Wednesday Volume 498 28 October 2009 No. 132 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 28 October 2009 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2009 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail:
[email protected] 267 28 OCTOBER 2009 268 Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham) (Con): The Minister House of Commons says that there was some concern about national security, but Sir Ian Johnston’s report makes it absolutely clear Wednesday 28 October 2009 that these leaks were only matters of “embarrassment” that were The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock “not…likely to undermine government’s effectiveness.” So why did a Cabinet Office director write to counter- terrorism asserting that there was PRAYERS “considerable damage to national security” from these stories and that [MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] “the potential for future damage is significant”? Did the Cabinet Secretary, the Prime Minister or Ministers BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS know about this letter before it was sent, and was there any political pressure on civil servants to shut down RAF NIMROD MR2 AIRCRAFT XV230 those embarrassing stories? Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That Tessa Jowell: Neither report from Chief Inspector she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid O’Connor nor from Sir Ian Johnston makes any claim before this House a Return of the Report, dated 28 October 2009, that the Cabinet Office exaggerated national security of the Independent Review into the broader issues surrounding claims; the right hon.