Perhaps public opinion is inured at this stage. But yesterday's revelations by Mr Frank Dunlop must bring any honest citizen to a state of anger and dismay. What was described before the Flood tribunal was nothing less than systematic, organised subversion of the planning process. Money for politicians votes - it is as simple as that.
These revelations of political and corporate corruption require an early and exacting response from the Government. The time for having such matters examined by expert committees is long since past. Mr Dunlop's evidence must also raise the prospect that political decision-making in other areas may also have been influenced by large corporate donations. The citizen will wonder: why should corruption be confined to local government?
Legislative measures to deal with such possibilities were introduced in the form of the Ethics in Public Office Act and the Electoral Act. But they have already been shown to be inadequate in meeting the needs of an increasingly wealthy and complex society. The Labour Party has sought to impose an outright ban on all political donations from the corporate sector. It published an Electoral Donations Bill last Monday that would limit contributions to individuals and to affiliated organisations, with maximum annual donations of £3,000. Fine Gael and Fianna Fail are opposed to the ending of all corporate funding, but they are prepared to cap such donations and to introduce stricter disclosure rules. All parties agree that change is required and that this will inevitably involve greater State funding. Given that expenditure by candidates and parties at election time is now limited by law, however, the traditional need for aggressive fundraising no longer exists.
Mr Dunlop's evidence before the Flood tribunal made for sorry listening. He paid at least £160,000 to 25 councillors in relation to the redrafting of the Dublin County Council development plan in the period 1991/93. Sometimes he paid for councillors to be absent for crucial votes; on other occasions, the arrangement was more straightforward. He was, in effect, the "bag-man" for 14 developers. They arranged for him to have "a stash of cash" amounting to £420,000 in order to secure important rezoning and planning permissions. And while Mr Dunlop described one politician as "absolutely insatiable for money", his principals were the ones who stood to gain most. The former Dublin city and county assistant manager, Mr George Redmond, is expected to give evidence before Mr Justice Flood tomorrow concerning his knowledge of irregular planning matters. Mr Redmond retired in 1989 and while the names of certain corrupt politicians and developers will, no doubt, recur in his evidence, the amounts of money involved and the scale of dishonesty may be less.
This was not a one-way process. Corruption was not confined to politicians. The main financial beneficiaries in these instances were the property owners and the corporate movers-and-shakers who were in the business of creating an infrastructure for the so-called Celtic Tiger in the shortest possible time and for maximum profit. For such interests to suggest they were the victims of grasping politicians is self-serving in the extreme. Key property owners and business interests entered into corrupt relationships with local politicians and they, just as much as elected representatives, should be held accountable before the law. It takes two - at least - to corrupt, in this context.