DURING the early part of the beef tribunal in January 1992 its chairman, Mr Justice Hamilton, said: "I think that if the questions that were basked in the Dail were answered in the way they are answered here, there would be no necessity for this inquiry and a lot of money and time would have been saved."

Not even Mr Justice Hamilton new then just how much time and money. The tribunal ran until June 1993, and did not report until August 1994. It cost some £35 million.

It was a long and expensive exercise in finding out how decisions are taken, the nature of the relationship between politics and business and a rare glimpse into the State's secret workings.

In 1993, the Labour/Fianna Fail coalition said it would consider a Freedom of Information Bill. Consideration became commitment after the collapse of that government,

It was a time when the talk was of openness, transparency and accountability when the then Taoiseach, Mr Reynolds, for a little while actually gave "on the record" briefings to journalists. Mr Reynolds said he wanted to "let in the light" on government. The present, Taoiseach, Mr Bruton, wanted Government business conducted as if "behind a pane of glass".

Last month the Minister of State at the Department of the Tanaiste, Ms Eithne Fitzgerald, finally published her Freedom of Information Bill. Along with some officials shed has worked hard on the Bill. It is priority, she said, and will become law. If and when it does it will be a monument to her tenacity.

The Freedom of Information Bill, (FOI) is a radical document. It turns around the presumption of secretiveness which has been part of the political culture of this State since its foundation and which Fianna Fail copperfastened when it tightened up the Official Secrets Act in 1963. It says everything is open unless otherwise stated, rather than the opposite, which is currently the case.

BUT will it lead to greater openness and transparency in terms of the workings of the state? Possibly not. Since FOI was first suggested and since the beef tribunal finished, the concern with openness has diminished.

It has been argued that the present Government is obsessively secret and the emphasis behind the Freedom of Information Bill has changed from being one of the public's right to know to the private, right to individual information.

That is why Ms Fitzgerald, when introducing the Bill, referred to the right of individuals to their social welfare files, or patients to medical files, something that should always have been the case.

She did not refer to journalists, having a right and duty to publish information which the public has a right to know. Nor was there any mention of the investigative role of, journalists nor their role as watchdogs, rights and duties recognised by the European Court of Human Rights.

The Freedom of Information Bill offers limited scope for investigation the workings of government. It did not include protect ion for public servants who might wish to "blow the whistle" on a possible wrong doing.

"We are told that that will follow as separate legislation, but, is there enough time left in the life of this Government?

While the Freedom of Information Bill was making its slow journey through the system, one journalist Ms Susan O'Keeffe, was charged with refusing to name her sources to the beef tribunal. Another, Ms Liz Allen, was charged and convicted under the Official Secrets Act. A reporter from the Star is currently facing contempt charges for not telling a court the sources of his information.

In the case of Ms Allen, her defence - that she revealed information in the interests of the State, was unsuccessful. That is now being mooted as the sort of defence a whistle blowing civil servant might have," to pin his or her hopes on if the promised legislation is introduced.

THE Freedom of Information, Bill will bring some benefits to journalists. It might mean that newspapers can resist publishing every draft report from every little sub committee simply because they are secret.

Presumably they will not now be secret and so save the State the cost of probing leaks. I might, mean that the official every journalist claims to have spoken to who said "No comment, but don't quote me" can be retired.

But to create an environment that mirrors the rulings of the Europeans Court of Human Rights in recent years something more radical is "needed. It would mean a positive understanding of the role of the media in a modern democracy it would demand a reform of the libel laws; it would mean a radical change of the laws relating to contempt of court, as promised but never delivered; it would include a referendum on Cabinet confidentiality.

It could also include a referendum bringing Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, into the Irish Constitution, replacing the grudging and far from ringing declaration in Article 40.

After all, Ireland has signed the European Convention, so why not include some of its provisions in Irish law, and with it the judgments and rulings handed down in Strasbourg by the Court of Human Rights regarding freedom of expression?