Whitehall leaks turn into a tidal wave

ONE OF Whitehall's more farcical rituals unfolded last week when officials in the Department of National Heritage faced another leak inquiry over the publication of a ministerial document. It is a fair bet that the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, is not holding his breath for the findings.

On a conservative calculation there have been more than 25 government leaks this year. So far, no one has been publicly held accountable.

If these security lapses have been received phlegmatically by the civil service, they have raised eyebrows outside. A report by Graham Mather, an MEP and president of the European Policy Forum, recorded no fewer than 36 leaks, appearing to stem from Whitehall or government agencies between June 1994 and March 1995.

Mr Mather concluded that "leaks by civil servants to opposition politicians, trades unions and direct to newspapers are running at epidemic proportions. The leakers are often sophisticated in their choice of material and timing. The prospect is of a tidal wave of leaks until the next general election."

His calculations put the Scottish Office, the Cabinet Office and the Department of Trade and Industry top of the leak table, followed by the Home Office and the Department of Transport. In recent weeks the Department for Education and Employment and Department of National Heritage have suffered lapses.

According to Mr Mather, the motives range from internal hostility to a government policy to fear of public spending cuts; or sometimes simply a desire to embarrass.

That is only part of the truth since some leaking is done with the implicit or explicit support of ministers. One former ministerial aide last week recalled being responsible for one document that went "astray".

This type of "mishap" usually takes place in the run-up to public spending negotiations when ministers hope a public outcry can save them from the Treasury knife. Hence, when correspondence between the Department for Education and Employment and the Treasury surfaced recently, suspicion fell on the DFEE itself.

Approved leaking was, however, certainly not responsible for this year's most important leak to a newspaper, of parts of the Joint Framework Document on Northern Ireland. When the leak investigation was set up in February, one newspaper said it was "the biggest and potentially the most explosive [inquiry] since the Westland affair in 1986". Like many before it, it fizzled out, being wound down officially with a declaration that the "culprit was not found".

That was hardly surprising. Those on the distribution list for the document, believed to be 24 in number, were sent questionnaires asking whether they had photocopied it, or given or showed it to anyone else. In effect the inquiry asked the person responsible to own up.

Some civil servants believe that the leak could have been avoided in the first place. The draft Joint Framework Document was classified only as "confidential", a low grading for such a sensitive document at a high- security department. More highly classified documents cannot be removed from the office of the Secretary of State's private secretary, and have to be viewed while an official is in the room.

One Whitehall veteran last week cited a dictum from a Cabinet minister who instructed his staff that, with the exception of the most highly classified documents, they should commit nothing to paper if they would be upset at seeing it on the front page of the Guardian.

Nevertheless, the growth of leaks seems an inevitable consequence of the increasing use of the photocopier and fax machine. One minister estimated that, if a document is circulated - as many are - to regional government offices, at least 1,000 civil servants will see it. At the same time, leaks are increasingly being channelled to newspapers or broadcasters by opposition politicians who are the usual recipients. The Labour Party is able to use the material as a form of patronage in a competitive newspaper market.

So what is being done, and is Mr Mather right to argue that "there does not appear to be any anti-leak action within Whitehall commensurate with the scale of the problem"?

In Yes, Minister, Sir Humphrey Appleby, the mandarin supremely wise in the ways of Whitehall, explains to new-boy minister Jim Hacker that "the task of a professionally conducted internal inquiry is to unearth a great mass of no evidence". That may no longer strictly be the case. This year, security services personnel are thought to have been drafted in in some cases.

But the Cabinet Office, which is responsible for the civil service, does little to dispel the suspicion of complacency, refusing to state when a leak inquiry last proved successful, or how most investigations are conducted. Ironic, perhaps, for a department whose responsibilities include open government.

Six of the best: what they said, who they embarrassed, who was blamed

Leak

Lottery cash

October 1995

Revealed

Revealed A Treasury memo

suggesting that some government support for the arts might be

replaced by lottery cash

Recipient Labour Party

Result Stole headlines from Tories on first day of Blackpool conference. Treasury forced to retreat

Reddest

face William Waldegrave who seemed to be going back on pledge that lottery money would not replace existing government spending

Suspect Department of National Heritage, trying to save its budget

Leak Education spending

September 1995

Revealed A Gillian Shephard memo complaining that schools cash shortage was hurting Tories.

Recipient Labour Party

Result Raised spectre of disgruntled 'middle England' parents in time for public spending round talks

Reddest

face All Tory MPs who had ever argued that money made no difference to school performance

Suspect Department for Education and Employment

Leak Scott inquiry

June 1995

Revealed Draft extracts from Scott inquiry, detailing allegations against William Waldegrave in arms-to-Iraq affair

Recipient BBC and ITN

Result Waldegrave managed to appear as injured party.

Public incomprehension and boredom

Reddest

face Lord Justice Scott, who looked as if he had been outmanoeuvred.

Suspect Government - wants Scott allegations to seem 'old hat' when published

Leak Joint Framework Document Feb 1995

Revealed Paragraphs from proposed Anglo-Irish deal over future of Northern Ireland

Recipient The Times

Result Unionist anger at what was presented as a sell-out. Peace process temporarily de-stabilised

Reddest

face John Major who had to call a late-night Commons briefing to assure backbenchers that paragraphs didn't say what they seemed to say.

Suspect Dissident pro-Unionist

elements

Leak ID cards

January 1995

Revealed Documents outlining proposals for a national identity smart card

Recipient The Guardian

Result Setback for national ID smart card because defects clearly highlighted

Reddest

face Anyone concerned with government security. The documents surfaced in a surplus filing cabinet in a junk shop in Camden Town, London

Suspect Murphy. (As in Murphy's Law: if anything can go wrong, it will)