The Association of Higher Civil Servants has warned that civil servants will have to consider not giving evidence in future Public Accounts Committee hearings following their treatment by the committee during its recent consideration of a report on the Department of Agriculture.
During that meeting, on January 5th, Mr Des O'Malley gave evidence and, under questioning by Mr Pat Rabbitte of Democratic Left, trenchantly criticised the Department's handling of the beef industry.
All the unions representing management and professional grades in the Department have since written letters of protest to Mr O'Malley, to the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and to Mr Jim Mitchell, chairman of the PAC, bitterly complaining at what they regard as "generalised and unsubstantiated allegations of incompetence and collusion".
The PAC, which meets today, is to consider a detailed departmental response to the allegations made during the controversial meeting.
The general secretary of the association, Mr Sean O Riordain, said last night the committee was "vital in a democracy" and confidence must be maintained in its workings.
"However, it is a political committee, and at times politicians come with closed minds to issues that come before it. The Department's line-by-line response to the meeting of January 5th today must be published," Mr O Riordain said.
Mr Mitchell said last night he had just received the association's letter and would consider it carefully.
"It is normal, any time an area comes under the critical scrutiny of the committee, that we get correspondence on the subject. But the committee has to do its job to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the public services without fear or favour. I will reply to the association in the next few days", Mr Mitchell added.
In a lengthy letter to Mr Mitchell, Mr O Riordain said he had been asked by the executive of his association to write as a result of the Comptroller and Auditor General's 1997 annual report on the vote for the Department of Agriculture and Food, and the subsequent publicity.
Great concern had arisen among his members at the manner in which the hearing developed, he wrote. They were seriously concerned at "the failure to protect the rights to character and reputation of identifiable civil servants, who were not present".
The "selective recycling and publication of biased and inaccurate information" was causing great concern. A false public image had been painted of a Department staffed and managed by incompetents or, worse, who operated with complete indifference to the public interest, outside democratic control, under a series of ineffectual ministers.
The entire committee proceedings had implications for the general Civil Service, Mr O Riordain wrote. This included their appearances before Oireachtas committees.
"If the perception were to further grow that the Public Accounts Committee is treating the Civil Service unfairly or `out to get' individual Departments, this will have major implications for civil servants called to give evidence and for the committee itself", he added.
"The question will, for instance, arise as to whether Civil Service witnesses, in the circumstances, would be best advised to consider their constitutional rights to protect and vindicate their character and reputation, to be accompanied by counsel, to cross-examine or, in appropriate circumstances, to stop giving evidence", the letter continued.