Live Threat Map
Just weeks into his premiership, Rishi Sunak was grappling with leaks in his Government and Cabinet.
His reappointment of Suella Braverman as Home Secretary came under intense scrutiny when it emerged that she had been investigated – and then cleared – over claims she had leaked sensitive details about the Northern Ireland Protocol when she was Attorney General in May.
When Mr Sunak brought Ms Braverman back to the Home Office just days after she had quit during Liz Truss’s final days as leader, a drip, drip of stories about her decision-making followed. Another leak claimed Ms Braverman had ignored legal advice warning her that the Home Office was breaking the law by detaining migrants at the Manston asylum centre for longer than was allowed.
The Government looked leaky and not just on Ms Braverman.
The new Prime Minister had also appointed Gavin Williamson into a role overseeing classified security material despite allegations he had leaked national security documents about Chinese telecoms firm Huawei’s 5G network bid during his time as defence secretary in 2019. A trickle of stories accusing him of bullying, which he strongly denied, eventually led to his resignation. It also emerged that Ms Truss’s mobile phone had allegedly been hacked by Russian spies during the summer’s Tory leadership race.
You might have heard of at least one of these scandals before and, if you haven’t, you will have surely seen those images of Matt Hancock and his aide, Gina Coladangelo, getting cosy in his ministerial office before he quit as Health Secretary in June 2021. What you might not have heard of is the secretive Government unit made up of civil servants and officials on secondment from MI5 and MI6 who investigate all these breaches of Government security.
As the threat from hostile states, such as Russia and China, becomes an ever more present reality, ministers and MPs have been warned to take great care over sensitive information. Last month, Commons Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, urged MPs to ramp up security on their mobile phones and warned that “hostile states continue to target parliamentarians”.
Those charged with helping to protect ministers and investigate Government leaks form part of a group of back-office analysts called the Government Security Group (GSG).
i has pored over public records, interviewed multiple intelligence sources, academics, ministers, and civil servants – including current and former staff in the GSG – to find out more about this ruthless security arm of the Government.
Launched in 2018, the group – which is closely connected to the UK’s security services – makes up part of the Government’s “Security Function”. The GSG is tasked with mitigating the risks of “trusted people” exploiting their access to material, protecting IT kit and data from unauthorised access and ensuring central systems remain out of reach of hostile threats, protecting government buildings, and providing security advice to the staff inside them.
The unit provides security for more than 430,000 civil servants and its role is to protect 800 Government buildings. It is responsible for investigating leaks, the security vetting of staff and ensuring that security measures, including CCTV systems, across individual Whitehall departments are up to standard. It also has input in overseeing the Government body that decides if an MP should receive a rise in salary.
In essence, the GSG watches over the UK Government, ensuring information pertaining to national security stays in, and hostile threats stay out. The team guards the walls of Whitehall and investigates the people inside them, when needed.
A Cabinet Office spokesperson told i: “The Government Security Group helps protect the government’s systems, people and estate from a range of threats.
“It also leads the wider Government Security Function, which helps ensure that security is at the heart of everything government does.”
A request made by i under freedom of information laws (FOI) asking for details of the number of investigations into ministers over the past five years was denied for the “purpose of safeguarding national security”. And time and time again, ministers have been unable to talk about GRG work when pressed by colleagues in the House of Commons.
As always with a lack of transparency there has been vocal discontent about the secrecy of the group.
During a debate over Ms Braverman’s conduct and reappointment in early November, Labour MP Andy Slaughter asked whether the GSG had probed the Home Secretary over an apparent leak of the Government’s plan to seek an injunction against the BBC in relation to reports of a spy accused of abusing his position to mistreat a former partner. In response, he was told it was policy “not to comment on leak investigations” by Minister for the Cabinet Office Jeremy Quin.
“That is just not good enough in this case,” said Mr Slaughter. “That is why this information is being requested. It should not have to be, because it should have been put in the public domain already by the Government.”
Similarly, last year, after former prime minister Boris Johnson had to grapple with a row over MPs’ lobbying work and reports of favorable PPE contracts, the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, was grilled by MPs from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. He repeatedly failed to answer questions, citing the “constraints” placed on him by the GSG “who own the process” during investigations into breaches.
But senior intelligence sources told i these denials are “disingenuous” because the GSG is instructed by the Cabinet, not the other way around. This, a former civil servant working in intelligence said, allows things to get “murky” because staff within the GSG investigate with all their resources but report into the very people they’re investigating.
“There’s certainly an element of Government deciding whether or not to investigate themselves,” the source said. “They can act on things and sit on things when it suits them politically.”
Mr Slaughter told i he thought there was a “clear public interest” in the GSG’s questioning of Ms Braverman but he had “concerns” that ministers were taking a “political bias” over the information they chose to divulge and conceal.
He told i: “The work done by the Government Security Group is largely very thorough, but there is potential that they can be used to confirm a motive.”
If any investigation turned up evidence of criminality, the police would become involved. However, if there was found to be a breach of ministerial code, the ultimate verdict on the evidence comes down to the prime minister. Despite taking the lead on investigations, the outcome of their can fall into the very hands of the staff they investigate.
An intelligence source said the opaqueness of the unit is “essential” because ministers have “repeatedly shown themselves to be untrustworthy” with classified information. But the source admits that however powerful the unit’s investigative resources are, “the hammer is in the hand of the Government”.
They added: “It’s a question of who watches the watchers?”
A Cabinet Office spokesperson told i: “It has been the policy of successive governments not to comment on the specifics of leak investigations. Departments can initiate leak investigations, supported by the Government Security Group. The GSG also leads on investigations which affect multiple departments.”
The GSG is also responsible for developing and establishing security functions and constantly advises departments on how to secure assets.
Recently, a GSG review of Chinese-made camera systems required Government departments to stop installing cameras made by Chinese firms in “sensitive sites”.
Departments were urged to disconnect Chinese-made devices from core computer networks and to consider removing them altogether because the companies must abide by national intelligence law, which requires them to cooperate with Beijing’s intelligence services.
“They have hampered the potential for sensitive data to go back,” Mr Cash told i. “But it needs to be implemented nationwide.”
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Oliver Dowden, said: “Since security considerations are always paramount around these sites, we are taking action now to prevent any security risks materialising.”
Chris Cash, the director of the China Research Group, welcomed the recommendations, but felt they fell short.
The GSG doesn’t have a mandate to make recommendations outside of the Government departments it advises. The concerns raised by the GSG would relate nationwide, but its reach doesn’t stretch outside the walls of Whitehall.
An intelligence officer told i it was a “frustrating limitation” that recommendations made by the GSG for Parliament are not replicated across the country or even outside of certain Government departments.
“How many ministers will have Chinese-made security cameras at home?” he asked. Adding: “There’s now the realisation that we have all filled our homes, garages, offices and factories with potential eavesdropping technology.”
Other strands of government cover the protection of the wider public. The Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure manages the security of assets and staff from the wider government and the National Cyber Security Centre provides cyber security advice to individual citizens and businesses.
The intelligence officer claimed some ministers can be “blasé” when it comes to security of material or devices. As much protection as GSG recommends and implements “you can only protect them so much”, the source said, and it often comes down to the willingness of ministers to co-operate.
“You can have all the briefing and advice in the world,” a former civil servant told i. “But ministers ignore advice, go straight on TikTok on a personal device, and make themselves vulnerable.”
A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: “The Government Security Group helps protect the government’s systems, people and estate from a range of threats.
“It also leads the wider Government Security Function, which helps ensure that security is at the heart of everything government does.”
Read the full article here