Ex-TD says Dunlop 'trousered' #175,000

Former Fine Gael TD and Senator Mr Liam Cosgrave has launched a blistering attack on lobbyist Mr Frank Dunlop, describing him as dishonest, greedy, corrupt and a corrupting influence.

Accusing Mr Dunlop of "trousering" £175,000 in a single transaction, Cllr Cosgrave challenged the lobbyist to repeat his allegations against councillors outside the tribunal so they could be challenged in a defamation case.

Mr Cosgrave made a surprise personal appearance at the tribunal yesterday, but was refused permission to make his statement personally. It was eventually read by his barrister Mr David Burke.

Mr Dunlop has alleged that Mr Cosgrave was paid at least £15,000 in return for his vote on rezoning motions, principally concerning lands at Carrickmines in south Dublin.

But Mr Cosgrave said he "refuted" Mr Dunlop's allegations in their entirety. "My vote was never bought by him or by anyone else. Anyone who knows me, knows that I have never lived or aspired towards an extravagant lifestyle. I always voted in accordance with my conscience and for the common good." He was guided in his votes by the fact that Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area lacked sufficient industrial serviced land in the 1990s.

Mr Cosgrave said he was "angry and disgusted" by what Mr Dunlop had alleged. He had considered him to be "a gentleman and a friend". Mr Dunlop's credibility was at issue, and this had been "hopelessly compromised", he said. He accused the former Fianna Fáil press officer of "trousering" £175,000 in 1991 to evade income tax and VAT.

Mr Dunlop had "contrived a sophisticated plan through a sham company staffed by an offshore director for the purpose of hiding this transaction and keeping out prying eyes".

Mr Cosgrave said that, unlike Mr Dunlop, he didn't have an offshore bank account, nor ever had.

"Mr Dunlop, pressman, public relations guru, a man with an appetite for soundbites, speaks of 'war-chests' brimming with cash bribes, and a 'Mr Insatiable', a councillor he alleges took £50,000 in bribes. But if that man is insatiable where stand the man who trousered £175,000 dishonestly in one transaction."

The allegations against him were stark and bare in detail. "I would challenge anybody to rebut an unspecified allegation that they received cash in an unspecified place at an unspecified time on an unspecified date 10 years ago."

The tribunal didn't appear to have made any effort to force Mr Dunlop to give precise details as to the time, place or mode of these payments, he said. He quoted from tribunal correspondence which indicates that the tribunal has not discovered a link between Mr Dunlop's financial records and the payments he allegedly made to Mr Cosgrave in relation to the Carrickmines lands.

"Now that is a detail. That is firm. That is real, it is not vague. It is a fact. How did it come about that this detail was omitted from the tribunal's opening statement? It beggars belief."

He was "deeply disturbed and upset" that as a result of Mr Gallagher's opening statement, the media had "swallowed Mr Dunlop's allegations hook, line and sinker". Mr Cosgrave complained that he had been given less than 24 hours' notice of his right to make a replying statement to the lengthy opening statement delivered by tribunal counsel Mr John Gallagher SC over the past week. In contrast, Mr Gallagher was told "a long time ago" when he would have to have his address ready. The running order of the tribunal made no mention of his right to make any address. "I cannot understand this omission. I await an explanation," he said.

All he had been given was "an A4 sheet" setting out Mr Dunlop's view of the "culture of the times", including payments allegedly made on "understanding, nods and winks". Mr Justice Flood said the tribunal noted Mr Cosgrave's remarks.

He pointed out that Mr Gallagher had merely outlined the evidence that had come before the tribunal, and this could be contested.

This evidence had been fully furnished to Mr Cosgrave. The tribunal would have to hear all the evidence before reaching any decisions. Mr Gallagher said the tribunal had written to Mr Cosgrave's solicitors over a week ago offering them the opportunity to reply to the opening statement.