By Vincent Browne

On July 21, 1989, Robert Tracey, a land owner at Carrickmines,Co Dublin, made a statement to the gardai concerning corrupt practices in Dublin County Council.

The statement was made in writing and was signed by Robert Tracey.

He said that, around 1986, he had been approached by an estate agent, Sam Stanley, who told him he was representing a Jim Kennedy, who is now very much at the centre of investigations by the Planning Tribunal. Stanley wanted to know if he (Tracey) was prepared to sell his lands to Kennedy.

Later, Tracey said he met both Stanley and Kennedy at his own home in Foxrock. In his statement, he added that they told him: "Your land is zoned agricultural, and it will stay that way unless we get this land.We have inroads with the planning authorities."

In the course of this and subsequent conversations,Tracey said, Kennedy told him that it would be a costly business to have the lands rezoned because, among other factors, "»20,000 had to be thrown in to the Fianna Fail party, for starters. There are men who have to get »10,000 each."

Later on, he was told: "There [were] three men in the planning office who had to be paid »10,000". At one stage, he was informed that Kennedy was related by marriage to George Redmond, who was then the de facto county manager, and that he (Redmond) was treated to expensive holidays and entertainment.

In the course of a later conversation with Stanley, according to Tracey's statement, Stanley had said: "Look at Lismore Homes [another development]. Jim [Kennedy] got that through [the planning process]. It took a long time andcostalotofmoney."

On the same day - July 21, 1989 - Tracey's brother, Jack Tracey, also made a statement to the Garda, which was also signed by him. He told essentially the same story with some variations.

He claimed Kennedy said that the lands in question "would have to be rezoned to residential. There would have to be planning permission sought and that would cost me »20,000 for the Fianna Fail party for the rezoning."

He went on to claim that Kennedy also said: "There are these three fellows in the Planning Office, that would be »10,000 each, and that we were bound to have an objection which would necessitate an appeal to An Bord Pleanala. This is where the big money is spent. They don't work for small money."

We have been told for years that the Garda could make no headway in their investigations into corruption in the planning process, because witnesses have refused to make written statements.

But here were two witnesses making very specific allegations in written statements, and although their evidence of corruption was hearsay, it certainly constituted the beginnings of a first step towards an investigation.

 did investigate allegations concerning the Carrickmines lands in 1989, and over the following couple of years, and they got nowhere. We were given a clue as to why theygot nowhere by an exchange at the Planning Tribunal on Friday week last.

Sam Stanley was giving evidence, and the statements of Robert and Jack Tracey were read to him. He has denied mu ch of what t hey have claimed.

The crucial exchange between him and Tribunal counsel Des O'Neill was as follows:

O'Neill: "Now, those two statements, Mr Stanley, were made to the gardai in July of 1989, and you have indicated that you were contacted at some point in time by gardai in relation to the Carrickmines lands, is that right?"

Stanley: "No, I wasn't contacted."

O'Neill: "I see." Stanley: "Ever." O'Neill: "You were never contacted?"

Stanley: "Never." The likelihood of Stanley lying about never being contacted by gardai in relation to the claims of corruption made by the Tracey brothers is close to zero, for the gardai would be in a position to show conclusively from gardai notes of any interview that he was lying.

The possibility of him forgetting that a Garda interview about the allegations ever happened is also negligible.

So the question arises: why did the gardai in the course of their supposed investigations of allegations of corruption concerning the Carrickmines land never interview Stanley?

Was it because the Garda Siochana is hopelessly incompetent? Was it because it could not be bothered, regarding corruption as run-of-the mill?

Was it because they were induced into not pursuing the allegations (in other words that the web of corruption extended to the gardai as well - though in raising this hypothesis I am not suggesting for a moment that the gardai directly involved in the investigations could have been corrupted)?

And there is yet another possible explanation: that the gardai were got at by their political superiors, particularly by Ray Burke, who was then Minister for Justice.

That latter possibility, no doubt, will be given an outing. But how credible is it? It is certainly plausible that Burke might have said to the Garda Commissioner, or other senior gardai that investigation of allegations of corruption in the planning process were a waste of time and should not be pursued.

And perhaps, as a consequence of such a casual remark, a supine Garda force abandoned its inquiries. If so, where does that leave the Garda?

Butitisimplausible that Burke issued a directive to stop such investigations. The leaking of such a directive would have been catastrophic for him, and he could not have risked that.

One way or another, we are left with a situation where, in the face of allegations of rampant corruption on the part of developers, councillors and officials in the planning process, leading right up to an Bord Pleanala, a Garda investigation failed to interview a person at the centre of such allegations.

Whatever the explanation, it means that the gardai - far from being part of the solution to the problem of corruption - were part of the problem.

We had a system whereby developers and land owners could make vast fortunes from zoning and rezoning decisions made by councillors.

That system provided for no safety mechanisms to ensure that councillors and planners were not bribed to enrich landowners and developers.

And the police force that might have been expected to operate a deterrence by way of investigation of allegations of corruption, played dead, for whatever reason.

And we wonder why there was corruption? It must be part of the remit of the Planning Tribunal to inquire into what the gardai were up to or, to be more accurate in the circumstances, not up to.

Just one further point concerning the gardai We are now told that the file on the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier has been re-opened in the light of the Ian Bailey libel trial. Isn't that fascinating?

What fragment of evidence emerged at the libel trial that was not known to the gardai all along? Or did they play dead on that one, too, and have now basically been embarrassed into doing something?

comment@sbpost.ie