Boris Johnson has been accused of presiding over a cover-up as it emerged a report on alleged Russian interference in British politics will not be published until after the election.
It has gone through the standard security clearance process, but Downing Street indicated that it would not allow the potentially incendiary 50-page dossier from the intelligence and security committee to be published immediately.
The report was expected to include evidence rom UK intelligence services over covert Russian attempts to influence the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum and 2017 general election.
Ex-terrorism watchdog Lord Anderson said any further delay would "invite suspicion" of the government's motives in the run-up to next month's election.
READ MORE: Issue of the Day - Fears over electoral interference by Russia
The committee’s chairman, Dominic Grieve, called the decision “jaw dropping”, saying no reason for the refusal had been given, while Labour and Scottish Nationalist party politicians accused No 10 of refusing to recognise the scale of Russian meddling.
Ministers said the report, which examines Russian activity including allegations of espionage, subversion and interference in elections, would be published "in due course" in line with procedures for "sensitive" information.
The report, written by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee, was finalised in March and referred to No 10 on October 17.
The usual 10-day wait for release has passed, and if it is not published before Parliament dissolves on Tuesday it will not be published ahead of the election.
A No 10 spokesman added: “There are processes reports such as this have to go through before publication, and the committee is well-informed of these.”
Mr Grieve said “The protocols are quite clear. If the prime minister has a good reason for preventing publication he should explain to the committee what it is, and do it within 10 days of him receiving the report. If not, it should be published.
He added: "We continue to be very disappointed by the failure of the government to publish this report and to provide any explanation as to why it should not be published. Explanations currently advanced that the timing are too short are entirely disingenuous and grossly misleading."
Joined my colleague David Anderson in pressing Govt on failure to publish this report. I stressed the public interest in knowing the security implications of Russia’s adversarial behaviour. Also that the ISC is the only Select Cttee that needs Govt OK to publish. Get it done! https://t.co/caMN41nNnm
— Peter Ricketts (@LordRickettsP) November 4, 2019
As a former intelligence reviewer I agree with @DominicGrieve and @LordRickettsP. HMG sadly has form for withholding info from the ISC (below: https://t.co/wHO6RftFvC). Non-release of a declassified report on Russian election interference looks cynical and will feed suspicion. https://t.co/IG3oZtEpDx pic.twitter.com/IZf7jaNWWf
— David Anderson (@bricksilk) November 3, 2019
At the weekend Labour demanded that the Prime Minister's most senior adviser, Dominic Cummings, answers a series of questions relating to his past in Russia after a whistleblower allegedly came forward with “serious concerns”.
READ MORE: Is Dominic Cummings really the most dangerous man in Europe?
In a letter to Dominic Raab, Emily Thornberry queried whether the former Vote Leave director has been granted access to some of the government’s most sensitive “top secret” files.
The shadow foreign secretary said an “official-level whistleblower” had raised “serious concerns” with members of Jeremy Corbyn’s front bench regarding Mr Cummings’ time in Russia in the 1990s after graduating from university.
Copying in the civil service chief Sir Mark Sedwill, and members of Britain’s security services to the correspondence, Ms Thornberry said Labour did not “know the veracity of their claims” but felt compelled to inform them.
The Cabinet Office said: "We do not comment on individuals' security clearance."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel