FLOOD TRIBUNAL: The former Fine Gael senator, Mr Liam Cosgrave, has denied conspiring with Mr Frank Dunlop to mislead the tribunal by disclosing only payments he received around election times.
He told the tribunal that Mr Dunlop tried to implicate him in "false testimony" about bribes to councillors because he knew the politician had no idea how much money he had been given.
Mr Cosgrave said this was the platform on which Mr Dunlop had built his lies. These were designed to protect his financial interests from the Revenue Commissioners. He also needed to involve people from Fine Gael because his fabrications about widespread corruption "would look better that way". And it would hide how he had stolen money from his "paymasters", including Mr Jim Kennedy.
Mr Cosgrave said he spoke to Mr Dunlop by phone several days after a tribunal lawyer interviewed him in 2000. He told the lobbyist he was unable to give the lawyer the details of the payments he had received.
He was "shocked and amazed" at Mr Dunlop's subsequent revelation of bribes to councillors in April 2000. He acknowledged meeting Mr Dunlop a number of times after the tribunal had started, but denied the latter's allegation that the two men had conspired to mislead the tribunal.
He had dined a number of times with Mr Dunlop and other councillors, and the topic of the tribunal came up in general terms.
He recalled a Fine Gael councillor, Ms Olivia Mitchell, asking Mr Dunlop if he had ever been asked for money in return for a councillor's vote. Mr Dunlop said the late Cllr Tom Hand was the only person who had asked money; he had sought £250,000 for his vote on a particular development.
Mr Cosgrave said he thought Mr Dunlop was trying to amuse his companions with "a tall story to go along with the brandies," but he was taken aback that a dead person was being maligned in this way.
Mr Cosgrave was asked why he had supported the rezoning of the Jackson Way land at Carrickmines in south Dublin in 1997. On the night of the meeting, the manager of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Mr Kevin O'Sullivan, had told councillors the proposed rezoning was premature.
The witness cited a 1990 report which suggested the rezoning of more land at Carrickmines for industry.
It was put to the witness that Mr O'Sullivan had told the tribunal the 1990 report "died" when the councillors themselves decided on a different policy.
Mr Cosgrave said this did not make the manager's original advice redundant.
Asked why, in the light of the manager's negative report, he had persisted in trying to have the lands rezoned, Mr Cosgrave said he took into account all the reports on Carrickmines.
He said the main factor was the hope that people would get jobs locally as a result of rezoning the lands for industry. The fact was that other areas of Dublin were getting more jobs than this area.
He would not agree that the rezoning he proposed had the effect of benefiting specific land-owners in Carrickmines.
Mr Justice Flood questioned whether the rezoning had in any way enhanced the land available for industrial development. There were no services available at the time, and the manager's report had been ignored, he said.
The lands could not be developed because no one would develop industrial lands through an archway under a motorway.
