Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Huawei: Cabinet ministers telephone and email records to be 'forensically' examined

All those present at the meeting – ministers, officials, military and intelligence chiefs – have signed the Official Secrets Act and can, theoretically, be prosecuted

Kim Sengupta
Defence Editor
Friday 26 April 2019 17:47 BST
Comments
A number of western governments are said to have expressed concern at the leak
A number of western governments are said to have expressed concern at the leak (Reuters)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Cabinet ministers will be advised that their telephone and email records, as well as those of their staff, will be “forensically examined” in the investigation into the unprecedented leak from the National Security Council.

Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, has written to all those present at the meeting, from which the decision to involve the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei in the UK 5G network was leaked, saying he expected full cooperation.

All the necessary technical expertise will be brought in, Whitehall officials say, to ensure that any erased calls or messages will be retrieved and those ministers who voted in favour of Huawei as well as those who opposed it will come under scrutiny.

The chancellor, Philip Hammond, who, it is believed, had backed the Chinese company’s involvement, said during a visit to China that the investigation needed to “get to the bottom of what happened”.

All those present at the meeting – ministers, officials, military and intelligence chiefs – have signed the Official Secrets Act and can, theoretically, be prosecuted under the act, although at this stage it is a Cabinet Office rather than a criminal inquiry.

A number of western governments are said to have expressed concern at the leak from the meeting of the National Security Council (NSC), a body in which intelligence from allied states and British organisations is discussed.

International reverberations over Huawei, which is said to have links with the Chinese military and the country’s ruling Communist Party, continued with the announcement that KPN, a Dutch telecommunications company, will select a “western company” to work on its 5G network after US objections to bringing in Huawei.

Chief executive Jan Kees de Jager, said “we are not blind to the political discussion about the security of our networks and we do see various potential suppliers for the 5G network in Europe and the US”.

Former national security adviser Lord Ricketts said that an expanded investigation should take place with MI5 and the police called in if criminal conduct is suspected. Andrew Mitchell, the former Tory chief whip has also called for MI5 to carry out a full investigation.

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

Former cabinet secretary Lord O’Donnell, who helped set up the NSC, said that communications of those attending the meetings are likely to be inspected. “I have been involved in inquiries where we have looked at mobile phone records, email records and the like, personally I would be doing that.”

But Lord O’Donnell was of the opinion that the level of proof needed for a criminal prosecution could be a “really hard barrier”, adding: “You can pass on your suspicions to the prime minister and it will be then for the prime minister to decide what to do.”

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in