The electorate should vote No to the Government's proposal to amend the Constitution on Cabinet confidentiality which comes before it today. The proposed amendment is a limited, conservative, stopgap measure - even by the tacit admission of its own supporters. That in itself might be sufficient reason for the public to reject short-term tampering with the Constitution. But the Government's failure to commit itself irretrievably to a further relaxation of Cabinet secrecy, by way of a future referendum and subsequent legislation, puts the issue beyond doubt.
Cabinet confidentiality became a political issue in 1992, following a majority ruling by the Supreme Court. Secrecy had been elevated into something approaching a principle of government. The case, initiated by a former Attorney General, Mr Harry Whelehan SC, arose out of the Beef Tribunal, when the chairman sought to investigate the circumstances surrounding the provision of export credit insurance by the former Fianna Fail Government. The current Referendum Bill was drafted by Mr Bruton's Government to allow disclosure of the contents of Cabinet discussions in extremely limited circumstances: where it might be deemed necessary in the interests of the administration of justice or to facilitate tribunals of inquiry. The terms were adopted, unchanged, by Mr Ahern's administration.
But the practical effect of this amendment could be to copper-fasten the Supreme Court ban on Cabinet confidentiality in all other circumstances. It could produce a grotesque situation in which historians and former Cabinet Ministers would be prevented from disclosing past events. Indeed, it might even prevent the disclosure of Cabinet discussions which would normally be covered under the 30-year rule.
During the Bill's passage through the Dail, its terms were severely criticised by spokesmen for the Labour Party, Democratic Left, the Progressive Democrats and Independents. And the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, indicated his personal support for empowering the Dail to relax Cabinet confidentiality in certain other limited circumstances. Since then, the Green Party, along with a number of prominent historians, politicians, and lawyers, have argued that this amendment should be rejected in favour of a more liberal approach in the future. The leaders of the five main political parties responded by calling for a Yes vote on the grounds that the main purpose of the referendum is to ensure that no obstacles are placed in the path of the courts or tribunals of inquiry. As for a new referendum, they acknowledged that a review of the Cabinet confidentiality issue might be required arising from the work of the all-party committee on the Constitution and the operation of the Moriarty and planning tribunals. But, crucially, the Government stopped short of promising a further relaxation of Cabinet confidentiality at the earliest possible date.
The public is now expected to believe that a dramatic change of mind has taken place within this Government. This same Government refused to make the changes now being demanded when the Referendum Bill was being rushed through the Dail last September. At that time, it insisted on the passage of an unacceptably restrictive Referendum Bill, rather than accepting a simple amendment which would empower the Dail to regulate its own business. The Government's vague and qualified offers to revisit the situation in the future do not impress. It would be regrettable if the Moriarty Tribunal were to be restricted in its task. But that may be a price which has to be paid. Vote No.