Bailey's version of meeting differs from Burke's

In case you might have forgotten - it's about money, stupid. Land deals. Donations. Cash-stuffed envelopes.

In case you might have forgotten - it's about money, stupid. Land deals. Donations. Cash-stuffed envelopes.

Yet after the third day of evidence from the developer Mr Michael Bailey, the Flood tribunal is no nearer resolving the issues at the centre of its inquiries.

How much were JMSE's north Dublin lands worth, how big was the donation, how stuffed with cash the envelopes? The ever-widening tide of confusion and contradiction rises unchecked, as new versions of events wash up over older stories.

Mr Bailey's recall of events was again patchy, and his evidence often contradictory. His record-keeping seems virtually non-existent and the statement he furnished to the tribunal the day before it began is incomplete and incorrect in some respects.

READ MORE

Finally, we got to hear Mr Bailey's version of the famous meeting he set up between Mr James Gogarty of JMSE and the former minister for foreign affairs, Mr Ray Burke. There was little of substance that was new in the account, but the devil was in the detail.

Mr Bailey recalled that Mr Gogarty rang him in the week before the election in June 1989, to say Mr Joseph Murphy snr wanted to make a contribution to Fianna Fail. Who should he make the payment to?

The witness had earlier said he couldn't recall specifically any contacts with Mr Gogarty in this period. When this was put to him, he told Ms Des O'Neill SC, for the tribunal, that he remembered this particular call because he "couldn't believe" Mr Gogarty's request.

Mr Bailey ventured that Mr Burke was "the man in the area". Not JMSE's area, mind you, which was in a different constituency from Dublin north, but Mr Bailey's. "If you want to make a contribution to him, I will introduce you to him," he told Mr Gogarty.

Later, however, the witness said it was Mr Gogarty who asked him to effect an introduction to Mr Burke. "He asked me first and I introduced him to Mr Burke," he explained.

Mr O'Neill wondered if there was any conversation between Mr Gogarty and Mr Bailey about the latter's political leanings. "None," the witness replied.

Later, however, he denied saying they never discussed politics. He agreed that Mr Gogarty was "no fool".

Mr Bailey said he rang Mr Burke about Mr Gogarty's request and the politician said "bring him along". He made it clear that another man would be there from JMSE. "There could be no doubt about that."

This contradicts Mr Burke's version - he said he was "surprised" to meet Mr Gogarty, who was not known to him, at his door.

During the meeting, Mr Gogarty took two "reasonably bulky" envelopes out of a folder and gave them to Mr Burke. They were each the size of two "9 in by 2 in blocks".

Mr Bailey was aware what was happening. Having expected to witness a donation of say £1,000, he could see the envelopes contained substantial bundles of cash. "I said to myself, `is that real money'?"

The fact that both envelopes were the same size seems harder to square with the Burke and JMSE version - that £20,000 in cash and a £10,000 bank draft was paid over - than Mr Gogarty's allegation of two separate cash payments of £40,000 by JMSE and Mr Bailey.

Mr O'Neill asked him about his statement to the tribunal, furnished last January, which referred to just one envelope. Mr Bailey said this was a "typing error". He "always believed" there were two envelopes.

He said Mr Burke put the envelope(s) away, though later he said Mr Burke "left them on the sideboard".

Despite his surprise at the amount of the donation, he displayed no curiosity with Mr Gogarty on the return journey. "I said was he happy with that, and he said he was."

The day started with discussion of a seeming contradiction from the previous day, when Mr Bailey asserted that he never met county councillors or local authority officials, and later said he did. Mr Bailey explained that when he denied meeting local representatives this was only in relation to the Forest Road lands he bought from the Murphys. In fact, he knew most of the councillors, "if not them all".

But there was nothing wrong with lobbying - "it's the only avenue open in the democratic process" - and doesn't George Mitchell own "one of the biggest lobbying companies in America?"

Later, he was asked if he had lobbied Mr Burke about rezoning. He said he hadn't. Neither did he discuss the Murphy lands with Mr Burke in 1989. Mr Burke was not a council member at this time.

He showed surprising reticence about his links to Fianna Fail. Asked if he was a Fianna Fail supporter, he replied: "I'm a businessman".

He objected to the question, and added: "I may be a Fianna Fail man last week, and a different man this week".

Mr O'Neill pointed out that his statement says: "I was and continue to be a long-standing supporter of the Fianna Fail Party, for which I make no apology".

"Why make an issue of it now?" he asked.

"That's what I felt last January. It doesn't mean I feel it now," Mr Bailey replied.

Mr Bailey bought the 700 or so acres of Murphy lands in north Dublin for £2.3 million in November 1989, and later claimed a rebate of £400,000 for a property on the lands which was damaged by fire.

However, in August 1990, he offered to sell back to the Murphys a 50 per cent stake for £8 million. He explained yesterday the massive increase in value by saying there had been an "unbelievable pickup" in the demand for property over the nine months that intervened.

But in any case the price was set, "obviously not with a view to obtaining it. I threw out the figure of £8 million to see if I would catch a sprat. If I did, well and good, he may turn into a fish."