No doubt on national security damage?
"We are in no doubt that there has been considerable damage to national security already as a result of some of these leaks and we are concerned that the potential for future damage is significant."
This is how the Cabinet Office, in its official complaint to the Metropolitan Police, described the series of leaks from the Home Office, which ultimately led to the arrest of . The letter, released to the Public Administration Select Committee, is dated incorrectly September 8th, it was in fact sent on October 8th.
The letter says the Government was in no doubt, but a lot doubt appears to exist now.
It begs the question whether the Government oversold this complaint to the police, which might explain their seemingly heavy-handed response. As of now there is no evidence that anything affecting National Security was involved.
In fact, had any national security related material been involved it would have been far easier for the police to make arrests under the Official Secrets Act rather than the common law offence they used.
Watch the Head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus O'Donnell gracefully avoid this issue in the video below from the Committee evidence session this morning.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit µþµþ°äÌý°Â±ð²ú·É¾±²õ±ð for full instructions
He offers a number of explanations: that there was a danger that anyone able to leak the material that got into the public domain would also have access to national security sensitive material (that is surely the possibility of damage to national security, not the certainty?); that David Davis in an interview said that the Tories did not use all of the material given to them (although how an interview on November 28th explains the Government's lack of doubt on October 8th is not clear); and, finally, that perhaps Christopher Galley was not the only Home Office leaker.
That third reason, that there might be other leakers out there, is the most convincing.
However, if the investigation does not produce any more civil servants leaking then it seems to me that the Government may have, at the least, exaggerated its problem to the police.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 11th Dec 2008, busby2 wrote:Michael
Thanks for this blog - it makes very interesting reading.
It now seems absolutely clear that this investigation was an attempt by the politicised top civil servant to get the police to do the Govt's dirty work by launching an over the top police inquiry to plug leaks that were embarrising the Govt.
I suppose we should be used to the Head of the Civil Service being economical with the truth. Here we have another prime example, except this time he did not admit it. And that makes him very much worse than his predecessor, Robert Armstrong, at the Spycatcher trial.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 11th Dec 2008, lordBeddGelert wrote:Michael, Michael, Michael,
Tsk Tsk Tsk...
You are making the fundamental error here that the police should wait until AFTER crime has been committed before investigating...
How quaint and '20th Century'. Haven't you seen the film 'Minority Report'. No, the cops must be allowed to investigate crime and arrest the miscreants BEFORE they are allowed to do damage, and that way we can all sleep in our beds more easily.
This 'waiting until national security' has been compromised is 'locking the stable door after the horse has bolted'.
No, no no ! Arrest the horse and throw it in prison before it gets a chance to push the stable door open. Don't wait until there is 'evidence' that the horse is about to bolt for freedom - if you do that it will be too late !!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 12th Dec 2008, Brian Tomkinson wrote:"We are in no doubt that there has been considerable damage to national security already as a result of some of these leaks"
This clearly states that national security had ALREADY BEEN DAMAGED by the leaks. What evidence was there to justify this statement? Given such a powerful statement, why was there no use of the official secrets act by the police? It seems clear that this whole saga was a reaction by senior civil servants to constant criticism from their political masters about the political embarrassment caused to them by leaks of information, which they were trying to hide from the British people, for no other reason than their own political advantage.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 12th Dec 2008, bookhimdano wrote:national security
what investigation was made about the no 10 official who lost a no 10 electronic device in a chinese honey trap?
what advice was given to staff before going to china. were they warned or trained in counter measures?
what happened to the staff member?
why was the story not reported in uk news?
seems a fanatical obsession with security on the one hand and a cavalier attitude on the other? which is right?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 12th Dec 2008, leftieoddbod wrote:so sorry Norton Griffiths that the jury had the cheek to deliver a verdict that you obviously did not agree with, do you mean the police with their seven teams of lawyers didn't get a result? Oh, what a drag for you. The fact that in spite of pressure more worthy of a banana republic the jury *Gawd bless 'em, did not cave in and make this whole affair a mockery of justice instead they restored our faith in the jury system and give that poor family some credence of respect and dignity the law of this country found too hard to stomach.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 12th Dec 2008, David Evershed wrote:Sir Gus O'Donnell said nothing to support their statement to the police that:
"We are in no doubt that there has been considerable damage to national security"
In fact he gave reasons for having doubt eg they did not know what had been leaked.
Why did the Select Committee Chairman let him off the hook?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 5th Jan 2009, JunkkMale wrote:Welcome back. How have things been since Dec 11, 2008. Anything happened?
Hello.
Helloooo....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)