THE Government is now expected to hold a referendum on Cabinet confidentiality by June at the latest. It is understood the Attorney General, Mr Dermot Gleeson, has forwarded a proposed wording to the parliamentary draftsman.
Although the precise terms have not been revealed, Government sources said the wording provided for a relaxation of the Cabinet confidentiality rule where a matter of grave public importance was concerned. It had been suggested previously that "overriding public interest" should be the criterion for relaxing the rule but it was felt that "grave public importance" would be a more suitable benchmark.
Coalition sources said the three party leaders had taken a firm decision to hold the referendum before the Government left office. Delay in proceeding with the poll was blamed on civil service objections. The aim now was to have the vote on the same day as the general election. However, if the Dail was not dissolved until the autumn, then the referendum would almost certainly take place in June.
Government sources said all three party leaders had always been firmly committed to holding a referendum, but the proposal had become "bogged down in bureaucratic objections from a variety of government departments".
Sources said the Taoiseach Mr Bruton, had been unfairly portrayed as "backing away" from a constitutional amendment; the delay was in fact due to the variety of problems raised about a referendum.
The referendum plan received fresh impetus from last November's confidence debate in the Dail when the Government "felt it was being challenged over the whole issue of openness and accountability".
Addressing the Dail on November 13th, the Tanaiste and Labour Party leader, Mr Spring, challenged all parties in the House, particularly Fianna Fail, to accept a new wording for a referendum and said there was no reason the poll could not be held either be fore or alongside the general election.
Government sources said that although Cabinet confidentiality would continue to be the norm, it would not be an absolute rule, as at present. Situations where the proposed constitutional amendment would allow for a relaxation of the rule included tribunals of inquiry or a court case on a matter of grave public importance where Cabinet discussions were crucial to the evidence.
Coalition sources said it was the Government's intention that after the referendum public inquiries along the lines of the hepatitis C tribunal would be able to obtain relevant information on Cabinet discussions.
Asked if this would have an inhibiting effect on Cabinet discussions, Government sources pointed out that in other jurisdictions there had been some initial inhibition but in the long term the "system has just adapted".
The Constitution Review Group in its report last May said there were "grounds for extreme caution" in relaxing Cabinet confidentiality. The report said any relaxation should either be confined to the context of a criminal prosecution against a past or present member of the government, or if this was considered unduly restrictive, then the test of "over riding public interest" should be applied.