Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
20-39)
RT HON
JACQUI SMITH
MP AND SIR
DAVID NORMINGTON
KCB
20 JANUARY 2009
Q20 Mr Winnick: I am rather puzzled.
I can understand that it is virtually impossible for the Department
to be running properly and smoothly when this sort of action is
taking place, no one would justify it. The use of the term national
security I find difficult to understand. There is a lot of immigration
statistics that could be used and will be used in party political
battles on the Floor of the House of Commons and all the rest
of it, it is all part of our political process, but what percentage
of the leaking would you say concerned national security?
Sir David Normington: Could I
just be completely accurate about this? When we discussed with
the Cabinet Office whether we needed further help and we decided
to seek the help of the police we did not know who it was who
was leaking, so we did not refer to a specific individual who
was very junior. We asked a question about how we could find out
who was leaking. It was the knowledge that the person or people
must have had access to the Home Secretary's office and to her
papers that gave us a great deal of concern that national security
information might be at risk. The Cabinet Office also had a concern
that there had been separate leaks, not of Home Office documents,
but of a series of other material across Government, which did
have a national security classification, which had been in the
Home Office. It is that set of things which caused us to be very
concerned about it. Most of the material that was leaked to the
press and which the Chairman referred to was classified but it
did not have the highest national security.
Q21 Gwyn Prosser: You have also said
that when you reported it to the Cabinet Office there was the
potential to do damage to national security. In the letter from
the Cabinet Office to Bob Quick, the Assistant Commissioner, he
says, "We are in no doubt that there has been considerable
damage to national security already ..." How do you reconcile
the difference between those two stances?
Sir David Normington: I am talking
about three things: first of all, material leaking from the Home
Office on a persistent basis which was undermining the Department;
secondly, the risk that posed to national security because we
did not know who it was and we did not know what they might have
and what they might be leaking, and thirdly, the Cabinet Office's
concern, which is what they are particularly referring to, that
there had been a wider set of leaks of national security information
over quite a number of years. Some of that material had been in
the Home Office and they had been, as they say in the letter,
concerned that that had come from the Home Office as well. The
question was whether this was all linked. That is what that is
about.
Q22 Mrs Dean: Can you say exactly
when you decided that the internal inquiry could go no further?
Sir David Normington: I continued
to ask for internal inquiries of the leaks we had into September,
but during September last year the discussions with the Cabinet
Office led us to thinking that we needed the police's help and
the police were written to on 8 October. In parallel with those
discussions we continued to investigate the latest leak. There
was one at the beginning of September.
Q23 Mrs Dean: Can you say whether
the action you took was that of best practice in these situations?
Sir David Normington: I believe
it was best practice. The Cabinet Office has overall responsibility
for security in Government. They have provided a memorandum to
the Public Administration Committee which sets out what the best
practice is in this area and when you should seek their help and
when you could bring in the police. I believe, because of what
I have described, that we were following best practice.
Q24 Ms Buck: Let us return to the
issue of what the Home Office advised the Cabinet Office. We have
seen the letter that was sent to the police. In what terms was
the referral to the Cabinet Office made? Did it use the same form
of language? Did it use the words "national security"
at any point?
Sir David Normington: It was not
like that. The Cabinet Secretary and I had a discussion. We agreed
that that should be followed up with some more detailed discussions
about our problem between the Home Office and the Cabinet Office
and during that effectively we laid out for them all our information
and said, "How can you help?" We then had a discussion
with them about the means of help. They put it together with what
they knew about their investigations across government and it
was out of that that we decided that the police should be invited
in.
Q25 Ms Buck: So this was a series
of discussions?
Sir David Normington: It was a
series of discussions. There was not a moment when I wrote formally
to the Cabinet Office to commission it, it was not like that.
Q26 Ms Buck: What advice did they
give you back on the basis of the presentation that you made to
them about this structure of leaks and the content?
Sir David Normington: They believed
we should refer this matter to the police. They believed that
this was serious enough. They had some wider context which they
also took into account in that decision. I believed that was right.
In a sense I could have said, "No, I'm not having the police
in my Department." It is a very big step. I do not want you
to think I took the decision lightly at all.
Q27 Chairman: In the letter of 8
October who is the Director for Security and Intelligence at the
Cabinet Office?
Sir David Normington: It is somebody
called Chris Wright.
Q28 Chairman: He wrote to Bob Quick
and the only department mentioned in this letter is the Home Office
and the important phrase is, "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 further damage is significant." In answer to Mr Winnick
you said the words "national security" had never been
used by you. We accept that, but this was used in this letter.
Sir David Normington: I did use
the term "national security" in discussions with the
Cabinet Office. I did not claim that most of our leaks had national
security classifications.
Q29 Chairman: Are we saying that
some of the leaks relating to the information that Mr Galley had
in his possession, in answer to what Mr Winnick has said, were
national security issues? Were any of them to do with national
security?
Sir David Normington: I do not
know what Mr Galley has and has not leaked.
Q30 Chairman: That bit is in the
public domain.
Sir David Normington: I still
do not know.
Q31 Chairman: Having read the newspapers,
do you not know whether or not it is national security?
Sir David Normington: Let me be
clear. I know about the leaks that have appeared in the newspapers.
Q32 Chairman: That is all you know
on those leaks?
Sir David Normington: I made no
comment on whether that is linked with Mr Galley and I must not
do that.
Q33 Chairman: On all you have read
in the newspapers so far—
Sir David Normington: Most of
those leaks were not regarding national security.
Q34 Chairman: Let us just be clear.
Of the leaks you have read about in the national newspapers so
far, which is all this Committee is aware about, we read the same
newspapers as you do, are any of those leaks issues of national
security?
Sir David Normington: Over the
two years at least one of those leaks has.
Q35 Chairman: And you do not know
whether or not they are traced to Mr Galley at all?
Sir David Normington: I do not
and I have never made any suggestion that they are because that
would be quite wrong of me. That is in a sense what is being investigated.
Q36 Chairman: In terms of the internal
discussions that were going on in the Home Office, you were keeping
the Home Secretary informed daily, weekly, monthly, were you?
Sir David Normington: Probably
weekly.
Q37 Chairman: As part of a general
discussion?
Jacqui Smith: We meet weekly.
Q38 Chairman: The steam coming out
of ears discussion!
Jacqui Smith: We do not spend
the whole of our weekly meetings with steam coming out of our
ears, Chairman!
Chairman: I am very pleased to hear it.
Q39 Mr Winnick: Home Secretary, I
can understand the police being called in. What causes a great
deal of concern to Parliamentarians is the fact that the police
invaded the office of a Member of Parliament, it now appears,
arising from the Speaker's statement, without a search warrant.
As a Member of Parliament, leaving aside your very senior Cabinet
position, are you concerned that the police acted as they did?
Jacqui Smith: Yes, I am a Member
of Parliament but I am also the Home Secretary. I am therefore
not only responsible within Government for the police service
but I am also the Home Secretary within whose Department the inquiry
started. Therefore, I do believe that it is wholly inappropriate
for me to go further than I have gone in the statement that I
made to Parliament before Christmas about the rights or wrongs
of the way in which the police investigation has been carried
out. I would just remind the Committee that Sir Paul Stephenson,
the Acting Commissioner, has asked Ian Johnson to carry out a
review of the process and the methods that were used by the police.
Secondly, in relation to the point about the legality of the search
that was done in Parliament, Bob Quick wrote a letter which has
been made availability to Parliamentarians and also the committee
that Mr Speaker has set up to determine precisely those issues
that you talked about.
| 
