HAD the Freedom of Information legislation promised by the Minister for State, Ms Eithne Fitzgerald, been in place there would have been no beef tribunal. Had it been in place and part of our political culture, there would have been no need for the hepatitis C inquiry.
Both inquiries were attempts to force information out of a reluctant political system, a system that places secrecy above almost all else. The legislation, which was promised in the programme for government of 1993, attempts to turn on its head a presumption that has been part of our political system since the foundation of the State, that everything that comes from government is secret, unless otherwise stated.
The politicians who will now almost certainly support this legislation are recent converts to openness. A previous attempt to, place freedom of information legislation on the statute books, proposed by Senator Brendan Ryan, was thrown out.
Ms Fitzgerald's legislation will allow all citizens access to information about themselves, information about how decisions - planning decisions, for instance, or social welfare decisions - are taken. Knowledge of how the government arrives at decisions will be in the public domain.
Access to all information except that which has been excluded will be possible. Excluded information relates to law enforcement, security, international relations, personal information about other people and commercially sensitive information.
However, the Information Commissioner, who will be the Ombudsman, can appeal and investigate refusals of requests for information and force disclosure. An official found guilty of refusing information can be fined £1,500 or given six months in prison.
There is another area of exclusion that even the information commissioner will have difficulty in finding out, the "granting of a ministerial certificate". This was included following concerns of the Department of Justice, which is also believed to have delayed the process of preparing the legislation.
A minister can deem certain material to be exempt because of its sensitive nature and refuse access to it. Ms Fitzgerald has included grounds for an appeal against a minister, following criticism of her original proposals.
Given the lack of commitment of successive governments to openness and transparency, the inclusion of the certificate process has been viewed as a let-out clause.
But the Minister was adamant that she had included enough checks and balances, including six-monthly reviews and the necessity of certificates being approved by the whole Cabinet, to ensure that the system could not be abused.
The legislation will amend 36 separate pieces of legislation, from the Industrial Relations Act of 1946 to the Bord Bin Act of 1996, all of which would clash with Freedom of Information. It is expected the Official Secrets Act will be replaced with a specific piece of legislation relating to penalties, espionage, and forgery.
But what will change, if anything? The experience of other countries with similar legal system is that change has been profound, if slow. Proponents of freedom of information insist that the real change is not legislative, but cultural, and that it takes time to change a culture.
A year after the Bill is passed, an official will not be able to refuse to tell social welfare recipients why they are being refused payment. A hospital will not be able to refuse you access to your file. Even the Department of Justice will have to tell citizens who ask what information it holds on them.