Dunlop admits to being 'corrupting influence' on planning

Mr Frank Dunlop has accepted a claim by former Fine Gael TD and Senator Mr Liam Cosgrave that he was a "corrupting influence" on Dublin planning matters in the 1990s.

Mr Cosgrave had alleged, in a statement read by his solicitor to the Flood tribunal last month, that Mr Dunlop was dishonest, greedy and a corrupting influence. He was "angry and disgusted" about what Mr Dunlop had said about him, and accused the lobbyist of "trousering" £175,000 in a single property transaction.

Mr Cosgrave: "emphatically denies" receiving any improper payment

This afternoon, when asked by Mr John Gallagher, SC for the tribunal, his reaction to the claims, Mr Dunlop said: "What is one expected to say?"

He conceded it was obvious, by the evidence he had given to the tribunal, that he was involved in bribing councillors for their votes.

"I accept, however difficult personally and morally it is for me to do so, I was involved in corrupt practices," he added. "But corruption, by its very nature...takes two."

Mr Cosgrave was often one of those two, he claimed, and he was not prepared to retract or deny any of his allegations against the politician who said he had formerly regarded him as a friend.

Mr Dunlop has alleged he paid Mr Cosgrave at least £15,000 to "purchase" his vote on various rezoning motions.

This morning, the tribunal heard allegations that Mr Cosgrave asked Mr Dunlop for £2,000 to secure his support for a rezoning motion before Dublin County Council in 1992.

Mr Dunlop claimed that he had a series of meetings with councillors before the motion to rezone 108 acres of land owned by Paisley Park in Carrickmines Valley. He had been given £25,000 by businessman Mr James Kennedy to bribe councillors to ensure the vote was passed, he claimed.

He said Mr Cosgrave was apprehensive about voting for the development, as the land and the route of the South Eastern motorway were particularly contentious issues in his constituency. However, Mr Cosgrave agreed on condition he was paid £2,000. Mr Cosgrave, who the record shows voted in favour of the motion, denies receiving improper payments.

Mr Dunlop, under examination from Mr John Gallagher SC for the tribunal, conceded that he could not remember the exact details of the payment, but was certain it had taken place as Mr Cosgrave had acknowledged it during a discussion later that year in relation to another planning matter. He could not remember the exact details "because there was so much money being dispersed at the time to so many people".

Mr Dunlop said he was "being careful not to put words into other people's mouths", but he was certain Mr Cosgrave raised the issue of money first at a meeting in May 1992.

"I was in no doubt, and he was in no doubt, as to what was being discussed." However, before agreeing to support the motion, Mr Cosgrave "wanted to be sure that success was at least possible, if not guaranteed", Mr Dunlop said.

After the voted was defeated by 26 votes to 24 on June 12th, a number of councillors who had supported it met Mr Dunlop in Conway's Pub around the corner from the Dublin County Council offices. "We consoled one another," Mr Dunlop said.