Cooper-Flynn says she never met man making policy claim

Ms Beverley Cooper-Flynn told the High Court it was her belief she had never met retired farmer, Mr James Howard, who has claimed the TD sold him an offshore investment policy and encouraged him not to avail of the 1993 Government tax amnesty.

Asked by Mr Kevin Feeney SC whether that was her belief or was she stating that as a fact, Ms Cooper-Flynn said those were "one and the same". There was "no doubt in my mind that I never met Mr Howard and that is my firm belief".

Mr Feeney, continuing his cross-examination yesterday, said Mr Howard's daughter Marina would say she met Ms Cooper-Flynn in 1990 and they had discussed the TD's engagement and that her fiance was then working in France. Ms Cooper-Flynn agreed she became engaged in March 1990 and had married in January 1991. Her fiance was then working in England.

Mr Feeney suggested not many people would have known of the engagement, saying that many Irish people are engaged for years "or decades". The TD said many people who knew her would have been aware. There was newspaper coverage of her marriage to an Englishman in January 1991. Mr Feeney suggested the most rational explanation for Ms Howard's assertions was that she had met Ms Cooper-Flynn and had a conversation with her. The TD said she did not recall that happening. Ms Cooper-Flynn said she was told by NIB that Ms Patricia Roche had sold a CMI personal portfolio policy to Mr Howard. She had never asked Ms Roche about this.

She had hoped Ms Roche would come forward and say she had sold the policy and was upset Ms Roche had not voluntarily done so. She said there were "personal circumstances" for Ms Roche. "I did not want to be bothering her."

She denied counsel's suggestion that she had not contacted Ms Roche because Ms Roche would not confirm what Ms Cooper-Flynn wished the position to be.

The TD said she had "no fear of that". She understood Ms Roche had spoken with NIB people and they were satisfied she had sold the policy.

Ms Cooper-Flynn said she did not believe she had been to Mr Howard's farm and met his daughter. Counsel further suggested the witness met Mr Howard in a bank on May 13th, 1993, and that she was in a hurry and got him to sign documents rapidly and had not properly explained those. She denied this and further denied that she had said other details would be filled in later.

Mr Feeney suggested Mr Howard had contacted her afterwards and was looking to reconsider in light of the tax amnesty and that Ms Cooper-Flynn had said, "Don't worry, why give the Government 15 per cent?" Counsel said Ms Cooper-Flynn had said: "We don't do that and we're not doing that", and then put the phone down. Ms Cooper-Flynn said that was "completely untrue".

Earlier, she said she never said there was a link between the call from Mr Bird, a letter from RTE she read the next morning, June 19th, 1998, and an Irish Independent article published that same day which reported she was facing questions about offshore investments and about what advice she gave to people who invested in the CMI scheme.

She could not recall being contacted by journalist Mr Sam Smyth on the night of June 18th and saying she had no comment to make in connection with what was stated in relation to her in his article the following day. She did not recall telling Mr Bird everything regarding the CMI scheme was "above board". When Mr Feeney suggested her recollection that Mr Bird became irate during a phone conversation with her was incorrect, she said that was exactly what had happened.

After Mr Bird refused to tell her who was making anonymous allegations about her, she had told Mr Bird she would not accept a letter from him which contained the allegations.

She said Mr Bird said RTE would broadcast the matter anyway. Mr Feeney suggested that was not the case. Ms Cooper-Flynn said it was and, when Mr Bird had said that, she had said he could do what he had to do and she would do what she had to.

Mr Feeney said the fact Mr Bird drove to her hotel in Cavan with the letter showed he wanted her to be able to give her version of events. She disagreed. The hearing continues today.