Bailey brothers still donating to FF

The controversial builders Michael Bailey and his brother Tom, who were the subject of damning criticism by the planning tribunal…

The controversial builders Michael Bailey and his brother Tom, who were the subject of damning criticism by the planning tribunal, continue to give money to Fianna Fáil, according to newly released records.

The latest accounts for their company, Bovale Developments, disclose a donation of €9,200 to the party in the year ending June 2003. The accounts also show that Bovale continues to thrive, despite the tribunal's adverse findings against the brothers.

The company made a profit after tax of €55.36 million in the year while the brothers received an overall remuneration package worth €8.2 million. In mid-2003 the company held lands worth €49.73 million and work-in- progress was valued at €13.76 million.

The company's latest donation to Fianna Fáil was made during the financial year in which Mr Justice Feargus Flood found that Mr Michael Bailey had made a corrupt payment to former Fianna Fáil minister Mr Ray Burke.

READ MORE

In his report of September 2002, the judge also found that Mr Michael Bailey obstructed and hindered the tribunal on eight grounds. Mr Tom Bailey was found to have obstructed the tribunal on four grounds.

In another report, published last January, the judge found that Mr Michael Bailey made three corrupt payments to the former planning official Mr George Redmond, and hindered and obstructed the tribunal on five grounds.

Fianna Fáil's official spokeswoman had no comment to make when asked if it was appropriate for the party to receive money from Bovale.

"The party doesn't comment on individual donations and we have been consistent in that. We have complied with all our statutory obligations and have made our returns to the independent statutory body responsible."

Bovale also donated €6,000 to the party in the year to June 30th, 2002; and €9,523 in the year to June 30th, 2001.

The only donation from Bovale in Fianna Fáil's annual statements to the Standards in Public Office Commission since 2000 is one of €6,000 in 2002. In addition, there is no commission record of any Bovale donations to Fianna Fáil TDs after 1997. However, the Bovale accounts and the Commission's records are not strictly comparable. Bovale's financial year, ending on June 30th, is different to the commission's, which follows the calendar year.

The maximum permissible donation in a single year under the Electoral Acts is €6,348.69, but political parties are not required to declare donations below €5,079.

In addition, parties are required to declare only the profit element of donations from fundraising activities. This means that a donation from a company above the €6,348 limit would not feature in a party declaration if the entire sum above €5,079 was used to pay the cost of a fundraising activity.

Fianna Fáil's spokeswoman said there was "no discrepancy" in the figures the party declared to the commission and the donations listed in the Bovale accounts. It was "100 per cent" confident in its returns, she said.

"It has been made clear to us by the Standards in Public Office Commission, the independent statutory body responsible for returns, that in calculating political contributions, parties need only calculate the profit element of fundraising activities."

The latest accounts for Bovale show that the Bailey brothers' remuneration package of some €8.2 million in 2002-2003 was down from €8.49 million a year earlier.

The €55.36 million after-tax profit was a significant increase on the previous year, when the company made €14.84 million.

The value of company sales increased to €98.4 million in the most recent period from €32.98 million a year earlier. Bovale recorded day-to-day operating profits of €71.27 million and paid €13.81 million tax in the year.

The company's auditors, McGrath & Co, said there was a limit on their audit arising from the work of the tribunal.

The auditors could not adopt satisfactory procedures to determine the potential liability arising from evidence presented at the tribunal, and from a review by the company of its earlier financial statements and tax returns. The review is not yet complete, they said.