The government has failed to block the release of sections of former health secretary Andrew Lansley’s diaries in the court of appeal.

Journalist Simon Lewis made a request under the Freedom of Information Act to see passages of Lansley’s ministerial diary from 2010 and 2011, covering the period when controversial health reforms were being drawn up.

He was only given a heavily redacted version, but in 2013 the information commissioner, who oversees the legislation, ruled that the majority of the withheld information should be disclosed.

The government has since been challenging that decision through the information tribunals and the courts; but three appeal judges unanimously ruled on Wednesday in favour of disclosure.

With Whitehall officials in pre-election purdah, which puts strict limits on the decisions they can make, the information is unlikely to be released until after the campaign is over.

A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: “We are considering the judgment, and we will make a decision in due course.”

Lansley was the driving force behind the radical Health and Social Care Act, which sought to expand competition in the NHS, and sparked controversy after the Conservative manifesto had promised to avoid “top-down reorganisation” of the health service.

Wednesday’s ruling was handed down by Sir Terence Etherton, master of the rolls, sitting with Lady Justice Black and Lord Justice Davis.



In the lead ruling, Etherton said the FoI Act created a general right of access to information held by public authorities, but allowed for exemptions from disclosure.

Sir Alex Allan, a former chair of the joint intelligence committee, was among government witnesses who gave evidence that disclosure “would not assist the understanding of the processes of government and would be liable to mislead and misinform the public as to the efficiency and extent of the work of the minister”.

But dismissing the government’s appeal, Etherton said the first-tier tribunal “actually identified 11 particular types of benefit from disclosure”, including “general value of openness” and “transparency in public administration”.

The judge also rejected the government claim that the Department of Health did not hold the diary information “for the purposes of the FoI Act”.

He declared that while Lansley was a minister in the department, the diary entries “were held by the department for itself even if they were also held – in the case of personal and constituency matters – for Mr Lansley as well”.

The judge added: “I cannot see that the termination of Mr Lansley’s ministerial position made any difference to that position.

“In particular it seems to me clear that it remained relevant or potentially relevant to the department to know, as a matter of historical record, where Mr Lansley had been and with whom on particular occasions, should there be a political, journalistic or historical interest raised with the department in relation to those matters.”

Black and Davis both agreed.