Lord Darzi’s pledge yesterday that future health service changes will be evidence based and subject to external review is all aimed at making some entirely necessary changes to the shape of services more understandable and palatable.

As part of the reassurance, service changes will be put through the government’s “gateway review” process, one that subjects major government projects to peer review to identify failures and risks early so they can be put right.

Will these be published, Lord Darzi was asked. “Yes, we will publish them,” he said. But did he not know that the Office of Government Commerce, the review process guardian, is currently fighting its way up and down the
courts refusing to release the reviews on the grounds that staff will not be frank about problems if they
believe their admissions will become public?

Really, Lord Darzi said. Nonetheless, ” we will publish them. This is about transparency, and if you want to engage the public in this process you have to be transparent”.

A couple of hours later the health department press office is on the phone. The OGC had been consulted. “Ara made an error. We will publish the clinical assessments that go into the gateway reviews, but not the whole review”.

The result? Disappointment at the Campaign for Freedom of Information which had been delighted at the apparent weakening of the government’s stance on non-publication - one that the courts look almost certain eventually to overturn.

“Lord Darzi’s arguments in favour of publication are far more persuasive than the government’s arguments against,” Maurice Frankel, its director, said. “It shows that ministers invidually are persuaded, it is just that the government collectively refuses to be”. Quite.