Mr Frank Dunlop yesterday admitted making payments of almost £50,000 to 14 politicians in 1992.
He said that some of the payments were solicited to pay for election expenses. He made others on the basis that they would yield favourable votes on rezoning matters in Dublin County Council, he told the Flood tribunal.
The money was handed over in either cash or cheque form in a variety of locations - from politicians' homes to public houses and, in one instance, outside a church prior to a funeral.
The payments were numbered 17 to 30 by the tribunal, continuing a sequence begun last month when Mr Dunlop revealed he had made 16 payments totalling £112,000 to members of Dublin County Council in 1991.
Number 17 was a payment of £1,400 to a politician, not included on the 1991 list, who requested assistance from Mr Dunlop. It was made in the form of a cheque from Frank Dunlop & Associates and related to the 1992 general election.
Number 18 was a £5,000 payment in cash to a politician on the 1991 list. Mr Dunlop explained that he was asked by a client whether a contribution should be made to this politician. Mr Dunlop said he agreed a payment should be made, notwithstanding reservations he had about the individual.
Mr Dunlop said the client handed an envelope to the politician at the same time as Mr Dunlop's payment was handed over. Mr Dunlop said he had a suspicion that a further £5,000 was in the client's envelope in the form of a cheque, although he had no proof of this.
Number 19 was a payment of £500 in cash to a candidate in the 1992 general election who requested funds. Asked where he made the payment, Mr Dunlop said he could not recall - the politician in question, he said, "was a very ubiquitous individual".
Number 20 was a payment of £750 made either by cheque or cash. Mr Dunlop said he had only a vague recollection of the payment. The individual concerned could confirm it.
Number 21 was a payment of £500 in cash. Mr Dunlop said it was intimated to him by a colleague of the recipient that, if it was at all possible, assistance would be welcome. Mr Dunlop confirmed the colleague was, like the recipient, on Dublin County Council.
Number 22 was a payment of £2,000 in cash to a politician who also featured on the 1991 list. Mr Dunlop said it was difficult to recall exact figures because "there was quite a movement of cash" and the figure may well have been larger than £2,000.
Mr Dunlop said he was unaware at the time that the individual had received sums from other people but he subsequently learned from a journalist that he had. He said the money was paid in the environs of Dublin County Council - "Conway's or the car park".
Asked how the sum was decided, Mr Dunlop said he imagined the person involved was "fairly insatiable". He regularly made requests to him for payments, and he had anecdotal evidence that requests were made to others.
Number 23 was a £3,000 cash payment, subsequently returned to Mr Dunlop in the form of a cheque. Mr Dunlop said he could not recall whether the money was reimbursed by the person or the person's party as he did not keep a photocopy of the cheque. He said the original cash payment was handed over at the person's house within days of the November 1992 general election being called. "It was very readily accepted," said Mr Dunlop. However, "it wasn't specifically asked for." Within three weeks of the election and the new government being formed, Mr Dunlop received a telephone call from the individual who said he had discussed the payment with party officials and they felt it was inappropriate and decided to return the money.
Number 24 was a £2,500 cash payment to an individual who had been an unsuccessful election candidate on a number of occasions. Notwithstanding the fact that he was "singularly unhelpful" in regard to planning matters, "I made a decision that it might bear some fruit if I made that contribution bearing in mind there was a matter coming up in December."
Mr Dunlop said he had anecdotal evidence that the politician asked for a substantial sum from a party involved.
Number 25 was a £25,000 payment in cash to a politician on demand. Mr Dunlop said the person probably sought more than the sum in question.
Number 26 was a payment of at least £500 and possibly £1,000 to an individual who was "relatively important" regarding the geography of a rezoning case, said Mr Dunlop. The politician had indicated he would welcome support and Mr Dunlop agreed to do so, notwithstanding that the recipient had been a proponent of another scheme.
Number 27 was a £500 cash payment to a person with whom Mr Dunlop had a long association. No direct request was made. Rather, Mr Dunlop visited him at his home and indicated he was willing to support him. The sum was paid and a subsequent payment was made, relevant to the 1993 Seanad elections.
Mr Dunlop said the politician was concerned to see something take place in the north Clondalkin area. Mr Dunlop had provided assistance to him in terms of publicity.
Number 28 was a £1,000 cheque which had not been requested by the recipient.
Number 29 was a payment of at least £1,000, and possibly £2,000, in cash. Mr Dunlop said he could not recall the details exactly but he had received a letter from the recipient referring to "a very generous contribution".
Number 30 was a payment of £5,000 in cash to a councillor whom Mr Dunlop described as a "helpful figure" on planning matters. The payment was "made in an envelope, the colour of which escapes me, outside a certain church in a certain part of Dublin prior to a funeral".
Mr Dunlop said he could not recall whether that particular sum was requested but "it was indicated it would be helpful if I was generous". Asked whether he meant helpful in the sense of supporting rezoning, Mr Dunlop said "yes".
The list of 14 payments submitted in evidence yesterday had been prepared by Mr Dunlop prior to the tribunal sitting.
On reading the prepared list, however, counsel for the tribunal, Mr Patrick Hanratty SC, said he was unsure of the identity of some of the people involved and asked Mr Dunlop to fill in more details rather than just give initials. As Mr Dunlop did this, he asked whether the tribunal wanted him to fill in party affiliations and telephone numbers as well.
Counsel for Mr Dunlop, Mr Colm Allen SC, asked for copies of the names as they were being written by his client. The chairman of the tribunal, Mr Justice Flood, agreed to the request but stressed they were not for circulation.
Mr Allen said the previous list of 1991 payments had been dealt with confidentially.
