Freedom of information is a wonderfully appealing call. Who could be against it? We all want to push back the boundaries of what is known about Cabinet decisions. But what limits should there be? This is about to be tested by Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, after his decision that the minutes of two Cabinet meetings before the Iraq war should be released.

As Mr Thomas recognises, the issue goes to the heart of Cabinet confidentiality, currently protected by the 30-year rule before papers are disclosed. However this limit is being reviewed. The 2000 Act specifically exempted the formulation of government policy and ministerial discussions.

Mr Thomas argues that this exemption must be balanced against a public interest test. In this case the information available so far is not enough to allow scrutiny of how decisions were taken. Disclosure would “therefore serve the public interest in respect of transparency and public understanding”.

Mr Thomas maintains that releasing these two sets of minutes would not undermine the convention of Cabinet collective responsibility, nor would it “set a dangerous precedent in respect of other Cabinet minutes”. But some references that “would have a detrimental effect on international relations” should be excluded.

This ruling will almost certainly be appealed by the Cabinet Office to the Information Tribunal, and there is then a ministerial veto. It is hard to see Mr Thomas and the complainant winning. While the Iraq war was unquestionably important and highly unusual, the argument that the release of the minutes would not create a precedent undermining Cabinet secrecy and collective responsibility will be difficult to sustain.

Ministers should be able to keep their discussions confidential for a reasonable period, even on matters as serious as going to war. What should be known publicly is the legal and information basis on which such decisions are taken. This is central to the debate about a war powers Act. It will be part of the draft constitutional renewal Bill.

By comparison with these issues of principle nothing very new is likely to be revealed even if Mr Thomas gets his way. There is no mystery about the how and why of Britain going to war over Iraq. Since 2003 we have had a deluge of interviews, memoirs and documents. The inquiry by Lord Butler of Brockwell and his team noted “there was no lack of discussion on Iraq; and we have been informed that it was substantive”. Iraq was a specific agenda at two dozen meetings of the full Cabinet in the year before the war and there were a similar number of informal discussions.

So the freedom of information request and demands for a public inquiry are a diversion. Procedures should, and will, be tightened to ensure more evidence is known.

Ultimately what matters is not the processes of decision-making but the results – and that is what really counts against Tony Blair now.

Times Recommends

• Oh no, Mr Darling: you have failed
• BBC survives dogfight over Kennel Club expose
• Where the Rosetta belongs can’t be set in stone