IT APPEARED to be a case of the biter bit; the paragon of probity with feet of clay. Those who had suffered in government under the Labour Party's demands for transparency and who had lost power on the basis of communal guilt, were determined to exact their pound of flesh.

The fact that the Svengali of the Labour Party was on the receiving end of their retribution was just the icing on Fianna Fail's cake.

The charge was one of "favourable treatment", what would normally be known in politics as an "inside track" scam.

A company in which Conor Quinn, brother of the Minister for Finance, Ruairi Quinn, had a stake was granted the State's lucrative advertising contract in the divorce referendum campaign in questionable circumstances - and there was a letter from Conor Quinn on file in which he suggested to Dick Spring's political adviser ways in which this potentially embarrassing conflict of interests might be minimised.

Like all good controversies, the details were mired in confusion. But there was an obvious winner of the contract and a disappointed loser. The winner had the right political connections; the loser didn't. What more was there to say? This was Ireland, right?

It was part of the web of ongoing sleaze, of political sleight of hand and of unconstitutional advertising that Des Hanafin had been trying to weave around the Government's divorce referendum victory in his case before the High Court. Blacken the behaviour of the Government sufficiently and it might become easier to persuade the judiciary to order a new referendum, the thinking went.

The question on every politician's and lawyer's ups these days is: would the courts overturn the decision of the people, even if it could be shown - in legal terms - to have been improperly influenced? Last week, there would have been no takers for a Yes bet. But the odds shortened remarkably yesterday when the High Court ruled that it did have a function in the matter and it went on to allow a full hearing of the case.

This decision will bring the Tanaiste adviser, Mr Fergus Finlay, and a number of other ministerial advisers, programme managers and civil servants before the court next week to explain the appointment of QMP and the terms on which the Government's pro divorce campaign was run. As a byproduct, it will provide the public with some of the much touted transparency about which Labour has enthused in the past.

While the issue of QMP's appointment is very much a sideshow to the referendum carnival, it does indicate the Labour driven nature of the divorce referendum during the life of successive governments. It also shows how powerful advisers and programme managers have become within the political system.

Last night, Fianna Fail was concentrating its firepower on the contract that never was the original decision in April 1994 to recommend QMP for the job. A party spokesman said there never had been a Cabinet decision in the matter and a Fianna Fail Minister was never involved.

Those facts are not contested by Labour. Mr Finlay explained that a sub committee of ministerial (Labour Party) advisers and civil servants, which he headed, had conducted a tendering process among six advertising companies and that two - QMP and McConnells - had been shortlisted.

Efforts were made to encourage the two agencies to run a joint campaign and when this failed, a recommendation was made in favour of QMP. The original recommendation was not acted upon by Mervyn Taylor before the Fianna Fail/Labour Party government fell in December 1994, even though it was forwarded to the Government's contracts committee.

Conor Quinn was clearly aware of this decision in principle when he wrote to Mr Finlay in May 1994, asking that his connection with QMP be played down and suggesting that "the family connection has merely served to exclude us from a lot of business that in the normal course of events a firm of our size could expect to win".

Mr Finlay could not explain why McConnells had not been advised of its failure to secure the contract during the initial round. It had not been treated with proper courtesy, he agreed, but he denied it had been abused or treated as "patsies".

LATER, a Government spokesman said that by the time the coalition got to grips with the divorce issue be asked to review the earlier decision in favour of QMP.

This was of some significance, given Fine Gael's attitude towards using State funds in advocating a Yes vote. But the new Cabinet subcommittee, which included Mervyn Taylor, Dermot Gleeson, Michael Noonan and Proinsias De Rossa, endorsed the earlier recommendation and QMP got the job.

Through all the controversy, Mr Finlay played the faithful adviser, totally dedicated to the welfare of his employer. Dick Spring, he insisted, had nothing to do with any of the decisions nor had Ruairi Quinn. Opposition talk of a political scandal was "absolute bilge" and rigorous standards had been applied at all times before the contract was awarded.

On the face of the evidence so far, Fianna Fail lacks a smoking gun. The discrepancy of dates in the awarding of the contract has been explained. It seems that a desire to get a few digs into Mr Finlay outweighed natural political caution.

But Fianna Fail has long experience of being at the receiving end of unfounded allegations. And, from an opposition point of view, the incident will do no harm. Politics is a rough, tough business. As US president once replied, when his aide protested that an opponent simply could not be guilty of such an offence: "Oh yeah? Then let's hear him deny it."