact that he is accepts that the type of23 meeting that has been put, or type of greeting somebody in respect of24 Mrs. O'Rourke's account may have taken place. But there is a distinction to be15:18:3825 drawn between that and what Mr. Gilmartin said which is entirely different26 that's the point.2728 MR. GALLAGHER: I certainly accept that there is a distinction, a difference29 between what they are saying and it is a matter I would say, for submission. I15:18:5330 think it is unfair to be asking any witness who says that they have noPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

10115:18:571 recollection to present them in great detail with what certainly in some2 respects are conflicting accounts. If the Tribunal wishes me to do so I will3 do it but, I think it is a matter for submission.415:19:125 CHAIRMAN: Well we don't think it's necessary if you Mr. Maguire want to raise6 it with the Taoiseach at a later stage, we have no difficulty with that.78 MR. MAGUIRE: Well I am concerned as the evidence is presented that when it9 does come to contradictions that they are addressed in the way in which the15:19:3110 evidence has been lead.1112 CHAIRMAN: All right that's something we can return to. But for the moment as13 far as we are concerned, we are satisfied that the Taoiseach's evidence is to14 the effect that he does not recollect any meeting, either as described by15:19:4415 Mrs. O'Rourke or by Mr. Gilmartin. He accepts that there may have been some16 sort of a gathering of people as there would be from time to time, such as17 described by Mr. Gilmartin and/or Mr, Mrs. O'Rourke.1819 MR. MAGUIRE: No that's the difference Chairman. It's as described by15:20:0420 Mrs. O'Rourke2122 CHAIRMAN: All right. Well then to clear up that matter Mr. Gallagher can put23 it to the Taoiseach, the account given by Mr. Gilmartin insofar as it differs,24 this is as to the meeting it self, and how it was conducted.15:20:172526 MR. MAGUIRE: As to Mr. Gilmartin's evidence in respect of it.2728 CHAIRMAN: Yes. And ask the Taoiseach does that help him in some way recall29 or does he, would he have any further comment it make?15:20:3130Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

10215:20:311 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Maguire I understand what you are saying is that essentially2 you are saying that Mrs. O'Rourke's evidence and Mr. Gilmartin's evidence is3 not ad idem regarding location, or activity at the time in their description.4 I mean I don't know if we need to go into, that's as I understand it.15:20:5056 MR. MAGUIRE: And date.78 JUDGE FAHERTY: And date. Yes. They are not ad idem because there is a9 description about a different activity vis-a-vis Mr. Gilmartin's description15:21:0010 and Mrs. O'Rourke's description and equally there are other differences in11 terms of the date. And the location and not ad idem regarding the location.1213 CHAIRMAN: The date is clearly the matter which Mr. Gallagher would have to14 deal with.15:21:121516 JUDGE FAHERTY: But I don't think it is necessary for Mr. Gallagher to go17 completely into full description of the evidence given that's a matter its on18 the transcript.1915:21:2020 MR. MAGUIRE: In answer to you judge, I am prepared to accept it on the basis21 that you have now pointed out in that regard.2223 JUDGE FAHERTY: They are not ad idem.2415:21:3225 MR. MAGUIRE: They are not ad idem but he agrees with one possibility namely26 the description by Mrs. O'Rourke but not what has been said by Mr. Gilmartin.2728 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, I understand that distinction. Yes.2915:21:4430 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gallagher it might be an appropriate time to rise for a fewPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

10315:21:481 minutes.23 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT BREAK4 AND RESUMED AGAIN AS FOLLOWS:56 MR. GALLAGHER: Chairman, if the Tribunal so wishes, I can deal with the7 evidence of Mr. Gilmartin and the cross-examination of days 458, 461, 462, 4728 and the statement of Mrs. O'Rourke and her evidence and the evidence of, sorry9 Mrs. Kelly doesn't arise, or I can endeavour to summarise what I believe the15:34:3410 differences to be between the evidence given by Mr. Gilmartin and11 Mrs. O'Rourke.1213 CHAIRMAN: We think that that is sufficient to highlight the differences.14 Mr. Maguire can return to the subject of the15:34:491516 MR. GALLAGHER: If I omit any --1718 CHAIRMAN: Just indicate --1915:34:5320 MR. GALLAGHER: Point of distinction.21 Taoiseach I did indicate earlier I believe, that I accepted that there are22 clear differences between the evidence of Mr. Gilmartin and Mrs. O'Rourke. And23 I will endeavour to summarise for those for you and for the Tribunal.2415:35:1025 1. Mr. Gilmartin thinks and has an entry in his diary showing that the diary,26 come notebook showing that a meeting appears to have taken place on the 1st of27 February he describes as meeting of the Ministers. He says it was a meeting28 which took place probably on the 1st but could have taken place on the 2nd.2915:35:3730 Your diary shows you were at a presentation, an award presentation on thePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

10415:35:421 evening of the 1st and that it would appear that you were unlikely to be in2 Dail Eireann after 5 o'clock or thereabouts in the evening in question.34 Mr. Gilmartin says he was taken into the Dail, he was taken in a lift and he15:35:595 was taken to what he believes was the fourth or fifth floor. He isn't sure6 what floor because the lift button was pressed by Mr. Lawlor he says. He says7 he was taken along to a room, he walked along a corridor, went into a lobby and8 he was taken to a room which had two oak doors.915:36:2310 He say that the door was opened by Mr. Lawlor and he was ushered into the room.11 When we went into the room he found that there were a number of government12 Ministers whom he recognised, of whom you were one. He says that you were13 seated around a rectangular table. He says in this room there were two doors14 the doors through which he entered the room and another door on the right-hand15:36:4815 side.1617 He says that Mr. Haughey came in to that room and he says that Mrs. O'Rourke18 also came in. Both as I understand it, at different times, within a short time19 of each other but not simultaneously or not together, through that door on the15:37:0820 right.2122 He says that Mr. Haughey came down, put his hand or his knuckle on the table23 beside where Mr. Gilmartin was standing and spoke to him for some time. But he24 did not shake hands.15:37:252526 He says that Mrs. O'Rourke came in and was introduced by Mrs, by Mr. Flynn,27 that they nodded to each other and that she left the room.2829 He says that Mr. Ray Burke was in the room for a short time.15:37:4230Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

10515:37:421 He says that he left the room and he says that when he left the room he was2 approached by somebody.34 He say that is Mr. Lawlor was standing outside the room.15:37:5256 Mrs. O'Rourke says that she remembers being in her ministerial office. She was7 Minister of Education at the time. She says that this, on this occasion8 Mr. Flynn came to her office and asked her to come across the corridor to meet9 Mr. Gilmartin. She says that, she remembers this request by Mr. Flynn because15:38:2310 he mentioned that Mr. Gilmartin came from Sligo where her late mother, who had11 died in the recent past, in November of 1988, had come from. And for that12 reason she remembers the meeting well, or the gathering, or the group, call it13 what one wishes.1415:38:4715 She says she entered, that she was in the room for about ten seconds. That she16 nodded to Mr. Gilmartin. Mr. Flynn introduced her to Mr. Gilmartin and17 Mr. Gilmartin to her. That she then left the room. She had the impression18 that the meeting was, if there had been a meeting that it had ended because19 everybody was standing up. Mr. Gilmartin had made the point that I think most15:39:1420 of the people were sitting down, although there was one person as I recall21 standing behind Mr. Seamus Brennan.2223 He says, Mrs. O'Rourke says that she left the room within a short time. She24 says other people may have been in the room that she can't recall, or others15:39:3825 may have left the room before she had entered the room, but she is clear that26 this room, this meeting took place on what she described I think as the27 ministerial corridor.2829 She says it was a small room. Mr. Gilmartin describes it as a good largish15:39:5330 room with as I recall two tables in it. One a large rectangular table andPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

10615:39:581 another I think table on the other side.23 I think that they are the essential differences between the evidence of Mr --4 Mr.15:40:1056 CHAIRMAN: Well just one additional. Mrs. O'Rourke says when she came out of7 the room, she can't recall seeing Mr. Lawlor or --89 MR. GALLAGHER: Or anybody else.15:40:191011 CHAIRMAN: And also that Mr. Gilmartin put the meeting on the 1st or 2nd of12 February, that period.1314 MR. GALLAGHER: Yes but she couldn't.15:40:271516 CHAIRMAN: Mrs. O'Rourke put it between early February and mid March, they are17 the essential differences, now whether that assists you in anyway, first of all18 in recalling any such gathering, and whether you would want to, whether you19 would like to comment on either description.15:40:4620 A. Well Chairman, I thank Mr. Gallagher for explaining, but the question21 Mr. Gallagher was asking me, could I draw a probability from what he had22 stated, and I think when he fleshes out the issues, you can't draw a23 probability from two entirely different issues. That's the point my counsel24 were making.15:41:082526 The second question Mr. Gallagher asked me was a fair enough question. Because27 of what Mr. Mrs. O'Rourke said, is it possible that in the order of the bill a28 few people get together in a casual way and the answer to that question is of29 course yes. But what I was trying to take issue when you asked several times15:41:2630 Mr. Gallagher could I draw a probability. You couldn't draw probability fromPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

10715:41:311 two opposites23 CHAIRMAN: All right. Well that seems to deal with that.415:41:375 MR. GALLAGHER: All right.6 And you have, through your solicitors furnished to the Tribunal statements from7 witnesses who will confirm that you were at an award presentation on the8 evening of the 1st of February.915:42:0710 Can I just have, if I may, the diary entry, yes. 4070 please? And 3872.11 Sorry, that's the statement 3872.1213 This is your diary for the 1st, if I just focus in on the 1st please, the14 bottom of it. Shows 3 pm Frank Dunlop, there is pairing between 4.30 and 6.3015:43:0715 and 5 pm present certificates to participant who completed a Manual Handling16 Instructor Course in the National Industrial Fire and Safety Training Centre17 Limited, 50 Shore Road Glasnevin, is that correct?1819 May I have page 3873 please? On the following day, if we look at the, on the15:44:0220 first, 5pm present certificates hand all handling construction course NIFAST21 Glasnevin. Can you remember that presentation?22 A. I can vaguely enough but I recall being there.23 Q. 274 Can you assist the Tribunal with the time you arrived, was it early late?24 A. I understand that I, I was there maybe a little bit late, but shortly after 5.15:44:2825 Q. 275 In your diary the same page, it shows that you had a meeting with the Taoiseach26 at 3 pm on the 2nd of February in relation to urban renewal.27 A. Correct.28 Q. 276 And -- can you recall where that meeting took place or where was it likely to29 have taken place?15:44:5030 A. Probably in the Taoiseach's office.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

10815:44:551 Q. 277 Would that be in Upper Merrion Street?2 A. In government buildings.3 Q. 278 Yes. And then a reference to Mr. John Cope at the airport 5.25 arrival time.4 Can you recall whether you were at the airport?15:45:105 A. I couldn't be certain I was at the airport, I recall the visit. Because that6 was a significant, Chairman, occasion, because in the 80s there were very few7 Ministers of the British Government came to Ireland, almost none. Mr. Cope was8 it was a rare occurrence and very significant that he came, it was an enormous9 security and it was, I considered a good hand of friendship that he came to15:45:3810 Ireland. I remember that evening and I remember the following day well.11 Q. 279 On the 20th of -- sorry before we come to the 20th of June, of 1989.12 Mr. Gilmartin says that he was experiencing difficulties and problems in13 relation to the acquisition of land from Dublin Corporation and he said that he14 felt that roadblocks were being put in his way. He had, he says, agreed terms15:46:1715 with the chief valuer of Dublin Corporation in relation to the purchase of16 lands. And that, although a recommendation to sell the lands to him had gone17 forward, that another developer had entered on the scene and as a result the18 land were put out to tender and he was forced to tender and was forced to pay a19 sum of 73,000 instead of the 71 -- 41 thousand pounds 40 thousand pound per15:46:4520 acre he had agreed.2122 And he says in those circumstances he felt that there was interference by23 Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Redmond and he decided to go to somebody he felt he could24 trust and he went to you, he says, looking for assistance.15:47:022526 He says he did so in circumstances where the lands, the final section 8327 approval for the sale of the lands by the Corporation had not come through,28 that he approached you you in that context and it was in that context you29 arranged for Mr. Burke, Mr. Joseph Burke who was a city councillor at the time15:47:2430 to contact him.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

10915:47:2512 First of all, do you remember being contacted by Mr. Gilmartin in or about that3 time?4 A. No, I have no recollection of the contact, but I accept what you have said is15:47:355 what happened because I have read what Mr. Gilmartin said and I have read6 Mr. Burke's statement and I recall Councillor Burke at the time, when these7 issues broke in the paper, contacted me and said that he had met Mr. Gilmartin.8 And I recall well saying why did he do that and he said because I asked him.9 So I accept what you said happened.15:48:0210 Q. 280 And do you accept that he told you that about the difficulties he was11 experiencing or that difficulties he perceived in relation to the proposed sale12 of the Corporation lands?13 A. I have no reason to think that he wouldn't. He could have highlighted that to14 me, and obviously asked me to try and assist him, as he said, and it sounds15:48:2715 likely he said that on a previous occasion met me. I said if I could ever help16 him, I would that sound like me. So he contacted me and I would have, if he,17 obviously told me some of his difficulties, I don't recall it, but if I recall18 he said that he contacted me before it came up to the city council on I think19 the 12th of June 1989, he contacted me within the first week of June and that I15:48:5420 sent Mr. Burke to him or Mr. Burke rang, but anyway there was a contact made,21 Mr. Burke went to his office and they, Mr. Burke checked it out in the22 Corporation and I accept that's what happened.23 Q. 281 I think he may have said that he contacted you sometime in May but I don't24 think much turns in or on that.15:49:152526 You accept that it was in relation to the Quarryvale lands rather than the27 Bachelor's Walk lands that he spoke to you?28 A. I accept that. I know in my own statement I said, because my only direct29 recollection was dealing with him on Bachelors Walk, but I read what he said15:49:3330 and what Councillor Burke's statement is so I accept that.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

11015:49:351 Q. 282 Do you recall him complaining to you that he was having problems with2 Mr. Lawlor and/or Mr. Redmond?3 A. I don't, but unfortunately Mr. Gallagher people normally don't ever ring me4 accept to complain about something, so that wouldn't have been unusual. If he15:49:595 said he had problems and if he looked for me to do something about them, I6 think I would have tried to help him, that's obviously what I tried to do.7 Q. 283 He says --8 A. To be, to answer your question, as I say, I don't recall him contacting me, so9 I don't recall him contacting me and mentioning Mr. Redmond or anybody else.15:50:1910 But having read the evidence and read the statements what I have accepted your11 earlier point.12 Q. 284 Yeah. I think that in fairness to you that you did mention this in your Dail13 statement, that Mr. Burke had contacted you, that he recalled being asked to14 meet Mr. Gilmartin and, but in that Dail statement he told you that the contact15:50:4815 was in relation to the new bridge or bus station in the Bachelor's Walk/Temple16 Bar area?17 A. Well I think that Councillor Burke met, I think they might have some reference18 to both issues, it's not clear on that. But I think Mr. Gilmartin states that19 he, his immediate problem why he contacted me was to try and get me, to see if15:51:1420 I could get him some contacts. On reading that I have no dispute about that,21 it seems like something I would do, somebody contacted me and asked me if they22 had a difficulty.2324 I should say Mr. Gallagher just for, not that it's 15 years ago, but my normal15:51:3125 practice would be, a call would come into my office all week. I normally sit26 down once a week and go through, particularly then where I would have contacted27 constituents, I would have contacted trade unions, members of the trade28 unions, contacted people in Fas and councillors I would go through the calls29 one after another.15:51:5330Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

11115:51:531 I could go through 40 or 50 phone calls in an afternoon and try to deal with2 them. That was my practice for years, I am well known for that, I still try to3 do it as best I can and at the weekend. So to remember, I know to some degree,4 to remember this and that, I would go through 40 or 50 and try to deal with15:52:165 them. There is not a hope I would remember a phone call like that, or would I6 try to be honest.7 Q. 285 Mr. Gilmartin says, may I have page 597 please? On the 20th June 1989 he8 telephoned you to thank you for your intervention. He says during the course9 of that conversation.15:52:3710 "he asked me whether I had given a donation to the Fianna Fail party. I11 informed him that I had given 50,000 pound to Mr. Flynn and Mr. Ahern made no12 further reference to the matter."1314 Will you tell the Tribunal what your recollection, if anything, is of that15:52:5715 telephone call?16 A. Well I have none, but I would say, I mean I think we all have practices and I17 would not, not when I was treasurer of the party, not in any of my positions in18 the party would ask somebody on the phone or elsewhere, I'd send out letters19 from the party but I would not, to answer your question, I would not ask15:53:1720 somebody for a donation for myself, or for the Fianna Fail party.2122 As I have said previously in the Dail when this matter came up, and I have sent23 the Tribunal, when these matters were raised, as I understand it, Mr. Gilmartin24 had given or he states that he had given the Fianna Fail treasurer 50,00015:53:4125 pounds the week before, or around the same time. On the 2nd of June. And if26 he had made reference to me that he gave a contribution I might have asked him27 did he give a contribution, but I would not ask, I would not ask him for myself28 or for the party or anybody else, not just Mr. Gilmartin, anybody else, I just29 would not do that. I have never done it in 27 years in politics and I would15:54:0330 not have done it in that phone call.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

11215:54:051 Q. 286 Mr. Gilmartin in his evidence, has said with reference to you "He asked if I2 would consider giving a donation" that's page 462, day 462 page 19.3 A. No I would not ask. It wouldn't matter that I wasn't treasurer or that I was,4 whatever position. I would not ask anybody, even somebody that I would barely15:54:345 new like Mr. Gilmartin, I would not ask in a telephone call, I am accepting I6 had a telephone call with him, but I would not ask somebody to give me a7 donation or my party a donation because I had done something for them, whether8 I had or I hadn't I wouldn't have ask.9 Q. 287 Well did you have any conversation with him in relation to the payment or15:54:5510 paying over of monies to either Mr. Flynn or Mr, to the Fianna Fail party and11 whether that was a discussion or an issue raised by you or by him?12 A. Well as I said Mr. Gallagher for the third time to you. If I can be as polite13 as possible, that I can't remember the telephone call at all. But as a14 principle in my life I would not ask anybody, anybody, not my best friends, not15:55:2215 to mind somebody I did not know.1617 If in the discussion and I have said this in the Dail, if in the discussion18 that obviously Mr. Gilmartin was frustrated and felt people were blocking him,19 and obviously that's what he was ringing me, he thought I was someone he could15:55:4020 trust and I was trying to assist him and then he rang me back to say thanks, I21 think it was going through anyway, I don't think anyone had to do anything, as22 he was the lowest tender as I understand. But anyway he had the good manners23 to ring me back which I would have appreciated and particularly that his first24 phone call and his second phone call were in the middle of an election15:56:0225 campaign. And the election campaign was the 15th of June one was just before26 it an one after it. And I think I showed my own efficiency by dealing with my27 phone calls during the campaign.2829 But I would not ask him, if he said that these people were making difficulties,15:56:2030 and he mentioned a contribution and if he was giving out about giving money, IPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

11315:56:271 could well have said did you give a contribution because he made reference do2 it. But that's an entirely different thing, Chairman of me raising with him3 would you give a contribution. I just would not do that. And anybody who4 knows me, even when I was party treasurer the last thing, I am the worse15:56:455 person, I would efficiently as an accountant, try and get the records right, I6 would sign my name to the letters but asking me to ring up individuals chasing7 money was not ground I would go in to and I didn't in that case and I haven't8 gone into it.9 Q. 288 Well Mr. Gilmartin has given his evidence and you clearly have heard that he15:57:0810 paid a cheque to Mr. Flynn which was made payable to cash at some stage and --11 A. Well the previous week, the 2nd of June he said.12 Q. 289 Oh indeed. I am not suggesting, I am just simply talking as a general13 proposition, I am not linking to this conversation.14 A. The point, the only reason I am raising that Mr. Gallagher, is because it would15:57:3215 have been very fresh in his mind in the conversation if he was on to me16 somewhere in June it would have been very fresh in his mind that he had given17 50,000 pound a lot of money even for somebody doing major development and he18 would have been annoyed he wasn't getting assistance. I understand that. I19 have accepted that is, but I am just saying as a matter of general rule, I15:57:5520 would not put to him, would not put it to anybody would he give me a21 contribution, or the party a contribution because they were ringing me back to22 thank me, whether I did anything or not or the --23 Q. 290 What I was putting to you Taoiseach, was that at some stage you learned that24 there had been a payment of 50,000 pounds by Mr. Gilmartin. What was your15:58:1925 reaction when you heard that there was a sum of 50,000 pounds paid over in26 whatever circumstances they were paid over, and for whoever they were intended?27 A. Well as I recall it was checked at party headquarters, I was then Taoiseach,28 the present Fianna Fail, we checked with Fianna Fail headquarters did we get29 that money and we didn't. So I instructed the general secretary of the party15:58:4530 to write to Mr. Flynn to find out what happened.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

11415:58:511 Q. 291 But what was your reaction to the size of the payment that had been made,2 whether it was political donation to Fianna Fail or --3 A. No it was would be a large donation but it wouldn't, it wouldn't have been the4 largest donation in 1989 but there wouldn't be many, there wouldn't be many you15:59:125 know, larger than that. But I mean, Mr. Gilmartin was a very large developer.6 I would not have been, I would have considered a large donation, but7 Mr. Gilmartin was a very large developer.8 Q. 292 I think in fact you had said, you described yourself as being shocked at the9 size?15:59:2810 A. Yes I said in the Dail that that is a very large donation.11 Q. 293 Yes. In fact you said at page 27: "I was shocked that this amount of money12 could be floating around because it never floated anywhere that I had been over13 the years that is inappropriate".14 A. Yes to represent Dublin central you don't get people floating around with that15:59:5115 kind of money.16 Q. 294 Taoiseach, I think that following the publicity in relation to these matters17 and indeed you refer to it in your Dail statement, you arranged for a letter to18 be written to Mr. Flynn in relation to the monies. I think that is to be found19 at page 3342?16:00:1620 A. I think that was in October 1998.21 Q. 295 That's right, the 6th of October 1998. You refer to the media reports and the22 allegations made by Mr. Gilmartin. The planning inquiry among the allegations23 is one concerns a sum of 50,000 pounds allegedly given to you and intended for24 the Fianna Fail party.16:00:382526 The trustees of the party have various legal and fiduciary duties towards the27 membership of the party. These duties include an obligation to ascertain28 whether fund were given to any person within the intention of the fund were to29 be applied for the benefit of the Fianna Fail party. In the light of the16:00:5730 allegations that monies were given to you for Fianna Fail I have been asked byPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

11516:00:581 the trustees just to make certain enquiries in the circumstances I am obliged2 if you could answer the following questions.34 1. Did you or anybody on your behalf receive 50,000 pounds or any other sum of16:01:015 money from Tom Gilmartin?6 2 If so was this money given to you or anyone on your behalf intended for the7 Fianna Fail party?8 3. Was the money passed onto the Fianna Fail party?9 4. If so to whom in the Fianna Fail was the money given and when was it16:01:1510 given.?11 5. Was any receipt issued by same by Fianna Fail?1213 I would be obliged if you would give to me any documentation in your possession14 relating to the said monies. Furthermore if you have any further information16:01:2615 in your possession relating to the alleged contribution from Tom Gilmartin. I16 would be grateful to be apprised of same.1718 I am posing the above questions to you in a formal manner in order that the19 trustee will have discharged their duties to the members of the party. I16:01:4220 regret any inconvenience I may have caused you in dealing with the above21 queries but no doubt you will appreciate the legal necessity for this line of22 inquiry.2324 I note that today's Irish Times reports that you will cooperate with the16:01:4625 planning Tribunal. I wish to express my appreciation to you for such a26 constructive approach. Such co-operation with the Tribunal is the policy of27 the Fianna Fail party.2829 I wish to thank you in anticipation of a response to this letter.16:01:5730Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

11616:01:571 Yours sincerely"23 I think that you confirmed that that letter had been delivered by post to the4 offices of Mr. Flynn in Brussels.16:02:075 A. Correct.6 Q. 296 Can you tell the Tribunal whether you ever, the party ever received a response7 to that letter?8 A. No, we did not.9 Q. 297 Did you ever receive any part of the sum of 50,000 pounds from Mr. Flynn or any16:02:2410 part there of?11 A. No, we did not.12 Q. 298 I think on the 11th of February 1999 at page 3353. You wrote to Mr. Flynn, you13 wrote personally to bring his attention to the motion passed by Dail Eireann on14 Wednesday the 10th of February 1999, in the following term that Dail Eireann16:02:4615 noting that it has established a Tribunal to inquire into allegations16 concerning the planning process, noting that the necessity for the Tribunal to17 be allowed to complete it's work independently and without delay. Calls on the18 EU Commission for Social Affairs, Padraig Flynn to make a full immediate19 statement clarifying his position in relation to allegation that he received16:03:0620 50,000 while Minister for the Environment in 1989. I am confident that without21 prejudice your legal rights and the independence of your position you will wish22 to give careful and serious consideration to your response to formally express23 wishes of Dail Eireann as the body which is the democratic voice of the Irish24 people."16:03:192526 I think you received a letter in reply, dated the 24th of February 1999 at27 3354, it's addressed to you on screen now Taoiseach.2829 "Dear Bertie, thank you for conveying to the text of the Dail motion of the16:03:3730 10th of February 1999.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

11716:03:3812 I have voluntarily made a statement to the Flood Tribunal last year, many3 months prior to the recent controversy. Furthermore I have to date answered4 all the Tribunal's questions on this matter, indicated my willingness to16:03:515 cooperate fully with the Tribunal. If and when required by the Tribunal I will6 continue to cooperate and provide my evidence on oath if that is required".78 He goes on then and says in the circumstances it would be inappropriate to make9 a public comment on the matter.16:04:021011 Now I just one or two other things I want to ask you about Taoiseach if I may?1213 Mr. Gilmartin has told the Tribunal that he spoke to you about his intention to14 develop the Quarryvale site and he spoke to a number of other Ministers and16:04:2715 everybody was supportive, and enthusiastic about the proposal. And that they16 indicated to him that the site would get designation at some stage, do you ever17 recall any conversations with Mr. Gilmartin along those lines or any general --18 he doesn't suggest it was put in writing or anything of that nature.19 A. I didn't Mr. Gallagher, because the three meetings I had with him on the 10th16:04:5720 of October 1988, the 13th of October 1988 and September 1989 were all about the21 Arlington development on Bachelors Walk, so the only conversations I had with22 him clearly and I think this is what he states himself was when he contacted me23 regarding the land issue, where I sent the councillor to him. So I had no such24 discussions with him at Quarryvale whatever.16:05:2425 Q. 299 Did you discuss with him or did he discuss or mention to you the fact that he26 was anxious to have the zoning of the Quarryvale lands changed and that the27 review of the County Development Plan which was under way at that stage would28 or should be prioritized to rezone the Quarryvale lands?29 A. No he did not. And anyway, the County Development Plan is something that I16:05:5530 never took any interest in my life. I take some interest in the inner cityPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

11816:06:001 Development Plans but the County Development Plan is not something I would even2 be familiar with and never having been in my life, it's not -- I represented3 Dublin Corporation for the city council, I never had any involvements whatever4 in the county.16:06:125 Q. 300 Would you have been likely to say to him in the course of conversation that6 support would be forthcoming or you would do what you could by talking to7 councillors or anything of that nature to -8 A. No, no. I wasn't involved as I said with the county plan, I wouldn't be9 dealing with councillors of the County Council. The reason Councillor Burke16:06:3610 was, that was city lands that were being sold into the county and they had to11 go through the Planning and Development Committee of Dublin Corporation. But12 the government Minister, anywhere in the country to this day would not directly13 be involved in anything to do with the County Development Plan.14 Q. 301 Mr. Gilmartin has told the Tribunal that in the course of his telephone16:06:5915 conversation with you, you mentioned that you were travelling to London in the16 future, that was I think the end of 1989 or thereabouts and that you hoped to17 see him there, or words to that effect, it was a Fianna Fail fundraising lunch18 I think been arranged, do you remember any discussion about that?19 A. No and I don't believe I would say it either. I wasn't on the Finance16:07:2620 Committee, I was a party officer, as Vice President of the party and it was in21 November 1989 there was a fundraising event in London, which I attended and22 came back that evening. But the normal practice in the party if you are having23 fundraising event like that is the party officers or whatever people we would24 get would host a table at a function like that, but the organisation of it16:07:5325 would be done by the party treasurer. My diary show that is Mr. Sean Flemming26 was the party accountant, treasurer at the time and the committee organise that27 function. I would not have been in June, making phone calls organising a28 function in November.29 Q. 302 I think in fairness Mr. Gilmartin he was not suggesting that this was a16:08:1430 suggestion in June that it was perhaps at a later stage and certainly was muchPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

11916:08:221 closer to the event.2 A. Well I think Mr. Gilmartin said he had two phone calls with me and the last3 phone call was 20th of June, he doesn't mention any subsequent phone call so4 that's news. Anyway the answer is no.16:08:355 Q. 303 The answer is no. I see. Can you tell the Tribunal if you are aware that6 there was a Garda inquiry into planning corruption in Dublin in 1989?7 A. Yes I am aware there was an investigation, yes.8 Q. 304 And did you know anything of the allegations that had been made at that time9 by, about Mr. Redmond, Mr. Lawlor, that the Gardai were investigating that?16:09:0510 A. Other than things that would have been in the public domain, I have no, I have11 no information from a cabinet point of view or a political point of view.12 Q. 305 I see. Thank you.1314 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I suppose Mr. Maguire you wait until the end.16:09:2615 Mr. O'Neill or Mr. O'Donnell? Mr. O'Neill is for Mr. Gilmartin.161718192021222324252627282930Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

12016:09:331 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF AN TAOISEACH CONTINUED BY MR. O'NEILL:23 MR. O'NEILL: Good afternoon Taoiseach4 A. Afternoon.16:09:365 Q. 306 Do you recognise Mr. Gilmartin he is sitting to my left, four seats away, I may6 be obscured by the monitor, can you see him?7 A. I can't.8 Q. 307 That's Mr. Gilmartin and you recognise him.9 A. I've been looking at him in the newspapers every day for the last few weeks.16:09:5210 Q. 308 You probably recognise him in any event from the one meeting that you are11 certain took place, is that right?12 A. As I mentioned three.13 Q. 309 Initially one meeting.14 A. That was on the first day Mr. O'Neill.16:10:0515 Q. 310 The 10th. Indeed. It's changed somewhat since then.16 A. My memory was very good that I recall, I first recall something that I met ten17 years earlier.18 Q. 311 This is the gentleman that you regard as being shifty, is that right?19 A. Did I say that?16:10:2020 Q. 312 Well do you regard him as being shifty?21 A. Did I say?22 Q. 313 I am not saying that you said that but your counsel did?23 A. Did I say that.24 Q. 314 No you didn't. Do you regard him as shifty?16:10:3225 A. I never said that.26 Q. 315 Do you regard him as shifty?27 A. No I don't.28 Q. 316 Do you regard the evidence he has given insofar as you are aware of it to be29 dishonest evidence?16:10:4230 A. No.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

12116:10:421 Q. 317 Do you know why your counsel suggested to Mr. Gilmartin that he was shifty and2 had given dishonest evidence?3 A. I think you were quoting from a previous time.4 Q. 318 Presumably before the cross-examination of Mr. Gilmartin took place there was16:10:595 some discussion between you and your legal team and I don't want to ask you6 what was said, but the approach that was going to be adopted towards7 Mr. Gilmartin was decided, and to put it bluntly, a decision was made to do a8 hatchet job on Mr. Gilmartin, is that fair?9 A. No.16:11:1510 Q. 319 And a trawl was made back over a quarter of a century to the 5th of May 1978 to11 some, presumably some report in a local Cavan paper, did you orchestrate that12 trawl?13 A. No.14 Q. 320 Did you have anything to do with it at all?16:11:3415 A. The people checked out data, but I had nothing directly to do with it.16 Q. 321 Did you condone that trawl?17 A. Facts produced for the Tribunal are facts produced to the Tribunal. And put18 before this Tribunal. But I did not, I did not orchestrate any campaign.19 Q. 322 But you knew it was taking place?16:11:5220 A. I didn't know about the Cavan case.21 Q. 323 But you accept that there is no person better in a better position in this22 country than you as leader of the Fianna Fail party, and as Taoiseach, to carry23 out such an investigation, to spread the tentacles?24 A. I wouldn't accept that. I think there would be far more people in this country16:12:1525 better qualified to organise to check facts and various issues.26 Q. 324 Do you think Mr. Gilmartin should have stayed in England and not come over27 here?28 A. I think Mr. Gilmartin came over here to participate in developments and I said29 I met him on that basis, if I thought he should not have come over here I16:12:3330 wouldn't have met him.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

12216:12:331 Q. 325 I am talking about the late 1990s now in other words should he have come over2 here to give all this evidence do you think he should have?3 A. Oh, yes.4 Q. 326 Do you want to withdraw the assertion put by your counsel to Mr. Gilmartin that16:12:515 he was shifty or is shifty and has been giving dishonest evidence?6 A. Well I never said that about Mr. Gilmartin was shifty or gave dishonest7 evidence but I can't withdraw something I never ever said. And I don't think8 my counsel said that, I think my counsel were quoting from what a member of9 the, honourable member of the bench said some years ago.16:13:1210 Q. 327 I think if we can have transcript 462 page 103 please? Page 102 first,11 question 533 the bottom of page 102 please.1213 Do you see this is Mr. Maguire cross-examining, on your behalf, Mr. Gilmartin.14 And he said16:13:4615 Question: I've suggested -- I want to suggest to you that you shift your ground16 when you're asked hard questions.17 Answer:No I don't, I answer your questions and I explain them to you.18 Question: And I want to suggest to you that your evidence is less than frank.19 In other words that you are shifty and that you have given dishonest evidence"16:14:082021 That questioning, that line of questioning was pursued on your behalf22 Mr. Ahern. Do you disassociate yourself from it?23 A. I did not say and I never said that Mr. Gilmartin is shifty or dishonest24 evidence. He has changed his story many times.16:14:2425 Q. 328 Do you disassociate yourself from those remarks?26 A. Well I didn't say them.27 Q. 329 Do you disassociate yourself from those remarks?28 A. I didn't say them or wouldn't say that.29 Q. 330 How many times do I have to ask then?16:14:3930 A. How many times do I have to answer it Mr. O'Neill?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

12316:14:401 Q. 331 You haven't answered.2 A. I have answer it had I said I would not say that and wouldn't answer.3 Q. 332 And you disassociate yourself.4 A. I have answered the question Mr. O'Neill.16:14:475 Q. 333 With respect Taoiseach you have not answered.6 A. With respect, I am saying that I did not call Mr. Gilmartin shifty and I did7 not say it was dishonest, I said he changed his position on several times. And8 that is my answer to your question.9 Q. 334 You would appreciate that the questioning that went on, and a very serious16:15:0410 allegation made against Mr. Gilmartin, by your counsel by Mr. Maguire, put very11 blatantly to Mr. Gilmartin that "you are's shifty and you have given dishonest12 evidence", I want to ask you and it's a simple answer yes or no do you13 disassociate yourself from those remarks?14 A. I am stating Mr. O'Neill that I do not, and did not and would not say that16:15:2815 Mr. Gilmartin was shifty or dishonest. I have stated that he did move his16 evidence around considerable times but I did not use those words.17 Q. 335 Can I take the it answer is yes you do disassociate yourself?18 A. You have heard my reply and I think it was quite clear the first time.19 Q. 336 As far as you are aware when Mr. Gilmartin was giving his evidence there was no16:15:5020 allegation made against you, the only difference if I may put it that way was21 the number of meetings and the number telephone calls that may have taken place22 isn't that right?23 A. Correct.24 Q. 337 And indeed against a context where in your statement to the Dail you say in16:16:0825 fact the exact number of meeting that may have taken place may not be that26 relevant.27 A. Correct. I think on checking the records we found out that there was certainly28 three meetings.29 Q. 338 If I could have page 15 of the documents please?16:16:3230Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

12416:16:321 If you could enlarge the first column please?23 It's the paragraph starting just above the paragraph "I issued a statement4 yesterday" I want the ten lines or so before the words "I issued a statement"16:17:1756 Thank you. Now do you see towards the bottom of the paragraph starting "I7 issued a statement, if you go to the prefers paragraph about 8 or 9 lines up it8 says - this is your statement to the Dail.916:17:2710 "If someone brought to my attention today hard evidence of another meeting that11 took place I would without hesitation put it before the house and not expect12 that to be made into some kind of hanging offence. Particularly when the13 precise number of meetings may not be particularly relevant".1416:17:4615 So here we have a situation where your counsel is attacking Mr. Gilmartin in16 respect of what you would describe as not a hanging offence. But is accusing17 him of perjury. I am sure you appreciate that the seriousness of such an18 accusation, do you?19 A. If somebody is accusing somebody of perjury -- but I did not use any of those16:18:0920 phrases you are putting to me.21 Q. 339 I haven't suggested you did and if you listen at no time questions Taoiseach22 you will understand that I said, Mr. Maguire, your lead counsel in this, to23 this Tribunal, made those assertions or made those allegations.2416:18:2625 Can I, while we are on that, that passage from your statement you say that you26 will be convinced a meeting took place if someone can produce hard evidence?27 Is that your attitude? In other words unless there is a minute or unless there28 is a, an entry in my diary the meeting, the conversation did not take place?29 A. Or I remembered it.16:18:5030 Q. 340 Or you remembered it.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

12516:18:5112 Can I ask you in relation to the meeting that Mr. Gallagher briefly referred3 to, the meeting which was referred to by Mr. Redmond at page 1048, this is the4 meeting between Dublin and County Council representatives on one part and16:19:175 various cabinet Ministers on the other part.67 If you see in the middle of that page "Later 1988 the City and County Manager,8 Mr. Frank Feeley was summoned to a meeting in government buildings. He was9 accompanied by P Morrissey and his Deputy John Prendergast the manager for16:19:3810 planning and myself." He says the following represented the government:11 Charles Haughey Taoiseach, Mr. Padraig Flynn, Mr. Bertie Ahern, Labour at the12 time, Ray Burke, Albert Reynolds and possibly Ray McSharry.1314 Mr. Gallagher has asked you questions about this and I have understood your16:19:5615 evidence to be that you do recollect a couple of meetings, a number of16 meetings.17 A. That's correct.18 Q. 341 And the evidence appears to be, and I have no doubt that Mr. Gallagher will19 correct me if I am wrong, that there were over this period, two meetings16:20:0820 between the government's representatives and representatives of the Corporation21 and County Council. So presumably if there was simply two you remember both of22 them and you attended them?23 A. No that's the point. As you recall earlier on Mr. O'Neill, which we checked in24 the break. One of them I was in Greece, it was a morning meeting I wasn't16:20:2825 there, so I was at the other one.26 Q. 342 But I am not sure if we do know it was a morning meeting?27 A. Well we do.28 Q. 343 Do you have a -- is there a government memo of this meeting?29 A. No Mr. Redmond's diary is there which was given to the Tribunal which I was16:20:4430 shown during the break which shows it was a morning meeting.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

12616:20:471 Q. 344 Was your evidence being discussed during the break that we had?2 A. No I asked. I asked. Because the Chairman stated that it would be checked and3 I asked was that a morning meeting.4 Q. 345 So do you think that Mr. Ahern, sorry Mr. Redmond is wrong when he suggested16:21:075 you were at that meeting?6 A. Well if I was in Greece I wasn't at the meeting.78 MR. GALLAGHER: Perhaps Sir, the reference is 1846, that might be of9 assistance.16:21:2810 Q. 346 It say on that page there is a meeting on the 21st September of 3.30.11 A. Meeting Taoiseach's Department in the morning. Between 9 to 12.12 Q. 347 What about 3.30 Minister meets managers at Custom House?13 A. The Taoiseach wouldn't be at a meeting in the Custom House.14 Q. 348 So in any event you think then if you turnover the page and go back to page16:21:5615 1048, in fact 1049, and towards the top of that page about four or five lines,16 down.1718 You will see that it's stated, starting the bottom of the previous page "At19 that stage P Flynn referred to a proposal of Thomas Gilmartin to construct the16:22:3220 largest shopping centre in Europe on lands situated between the western21 motorway and the junction with the Lucan Road. Both he and Mr. McSharry as far22 as I can recall spoke about Mr. Gilmartin's UK expertise and connections and I23 think Mr. Ahern made reference about Mr. Gilmartin's involvement in the24 rehabilitation of north quay areas in Dublin."16:22:522526 You think therefore Mr. Redmond is wrong in relation to that?27 A. Yes, whether I was there or not I would have been supportive of the28 developments because we were anxious to see as I said earlier, work and29 development. Whether I was at the meeting or not I still would have been16:23:0630 supportive.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

12716:23:061 Q. 349 And you were aware of the developments at this stage?2 A. Yes because they were common knowledge that we were trying to get, promote3 development and get development going, so whether I was there or not, I am not4 making an issue of that, I am just saying I would have been supportive of16:23:215 development.6 Q. 350 It is not a matter of making issue of matters, Taoiseach it is a matter of7 determining whether you were at meetings or not. It is not a question of8 concessions being given it's --9 A. The point I am making if you listen to me. The point I am making is that16:23:3310 whether I was at the meeting or not, that reference to Quarryvale development11 would have been something I would have been supportive of because I would have12 been anxious to see development so whether I was at the meeting or not I would13 have held that view. Do you understand?14 Q. 351 This is not talking about the Quarryvale development. This is talking about16:23:5315 Bachelors Walk.16 A. You just quoted about talking about before that, it shows the Quarryvale17 development and then you are making reference to what I said about Bachelor's18 Walk.19 Q. 352 What I am reading in fact is the passage from Mr. Redmond's statement and I16:24:0720 think Mr. Ahern that four line us down "I think Mr. Ahern made reference about21 Mr. Gilmartin's involvement in the rehabilitation of north quay area in Dublin"22 that's bachelors walk?23 A. Which I supported.24 Q. 353 And as of September 1988 whether or not you were at the meeting you are saying16:24:2625 yes I was aware of proposals in respect of Bachelor's Walk?26 A. If they were being discussed at meetings like that I would have been aware, I27 was of course aware of it at that stage because in October the 10th of October28 1988 I met his, Mr. Gilmartin and the proposals of Bachelor's Walk had been in29 the papers long before that.16:24:4730 Q. 354 But you didn't, are you saying you didn't know Mr. Gilmartin had anyPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

12816:24:511 involvement in Bachelor's Walk?2 A. I certainly would have known Arlington was involved because it had been in the3 newspapers back from January of that year.4 Q. 355 You see, you said in answer to Mr. Gallagher in relation to the meeting of the16:25:045 10th of October that one it was a prearranged meeting, evidenced by the fact it6 was in your diary.7 A. Correct.8 Q. 356 And that you didn't know for what purpose you were meeting Mr. Gilmartin. You9 never heard of him.16:25:2010 A. No, but the meeting, my diary said Arlington.11 Q. 357 And you had never heard of Mr. Gilmartin?12 A. No I had never met or never heard of Mr. Gilmartin. I think the first time I13 ever laid sight on him was that day, I never heard of him being a property14 developer in Luton or working in England.16:25:4115 Q. 358 That was the first time you ever heard of him and indeed the first time16 according to you that you met him.17 A. Yes.18 Q. 359 Unless of course you were at the meeting in September.19 A. What meeting.16:25:5020 Q. 360 And the meeting on the 21st of September. You see if we can have page 13421 please?2223 You will see on the penultimate paragraph to that, and I should say that's a24 statement of or part of a statement from Mr. Ray Burke and he, as you will see,16:26:2425 says "In 1987/1988 our client attended a meet" perhaps we can have it a bit26 bigger can we?2728 "In 1987/1988 our client attended a meeting in government buildings chaired by29 An Taoiseach, attended by a number of cabinet Ministers including Mr. Ahern,16:26:5330 possibly Mr. Flynn, Mr. Frank Feeley, the Dublin City and County ManagerPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

12916:26:581 together with a team of Mr. Feeley's officials. The purpose of the meeting as2 our client recalls was the government's concern with the need for speedier3 decision by the local authority so that the construction industry could create4 more jobs to tackle the chronic unemployment situation at the time"16:27:1456 And that I have to suggest to you, is in fact the same meeting as the meeting7 of the 21st of the September and that seems that that's a statement by or on8 behalf of Mr. Ray Burke to the effect that you attended that meeting.9 A. Well I have given the details of my diary shows I was in Athens.16:27:3710 Q. 361 Can I come to the meeting of the 10th of October? Who is -- you have said that11 a Mr. Tim Collins came into the meeting and then I think, left?12 A. Mm-hmm.13 Q. 362 And Mr. Gilmartin has said somebody did come in he doesn't know who he was and14 left, but didn't participate in the meeting.16:28:071516 Now when the meeting was set up, and the entry in your diary refers to17 Arlington, you knew it was to do with a development on Bachelor's Walk, a18 possible development, of some description on Bachelors Walk, isn't that right?19 A. I assume it was Mr. Gilmartin coming to meet me, when I meet people on my16:28:2620 Monday morning clinic I wouldn't doing a research with every project, people21 come as I explained earlier on to Mr. Gallagher, they would call on Monday22 morning and I would hear what they have to say. I wouldn't do advance notice23 or notification or details before that.24 Q. 363 But you knew roughly what this meeting was about?16:28:4325 A. Well I knew whatever.26 Q. 364 About Bachelor's Walk?27 A. I knew Arlington were coming to see me. I can't say that I definitely knew,28 Mr. O'Neill that it was about Bachelor's Walk, but I presume when the meeting29 was set up by Mr. Gilmartin or his secretary and they said it was Arlington16:28:5830 they said it was some proposal, possibly would have said Bachelor's Walk,Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

13016:29:031 possibly would have said Bachelor's Walk.2 Q. 365 You associated before that Arlington with Bachelor's Walk isn't that correct?3 A. The newspaper articles I would not have taken much attention of showed it was4 to do with Bachelor's Walk.16:29:155 Q. 366 Now if you actually look at the diary entry in your diary on page 3871?67 On Monday the 10th of October, 11 o'clock Tom Gilmartin, Arlington. And on8 your Minister's secretary diary on the following page, 3872, sorry 3870 excuse9 me, a reference, not only not in fact to Arlington but to Tom Gilmartin.16:30:311011 Can you explain why, if you believed you were meeting Arlington, the reference12 in that particular diary, I am not sure which is which diary, simply refers to13 Tom Gilmartin, a man you never heard of according to your evidence?14 A. There are two separate diaries one diary is on my desk and the other was held16:30:5415 by my secretary and in both it says Tom Gilmartin, one says Drumcondra the16 other says Arlington. But the point Mr. O'Neill is that Mr. Gilmartin was17 ringing my office to get an appointment to call in and see me and talk to me18 about the development, it was Mr. Tom Gilmartin, or Tom Gilmartin, Arlington.19 I don't see your point.16:31:1720 Q. 367 Don't worry about the point I am making Taoiseach.21 A. I will worry about it, because you seem, I am saying that's the first time I22 met Tom Gilmartin that's the fact, that's what's in both diary Tom Gilmartin23 and that's Arlington.24 Q. 368 You refer in the entry simply being to Arlington, in fact yes there is a16:31:3825 reference to Arlington but also a reference to Mr. Gilmartin and in one of the26 diaries a reference only to Mr. Gilmartin.27 A. Correct.28 Q. 369 You see, I am suggesting to you that you knew Mr. Gilmartin before these dates.29 A. Well I didn't.16:31:5030 Q. 370 And you had met him before this.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

13116:31:521 A. I didn't.2 Q. 371 And you had discussed and you had made reference to him at least in a meeting3 which took place on the 21st of September the previous month.4 A. I had not met him.16:32:045 Q. 372 Who was Tim Collins?6 A. Tim Collins is a friend of mine who had a business in Drumcondra at the time.7 Q. 373 What sort of business is he involved in?8 A. He was in a tiling company, a tiling manufacturer.9 Q. 374 And would it be common while you are having a meeting with someone a16:32:2310 prearranged meeting, perhaps it doesn't make a difference, but having a meeting11 with someone for the likes of Mr. Collins to walk into the meeting?12 A. My office was, if you saw this, it was a small office, it was my constituency13 office and people who were in the area would drift in and drift out, and that14 would happen still to this day, unfortunately we don't have suites of offices.16:32:4415 Q. 375 And do you say he participated in the meeting?16 A. No he didn't participate, he dropped in.17 Q. 376 Can I move onto the, what I am going to call the Dail meeting, and I use the18 word meeting, I don't mean any particular to give any particular significance19 to the word.16:33:092021 You were asked by the Tribunal to disclose whether or not you had attended a22 meeting with other cabinet colleagues. If I can have page 47 of the file of23 documentation please?2416:33:2825 Do you see that, that's a letter addressed to you, the 18th of November of26 2003? And you are asked at paragraph number 4 the Tribunal understands from27 it's inquiries in or around early February 1989 Mr. Thomas Gilmartin attend28 Dail Eireann for a meeting with members of the cabinet to discuss his plans for29 lands at Quarryvale County Dublin. The Tribunal understands that you may have16:34:0230 been present at this meeting the Tribunal believes this meeting was not anPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

13216:34:061 official cabinet meeting.23 Now can I ask you now to turn to your reply? Which is at page 50, it starts at4 page 49. And you say under the first paragraph on that page 49 please? You16:34:375 say in the first paragraph under the heading Mr. Thomas Gilmartin and Arlington67 Your recollection of meeting are set out in detail in the course of your8 statement that you made in Dail Eireann. You then go on to deal with a9 specific inquiry.16:34:501011 "In regard to the Tribunal's specific inquire auto that in or around early12 February 1989 Mr. Thomas Gilmartin attended at Dail Eireann for a meeting with13 members of the cabinet to discuss his plans for Quarryvale. I confirm that I14 have no recollection of attend any such meeting. It is my firm belief that I16:35:0715 did in the attend such a meeting. There is no record in my dairy from that16 period of such a meeting takes place. More over in all the time I since I17 began to sit around the cabinet table on 10th March 1982, I have never18 witnessed a private developer attend a cabinet meeting to discuss a commercial19 project"16:35:232021 Why are you referring to cabinet meetings when it is abundantly clear from the22 inquiry made by the Tribunal, that the meeting referred to was not a formal23 cabinet meeting?24 A. Because whether it was a formal cabinet meeting or a meeting of Ministers which16:35:3825 normally would be a subcommittee like the urban renewal one or any other, we26 have several cabinet subcommittees, infrastructure cabinet subcommittees27 technology, Northern Ireland, that is by extension, as we call it a28 subcommittee of the cabinet.29 Q. 377 Now as I understand your evidence, and of course you can't, if you can't16:36:0330 recollect the meeting, you cannot say as a matter of probability whether thePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

13316:36:061 meeting took place or not.2 A. Correct.3 Q. 378 But I understand your evidence now to be that you are not ruling out such a4 meeting, is that correct?16:36:155 A. I have answered already to the point that a meeting in the form, not as a6 meeting, as I consider a meeting where government Ministers, whether it was a7 full cabinet or a subcommittee or just a group of Ministers sitting down is a8 meeting. I don't believe such a meeting took place. Mr. Gallagher put the9 point to me, it is possible. Is it possible that a meeting where a few people16:36:4310 met on a corridor after question time or the order of business, that kind of a11 thing, of course it could have happened.12 Q. 379 I understood you, correct me if I am wrong that yes it is quite possible that a13 meeting of the type, and again I use the word meeting in a neutral sense, a14 meeting of the type described by Mrs. O'Rourke may well have taken place?16:37:0415 A. Could have. Because if I --16 Q. 380 Could well have taken place?17 A. Because those kind of gathering are a regular occurrence when delegations or18 deputations are in to Ministers on ministerial corridor.19 Q. 381 And is it your view that such a meeting could have taken place because it's not16:37:2320 really a meeting it's just a chitchat so to speak, is that right?21 A. Yes.22 Q. 382 Because you have been very firm when you gave your statement to the Tribunal,23 the statement in fact I read the passage on page 50, sorry page 49:24 "it is my firm belief that I did not attend such a meeting" and are you saying16:37:5825 that in the context that what you thought the Tribunal was referring to was26 something maybe not as formal as a cabinet meeting, but more than a chitchat?27 A. Yes because whether it's a cabinet Mr. O'Neill, whether it's a cabinet meeting28 or a subcommittee of the cabinet or whether it's the Taoiseach of the day with29 a group of Ministers, they are all what I would consider meetings of some16:38:2230 substance they will not be gathering for the purpose of having chitchat. SoPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

13416:38:281 that is what I am quite convinced in my mind, did not take place.23 It's an entirely different thing if Ministers coming back from the order of4 business or coming back to question time or going to question time or private16:38:435 members time, as they would regularly do if they were deputations in where a6 colleague would ask, I would ask, a few Ministers to say hello to some7 deputations or delegation, that or if a deputations were up for Cork to me or a8 Minister from Cork to come and say hello to these, that's not at meeting as9 such, that's the point I am making. That is entirely different kind of a16:39:0610 meeting to what I think the Tribunal were asking me about.11 Q. 383 So is your understanding then at the time you gave your response on the 10th of12 December that what was spoken about was something more than chitchat if I may13 so describe that type of meeting?14 A. Yes because I didn't think frankly the Chairman of the Tribunal would be16:39:2315 writing to me asking about chitchat.16 Q. 384 And between the 10th of December and today which is the first intimation that17 you now give to the Tribunal that perhaps you don't recollect but perhaps a18 meeting of that sort, i.e. chitchat did take place?19 A. Mr. Gallagher put it in a different context. Mr. Gallagher accepted my point16:39:4620 that no meeting took place, but asked me could it be possible that a chitchat21 took place.22 Now I don't recollect chitchat but neither would I recollect it either. To be23 honest, if Mary O'Rourke had a particular reason for remembering it because it24 was linked to the death of her mother, but in a course of any week, any16:40:0925 Minister for, on several occasions, say hello to individuals that would be in26 for deputations and delegations, it would not in my profession be considered to27 be a meeting in any definition of the term.2829 CHAIRMAN: Mr. O'Neill, in fairness you should be pointed out that the letter16:40:3030 from the Tribunal on the 18th of November 2003 asked him, or stated:Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

13516:40:3612 "The Tribunal understands from it's inquiry that in or around early February3 1989 Mr. Thomas Gilmartin attended at Dail Eireann for a meeting with members4 of the cabinet to discuss his plans for land at Quarryvale County Dublin. The16:40:505 Taoiseach's reply was "In regard to the Tribunal's specific inquiry that in or6 around early February 1989 Mr. Thomas Gilmartin attended at a meeting at Dail7 Eireann for a meeting with members of the cabinet to discuss his plans for8 Quarryvale" and he went on to say "I confirm that I have no recollection of9 attending any such meeting".16:41:111011 So it does appear that he was working on the basis that the Tribunal were12 enquiring about something more than just a --1314 MR. O'NEILL: I understand that and I hope that I had given Mr. Ahern the16:41:2515 opportunity of saying that. And that as I understand, your interpretation16 wrong or right I am not talking about that, your interpretation was of what the17 Tribunal of Inquiry were enquiring about something more form than chitchat.1819 Now up until today as I have indicated you have been of the view that no such16:41:4620 meeting took place, no such meeting of the nature described by Mr. Gilmartin21 took place.22 A. I am still of the view that no meeting took place.23 Q. 385 Now you see, you have maintained or Mr. Maguire on your behalf even after24 hearing the evidence of Mr. Gilmartin, has maintained that you have no16:42:1125 recollection of that meeting, and that it is your firm belief that no such26 meeting took place. I want to ask you to have a look at the transcript of27 evidence on day 461, page 90 question 395.2829 This is Mr. Maguire cross-examining Mr. Gilmartin, do you see the top of the16:42:5130 page?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

13616:42:511 A. Yeah.2 Q. 386 He says, talking about the Dail meeting. "No it's not simple that's the point.3 You tell me what was wrong with that meeting? What was radically wrong with4 the meeting? It was only an introduction to the Taoiseach. Nothing turned on16:43:085 it. Nothing much was discussed only minor chitchat. But yet the government of6 this country, most of them is saying that it never took place."78 So it's quite clear from Mr. Gilmartin's own evidence that this meeting is9 nothing more than chitchat and yet you still maintain the stance, until such16:43:3110 time as Mrs. O'Rourke gives evidence that it is your firm belief no such11 meeting took place12 A. But Mr. O'Neill, I got a letter from the Tribunal which I answered and we have,13 both you and the Chairman of the Tribunal have looked at that reference. The14 next time I have something to say about it is now. So I have held a view since16:43:5415 I wrote the letter I wasn't here before.16 Q. 387 But Mr. Maguire was pressed by the Chairman as to what your stance was in17 relation to whether or not this meeting, which Mr. Gilmartin describes as18 chitchat, whether or not it took place and if you turn to transcript 462 page19 55, having dealt with first -- we will come to the page -- having first quizzed16:44:3420 Mr. Maguire as to whether or not you had recollection and Mr. Maguire said no21 you had no recollection Mr. Maguire then continues at line 13 "No Chairman -- I22 am going further than that.2324 JUDGE FAHERTY: Page 5516:44:4925 Q. 388 I am saying you cannot rely on the witness: Mr. Ahern says yes a firm belief26 that no such meeting took place, that's what his evidence is not just on the27 1st of February but in, all around that period, around that time".2829 And what is referred to there is no such meeting. This is a meeting which16:45:1330 Mr. Gilmartin describes as chitchat. Do you now accept that perhaps that was aPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

13716:45:271 slightly dogmatic approach or view of Mr. Maguire, in other words that you2 would not be that certain at a meeting, a chitchat meeting so to speak may have3 taken place?4 A. I just repeat myself again Mr. O'Neill. When the Tribunal wrote, the Tribunal16:45:425 I think is a very serious Tribunal, they would have been writing to me back in6 December, the 10th of December when I replied about a meeting that was either7 subcommittee to the cabinet meeting or gathering of Ministers to deal with some8 substance or issues as they put forward in the documents. I replied to that9 that I attended no such meeting. Mr. Maguire said I attended no such meeting16:46:0810 that is still my position. Neither the Tribunal nor you or me I think are11 really talking about chitchat meetings. If we were talking about who we met in12 the corridor and chitchat I think we are not being very serious, I am13 confirming that I am being serious and I had no such meeting.14 Q. 389 The meeting of the nature that is referred to by Mrs. O'Rourke in her evidence,16:46:3215 I understand you to consider that to be a chitchat meeting for want of a better16 phrase.17 A. I don't consider it a meeting at all.18 Q. 390 Can we use chitchat meeting simply to call it something, isn't that what you19 consider that type of meeting is not a real meeting?16:46:4720 A. Of course it's not. A meeting with a group of cabinet Ministers is a meeting21 with substance with some issue and some issue to debate or get into, that's an22 entirely different proposition to a group of Ministers being asked to drop in23 and shake hands or say hello or be supportive and that is, it's quite clear24 from what the Tribunal were asking that's the type of meeting we were talking16:47:1125 about.26 Q. 391 I understand --27 A. If we are now only talking about chitchat in the corridors, I couldn't tell you28 how many meeting of chitchat I had in the corridors.29 Q. 392 We are talking about chitchat in the corridor, not in the corridor, but16:47:2630 chitchat meetings and that has been clear from Mr. Gilmartin's evidence.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

13816:47:291 A. It wasn't clear for the Tribunal's letter.2 Q. 393 That may be so. But what I am asking you is why if you now concede that a3 chitchat meeting may have taken place, why Mr. Maguire on your behalf persists,4 before Mary O'Rourke gives her evidence, persists in saying that you are of the16:47:525 firm belief that no such meeting, we are talking about a chitchat meeting,6 that's in fact the words used by Mr. Gilmartin?7 A. I think Mr. O'Neill I thought we were being a bit more serious that we were8 talking about meetings of substance. If you are asking me to say is it9 possible that chitchats took place, well I am sure plenty of chitchat took16:48:1410 place.11 Q. 394 Well there seems to be collective amnesia among members of the government in12 relation to this particular chitchat meeting.13 A. Well thankfully Mr. O'Neill the government have more to be doing than using14 their memories on chitchat meetings maybe you have nothing better to do but we16:48:3015 do.16 Q. 395 Well thankfully Mrs. O'Rourke does remember this meeting because the17 cross-examination conducted on your behalf by Mr. Gilmartin tried to destroy18 him.1916:48:3920 CHAIRMAN: Mr. O'Neill I don't see where this is going, it's clear that and we21 have I think an explanation as to the fact that Mr. Maguire came to the22 Tribunal presumably with instructions from his client as to the sort of meeting23 as described in the correspondence and it was on that basis that Mr. Gilmartin24 was cross examined16:49:062526 MR. O'NEILL: But this statement when you pressed him on the 16th of March day27 462 as to what Mr. Ahern --2829 MR. MAGUIRE: Sorry Chairman16:49:1830Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

13916:49:181 MR. O'NEILL: Please if Mr. Maguire would not interrupt for a moment.23 CHAIRMAN: Let Mr. O'Neill finish the point.416:49:265 MR. O'NEILL: When Mr. Maguire was pressed by you on the 16th of March to6 disclose to the Tribunal what Mr. Ahern's view was as to the meeting taking7 place, did it not take place, did he have a recollection was he of the firm8 view it did or did not take place. He says he is of the firm view, i.e.9 Mr. Ahern is of the firm belief that no such meeting took place.16:49:531011 That is after the evidence of Mr. Gilmartin on day 461 question 395, where he12 describes the meeting as simply being chitchat. And that's the question I am13 asking Mr. Ahern.1416:50:0815 I can well understand that he may have misunderstood the type of meeting that16 the Tribunal asked him to give details of or to consider in the correspondence.17 A. I don't think I misunderstood that. I don't think I misunderstood, I think the18 Tribunal's issue were not asking me about chitchat meetings.1916:50:3220 MR. O'NEILL: You may not have misunderstood but by the 16th of March it was21 very clear what Mr. Gilmartin was talking about.2223 I will move from that point.2416:50:3725 CHAIRMAN: Sorry do you want to say something?2627 MR. MAGUIRE: I'm afraid Mr. O'Neill is indulging in selective amnesia in28 relation to the evidence of his own client as regards this, Chairman.2916:50:4930 In the first instance in his statement the meeting is referred to as to informPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

14016:50:531 Mr. Haughey and the cabinet about his Development Plans and the second instance2 his own evidence, that's Mr. Gilmartin's evidence, which Mr. O'Neill for some3 reason is ignoring, in relation to the nature of the meeting, describing the4 cabinet Ministers sitting around the table, describing the meeting in those16:51:135 terms, describing it on a formal basis, has not been put by Mr. O'Neill. He is6 selectively taking excerpts from the evidence but referring to the substance of7 the meeting as described by his client in a place where it couldn't have8 occurred.916:51:3110 MR. O'NEILL: With respect Mr. Chairman the substance of the meeting is11 described by Mr. Gilmartin in the passage I have referred to in answer to12 Mr. Maguire's cross-examination.1314 MR. MAGUIRE: This is a --16:51:411516 MR. O'NEILL: And I don't think that Mr. Maguire's intervention at this stage17 is anyway helpful. I would ask not to be interrupted by Mr. Maguire in my18 cross-examination. Mr. Maguire will have an opportunity after I finish of19 clarifying whatever issues he sees appropriate to be clarified.16:51:592021 MR. MAGUIRE: Chairman the purpose of my intervention is simple. Mr. O'Neill22 is perfectly entitled to put matters to my client to Mr. Ahern, he is perfectly23 entitled to do that, but if he is doing it he must put it properly, if he want24 to put it properly his own clients description is set out at 458, 414 as to the16:52:2225 nature of the meeting, it is incorrect for Mr. O'Neill to put as to the26 evidence of his clients, one particular quotation which is quoted out of27 context I submit, that can be dealt within re-examination.2829 My objection to him in the way his cross-examining my client is that he is not16:52:3830 putting the evidence that was given by his client to the witness. And he isPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

14116:52:431 then accusing him of not recollecting correctly what was said or what was2 instructed.34 Now he has to put the case clearly. He is under that obligation he can't be16:52:545 selective and he can't misrepresent it.67 CHAIRMAN: The important version in so far as you are suggesting that8 Mr. Maguire said this that or the other when he was cross-examining9 Mr. Gilmartin, at that stage the only detailed evidence we had in relation to16:53:1610 the meetings, so called meeting was that from Mr. Gilmartin1112 MR. O'NEILL: Yes and he describes this meeting as simply nothing being13 discussed only minor chitchat.1416:53:2715 CHAIRMAN: Yes.1617 MR. O'NEILL: Whether people were sitting down, there is a conflict between18 Mr. Gilmartin and Mrs. O'Rourke as to whether people were sitting down or19 weren't sitting down. It doesn't change the nature of the meeting.16:53:392021 CHAIRMAN: Insofar as we have to grade the meeting as something between22 chitchat and something very formal, Mr. Gilmartin's version is that it was an23 informal get together but that the Ministers were seated. Mrs. O'Rourke said24 it was an informal get together type meeting, but where they were standing16:53:5825 around.2627 MR. O'NEILL: The difference seems to be apart from whatever room it may have28 been in were they sitting or standing, insofar as the meeting has any relevance29 it's what's discussed or how you qualify or how you identify the meeting, it's16:54:1530 what was discussed at the meeting rather than were they standing or sitting.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

14216:54:181 But can I move on from that point, I don't want to get bogged down.23 But I do disagree with Mr. Maguire's assertion that I have not put the nature4 of the meeting to Mr. Ahern.16:54:3056 Now I want to ask you Mr. Ahern, bearing in mind the significance or the impact7 I should say that Mr. Gilmartin had on you, at least from October of 1988 when8 you first met him, as you say here is somewhere coming in, going to spend an9 enormous amount of money in the inner city, that I have to say to you that you16:55:0010 must remember that meeting, chitchat meeting or whatever, you must remember11 that. Here is a person that was of significance to you, it is someone you12 thought was important insofar as there was a person who could bring significant13 economic and employment benefits to the country or to Dublin I should say.1416:55:2315 And I must put it to you that the meeting did take place, and that you attend16 it had and that you remember it.17 A. Are we still at the chitchat meeting.18 Q. 396 We are.19 A. Well I have already stated that I don't think any meeting took place. I don't16:55:3920 think any meeting of any substance took place. I have said there could have21 been a gathering, I have no recollection of that whatsoever. Neither would I,22 because as I have said previously, when you are on the ministerial corridor23 there wouldn't be a day and sometimes several times a day when colleagues ask24 you to say hello to some visiting delegation or group or body or 15 minutes or16:56:0425 sometimes Ministers of State delegations coming in, in great numbers where26 colleagues ask you to say hello to them or ask you to greet them or just have27 some comments with them. That is something that would occur all of the time if28 there was some particular reason why it would strike in your mind it would29 strike my mind.16:56:2230Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

14316:56:221 I remember Mr. Gilmartin for the first meeting, because it struck my mind that2 this was a huge development but meeting him again and just seeing him on the3 corridor or just meeting in the Minister's office would not strike me, if it4 happened.16:56:335 Q. 397 All right can I move on to document 4110?6 This is another statement, I have already referred to one statement prepared by7 Mr. Redmond, this is another statement, more recently prepared by Mr. Redmond.8 And he is referring you see at the bottom of that page "A second meeting was9 arranged" he is previously referred to the first, obviously the first meeting16:57:0710 and that's the meeting of September of 1998. This is a meeting between the11 Corporation County Council officials and representatives of the government.1213 He says "A second meeting was arranged and took place sometime later. In this14 case I have no record of the date but I presume the date can be ascertained16:57:2315 from other person's records or recollection.1617 It was I think within a matter of months rather than weeks. The same officers18 attended on behalf of Dublin authority Mr. Frank Feeley, P. Morrissey, P.19 Prendergast, G Redmond and on the government side the same as before but no16:57:3920 presence of R McSharry".2122 And he goes on to describe Mr. Flynn, Minister for the Environment was23 accompanied by a Minister for State whose name I think was Ger Connolly, the24 Taoiseach stated that it was to be front bench meeting and with a touch of16:57:5425 light humour asked his colleagues if Ger should be allowed to stay on but made26 no contribution whatsoever to the discussions which took place". And there was27 some discussion about tax designation, if I could move on Mr. Redmond says "As28 I was not au fait with the project it was purely a city manager, in other words29 this being Bachelors Walk development, I wasn't especially interested. I do16:58:1630 recall however the question of CIE property and the proposed bus depot werePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

14416:58:201 discussed I recall Mr. Ahern as the foremost speaker. He seemed to me to be2 the most knowledgeable of the Ministers on the subject and gave me the3 impression that he was not entirely satisfied with the Arlington performance."416:58:335 Now that meeting I think took place on the 2nd of February of 1989. If you6 have any doubt about that we can turn to document 2119? Which is a Finance7 Department minute I think, of the 1st of February 1989. It refers first to the8 meeting which took place on September 21st last, and then goes on about three9 or four lines later "Tomorrows meeting is we gather a follow up to the16:59:1510 September meeting but no specific agenda has been made available"1112 Now do you recall, coming back to page 4111, do you recall that meeting?13 A. Yes. That's a meeting of the 2nd of February 1989.14 Q. 398 That's a meeting of the 2nd of February and I think there is an entry?16:59:4215 A. My records show I was at that meeting.16 Q. 399 There is no memo of that meeting, memorandum prepared of that meeting that you17 are aware of?18 A. Not that I am aware of. But it would not be, that meeting, the memorandum if19 there was one would have been either the Taoiseach's office or Department of17:00:0020 Environment office.21 Q. 400 I don't think there is a memo, is that unusual?22 A. Not particularly. If there were decisions, normally in those meetings the23 officials would record decisions if there were decisions.24 Q. 401 Is it fair to say that if it is a meeting only attended on the government side17:00:1725 by Ministers, as distinct from civil servants it is quite probable a minute26 wouldn't be read?27 A. Yes but normally in this case it was a meeting with the managers, so I imagine28 there would have been an official there. The practice would be there would29 always be an official.17:00:3230 Q. 402 From some department within the government?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

14517:00:401 A. Yes.2 Q. 403 If there was such an official would it be normal for a memo to be kept a3 minute?4 A. A minute of decisions normally.17:00:435 Q. 404 Not of the meeting itself.6 A. No.7 Q. 405 Is Mr. Redmond correct that you were the foremost speaker or that at least that8 you seemed to be fully knowledgeable on the Arlington site?9 A. I would say that would be correct because I would have been briefed at that17:01:0610 stage on it, on two occasions, in fact it was in my constituency I would have11 been talking up for it. That seem it is would be something I would do.12 Q. 406 Now can I move on to the next communication, that's a phone call towards the13 end of May of 1989 between you and Mr. Gilmartin.1417:01:3815 Now you say you have no recollection of that phone conversation.16 A. Correct.17 Q. 407 And your memory is jogged by the fact that Mr. Joe Burke tells you that you18 asked him to contact Mr. Gilmartin.19 A. Yes, I accept that there was. As I said earlier on to Mr. Gallagher, I accept17:01:5220 that there was a conversation because Mr. Burke tells, me, Councillor Joe Burke21 informed me when that came up that I actually asked him to go and meet22 Mr. Gilmartin.23 Q. 408 And I think you have accepted in your evidence why you have no recollection24 that the difficulties that Mr. Gilmartin was encountering must have been17:02:1325 explained to you?26 A. Obviously asking me to use some pressure or to find someone that would help him27 to move it on. I mean I am not disputing that he would have given me some,28 some details of his problem.29 Q. 409 And I think you said in response to a question by Mr. Gallagher that he was17:02:3030 having some difficulty with his tender?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

14617:02:331 A. Yes well I know that from what I have read in the Tribunal.2 Q. 410 Of that course was a tender in relation to Quarryvale, not Bachelor's Walk.3 A. Correct.4 Q. 411 If you look at page 51 of your statement, the middle paragraph.17:02:5756 "At some point in the course of my contact with Mr. Gilmartin during this7 period I believe I suggested Mr. Joe Burke as someone who could assist8 Mr. Gilmartin in relation to the Bachelor's Walk project". Do you now accept9 that that's wrong? That in fact it was someone who could assist Mr. Gilmartin17:03:1610 in relation to Quarryvale?11 A. I do, because I have heard what Mr. Gilmartin said, but I have also seen12 Councillor Burke's statement, so I accept that.13 Q. 412 And as you are aware, I am sure you have gone through the evidence, that's in,14 not minute detail but you have gone through it in some detail I have no doubt,17:03:3815 you are aware that the problems Mr. Gilmartin was having was that he was trying16 to buy the land in Quarryvale from the Corporation and County Council and as17 far as he was concerned Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Redmond were doing what they could18 to prevent that sale going through, isn't that right?19 A. It seems that way, yes.17:03:5920 Q. 413 And the reason they were doing that according to Mr. Gilmartin (that's his21 evidence) is because Mr. Gilmartin wouldn't pay Mr. Redmond and he wouldn't pay22 Mr. Lawlor, isn't that right?23 A. I don't know.24 Q. 414 That is his perceived difficulty, isn't that right?17:04:1825 A. If that's what you are saying.26 Q. 415 And I have to put it to you, that that's the difficulty that Mr. Gilmartin27 identified to you during that conversation.28 A. As I understand it from what Mr. Gilmartin has stated, that he said he was29 concerned that in some way this tender would be blocked and that he wouldn't17:04:4730 get the site, so he asked, I think he said the valuer, if I recall hisPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

14717:04:531 evidence, said he asked that, what would he do about that. He was advised that2 he should make contact with somebody that he knew. And what he says in his3 evidence that he had met me before and I offered to help if I could, he said he4 trusted me so he contacted me and would have said could I get somebody who17:05:115 could check that.6 Q. 416 Well in fact Mr. Gilmartin doesn't quite say that. He says you suggested that7 Mr. Burke might be able to help him.8 A. Well he says he suggested that he look for somebody that would help, he rang me9 and asked could I introduce him to someone that could help him. He said I did17:05:3310 that.11 Q. 417 How do you say that? You can't recollect the conversation?12 A. No but I am reading the evidence, the evidence says that he asked the valuer in13 the Corporation.14 Q. 418 I am talking about, we may be slightly at cross purposes. He asked the valuer17:05:5015 and either that or he remembers his conversation with you and --16 A. And then he contacted me and asked me could I help or introduce someone to help17 him. That's what he says in his evidence.18 Q. 419 He doesn't quite say that. He says that in fact you suggested that Mr. Burke19 may be able to help him. You were the one that suggested he was looking to you17:06:1220 directly for help rather than a name from you to help?21 A. He was asking me to try to help him.22 Q. 420 Yes.23 A. And I recommended somebody to help him.24 Q. 421 That's his evidence and indeed you suggested that he would ring Mr. Burke and17:06:2825 he didn't. But Mr. Burke subsequently contacted him at your request?26 A. It would be -- it would be, to be honest it would be unusual for me to give the27 phone numbers out to somebody of a councillor, or a private numbers or work28 numbers. I would say it was more likely that I would say I will pass on the29 message to a councillor, to contact an individual, that's what I normally do.17:06:5330 I wouldn't normally give out private numbers or office numbers to anPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

14817:06:581 individual.2 Q. 422 Well do you think in this case, having regard to the significance of the3 potential developments being undertaken by Mr. Gilmartin, that you would have4 made an exception in this case?17:07:095 A. I doubt it. Because if you make an exception of giving out somebody's private6 numbers you normally find out you don't get it again.7 Q. 423 Now at this stage, there is no doubt as to what the difficulty being8 encountered by Mr. Gilmartin was. He has given evidence to the effect that he,9 his perception was whether or not it is right or wrong is a matter for the17:07:3810 Tribunal, his perception was that Mr. Redmond and Mr. Lawlor were trying to11 stop the approval of the purchase of the lands he was interested in. Isn't12 that right?13 A. That's it and he was concerned that he would not be able to get the land, it14 would be blocked.17:07:5515 Q. 424 That's the difficulty that he must have disclosed to you.16 A. He obviously asked me to try and get somebody to check it to see that that17 wouldn't happen.18 Q. 425 What do you think of that type of allegation, that here are two individuals who19 because they haven't been given money are going to try to stop some otherwise17:08:1520 legitimate contract going through. What do you think of that as an assertion?21 A. Any type of blocking or obstructing away from the normal rules would be totally22 wrong but what Mr. Gilmartin was doing was asking me would I, I don't think he23 went into details with me about who was blocking or what individual was24 blocking, he would have told me I am sure that there was, he was afraid he was17:08:3725 being blocked and asked me would I do something about it.2627 As we know Mr. O'Neill, from when this came up and we checked the Corporation28 records there was no difficulty whatever because the tender went through the29 Corporation system, went through the breviate and there was no difficulty17:08:5230 whatsoever.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

14917:08:521 Q. 426 And Mr. Joe Burke very kindly proposed the motion approving this?2 A. That would, in the councils breviates go through several often hundreds would3 go through the planning committee but a large number the Chairman would ask4 someone to second it and propose it and I think that's what Mr. Burke stated in17:09:155 his statement. So that would not be in anyway a kind issue, these are6 recommendations by the officials from the planning committee put to the7 Councils the council's approve them. It would be very rare that the8 recommendations of the management would not be accepted.9 Q. 427 You see what Mr. Gilmartin says in relation to that telephone conversation, day17:09:3310 460, page 46?1112 The top of page 46. Line 2.13 Question: You contacted Mr. Ahern at the time?14 Answer: I phoned Mr. Ahern and I told him about what was going on. I told him17:10:0615 about Redmond and Lawlor and the others that were involved in -- I told him16 it's whole saga of what was happening and I told him about the tenders now had17 been accepted and was up for approval and it was being interfered with again"18 A. Yes I would very much doubt. Particularly on the election campaign I was19 spending half the day talking to Mr. Gilmartin about the whole saga, I would17:10:2820 say Mr. Gilmartin asked me, I have a tender coming through can you do anything21 to help me and I tried to help him. The fact that I would have an election22 campaign spent my day listening to the whole saga is something that I find23 unbelievable.24 Q. 428 You are simply leave speculating at the moment Taoiseach, aren't you?17:10:4125 A. To be frank with you I wouldn't stay all day on the phone for anyone listening26 to them, if somebody was on giving me their life saga I would be gone.27 Q. 429 You would. And if somebody told you that a member of the Fianna Fail party was28 trying to extract money and if he didn't get money?29 A. I would remember that.17:10:5730 Q. 430 You would remember that.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

15017:10:581 A. I certainly would.2 Q. 431 And this is what Mr. Gilmartin said he told you.3 A. No I wouldn't accept he did. I would say Mr. Gilmartin asked me for help and4 he got help, insofar as he needed if which I don't think he did quite frankly.17:11:145 Q. 432 Surely to get help from you, which he referred to, he had to tell you what the6 problem was.7 A. The problem was he wanted to check to see if the tender was going to be all8 right.9 Q. 433 Is this speculation again?17:11:2410 A. It's reading the evidence and looking at what happened in Dublin Corporation.11 What happened Mr. O'Neill is, I am sure you are quite well aware of it the12 point was Mr. Gilmartin felt he was being blocked that a tender was coming13 through, he wanted to know the tender would come through, he asked to get14 somebody to check it, in fact the tender was coming through the brevity was17:11:4315 coming newspaper the planning development committee, on the 12th of June, went16 through and was passed and recommendations to the officials and there was no17 difficulty whatsoever.18 Q. 434 If we look at the period in question what is clear is that Mr. Gilmartin is19 telling his woes to everyone at this time. You will have seen the note17:12:0720 prepared by Mr. Feeley of the meeting with Mr. Feeley, Mr. Haughey and Mr. Dent21 I think, at which the complaints made against Mr. Redmond and Mr. Lawlor are22 identified, if you wish to look at that page 2119?2324 And without going, I will go through that in some detail if you want, but I17:12:4825 think while Mr. Gilmartin wouldn't agree with the detail of that, what it does26 clearly identify is Mr. Gilmartin making complaints about the way he is being27 treated by Mr. Redmond, and Mr. Lawlor. And Mr. Hanlon but leave aside28 Mr. Hanlon for the moment.2917:13:0830 Now at the same time he is telling Mr. Flynn of the problems he is having, andPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

15117:13:241 that appears in the evidence at transcript 459 page 50. Down at the bottom of2 the page I think it is.34 Question he says at question 26617:14:105 "You told us that you had a meeting with Mr. Flynn on the 22nd. Is there6 anything that you recall about that meeting that you haven't told us about, as7 to what you discussed or what information you convened to him (to Mr. Flynn)8 about the difficulty you experienced the problems you were having.9 Answer: Well yes I did mention at that meeting about what was going on and the17:14:3010 obstacles I was running into etcetera and the demands for money"1112 We then have, and indeed if we turn to document 2212? You will see on the13 fourth last paragraph, before F J. The paragraph starting Minister I think14 this was Mr. Flynn was aware at some at least of the allegations". This is a17:15:1815 meeting which took place on the 28th of February between Mr. Feeley and16 Mr. Haughey, that's Sean Haughey, and Mr. Flynn.1718 So Mr. Flynn has been told. You then have the, and I don't want to go through19 all these documents I will if you want me to, but if you are not quite clear17:15:3820 about some disclosures please stop me. You have the telephone calls between21 Chief Superintendent Sreenan and Mr. Gilmartin in which he identifies his22 problem.2324 He is telling Mr. O'Callaghan, if we can turn to page 2809, just before the17:16:2425 paragraph starting 10.03. There is a Garda report, he, that's Mr. O'Callaghan,26 was aware of Mr. Gilmartin's problems and of the latter's complaints and27 efforts to solve them. He is on friendly terms with Mr. Gilmartin.2829 So here we have Mr. Gilmartin, sorry Mr. O'Callaghan being another person you17:16:5130 told. We have heard in evidence from Mr. Dadley that he outlined the problemsPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

15217:16:571 to Mr. Dadley. We have the statement from Paul Sheeran, his bank manager2 friend that he told him of the problems he was having. And we have, although3 at a later date, the acknowledgement by Sean Sherwin that in October 1990 he4 tells him of the problems.17:17:2256 But leaving aside Mr. Sean Sherwin for the moment what we have is a situation7 in 1989, where he is practically telling everyone of his problems. And what he8 is telling them is that he has been asked to pay money which he has refused to9 do.17:17:381011 Now in those circumstances, I have to say to you, that it is entirely12 implausible that you are not told by Mr. Gilmartin of the fact that Mr. Redmond13 and Mr. Lawlor were asking for money and not having got that money were14 interfering with the completion of the contract or the approval of the17:18:0215 contract.16 A. Well I say Mr. O'Neill, I see all the references you are making. I would say17 it's far simpler than that. I would say Mr. Gilmartin was trying to get that18 there was no obstruction in the tender and rang, even though it was a general19 election campaign, looking to see if I could give him help. I gave him help,17:18:2320 from the kindness of my heart because it was a good development and he was a21 person that I had met. End of story. You can draw whatever conclusions, but22 that's my conclusion.23 Q. 435 I would have to say to you it is somewhat implausible unless you know --24 A. I think 15 years on you are joining five or six point is far more implausible.17:18:4425 You know, I think my reckoning is Mr. Gilmartin was looking for somebody to see26 if they could help him. And as it happened on the issue he was asking me,27 there was no difficulty whatever that the tender was going through the28 Corporation, that there was no difficulty with the Corporation and that it29 subsequently went through and that I, that did Mr. Gilmartin a favour and got a17:19:0630 councillor to check. Which looking on the face of it the councillor hadPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

15317:19:091 nothing to do anyway it was going through the process and that is my2 conclusion.3 Q. 436 I have referred to seven independent people, in other words people --4 A. You did Mr. O'Neill --17:19:195 Q. 437 Will you let me ask the question first?6 A. Maybe Mr. O'Neill.7 Q. 438 Can I ask the question?8 A. You can but for five or seven minutes I said nothing and watched you go through9 things that have nothing whatever to do with me from all kind of sources 1517:19:3310 years on. The point I am making is from what I have read Mr. Gilmartin11 contacted me about one particular issue, for one issue where there was no12 difficulty and that's my point. So I am not going to get into detail of things13 that I have nothing to do with.14 Q. 439 And I have to put it to you, that unless you know what the difficulty is, it's17:19:5115 very hard to solve it, isn't that fair?16 A. But the difficulty with the one issue I was dealing with was, would the tender17 go through and I asked, I had no involvement in that, no involvement. I kindly18 gave a contact to Mr. Gilmartin to try and check, it did go through, it went19 throughout any help from Councillor Burke, because it didn't require any help.17:20:1420 Q. 440 So what you are suggesting even though you have no recollection of this21 conversation is that in all probability, you accept it took place, in all22 probability when Mr. Gilmartin says I am having a difficulty with a contract23 for the purchase of lands you would say in effect, stop. I don't want to hear24 any more, I am in the middle of a general election I will put you on to Joe17:20:3525 Burke is that really what you are telling the Tribunal?26 A. What I say Mr. O'Neill is I wouldn't listen to a rant of all of the problems27 that he was having all over the place, if he was at that time. And I wouldn't28 say Mr. Gilmartin put that to me either. I would say I am in the middle of a29 general election Mr. Gilmartin was worried would the tender be accepted or was17:20:5430 it not and he asked me would I check and I put him on to a councillor thatPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

15417:20:581 might have been able to check.2 Q. 441 So what you describe now as Mr. Gilmartin's allegations that he was asked for3 money by a public representative, you think that's just rant?4 A. No, if that kind of a point was made I would remember that's the point, I made17:21:145 that already to you.6 Q. 442 That's the evidence of Mr. Gilmartin.7 A. I give you my view.8 Q. 443 Now, can I just ask you generally, in relation to the political health of the9 government in 1989, you were in coalition at that stage with the PDs.17:21:4410 A. After the general election.11 Q. 444 Yes after the general election.12 A. Not before.13 Q. 445 And Mr. Haughey was Taoiseach?14 A. Before and ever after.17:21:5915 Q. 446 Indeed. And with some misgivings you have to say on the part of the PD16 representatives, that went into coalition, so it wasn't a full misgivings but17 they had some misgivings didn't they?1819 CHAIRMAN: That's hardly relevant Mr. O'Neill.17:22:1620 Q. 447 Would you accept that that has been the position?21 A. Perhaps you were in the PDs and you knew, but I didn't.22 Q. 448 And at that stage as has been, I am not going to go into detail in this, at23 that stage as has been disclosed to other Tribunals, we had Mr. Haughey24 receiving money from every quarter, or from a lot of quarters. We had Mr. Ray17:22:4825 Burke receiving money from various developers. And the last thing you needed26 at that stage was a scandal whereby Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Redmond were now being27 accused of receiving monies. Isn't that fair?28 A. Are you talking about in the 1989 election.29 Q. 449 I am talking about after the 1989 election. You are in power now, back in17:23:1530 power, in coalition. Somewhat fragile, you are in coalition and the last thingPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

15517:23:221 you needed was some form of scandal. In other words, if the revelation that is2 came out in other Tribunals had come out at that stage that would have been the3 end of government, no doubt about that?4 A. No doubt about that. The government of 1989 was not fragile. It lasted for17:23:405 some years, but if all the issues that came out over the years had come out6 right at that time, it would have been political difficulties no doubt about7 that.89 CHAIRMAN: Mr. O'Neill, sorry I think the stenographer needs to reorganisation17:23:5510 her machine so we might rise for a few minutes. Our hope had been that the11 Taoiseach would be, would finish today we have no difficulty continuing perhaps12 the legal people might over the next few minutes work-out whether it's feasible13 that we would continue on1417:24:1815 MR. O'NEILL: When were you considering on tomorrow or?1617 CHAIRMAN: No.1819 MR. O'NEILL: Continuing on this evening17:24:242021 CHAIRMAN: Yes continuing to, unless there was an awful lot of ground yet to22 cover. So perhaps Mr. Gallagher might make some inquiries while we are --2324 MR. O'NEILL: May it please.17:25:032526 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT BREAK27 AND RESUMED AGAIN AS FOLLOWS:2829 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman I will continue from, hopefully as long as17:44:0930 possible.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

15617:44:1012 Mr. Ahern you said in answer to Mr. Gallagher that you were aware that, I think3 you said in answer to Mr. Gallagher that you were aware of the investigations4 that were taking place in relation to the allegations made by Mr. Gilmartin in17:44:255 respect of particularly Mr. Redmond and perhaps to a lesser extent Mr. Lawlor6 is that correct?7 A. Mr. Gallagher asked me was aware that some Garda investigations that took place8 and I said insofar as they were in the public media.9 Q. 450 Well in 1989 were they in the public media?17:44:4310 A. I don't know when, but whenever they were in the public media, I never remember11 them being discussed at the cabinet meeting or anyone else.12 Q. 451 If we just concentrate on the investigations for a moment, we have as you will13 have seen, a meeting between Mr. Flynn and the representatives of the14 Corporation, Mr. Feeley and others, on the 28th of February of 1989. And17:45:1015 indeed Mr. Feeley treats this matter sufficiently serious that he apparently16 puts his original statement, he gives a copy I think to Mr. Flynn, he puts his17 original statement in his safe. You see on page 169. I am not sure if we need18 to turn to that. Original is written on the top of the statement, or interview19 we should call it.17:45:332021 MR. GALLAGHER: Sorry that in fact is the Tribunal note I should say.22 Original in safe is something done by the Tribunal. Thank you.23 Q. 452 Which have in any event on the 28th of February of 1989, Mr. Feeley and24 Mr. Haughey telling Mr. Flynn of the allegations made by Mr. Gilmartin. Then17:45:5625 if we go to page 2217, we have the bottom half, the second half of that page,26 you'll see in the middle of the page on the 2nd of March 1989. This I should27 say is a note prepared by I think Mr. Matthews of the Department of Justice and28 it says on the 2nd of February 1989 he attended a meeting, called by the29 Taoiseach in the Taoiseach's office and if we go down to the final paragraph17:46:2730 know that page.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

15717:46:3012 "The Taoiseach said that he had an appraised of much a further name". I should3 say what was discussed in the previous paragraph is the allegation in relation4 to the possible corruption in An Bord Pleanala. A different matter. But then17:46:445 says "The Taoiseach said that he had been appraised of a further name. A6 Mr. Tom Gilmartin had been making allegations in regard to improprieties in the7 grants of planning permission"89 So it's gone between the 28th of February and 2nd of March for Mr. Flynn to17:47:0110 Mr. Haughey and indeed I think Mr. Flynn says that he informed Mr. Haughey.1112 We then, if we can turn to page 2296. We have a note of a meeting between13 Mr. Morrissey of the Corporation and Mr. Flynn on the 14th of April of 1989 and14 the Minister asks at paragraph two if there were any further developments in17:47:3715 relation to the allegation made by Mr. Gilmartin regarding official of local16 authority. I said so far as I was aware there were none. The police had17 interviewed the City Manager and acting City Manager enquiring etcetera. He18 was aware of this already. He said, and I take that to be the Minister. He19 said that he felt that the official concerned was aware of enquiries. We are17:47:5820 talking about Mr. Redmond here obviously. I assured him categorically that if21 this were the case that his awareness had not come from any one of the four22 persons, i.e. the City Manager and 3 acting City Managers who knew of it. The23 Minister immediately accepted that and indicated that he "Felt he knew the24 source" he was not prepared to go further.17:48:212526 So it would appear that on the 14th of April someone has tipped off Mr. Redmond27 as to the inquiries that are being undertaken. And if you go then and this is28 confirmed by Mr. Redmond, if you go to page 3219? There is evidence of29 Mr. George Redmond given to the Tribunal on a previous occasion, May of 2000.17:48:5430 The name of the councillor who according to Mr. Redmond tipped off Mr. RedmondPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

15817:48:591 that his name had come up during the Garda inquiry into planning matters in2 1989. And if we go to the next page, what happened I think was Mr. Redmond3 wrote down the name and you see on the next page, councillor Dunne, in other4 words what Mr. Redmond is saying is that he had been notified by councillor17:49:155 Dunne. Who is councillor Dunne, do you know or who was councillor Dunne?6 A. I can't say. There were a few councillor Dunnes. There was is it all right7 Chairman if I speculate there were a few councillor Dunnes?89 CHAIRMAN: Well no -- I under if you are not certain it is better not to17:49:3910 A. There were certainly two. There were certainly two councillor Dunnes I know of11 but I don't want to mention their names.12 Q. 453 Well I thought you might be able to readily identify him?13 A. No, I don't.14 Q. 454 So it would seem that some, well clearly according to Mr. Redmond he is being17:50:0015 tipped off so to speak, by a local councillor and that local councillor one16 surmises, must have got that information from someone higher up the hierarchy17 of Fianna Fail. What would you say to that?18 A. I have no idea.19 Q. 455 Would you accept that if that's the case, that any investigation against17:50:2720 Mr. Redmond was doomed, was fatally flawed from the outset if Mr. Redmond was21 tipped off?22 A. I don't want to speculate on it. I had no involvement in the Garda inquiry or23 the AG's office or DPP's office or investigation as I said. I don't want to be24 speculating. Obviously, but if you ask me general question if somebody is17:50:4925 tipping off somebody about investigations it is entirely unhelpful and26 dangerous and undermining, of course it is. But I don't, I have no, I have no27 involvement in any of those matters you are referring to.28 Q. 456 Can I ask you to turn to page 1163 please? And this is a statement, not the29 full statement, part of the statement made by Mr. Thomas Troy, and I just want17:51:2930 to bring you through the first paragraph of that.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

15917:51:3112 "Early on one Monday morning of 1989 I received a telephone call from Minister3 Flynn who said he was in Dublin airport and would be back at the weekend. He4 asked me to keep Friday free for a meeting. He gave no further details but17:51:435 clearly regard the matters very important. When I duly turned up at his office6 on Friday morning there were already present with him in office his the City7 Manager, Frank Feeley and Assistant City Manager Sean Haughey.89 During the meeting the manager said little except in reply to matter put to17:51:5910 them by the Minister. The Minister said to me that a man whose name he would11 withhold in case the "system" took revenge on him had complained to the12 Assistant City Manager, Mr. Haughey that there was wide spread malpractice in13 the planning sphere in Dublin. Mr. Haughey informed the City Manager who in14 turn informed the Minister and we were now to consider it. He asked me not to17:52:2015 take any notes or open any files or communicate anything to the department. He16 asked if any officer of the department was involved in the complaint and he17 said no. He said we should keep the matter secret so that persons engaging in18 irregularities would not be alerted and the managers could keep watch and19 hopefully discover those responsible. The managers appears to have reservation17:52:4120 abouts this but raised no definite objection. I said it was the fixed practice21 of the department to call in the Gardai in such matters. The Minister said,22 this is Minister Flynn, said that was all very well but one of the complaints23 was against a person connected with the Customs House Docks authority and there24 was at present huge foreign interest in the financial services centre which17:53:0225 might be frightened away by a scandal."2627 Can I just pause there and ask you was that the policy of the government, that28 you did not want to frighten away investment because of some scandal that may29 emerge?17:53:1830 A. It would be the opposite. Mr. O'Neill, if there was a scandal involved youPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

16017:53:241 definitely would frighten away an investment. That's the very reason the2 government would call in the Gardai to try to deal with it. The normal3 practice of the government is to call in the Gardai on any issue and to do so4 promptly.17:53:355 Q. 457 But here we seem to have the Minister, assuming Mr. Troy is correct in his6 statement, and he stands over this, saying that Mr. Flynn is saying don't7 contact the Gardai we don't want a scandal, we'll frighten away investment?8 A. Well you asked me the question would that have been a line the government would9 take, no it's not. I don't even know who Mr. Troy is, but the government would17:53:5910 not take that view, ever.11 Q. 458 Mr. Troy, I think, I will stand corrected --12 A. In actual fact, sorry to interrupt, in actual fact in the Finance Services13 Centre in it's early years, which I was deeply involved in, we had to work very14 hard in the early years to build up it's credibility as a finance services17:54:2215 centre and the biggest problem and obstacle in that was to prove16 internationally that the financial services centre wasn't a brass plate17 operation as many of these centres around the world were. And I recall as18 Minister for Finance in the early 90s when the Bundesbank committee19 parliamentary committee came over, it was a big part of our work to convince17:54:4520 them of our credibility. And that's why we have to this day such a tough21 regulatory regime, that's why today you have the Financial Service Centre built22 up 500 billion under funds management because we have build it up with strong23 credibility. So anyone saying we run away from it would be entirely opposite24 to what we try to do. Because we had to work extremely hard to build up the17:55:0925 credibility of the centre.2627 MR. GALLAGHER: Sir can I just say Mr. Troy was at that time the secretary of28 the Department of the Environment.2917:55:2030 MR. O'NEILL: Thank youPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

16117:55:211 A. Thank you.2 Q. 459 I think there is no doubt that the last thing you need in the circumstances3 when you are trying to promote the financial services centre is any form of4 scandal, there's no doubt about that?17:55:335 A. I agree, agree.6 Q. 460 But can I take it, that it's not policy of, or wasn't the policy of the7 government in the 1989 to avoid scandal by covering up allegations of8 irregularity?9 A. Insofar as I know, and I was at the cabinet, but that would not have been17:56:0010 policy, that I have ever seen in my 20 years in government departments.11 Q. 461 And it wouldn't be the policy of the government either I assume, you say, that12 as far as you are aware, that Garda investigations should be compromised by13 leaking the existence of that investigation to the person under investigation?14 A. Certainly not.17:56:2615 Q. 462 Now if I can come back to Mr. Troy's narrative, of his evidence his statement.1617 He continues "I said that this was all the more reason," this is after the18 Minister said that he shouldn't contact the Gardai "I said this was all the19 more reason to do everything by the book the Minister did to the accept this at17:56:4820 the time. The he urged the managers to keep the matter secret and to watch out21 for irregularities. He said we would meet again. As requested by the Minister22 I did not inform anyone in the department or open a file but I did make some23 short cryptic notes which I kept locked away" and then he continues "At the24 next meeting the managers said they had not noticed anything of relevance. The17:57:1025 City Manager said he had informed Mr. Niall the Corporation's Personal Officer26 the Minister seemed annoyed but let it go. I raised again the question of the27 Gardai, the Minister either then or at a later meeting, said he would go28 "Across to government buildings about it" presumably that's a reference as you29 understand it about going to see Mr. Charles Haughey?17:57:3230 A. Yes.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

16217:57:331 Q. 463 Did you at that stage, assuming Mr. Flynn did go across to government2 buildings, did you hear anything about it at that stage, this is in 1989, did3 you hear anything at that stage about the --4 A. Absolutely no knowledge of any of this.17:57:475 Q. 464 Do you know, perhaps with the benefit of hindsight because I don't think, I6 think you said you weren't aware of the allegations made against Mr. Lawlor in7 1989, you weren't aware in 1989 of the allegations made?8 A. No.9 Q. 465 You became leader of Fianna Fail party in 1994, I think?17:58:1110 A. Correct. December 1994.11 Q. 466 And since then, or indeed before then, have you been able to determine what if12 any investigations were carried out within Fianna Fail in relation to the13 allegations that were made against Mr. Lawlor?14 A. At that time?17:58:3215 Q. 467 At that time or any time?16 A. Well I think at that time I don't have any information, but our own party17 ethics committee in more recent years have continually been examining issues18 that have come out in various Tribunals.19 Q. 468 This is the ethics committee of which Mr. Lawlor was appointed by you chair?17:58:5720 A. No that was a committee of the Dail. You are asking me about the party21 committee.22 Q. 469 Yes. Mr. Lawlor was the Chairman of the ethics committee of the party, of the23 Dail?24 A. No I'm not sure if he was Chairman, but he was on the ethics committee of the17:59:1725 Dail.26 Q. 470 And he was nominated to that post or nominated to the committee by you I think?27 A. I think so, yes.28 Q. 471 Can I turn to the telephone call in which Mr. Gilmartin says that he was asked29 by you for a donation, this is a call I think you don't, you don't recollect17:59:4330 that call?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

16317:59:431 A. I don't recollect the call.2 Q. 472 At that time, this is the call is placed by Mr. Gilmartin in June of 1989, the3 second half of June of 1989?4 A. I think he states there was two calls.18:00:035 Q. 473 Yes. I am talking about the second call?6 A. Sorry.7 Q. 474 There was one in late May in which he explained the difficulties to you and8 then there was one after the problem had been solved, and indeed to put9 everything in context, I should have put to you and that in fact and in a18:00:2410 roundabout way put it to you that in fact the contract, the tender for the11 purchase of the Corporation lands was approved by the Corporation on the 15th12 of June, the 15th or the 12th?13 A. 12th.14 Q. 475 And indeed as indicated Mr. Burke was the person who proposed that resolution.18:00:4915 Now after that, after the contract or the tender was approved, Mr. Gilmartin16 said he rang you to thank you for your assistance. And during the course of17 that conversation you asked him for a donation. And I understand you to say18 that no, you have no recollection of that and that is not your practice?19 A. Yeah well even, while I have said that I have no recollection, I would not just18:01:1920 do that.21 Q. 476 I understand, I don't mean to misinterpret your evidence.22 A. No I appreciate it.23 Q. 477 What, are you telling the Tribunal so I can understand, properly, that in your,24 since 1977, in your 27 years as a Dail Deputy and presumably spanning back18:01:4025 further, membership of Fianna Fail that you have never asked anyone for a26 donation, even for Fianna Fail or for yourself?27 A. My constituency run the fundraising events in my constituency. I participate28 in helping to run those, normally we run a dinner, annual dinner, Christmas29 dinner and we run, sometimes a golf classic, not always. Sometimes a race18:02:0730 night. I would involve myself in helping my constituency helping to run thosePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

16418:02:131 functions and any funds collected in the constituency, from the constituency, I2 do not. I would not ever ring up asking somebody to give a donation, whether I3 had done something for them or not, or even friends, I just wouldn't do it.4 It's not my practice. Even when I was treasurer of the party which I was for18:02:315 under two year, finance committee, I would not engage in asking people, I just6 wouldn't do it.7 Q. 478 And so that I can understand you properly, are you saying that you have on8 occasions asked for donations but you have never done that over the telephone9 is that what you are saying?18:02:4810 A. No I would sign party letters out to individuals.11 Q. 479 Looking for a donation?12 A. Seeking donations.13 Q. 480 And what would you see as the difference between asking for a donation over the14 telephone and sending a letter to someone seeking a donation?18:03:0615 A. Because we run a political party Mr. O'Neill, we have to try and get resources16 and we do, and have over the years, every year, we write out to people of all17 walks of life asking them to contribute towards the party, but I would not18 engage myself in following or chasing or asking people to pay political19 donations. I wouldn't. There is a big difference in politics with sending out18:03:3720 a letter on behalf of your headquarters of your party and being on the phone21 asking for it, there is a big difference in politics in that.22 Q. 481 Is that a policy within Fianna Fail or simply your own?23 A. It's my own.24 Q. 482 Your own policy.18:03:5025 A. It's my own.26 Q. 483 Because I think you would accept that in principle there is nothing wrong with27 seeking a donation, I am sure you accept there is nothing wrong with seeking a28 donation, provided there is no strings attached?29 A. Absolutely none, but I was never good at selling tickets I was never good at18:04:1230 chasing money, I will send out the letters all right.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

16518:04:201 Q. 484 You, and indeed, I mean you may have read Mr. McSharry's evidence given a few2 days ago in which he says, this is the period 93/94 that you countersigned the3 letter signed by Mr. Reynolds prompting party members to collect as much money,4 we haven't got that.18:04:365 A. Precisely. And I am not saying Mr. O'Neill that it's, I agree with you, I am6 not saying it's wrong for individuals it's just something I can't do. It's7 just something I don't do and haven't done.8 Q. 485 But if someone over the telephone brought up the question of a donation you9 could then develop the conversation and yes, say we could well do with a18:05:0510 donation, to party funds?11 A. No I doubt that. I doubt that. I very much doubt I would do that.12 Q. 486 So if I --13 A. And people don't do that quite frankly. People don't do that. If somebody14 says, if somebody would say to you, somewhere along the way business person or18:05:2115 somebody else, that listen we would be interested in contributing to the party16 what I would do and most of my colleagues would do is put them in touch with17 one of the finance committee or directly with the party treasurers or the18 finance officer that's what normally you do.19 Q. 487 So if I bumped into you in the street and said look I want to make a donation18:05:4420 to the Fianna Fail party, what would you say, you would say -- can you direct21 me to the --22 A. I would refer you to the financial committee and even over the years when I was23 treasurer my practice was not personally to take, even when he go to dinners I24 had a I rule where I ask people not to be asking for contributions at the18:06:0825 dinners whether the dinners would be business dinners talk about the economy26 and answering question, not to be asking people to collect money, it's just a27 practice that I have had. I worked hard in Fianna Fail to try and change lots28 of way, and we do things right and I think we do it fairly well now a days.29 Q. 488 As distinct from the 1980s.18:06:3130 A. Yes where it was too, far too loose, far too casual and far too many peoplePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

16618:06:361 collecting money.2 Q. 489 And when we come to the fundraising event then of November of 1989, you are3 aware that Mr. Flynn asks Mr. Dadley for a contribution, this is Mr. Dadley4 from Arlington, not even an Irish person?18:06:535 A. Yes.6 Q. 490 And according to Mr. Dadley there was no sense of embarrassment on the part of7 Mr. Flynn when he asked for this contribution?8 A. I think Mr. Dadley was at a Fianna Fail fundraiser and he was going to be asked9 by Mr. Flynn or somebody else would he contribute in some form or another. It18:07:1410 was a fundraiser, many of the people at that fundraiser, I have seen the list11 were people that were supportive of Fianna Fail in the London area, for years.12 Q. 491 So if you go to a fundraising, be it a golf classic be it a dinner in London,13 somebody is going to ask you at some stage during that function for a14 contribution?18:07:3215 A. Or you get a letter from one of the finance committee afterwards, or a contact.16 Q. 492 You have said that the donation, a 50,000 pounds donation was a large donation,17 even for such a large development of this?18 A. It was.19 Q. 493 What do you mean by that? Is there some scale?18:07:5320 A. No but the amount of contributions that would be 50,000 or over back in '89,21 well now a days you can't give contributions as you know of that nature. But22 at that time there would have, wouldn't have been that many contributions up in23 that scale, there would have been --24 Q. 494 That was an enormous contribution in 1989. It would be even large nowadays,18:08:1925 50,000 pounds?26 A. Now a days under the Ethics in Public Office Act.27 Q. 495 Sorry 50,000 pounds is a large sum of now, now and even more so in 1989.28 A. Yes but there would have been, there would have been a number of contributions29 of that level in 1989.18:08:3530 Q. 496 And --Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

16718:08:381 A. Officially recorded in the party headquarters is what I mean.2 Q. 497 There would be few and far between when you say a number, very few?3 A. We are we are's talking about a handful.4 Q. 498 And presumably from organisations who over the years have supported Fianna18:08:595 Fail?6 A. Yes.7 Q. 499 And maybe one or two wealthy individuals.8 A. Yes.9 Q. 500 But a contribution from someone who has no obvious attachment to Fianna Fail of18:09:1210 this magnitude is quite strange.11 A. Very large contribution.12 Q. 501 I mean, put it in context, it would be significantly more I imagine, than a13 TD's annual salary at the time.14 A. Probably the Taoiseach's.18:09:2915 Q. 502 It would, to put it on that scale.16 A. No, a very large contribution.17 Q. 503 And if you were told about that contribution and that it had been made to18 Mr. Flynn, surely you would inquire further having regard to the fact that this19 contribution is made by someone with no obvious allegiance to Fianna Fail?18:09:5420 A. Well if there was a big business person who was giving a contribution you would21 not have been, I wouldn't have been overly surprised at it. We are talking22 about large business, I mean the people you have recalled, you have mentioned23 already are big business people. Big business people.24 Q. 504 Now, did you make any inquiries subsequently, in relation to the donation made18:10:3925 by Mr. Gilmartin to Mr. Flynn either for Mr. Flynn or for the Fianna Fail26 party?27 A. In more recent years.28 Q. 505 Well I don't mean in the late 90s after you became Taoiseach.29 A. In 1998.18:10:5430 Q. 506 That is when the Tribunal is inquiring about.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

16818:10:561 A. Yes that's when we knew about it, that's when you are it arrived.2 Q. 507 That's not quite correct, is it? Because Mr. Sherwin was undoubtedly told about3 it in 1990.4 A. Mr. Sherwin is as you know is disputed evidence about Mr. Sherwin. Mr. Sherwin18:11:155 says he told the then party leader, then party leader said he didn't tell him.6 Q. 508 I appreciate that, but what's beyond yeah or nay is that Mr. Sherwin knew?7 A. Mr. Sherwin was told, yes.8 Q. 509 And I think Mr. Sherwin's evidence and I am sure we can bring it up if needs9 be, is that he was told in October of 1990, but he doesn't do anything about18:11:4310 that until Mr. Haughey is gone and then he tells Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Reynolds11 disputes that he was told?12 A. That's right.13 Q. 510 Would that seem somewhat surprising to you? That Mr. Sherwin wouldn't bring it14 to the leader's attention?18:12:0015 A. Well this is all come out in a trial in another matter. Mr. Sherwin has given16 his evidence in a court of law, but what he stated, I don't want to say what's17 surprising or not surprising of the reality is it's all stated what happened at18 the and it's disputed as well so --19 Q. 511 Doesn't it, to the layman it suggests that there was no point telling18:12:2720 Mr. Charles Haughey about that, but there might have been a point telling21 Mr. Reynolds when Mr. Haughey had resigned. Is that a fair analysis?22 A. I don't, you know, there is no point in me speculating what Mr. Sherwin felt or23 was told, obviously it registered with him he subsequently believed he should24 tell, or he stated to the party leader but as you know the then party leader18:12:5525 says he wasn't told. So I am not going to, I am not going to judge on that26 because I can't. One person says they told another person says they were not27 told.28 Q. 512 Would you expect a senior member of Fianna Fail, Mr. Sherwin is a senior member29 of Fianna Fail?18:13:1130 A. National organiser.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

16918:13:121 Q. 513 Would you expect a person of his seniority whose told that a donation has been2 made to Fianna Fail via Mr. Flynn of 50,000 pound and there is no record in3 Fianna Fail of that, to take the matter further and to bring it to the4 attention of the Taoiseach of the day?18:13:325 A. Well --6 Q. 514 Assuming the Taoiseach is Fianna Fail?7 A. Well yes. Chairman, I can't recollect what Mr. Sherwin -- if I recall8 Mr. Sherwin did bring it to the attention of people. I think there is a9 dispute about what happened. Mr. Sherwin as I understand it did bring it to18:13:5710 some of his superiors, as best I can remember that's what happened. He says he11 did raise it but there is a dispute about that fact.12 Q. 515 I think he may have told Mr. Kavanagh about it, what position did Mr. Kavanagh13 hold?14 A. He was a finance Chairman of the finance committee, member of the finance18:14:1515 committee. I also think he might have also told other people in Fianna Fail16 headquarters but as I said they are disputed facts. I am just making the point17 that I don't think it is fair perhaps for you to say Mr. Sherwin did nothing I18 think he will say he did.19 Q. 516 I am just asking your attitude in terms of the practice and morality of the18:14:3920 Fianna Fail party as to how you would view the situation where an allegation is21 made that monies have been donated, a significant sum of money donated to22 Fianna Fail in, of 50,000 pounds, and there is no record of that within Fianna23 Fail. I would have thought that that was a matter of critical importance and24 significance that would have been investigated thoroughly. Would you expect18:15:0725 that to have taken place?26 A. Mr. O'Neill, I can tell you what would happen now. In my watch, if we were27 aware that a contribution was given now, that Fianna Fail was not given,28 regardless of what the sum was, we would investigate it.29 Q. 517 When do you say that you first became aware of this controversy in relation to18:15:3330 the 50,000 pounds.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

17018:15:331 A. Controversy about Mr. Sherwin.2 Q. 518 Controversy when first, when did you first become aware that 50,000 pound, a3 cheque for 50,000 pounds had been handed to Mr --4 A. To the best of my recall in 1998.18:15:455 Q. 519 So when you became a Taoiseach between the end of '94 and sometimes in 1998 no6 one --7 A. It was never brought to my attention.8 Q. 520 And no investing as far as you were aware were conducted within Fianna Fail to9 find out or to get to the bottom of that controversy?18:16:0110 A. Not that I am aware of, but if it happened -- I don't want to be answering for11 other leaders or other treasurers in different periods but I wasn't aware of12 it.13 Q. 521 But you were a member of the government obviously from, through all of this14 period?18:16:2315 A. Yes, from 1987.16 Q. 522 Now, can I just ask you in relation to your recollection of the various17 meetings and phone calls that took place, you have said to Mr. Gallagher that18 you are fortunate enough to have a good memory, is that right?19 A. Most of the time.18:16:4720 Q. 523 Well you either have a good memory or you don't if you don't have it most of21 the time you don't have a good memory?22 A. I think I have a good memory, better than most.23 Q. 524 I want to bring you through the sequence of your recollections of the various24 meetings. We first have according to you the report in the Sunday Independent18:17:1025 I think and your contacted then by, I think you said Charlie Bird and26 unwittingly you say yes I do have a recollection of one meeting and one meeting27 only with Mr. Gilmartin, isn't that correct?28 A. That's correct.29 Q. 525 And you have explained that away in a sense by saying that you were somewhat18:17:3430 naive perhaps and you have learned since?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

17118:17:361 A. I haven't explain it had away Mr. O'Neill. I am stating I am a politician, you2 deal with people every day. Not in your profession where you down have to deal3 with this. Every morning I get up until the time I go to bed I have to deal4 with a huge amount of journalist and radios. Every time I move they are there18:17:545 that's their job, I have a professional relationship, I have no problem with6 that, but I can't go off and contemplate my navel for the day. I have to give7 answers and that's what I do.89 On that day I was asked a question, do you remember meeting Mr. Gilmartin? I18:18:0510 said "yes, I do. I met him once", a good recollection, good recall in my view.11 It may not be in yours, and subsequently I checked my diaries. If I was in12 your profession or other professions perhaps I wouldn't have to answer for a13 week. My profession you do, you have to answer to the best of your ability and14 knowledge. I didn't explain it away.18:18:2415 Q. 526 Did you issue a statement?16 A. I did, yes. On the Sunday night I put it out.17 Q. 527 You did. So you wrote out the statement and then contacted one or more18 journalists and relayed the terms of the statement?19 A. Yes.18:18:3720 Q. 528 So it's not as if you are caught on the hop, you have time to think about it,21 isn't that right?22 A. No. I gave out the evidence on the Sunday, as I gave it, and the point I made23 earlier on, if I had waited for a day or two and not given that, but that's24 what I tend to do. I make myself available, I don't hide myself away, I deal18:18:5925 with the media up front when I meet them, try and answer the questions. I26 don't go away and consult half the world and check everything, and that's what27 I did in this case.28 Q. 529 But you were hardly a novice in politics, I think you did indicate, or you said29 to Mr. Gallagher by way of explanation; by explaining away I don't mean to use18:19:2130 a pejorative term, but you explained it?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

17218:19:231 A. Just the way you said it then.2 Q. 530 I withdraw that, clearly.3 A. Thank you.4 Q. 531 But what you did say to Mr. Gallagher as I recollect was that the reason you18:19:345 made that statement was because at that stage you weren't as wise as you now6 are, or words to that effect?7 A. That's right. But in an issue when you are asked about something ten years8 earlier and somebody asks you do you remember somebody, what I am saying now is9 if I thought I was going to end up here answering your questions all evening18:19:5810 then I would have went and checked all my diaries first and told Charlie Bird11 to take a runner, but I didn't and I think you'd understand that if you were in12 politics for a day.13 Q. 532 You had 22 years experience at that time of 1999, as a TD?14 A. You'd want a lot of experience to be ahead of the journalists in this country.18:20:1915 Q. 533 Now can I then turn to your Dail statement. You explained on page 15 of the16 documents, please.1718 Mr. Gallagher has gone through this and I don't want to, if you want me to read19 any, or refer you to any portion I certainly will, but if I can just summarise18:20:5020 that by saying that having made the statement, issued the statement to the21 media, you then caused checks to be made in your office diaries?22 A. I made the first statement on the Monday night. I checked all the diaries on23 Monday and Tuesday. I think, not taking issue with you Mr. O'Neill, I think24 you appreciate, to go back over -- I had to check my own constituency diaries,18:21:1525 I had to check the departmental diaries in Labour, my diaries in Finance and I26 tried to get the records. I did that on Monday and Tuesday, at least the staff27 did on Monday and Tuesday. They stayed up.28 Q. 534 I appreciate that. I am sure it does take a bit of time to do that. And you29 then, you then put out a statement and you then read it into the record of the18:21:3830 House?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

17318:21:381 A. I put out a statement the Tuesday night and made the full statement on2 Wednesday in the Dail.3 Q. 535 And you then, you have identified apart from the meeting of the 10th of October4 which you remembered, maybe not the date but you remembered the actual meeting,18:21:515 you then identify two other meetings; 13th of October 1988 and the 28th of6 October 1989?7 A. Correct.8 Q. 536 But you say this is at the bottom of the first column on page 15 "I still have9 no specific memory of those meetings" that's the meeting of the 13th of October18:22:1210 and the 28th of September.11 A. As I said to Mr. Gallagher I have vague recollections of a couple of those12 meetings, and what I have read and seen since, I don't dispute any of the13 things said.14 Q. 537 Well, what's jogged your memory. In 1999, in January of 1999 you have no18:22:3315 memory of those meetings, but you know they took place, or assume they took16 place because they are in your diary?17 A. Well, when I saw the meeting on the 13th of October a few days earlier, or a18 few days later. My normal practice would be to meet somebody in the19 constituency offices you bring them in and that seems like something I would18:22:5120 do. I have a vague recollection of that. And the other, I do remember meeting21 Mr. Dadley, Dadley, correct? I do remember meeting him and I assumed it was at22 the September meeting. I remember him calling in to me, I thought it was, as I23 said to Mr. Gallagher, I thought it was in my government office, or not my24 government office, my Dail office. I remember him dropping in to me and giving18:23:1725 me a brief update of where he was in his development. I think Mr. Dadley said26 that was in Drumcondra, and my diary shows actually it was in the Department,27 but where ever it is I am not disputing, but I do remember meeting Mr. Dadley,28 dropping into some of my office to say he was working, I do remember that.29 Q. 538 And just concentrating on that meeting for a moment, Mr. Gilmartin has said18:23:4630 that he had a meeting, or he had scheduled a meeting with you and MinistersPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

17418:23:511 Flynn and Brennan during the day, that you were not able to attend?2 A. No, I wouldn't have been at that meeting, there was no circumstances that I3 would have been at that meeting between those two Ministers and that issue. It4 is not the kind of meeting I would go to, on that one Mr. Gilmartin is18:24:095 incorrect.6 Q. 539 You have said that its Ministers, they may meet delegations but they don't meet7 one, Ministers in more than ones; the Ministers do not meet delegations?8 A. They tend not to. Except, it's accepted, it would be the exception if it was a9 cross departmental meeting as we call them, where you might get a few18:24:3710 Ministers, but that is a minority of meetings where you get a number of11 Ministers going to meet a deputation or delegation, normally the individual12 Minister or maybe the individual Minister with Ministers of State, that's the13 normal practice.14 Q. 540 It does happen. I think you described it as being extremely rare in your18:24:5415 statement but it does happen, evidenced by the fact that there was this meeting16 with the Arlington representatives on the 28th of September 1989 with17 Ministers?18 A. Two Ministers attended.19 Q. 541 Flynn and Brennan. And Mr. Gilmartin has said in evidence that you were in18:25:1520 fact attending that meeting as well?21 A. But I --22 Q. 542 But you think not.23 A. Yeah.24 Q. 543 And he says in his evidence that because you couldn't attend that meeting, he18:25:2525 arranged, or he and Mr. Dadley arranged to meet you later. Mr. Mould couldn't26 remain around, and they met in your constituency office in Drumcondra.27 A. There is no dispute, the only dispute is where the location was and I have28 given you the reason, why that is.29 Q. 544 Now, turning to your statement made to the Tribunal on the 10th of December of18:25:4930 2003, you say at page 51, please.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

17518:25:5712 In the first paragraph "I assume based on my practice that I then arranged with3 Mr. Gilmartin that he would meet me officially in my Department on 13th4 October. I have a diary record of that meeting. I also have a diary record of18:26:175 a meeting with Mr. Gilmartin on 28th September 1989 in the Department of6 Labour. I do not have any specific recollection of those meetings."78 So between 1999 and 2003 nothing has changed in terms of your recollection of9 those two meetings. Isn't that right? You use practically the same wording in18:26:4410 your statement read into the Dail's record, you say "I still have no specific11 memory of those meetings", in December 2003 you are saying "I do not have any12 specific recollection of those meetings" the same thing.13 A. The same thing I say today. I have no specific recollection of them.14 Q. 545 What do you mean by specific, you either have a recollection of a meeting or18:27:0515 not, you may not remember the detail, but you either recollect or you don't?16 A. I know what I mean by that.17 Q. 546 Can you explain to the Tribunal what you mean by that?18 A. I certainly will, Chairman. What I mean is if there is a meeting where there19 is perhaps quite an amount of details I wouldn't remember everything that18:27:2220 happened. But if I remember somebody was at a meeting I might remember that21 that's what I mean.22 Q. 547 And you remember meeting Mr. Dadley?23 A. I do.24 Q. 548 Why did you not put that in your statement?18:27:3525 A. Because I didn't know where I met Mr. Dadley. I met Mr. Dadley.26 Q. 549 That doesn't matter. "I met Mr. Dadley". Would you not say that? You thought27 in fact you met him in your Department or in Leinster House?28 A. My diary said that I met him in the Department. I thought I met him in29 government buildings, he says he met me in the Department, but I met Mr. Dadley18:28:0330 at the Fianna Fail function, the Fianna Fail fundraising function as well.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

17618:28:071 Q. 550 But you see in your Dail statement you say, page 15.2 "I have also established with the help of my former staff in the Department of3 Labour that there is record of another meeting with Mr. Gilmartin at 10.45 on4 Thursday 13th of October. According to the records I also had a meeting a year18:28:265 later with him, on Tuesday 28th September, 1989".6 Why didn't you say in that statement, or indeed in your subsequent statement to7 the Tribunal that yes, and not only was Mr. Gilmartin there, but I have a8 recollection and one or other of those meetings of meeting Mr. Dadley?9 A. I told the Tribunal that I had a meeting on the 28th of September. Quite18:28:5010 frankly I can't remember how many people came into my office on that day. But11 I told the Tribunal I had a meeting.12 Q. 551 But you said you have no specific recollection?13 A. I don't have specific recollection. Quite frankly there could have been five14 or six people came into that meeting.18:29:0415 Q. 552 But you have a specific recollection of meeting Mr. Dadley?16 A. I remember meeting Mr. Dadley.17 Q. 553 I am just asking why you didn't identify or disclose that in the statement?18 A. The earlier meeting in the 13th of October there were a whole range of people19 as far as I know attending that meeting, I can't remember all of those18:29:2020 meetings.21 Q. 554 And turning to the meeting, the chitchat meeting, whatever, in the Dail, your22 stance on that has changed somewhat. You are not now saying that as far as you23 are concerned no such meeting ever took place?24 A. No --18:29:4225 Q. 555 You are now saying you have no recollection, but it may have taken place?26 A. I don't want to, I mean -- Chairman, if you want me to go back all over it27 again.2829 CHAIRMAN: I don't think --18:29:5530 A. We can be here until Christmas 12 months if we keep going this way about chitPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

17718:30:001 chat meetings.2 Q. 556 But you accept -- sorry, Chairman?3 A. I accept what I said.418:30:055 CHAIRMAN: The Taoiseach, as far as I am aware he didn't ever say that he,6 that no such meeting took place. He said he couldn't recall any such meeting.7 He said he firmly believed --8 Q. 557 Mr. Ahern says, this is in his statement "A firm belief that no such meeting9 took place" and I am just saying you are consistent in saying that you have no18:30:3510 recollection of the meeting, your previous position, as I understand it, as11 clearly stated, is that you had a firm belief that no such meeting took place,12 you are not now that certain, you say it may, a chitchat meeting may have taken13 place, but you have no recollection?14 A. I wouldn't put it that way Mr -- you want me to go back over it at length, I18:30:5715 will.16 Q. 558 If you are going to say the same again I don't think anyone would appreciate17 it?18 A. You have no difficulty saying the same thing again, so perhaps if I can say it19 again I can, but briefly, Chairman. What I am saying is when the Tribunal18:31:1220 wrote to me about a meeting I thought they were talking about a meeting of21 substance and a meeting that was an agenda meeting to talk about qualitative22 and quantitative issues. That's what I thought. As we went through today I23 answered several hours ago to Mr. Gallagher, is it possible, feasible we could24 have had a bit of a chitchat meeting? I said I have chitchat meetings all of18:31:3825 the time, that's possible. I think I made that clear several times today,26 Chairman.27 Q. 559 Now, we've now got to a situation then from the first statement that you28 released on the Sunday evening I think after the Sunday Independent article29 identifying one meeting, we are now up to meetings or communications; in other18:32:0630 words, meetings or telephone conversations. We are now up to four, plus aPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

17818:32:131 possible chitchat meeting in the Dail?2 A. I think Mr. O'Neill you, on the Sunday evening I think the 24th of January. On3 the 26th of January two days later, 48 hours later, we were up to that. You4 are trying to put it forward as if we were up to it now.18:32:365 Q. 560 Well, there is no reference --6 A. So we are not, Mr. O'Neill. We are not. And I think that's a false way of you7 putting it.8 Q. 561 You accept now that a meeting --9 A. I accepted it on the Tuesday. I accepted it on the Tuesday I made a statement18:32:5310 and I made a Dail statement three days later on the 27th of January of 1999.11 So I mean I object strenuously to you -- I'm trying to say to you we started at12 one meeting and now we are up to that. We were up to that two days later and13 you know that very well.14 Q. 562 I see what you have in your statement.18:33:1015 A. And you have read my Dail statement and you know I mentioned in the Dail16 statement, I mentioned the 10th of October, the 13th of October, the 28th of17 September, a phone call. You know that's the position.18 Q. 563 Now, can I suggest to you that in the circumstances when what we are talking19 about are seven communications; and I put it this way, that Mr. Gilmartin says18:33:4320 he had four meetings with you, one meeting you disagree with is the meeting in21 October of 1987?22 A. Yes.23 Q. 564 The other three meetings took place?24 A. Yes.18:33:5725 Q. 565 There is a Dail meeting, leave a question mark over that. And there are the26 two phone calls?27 A. Accepted.28 Q. 566 What were, do you accept that there two phone calls the beginning, the end of29 May and the end of June?18:34:1230 A. I am not disputing about that, what Mr. Gilmartin says is that he rang to askPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

17918:34:211 if I could get him some help, which I did. And he rang to thank me, so I have2 no reason to dispute that.3 Q. 567 So the only issue of contention in relation to contacts is in relation to the4 meeting of October of 1987?18:34:355 A. Yes, it wasn't --6 Q. 568 Where you say there was no meeting and Mr. Gilmartin says there was. And7 during the course of which Mr. Gilmartin simply says he outlined the plans8 which he had in relation to Bachelor's Walk.918:34:5110 In the circumstances, having regard to what now appears to be little difference11 between you in relation to contacts that took place, I presume you have no12 difficulty no accepting that Mr. Maguire's assertions that Mr. Gilmartin was13 shifty, and effectively a liar is entirely unjustified.14 A. Well I think there is no difference, in my Dail statement over five years ago18:35:2315 Chairman, the 27th of January of 1999, I said there didn't seem to be much16 difference between what Mr. Gilmartin was saying and what I was saying. I made17 that comment and the other question I answered earlier on.18 Q. 569 Thank you.1918:35:3820 CHAIRMAN: I don't know if anybody else besides Mr. Maguire wants to say21 anything? Sorry Mr. Madden, do you want to?2223 MR. MADDEN: Chairman, a couple of very short questions. It won't take more24 than a minute.18:35:532526 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Madden is for Mr. Flynn.27282918:35:5430Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

18018:35:541 CROSS EXAMINATION OF AN TAOISEACH CONTINUED BY MR. MADDEN:23 Q. 570 Taoiseach in relation to position of joint, honorary joint treasurer of Fianna4 Fail, I think you were in that position sometime in the early 90s is that18:36:065 right?6 A. That's correct, I took over from Mr. Flynn, I think in early 93, Mr. Flynn7 perhaps would have gone before I was appointed 1993, I remained in that8 position for that year and the following year until I was elected leader.9 Q. 571 Yes and I think I am correct in stating that the functions of a joint honorary18:36:2610 treasurer are to recommend approval of the parties administrative accounts to11 the national executive on the Fianna Fail Ard Fheis, would that be right?12 A. That's correct.13 Q. 572 And I think I am also correct am I not in, saying that party fundraising14 something in the actually a function of the joint honorary treasurers. That's18:36:4615 a function that's performed by somebody else, isn't that right?16 A. There is a separate finance committee.17 Q. 573 And I am also correct am I not, in saying that it's not the function of the18 joint honorary treasurers to receive donations on behalf of Fianna Fail, isn't19 that correct?18:37:0320 A. Normally as I said earlier on, normally the members of the finance committee21 would follow, the treasurers would write as I explained to Mr. O'Neill the22 treasurers would write the letters out to the individuals, or sign the letters.23 Q. 574 Thank you.2418:37:2025 CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Lawlor you don't want to say anything?2627 MR. LAWLOR: No I have no questions.2829 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Maguire.18:37:2930Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

18118:37:291 EXAMINATION OF AN TAOISEACH AS FOLLOWS BY MR. MAGUIRE:23 Q. 575 MR. MAGUIRE: Mr. Ahern I want to go briefly over some matters in relation to4 matters have arisen in the course of cross-examination.18:37:3756 First of all dealing with the latter part of 1987, you know that the allegation7 that's made in that regard is that there was a meeting that you had with8 Mr. Gilmartin in 1987, you are aware that he has said that that was so, he put9 it variously at autumn/October, November and December, different times in his18:38:0210 evidence. You are aware of that.11 A. Yes, I am aware of that. But the fact is I remember my first meeting with him,12 which was in 1988.13 Q. 576 And I think as far as you were concerned, did you in the course of dealing with14 these indications as to such a meeting having taken place, did you cause18:38:2415 inquiries to be made, as to any reference in your diaries fins as to such a16 meeting taking place?17 A. Yes, I checked both the diaries in my constituency office, in the Department of18 Labour, and two different sets of documents and also checked the relevant19 records in the departments as well, there was no such records.18:38:4520 Q. 577 I know you weren't present in the Tribunal but I think you are aware from the21 transcript that in fact Mr. Gilmartin gave a rather graphic account of what he22 says he did going to that particular meeting. He said that he went in and23 there was a security man there, who greeted him on the particular occasion and24 that he told him that he was an ex Garda and asked him it wait. He made a18:39:1525 phone call or something and asked him wait and then that he was taken to a26 meeting on the first or second floor to your office?27 A. Yes. I did ask my office to check that and while there have been two security28 people that were in the defence forces, I think two in my department they were29 long gone, one retired in the 60s and the other retired in the 70s so there was18:39:4130 no former Garda member. My office was on the 4th floor.Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

18218:39:451 Q. 578 Did you cause your department to make a full inquiry into the nature of the2 people and in fact the civil servant did that inquiry and that information was3 passed onto the Tribunal?4 A. That's correct.18:39:565 Q. 579 And then in relation to the description of that meeting being on the first or6 second floor, where was your office?7 A. On the fourth floor.8 Q. 580 That was in Mespil House, is that correct?9 A. Mespil House.18:40:1010 Q. 581 Was that is more or less the top of the building or up towards the top of the11 building?12 A. It was the top of the building.13 Q. 582 Mr. Gilmartin through his counsel, I am not going to go through all the detail14 in relation to all of this, but Mr. Gilmartin through his counsel has sought to18:40:3015 distance himself from the description that was given, that he gave here in the16 Tribunal as to the meeting he alleges took place on the 1st of February of17 1989.1819 MR. O'NEILL: I think Mr. Chairman that's an unfair comment. I never18:40:4820 distanced myself from any meeting and I never referred to the 1st of February21 if Mr. Maguire checks the transcript of the evidence of Mr. Gilmartin, he will22 find that Mr. Gilmartin's best recollection is that the meeting was either on23 the 1st or 2nd of February.24 Q. 583 I will come to that in a moment, but I am dealing with the fact that his18:41:0725 counsel chose not to refer to the content of a meeting, and the nature of the26 meeting that he alleged, that Mr. Gilmartin alleged in his evidence to take27 place. I am just going to deal with the salient points in respect of that.28 Because I want to you comment on one aspect of it.2918:41:2330 First of all it is alleged that as far as the description of the meeting wasPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

18318:41:291 concerned that it was for the purpose of the meeting was, it was prearranged,2 it was to inform Mr. Haughey and the cabinet about his development plans. Now3 in describing where he went to in respect of that meeting, and where he ended4 up. He describes going to the 5th floor of the 60s building in the Dail, you18:41:575 are familiar with that floor.6 A. Yes.7 Q. 584 Now, we have gone through the geography of this before, is it in a different8 place entirely from, a different building entirely and a different place9 entirely from what's referred to as the ministerial corridor?18:42:1210 A. Yes, the 1960s building is adjacent to the Dail Chamber, that's the back of11 the, a short distance from the Dail Chamber, the ministerial corridor is part12 of what was the old science block and what is now part of the complex of13 government buildings.14 Q. 585 And to get to the ministerial building, I think you have to go over a bridge,18:42:4115 is that correct with a glass walled bridge. Is that correct?16 A. Yes, about 20 years ago there was no physical connection between Leinster House17 and where the College of Science was, and this ramp or whatever, tunnel, tunnel18 of the constructed as a connection between Leinster House and the Ministerial19 Building and what is now government buildings.18:43:0520 Q. 586 Mr. Gilmartin in his evidence says that he did not go, he knows the bridge but21 he did not go across that bridge. But leave that aside for a moment, in22 relation to where he is talking about in the building he is talking about and23 the nature of the meeting he describes, and he describes it on the following24 basis, he says that it was a large rectangular table and that there were quite18:43:2725 a number of Ministers who he listed off who were sitting around that26 rectangular table when he came into the room having come out of the lift. And27 he described in detail where they were sitting around the table and gave a very28 graphic description of that particular type of meeting.29 Can you tell the Tribunal as far as such a meeting might be concerned have you18:43:5230 seen such a meeting take place in that location, in those particularPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

18418:43:581 circumstances?2 A. I assume that the location, that location was parliamentary party rooms. The3 parliamentary party rooms are used for the parliamentary party on a weekly4 basis. And the Fianna Fail National Executive, and meetings between Minister18:44:175 and back benchers not used for ministerial delegations at any time, under any6 leader now or any time since I was been in Dail Eireann 27 years ago.7 Q. 587 But this is a multi ministerial meeting that he is describing and he is8 describing it in terms of the Taoiseach, the then Taoiseach Mr. Haughey being9 present. Did you ever see Mr. Haughey attend such a meeting?18:44:4010 A. No, I have never seen such a meeting in the parliamentary party rooms.11 Q. 588 Now I think in your statement and you have been taken over and back this when12 you made the reply to the letter from the Tribunal you stated:1314 "I confirm that I have no recollection of attending any such meeting. It is my18:45:0515 firm belief that I did not attend such meeting. There is no record in my diary16 for that period of such a meeting taking place. Moreover, all the time since I17 began to sit around the cabinet table on the 10th of March 1982 I have never18 witnessed a private developer attend a cabinet meeting to discuss a commercial19 project."18:45:272021 That's what you stated.22 A. Yes, I state that had and of course I said subsequently, in reply to23 Mr. O'Neill, that he probably correctly picked up the point of a cabinet24 meeting or subcommittee as well, or a cabinet subcommittee.18:45:4625 Q. 589 You know when I put that very text to Mr. Gilmartin that he responded by26 saying, I asked him so he gives evidence in relation to that along those lines27 and says those words "is he telling a lie" and his answer to that was "the word28 recollection seems to be a nice word for getting around house rules, but he is29 actually lying". That's what he said of you in relation to that particular,18:46:1430 were you aware that he had actually said that?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

18518:46:151 A. I was aware.2 Q. 590 Again, counsel for Mr. Gilmartin seems to suggest that there were no3 allegations made against you by Mr. Gilmartin in relation to your evidence. I4 think he accused you of lying on about four occasions when he gave his evidence18:46:355 here.6 But before all of this and to put some context on it, do you remember when the7 information first came to the press, do you remember the suggestion that when8 Mr. Gilmartin was set to testify it was stated that, he stated "his arrival in9 Dublin Castle is certain to heighten the political tensions for the coalition,18:47:0310 he has warned that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, that he has warned that the11 Taoiseach Bertie Ahern will not survive what he has coming down the tracks".1213 Were you aware of that?14 A. I was, yes. Is that what he said in 1999 or what he said recently --18:47:2015 Q. 591 In 1999.16 A. Yes.17 Q. 592 And what was your response to that or how did you feel about that?18 A. Well I will be more worried about what he said accusing me of lying because I19 didn't tell any lies.18:47:3420 Q. 593 Can I ask you separately, in relation to the timing of this, in this regard, I21 just want go briefly into the diary record of this. This is the timing of the22 meeting that was alleged by Mr. Gilmartin to have taken place on the 1st and he23 said that in the first instance, on the 1st of February. Could I have your24 diary which is 4071 for the 1st of February of 1989? In fact 4072, if you put18:48:1825 up 4072?2627 Do you see the excerpt from your diary in relation to the two dates, that's28 Wednesday the 1st and Thursday the 2nd?29 A. I do.18:48:4530 Q. 594 Now, we know that Mr. Gilmartin had noted under a date as the 1st of FebruaryPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

18618:48:511 in his own diary that had 4.30 he would meet Mr. Lawlor at Buswells Hotel and2 that at 5.30 he had a meeting with the Ministers at Dail Eireann, Leinster3 House.4 I will come back to that in a moment in relation to a particular diary entry.18:49:085 I want to ask you about your own diary entry, what happened now is6 Mr. Gilmartin shifted his ground from the diary that he had and from the 1st of7 February and to some extent.89 MR. O'NEILL: That's an unfair comment Mr. Chairman. It's not a question18:49:2510 rather a comment by Mr. Maguire.1112 CHAIRMAN: I think he said it was the 1st or 2nd of February.1314 MR. MAGUIRE: He initially said it was the 1st and then he said it was the 1st18:49:4015 or 2nd I am suggesting he is shifting his ground in relation to that. What I16 want you to deal with first of all briefly on the 1st, the date in your diary17 for the 1st, that's already referred to you were in fact elsewhere at a18 function which was out in Glasnevin, is that correct?19 A. That's correct, I had a pair from Leinster House as my diary shows from 4.30 to18:50:0320 6.30 and I attended, there were safety, I was responsible for health and21 safety, so I attended there a presentation of certificates to participant who22 is completed a course in handling instruction course to do with health and23 safety in particular industrial fire safety in Glasnevin Industrial Estate.24 Q. 595 So if the entry that appears in Mr. Gilmartin's diary for the 1st is correct,18:50:3025 is there anyway that you could have been present at that meeting at that time,26 he said in his evidence it was at 5 o'clock and the meeting took about ten27 minutes?28 A. No I could not have been there.29 Q. 596 I wonder would you just put up 4145? On the same screen if possible?18:51:0630Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

18718:51:061 Do you see that entry in, under the heading February and then the 1st of2 February and then a list of times ranging from 12 o'clock down to 4.30 and 5.303 do you see that there?4 A. I do.18:51:215 Q. 597 Do you see that at 4.30 it says "Meet Mr. Lawlor at Buswells Hotel" and then he6 has "5.30 meeting with Ministers, Dail Eireann Leinster, House".7 Now his evidence was as I say it was 5 o'clock, but you covered that in your8 evidence and there is other evidence to be begin to the Tribunal in relation to9 people who were at that function, presented with a certificate and people who18:51:4610 were in a position to corroborate what you say in that regard, is that so?11 A. That's correct.12 Q. 598 Leaving those two sets of diary pages I suppose they are present --1314 MR. O'NEILL: I think it should be made clear to the Taoiseach that the diary18:52:0115 entry, the so called diary entry on the right in fact is Mr. Gilmartin's16 notebook it wasn't intended to be a diary and I think this should be made clear17 by Mr. Maguire as he well knows that's the case.1819 CHAIRMAN: It's in for the 1st of February but Mr. Gilmartin said in his18:52:1820 evidence that didn't necessarily mean it was an entry for that day, he used21 this as a notebook rather than a --2223 MR. MAGUIRE: I would -- this is an issue obviously the Tribunal is going to24 have to deal with. But Mr. Gilmartin accepted that his entry for the day18:52:3825 before that which was the 31st correctly recorded the meetings he had on that26 date. And he also accepted that the information that was contained under the27 3rd which is the day after, that that was also correct for the day. So if what28 he is asking is that this in some way should be excerpted from the dates in29 question.18:52:5730Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

18818:52:571 MR. O'NEILL: This is a comment rather than questioning of Mr. Ahern.23 CHAIRMAN: It's fine we were --418:53:025 MR. MAGUIRE: I just want to ask you now Taoiseach, in relation to your diary6 entries for the Thursday, and that is on your diary of week 5, Thursday the7 2nd, there is an entry in that, can you take us down through those entries8 first of all?9 A. On the 2nd.18:53:2510 Q. 599 Yes.11 A. There is a meeting at in the Taoiseach's conference room at 3 pm, and I met12 Mr. Bill Attley he was the head of SIPTU trade union, and at 5.25 arrival of13 Minister Cope. And afterwards the dinner in Cert at 7.30.14 Q. 600 Now can you tell us what you know about the meeting with Mr. Attley, what's the18:53:5615 story about that, where did it take place?16 A. I would assume that that, on the Thursday would have taken place in the, in the17 ministerial rooms.18 Q. 601 Now can you tell us about the visit of Mr. Cope, I think you have already given19 us some information in respect of that?18:54:1420 A. Yes I remember this well, because as I said earlier it was a significant21 occasion because there had not, at least there had been very few, I am not22 saying there hadn't been any, there had been very few British Ministers who had23 came to Ireland at that time because of the security situation, so it was24 considered a very important that he came, it was obviously major security18:54:4225 issue.26 Q. 602 Was he, I think the climate at the time, the political climate at the time27 vis-a-vis Northern Ireland and all of that was entirely different?28 A. It was totally different climate, because if I recall there was about 4029 detectives not to mind Gardai that accompanied a load of British security and18:55:0830 Irish security, but I think there was 40 detectives on duty, they were on thePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

18918:55:121 roof, they were every where, it was an enormous. Where now Mr. Blair would2 come here with security but it is not significant, but that was an enormous3 visit, it was important visit because there was so few Ministers attending the4 country at that stage because the northern troubles were still extremely bad.18:55:335 Q. 603 And your recollection, where did you meet him?6 A. My recollection is I met him at the airport, but normally I could have met him7 at the airport, I couldn't be absolutely positive I met him at the airport,8 sometimes I met Ministers at airports, normally I probably didn't meet the9 Ministers at airports but that was a particularly important visit.18:55:5310 Q. 604 And as far as what, what the, you have down arrival of Minister Cope, do you11 know where that was to?12 A. I imagine to the department.13 Q. 605 Yes. I wonder if I could have up the counterpart of this diary which is 3873,14 keeping the, sorry keeping the other one on the screen, keeping Mr. Gilmartin's18:56:3215 diary on the screen, yes but you can take out -- I want you to put up 3873 and16 hold Mr. Gilmartin's diary.1718 All right, if that's possible. Just put, take 3873 and turn it around then if19 we can? This I think is a second copy of your diary, is that correct?18:57:1320 A. That's correct.21 Q. 606 And what does it say at, in relation to Mr. Cope?22 A. Visit of Mr. John Cope, airport 5.25 arrival time.23 Q. 607 Why is that put in there?24 A. Assuming I was to meet him at the airport.18:57:2725 Q. 608 Just to go back to the fundamental in relation to these issues. In respect of26 the account that's given by Mrs. O'Rourke, and she came in here and gave her27 account of a meeting that may have taken place or a time --2829 MR. O'NEILL: That did take place in her mind.18:57:5330Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

19018:57:531 CHAIRMAN: Mrs. O'Rourke said it did take place. You said in respect of the2 account that's given by Mrs. O'Rourke and she came in here and gave her account3 of a meeting that may have taken place. When her account is that it did take4 place.18:58:1456 MR. GALLAGHER: Also a fact it was never suggested to Mrs. O'Rourke that it7 didn't take place.89 MR. MAGUIRE: I accept that's her recollection and maybe I will rephrase that.18:58:2310 You heard the account that she gave of what she says took place at the time.11 A. I did, yes.12 Q. 609 And that is on the ministerial corridor.13 A. That's correct.14 Q. 610 Now you have gone to pains to point out to Mr. O'Neill during your, being18:58:4015 examined and indeed to Mr. Gallagher before that, that it could be possible16 that you might meet somebody in an offhand way in the way you described, in the17 ministerial corridor, is that correct?18 A. That's correct because there would always be deputations and during the sitting19 time deputations and delegations groups would come and visit Ministers and have18:59:0620 meetings with Ministers in those rooms know regularly you would meet21 deputations and delegations that were not there for you, a Minister would ask22 you to say hello to them or somebody that you have met somewhere around the23 country or some issue that might have some bearing on you that they will be24 asking to meet.18:59:2225 Q. 611 That's a meeting in a ministerial corridor, taking that description; can you in26 anyway conceive of having such a meeting in the 5th floor, in the manner that27 Mr. Gilmartin has described?28 A. No, because you wouldn't.2918:59:3730 MR. O'NEILL: Sorry. I don't think Mr. Gilmartin identified the meeting asPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

19118:59:421 taking place on the fifth floor. His evidence was that he entered the lift2 with Mr. Lawlor, he pressed the button, he didn't know what floor it went to.34 CHAIRMAN: He said he thought it was the fourth or fifth floor, but he made it18:59:555 clear, he wasn't certain as to what floor.67 MR. MAGUIRE: But it was put to him clearly that he gave that evidence in the8 Gilmartin trial, in the Sherwin trial I should say, and he thought it may be9 the fourth or fifth floor. That's what he said, I am using the 5th floor as19:00:0910 being the logical explanation where the party rooms are and the geography11 allows for it.1213 CHAIRMAN: All right.1419:00:1815 MR. MAGUIRE: Is the possibility you talk about, is that in any way possible in16 the circumstances Mr. Gilmartin describes in the, in the 60s building?17 A. On the fourth floor there is no, no meeting rooms. The 5th floor is the only18 place where you could have that type of a room, it's not a rectangular table19 it's a long straight table on the 5th floor. But you would not have any19:00:4420 deputations or delegations or any ready access to ministers because ministers21 are in an entirely different place, so you couldn't have that kind of a meeting22 on the fourth or fifth floor.23 Q. 612 Well, is it that you are excluding the possibility of such a meeting taking24 place in that building?19:01:0325 A. You couldn't, because if you look at Minister O'Rourke's evidence and if you26 relate that to what Mr. Gilmartin's evidence, Mrs. O'Rourke said she came out27 of her office and just went across the corridor, if you relate that to28 Mr. Gilmartin's evidence, she would have had to come out of her office, down29 the corridor, across the ramp or tunnel, we tend to call it the tunnel, up on19:01:3330 to the first floor, onto the lift and up to the fourth floor. It's a fivePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

19219:01:381 minute journey, not just across the way. So the point that I made earlier, a2 lot earlier, they are two different, entirely different locations.3 Q. 613 And now I think that there was a description given by Mr. Gilmartin of meeting4 Mr. Sean Walsh, it was to a different intent. But he gave a description of his19:02:005 meeting with Sean Walsh, Mr. Sean Walsh between coming out of the meeting and6 going to the lift; do you know where Mr. Walsh's rooms were?7 A. All the back bench, Mr. Walsh was always a back bench TD, they would have been8 in the floors in the 1960s building, so that's near the parliamentary party9 floor, either the 4th or 5th floor.19:02:2510 Q. 614 Yes. And where would his office be?11 A. Somewhere on either the 4th or 5th floor.12 Q. 615 He said he brought him into his office, he brought Mr. Gilmartin into his13 office after this meeting?14 A. That could be either the 4th or the 5th floor.19:02:4215 Q. 616 Thanks Taoiseach.1617 CHAIRMAN: All right. Do you want to --1819 MR. GALLAGHER: Taoiseach, I just have a few short questions to hopefully wrap19:02:5120 up.2122232419:02:52252627282919:02:5230Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

19319:02:521 RE EXAMINATION OF AN TAOISEACH AS FOLLOWS BY MR. GALLAGHER:23 Q. 617 You have told the Tribunal that you now accept that Mr. Gilmartin contacted you4 in or about May of 1989 concerning the tender for the lands in Quarryvale in19:03:115 the Dublin Corporation, the Dublin Corporation lands in the Dublin County6 Council area.78 You, your statement to the Dail on the 27th of January of 1999 stated that9 Mr. Burke had contacted you and he recalled you asking him to meet19:03:3010 Mr. Gilmartin about that time. He recalled that Mr, that he met Mr. Gilmartin11 who asked him about the Quarryvale, the Bachelor's Walk development. He says12 that, and you say in your statement "Councillor Burke told him it would create13 grave difficulties for the council because it was in favour of the development14 of Temple Bar but not in favour of the new bridge or the bus station on19:03:5415 Bachelor's Walk site. That was Mr. Joe Burke's only connection".1617 Can you tell the Tribunal when and if Mr. Burke told you that his recollection18 as recounted to you in January 1999, and as recorded by you in that statement,19 had a changed and that he now recalls that it related to Quarryvale lands19:04:2420 rather than Bachelor's Walk lands?21 A. Well I am basing it, I think his recollection that he recalled the meeting. I22 don't know if I went into the detail of what it was, but he believes reading23 his statement which is circulated to the Tribunal, that he discussed both24 issues. But having read the evidence of Mr. Gilmartin and read the statement19:04:4725 of Mr. Burke it is quite, whether they were talking about both issues, it is26 almost definitely that Mr. Gilmartin was, it makes sense that Mr. Gilmartin was27 asking me about the tender. It is just, it doesn't make sense that he was only28 asking me about the other issues. So I am drawing that conclusion from reading29 the documents, and not disputing just for the sake of disputing.19:05:1030 Q. 618 I understand that. It appears from the statement on page 21 on the screen atPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

19419:05:161 the centre of the right hand column in your statement to the Dail on 27 of2 January 1999, you told the Dail that Mr. Burke had contacted you to say that he3 recalled meeting Mr. Gilmartin. And that Councillor Burke told him that this4 development, that's the Arlington Development would cause grave difficulty for19:05:415 the council because it was in favour of the development at Temple Bar but not6 in favour of the new bridge and bus station. The question I asked was can you7 say, can you tell the Tribunal when and in what circumstances Mr. Burke's8 recollection of the reasons he met Mr. Gilmartin changed?9 A. Well, I think Mr. Burke at that stage told me that he, Councillor Burke told me19:06:1010 that he had that meeting with Mr. Gilmartin and I think his view was that he11 was talking about Bachelor's Walk. When he made his own statement, which is12 the copy I have seen, and I read that, it is clearly discussing both13 developments; and he accepts that he discussed both developments. It's in his14 statement, in the statement. And it makes sense listening to Mr. Gilmartin's19:06:3315 evidence that it was around that time he contacted me. So I accept that.16 Q. 619 So it would appear that his, the information that he conveyed to you in 199917 was incorrect?18 A. In fairness to him, I think what he conveyed to me in 1999 was more than19 anything else, he met Mr. Gilmartin. Because I recall I asked what did he meet19:06:5320 Mr. Gilmartin for, he said that I asked him. So he obviously mentioned, I21 don't think he recalls that well what items he discussed, but he, I think in22 his own statement he says both issues.23 Q. 620 Mr. Maguire put to you that --24 A. And Councillor Burke, can I say, would have been very familiar with the19:07:1225 arguments of the Corporation about Bachelor's Walk far more than I would at the26 Dublin Corporation end of it, because I was gone off the council.27 Q. 621 I see. Mr. Maguire asked you about inquiries you caused to be made in the28 Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment, can I have 4425 please?29 Concerning the ex Garda alleged to have been working as a security man or19:07:3530 porter there. Is this a document that emanated from the Department?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

19519:07:421 A. Yes.2 Q. 622 This is the result of the inquiry. I will just put on the record for the --3 A. I appreciate that. I was just working on recollection that there were two4 service attendants that had previous service in the defence forces serving in19:07:555 the Department of Labour. One was appointed on 16 September 1966 and retired6 on the 27 July 1977 and the other was appointed on 17 April 1962 and retired on7 the 31 May 1987. I was just working from recollection earlier, that is the8 official note.9 Q. 623 I will just put the other paragraph on the record.19:08:1510 "The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has conducted a search of11 it's records insofar as it has been possible and has not been able to identify12 any services attendant who was an ex Garda and employed in the Department of13 Labour in 1987/88".1419:08:3015 In response to some questions by Mr. O'Neill in relation to telephone numbers16 which Mr. Gilmartin said he had been, he had received from you in or about May17 1989 when he telephoned you, you said that you doubted if you would have given18 out telephone numbers because of, if you make an exception of giving out19 somebody's private numbers you normally find that you don't get it again.19:09:0520 A. That's just a general rule with it. Normally I have been lucky enough with21 most of my councillors and, to keep my, the database of people you can get on22 direct lines and mobile lines. I would normally make contact with a councillor23 and put somebody in touch with them rather than the other way around. I do that24 as a matter of course, I can't be positive I do it in every case but that's19:09:3125 what I normally do.26 Q. 624 May I have 2042 please? Taoiseach, this is a page, a copy of a page more27 correctly from a document, the book which is described as a diary cum notebook28 maintained by Mr. Gilmartin. And he has told the Tribunal on Day 458 at page29 36 question 236. These entries you see "Councillor Burke, Bertie Ahern,19:10:0330 Department of Labour and Dail" we'll go through them for the record in aPremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

19619:10:061 moment, were written in late May 1989 and he says he received those numbers2 from you. Do you recall or do you recollect any of those numbers?3 A. 374267 was my mother's number and 374129 is my general office number in4 Drumcondra, or at least it was. It is actually if you put an 8 in front of it.19:10:425 Q. 625 Sorry. You said the number 372586 is your mother's number?6 A. No. 374267 that is my mother's house number.7 Q. 626 Does it seem to you that it's likely that you would have given those telephone8 numbers?9 A. That number is my general number, that's on every - 8374267 is a number, it19:11:1110 would have been, you get that anywhere.11 Q. 627 No. If it's your mother's number, that's a private number I take it?12 A. But it's, it was my contact point on my literature.13 Q. 628 I see. And how about Councillor Burke?14 A. I couldn't say. They may -- I'm not sure.19:11:3015 Q. 629 374129 is that your --16 A. That's my general office number in Drumcondra, still is.17 Q. 630 And your Department of Labour number is there?18 A. That's the general number of the Department of Labour.19 Q. 631 Dail 284. Was that your extension in the Dail at one stage?19:11:5020 A. I don't know.21 Q. 632 You don't know. How about 794337 can you remember that?22 A. It could have been, that could have been a direct line. That looks like a23 direct line into the Dail.24 Q. 633 Well can you offer any explanation as to where Mr. Gilmartin would have19:12:0925 obtained those numbers, including a direct line into the Dail if he hadn't26 received them from you?27 A. Well I would say the direct line into the Dail, the only one to give him that28 would be my own Dail secretary, I don't think anyone else would give him that.29 Q. 634 I see. But he has, as I say, his evidence is that he received those numbers19:12:3030 from you. And I think the Tribunal can take it that certainly so far as thePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

19719:12:351 direct line is concerned, it isn't a number that would be readily available to2 a wide circle of people?3 A. I don't think so, no. The other two numbers are two general numbers that I4 would give. The 374267, 374219 they are my two general numbers.19:12:555 Q. 635 In the course of your evidence, Taoiseach, you said there is a big difference6 in politics between sending out a letter on behalf of your headquarters and7 being on the phone asking for it. There is a big difference in politics in8 that?9 A. Hmm.19:13:0910 Q. 636 What is that big difference?11 A. The big difference is that normally in any. In the finance committee, members12 of the finance committee or treasurers of the party would sign literally13 hundreds of letters, either national collection letters but more specifically14 fundraising events and they would write, sign those individually out to all19:13:3415 kinds of places and you could send hundreds of those.16 Q. 637 Of course.17 A. Letters, if not thousands. The difference, but getting on to specific people,18 and trying to go head to head against specific people to pay contributions19 that's a very different, a very different task.19:13:5220 Q. 638 Well --21 A. I am not saying there is anything wrong with doing that, but I am saying it is22 a very different thing.23 Q. 639 You seemed to suggest, or imply that there was something significantly24 different in the political context in writing to somebody for a contribution19:14:0925 and actually asking them, that perhaps there was something undesirable about26 making a face-to-face --27 A. Well, it's not -- I wouldn't like to put it down as undesirable because a28 number of people would do this. But the finance committee would normally, of29 the Fianna Fail parliamentary party anyway, I can't talk for any other party,19:14:3430 but the people that they would ask, normally not Parliamentarians but thePremier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

19819:14:381 people who are on a finance committee, they would normally undertake to contact2 certain named individuals; and people would get names, but you wouldn't let3 anybody, you just wouldn't let the general membership or any members of the4 party or executive just go out. That would be an agreed strategy that certain19:14:555 people would be asked to get on to names, individuals; you would not have6 people just going out willy nilly contacting people chasing up money, so people7 would divide up who was going to ring who. Not that there is anything wrong8 with it, but it would be a very dedicated task that somebody would do.9 Q. 640 And this would be a task entrusted to the finance committee?19:15:1810 A. Yes; and named individual. You would not have a gathering of 40 or 50 people11 and say "will you ring this one or you ring that one". It would be something12 that would be given over to the finance committee, they would ask who would13 know "would you ring four or five people2.14 Q. 641 But it wouldn't be a task entrusted to the treasurer for a time being, or joint19:15:3815 honorary treasurer for the time being of the party?16 A. Might do. It might do that.17 Q. 642 Put it another way, whilst you were joint honorary treasurer or indeed18 treasurer, were you ever entrusted in the task of collecting a letter?19 A. No. But I have to be honest to say I wouldn't want to do it, that is not to19:16:0320 say - others would be better at undertaking the task.21 Q. 643 I take it the duty of the joint honorary treasurers is to ensure monies22 contributed to the party are properly accounted for and made available to the23 party?24 A. That's correct, joint honorary treasurers and trustees oversee the annual audit19:16:2125 and nowadays the submission of the audited accounts by a fixed date, now in26 law, to the Public Office Commission, that's an obligation of the treasurers27 and trustees.28 Q. 644 You told the Tribunal about a letter that was written to Mr. Flynn on the 6th29 of October of 1998. That was in the replied to you told the Tribunal. Is19:16:4830 there any reason why there wasn't a follow up on that?Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474

19919:16:501 A. I think it was checked with Mr. Flynn. He said that he was going to deal with2 the Tribunal and wouldn't be making a reply.3 Q. 645 All right. Thank you Taoiseach.419:17:025 MR. LAWLOR: Could I raise a query for tomorrow please? Just to get clarified6 for me please? You said 10.45, is that correct?78 CHAIRMAN: 10.45.919:17:1510 MR. LAWLOR: And you approved the making of the submission?1112 CHAIRMAN: On the assumption that it's effectively, it will be you simply13 reading out.1419:17:2715 MR. LAWLOR: Yes. And it's intended to sit until 4 o'clock is it?1617 CHAIRMAN: We'll sit for as long as --1819 MR. LAWLOR: To finish up, conclude. Yes, thank you Chairman.19:17:372021 CHAIRMAN: Taoiseach, thank you very much for attending.22 A. Thank you Chairman, and thank you for a facilitating me.2324 THE WITNESS THEN WITHDREW.19:18:21252627 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED TO THE FOLLOWING MORNING,28 THURSDAY 8TH APRIL, 2004 AT 10.45 AM.2930Premier Captioning & Realtime Limitedwww.pcr.ie Day 474