Fianna Fáil TD Mr G.V. Wright has denied discussing his evidence to the tribunal in advance with lobbyist Mr Frank Dunlop.
Mr Wright says the only reason he met Mr Dunlop after the lobbyist had given evidence to the tribunal in 2000 was to check the accuracy of his recollection.
Mr Dunlop has alleged the two men conspired to mislead the tribunal by classifying his payments to the TD as political donations. However, yesterday, Mr Wright said he set up the meeting solely to confirm the amounts - £2,000, £3,000 and £5,000 - involved in the donations.
Crucially, he said the meeting in the Merrion Hotel took place after Mr Dunlop had given evidence to the tribunal in May 2000, and not before this time, as Mr Dunlop has claimed.
He and his solicitor were putting together information for the tribunal and the Fianna Fáil inquiry in May 2000 and they wanted this to be correct. This was the "sole reason" he contacted Mr Dunlop and met him sometime after the announcement of the party inquiry.
Mr Wright said he detailed the three payments to Mr Dunlop, who confirmed them, as well as a £5,000 payment he received from developer Mr Owen O'Callaghan. He was "emphatic" that he, and not Mr Dunlop, mentioned the figures involved.
"I didn't discuss in any shape or form my dealings with the tribunal or my evidence," he said. The only people he talked to about these matters were his solicitor and his close family.
Ms Patricia Dillon SC, for the tribunal, queried Mr Wright's account of his meeting with Mr Dunlop.
If Mr Dunlop had confirmed the £3,000 payment at this meeting in 2001, as Mr Wright was saying, why hadn't Mr Wright told the tribunal about the payment when asked in a letter in March 2002?
Mr Wright first told tribunal lawyers in a private interview in March 1999 that he had received money from Mr Dunlop at election times.
He was "quite confident" about the figures, which were in the £1,000 to £2,000 range, he said at the time.
Yesterday, he accepted there were gaps in the information he had provided at this time. The interview had been very difficult and he had not been prepared for the line of questioning followed.
Ms Dillon pointed out that the first time the witness told the tribunal of the details of the £3,000 payment he got in October 1993 was last month.
This was two years after the tribunal first asked him for details of an unexplained lodgement in his accounts.
The witness agreed this couldn't be regarded as "prompt" assistance to the tribunal. Two years was not a "reasonable" delay.
"I didn't focus on it. It wasn't for any untoward reason," he explained. He hadn't forgotten the payments he received, but he didn't have the amounts in his mind.
