Whitehall secrecy defended

Dominic Grieve said he did not know exactly why Health Secretary Andrew Lansley chose to exercise a ministerial veto to overrule a tribunal ruling that the “risk register” should be released.

But he told MPs that he believed each case was dealt with on its own merits despite a watchdog’s complaint that Ministers used the case to make it easier to keep data secret.

Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said the latest veto “appears to have most to do with how the law might be changed to apply differently in future”.

It did not meet any of the criteria set down for the use of the final blocking power, he complained in a highly critical report to Parliament.

Mr Lansley argued that the veto was necessary to prevent officials being afraid to speak their minds frankly about policies behind closed doors.

Ministerial vetoes have been used to prevent records of Cabinet discussions being made public.

Mr Grieve said there were “really compelling and good arguments” for preserving the secrecy of Cabinet papers to protect the collective responsibility principle of decision making.

Supporters of openness point to major scandals which might never have emerged without it.