Next Thursday's referendum to change our Constitution on Cabinet confidentiality has raised complex questions in recent weeks. Any amendment to the Constitution is not something to be rushed into lightly. We must take extraordinary care to ensure we get it right.
Cabinet confidentiality may seem like a fairly abstract concept, and fairly remote from the life of the man or woman on the 51B bus. But the issue at stake is simple, and it comes down to this. All politicians, perhaps especially Cabinet ministers, are servants of the public.
Those of us who are honoured to serve in the Dail, or for that matter at any level in politics, are not in public life to benefit ourselves. We are not in politics for the glory of high office, or for the pleasure of being centre-stage in society. We are in this business to do a job of work in the public service. The political system must be geared at all times for the service and convenience of the people, and not the other way around.
The Labour Party's commitment to this principle has meant a lot of changes in recent years. It is why we have brought in Ethics in Public Office laws and the Freedom of Information Act, as well as a funding system to reduce the dependence of political parties on private money. And one of the things that principle means is that if the public interest so requires, the people are entitled to know what is discussed at the Cabinet itself.
Some years ago, this issue came before the courts. In July 1992, Mr Justice Rory O'Hanlon ruled in the High Court that the public interest could warrant an inquiry into Cabinet discussions, and that the Beef Tribunal could so inquire after balancing the competing public interests involved.
Now Mr Justice O'Hanlon has expressed trenchant views on a lot of matters in the past with which I have had occasion to disagree, including remarks about the party to which I am proud to belong.
But I would say, in relation to his learned judgment on this issue, that he got it right, and that if that judgment had stood as the law, we would not have needed to have a referendum. However the case was appealed, and in August 1992 a majority of the Supreme Court decided, on the basis of the existing Constitution, that the Beef Tribunal could not inquire into the details of Cabinet discussions.
The case was decided by a three to two margin in the end. The decision suggested - even if it did not finally decide - that there exists a general rule prohibiting any inquiry into Cabinet discussion.
Within days of the court's decision, Dick Spring issued a statement calling for a referendum to reverse the decision, and to allow inquiries into discussions at Government in the public interest. We have had a difficult time in the five years since that date persuading others to agree to a referendum, but finally sense has prevailed and all major parties now accept the need for a "Yes" vote.
The call for a "Yes" vote has been linked with recent decisions to set up further tribunals of inquiry. There are three such tribunals in prospect - the tribunal dealing with Mr Lowry and Mr Haughey and related matters; the tribunal on planning; and the tribunal on the Blood Board. If the referendum is passed, it will not in itself allow the tribunals to look into Cabinet discussions.
It will, however, allow a tribunal to apply to the High Court to get permission to do so.
But it may be that the need for such an inquiry will not arise - the Dunnes Tribunal, for example, managed very well without this amendment. But the urgency of this amendment does not really justify the extreme short-cuts which the Government took to get it to this stage.
And did it take short-cuts! It rammed all stages of the amendment through the Dail in under two hours. It refused to consider any further amendments whatsoever. And quite frankly it has only itself to blame for the mess which has now arisen. A number of senior political and legal figures are questioning the wording of this amendment, and they are doing so for good reason.
The amendment relaxes the ban on Cabinet secrecy by letting the High Court authorise disclosures in two cases - administration of justice by the courts, and inquiries by tribunals.
These exceptions are good and valid and the Labour Party welcomes them. But the Bill does more - it copper-fastens absolute secrecy in every single other instance for all time. After careful study we have come to the conclusion that this is much too restrictive.
It is true that the Bill was first published by the last government, and in that sense all major parties have had a hand in it at some stage. But what is also true is that we did no more than bring the Bill to its first stage. After that would come an opportunity to try to improve it, and that is what we sought to do.
In the Dail and Seanad, the Labour Party pointed this out and proposed amendments to cure this problem by allowing further exceptions to be developed by law as required.
Unfortunately, the Government rejected these amendments, as did Fine Gael, which also displayed a regrettable reluctance to allow any further openness in relation to Cabinet discussions. The result has been that the chance we offered to produce a soundly-based amendment has been spurned. In those circumstances it is difficult to give an utterly unqualified and enthusiastic call for a "Yes" vote.
Nonetheless, we are calling for a "Yes" vote on Thursday. In addition, we also want to see a firm commitment from the Taoiseach that he will hold a second referendum to redress the flaws in next Thursday's poll. If such a clear commitment is given, a "Yes" majority on Thursday will be much more be likely.
More tomorrow