Nameless civil servants confuse Opposition

IT was most frustrating. A very damp squib. The opposition parties were cranked up and ready to go on their second, two day, Dail debate dealing with the Special Criminal Court fiasco when they found themselves facing in the wrong direction.

Instead of threatening the Taoiseach, the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice, they found themselves bearing down on a handful of civil servants, identified only by their initials, in a report prepared by Sean Cromien and Edmond Molloy.

There was no future in it. The role of the Opposition, for God's sake, is to attract voters, not to alienate them. Their overriding imperative is to get into government. And the Civil Service walks tall and carries a big stick.

That's why publication of the report was such a non event for the Opposition parties. No matter that the findings were devastating in their criticisms of the structures and management within the Department of Justice before concluding that: "Nothing short of a comprehensive transformation of the Department of Justice is called for." Or that the report found: "Our efforts to follow the `paper trail' came to an unsatisfactory dead end at crucial points, with key individuals unable to recollect important details, or failing to recognise the seriousness of vital correspondence."

Nailing the hide of a public servant to a barn door may be a useful and enjoyable exercise, but it isn't politics. As Dermot Ahern said yesterday: "We aren't particularly interested in a paper chase within the Department of Justice."

Fianna Fail was, however, interested in the role of the Attorney General. And so was Mary Harney. That was why the Dail was treated to an Opposition walk out and to a suspension of business yesterday as pressure was exerted on the Government to play ball, Opposition style.

BERTIE Ahern laid out his stall Fianna Fail wanted Dermot Gleeson's letter of November 1st to be published; it wanted all questions to John Bruton and Nora Owen on the matter to be answered and it demanded the establishment of a Dail committee of inquiry.

Mary Harney complained bitterly that relevant political questions had been ruled out of order. And she showed her contempt for what she described as "this charade" by leading her followers out of the Dail as debate on the report began. She would be back, she promised, to question the Minister today.

John O'Donoghue showed the way the wind was blowing. He practically ignored the contents of the official report and focused his considerable energy on the Attorney General. Mr Gleeson was the target. Sheltered and protected by the Taoiseach, he had failed to do his duty as guardian of the public interest and of the courts.

When the Minister for Justice had failed to act on Mr Gleeson's letter, he should have applied to the High Court. He was guilty of "gross dereliction of duty".

And, as news filtered through that disciplinary action would be taken against officials at the Department of Justice, Mr O'Donoghue said the people of the State would not be satisfied if civil servants were penalised and Mr Gleeson and Mrs Owen "walked away, scot free, from this sordid business".

FIANNA Fail was on to something. There was a faint whiff of blood in the air. But the scent was confused by the presence of too many low grade civil servants. The report which gave them so little joy contained one 18 carat nugget a letter of October 2nd from the Attorney General, alerting the Minister for Justice to the fact that Dominic Lynch still believed he was attached to the Special Criminal Court.

Mrs Owen never saw that letter before the controversy broke on November 6th. But the impression had been created in the Dail that it was a casual letter, arising from a passing conversation between Mr Gleeson and a Circuit Court Judge.

The text of that letter saw the light of day in the official report and it was anything but casual and informal. It was direct and pointed spoke of "reviewing the availability of different judges for different work"; and asked that Government decisions be communicated to the relevant people.

The authors of the report commented that the wording of the letter would "lead us to infer that urgent action was required upon it".

Fianna Fail contended that if civil servants were at fault in the matter for not acting upon the letter, then so was the Attorney General for not ensuring that action was taken.