Mahon tribunal: Former Fine Gael deputy leader Nora Owen has denied the reason she opposed a rezoning in north Dublin was because it might have benefited Charles Haughey.
Ms Owen told the tribunal yesterday she opposed plans to rezone Paul Walls's lands at Kinsealy on planning grounds, rather than opposition to Mr Haughey.
Mr Walls has told tribunal lawyers in private interview that he believed Ms Owen was against the rezoning in 1993 because of the Haughey connection. Ms Owen said the proposal to rezone the land was "never a runner" and she would have made this clear to Mr Walls. She described his interpretation of her stance as speculation and said it had "nothing to do with me".
She did not recall meeting Mr Walls around this time but it was clear from documentation that he had discussed the proposal with her. While she had no philosophical objection to some development in the area, she would have known this was not a proposal she would have supported.
The 54 acres owned by Mr Walls was outside the development area of Malahide, she said, and she didn't want to see this "big chunk" being rezoned.
Henry Murphy SC, for the tribunal, said Mr Walls had referred to her being "trenchantly" opposed to the rezoning. "Saying No to him was going to be trenchant whether I said it softly or strongly," Ms Owen said.
The tribunal is investigating the unsuccessful attempt to rezone the Walls land in 1993 and in particular an allegation by lobbyist Frank Dunlop that he paid councillor Seán Gilbride £1,000 to secure the rezoning.
Mr Dunlop also alleges that Mr Walls was aware that he, Mr Dunlop, would be making payments to councillors for their support.
Mr Walls, who has yet to give evidence, and Mr Gilbride deny the allegation.
Fianna Fáil TD GV Wright said he didn't recall the rezoning "with any particular significance".
Earlier, Judge Alan Mahon said it should not be presumed that witnesses were called to the tribunal only to deal with allegations or suspicions. "Perhaps understandably, some witnesses called to give evidence may believe themselves to be under suspicion or be the subject of an allegation of wrongdoing. Again understandably, some members of the public who follow the tribunal may see such witnesses in that light. The tribunal wants to emphasise in the strongest terms that such is not always or necessarily the case."
