§ Mr. EffordTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the findings of the independent investigation into the leak of material relating to the report by Sir William Macpherson into the death of Stephen Lawrence. [84332]
§ Mr. StrawI have now received from my Permanent Secretary the report of the independent investigation into the leak, carried out following longstanding practice by a member of the panel maintained by the Cabinet Office. The summary findings of the report are as follows:
188WInformation deriving from the draft report of the Judicial Inquiry was leaked to the Sunday Telegraph on 21 February. The most likely route for the leak was not the draft Report itself but a summary of its findings and associated commentary which were internal to Government. The leak is not, therefore, thought to have come from the Inquiry team or from the printers.
Appropriate security arrangements were instituted by the Home Office to control tightly the handling of the draft Report and related papers. They excluded advance briefing of the media. The handling procedures and the restriction on briefing of the media were observed. All copies of the relevant papers were accounted for. No-one was found who had had unauthorised access to the material. Despite intensive investigation, it has not been possible to establish who deliberately leaked the story to the Sunday Telegraph.
I regret that it has not been possible to trace the originator of this deplorable leak. I had access myself to the papers, and I have already given in my Statement to the House on 22 February 1999, Official Report, columns 21–34, my personal word that I was not responsible. The only other Minister with relevant access was my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) who has asked me to relay to the House a similar absolute assurance which he has given me and which I fully accept. The number of officials and advisers who also had access to the relevant papers is small, and I do not intend therefore, to publish their names which would only serve to throw suspicion unfairly on them as a group when there is no evidence that identifies any individual as responsible.