SHOW US THE EVIDENCE
Allies of sacked defence secretary demand to see proof that led Theresa to give him marching orders
‘Wrong to swear on his children’
THERESA May faced a ferocious backlash from Gavin Williamson’s allies last night as MPs demanded to see the evidence showing he was behind the Huawei leak.
As the Tories plunged into a fresh civil war over his sacking, backbenchers lined up to criticise the treatment of the former defence secretary.
They are unhappy about the role of Cabinet Secretary Mark Sedwill, Britain’s most senior civil servant, and claimed his leak inquiry was a ‘shambolic kangaroo court’.
They insisted in the Commons that Mrs May publish the ‘compelling evidence’ that led her to blame Mr Williamson for last week’s leak from a national Security Council (NSC) discussion into whether the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei should have a role in Britain’s 5G network.
Meanwhile, Mr Williamson insisted he would ‘massively welcome’ a police investigation into the accusation that he leaked details to a journalist, claiming it would ‘absolutely exonerate’ him.
He added: ‘As soon as they have the reporter’s notepad it would show I didn’t say anything, then I would get the nicest apology from the Prime Minister, far nicer than the last letter she sent me.’
Mr Williamson said his first reaction on hearing the NSC story was that the Government had revealed details from the meeting, adding: ‘I thought, “The buggers, they’ve leaked the sodding thing”.’
He is understood to have complained that he was interviewed for around two hours last Friday during the leak inquiry, in which ‘scraps of paper’ were used as evidence, while other ministers only faced grillings of 20 to 30 minutes.
The former defence secretary admits that at around 5.30pm on the day of the NSC he had an 11minute phone call with the journalist who wrote the Huawei story.
But even though he insists this does not mean he was the source of the leak, Whitehall sources claim there is other evidence against him. However, it was claimed last night that Mr Williamson was refused a copy of the report of Sir Mark’s investigation.
Mr Williamson also criticised the ‘haphazard way’ it was carried out and complained to friends that he was only fired because of information he had volunteered.
However, Downing Street appeared to kill off the prospect of a police investigation last night as it emerged that Sir Mark had ruled against referring the matter to Scotland Yard on the grounds that the alleged leak did not constitute a criminal offence.
And despite opposition MPs calling for a criminal probe, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick said the force would not start one without a Cabinet Office referral. It means there is unlikely to be a full investigation into allegations that appear to have left Mr Williamson’s political career in tatters. The news came as:
Downing Street defended Mrs May’s decision to sack Mr Williamson, insisting she had to remove him to restore confidence in the NSC so intelligence officials could continue to share classified information with ministers;
Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, called for a police probe and said Mr Williamson’s case could not be closed while he stood accused of criminal behaviour that he denied;
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will warn Mrs May next week that giving Huawei access to the UK’s 5G could jeopardise USUK technology partnerships;
Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terror legislation, said it was ‘repugnant’ of Mr Williamson to swear on his children’s lives that he was not behind the leak, saying this form of oath would ‘rarely cut ice in a court’;
Jeremy Hunt criticised Cabinet colleagues for leaks he said had undermined Brexit. The Foreign Secretary also defended Sir Mark against Mr Williamson’s criticism.
Mr Williamson was sacked on Wednesday after Mrs May confronted him over last week’s leak to a newspaper that revealed several Cabinet ministers opposed allowing Huawei to be involved in Britain’s new 5G mobile network.
He angrily denied he was responsible last night, and suggested the inquiry into the leak was rigged.
In an Instagram message yesterday, he posted a photo of himself with two dogs, writing: ‘When you have had a pretty tough week it’s rather nice to get out and about with some really good company.’
Yesterday in the Commons, former minister Sir Desmond Swayne said Mr Williamson had effectively been branded a liar.
He told MPs: ‘natural justice requires that the evidence is produced so that his reputation can be salvaged or utterly destroyed.’
Tory MP Peter Bone said: ‘The former secretary of state has said that, on the lives of his children, he did not leak the information.
‘This seems to have been a kangaroo court reaching a decision in secret which we have no evidence to base any decision on. Could it just be possible that the kangaroo court has made a mistake?’
Mr Williamson has been replaced as Defence Secretary by Penny Mordaunt, leading to the promotion to the Cabinet of Rory Stewart who took her place as International Development Secretary.
Brexiteer Sir John Redwood suggested the reshuffle was conducted to support Mrs May’s Brexit deal, tweeting: ‘The purpose is clear.
‘ Mr Williamson thought we should get on with leaving the EU. Mr Stewart is wedded to Mrs May’s deeply unpopular “stay in and pay up” agreement.’ Jacob Rees-Mogg, head of the European Research Group of Brexiteer MPs, tweeted: ‘The security issue is not who leaked, but Huawei.’
But Mr Watson said it was ‘clear’ that the disclosure of NSC discussions could amount to a breach of the Official Secrets Act, writing to
the PM: ‘It is not for the ministers or civil servants to determine whether information they have gathered meets the threshold for a criminal investigation. The police and Crown Prosecution Service must make this assessment.’
Earlier, Cabinet Office minister David Lidington told the Commons: ‘The Prime Minister has said she considers this matter has been closed and the Cabinet Secretary does not consider it necessary to refer it to the police.
‘But we would, of course, co- operate fully should the police themselves consider that an investigation were necessary.’
A police inquiry won’t be held because Whitehall officials don’t believe the leak was ‘damaging’ enough to warrant one. The Official Secrets Act is strictest for those in the security and intelligence services, for whom any unauthorised disclosure is a criminal offence.
But the rules are different for civil servants, MPs, the military and police. In these cases, a person is only charged if the leak is ‘damaging’.