§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhosasked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the outcome of his inquiry into the leak of the Strategic Defence Review White Paper. [HL3490]
§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)A copy of the Strategic Defence Review White Paper was leaked to the Opposition Front Bench and to the press on the afternoon and early evening of Tuesday 7 July. As soon as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence learned about the leak, he asked the Cabinet Secretary to authorise an immediate and thorough investigation into how it came about. This inquiry has been conducted by two independent investigators. It has now been completed.
We regret that after extensive enquiries, the investigators were not able to identify the person responsible for the leak. They have, however, established the course of events on the afternoon and evening of 7 July with a high degree of probability.
The investigators concluded that on 7 July a photocopy of the White Paper was sent by an authorised recipient within government to the Opposition Front Bench; and that subsequently four copies were made within the House and made available to selected journalists. The first newspaper to receive a copy was the Daily Telegraph. Further copies went to The Times, the Financial Times and the Daily Mail, apparently in phased distribution because of the bulk of the document being copied. The investigators found no evidence to suggest that, in addition to the copy sent to the Opposition, a second authorised recipient sent copies to the newspapers.
The investigation revealed some small weaknesses in the generally very successful procedures for the distribution of the White Paper. None of them was a likely cause of the leak. The necessary steps will be taken to ensure that these small errors are not repeated. In itself the leak was of no significance to national security. But we are naturally most concerned that someone working for the government breached security in this way. Ten thousand copies of the White Paper were circulated under embargo in advance of its publication. It appears that only one of the authorised recipients did not respect its confidentiality.
The leak was a gross discourtesy to Parliament; and I once again express my anger and my apologies that it occurred.