Brian Dobson interview with Bertie Ahern, full text

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

A full text of Brian Dobson’s RTÉ interview with Taoiseach Bertie Ahern.

RTÉ’s Brian Dobson: Taoiseach, before we come to the detail in relation to this and you’ve acknowledged that payments were made from friends and associates in the late 1993, can you explain to us first of all the context in which this occurred, the background to this exercise?

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern: Eh, yes, over the, eh, last number of years, a number of false allegations, half truths, lies were made against me, eh, to both the tribunals, and there have been so many of them I won’t detail them all, but the main ones, that I took a bribe of £50,000 in a car park in the Burlington Hotel from Starry O’Brien which was meant to come from Owen O’Callaghan in the all-Ireland final day of 1989, the second one was that I took a bribe from Owen O’Callaghan of 30,000 in 1992; that I had bank accounts the Netherlands, Antilles, Liechtenstein, Jersey, England; that I had 15 million in an offshore account; that I had received 30,000 and a payment of 50,000 from Owen O’Callaghan to another politician some time in 1994.

Eh, that I fixed a designation for Golden Island in Athlone for Owen O’Callaghan, eh, that I had a bank account in Mauritius and, eh, they produced forged documents to show that I had this bank account.

Now these allegations were made to both, eh, tribunals. So the tribunals rightly under their terms of reference and had no option, and naturally I was totally obliged and assisted them to produce evidence that these allegations and there were others too.

So I had to give full discovery of all my records, my bank accounts, my wife’s bank accounts, bank accounts I had in my children’s names, em, you know, the Fianna Fáil bank accounts associated with my constituency, so I had to give them all those records.

Dobson : Included in that was the records relating to your separation from your wife in 1993.

Ahern : Yes, I, I had given, obviously I had given all of the records that, that related to it, I hadn’t given the court documents, but I’d given all the details of monies that were transferred between us and between the children.

Dobson : And it was the leak of those documents and that information last week that has given rise to the current controversy and you’ve confirmed that most of the details in that original Irish Times story were correct.

Ahern : Yes, I had given all the documents in confidence to the tribunals. Over the years I’ve dealt with tribunals for nine years on all kinds of issues, some party and some personal, but these were personal ones. I had given all the documents to show that none of these allegations, eh, were correct. So my life wasn’t being investigated, my marriage wasn’t being investigated, what I gave to the children wasn’t being investigated. It was – the planning tribunals are about corruption, eh, about people doing wrongdoing and I just wanted to clear my name to show that and it was right that I would have to give all these details. And I did give them.

Dobson : And the situation now is that some of those details are in the public domain. Are you prepared now this evening to clarify to the Irish people exactly what was involved and what led to this collection on your behalf in 1993?

Ahern : Eh, I am Brian, because, em, you know I’ve obviously taken advice over the last few days and in the normal course of events any information that I have given or that others have been asked to give were given always for the strict rider that it’s all confidential. Eh, but the effect that it leaked out, I am left with no alternative and my legal advisers have told me, eh, that I have asked them, they’ve thought about this for a few days, that’s why I had to wait and, em, they say that I’m entitled to protect myself.

Dobson : Why was the money raised then for you?

Ahern : The money was raised, eh, by close friends, people who were close to me for most of my life. They are not political friends, they are personal friends and they are long-standing friends. And in Christmas of 1993, em, if I can go through, there are two issues here. The first one, Christmas week in 1993, my solicitor, the late Gerry Brennan, who had been a long friend of mine, he had asked friends of mine, unknown to me, and, eh, unsolicited by me, to make a contribution to help me because he knew of my financial state at the time.

Dobson : He was aware that there were demands of you financially as a result of your separation?

Ahern : Yes, he, he was my solicitor in my, he was my solicitor right through.

Dobson : What were the figures involved?

Ahern : Well what he, he raised, should I say first of all they offered, eh, they came to me a month earlier, my High Court case which had been dragged out, I separated in 1987 and I had been in the High Court a number of times in 1993 and it concluded in November 1993. Em, Gerry Brennan came to me and he said that, em, they wanted to raise a function for me. Em, 1,000 a head, 25-30 people. I said no, I wasn’t going to do that, that was personal [ indistinct].

Anyone does that it’s for politics, so I refused. So then unknown to me he went to personal friends of mine, Paddy Reilly, Des Richardson, Pádraig O’Connor, Jim Nugent, David McKenna, Fintan Gunne, who is deceased, Mick Collins, Charlie Chawke, all personal friends of mine. And they gave me 22,500 either Christmas Eve or Stephen’s Day in 1993.

Dobson : That was to settle, at that stage, your legal bills?

Ahern : It was, they, they knew, a good few of them knew that I had taken out a loan with AIB in O’Connell Street to settle my legal bills. I had taken out the loan so I actually used the loan to settle the bills. Em, I didn’t want to take the money, I took it on the agreement, it was Gerry Brennan and Des Richardson, I didn’t deal with them all, they gave me the 22,500 and I said that I would deal, take this as a debt of honour, that I would repay it in full, that I would pay interest on it. I know the tax law, I’m an accountant. And, em, that I would pay that back in, in full and at another date when I could.

Dobson : Now, this amount, this 22,000, was this evenly divided between this group, did they all contribute more or less the same?

Ahern : All but one paid 5,000 and one paid 2½. Em, eh, they had given me that, they were all friends and I was beholden to none of them or them to me for any political issues, they were people who were well known to be very close to me.

Dobson : This was a loan and you made it clear to them at that stage that that was the way you regarded it.

Ahern : I, I, would say I told them very clearly that I wouldn’t accept it on any other terms and that has always been the basis, and a loan with interest because I said Brian, that I wouldn’t be able to pay it back for a time but that I would pay it and pay it with interest. There was no written agreement they were friends.

Dobson : So there are no documents to support this?

Ahern : There are no documents, well, well, other than, well there is the documentation that all of these people have now given to the tribunal.

Dobson : And have you paid interest in the interim?

Ahern : I haven’t paid, em, the money because they refused to take it, I think they will now because they see the difficulty but I offered a number of times to repay it. I offered, some of them said take it when I retire from politics, others said they would put it into my constituency. I refused that and always had taken it that it was as a loan, that, that I would repay back.

Dobson : So as we speak, the loan, none of the money has been repaid and no interest has been paid.

Ahern : No, but, but the understanding, the first understanding still remains that it is a debt of honour, it’s a debt that I’ll pay the interest on, and they all accept that.

Dobson : Was that the extent of the money that was raised at that time?

Ahern : That was the extent of the money that was raised at that time. There were other people, can I say last week, the impression, just for correctness case, the impression given that this was four people and that it raised between £50 and £100,000, as you can see that was not the case and the person who was deemed to have paid most of this actually paid £2,500. Em, there were others that wanted to assist at the time and later on in 1994, four of them gave me £16,500. Em, they would have contributed at Christmas but they were good friends of mine and they were Joe Burke, em, Dermot Carew, Barry English and Paddy Reilly who’s a different Paddy Reilly, he’s known to my friends as Paddy Reilly the plasterer. He wouldn’t be known publicly.

Dobson : So the total figure now at this stage is £38,000?

Ahern : £38,000, that’s right.

Dobson : Again was that in the form of a gift or as a loan?

Ahern : No, that was clearly a loan, it was on the same basis and again they are long- standing friends. It was unsolicited. These people are friends of mine, people like Joe Burke was my neighbour of 35 years ago. They gave it on, on that basis. So all of this information I gave the first one obviously was taken somewhere, the second hasn’t come out but they were the two amounts.

Dobson : And again just to be clear, the second 16,000, again that’s a loan but no interest has been paid and none of that money has been repaid?

Ahern : That money has, has not been repaid.

Dobson : You regard that as a debt which you expect to discharge?

Ahern : It is a debt of honour that I have to discharge. And em, eh, I made this point, to be honest Brian, and I would not have been able to pay it until about 1999 or 2000 and, eh, a number of times since, Dermot Carew, who was the one who organised, again unsolicited by me, the second amount, they understand and I think all of them would say they, they were loans.

Dobson : Is that the extent of the payments?

Ahern : That’s the extent of the payments Brian, just, I just want to make another few points.

Dobson : Just to be clear, there were no subsequent payments in connection to these matters of separation or anything else in the period since then?

Ahern : No, no – can I just make two other points I think are important? I was not impoverished when I was going through the separation, it was a very dark period for me and very sad period for me. I didn’t, I had taken out a loan like anyone else would, but colleagues knew what the situation was. From 1987, when I separated from Miriam, until the end of 1993 was a long, protracted period that happens in family law cases. And, em, delays and delayed for one reason or another. Miriam was, I had no account in my own name in that period. Miriam had joint accounts and, em, I paid Miriam maintenance but also saved money during that period and I’d saved quite a substantial amount of money because it was from the time I was lord mayor in ’86 I’d saved in the order of 50,000. The trouble was that in the separation I agreed to provide 20,000 for my children to an educational account as part of the agreement that I made. I don’t like giving details of the children but for completeness, I did that. I also had to pay off other bills, so the money I’d saved was gone. So my friends knew that. I had no house, the house was gone so they decided to try and help me.

Dobson : That explains the 38,000, that’s the figure we are talking about here?

Ahern : That’s what it was, the only other thing, Brian, totally separate and nothing to do with this, but I don’t want anyone saying I didn’t give full picture. I did a function in Manchester with a business organisation, nothing to do with politics or whatever, I was talking about the Irish economy, I was explaining about Irish economy matters and I’d say there was about 25 people at that. The organisers of it, I spent about 4 hours with them, dinner, I did question and answers, and all the time from 1977 up to current periods I got 8,000 on that, which you know whether it was a political donation.

Dobson : This was a regular event?

Ahern : I’d actually done the event a number of times, but I only once got a contribution. So I think at all of the times in my personal accounts, I’ve gone through them and given my personal accounts, that is the only other payment, its nothing to do with this but it was a payment that was in my accounts and I did give that to the tribunal as well.

Dobson : At the time of this 38,000 that was raised for you in late 1993 and into 1994, you were minister for finance, perhaps the second most senior political position in the country. Did you have any qualms about taking this money from these individuals given the position that you occupied?

Ahern : Well I think probably I had every qualms, they wanted to run a function and I wouldn’t let them. They wanted to give me the money and I refused. But they were long-standing, close, political and personal friends of mine and mainly personal friends. And on the basis that I would pay back the money, it wasn’t big money either, quite frankly, and that they were under that understanding, now I had difficulty paying it back afterwards. I think the impression is that some of them are very wealthy, I mean some of them might be, some of them were probably wealthier then than they are now, quite frankly.

Dobson : But some of them were people in business, they had business interests, they were in position potentially to benefit from decisions you would make as minister for finance.

Ahern : Well, you know, all I can say on that, they didn’t and never did they ask me. Em, they were not people that ever tried to get me to do something. I might have appointed somebody but I appointed them because they were friends, em, not because of anything they had given me and you know, and I think they appreciate that these were debts of honour, they gave them to me. Em, ah, I suppose on hindsight back, I wasn’t to know then, em, that I would be Taoiseach that I would have more money, that my daughters would be far more self-sufficient, I didn’t know these things. Em, you know, so whether I should have took it or not, but I always seen them as loans. I didn’t see them as any risk other than friends at a time of need when they knew I was in difficulty, when they knew that where I was staying and how I was living was a source of conversation.

Dobson : Can I put to you on the other hand, Mr Justice Brian McCracken had to say just a couple of years later in 1997 and something with which you said you concurred? He said that it is quite unacceptable that a member of Dáil Éireann and in particular a cabinet minister should be supported in his personal lifestyle by gifts made to him personally and this is what you have to say in response to that. You said that Mr Justice McCracken, and I quote Bertie Ahern here, ‘stresses a point I have repeatedly emphasised that public representatives must not be under a personal financial obligation to anyone’. Now at the very least there’s an appearance there that you were under personal financial obligation to this group.

Ahern : Well, I, I don’t accept that, em, Brian one bit. The difference of talking about somebody taking millions and somebody taking 100s of 1000s, em, in exchange for contracts and other matters and taking what is a relatively small contributions, em, from friends who had a clear understanding they would be paid back. I do not equate those. Em, if I was to take several 100s of 1000s pounds or several million from people where I had no association with or, em, eh, eh, people that were totally business interests, that would be totally, totally wrong. Em, perhaps you could say in politics nobody should ever take anything from anyone, perhaps that . . .

Dobson : You would have to declare it now?

Ahern : Eh, eh, yeah, and I wouldn’t have had a difficulty quite frankly, em, declaring it, I, I’ve broken no law. I’ve broken no ethical code. I’ve broken no tax law. Eh, I’ve always paid my income tax, I paid capital gains tax but I’ve never had much in my life to pay and I paid my gift tax. I, I never, so I broke no ethical code and, em, if I had to have returned on these things, I wouldn’t have had a difficulty. I did point out to my friends a number of times that it was better that I clear these and you know, they would sometimes laugh it off, but they all accept and and have accepted that these are loans to be repaid and will pay.

Dobson : But the suggestion for example today that the standards in Public Office Commission might be looking at this because of the benefit you got from having the, so far anyway, the interest waived on that and that could be something that could be retrospective to the legislation.

Ahern : Well that’s that’s not my advice, I was well aware of the legislation, I have long checked these things back by eminent tax people, I’ve looked at the legislation closely and, em, my advice is that it’s not the case.

Dobson : We are not talking here just about tax liabilities; we are talking about your requirements under the ethics legislation.

Ahern : I’ve, I’ve checked that and I repeat, my advice is I’ve broken absolutely, em, no codes, ethical, tax, legal or otherwise and, eh, I’ve checked that to the best of my my ability. And these were, eh, close friends, they were not big business interests that were removed from me, they were people that I saw, if not on a weekly basis on a very, very regular basis, most of them would be known to be very, em, very close to me.

Dobson : And yet people watching this, Taoiseach, perhaps they have gone through a separation themselves and they’ll appreciate just how difficult and painful that can be, will say that the financial consequences of that is something they’ve had to deal with themselves. Perhaps had to go to the bank to borrow money and repay the interest and you were in a position where you were able to have a whip-around organised on your behalf to meet your debts.

Ahern : Well, you know, I have been involved many times in my life in whip-arounds for friends, em, for people close to me, and I value friendships. I’ve done it for constituents; I’ve done it for people who have been in need. Em, I, I think people understand that, people say all that has happened since you were unwise to do that in 1993 but it it didn’t happen since. What I did was in 1993, em, and you know I have given all of my records, I’ve given all of my accounts, I’ve probably, this is right that I should give it, there’s no privileged position being Taoiseach or anything else. But, em, as far, I, I was not, eh, I don’t want this to be an investigation by a tribunal into corruption, there was no corruption in this. There was no favours sought, no favours given. There was no cosy contracts given to me or, eh, to any members of my family for business interests.

Dobson : But there is also the important question here of the appearance of being above reproach and that is really the issue here, isn’t it, Taoiseach, that you have created circumstances in which that can be called into question?

Ahern : Well, I, I, I wouldn’t like to think that. I wouldn’t like to think that any member of society or anybody else who takes at a time of need, a loan and would pay interest on it, that that is not beyond reproach. I wouldn’t like to have the stigma that because a group of a dozen of my friends, when they saw my life being one thing and go to another, eh, it’s not for me to plead how bad life was then but I mean it was clearly obvious that those who cared about me and those who were with me. I had to pay my legal fees, which I did take a loan out, they helped me to clear out quicker and then I had to go through, but I did it at that particular time. I didn’t continue with, I didn’t do it again. I didn’t, you know, do anything that was untoward in anyway. And I wouldn’t like, well people would say based on all that has happened in the McCracken tribunal, the Mahon tribunal but that hadn’t happened in 1993, 1994.

Dobson : Are you prepared to go into the Dáil and make a further statement and to answer questions?

Ahern : If people want me to do that, leader’s questions are on every day and I answer things every day. Em, I’m quite, eh, frankly not sure what I’d have to answer, I’ve looked at all the the issues of this and, em, I think my friends would realise that if they had accepted back the money when I offered it, it would have been easier for me now. But they thought they were being helpful to me. Em and I had other loans, you know, I have, I’m in a good position as Taoiseach now. My daughters are doing well so I don’t have difficulties; and I, I think my mortgage is well advanced now. But I did things as everybody else did.

Dobson : Just 38,000 today perhaps mightn’t be a terribly significant amount of money, but back then it was a very substantial amount of money, it would have bought you a house here in the city of Dublin, it was a sizable contribution.

Ahern : I bought my house a few years later and I can tell you it was a long way, nearer 200,000 than 38,000. Em, it is what it is, I’m not going to say, I, I’m, you know, clarifying what the position is. I mean you know, I gave confidentially all my information, people saying 50,000 to 100,000 and, eh, any other money was my own money. Obviously lodgments after my separation was over and money that I saved and put back into my accounts, I don’t know where the figures come from. I think people are perhaps looking at my own money that I’d saved and put back into, I didn’t have an account in my own name during the separation years.

I opened an account after the separation work was over and I put back in my own money and then paid out, perhaps that’s what people are adding it up. But the impression that I got between 50 and 100,000 and may be far more from just a few people wasn’t correct. I’m giving you precisely how I got the money, from close friends, eh, people who cared about me. Perhaps I should have just got a bigger loan and let’s be honest, I would have, I was Taoiseach a few years later it wouldn’t have killed me one way or the other. And I’m paying back the interest so I, I really don’t think I did anything wrong in anyway.

Dobson : Do you think this has been damaging politically, has it damaged your, particularly in the run up to the election your capacity to lead Fianna Fáil into the general election?

Ahern : Well, I mean that’s another issue, I don’t want to go into it, but I mean this was designed, I think people would examine my accounts. I mean, I’ve looked at my accounts since ’77, I’ve given you the only three things, there might be a few small ones but I tried to match up every single issue back, em, after 29 years in politics. And in my constituency since 1982, eh, I’ve probably as good records as there is, and, and luckily, because people close to me kept very good invoices and records, I was able to give this data but the the leak last week, by whoever, I have been accused that I was pointing the finger but by whoever, it was a leak which had nothing to do with the tribunal, it had nothing to do with planning, building, zoning or anything else. And, and it it was done to damage me, I suppose those people who set out in a calculated way to do that, whoever they were, probably have succeeded to some extent.

Dobson : There has been some damage, does that come from perhaps the way it was handled initially. You confirmed some of the details and then you said it was none of anybody’s business what money you got and now you’re giving this interview.

Ahern : Well the point is, em, I think if I was legally advised, what I would have said the first morning, the whole lot is nobody’s business, it’s the tribunal. And I’d say no more about it ever. But for the Taoiseach of the country that is just unsustainable and it is ridiculous that wherever I’ve gone for the last week, that there has been you know 50 journalists running around behind me, like pied pipers, its ridiculous. So I said to my legal people, I cannot sustain keeping things that are not secret, I gave this information, this wasn’t dreamt up, nobody sneaked into my safe and found it, I gave this information to the tribunal, it shouldn’t have been leaked.

I don’t know who leaked it, I’m not blaming anyone, I don’t want to be taking anyone’s character but somebody took mine, and in a very cynical way. But it’s best that I just give the true facts and, em, you know from the position of the Irish public they’ve always been kind to me about being separated. They’ve always been understanding and, em, if I’ve caused offence to anyone, I think I have to a few people, em, I’m sorry.

Dobson : Taoiseach, thank you for talking to us.

Desperate times for Bertie

The very fact that Bertie Ahern has chosen to appeal to public sympathy in an attempt to get himself off the hook is an indication of his desperation. In his interview with RTE’s Brian Dobson, Ahern resorted to the usual excuses.

No favours were sought or given – It was a debt of honour that I will repay (sometime) – In hindsight, if I knew my daughters and I were going to be successful I would have acted differently – I broke no law – It was a relatively small amount compared to being offered millions.

The debt of honour excuse is the same tactic used by Ahern’s mentor and hero, the corrupt Charlie Haughey when he was asked to explain why he never repaid a loan to Allied Irish Banks – AIB is still waiting for payment.

In her enthusiasm to defend Bertie on Primetime, the Minister for Education, Mary Hanifin may have got herself into a spot of bother. She claimed (wrongly) that Michael Lowry had received very large amounts of money from businessmen who he didn’t know. Pat Rabbitte remarked that Lowry’s solicitors will probably have something to say about such claims.

Mary O’Rourke, adopted her most severe school teacher persona when Vincent Browne interrupted her gallant defence of Bertie with one of his famous sighs. The exchange between the two provides a good laugh.

Land agent failed to mention payment

This is quite significant, and links Bertie Ahern into some rather dubious shenanigans.

Tribunal judges have warned a land agent about his evidence after he failed to mention a controversial land deal from which he received a €600,000 payment.

Tim Collins denied deliberately misleading the inquiry over his involvement in the acquisition by Deepriver Ltd of the Battle of the Boyne site at Oldbridge, Co Meath.

Mr Collins is a close associate of the Taoiseach’s and a trustee of Bertie Ahern’s constituency office. He told the tribunal yesterday he was not a political person and was not a member of any political party.

Tribunal judges said they found it astonishing and extraordinary that Mr Collins had failed to mention the Deepriver deal until the inquiry’s lawyers drew attention to his 12.5 per cent share in the company.

Deepriver bought the land for £2.7 million in 1997 and sold it to the State for £7.4 million two years later after the Government decided to acquire the historic site. Mr Collins denied having a similar arrangement – under which he would be given a share of the profit – in relation to the property currently under investigation by the tribunal at Lissenhall, north Dublin.

It was a tidy profit, especially if you knew the government was going to buy the land.

FG councillor denies €20,000 conflict of interest

Anne Devitt has denied any wrongdoing in relation to receiving €20,000. The Irish Times reports:

Anne Devitt described as outrageous a suggestion that she could be bought and said there was nothing improper in her involvement in the issue.

Ms Devitt was chairwoman of the Northern Area Health Board between 2000 and 2002, at the time she was negotiating access across the health board’s land in Swords on behalf of landowner Joe Moran and his company Rayband Ltd.

In 1993, she signed the motion to rezone Rayband’s property for industry, but this could not be developed because it was landlocked.

The tribunal is investigating allegations by lobbyist Frank Dunlop that he bribed councillors Tom Hand, Cyril Gallagher and Tony Fox to secure the rezoning. Mr Hand and Mr Gallagher are deceased and Mr Fox denies the allegation.

Details of the payment to Ms Devitt in 2002 emerged during Mr Moran’s evidence earlier this week.

Yesterday, Ms Devitt told the tribunal there was no conflict of interest in her work for Mr Moran because health board officials knew at all times that she was acting as a consultant.

The matter had never come up for discussion on the board of the Eastern Regional Health Authority, but if it had she would have withdrawn. “The fact that I’m a member of the health board should not prevent me from acting in my profession,” she told Judge Gerald Keys.

Under the agreement mediated by Ms Devitt, Rayband agreed to build ambulance and patient facilities in return for access across the board’s land. Her role was to “keep the matter moving” and move it up the health board’s list of priorities. She had no role in the planning permission subsequently lodged by Rayband’s architect.

“I would have said to the health board ‘here is an opportunity for us to get badly needed facilities now’ . . . It was a win-win situation.” The workshops on the health board site were dilapidated and the access road a disgrace and a health hazard, she said, so the new facilities would be a tremendous benefit.

“I do not see any conflict of interest in providing facilities for the mentally and physically handicapped in my area.”

Judge Keys had asked Mr Moran if it had not dawned on him that the public could perceive that he was trying to buy Ms Devitt.

Ms Devitt described the suggestion as outrageous. “The only point in buying a person is if they can actually deliver. I wasn’t in a position to deliver, on the council or the health board.”

Ms Devitt has qualifications as a teacher and a solicitor, but said her dealings with Mr Moran were as a consultant. She believed he would have been aware of her knowledge of the intricate workings of the health board. She didn’t think €20,000 was a large amount for the work done, which took over a year.

However, she didn’t have any documents from her work as her computer was stolen in 2003.

She had no involvement in the planning permission lodged following her mediation and she did not influence the decision of the county council, she said

Businessman reluctant to pay Dunlop £25,000

I would be too

Leading businessman Joe Moran has told the tribunal he only reluctantly agreed to pay £25,000 in fees to Frank Dunlop to lobby for the rezoning of his land in north County Dublin.

Mr Moran said his brother, Colm, and a business partner, Michael Hughes, agreed the fees with Mr Dunlop at a meeting in 1992 and he was informed several days later.

“I said there was no way we should have agreed that.” However, his colleagues told him this was “the going rate”.

At that stage, they had spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on “architects and advisers and everybody else” in trying to develop the lands at Lissenhall, near Swords.

He eventually agreed to pay half upfront and half when Mr Dunlop delivered. “If you want it done, you have to pay it.”

Asked about his contact with Mr Dunlop, Mr Moran replied: “Never met him, never spoke to him, never saw him.”

He denied an intervention by former minister Ray Burke was pivotal to a decision by him to apply for industrial zoning on the land. He had already decided to seek industrial zoning when Mr Burke, at a meeting in the Burlington Hotel in December 1989, advised him to follow this course.

FG councillor got €20,000 for helping with land problem

What troubles me is that they know there is a potential conflict of interest, they just don’t seem to want to admit it.

A Fine Gael county councillor was paid €20,000 for her help in solving a road access problem for a landowner in north County Dublin, the tribunal has heard.

Cllr Anne Devitt received the fee in 2002 for negotiating access to the land across property owned by the Eastern Health Board. At the time, she was a member of the EHB, the tribunal heard.

Details of the payment to Ms Devitt emerged yesterday during evidence given by businessman Joe Moran, whose company Rayband Ltd owned the land at Lissenhall near Swords. In 1993, Ms Devitt signed a motion while on Dublin County Council to rezone Rayband’s land for industry.

Paul Cullen of the Irish Times continues:

Yesterday, the inquiry heard that Mr Moran sought to gain access to the road through the EHB land because his property was landlocked. The company paid Ms Devitt the money in June 2002, after it agreed access through the EHB land in return for building ambulance and day-patient facilities.

Mr Moran said Ms Devitt had provided professional advice and legal services. She had portrayed herself as someone who could solve the problem. She had a reputation for solving problems.

Judge Gerald Keys said Ms Devitt was a politician and there was a potential conflict of interest.

Mr Moran replied that Ms Devitt didn’t do anything wrong.

Judge Keys: “Did it not cross your mind there was something questionable about being prepared to pay a substantial sum of money to a politician who was a member of the council, who would be close to the planning department, who was already instrumental in voting on zoning motions and also a member of the health board, which could come to your assistance?” Mr Moran: “No.”

Judge Keys: “Did it not dawn on you there could be a serious conflict of interest and that the public perception could be that what you were trying to do was to buy her?” Mr Moran: “Absolutely not.” Everything was above board and there were no under the counter payments.

He agreed that Ms Devitt, who is due to give evidence to the inquiry tomorrow, never provided him with written advice.

Developer challenges Mahon inquiry

Yet another legal challenge, worth quoting in full because of its signifcance to the workings of the Plannin Tribunal:

The High Court has begun hearing a bid by Cork property developer Owen O’Callaghan to prevent the Mahon tribunal from further inquiring into, or making any findings on allegations against him, by developer Tom Gilmartin.

The tribunal proposes to continue those inquiries in its Quarryvale Two module.

The case has been brought by Mr O’Callaghan; John Deane, a solicitor and partner in O’Callaghan Properties; Riga Ltd of Lavitts Quay, Cork, and Barkhill Ltd, which developed the Liffey Valley shopping centre in Dublin.

The tribunal is opposing the application and has denied the allegations of bias. It also denies it gave Mr Gilmartin a special or privileged status. The case before Mr Justice Thomas Smyth is expected to last two weeks.

Mr O’Callaghan claims Mr Gilmartin made “entirely untrue” allegations in private which were never mentioned in evidence by Mr Gilmartin at the tribunal’s public sessions and were concealed by the tribunal.

It had ignored “glaring” inconsistencies between Mr Gilmartin’s private statements to its lawyers and his evidence on oath, Mr O’Callaghan claims.

The tribunal denies that it offered immunity to Mr Gilmartin as an inducement to get him to testify against Mr O’Callaghan. It contends such a claim indicates a misunderstanding of the nature of the tribunal.

The tribunal says it had been openly stated by its counsel that Mr Gilmartin had been granted immunity from the DPP, on foot of a request from the tribunal, which was subject to his giving truthful testimony.

Mr O’Callaghan claims the alleged bias against him is evident from the tribunal’s failure to disclose statements made by Mr Gilmartin to tribunal lawyers which were inconsistent with Mr Gilmartin’s evidence to the tribunal.

The existence of those statements became known during cross-examination of Mr Gilmartin but the tribunal had refused to disclose them. Last July the High Court ordered the tribunal to disclose the documents, later upheld by the Supreme Court.

In the Supreme Court last November, tribunal counsel conceded that the documents had been wrongly withheld from Mr O’Callaghan and that had they been made available to him in March 2004 when Mr Gilmartin was giving his evidence, they could have been used to ground a judicial review application.

Senior counsel Paul Gallagher read a number of documents outlining the background to the action. Among the claims is that the tribunal was protecting Mr Gilmartin by withholding material which was inconsistent with Mr Gilmartin’s testimony.

It is also claimed that the documents disclosed to Mr O’Callaghan as a result of the High Court order made against the tribunal showed “glaring” and “significant” inconsistencies between Mr Gilmartin’s private statements to tribunal lawyers and his evidence to the tribunal.

Payment was to 'ensure' planning permission

The allegations of Frank Dunlop continue:

The owners of rezoned land at Swords, Co Dublin, made a £12,000 payment to lobbyist Frank Dunlop to “ensure” planning permission was obtained on the land, the tribunal has heard.

This reference to Mr Dunlop’s role is contained in the financial records of Rayband Ltd, the company which owned the land at Lissenhall. Businessman Joe Moran and his family largely owned Rayband.

Yesterday, Donal Lynch, the company secretary of Rayband, who prepared the company’s books for auditing, said that the choice of words used to describe Mr Dunlop’s role was probably his.

He understood that Mr Dunlop had provided professional services for the company and he, in preparing the books, was describing what the lobbyist was doing.

Mr Dunlop alleges that he bribed three councillors to have the Lissenhall land rezoned for industry in 1992. He also claims that the owners of the land were aware that money would have to be paid to councillors to achieve this objective. The owners of Rayband deny any knowledge of the payments allegedly made by Mr Dunlop.

Barristers asked to give details of secret talks with Dunlop

Is Dunlop protecting bigger fish? The question arose at the Tribunal this week. Readers may remember Dunlop’s dramatic reversal of strategy following Judge Flood’s asking him to consider his position, afterwhich Dunlop opened the flood gates on payments he allegedly made to councillors.

The Mahon tribunal has asked two former staff to provide details of a secret conversation they had with Frank Dunlop about allegations of corruption in the award of urban tax renewal incentives.

Tribunal lawyers have written to their former colleagues, barristers John Gallagher and Pat Hanratty, seeking information about the off-the-record conversation they had with Mr Dunlop during a private interview in 2000.

This follows a request from lawyers for the late Fine Gael councillor Tom Hand, who suggested that Mr Dunlop was protecting senior political figures by refusing to talk on the record about alleged corruption in this area.

David Burke, barrister, for Mr Hand’s estate, said Mr Dunlop’s interview with the tribunal lawyers was a private session which he believed would be kept under wraps forever. (A subsequent court decision forced its disclosure to interested parties.) Notwithstanding this, he had asked to go off the record.

“What was so sensitive that it had to be off the record?” he asked. What did Mr Dunlop know about corrupt practices with regard to tax designations? After Mr Dunlop replied that he couldn’t remember the content of his off-the-record discussions, Judge Alan Mahon said the tribunal would ask the lawyers involved.

Mr Burke claimed the witness was sacrificing “small fry” county councillors to protect bigger political fish from his allegations of planning corruption.

He questioned whether Mr Dunlop’s knowledge of corruption was limited to councillors.

“The answer empathically and irrefutably is no,” Mr Dunlop replied. “I’m not protecting anybody.”

Asked if he was aware of any corruption involving tax designations, Mr Dunlop replied: “Directly, no.”

Asked if he had indirect knowledge, he replied: “One doesn’t live in an unreal world.”

Reynolds to be questioned on land purchase

Another former Taoiseach will appear before a Tribunal, Longford’s Albert Reynolds this time:

Tribunal lawyers say Mr Reynolds was a principal in a Guernsey-based company, Universal Management Consultants Ltd, which entered into negotiations to buy the lands in 1997.

The co-owner of UMC was Patrick Russell, a barrister who represents the late Liam Lawlor at the tribunal.

Four years earlier, the owners of the land, Rayband Ltd, had succeeded in having it rezoned from agriculture to light industry.

In 1997, Mr Russell proposed acquiring the land through a joint venture between UMC and a Derry-based building firm, O’Neill Brothers, according to yesterday’s statement by senior counsel Patricia Dillon, for the tribunal.

Mr Russell has told the tribunal that Tim Collins, a land scout with an architectural practice who introduced Frank Dunlop to Rayband, acted on behalf of Rayband and claimed to own 10 per cent of the development.

Mr Collins, who is a long-time associate of Bertie Ahern and a trustee of his constituency office, has denied Mr Russell’s claim. Documentation suggests he was to be paid up to £50,000 as a “contribution to landlord’s expenses” on closing the sale.

The joint-venture agreement provided for a payment of stg£600,000 (€869,500) by O’Neill Brothers to buy out an undisclosed “minority interest” in the site.