Oral Evidence

Taken before the Public Administration Committee

on Thursday 11 December 2008

Members present

Dr Tony Wright, in the Chair

Mr David Burrowes

Paul Flynn

David Heyes

Kelvin Hopkins

Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger

Julie Morgan

Mr Gordon Prentice

Mr Charles Walker

________________

Examination of Witness

Witness: Sir Gus O'Donnell KCB, Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service, gave evidence.

Q1 Chairman: I extend a warm welcome to one of our regular guests, Sir Gus O'Donnell, Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service. Sir Gus, whenever you come something seems to be in the air as it is this time. It is opportune that you should come to see us on this occasion. Overnight you have provided us with an interesting little paper on the role of the Cabinet Office in leak investigations with some more detailed evidence on recent events. Would you kick off by saying something about it?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Thank you very much for this opportunity which is very timely. I sent you this memorandum to set out the facts because I thought it was important that you should have it in advance. I hope it is helpful. As head of the Civil Service it is my job to uphold its values. The way I quite often put it is that if you cut a civil servant in half - I hope you do not do it very often - like a stick of rock you will find written within his or her values: honesty, objectivity, integrity and impartiality. I think that impartiality is absolutely crucial and it has allowed me to work for prime ministers and administrations of different parties. I hope that those values will be enshrined in legislation in the Constitutional Renewal Bill. It is that political impartiality that allows us to serve the government of the day whatever its political persuasion. Chairman, to quote your words there is no public interest in having routine leaking for political reasons. Civil servants must act in a way that deserves and retains the confidence of ministers while ensuring they are able to establish the same relationship with those they may be required to serve in some future government. For us that is a crucial principle. Leaks undermine the confidence of ministers in the Civil Service, as my predecessors Lords Butler and Turnbull have said; they are corrosive and reduce the quality of debate inside government. If a civil servant feels that as a matter of conscience or public interest there is something about which he or she is concerned there are routes through the management chain and the matter can be reported directly to the independent civil service commissioners. That is part of the new code about which I feel very strongly. When I was appointed Cabinet Secretary I issued a new code which I believe is simpler and much more accessible to all civil servants. When I go round the country to visit civil servants - I do a lot of it - I make a point of talking about values. I am working with Janet Paraskeva, the Civil Service Commissioner, to ensure that we think of ways to publicise all of that. In this particular case obviously there are matters that I cannot discuss because of ongoing police investigations. I believe that we have been in this situation once before. But I want to make it absolutely clear that when Sir David Normington and I invited the police to consider an investigation neither they nor we knew the source or sources of the leaks. We were concerned that they were coming from someone who could have access to very sensitive material. It is clear from the statement made by his lawyer that Mr Galley was responsible for some leaks, but investigations are ongoing and I cannot say any more about that. On a separate topic, this morning I have published the latest tranche of capability reviews which cover BERR, Communities and Local Government and the Cabinet Office. They outline progress and rescore two years on from the first assessments made in 2006, the steps taken to improve and the areas where we need to make further improvements. In the case of the Cabinet Office obviously we have been spending a lot more time recently on the downturn in the economy in the National Economic Council. If anyone wants to talk about that I shall be very happy to do so. The Civil Service remains in rude health and is attracting more and more people. The number of people who this year have applied for the fast scheme, which we have just closed, has risen by about one third. Of particular importance to me as an economist is that the number of economists who make applications has gone up by almost 50%, so I am very pleased about it. We remain a very attractive employer.

Q2 Chairman: The Committee has said that it wants to conduct an inquiry into the whole issue of leaks and whistleblowing, not focussing on the current case but some of the issues surrounding it. Perhaps we may start with current events and then go into some of the issues surrounding wider investigations. We shall come to Cabinet Office issues later. Let us talk first about what happened in this case and its genesis. In your memorandum to us talking generally you say that occasionally it may be appropriate to involve the police in an investigation, but the letter you produce from the Cabinet Office to Assistant Commissioner Quick dated 8 September, which you recognise should be 8 October, says: "A number of recent leak investigations, including some conducted by your officers, have raised questions about the security of sensitive information in the Home Office." Having said that it is only occasionally that you involve the police, you indicate in this letter that the police have been conducting regular inquiries into the Home Office.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is more general. We involve the police. The kind of criteria we would look at is: is it serious and persistent? Are there risks of the individuals concerned having access to something that affects national security? I am sure you will be aware of the case where an individual was prosecuted for the leak of a JTAC report and was subsequently imprisoned. That was very serious and involved a police investigation. There are occasions when these matters are of such importance that we involve the police. I should stress that we invite the police to consider investigating it; it is their decision whether or not that invitation is taken up.

Q3 Chairman: Therefore, there has been some previous police involvement on particular issues but on this particular matter there has been a series of leaks fairly close to the heart of government in Home Office terms and you had not got to the bottom of it?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is right.

Q4 Chairman: And you needed some help?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Indeed.

Q5 Chairman: You asked the police to come in. I think that the sentence in the letter to them which will generate the greatest interest 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 future damage is significant." To be clear, are you saying that in relation to the particular leak inquiry now going on there has been considerable damage to national security already in relation to those incidents or not?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Remember that when we started the inquiry the reason for it was our worry that certain information was getting out which potentially was very damaging to national security and that the kind of person who had access to some of the other things that had come out in the newspapers might also have access to secret stuff. It was brought home to me that this was a problem when David Davis gave an interview to BBC News on 28 November in which he said, talking about this in general, "Our job when that information comes to us is to make a judgment. Is it in the public interest that this should be known publicly or not? In about half the cases we decide not because we think there are reasons, perhaps of national security or military or terrorism reasons, not to put things in the public domain, but when it is clearly in the public interest people should know that is what we do." That implies that about half the things being received have a national security interest. I am worried; there is a real problem. I stress that I do not know what the police have discovered about this particular investigation, and it is important that I do not know; it is wholly a matter for them. I do not imply anything about this case, but what I am saying is that we have a problem about information emerging that potentially is quite damaging.

Q6 Chairman: You will see the importance of this because it is claimed that in this particular case the leaks that have led to the disclosure of information were of a politically embarrassing kind, not of a kind which damaged national security. The consequence of that is that a Member of Parliament is arrested, his offices are raided and so on. I think it is important to know whether in relation to that particular case the seriousness was such that it occasioned that action or whether it was part of a more general worry about the Home Office.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: There are two stages to this. The first stage is that when we asked the police to investigate we were worried about a general range of leaks, some potentially very serious. In addition, leaks of a certain kind emerged which did not involve national security but the person who had access to that material might also have access to much more sensitive material. As to precisely what the individual being investigated leaked and saw but did not leak I do not know, and I should not know. That is a matter that the police know but they have not told me; nor would I ask them; that is for their investigation.

Q7 Chairman: Therefore, as of now you do not know whether the general problem in the Home Office with security implications has been addressed by what the police have done in this case or if there is a continuing issue and further things may happen?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is correct; there are ongoing police investigations.

Q8 Mr Walker: Who is advising you on your security measures? Clearly, if the police are investigating leaks you must be concerned to stem them but surely they are giving you some ongoing advice as to how to tighten up your internal security to ensure that secret information or stuff of national importance is not getting into the public domain?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: At the end of all these investigations certainly we consider whether there are any lessons to be learnt by us in the way we handle our information.

Q9 Mr Walker: It seems odd that the police are not helping the Home Office to manage its security better as a result of the problems you have just outlined?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: As I say, when every investigation is completed there is a "lessons learned" exercise but while they are investigating they do not give us a running commentary on that investigation; that would not be appropriate.

Q10 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Do you have any private investigators, or anyone who is not the police, investigating this matter?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: In this particular case we have a panel of people we employ directly. I want to be clear about that. I have written a letter on that issue in response to an MP. They were investigating it and when we made the decision to call in the police they stopped and it went over to the police.

Q11 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Who is that?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is one of the individuals on our panel of independent investigators.

Q12 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Can you say who it?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am afraid I do not have his name.

Q13 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Can you let us know who it is?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: There is a panel of people who are security-cleared to do this sort of work.

Q14 Chairman: Let us stay with this series of events. You have said that when you hand it over to the police it is for them to do what they want. After a very short period of time they came back to you and said they had found somebody who they thought was responsible at least for some of this stuff. That was on 17 November. On 19 November a gentleman was arrested, but a few days later on 27 November despite the fact the police went off and did their own business they came back to you and said that imminently they intended to arrest Damian Green and search his offices. You, the Leader of the Opposition, the Mayor of London and Sir David Normington were told about it but it was not until half an hour afterwards that the Prime Minister was told about it. At what point was the Home Secretary told about it?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: To be clear about this, I learned of this after the event. As soon as I learned of it I informed the Prime Minister. I was told when it had already happened. This is something for the police to do, not me; it is for them to decide how they do their investigation.

Mr Liddell-Grainger: Who told the Home Secretary and when?

Q15 Chairman: An issue has arisen about when the Home Secretary knew this. According to your memorandum the Home Secretary was informed at about 3 pm which was half an hour after the event. To many people including former home secretaries it seemed bizarre that the Home Secretary had not been routinely told that the arrest of a Member of Parliament would happen when various other people including the Mayor of London had been told?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: How people should be notified was a decision by the police. Once I was notified I informed the Prime Minister, but it was after the arrest had taken place.

Q16 Mr Prentice: Were you shocked and surprised when Damian Green was arrested?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I was surprised, yes.

Q17 Mr Prentice: Did you think the arrest threw up major constitutional issues?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think we went into this territory when I discussed with the Committee the question of cash for peerages.

Q18 Mr Prentice: At that time the Prime Minister was interviewed by the police on three occasions but was never arrested?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Indeed. I was talking about situations where a special adviser was arrested, with the police going to her home very early in the morning.

Q19 Mr Prentice: I do not want to be prissy about this, but there is a difference between the arrest of a Member of Parliament and the arrest of a special adviser, is there not?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: From my point of view this is about police independence. They do not consult us about it and that is the way police operations are carried out.

Q20 Mr Prentice: But the police are not above the law; it is not a hands-off decision to allow the police to do what they consider to be right?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: In my view this is a matter for the police.

Q21 Chairman: But at one o'clock on the day Damian Green was arrested the Cabinet Office got a call from the police saying that that afternoon they would make this arrest?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, they did not; they got a call saying that there would be a search, not that there would be an arrest.

Q22 Chairman: An MP's office was going to be searched that afternoon. Whoever took that call in the Cabinet Office at one o'clock, when did that individual tell anybody about it?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I was in a meeting at the time. They informed me some time later and then I informed the Prime Minister.

Q23 Chairman: Therefore, you informed the Prime Minister before it happened?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: No. As I say in the document, it was at about three o'clock.

Q24 Chairman: Presumably, someone told the Home Secretary at that point?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: The Home Secretary at that time was in Brussels and Sir David Normington informed the Home Secretary. The exact time is in the memorandum.

Q25 Chairman: You say that the Home Secretary was informed at about three o'clock. If the Cabinet Office was told at one o'clock do you really suggest that the Home Secretary did not know about this until after it had happened at three o'clock?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes.

Q26 Mr Burrowes: Did any Cabinet Office minister or any other minister know about it until after the arrest?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: No.

Q27 Chairman: Should not someone have told the Home Secretary? All these other people were told.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am sure the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office informed the Home Secretary who was in Brussels at the time as soon as he could get hold of her.

Q28 Mr Burrowes: Is it not part of the ministerial code of conduct given the duty of ministers to account for the actions of their departments, particularly in the case of a leak inquiry, that ministers should be told at an early stage?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I stress this was a decision made by the police in an ongoing investigation. It is a matter for the police and their decision, not ministers or civil servants.

Q29 Mr Burrowes: But at approximately one o'clock the Cabinet Office received information saying that there was to be a search of a Member of Parliament's office. Surely, at that stage that information should have gone to ministers so they could account for the action?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is for the police to account for their action in carrying out searches.

Q30 Mr Burrowes: But they are accountable?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Of course they are accountable and the police have explained their decisions: Sir Paul Stephenson gave a statement about it.

Mr Liddell-Grainger: Why tell Boris Johnson?

Q31 Paul Flynn: It is clear from the reports that the Leader of the Opposition had the information two hours before the Prime Minister and Home Secretary. We know that the police were giving out the information.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is correct.

Q32 Paul Flynn: Can you tell me about the admission by David Davis that half of the information leaked essentially were matters of national security which they did not use? There must have been at least half a dozen because they have confessed to six leaks coming through. As the purpose of the leaker is to get the information into the public domain are you satisfied that that individual has not gone straight to the press with information that is a threat to national security?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: You are getting into territories where there is an ongoing investigation. I cannot go into the details of that.

Q33 Paul Flynn: It is not clear from your letter whether you are talking of many of the leaks that have taken place or this specific one at the Home Office. The comment about serious damage having been done to national security already refers not necessarily to the specific leak but past leaks?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Exactly. This is when we are starting off the investigation and we do not know where it will go. All we know is that information has been getting out. We start with the Home Office but some of this information might be coming from elsewhere. But we have asked them to investigate the Home Office because a number of indicators suggest that that department might be one of the sources.

Q34 Paul Flynn: Can you give us more details about the damage to national security that you think has already taken place because of past leaks?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think the most obvious one would be the JTAC leak which appeared in the Sunday Times and led to a prosecution. The individual was found guilty and is serving a jail sentence.

Q35 Paul Flynn: We know that these facilities are available to civil servants who believe that decisions have been taken that are contrary to the national interest. The Civil Service has a new path which goes straight to the Commission. I do not know whether anyone has used it yet or whether they use the traditional path of the line manager. Are you happy that the situation is such that if someone has a conscientious objection to what a government is doing he or she can report it via the line manager or to the Commission without any risk to his or her career?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is why we have introduced the direct path to the independent Civil Service Commissioners if people want to do that rather than use the line management chain. That important change was made some time ago. For completeness, if a civil servant has a conscientious objection ultimately he or she can resign and there have been occasions when that has happened.

Q36 Paul Flynn: Do you differentiate between leaks that are a threat to national security and those that are just politically embarrassing or are likely to clog up the Government's works or inhibit government activity? Is it true that if you see leaks as being just politically embarrassing there is no question of reporting them to the police?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I stress that when we started this investigation our reason for calling in the police was not because we were worried about embarrassment but the possibility of more serious things. When people make decisions about what to do next obviously we will take account of the importance of the material that is leaked. Obviously, that is a hugely important area.

Q37 Mr Prentice: Only a couple of days ago we had before us a Treasury minister who said that the Government was becoming increasingly leaky. We had major leaks from the Treasury on the pre-Budget report, on the cut in VAT and also the new top rate of income tax. Presumably, an inquiry into these leaks in the Treasury is going on and you must have considered bringing in the police?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: In these circumstances it is the permanent secretary of the department concerned who looks at this first. I have spoken to Nick Macpherson, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and he is very worried about it and is considering how best to take the matter forward.

Q38 Chairman: Including asking the police to come in?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is an option. There is a difference in these cases between market-sensitive issues and national security.

Q39 Mr Prentice: There is national security and there may be national economic security. The value of the pound is just dropping through the floor at the moment. There may be material in the Treasury which if leaked could do huge damage to the economy of this country and in those circumstances you would want to bring in the police, would you not?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I would not want to prejudge any decision. I stress "bringing in the police". You are implying that I can command the police. I can merely ask them to consider whether they would investigate. They look at the issue very seriously and it is ultimately their decision whether or not to take it on.

Q40 Mr Prentice: Have there been any occasions since you became Cabinet Secretary when you have contacted the police, asked them to investigate a leak and they have said, "Sir Gus, we have heard what you say but we have decided not to do so"?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is not quite as black and white as that in that there will be a discussion with them about a situation. I have never reached a situation where I have asked them to investigate something and they have turned it down.

Q41 Chairman: But your letter says: "I am writing to ask whether you will consider agreeing to . . ." Are you saying this is just a front?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Absolutely not. You have a conversation with them first about the nature of the issue.

Q42 Chairman: So, before the letter is written you know that they will agree?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, not necessarily, but if it was clear from early conversations that they did not believe it was important then that would be their choice.

Q43 Chairman: Therefore, sometimes in conversations they might say that as yet they do not think their intervention is warranted?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is possible.

Q44 Chairman: That happens?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is possible.

Q45 Mr Liddell-Grainger: How many times does that happen?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I honestly do not know.

Q46 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Can you let us know?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes.

Q47 Mr Prentice: Are you content that the police can make a decision on whether or not to investigate without going to the DPP or getting legal advice?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: If you refer back to what I said when we discussed cash for peerages, I indicated that one of the lessons of that exercise was that when one got into political territory it was important for the police and the CPS to work together at a very senior level to consider these sorts of issues as early as possible.

Q48 Mr Prentice: There is so much material to get through, so perhaps you would remind me of this matter: in the Damian Green case did the police obtain top level legal advice?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: The police would have been talking to the Crown Prosecution Service along the way. I do not believe the DPP was consulted about this specific issue.

Q49 Mr Prentice: I do not believe he was. This is a learning process, is it not? You would like the police to check things out with the Director of Public Prosecutions before they arrest Tony Wright or Gordon Prentice?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am on record as having said in our earlier discussions that I think it really important in these sorts of situations that the police and CPS consider this at the highest levels when getting into areas that might create political controversy.

Q50 Chairman: I understand the role of the police in finding out who is leaking in areas that may turn out to be difficult in terms of national security so you need them as investigators, but if you go to the next stage and begin to talk about the prosecuting authorities and possible charges one question to be asked is: if it is an Official Secrets Act case it is pretty straightforward and you know what the charge will be. Presumably, when you have your conversations with the police and they have conversations with the Crown Prosecution Service one of the first questions is: does it fall under the Official Secrets Act and therefore it is known on what charge to proceed? In this case one of the issues to arise is that the position is unclear. Apart from a disciplinary offence in the Civil Service it is not being suggested, as I understand it, that it is an Official Secrets Act case. There has been no charge of that kind in relation to the gentleman in question and yet an offence has been created to deal with the recipient of a leak which is the bit that people find puzzling. When the Official Secrets Act was reformed in the 1980s under Douglas Hurd - I will not quote the changes; you have all of them - it was explicitly to restrict the operation of that Act to centrally sensitive information, not things that were routinely embarrassing to government?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I do not disagree with that.

Q51 Chairman: We need to know with which category we are dealing here.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Unfortunately, we are both in ignorance of the police investigations. We do not know and given that it is ongoing it is quite appropriate that we do not know. All I am saying is that at the start we are investigating a situation where potentially there are some important issues of security out there; there are some leaks. Precisely what the individual who has been arrested is responsible for I do not know. He has admitted to certain things through his lawyer's statement. It may be there are other people who are responsible for others; we just do not know. It is then for the police in consultation with the CPS to determine what charges to bring and that will depend on the severity of the leak. Maybe it decides not to charge. Certainly, in the case of Mr Galley based on the statement of his lawyer there has been a clear breach of the Civil Service Code. Whatever else happens there will be an internal disciplinary issue. The individual involved in the JTAC report was found guilty of misconduct in a public office and the Official Secrets Act was not used in that case.

Q52 Chairman: Did the police tell you when they came to you why they were going to arrest the recipient of a leak?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: You have to understand that from my point of view I am interested in stopping the source of the leaks.

Q53 Chairman: But they had done that; they had found the central leaker?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: We do not know.

Q54 Chairman: They found a leaker?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I do not yet know what they have found. They have arrested someone and there is an ongoing police investigation. That individual's lawyer has made a statement admitting to certain things and that is what we know.

Q55 Mr Prentice: Given what David Davis has said you would expect the police perhaps to interview him because he said that half the material received from civil service moles affected national security and so they did not put it into the public domain. If the police and you are interested in tracking down the moles surely the police should interview David Davis?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Again, that is a matter for the police; they sort it out. I do not direct the police; I do not tell them who to interview or not to interview. I do not know who they have and have not interviewed.

Q56 Mr Walker: It sounds as if you are more than happy to tolerate leaks that are helpful to government and if they are not that is when you get the police involved. I can imagine Jacqui Smith saying, "Normington, I am being made to look like a bloody idiot here. Sort it out." That is what it sounds like.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is not true; I completely refute that. I am very upset by all leaks and that was why I made the statement I did at the beginning about the importance of the political impartiality of the Civil Service and nothing being leaked. I am concerned about all things, whether or not they are embarrassing or involve national security.

Q57 Mr Walker: The behaviour of the Treasury over the past month to six weeks has been disgraceful. I do not say that its your civil servants who are leaking, but am I right in thinking that special advisers are governed by the Civil Service Code?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: There is a code for special advisers.

Q58 Mr Walker: If I may be so bold, I would strongly suggest, even advise, that every special adviser at the Treasury is investigated by the police because some of them have clearly been leaking information that is helpful to government.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I will pass on that request to the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury; it is for him to decide.

Q59 Julie Morgan: To go back to the statement of David Davis which I find interesting, how big a trigger was it in pushing you to resort to the police?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: It was not a trigger and I had nothing to do with it. His statement was on 28 November and the decision to bring in the police was in October. We were worried that certain information was getting out. The only reason I refer to the David Davis quote is that he made it absolutely clear publicly, so that is in the public domain.

Q60 Julie Morgan: Did the statement of David Davis increase your anxiety?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: No; it confirmed something about which we were worried. The reason we called in the police as spelt out in that letter was that we had concerns that things were getting out, and from what David Davis says it is true that that material was getting to him.

Q61 Mr Burrowes: Was it clear from anything said at the time that decisions were made that the statement of David Davis was accurate? Do you have any evidence of it before that date because you are talking retrospectively in a sense to justify your earlier anxiety?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am not. We had real worries that things were getting out.

Q62 Mr Burrowes: In terms of national security?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes. I keep referring back to the JTAC report that got out.

Q63 Mr Burrowes: I am talking about national security in terms of this particular incident.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: What do you mean by "this particular incident?" When we made the investigation we were worried about the possibility of a number of leaks from the Home Office and that the individual concerned was obviously able to access important and sensitive information. Therefore, we did not know what would be coming out. If somebody has the propensity to leak you are just not sure. If they leak some things will they leak others? It was a big worry for us. We were clear that there had been some investigations of issues where we had not managed to get to the bottom of it, for example Operation Gamble. In that case there were some serious leaks which were absolutely worrying to us in terms of operational capacity. Someone had said something. I have no idea who it was. We looked into it and failed to come up with an answer. We were genuinely worried that things were going on that we hoped the police would come to. I am not yet sure as a result of these investigations whether or not we will find the answer to all of this. What I do know is that we have found one person who has admitted through his lawyer's statement to certain things that are a breach of the Civil Service Code. That is all we know so far.

Q64 Julie Morgan: Was there any contact with the police from the letter of 8 October to 17 November?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: In general they are just left to get on with things. I was not aware of anything.

Q65 Julie Morgan: So, there was no contact until they came back on 17 November?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I had no contact with them in reference to this. Sometimes I have meetings with senior members of the Met on other issues but we never discussed this with them.

Q66 Julie Morgan: So, there was no indication in that period of what was likely to happen?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: No.

Q67 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Did the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office discuss any of this with you before or after what went on? Has Sir David Normington come to you and discussed it? Did you discuss any of this before the arrest? Was he coming to you to say, "There is a problem with leaks and I must refer this. What are we to do about it?"

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Absolutely. As I made clear in the memorandum, we were worried about the leaks and they were being investigated by an independent member of our panel. Then Sir David Normington and I sat down. We were not making much progress. We were worried about them and then made the decision to invite the police to investigate.

Q68 Mr Liddell-Grainger: It was obvious at the time that they were going to Members of Parliament, or it had to be the press or Members of Parliament?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes.

Q69 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Did you have an inkling that maybe it would end up with a Member of Parliament being involved?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: You have to understand from where we are coming. I was interested only in the source and stopping it and so preventing the problem. In a sense where they go is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned if I prevent these things happening. That is what I want the police to do. Obviously, in trying to do that they may have to talk to people who are recipients, but that is another issue. My main concern is the prevention of leaks at source.

Q70 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thanks to leaks we know that Sir Paul Stephenson and Bob Quick had a row as to whether or not the police should be involved. If this is not resolved to your satisfaction will you hold a full inquiry as to where you go from here with leaks? Will you be looking at this as an independent or as the Cabinet Secretary in order to get to the bottom of it? If it is not to your satisfaction where will you go from here?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: First, we will wait for the police investigations to finish. We will then look and see if there are any lessons for us in terms of our security procedures. For me that is the main issue. Does this tell us anything about what we should be doing in terms of how we handle information internally?

Q71 Paul Flynn: Do you believe that the recipients of leaks which are threats to national security, whether they are press or opposition Members, should inform you of them?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: The standard advice to anyone who is in receipt of something that gives rise to those problems is to hand it either to the department which is the source of it or the police. We would love them to do that.

Q72 Paul Flynn: Did David Davis hand in the ones that he referred to and thought were threats to national security?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Not that I am aware of but that is something that we shall be pursuing since his statement.

Q73 Paul Flynn: Accepting what you say about the independence of the Civil Service and its ability to work for the leaders of both parties - your personal record speaks volumes - if someone has a substantial political background, whether he has worked for or stood as a candidate for a political party, should there not be a presumption that that individual does not have access to areas that are overflowing with secrets rather than more generally in the Civil Service? Is that a practical way of ensuring that someone who is a party-political activist is not appointed to a private office?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: In the Civil Service we have rules about political activity. You will know that at various times the question to emerge is: what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate activity? If you are in the fast stream or one of the senior grades you are not allowed to become involved in political activity, but the more junior grades are allowed to pursue certain aspects. When deciding whether or not to recruit people in the first place they are asked whether they understand the civil service values and they know they must sign up to the code and be impartial in their operations. That is a decision made at recruitment.

Q74 Mr Prentice: At what civil service grade do the political restrictions kick in?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: They are not entirely grade specific, so it would be the fast stream and senior civil servants.

Q75 Mr Prentice: But here we have Christopher Galley aged 26, a former Conservative candidate for a local authority working at the very heart of the Home Office. Are there special considerations when appointing someone to a private office? Are penetrating questions asked?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes. If there had been any prior suspicions that a particular individual was less than completely trustworthy and would not behave impartially that would be taken into account.

Q76 Mr Prentice: Did anyone in the private office Google the name Christopher Galley?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: The fact that somebody in the past has become involved in political activity is not a bar to joining the Civil Service. We have a number of civil servants who have been politically active before joining the Civil Service.

Q77 Paul Flynn: Most civil servants will not get very close to secrets anyway, but if someone is working at the heart of government in a private office he has access to a great many of these things. Should there not be some presumption that a former political candidate now employed as a civil servant should not be working alongside ministers throughout the working day?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: No one would put an individual in a private office if there were doubts about his or her impartiality and commitment to the values. Obviously, in this case someone made that decision and it was wrong.

Q78 Mr Prentice: I am told that Christopher Galley's entry on Friends United website gives his interests as "Centre right politics, the stock market, political satire and the miners' strike." That could be mainstream. Given what we know now with all these leaks occurring over an extended period of time maybe the Permanent Secretary or colleagues in the private office should have had a word with him and asked whether with his centre right politics he was completely relaxed about working in this kind of atmosphere so close to the Home Secretary?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: If the individual concerned had given anyone reasons to doubt that he or she was acting other than completely impartially those considerations would come forward, but there are a number of civil servants whose past includes political activity and we do not regard that as a bar to becoming a member of the Civil Service and rising through the ranks.

Q79 Paul Flynn: You still are not getting the point. At age 26 you do not have an enormous past behind you anyway, but this man is working in the private office. Is not the lesson to be drawn from this that perhaps in future people with that sort of background should not have access to this vast amount of information?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: He worked in various different places. If you are asking me whether we should ban anyone with a political background from working in the private office I would not do that.

Q80 Mr Prentice: But was Christopher Galley quizzed by senior officials in the Home Office before the police were brought in?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: An investigation was going on and that had not produced an answer.

Q81 Mr Prentice: So, Christopher Galley could have said, "It wasn't me, guv"?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: He could have done.

Q82 Mr Walker: What security clearance did he have that would entitle him to have access to things relevant to this country's national security?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think he had clearance up to secret. He would not have got STRAP material.

Q83 Mr Walker: Why would he have been seeing stuff that was relevant to national security if he did not have the relevant clearance to see it?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Things that are secret are very relevant to national security.

Q84 Mr Walker: But you say he did not have national security clearance or very high grade material?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I said that his clearance went up to secret.

Q85 Mr Walker: If you have clearance to that level what does it allow you to see?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Material up to secret.

Mr Walker: Top secret? Everything is secret.

Q86 Chairman: The clerk has just whispered to me that STRAP is classified information. What is perplexing about this conversation is that it makes the achievement of the police less impressive. If they were looking for a leaker they would need to do only a bit of Googling to find out that a Conservative political activist was working very close to the private office. First, what is surprising is that he should be there, which is the point of these questions, and, second, why on earth you did not find it out?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am sure that the Home Office knew about this. When he applied they would have had access to things in his past.

Q87 Chairman: But that was a good clue, was it not?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is a clue, but the Civil Service attracts people who are interested in politics and, curiously enough, they have had some political activity over a range of parties. In this particular case he had some centre right issues. We do not ban people from the Civil Service just because they have been politically active in the past; nor do we assume that because of that activity the individual will ignore the Civil Service Code, quite the reverse.

Q88 Chairman: Do you believe that a more general corrosion of the civil service values that you spoke about at the beginning is reflected by a case like this?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: As Lords Butler and Turnbull have said, leaks have been with us for a very long time. This is not new; we have always suffered from leaks. I am sure that all of my predecessors have had problems with leaks and tried to investigate them with varying degrees of success. We think that the practice is corrosive. Is it increasing? I am not sure. I think it is just one of those things. Obviously, we have much more intensive media; there is much more of it and it operates 24/7. The possibilities are increasing.

Q89 Chairman: Here is someone who has offended against the core values of the Civil Service. It was not detected when he was appointed to the Civil Service?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: When he was appointed he had not offended against the core values of the Civil Service; he had not done anything and we just appointed him.

Q90 Chairman: Presumably, potentially he was able to offend against those core values because he had not understood them?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: No. When he was appointed certainly we knew there was political activity in his past, but that is not a bar to becoming a member of the Civil Service. He had not done anything then and it would have been made clear to him on appointment when signing the contract which involved adherence to the Civil Service Code.

Q91 Chairman: He had not done anything but clearly when appointed he did not have civil service values of impartiality, neutrality and so on, because if he did have those values he would not subsequently have done something?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Later he certainly offended against the code. I do not know whether the individual on day one came in with the object of doing that.

Q92 Mr Prentice: Mr Galley's lawyer said mendaciously that his client was leaking in the public interest, but he obviously contravened the code which is a very good one: "You must not deceive or knowingly mislead ministers or Parliament." He did that. "You must not disclose official information without authority." He did that. "You must not misuse your official position, for example by using information acquired in the course of your official duties to further your private interests or those of others." I think he did that. Then it says: "If you become aware of actions by others which you believe conflict with this code you should report it to your line manager. If it is criminal you can go to the police" - that is what is said in the code, so it is all good stuff - "or you can take it to the Civil Service Commissioners. The Commissioners can hear appeals." The Committee has recommended that the Civil Service Commissioners should be able of their own volition, I suppose, to go into a department if they suspect impropriety or unethical behaviour. I think I am right in saying that so far that has been resisted by the Government. In the light of all this would you like to see the Civil Service Commissioners have a new power to go in on their own initiative to examine whether unethical behaviour is happening or civil servants or indeed ministers are behaving duplicitously, mendaciously or what?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Dealing with the first part of the question, we should be very careful because there is an ongoing investigation into Mr Galley and what we allege he did or did not do. All we know is what his lawyer has admitted to. As to whether we want the Civil Service Commissioners to look into ethical issues and all the rest of it, we changed the code precisely so people can go directly to them.

Q93 Mr Prentice: On appeal, people can go to the Civil Service Commissioners but it does not work the other way round. Civil Services Commissioners could not of their own volition decide that there was a systemic problem in, say, the Cabinet Office or Treasury and go in themselves to look at behaviour.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: My view is that if there are systemic problems we should be addressing them in government.

Q94 Mr Prentice: I shall be corrected by the Chairman if I am wrong, but Janet Paraskeva, the Civil Service Commissioner, is pressing for this.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am not sure that she is.

Q95 Chairman: There is an issue about the general power to initiate inquiries.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: You should talk to Janet Paraskeva about it. We have a very good relationship on all these matters. If we believe there are issues between us we try to find ways to address them.

Q96 Chairman: I agree that we should not go into the investigation in detail, but what appears to be distinctive about a case like this is that here we have routine political activity. It is not a tortured civil servant agonising over conscience issues and wondering what to do about something. We are used to cases of that kind. This is routine political leaking and that is why I ask whether there is a new tendency developing where some civil servants think it is all right to do something which at one time would have been regarded as unthinkable?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I hope not. That is why it is very important we investigate such matters. If we find evidence of guilt - as you say, the lawyer's statement makes clear that Mr Galley has breached the Civil Service Code - we take action on that. We make this very clear to all civil servants. I have said already that I shall write a letter to all civil servants on a number of issues and one matter about which I shall be reminding them pre-Christmas is the importance of adherence to the values, particularly the question of political impartiality.

Q97 Paul Flynn: We have now had two weeks of media frenzy based on the belief that the investigation started because of leaks embarrassing the Government. What we have seen is that the leaks by the individual who it is suggested was responsible for them were ones that would probably be available eventually under freedom of information anyway. Can you just confirm the contents of this letter, that if the leaks were only politically embarrassing this investigation would not have started and the whole purpose of the letter and the beginning of the investigation was the concern for national security?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Absolutely. I take complete responsibility for deciding to bring in the police. I did that because we were worried about various things. First, obviously some things were emerging; second, we had some suspicions about areas of national security; and, third, the person who would have had access to the material that was emerging would also have had access to other very sensitive material. Therefore, if they are leaking one sort how can you be sure they will not start to leak something else which is even more serious? I stress that we did not know at that time, and still do not know, precisely who was responsible for what leaks and whether more than one person was involved.

Q98 Mr Burrowes: Perhaps we may clarify the issue of discussions and the decision to refer the matter to the police because in relation to this particular instance it is helpful to the general leak inquiry. In relation to this particular instance how involved were ministers in the discussions? For instance, the Prime Minister was involved in the generalities of the leak inquiry, but in what specifics was he involved at that early stage?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I simply informed the Prime Minister that there was a leak investigation under way.

Q99 Mr Burrowes: Was he involved in any further discussions in terms of referral?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: No.

Q100 Mr Burrowes: Were any other ministers involved in discussions about referring it to the police?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: No. One matter which I think is made clear in the memorandum is that I informed Liam Byrne when the civil servant had been arrested simply as a courtesy.

Q101 Mr Burrowes: To go back to the ministerial code of conduct, is there not an issue about people being held to account for the actions of departments? A significant action in relation to leak inquiries is that ministers should be informed about discussions to refer the matter?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Obviously, there is overall ministerial guidance, but as head of the Civil Service, I think it quite important that I have the capacity to decide when I want to investigate leaks that are damaging to the Civil Service and I would want to do that. Obviously, ultimately the Prime Minister is head of the Civil Service in terms of political accountability, but in my role I would want to be clear that I had the authority to go in because I was worried about something that damaged civil service values.

Q102 Mr Burrowes: But departmental permanent secretaries are, as I understand from your note, responsible for saying to the police that they should come in?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: What normally happens is that the department will consider an investigation before it calls in the police. Normally, there will be a conversation between that department and the Cabinet Office.

Q103 Mr Burrowes: In your letter you refer to the recent leak investigations. Do you know the period of time that Christopher Wright was talking about in terms of recent leak investigations which raised questions about security and sensitive information?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: We have been worried for a number of years.

Q104 Mr Burrowes: Is that what you mean by "recent?"

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am sorry. When we talk of "recent" in that sense I would say it is the 2007 to 2008 period.

Q105 Mr Burrowes: For the purposes of our general inquiry will we be able to see copies of letters or referrals just as we received the letter of 8 October?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Would you be able to see these routinely?

Q106 Mr Burrowes: I am talking about the letters of referral so we can consider the particular threshold that is reached.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I will think about that. I am not entirely sure that that would be appropriate.

Q107 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Has anyone reported David Davis to the police for his outbursts? Are they to investigate what he is saying?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is a matter for the police.

Chairman: As Mr Yates used to say to us, the investigation will go where it needs to go.

Q108 Mr Walker: When did Mr Galley join that particular office?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: People have assumed that he has been in a ministerial office all the time. He has had a number of different jobs.

Q109 Mr Walker: When did he go in? He was arrested in a particular role. When did he start the role in which he was arrested?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Not so long ago. The role which he occupied most recently was to back the director of strategy in the Home Office. It was not a private office.

Q110 Mr Walker: You said that the area of concern was 2007 and 2008, so it sounds as though he joined at about that time. As my colleague Mr Prentice said, he has a track record of being involved in Conservative politics. This is almost Whitehall farce. I cannot understand why someone did not ask, "Could it be Christopher?"

Sir Gus O'Donnell: We have a number of civil servants who are politically active.

Q111 Mr Walker: But you have only a few who have access to top secret stuff. I believe that Sir David Normington became incredibly panicked. He was getting a load of bollockings from the Home Secretary. This is farce, and you can barely keep a straight face.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Not at all. A number of civil servants have in the past been involved in political activity. You are assuming that he was in a private office but for most of time he was not. People have access to important information in support roles in government, and some of our junior staff do that.

Q112 Chairman: Let me widen it slightly in the last minute or two. This is a distinctive case, but I should like to explore with you how civil servants should behave when they have concerns about information that is not publicly available. We now live in a changed world. We have referred to the reform of the Official Secrets Act which has delimited the amount of stuff that is off limits for security reasons; we have freedom of information legislation which has defined new categories of information and the grounds upon which it should be available in the public interest; and we have whistleblower legislation to protect from dismissal people who try to raise concerns in the proper way. All that must affect the context in which civil servants work. I should like to hear from you how you think that converts into the daily life of a civil servant.

Sir Gus O'Donnell: All of those means are ones by which the public can obtain information from government. If they have any concerns at all people can make freedom of information requests. As you rightly say, there are all sorts of avenues.

Q113 Chairman: But if a civil servant sees information that he believes the public ought to know about and that if the public made a freedom of information request they would get it and he might say, "Therefore, why can I not take steps to make it available?"

Sir Gus O'Donnell: Because that is not their job. They can certainly suggest through their line managers that some information should be made publicly available, but in the end their job is not proactively to decide for themselves what is in the public interest. That is not what the Civil Service is about.

Q114 Chairman: He goes to his line manager and says he thinks this information should be in the public domain; there is no reason why it should not be. What do you believe the line manager would do at that point?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: He will consider whether or not there is a case for it.

Q115 Chairman: My sense is that you have not got to grips with the new world. I look at the survey of all government departments carried out last year by the whistleblower organisation Public Concern at Work. It said that the Cabinet Office was lamentable; it got three out of a maximum of 28 points. The director of Public Concern at Work said: "If this was the premiership league the Cabinet Office would be relegated." It does not give the impression that you are really on top of the game in relation to this new world?

Sir Gus O'Donnell: I have no idea why it achieved those numbers, but remember that the Cabinet Office is responsible for the code, so people know about these things. They are stuck with me as their permanent secretary and I bang on about it all the time. I never make a speech in which I do not go on about values. Therefore, the Cabinet Office understands all these issues and it is also very close to the Civil Service Commissioners. From that point of view we probably have to do less than any other department to tell people about it because it is their job; they are working on the code and these issues all the time. Therefore, based on some formal index as to whether or not we tell people, the truth is that this is their everyday job.

Chairman: Thank you. I think we are finished with that for the time being.