Mahon Tribunal: North Dublin TD Mr G.V. Wright tried to mislead the tribunal and a Fianna Fáil inquiry by conspiring with Mr Frank Dunlop to give false evidence, Mr Dunlop has alleged. According to Mr Dunlop, the two men agreed to describe bribes paid to the politician as political contributions.
They decided this at a meeting which took place shortly before Mr Dunlop gave evidence to the tribunal in May 2000.
Mr Wright agrees that the meeting took place but says the reason for it was to "corroborate" with Mr Dunlop the amounts of the political donations he had received.
He deemed this "appropriate and necessary" for the accuracy of the statement he was then preparing for the tribunal. He had no written records and he also had to appear before a Fianna Fáil inquiry into payments to politicians in May 2000.
Mr Dunlop said in evidence yesterday that Mr Wright had called him one day at his office and asked to see him urgently. They met shortly after in the bar of the Merrion Hotel, which was near Leinster House.
He got the "distinct impression" that Mr Wright had not told the tribunal about a £5,000 payment he received in 1992.
Mr Dunlop told the politician he would inform the tribunal about this cash payment. He said Mr Wright "to his chagrin" agreed that he had received this payment.
The politician then asked about other payments he received in 1991 and 1993 and the two agreed these would be described as legitimate political donations.
Asked if this was a conspiracy, Mr Dunlop said he had "no doubt" about it, from his involvement.
It was an attempt to mislead the tribunal. Mr Wright was also attempting to mislead the Fianna Fáil inquiry by referring incorrectly to these as political donations.
Mr Dunlop agreed with Ms Patricia Dillon SC, for the tribunal, that when making a bona fide political donation, he did this by cheque from Frank Dunlop & Associates, accompanied by a note. For example, he had made a bona fide political contribution of £1,000 to Fine Gael's Sean Barrett in 1992, and this cheque had been acknowledged.
Cash payments were not bona fide. They were given in return for ongoing support for a number of projects.
An example was the £5,000 payment he made to Mr G.V. Wright in 1992; this was "very important" in relation to the issue of Quarryvale.
Ms Dillon pointed out that Mr Wright would dispute this when he came to give evidence.
Earlier, Mr Dunlop described the contributions he made to politicians during elections as "convenient smokescreens" behind which they could hide.
The convenience of elections provided a mechanism that was "mutually beneficial" to him and the councillors.
Money was given in return for ongoing support for specific items that had come up at the council or which would be coming up.
But for the establishment of the tribunal, why would he not continue the practice of paying cash to councillors, Mr Dunlop asked.
The only reason for doing so was "in the context of" the development plan [during which rezoning motions were heard].
Mr Dunlop said that, at election times, he would contribute unsolicited small payments to politicians in order to avoid the "avalanche" of requests that normally came in at this time.
These were "pre-emptive strikes" to avoid "the phone hopping off the desk".
