Analysis: And once again, there is no physical trace of Liam Lawlor's involvement in rezoning, and there are his blunt denials, writes Paul Cullen
Now you know why they call him "Mr Big". Once again, former Fianna Fáil deputy Mr Liam Lawlor has emerged as the figure who is alleged to have pulled the strings in controversial planning decisions in Dublin.
Once again, there is no physical trace of Mr Lawlor's involvement in rezoning, or in the companies owning the land at the centre of the tribunal's current investigations. And once again, there are Mr Lawlor's blunt denials of any involvement.
On previous form, you wouldn't expect the former TD to have any registered interest in Paisley Park or Jackson Way. In other business deals, he operated on the basis of a "gentleman's agreement" that saw him take a substantial stake in a property in return for his efforts to have it rezoned.
On previous form, it's worth remembering Mr Lawlor's memory of other business dealings proved incomplete until jogged by journalists or the tribunal.
This time, we have Mr Frank Dunlop's allegation that Mr Lawlor was centrally involved in the Carrickmines lands. Not only is he alleged to have been involved in preparing motions for the council chamber, but Mr Dunlop also claims he owned a stake in this lucrative property.
The other main figure in this controversy, the former publican and amusement-arcade owner, Mr James Kennedy, has given the tribunal the two fingers from the relative safety of his offshore tax haven in Gibraltar.
In a series of terse responses through his solicitors, Mr Kennedy said the tribunal's questions didn't "dignify a response". He denies any involvement with the former TD or with any other principal actors in this drama.
He also claims to have divested himself of Irish citizenship and has no plans to appear in the witness-box in Dublin Castle.
Yet Mr Lawlor and Mr Kennedy's relationship goes back decades and even further; their parents come from the same town in Co Laois. Mr Lawlor's earlier claim that they were friends but not business associates was given the lie by documents that showed they both owned a stake in a pipeline project in west Dublin.
Like Mr John Caldwell, his solicitor colleague who set up the complex offshore financial structures underpinning Jackson Way, Mr Kennedy pleads ill health as one of the reasons for his failure to co-operate. Mr Caldwell went to ground for a short period last year as the tribunal pursued him but Mr Kennedy shows no sign of following suit. The fact that he has renounced his Irish citizenship and, more particularly, direct ownership of any property in Ireland might well have a bearing on his attitude.
Mr Dunlop has alleged he paid £25,000 to county councillors in relation to the two attempts to rezone the Carrickmines land. Given that the tribunal is looking at 30 separate cases of alleged planning corruption, it therefore appears that we are looking at sums of at least €1 million that were allegedly paid to politicians in relation to these matters.
Two days into this session, Dublin county councillors of the 1980s and 1990s already stand condemned of gross mismanagement, whatever about the more serious charges of corruption some of them are facing.
It is clear that the tribunal has adopted a certain view of the role of planning in our society, which should primarily be carried out for the common good and in the interest of the "plain people of Ireland", as counsel Mr John Gallagher SC put it in his opening statement.
Yet the picture that is emerging is of a rag-bag of small-time politicians who spent their working hours being schmoozed by developers and landowners in pubs and restaurants, who devoted their energies to changing the best-laid plans of engineers and planners and who perverted the system in the name of private, privileged interests.
Yesterday, we heard how the county councillors rezoned 100 years' worth of industrial land, even though there was ample supply of this category of land. They also rezoned hundreds of acres for residential use, even though there was no shortage of land zoned for housing and with planning permission.
Yet one defence put forward by some of the councillors is that they can't even remember the stances they took on various rezoning motions. They were pro-development, it seems, but they hardly bothered to look at what was going on under their eyes. With this carry-on, it almost doesn't matter that some councillors are alleged to have been on the take.
Almost.