MR Ben Dunne was the only businessman he had dinner with in the company of his wife as part of his fund raising efforts, Mr Alan Dukes told the tribunal. He said that as Fine Gael leader he had contacted about 200 businessmen for this purpose.
Mr Dukes also told Mr Michael Collins SC, for the tribunal, he had met representatives of Dunnes Stores in the mid 1980s to discuss possible legislative changes which would reduce the organisation's tax liability. No such changes were ever introduced by him, he said.
Mr Collins asked him how many businessman he had dinner with as part of his fundraising. Mr Dukes said he might have met 10 or a dozen either for lunch or in their offices, and would have met two or three, at most, for dinner. The dinner with Mr Dunne was the only one where he was accompanied by his wife.
Asked what was it about Mr Dunne that put him on such a shortlist, he said he had been contacted by a party colleague, Mr John Mulholland, in Galway, who had said Mr Dunne might be prepared to donate to the party, and who suggested he contact him.
He met Mr Dunne and his wife in one of the smaller rooms in Barberstown Castle. The dinner lasted from about 8.30 to 11.30, and most of the discussion was about Fine Gael policy.
Mr Dunne knew he was seeking money for the party because he had been one of the businessmen who had received a letter from Mr Dukes.
Mr Collins asked him if there was not going to be a public perception that if the party leader sat down with a businessman seeking funds it amounted to a prostitution of political policy. Mr Dukes said this was erroneous. "You can't run a political party without money".
Asked how the figure of £30,000, which Mr Dunne agreed to give to Fine Gael each year for three years, was arrived at, Mr Dukes said he had suggested it. "Given the debts of the party, I wanted as much security in its future funding as I could."
The cheque was handed over that night, when he and Mr Dunne left the room for privacy. It was dated October 14th, which was the next day. He agreed this was one of the most significant contributions to the party.
Mr Dukes refused to accept that that type of fundraising might compromise him in terms of his political judgment. "I have no experience that anyone from whom I received a contribution sought any favour."
Mr Collins suggested it was a little "unreal" to suppose that a person making such a contribution would not have more access to him than the voter in the street.
"It is unreal," replied Mr Dukes. "The voter has better access than most businessmen. I am in the constituency every Saturday. My phone number is in the book."
"Is there a level of contribution at which the spectre of compromise starts to raise its head?" Mr Dukes referred to two instances when he returned contributions. One related to a constituent with a problem who had invited him for a drink and then offered him a roll of banknotes. The other concerned a woman whom he had helped with a planning matter, and who sent him a cheque for £200. Both were returned.
There was no question of any special consideration or access as far as Mr Dunne was concerned, he said.
Earlier, Mr Dukes told Mr Collins of a meeting with representatives of Dunnes Stores in the mid 1980s, when he was Minister for Finance. It was shortly after the death of Mr Dunne senior.
The Dunnes operation was a family trust, and it could not be split up without incurring a substantial tax liability. This was an obstacle to certain paths it might wish to pursue. Mr Dukes told them he did not see any way to solve their problem within the law as it stood.
Referring to changing the legislation, he said: "I informed them I did not see any way I could change the provision without implications elsewhere."
He said it was not unusual for businessmen and representatives of a wide range of organisations to make representations to the Minister for Finance.
Mr Collins suggested there was a difference between representatives of a sector of the economy seeing him and an individual company seeking to amend legislation for its own benefit. Mr Dukes said individuals made representations about the law, as did organisations and companies.
He said no suggestion had been made by Mr Dunne that there might be a contribution if he solved the problem. "If there was, the conversation would have been terminated." Nor was there any suggestion that there might be contributions in the future if there were changes in the tax law. "If there had been, I would have reacted very frostily."