Late councillor demanded #0.25m - Dunlop

The former government press secretary, Mr Frank Dunlop, said the late Fine Gael county councillor, Tom Hand, demanded £250,000 in return for his support for a major development in Dublin in 1992.

Cllr Hand persisted with his demand for the money to be transferred to an offshore bank even when the promoter of the development threatened to go to his party leader, Mr Dunlop told the tribunal yesterday.

According to Mr Dunlop, Cllr Hand said of the Fine Gael leader, Mr John Bruton: "He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He does not need money. I deserve it".

Although it was not named at the tribunal, the development in question was the giant Quarryvale shopping centre in west Dublin, which was built by Mr Owen O'Callaghan.

Mr Dunlop told the tribunal yesterday that he retained bank details furnished by Cllr Hand when he made the demand.

This was a letter from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia with Cllr Hand's name and home address and a handwritten account number on it.

He said he showed this letter to one other person before giving evidence to the tribunal in 2000 and he discussed Mr Hand's demand with this person and others.

However, Cllr Hand's family say there was no account in Cllr Hand's name with the Australian bank. Mr Cormac Ó Dulachain SC, for the Hand family, said inquiries were still being made with Cllr Hand's son, John, who lives in Australia. The family had no recollection of Mr Dunlop calling to the house in Dundrum, as he had claimed.

Mr Ó Dulachain claimed the document was Mr Dunlop's "insurance policy" and a "deflection document". He accused Mr Dunlop of "dining out" on the story.

Mr Dunlop said other people had their suspicions about Cllr Hand. "They said they were very worried about what Tom Hand was up to." Mr Hand had acknowledged his demand to another person when he was confronted about it, he said. This occurred after Mr Dunlop had contacted his client, who became irate when he heard about Mr Hand's demand.

The three men met and there was "an irate exchange of views" between the developer and Cllr Hand. The developer expressed his amazement "in straightforward language" and told the politician that if he did not desist in his demand, he would refer the matter to his party leader (Mr Bruton).

Cllr Hand responded by advising the developer to "never mind" the party leader, and insisted he was entitled to the money because of the nature of the development. The meeting then ended.

Cllr Hand's response when told his behaviour had been reported to Mr Bruton was to say it was irrelevant and none of his business.

Mr Bruton denies he was contacted about Cllr Hand as Mr Dunlop has claimed.

Mr Dunlop said this encounter did not stop Cllr Hand from making further requests for money. He consistently supported various developments. He gave the councillor a total of £30,000 to £40,000, the tribunal heard.

Asked whether the £3,000 he says he gave to Cllr Hand for the rezoning of the Paisley Park land in Carrickmines was the first such payment, he said it was not. He believed the payment was the fifth he had made to Cllr Hand.

Mr Ó Dulachain said Mr Dunlop's allegation about Cllr Hand had come as a surprise and had caused hurt in the politician's family.

Asked why he had not furnished a statement when first contacted by the tribunal, Mr Dunlop said he believed then that nobody would admit to their involvement in corrupt acts. To date, he was the only person who had done so.

Counsel said it was convenient for Mr Dunlop that his client was deceased.

Mr Dunlop said he absolutely rejected this. "People die, but that does not take from the reality of the relationship we had." Cllr Hand was a "willing facilitator" of the system he operated. "Tom was continually looking for money." Counsel said it was also convenient that Mr Dunlop had picked a Fine Gael figure as the only politician he identified when he first gave evidence to the tribunal in 2000.

He accused him of "maliciously plucking the politician's name out of the ether for some nefarious purpose".

The witness rejected this assertion, saying he was still annoyed that the information had leaked out.