Has Mr Lawlor given the tribunal details of his financial records?
"I asked every bank that I ever had dealings with to give them whatever they had," the TD told RTE radio yesterday. However, is this the full story or even correct?
According to Mr John Gallagher, "some of the very limited information furnished by Mr Lawlor in relation to bank accounts and financial matters appears to be incorrect".
The tribunal's senior counsel went on to say the tribunal had information suggesting that "Mr Lawlor has not made full disclosure of all of his bank accounts within the State".
"The tribunal also has reason to believe that [Mr Lawlor's] statement to the effect that he has no accounts outside the State is not correct."
According to correspondence opened by Mr Gallagher this week, Mr Lawlor misled the tribunal for months regarding his efforts to get financial records from three banks where he had accounts.
On five occasions, his solicitors assured the tribunal that he was seeking this information, but last January the tribunal discovered that the banks had not been contacted.
Contrary to Mr Lawlor's statement on RTE radio, his solicitor told the tribunal he was "not disposed to" giving his consent to the banks to provide his records to the tribunal. So the tribunal had to issue orders against 223 institutions in the State looking for accounts connected with the TD.
So far, this trawl has uncovered one further account linked to Mr Lawlor, but Mr Gallagher has indicated there may be more.
Has Mr Lawlor given the tribunal details of the payments he got from the developer Mr Tom Gilmartin?
In March 1999 he sent the tribunal a four-page statement on the payments he received from Mr Gilmartin/Arlington Securities. The flavour of this statement can be gauged from the documents attached - these included a copy of the Census, reports from the ESRI and the Central Bank.
"No bank records or other financial information was furnished with that statement," Mr Gallagher said.
Mr Lawlor regards this matter as being outside the terms of reference of the tribunal because it relates to his business activities. Other matters he regards as ultra vires include his personal accounts, his work as a consultant, any activities carried out when he was not a TD or county councillor and matters relating to the tax amnesty.
Has Mr Lawlor given the tribunal details of his involvement with Quarryvale?
"I have given them the most complete narrative statement on Quarryvale," says Mr Lawlor, who filed a statement on the matter last June.
However, according to Mr Gallagher, this document contains "no coherent or narrative response to the questions raised". "He did not in any way indicate what payments he had received, save what he says he was told by Mr Dunlop in the course of some telephone conversations and in the course of correspondence."
Why was Mr Lawlor called in the middle of tribunal hearings on Century Radio? Is he being singled out unfairly?
"There's 100 people to be interviewed about planning matters in Co Dublin and no one has been interviewed except Frank Dunlop," says Mr Lawlor.
This is not correct. In fact, Mr Lawlor is the only one of more than 80 Dublin county councillors to refuse to attend for interview with the tribunal.
What Mr Lawlor means is that Mr Dunlop is the only person to have given evidence on Quarryvale. But this is because Mr Dunlop, like Mr Lawlor, refused to swear a statement.
Mr Lawlor also refused to attend for interview in private and had his right not to do so vindicated by the High Court last year.
The tribunal made the order for Mr Lawlor to produce his financial records last April, long before the Century hearings began. Because of the number and seriousness of the allegations facing the TD, the tribunal would have great difficulty starting hearings into Quarryvale and Mr George Redmond without first obtaining a statement from him. This is why it chose to call him this week.
So has Mr Lawlor co-operated with the tribunal?
The West Dublin TD says he has given detailed answers, but the tribunal claims his replies to over 50 letters have been "long on verbiage and short on facts". Mr Lawlor says the question of his appearance in Dublin Castle this week "does not arise" because the tribunal has not adhered to the rules of the High Court.
Without access to the information supplied by Mr Lawlor, it is impossible to adjudicate, but the matter is likely to be settled by the High Court next week.