Gavin Williamson: Ex-director of public prosecutions says Huawei leak was Official Secrets Act breach

Ken Macdonald argues any ‘damaging disclosure relating to security or intelligence’ is a criminal offence – as criticism grows of Theresa May’s refusal to call in police

A former director of public prosecutions said the Huawei leak did breach the Official Secrets Act, as criticism grew of Theresa May for refusing to refer Gavin Williamson to the police.

Ken Macdonald criticised the government for insisting the matter was “closed” – arguing any “damaging disclosure relating to security or intelligence” was a criminal offence.

The prime minister continued to rebuff calls for a police investigation into her sacked defence secretary, saying the crucial issue was not “what was leaked, it was about where it was leaked from” – which was the top-secret National Security Council (NSC).

The prospect of a criminal inquiry appeared to vanish, as Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan police commissioner, said she would not act without a referral from the cabinet office – which will not be sent. Mr Williamson continued to protest his innocence.

But Lord Macdonald told the BBC that security chiefs at the NSC required “completely frank conversations in total confidence with very senior government figures”.

“If an authorised disclosure is made of a matter that is damaging to the security and intelligence services – that is the breach of the Official Secrets Act,” he said.

The criticism backed up the view of Peter Ricketts, a peer who was David Cameron’s national security adviser, who said: “On the face of it this is a breach of the Official Secrets Act.

“All the ministers and officials around the table will have signed that, so it seems to me that the police ought to be considering – is there a case?”

Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative attorney general, also said there was “certainly an argument” for the matter being referred to the police, speaking to Sky News.

But, answering an urgent question in the Commons, David Lidington, the de facto deputy prime minister, fought off demands for the controversy to be referred to the police.

“The prime minister has said she now considers that this matter has been closed and the cabinet secretary [Mark Sedwill] does not consider it necessary to refer it to the police, but we would of course cooperate fully should the police themselves consider that an investigation were necessary.”

Ms Dick said: “If the cabinet office were to send us a referral at any point that relates to apparent official secrets or leaks we would assess that.”

However, the commissioner added: “That is hypothetical because we have not had any referral from the cabinet office.”

Meanwhile, No 10 revealed Mr Williamson will receive a £17,000 payoff and keep his privileged place on the Privy Council despite the shame of his sacking.

He is entitled to the normal severance settlement enjoyed by any cabinet minister – which is three months of his annual salary of £67,505.

Asked by The Independent, if Mr Williamson would receive the standard payoff – despite being sacked, rather than resigning – her spokesperson replied: “Correct.”

He also confirmed he would remain a privy counsellor, a body dating back to Norman times but a largely ceremonial honour for non-government ministers.