Mr Frank Dunlop has outlined the system he says was operated by Dublin county councillors to secure the rezoning of land.
Mr Dunlop said that, contrary to what people understood as the legal responsibility of councillors, a whip system was in operation on the council.
There was "no doubt or question" that a whip was operated by Fianna Fáil on rezoning motions. Fine Gael had a "slightly more benign" attitude; it would take the view of local councillors unless these were "blatantly contradictory". Labour, meanwhile, voted for "absolutely nothing".
A particular development would be discussed by each of the political parties prior to a motion being discussed and adjudicated upon by Dublin County Council. It didn't necessarily follow that if a particular councillor supported a motion, all their colleagues would follow suit.
It was important for the local councillors to be supportive of the motion in their area. Because it was known among the parties which councillors were in favour of development and which councillors were not, a cross-party system developed to ensure that the relevant numbers were obtained to support a motion. At this time, only a simple majority of those present was needed.
A significant number of councillors were new members and had not been involved in the preparation of the previous Development Plan for Dublin. Notwithstanding this, there were people on the council who were able to discuss proposals for zoning with members of other parties. Unless there was cross-party support, it was extremely difficult for a proposal to proceed. There was, therefore, a need for cross-party support.
Mr Dunlop said a number of councillors "actively proffered themselves" as signatories of motion in order to "get to the ball". "You couldn't get to the ball unless you had an invitation, which was the motion. If you didn't have the motion, you didn't get to dance."
Other councillors asked for money when they were approached to sign a motion. One councillor, now deceased, asked Mr Dunlop how he was going to get a particular item through without his involvement. This man lived over 20 miles from the land which was the subject of the motion. Another councillor, Mr Sean Gilbride, told him it would "cost him" to have the politician's support for the rezoning of Quarryvale.
Mr Dunlop said he was friendly with Mr Lawlor and the two of them had discussed the necessity or requirement or demand for money to be paid. Mr Dunlop began his evidence by summarising his early career as a press officer and public relations specialist. He became Fianna Fáil press secretary in 1974 and Government press secretary four years later. In this time, he developed contacts across the political spectrum at all levels.
At one point in the mid-1970s, he was sent by the Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, to speak to a party colleague who was the subject of media coverage about planning corruption. He wasn't involved in any substantive way in the matter and it later quietened down.
In the 1980s, he moved to work in government departments, and it was during this time that he first met Cllr Therese Ridge, who had sought his assistance regarding a "simple, laudable community-based exercise".
His first involvement in lobbying to have the development plan materially contravened occurred in 1990. He canvassed intensively on a particular development and a motion proposing the change was passed virtually unanimously.
Mr Lawlor had introduced him to the company behind the development. Mr Lawlor, a "well-known and substantial" figure, had been elected to the Dáil in 1977. Mr Dunlop said he knew the politician from before this time.
The lobbyist's work consisted of drawing up lists of councillors for the developer to contact. He also organised an expenses-paid trip abroad, on which 22 councillors participated. No money was requested or given in connection with this vote, he said.
