The Opposition huffed and puffed but the house built by Mr Des Traynor has not yet come falling down around the 120 people who entrusted the accountant with their money. The outcome was known even before the Dail met this week to debate the Fine Gael motion seeking publication of the Ansbacher names.

When the division bells rang in Leinster House the Opposition was once again confronted with the reality that the two Government parties - and their supporting cast of four Independent TDs - were intent on sticking together.

And this despite public outrage at the extent to which those with money in Mr Traynor's offshore schemes could dance a merry jig around the State's tax laws and exchange control rules. Fine Gael's Andrew Boylan said the magician Paul Daniels "could not hold a candle to the late Des Traynor, who apparently had the ability to make £1 million disappear before one's eye only for it to reappear later whenever the donor asked for it back".

The Labour leader, Mr Ruairi Quinn, was taking no prisoners as he told the Dail "that those involved in the Ansbacher scam include people who were regarded as pillars of society, captains of industry, members of the boards of some of the most powerful and prominent companies in the country".

It was a fair summary from the limited information contained in the Tanaiste's affidavit that was presented to the High Court last week. Following the appointment of three High Court inspectors to investigate the activities of Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd, the Opposition had seized on the non-publication of the 120 names listed in the report of the Tanaiste's authorised officer.

The Fine Gael private members' motion offered the possibility of changing company law to allow for the publication of the names. However, the Government had its legal advice from the Attorney General and it was adhering firmly to the line.

The 120 Ansbacher depositors would not be named publicly before Mr Justice Declan Costello and his two fellow inspectors completed their investigation and reported back to the High Court.

THERE were several strands to the Government position - the names had to be kept confidential in what was an ongoing investigation; the principle of non-retrospection meant it was impossible to change the Companies Act; and publishing the names at this stage would prejudice the right to a fair trial and allow those in the wrong to walk away without any penalty.

The Tanaiste claimed the argument that the law could be retrospectively changed to allow publication betrayed "a flawed understanding of the Companies Acts". The Fine Gael leader, Mr John Bruton, countered by describing the Government's position as "hopelessly misinformed".

However, with the Government holding the majority of the votes, there would be no amendment to make the report available beyond a group including the six directors of Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd and Mr Padraig Collery, the man who took over from Mr Traynor in managing the Ansbacher accounts.

The Tanaiste spoke of "mob justice and lynch law". She said the reports from authorised officers "like Garda reports, are meant to be secret". However, it was left to Mr Boylan to expose a fatal flaw in the Tanaiste's argument.

"Let us suppose a serious crime is committed - a murder - and the Garda Siochana has its suspicions and prepares a file for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Can one imagine 15 copies being distributed to suspects so that they could cover their tracks?" Mr Boylan asked.

Several Government speakers made much of due process and protecting the good name of those listed in the report until a file was ready to go to the DPP. In essence, there was a contest between public interest and public curiosity. And until the High Court inspectors report, the Opposition, the media and the public must wait.

However, the Tanaiste failed to mention that through her High Court affidavit she herself had provided the public with several of the 120 names and had also allowed the "CRH Eight" to be more easily identified.

The Labour leader asked "how is it that putting these names in the public domain does not prejudice their right to due process but that publishing other names would do so?" There was no answer from the Government.