Pity the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. In contrast to the intelligent and enthusiastic interest with which we usually approach our duties as Athenian citizens, in the process of amending the Constitution, this one was an orphan. For it was conceived in perplexity (at the time of the beef tribunal in 1992), incubated without interest and born in incomprehension. What is the import of the amendment? It seems to me that it has two effects.

First, it copperfastens but substantially widens the effect of the Supreme Court decision on cabinet confidentiality in the beef tribunal case. This widening must mean - among many instances which could be given - that the 30-year rule established by the National Archives Act 1986, which gives the public access to cabinet deliberations 30 years afterwards, would be caught by the ban.

For the amendment provides that the confidentiality of discussions at government meetings "shall be respected in all circumstances". Thus it may be that, if some mischievous person chooses to take an appropriate case, our post-New Year's Eve doldrums will no longer be relieved by newspaper accounts of what was happening in the cabinet during the 1960s.

The prize for which such a high price was paid is that tribunals of inquiry should have access to what went on at cabinet meetings. Of the tribunals presently set up or being contemplated - the Haughey/ Lowry/Revenue Commissioners tribunal, the planning tribunal and the HIV tribunal (a spin-off from the hepatitis C tribunal) - it seems that it is only the first which may need to draw upon the amendment. Moreover, even in this case, the amendment appears to have been brought in in case it might be necessary rather than for any identified need. The final element of the amendment refers to evidence of cabinet deliberations which are needed for actual litigation before a court of law. However, because of constitutional provisions dealing with the judicial function, which naturally do not apply to tribunals of inquiry, a court has always had access to such material and this was not affected by the cabinet confidentiality case. Thus this part of the amendment merely adds belt to braces. All in all, the kindest thing to say about the amendment is that we must take what consolation we can from Mr Ahern's promise - extraordinary in the context of the difficulty involved in amending the Constitution - to look again at the matter.