Last week we debated in the Lords the decision of the Government to appeal against the decision by the Information Commissioner that the Department of Health should release the so-called Risk Register on the Health and Social Care Bill. Together with my colleague Shirley Williams, I argued that it is right that the Department appealed because this is a very finely balanced argument, as the initial ruling made clear but that all the involved parties should ask the Tribunal that the hearing is expedited. This is a very fundamental case and we shouldn’t have to wait until March or April for a decision to be reached.

As a Liberal Democrat, I have always been a strong supporter of the right for individuals to obtain certain Government information through Freedom of Information requests. That is why the Liberal Democrats supported a commitment to introduce a Freedom of Information Act in our 1997 manifesto.

During the last parliament, we also campaigned to ensure that the last Labour Government were not simply allowed to veto FOI requests as and when it suited their needs but that a proper, open process was put in place.

The Freedom of Information Act recognises that there should be occasions when it is not appropriate for the Government to release certain information. The Information Commissioner decided that the risk register was within the public interest, but gives the Government the right to appeal that decision.

So what is a Risk Register? In both the commercial world and public sector risk registers are used as a project-management tool to manage and mitigate risks, so that they do not come to bear. It contains a number of what-if scenarios and then proposes ways to prevent them from happening or solve them when they do become reality.

In this case, the Department of Health has received a specific request under the Freedom of Information Act to release the Transition Risk Register that covers risks relating to the development and implementation of the Health and Social Care Bill.

There was also a separate request to release the Strategic Risk Register, which covers the most important risks the Department faces. These include financial risks, policy risks and sensitive commercial and contractual risks.

The Department of Health argued that releasing the risk register could lead to a situation whereby officials are reluctant to record all potential risks and dangers to patients because of the precedent this would set in ensuring that all this information could be made publicly available. In fact, Labour rejected requests for risk registers to be released under Andy Burnham and Alan Johnson.

They argued that Ministers need this kind of information to make the right decisions and officials need to be able to be as frank as possible. If they cannot be or are reluctant to be fully open, that could have serious consequences for Ministers’ ability to make the right decisions if they don’t know all the potential risks. This decision on whether it should be released would therefore affect all of Government, as it could set a precedent.

So it is clearly important that all of the implications are carefully considered. It’s not just this Coalition Government that is affected by it, all future Governments would be. It is therefore the right decision to appeal this, as the Information Commissioner gave the Department the opportunity to do so. Labour is disingenuous to suggest that this anything else than the right decision, given that they refused to release similar documents when in office.

The concerns raised are entirely valid – indeed we were among those who did so at the outset when the existence of the registers became known. But it is important that on the one hand Labour don’t use the issue as a ploy to derail the Bill and on the other that the appeal is not seen as a delaying tactic by the Department. For that reason we argued strongly for the appeal to be expedited and heard as soon as possible -before Report Stage- so that if the information is released we can do our scrutiny job properly.

I believe the Department is genuine in its concerns and I’m glad that in replying to the debate the Minister, Earl Howe, agreed to do all he could speed up the hearing and in fact had already explored the procedure for doing so.