Lawlor to go unless he can explain donations

There is a growing determination in Fianna Fail to expel Mr Liam Lawlor from the party unless he can explain the substantial …

There is a growing determination in Fianna Fail to expel Mr Liam Lawlor from the party unless he can explain the substantial donations he received from the political lobbyist, Mr Frank Dunlop.

Mr Lawlor is due to be interviewed by the Fianna Fail inquiry into payments to politicians on Wednesday. Should that inquiry find he has not explained donations satisfactorily, rapid party action against him is expected.

Mr Lawlor, who has admitted receiving payments from Mr Dunlop, has been interviewed twice in the past two years by senior party officials concerning other allegations relating to payments to him. He said yesterday he would answer all questions at the inquiry about payments he received from Mr Dunlop and any other matters they want to raise.

"The committee has a job to do and I'll be giving it any help I can," he said.

READ MORE

The inquiry is expected to complete its work within three weeks. Senior Fianna Fail figures are determined that if there is any appearance of impropriety about any payments, this will be stated clearly and disciplinary action will be taken quickly.

A number of other councillors and former councillors have been questioned closely about payments they received, and some will be asked back for second interviews, indicating they have not yet given satisfactory explanations.

Meanwhile, the Taoiseach is expected to signal broad support for the banning of corporate donations to individual politicians in talks with the other main party leaders today. Mr Ahern is also expected to tell Mr John Bruton, Mr Ruairi Quinn and Ms Mary Harney that he supports the lowering of the disclosure limits for business donations to political parties. However he opposes an outright ban on such donations.

Mr Ahern's outlining of his position will come as the political parties all attempt to position themselves at the head of reform moves amid the welter of evidence and allegations of corruption in political life. The corruption allegations will again dominate the political agenda this week with the Flood Tribunal to resume public hearings tomorrow, the Moriarty Tribunal to resume on Thursday and the Dail to debate a Labour motion to ban corporate donations tomorrow night.

Despite the Opposition clamour for action on donations, the prospect of defeat for the Government on the issue appears to have vanished following a Green Party statement that it will not support the Labour Bill. Green Party TD Mr John Gormley said they would oppose the Bill because it would allow personal donations to continue. The party wants all business and personal donations banned.

Fine Gael will support the Bill while wishing to amend it later to allow for limited corporate donations. Fine Gael yesterday published a position paper on the issue, with Mr Bruton saying the stream of revelations represents "a crisis for the State itself", equivalent to crises caused by wars and paramilitary activity.

While the majority of politicians were "not on the take", they had to show that they were "prepared to undertake what I unashamedly call `moral renewal' in politics in Ireland."

As the party leaders prepared to meet today, the Progressive Democrats chairman, Cllr John Minihan, said a commitment to reform of corruption laws was a precondition for his party's support for any new system of political funding. Labour and Fine Gael also support the reform of corruption laws.

The Fianna Fail deputy, Ms Marian McGennis, has rejected a report that she received "substantial payments" from Mr Dunlop. Ms McGennis told The Irish Times yesterday she received only one payment - a cheque for £1,400 towards election expenses - from Mr Dunlop, which she has declared to the Flood Tribunal and to her party's internal inquiry.

The cheque was drawn on Mr Dunlop's company account, Frank Dunlop and Associates, rather than the controversial Shefran account being examined closely by the Flood Tribunal.

She pointed out that while she had supported the first Quarryvale vote in June 1991, she voted against the final decision to rezone it in December 1992. "I could have abstained if I had been bought and paid for," she said; she had never received any donations "that in any way compromised me".