A total of £25,000 was paid to nine county councillors in two separate attempts to rezone land at Carrickmines during the 1990s, Mr Frank Dunlop has told the tribunal.
Some £15,000 was paid to nine councillors to rezone the land owned by Paisley Park in 1992, according to Mr Dunlop. A further £10,000 was paid to two of these councillors during a second rezoning attempt when ownership had passed to Jackson Way in 1997.
In a statement filed with the tribunal in October 2000, Mr Dunlop outlined his relations with politicians and the payments he made.
Mr Dunlop said that a "system" was in operation whereby a "nexus" of county councillors offered their support by signing or supporting a rezoning motion in return for cash payments.
He did not invent the system, which existed before he became involved in the area. He was "confronted" by the system, which was the only way certain developments could take place in Co Dublin.
The system persisted after the break-up of Dublin County Council into three separate regional councils (in 1994).
Mr Dunlop marked with an asterisk cases where he was given money by land-owners or developers in the full knowledge that payments would have to be made to county councillors in order to achieve support for rezoning motions. Jackson Way and Paisley Park entries were marked with an asterisk.
Many of the payments were made when elections were in the offing, he said. However, the fact of an upcoming election was a "helpful consideration" that allowed him to pay money under the guise of making election contributions.
The first attempt to rezone the Carrickmines land, then owned by Paisley Park, was defeated by two votes in 1992. Two years later Dublin County Council was split up and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council assumed responsibility for the area in which the land was situated.
In 1997, Mr Dunlop said, he reached a new arrangement with Mr James Kennedy. No more money would be paid, but if the land was successfully rezoned, he would get a success fee of £250,000.
This was later translated into a success fee of one commercial acre of the land.
Mr Dunlop said that he paid Cllrs Liam Cosgrave and Tony Fox £5,000 each in 1997 in circumstances that were specifically referable to the rezoning of the land. This money was asked for by the councillors. His understanding was that Mr Liam Lawlor had retained an interest in Jackson Way, which had taken over from Paisley Park as the owner of the land.
Mr Dunlop listed the payments he made to councillors in connection with the attempt to have the Paisley Park lands rezoned in 1992.
These were: £1,000 each to Mr Seán Gilbride, Mr Jack Larkin and Mr Cyril Gallagher, all Fianna Fáil; £3,000 to Mr Tom Hand (FG) and Senator Don Lydon (FF), both of whom signed the rezoning motion; £2,000 to Mr Tony Fox (FF), Mr Liam Cosgrave (FG) and Mr Colm McGrath (FF, now Independent). Part of a sum of £5,000 paid to Cllr John O'Halloran (Ind) related to his support for Paisley Park, he said.
Mr Dunlop said that he had a good personal relationship with Cllr Gallagher and had no hesitation in giving him £1,000. The money was paid either in Conways pub or the Grand Hotel in Malahide.
Senator Lydon and Cllr Cosgrave were paid following a request from each in respect of support already given or promised.
In addition to the £2,000 he received in 1992, Cllr Cosgrave was also paid £5,000 in the same year, according to Mr Dunlop. This was paid over "in a large envelope" prior to a funeral on Newtownpark Avenue.
Cllr Cosgrave had asked for support, saying he was facing a tough campaign because of internal differences in Fine Gael in the area. Mr Cosgrave also received £1,000 in 1993 during the Seanad election campaign and £2,000 in cash at this time.
As well as the £5,000 he received in 1992, Cllr O'Halloran received £2,500 when he stood as an independent in a by-election in 1996.
"Mr O'Halloran complained to me that he was getting nothing and others were coining it," Mr Dunlop said.
He was approached by Cllrs Olivia Mitchell and Therese Ridge, who said they wanted to support the rezoning motion but wanted an assurance that Mr Lawlor was not involved.
Mr Dunlop told them he was dealing with a solicitor only and afterwards they both voted for the motion (Ms Mitchell actually voted against.)
