The normal argument against this case is that all records of communications being a matter for public record could have a chilling effect on the frank and fearless advice Ministers may be willing to provide.

My answer to that argument is:

If your not willing to stand by the reasons you had for providing advice in the past, then the advice was baseless then, and is undefendable now. Even if you’re mind has changed on the advice, you should still be able to quantify legitimate reasons for the advice given then.