European Council

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I would say that in all the conversations I have had with our partners, our neighbours and countries around the world that look to us as friends, I have been quite surprised by just how unanimous and how passionate they have been. I would totally disabuse people of the idea that, for instance, there is any sense that some of the countries of the Commonwealth might want Britain to step back from Europe and form some sort of new relationship with them. The Prime Ministers of New Zealand, Canada and Australia, and the President of America, could not be clearer in thinking that Britain should stay in a reformed European Union, and in that way make sure that Europe is looking out to them and signing trade deals with them, which is exactly what we should do.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

While the referendum campaign is in progress in the United Kingdom, Europe will continue to host and witness the worst humanitarian crisis we have seen in the past 70 years. Last summer, shameful attempts were made in the media and elsewhere to link that crisis to our membership of the European Union. Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that whatever happens in the Mediterranean over the next three months, the United Kingdom’s response will be based solely on humanitarian necessity and will not be influenced by how it might impact on the referendum campaign?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, we will do what is right. In the context of our membership, it is important to address the issue of migration. I would make a number of points. First, we are obviously outside Schengen and will remain outside Schengen, so people coming to the EU do not have an automatic right to come to Britain. Secondly, I would make the point that we are doing a very responsible thing in taking refugees directly from the region. Thirdly, we are working with our European partners to secure the external border. At the end of the day, whether we are in the EU or out of the EU, we are affected by this problem in Europe, so we should be working with our partners to make sure that they can better control, and in some cases stop, the flow of people to Europe.

UK-EU Renegotiation

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend, with his constituency, is right to talk about the importance of financial services and the City of London. We have 40% of Europe’s financial services here in the UK. The current arrangements work quite well because people can passport their way through to establish themselves in any European country, so those arguing for alternatives will have to answer some quite difficult questions about how exactly we put those sorts of protections in place.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Can the Prime Minister confirm he is now in receipt of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) that makes it clear he does not believe six weeks is a long enough gap between national elections and the EU referendum? Clearly the misrepresentation that has happened is not intentional—we all accept that—but in order to set the matter straight, may I suggest that the Prime Minister and his colleagues are equally enthusiastic about circulating the actual views of the former First Minister, in particular his suggestion that the real reason the Prime Minister wants a June referendum is that a short campaign is designed to minimise the extent of the obvious divisions within the Conservative party?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I do not think four months is a short period of time. I think by the end of four months people might be heartily sick of the whole subject. But I notice that the thumbscrews and the other instruments of torture available to the current First Minister have clearly been applied to the former First Minister as we have seen a miraculous conversion—once six weeks was enough; now six weeks is not enough. I wonder what she did to him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

6. What plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

9. What plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

The Government are committed to transparency and freedom of information. The independent commission on freedom of information was established to review the working of the Act and we will consider the report when it is received.

[Peter Grant]

There are any number of instances that we can all point to where the publication of information that the authorities would rather have kept hidden has led to significant public benefits. The expenses affair in this place was one example. I do not know of a single case where the release of information through the Freedom of Information Act has caused any significant public damage. Does the Minister agree that any change to the Act should be designed to make it easier, rather than harder, for citizens to find out what the Government are doing?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a softly spoken fellow but I want to hear him very fully—louder in future.

[Peter Grant]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, we have heard him now, but subsequently louder is better.

EU Council

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are not a Schengen country, so there is no prospect of us being part of a European external border force. Our external border is well delineated and well protected, but we should obviously look at what more we can do. Should we, however, stop other European countries if they want to get together and do more at their external border? No, I do not think we should. Frankly, we want to see a better-protected European border. Whether or not we would co-operate, work with or help some future force, I do not know, but it could be properly looked at. At the moment, even though we are not in Schengen, we have more people working on the European Asylum Support Office than any other European country. In the end, we recognise that protecting Europe’s external border is in our interest. Again, I think we can have the best of both worlds: we can keep our border controls and keep out of Schengen, while encouraging other European countries to do more on their external border and providing help where appropriate and necessary, but make sure that we maintain our own sovereignty in this vital regard.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

In his earlier replies to my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the Prime Minister made it clear to the people of Scotland, and presumably to the people of Wales and Northern Ireland too, that a consequence of being part of the United Kingdom is that we have to put up with the possibility of our people voting to stay in the European Union yet being dragged out of it if a majority of people in England vote to leave. This is how the Prime Minister has started 2016, but for most of 2014 the Prime Minister was telling us that being part of the United Kingdom was the only way to guarantee our membership of the EU. Will he tell us how it is possible to reconcile those two directly contradictory views?

[The Prime Minister]

Very easily. If Scotland had voted to leave the United Kingdom, which the people of Scotland wisely rejected, they would have been in a very long queue to get back into the EU. Having met the Spanish Prime Minister several times, I am not sure that there are many circumstances in which the Spanish would ever let an independent Scotland back into the European Union. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s first question. The answer to the second is that we had a referendum on whether Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. Scotland voted to stay in the United Kingdom and the hon. Gentleman’s party vowed to abide by the decision taken—for one United Kingdom.

Syria

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I must be careful in what I say. From time to time, the Home Affairs Committee interviews the director general of our Security Service, and he may be able to give more detail. What we have seen to date is a series of attacks either inspired by ISIL’s propaganda or directed by it. Obviously, we had the attacks that we avoided that were the product of Hussain and Khan, who have since been neutralised by the action that we have taken. The reason for such enhanced concern today is that what we were seeing with ISIL were attacks that were fairly ill planned, but that relied on radicalised individuals to take rapid action, sometimes with a knife, and sometimes in other ways. We have seen with Paris a change to a much more planned and thought-through attack strategy, such as we used to see with al-Qaeda when it was embedded in the badlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is one reason for the heightened concern. That combination of desperate psychopathic killers and a higher element of planning that the Paris attacks showed is one reason why my concern leads me to believe that we have to act, and act now.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) reminded us of the three absolute prerequisites that need to be in place before military action can be justified. If the only objective is to reduce the likelihood of attacks on UK citizens in the United Kingdom, we can argue that any attack on Daesh is effective. If we also want to ensure that we do not leave behind an environment in which a new Daesh can find encouragement, we have to do more. A ceasefire among the warring non-Daesh factions in and around Syria is not a striving for perfection, but an absolute requirement. Today, the Prime Minister has given us no cause for optimism that such a ceasefire is imminent. Will he tell us what pressure will be put on our NATO ally, Turkey, to stop bombing the Kurds, so that the Kurds can concentrate on working with us to get rid of Daesh?

[The Prime Minister]

The whole concept of ceasefires has come a lot closer because of the Vienna process. Frankly, those ceasefires between moderate Syrian opposition forces and Government forces would be helped by a more concerted effort to degrade and destroy ISIL in Syria. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s main question, I am not arguing that there is a military-only solution to this conflict. There needs to be political, diplomatic, humanitarian and post-conflict reconstruction action. I come to the House with a strategy for all those things. I say to Members of the Scottish National party that I hope that they will give this matter their fullest possible thought. They do not have to vote as one block; they can think about these important issues and come to a considered opinion.

FOI Requests: Scotland Office

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of FOI Requests: Scotland Office.

Thanks very much, Sir Edward, for putting on the public record the advice that I have had previously when I have discussed my request for this debate with the Table Office, and of course I will comply entirely with that advice, as was always my intention.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate this morning, but I suspect that, as with most people who secure debates in Westminster Hall, I really rather wish that it had not been necessary to do so, because I wish that not only the Scotland Office but other Ministers up to and including the Prime Minister had been a bit more open about what Ministers knew and when they knew it.

My intention in securing this debate and in raising matters related to this issue in the House on numerous occasions has nothing whatsoever to do with the former Secretary of State and the continuing right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). My intention is to find out what else has been going on that was completely beyond the remit of either of the two inquiries that have been set up, because I understand that a standards inquiry may still be conducted into the matter.

To put things into a bit of context, I have always had a very keen interest in freedom of information legislation. As a serving councillor in the 1990s, I was on the record as saying that a proper Freedom of Information Act and proper proportional representation would make between them the single biggest improving difference to the way that local government operates, and the experience in Scotland to date certainly suggests that that is the case.

I have previous experience of working in the NHS, in the days when Michael Forsyth was Secretary of State for everything, including health, and I saw at first hand the catastrophic impact that secrecy in the NHS in Scotland had, because major financial difficulties were covered up time and time and time again, until eventually the health board in the area that I lived in and that I had previously worked for nearly went bust, as did several other health boards in Scotland.

Freedom of information has been described as a snooper’s charter, but it is not; it is a way of giving the public a chance to hold all of us properly to account. My view on FOI has always been that if someone does not want to be held to account, they should not be here. The single golden rule about freedom of information is not the Sir Humphrey Appleby line, “You never try to conceal from the public that which they would be able to find out in any case”; the rule about freedom of information should always be, “If it would damage your career for the public to find out what you were doing, then you shouldn’t have done it in the first place”. That is the acid test that should always be applied.

I found it interesting that shortly before the summer recess the Government announced that responsibility for freedom of information legislation was moving from the Ministry of Justice to the Cabinet Office. When I saw a statement a few days ago that the Information Commissioner has put the Ministry of Justice on special measures because the Ministry is so bad at answering its own FOI requests, I wondered whether that had something to do with this change, because the MOJ is managing to respond to only 75% of FOI requests within the statutory time. Then I realised that the Cabinet Office is also achieving exactly 75%.

However, I will concentrate on the Scotland Office. Between 2012 and 2014, it received 280 resolvable FOI requests; in other words, requests about information that it actually held and that it was capable of responding to. Only 25 of those FOI requests were fully withheld, which is less than 10% of the total number received; in only 11 cases during that period did the Scotland Office claim any form of exemption from responses; and in only one case out of the 280 requests over a three-year period did the Scotland Office ever claim that somebody’s physical or mental health or safety would be endangered if information was released.

However, when somebody asked for a copy of a memo that had already been released to the press, the Scotland Office response was, first of all, to withhold that information fully, which immediately makes it an unusual response. The Scotland Office claimed that that request was exempt, but in 2014 it never claimed that anything was exempt, so again that shows that its response to that request was somewhat unusual.

Initially, when the Scotland Office responded to that request it claimed that releasing the memo might damage our relations with the French Government. That is an exemption that may well have merit; I would not like to comment on that in full. I could understand that there might be concerns that disclosing the contents of the memo might harm diplomatic relations with the French Government, but it is a pity that nobody thought about that when the memo was put in The Daily Telegraph in the first place. It is also a pity that the senior civil servant who phoned the French embassy to ask about a private conversation between French diplomats and the elected Head of the Scottish Government did not stop to wonder whether that was being disrespectful to the Scottish Government.

So, one of the things that I would like to have answered today, and one of the reasons why I am continuing to push this matter, is this question: is it common practice for Whitehall civil servants to go behind the back of Scottish Government Ministers and to follow up every private meeting those Ministers have with overseas diplomats in order to find out what was said? I would suggest to civil servants in the Scotland Office or in any other office of Government that if they want to find out what the First Minister of Scotland has said to foreign diplomats they should ask the First Minister of Scotland. Apart from anything else, that way there is less danger of things getting “lost in translation”, which I believe is the quote being used now.

I go back to the original FOI request. Following its being refused on the grounds that it might damage relations with the French and then on the grounds that it contained personal information, the question is this: whose personal details were in the memo? If there were the names of senior civil servants, and certainly if there were the names of Government Ministers, it cannot possibly be claimed that that is exempt information. The Data Protection Act is not there to protect Ministers from being held accountable for what they did, or even for what they knew.

The applicant asked for an internal review, which is supposed to be a chance for the answering Department to get the matter right second time around. However, rather than accepting that some of the exemptions no longer applied, the Department discovered that releasing the memo would in fact cause a danger to somebody’s physical or mental health and safety. The Department, having explicitly said in a letter of 15 June that it had considered that exemption and found that it did not apply, then discovered by 28 July that releasing the memo would put somebody’s health or safety in danger. I do not know what had happened in the meantime; I do not know whether one of these children from Syria who are actually Daesh operatives in disguise and who we keep hearing about had somehow got in under the radar.

The Information Commissioner is very clear about what the health and safety exemption means. It does not mean that it might be upsetting or stressful for somebody if a document is released. The Information Commissioner cited examples. For instance, disclosing information about a highly contentious research facility—one that is, for example, conducting research on animals—could threaten the safety of those working there and their families. So, that is a valid ground for withholding information. Equally, if someone is asking for information about a murder investigation, it might be that releasing that information would be extremely stressful or distressing for the family of the murder victim. Again, that is a legitimate case for using the health and safety exemption. But for the life of me, I cannot imagine what could have been in that memo that could possibly endanger anyone’s physical or mental health or safety if it had been disclosed. I look forward to the Information Commissioner’s response on that point, because I understand that in the particular case that we are discussing today the applicant has referred it to the commissioner for a ruling.

In that regard, it is perhaps worth noting that although most of these FOI requests were made a few years ago, the Scotland Office has an 80% failure rate on appeals that are referred to the Information Commissioner. In 80% of those cases, the commissioner said that the Scotland Office got matters either completely wrong or partly wrong. As I say, some of those FOI requests were from a few years back, when everybody was learning the ropes, but the Scotland Office’s record is still not a particularly clever one that it should try to defend.

It is not only in response to FOI requests that we are seeing this refusal to co-operate. I have put any number of questions to Government Ministers, up to and including the Prime Minister himself. Interestingly, when I asked the Prime Minister directly which Ministers knew the memo existed, which of them had seen it or had had access to it before the unauthorised leak—not who had leaked it—he did not answer on behalf of all the other Ministers; he declined to answer, on their behalf. All he did was refer me to the press release that the Scotland Office and the Cabinet Office had issued on 22 May, with the results of their inquiry, which does not say anything about who else had access to the memo. It refers to those who did have access but does not identify which Ministers may or may not have had that access. That, therefore, is another question I would like to have answered just now: which other Ministers and senior civil servants had access to the memo before the unauthorised disclosure?

That question is important because it starts to get to the nub of why the memo was written. We know it was written by a senior civil servant in the Scotland Office but, interestingly, we do not know who it was written for, who instructed the civil servant to go behind the back of our First Minister and ask the French embassy for its account of a private conversation involving the First Minister.

I would like to know—well, first I would like to know where the Secretary of State for Scotland is, but we might get an answer to that later—whether it is common practice for UK Government Departments to follow up private meetings between Scottish Government Ministers, or indeed Ministers from the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies, and overseas diplomats, and for Whitehall to go behind Ministers’ backs and ask overseas Governments for their account of those meetings without bothering to check it for accuracy, in this case with the First Minister of Scotland. If they had bothered to do that before the memo was written it would have become clear that a lot had indeed been lost in translation.

The most important question I want answered—and I will continue until I get answers—is: which Ministers were aware of the memo? Which Ministers were sent copies of it before it was leaked? I do not know why the Government are so determined to withhold that information from us, but I am an awkward person—that goes with the badge—and the more a public body tries to deny me access to information that my people want the more convinced I become that there might be something in it that it really does not want us to see and the more determined I become, therefore, to find it.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend feel that the Government are reneging on the Freedom of Information Act? The Government explained in a 1997 White Paper that their aim was to be more open, to be a Government based on mutual trust:

“Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state. This White Paper marks a watershed in the relationship between the government and people of the United Kingdom. At last there is a government ready to trust the people with a legal right to information.”

Is that information being withheld?

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It is not for me to say whether in this instance the Scotland Office complied with the Act; that question is now with the Information Commissioner. From my experience, primarily of the equivalent legislation in Scotland and my couple of significant successes against big public bodies—I have taken appeals to the commissioner and won—I cannot see how the physical or mental health or safety exemption can apply to a piece of paper. Similarly, I cannot see how the same exemption can apply to the Cabinet Office telling us when the inquiry was finished. Lord Chilcot was able to tell us that he had finished taking evidence in an inquiry about an illegal war in the middle east. No one would have been endangered because of that, yet it endangers someone’s health or safety if the Cabinet Office tells us the day on which the Cabinet Secretary finished speaking to witnesses about the inquiry. There is a clear question in people’s minds about why the results were not announced until after the general election, and there may well be legitimate reasons for that, but until the Cabinet Office is prepared to come clean on that particular aspect people will always wonder what is happening.

My concern is that something does not smell right. If there is absolutely nothing to hide, why are the Government going to such extraordinary lengths to keep it hidden? Can we be told today, on the record, which Ministers were aware of the contents of the memo before it was leaked? Why was the memo written and was it part of a routine process of going behind the backs of Ministers of the devolved Governments to find out what has happened in their private and confidential conversations with friendly Governments?

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) on securing the debate. I am aware that the Scotland Office received a number of freedom of information requests about the leak of a memorandum produced within the Department, and also about the investigation into the leak conducted by the Cabinet Office. I am also aware of the hon. Gentleman’s efforts in Parliament to obtain information about the matter. I hope it will help him, and others here today, if I respond to the points made by first saying—as he did—something about the Government’s general approach to freedom of information and the Freedom of Information Act and, secondly, about the operation of leak inquiries, and of this case in particular.

It is important to state clearly that the Government are committed to openness, and recognise the contribution that the Freedom of Information Act has made to greater transparency. But for any freedom of information regime to operate effectively, it is also important that it provides appropriate safeguards against the disclosure of sensitive information. The Freedom of Information Act contains a range of exemptions designed to protect sensitive material from inappropriate disclosure. Some, such as those relating to personal data and court records, are absolute, but others, such as those relating to investigation and health and safety, are qualified. Before such qualified exemptions can be applied, it is necessary to consider the public interest for and against disclosure, and only when the balance of the public interest favours withholding information can an exemption be applied.

The Scotland Office has a strong record on answering freedom of information requests. In 2014, the Department received 154 requests, 92% of which were answered within 20 working days—the equivalent figure for the Scottish Government was 77%. Of those 154 requests, 69 were granted in full and nine were declined in their entirety. In other words, the Department granted 85% of the requests received in 2014 and entirely declined just 11%. Figures for 2015 have so far been published for only the first quarter, but they are broadly consistent with those for 2014. From January to March this year, 90% of Scotland Office requests were answered within 20 working days and 82% resulted in full disclosure. That record demonstrates the seriousness with which the Scotland Office, like the rest of the Government, takes its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, and clearly shows that when it is in the public interest to release information, that material is provided.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes raised concerns about the handling of specific cases. He is doubtless aware of the appeals route that exists under the Freedom of Information Act but it might, none-the-less, help if I said something about it now. An applicant who is dissatisfied with the response he or she receives to a freedom of information request has the right of appeal, and I understand that a number of applicants have chosen to exercise that right in relation to requests about this particular matter. An applicant may first ask the public authority to conduct an internal review of its original decision to decline a request. Should the applicant remain dissatisfied, he or she may submit a complaint to the Information Commissioner under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner's Office, which is independent of Government, has the power to issue a binding decision notice ordering disclosure if it concludes that information has been wrongly withheld. It is then possible for applicants and public authorities to appeal further to the first tier tribunal and, on a point of law, beyond that to the upper tribunal or courts. Freedom of information requests received about the leak and resultant investigation were answered based on an assessment of the requested information’s sensitivity. I recommend those dissatisfied with the responses they have received to appeal those decisions through the channels I have described.

I conclude my comments on freedom of information by re-emphasising that for the Freedom of Information Act to function effectively, it is important that it strikes an appropriate balance between transparency and the protection of sensitive information.

[Peter Grant]

Given that the Minister has indicated that he is coming to the end of his comments, does he intend to answer any of the questions that I asked? Are the Government prepared to answer them at any time? If not, perhaps the Minister can just say that they are not going to answer them.

[Mr Wilson]

I intend to answer all the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised. We have 10 minutes more to debate this matter, and if he gives me the time and has some patience, I will be perfectly happy to deal with the questions he asked.

The Freedom of Information Act has now been in operation for more than 10 years, and it is therefore right that we review its operation. That is why we have recently established an independent commission on freedom of information, which is looking at the protection the Act provides for sensitive information and its costs to public authorities. The commission will report by the end of November.

Against the backdrop I have described, I will address the particular concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Glenrothes on the leak of the Scotland Office memorandum. It is important to underline that the Cabinet Office completed a full and detailed inquiry into the leak, and we have been transparent about the purpose and findings of the inquiry at every stage. In response to concerns expressed by the First Minister, on 4 April 2015 the Cabinet Secretary instigated a Cabinet Office-led leak inquiry to establish how extracts from the document may have got into the public domain. The leak inquiry followed thorough and well-established procedures for dealing with such matters. In investigating the source of the leak, the investigation team searched all relevant official phone records, emails and print logs. Those who had access to the memo were asked to complete a questionnaire on what they did with the memo when they received it. They were then interviewed about that.

The Cabinet Office issued a statement on 22 May 2015 confirming the conclusions of the investigation. That statement is available on Gov.uk. It is a well-established convention that the Government do not comment on the process or conclusions of leak inquiries. However, in recognition of the particular sensitivities of this matter, the Cabinet Secretary felt it was necessary and appropriate to set out details of the approach taken during the investigation and the conclusions reached. In that respect, we have gone further than ever before in providing information on the investigation.

Members will recognise that an important balance has to be struck in handling such inquiries. It is essential that we ensure that the public have full confidence and trust in the operation of leak inquiries and are assured that appropriate action is taken where conclusions are reached. Alongside that, however, is a wider public interest in ensuring that leak inquiries take place in an environment where individuals feel able to contribute fully and frankly and have complete confidence that any evidence provided will be handled with confidentiality. Maintaining the confidentiality of the detailed operation of such inquiries is critical in ensuring that future inquiries and broader whistleblowing processes are trusted and effective, receiving the full co-operation of all.

Alongside that, the Government do not release investigation reports, which may reveal techniques used by Departments and insight into how to avoid detection. The Cabinet Office and the Scotland Office received a number of FOI requests relating to this matter. They were handled in the usual way, with full consideration given to the weight of public interest in each case. Any decisions to withhold information reflected the important need to maintain a safe space around the operation of leak inquiries and were balanced against the unprecedented amount of information already in the public domain. As I have already set out, clear routes of redress are open to any individual who feels their particular request has not been handled fairly or appropriately, either through an internal review or referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office. We will continue to handle any such cases on their individual merits.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes asked specific questions about why the Government have not released the memo in question. As the Leader of the House made clear in response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, it is important that the Government can operate in the interests of the country, and by that I mean the UK. In considering the hon. Gentleman’s specific request for sight of the memo, the Scotland Office concluded that releasing the memo would be detrimental to international relations. Anything that would hinder the United Kingdom’s ability to work with its international partners would damage the United Kingdom’s ability to protect and promote its interests abroad, which would not be in the public interest.

As the Cabinet Office statement of 22 May made clear, the investigation team interviewed the civil servant in the Scotland Office who produced the memorandum. He confirmed under questioning that he believed that the memo was an accurate record of the conversation that took place between him and the French consul general. He highlighted that the memo had stated that part of the conversation between the French ambassador and the First Minister might well have been “lost in translation”. Senior officials who have worked with the individual say that he is reliable and has no history of inaccurate reporting, impropriety or security lapses. The Cabinet Secretary concluded that there is no reason to doubt that he recorded accurately what he thought he had heard and that there was no evidence of any political motivation or dirty tricks.

I want to see whether I can deal specifically with some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He asked who saw the memorandum. The Cabinet Office statement on the leak inquiry made it clear that the former special adviser, Mr Roddin, and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who gave his assent, were responsible for the leak, and that no one else had any involvement in leaking the memo. The Scotland Office operates within the civil service code, and the inquiry did not find any issues of propriety with Scotland Office officials. We would not normally comment on internal communications.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the common practice for civil servants to go “behind the back” of Ministers—I think that was his phrase—and speak to foreign diplomats. It is common practice for UK Government Departments to engage with diplomatic and consular corps across the United Kingdom and to share factual information about our respective activities on a wide range of issues, including Scotland. The UK Government and the Scottish Government regularly share information on engagement in international activities in a manner that is consistent with a memorandum of understanding and supplementary agreements between the UK Government, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Executive. Officials at the Scotland Office work within the guidelines set out in the civil service code and the inquiry did not find any issues of propriety with Scotland Office officials.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the Cabinet Office has taken FOI policy from the Ministry of Justice. That is presumably because it is logical for FOI policy to sit within the Cabinet Office, given that it is the lead in transparency policy in general across Government. He also asked why the Scotland Office used an exemption relating to physical and mental health. The Scotland Office applies freedom of information exemptions to requests on a case-by-case basis. If an individual is unhappy with the handling of a case, they can go to the Information Commission or tribunal.

I think that directly handles the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked me. As I have previously set out, it was a thorough investigation and I am clear that the statement issued by the Cabinet Office in May deals robustly with the concerns that he and others have expressed.

Question put and agreed to.