Dunlop claims plot with Wright to mislead inquiry

Fianna Fáil TD Mr GV Wright was involved in a "conspiracy" with lobbyist Mr Frank Dunlop to deceive the Planning Tribunal, it was claimed today.

The lobbyist claimed this morning that he met the Dublin North TD in the Merrion Hotel in Dublin city centre in MAy 2000, shortly after he began giving evidence to the tribunal. Mr Dunlop said Mr Wright appeared "somewhat agitated" at the evidence that might emerge.

He said they discussed three cash payments totalling £10,000 he had made to the politician during the 1990s. These included £2,000 for the local election in 1991, £5,000 for the November 1992 general election and o £3,000 at the time of the Senate election in January 1993.

Mr Dunlop told the Mahon tribunal this morning both men "understood the true nature of the payments".

The two men agreed at this meeting, which took place standing at the bar of the exclusive hotel, that Mr Dunlop would testify that all three payments were legitimate contributions towards election expenses. Mr Wright later gave the Fianna Fáil inquiry in 2000 the same explanation.

However, Mr Dunlop has since told the tribunal they were "improper payments". He claims they were to secure Mr Wright's ongoing support for a number of planning issues before Dublin County Council. The £5,000 in particular related to Quarryvale, he said.

Mr Wright denies the allegations. He agrees the Merrion Hotel meeting took place but insisted it was merely met to get the facts straight on the timing of what he says were the various legitimate contributions.

Mr Martin Kennedy, representing Mr Wright, said this afternoon his client will "emphatically deny" any improper payments from Mr Dunlop when he gives evidence to the tribunal.

In particular, he will deny being given £2,000 cash wrapped in newspaper in the Dail vistior's bar in early 1993. Mr Dunlop claims he made this payment to secure Mr Wright's support for the rezoning of the Mahony and Fox lands in north Dublin.

Mr Kennedy said the Merrion Hotel meeting was intended to clear up some questions Mr Wright had, "no more and no less".

Mr Dunlop earlier agreed with a suggestion by Ms Patricia Dillon SC, for the tribunal, that he used various local, Dáil and Senate election campaigns as "convenient smokescreens" to hide illicit payments to politicians in exchange for their votes on planning issues.

He said election expenses provided an apparently "bona fide" reason for payments. "The fact of the matter is that all these monies are given for ongoing support" for planning motions before the county council, Mr Dunlop said.

Mr Dunlop was at pains to point out that not all payments were improper. He often gave money to candidates, he said, and would often pre-empt councillors once elections were called by sending out cheques, "to avoid the phone hopping off the desk".

All truly legitimate donations were made by cheques, while improper contributions were in the form of cash, the tribunal was told.

However, he said Mr Wright was in "no doubt" as to his method of currying favour for planning motions, and it was implicit that any payments to the politician were reliant on his continued support.