Gogarty due to make new claims on payments today

Mr James Gogarty is expected to make further allegations about payments to Dublin planning officials and local politicians when the planning tribunal resumes in Dublin Castle this morning.

The building company executive is likely to concentrate on a payment he alleges was made to the then assistant Dublin city and county manager, Mr George Redmond, in the late 1980s.

He may also name the six Dublin county councillors he says the developer Mr Michael Bailey mentioned as being willing to help rezone lands owned by Mr Gogarty's employer, Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering.

Yesterday, Mr Gogarty provided a dramatic reconstruction of his meeting with the former minister for foreign affairs, Mr Ray Burke, in June 1989, at which he alleges Mr Burke received payments totalling £80,000.

Mr Burke, who has not yet attended the tribunal, acknowledges receiving £30,000. Mr Gogarty's account of his meeting with Mr Burke differed from that given by the former minister to the Dail in 1997 in almost every respect.

Also at today's hearing Mr Justice Flood and lawyers for JMSE and Mr Bailey are likely to clash over rules the tribunal chairman has imposed for cross-examining Mr Gogarty. Mr Justice Flood says Mr Bailey and others who have not furnished statements in reply to Mr Gogarty's allegations will not be allowed to cross-examine him until they give their own evidence.

In his evidence, Mr Gogarty quoted Mr Bailey as saying he could "procure" a majority in Dublin County Council to get over 700 acres of land in north Dublin rezoned. This would be done through the help of politicians or councillors who could be "influenced" by Mr Burke.

Mr Bailey said there were "five or six" councillors who could organise or maximise the votes, Mr Gogarty stated. Mr Bailey was also in a position to "cross the political divide" and could rely on "close liaison" with people in the county council.

Mr Bailey proposed that he himself be given a 50 per cent share in the lands in return, the witness said. Mr Joseph Murphy jnr of JMSE "went along with this". Mr Gogarty said he went with Mr Murphy jnr and Mr Bailey to Mr Burke's house in early June 1989. He put an envelope containing £40,000 - £30,000 in cash and a £10,000 cheque made out to cash - on the table. Mr Bailey put an envelope on the table. Mr Gogarty said it was a "logical assumption" following the agreement they had reached that this contained £40,000.

Mr Murphy jnr denies he attended the meeting. Mr Bailey said he gave no money to Mr Burke.

Before the meeting, Mr Gogarty asked: "Will we get a receipt for this money?" Mr Bailey's response was: "Will we fuck!"

During the meeting, he expressed his anxiety about making a substantial payment against an "open-ended commitment" but was assured by Mr Burke that "Mr Murphy and Mr Bailey were well aware of how he had honoured his commitments in the past".

He also alleged that Mr Redmond sought £25,000 in compensation for not being taken on by JMSE as a consultant when he retired.

Tribunal reports: pages 6 and 7; Geraldine Kennedy analysis: page 7; Vincent Browne: page 16