Editorial Comment:
In the television sitcom Yes, Minister, the Cabinet Secretary Sir Humphrey Appleby reassures his underling about the risk of a leak inquiry after an unauthorised disclosure of information. They are only ever “set up”, he says, and rarely conclude with anything substantive. Over the years, given the propensity of Cabinet ministers to breach the confidentiality of their discussions, the Whitehall leak inquiry has fallen somewhat into abeyance. But one has now been instituted by Sir Mark Sedwill, the Cabinet Secretary, following the Telegraph’s story about the decision to give the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei access to the British 5G mobile market.
Sir Mark is also the National Security Adviser and the matter was discussed at a meeting of the National Security Council. We knew this was up for debate because there had been press reports elsewhere documenting the concerns of security and intelligence practitioners at the prospect of Chinese involvement in the 5G network.
The story we carried by our deputy political editor Steven Swinford was in the finest traditions of this newspaper’s journalism. He reported what had taken place at the meeting and the outcome. The conclusion, which has not been disputed, was that Huawei should be allowed a role in the 5G infrastructure but not the core of the networks where there could be security concerns. We reported that this decision was taken by Theresa May despite the reservations of several of her colleagues.
So febrile is the atmosphere at Westminster that this disclosure has been seen by some as motivated by Tory leadership considerations, an example of not being able to see the wood for the trees if there was ever one. This story was far bigger than that; and the scale of the reaction both here and around the world testifies to its importance. We would not countenance the leak of information damaging to the nation’s security; but this was a report of a decision crucial to the UK’S future relations with its allies, with China and with 5G providers whose expertise is central to our economic future.
It was published in the public interest. Doubtless, the Government would have preferred to handle its presentation of the decision differently. But thwarted PR opportunities do not justify a heavyhanded or even criminal investigation aimed at curbing the freedom of the press to report such information when it receives it.