PRESSURE is mounting for full disclosure after Whitehall mandarins blocked an attempt to find out who knew what and when over the leaked memo which suggested Nicola Sturgeon wanted David Cameron to remain Prime Minister.

 

The Cabinet Office said that to release any details would "seriously impact" future leak inquiries.

UK Government officials have previously refused to disclose any further details on the grounds that to do so could harm UK-French relations and even harm people's mental and physical health.

The latest refusal to disclose details comes as a preliminary hearing was held into the legal challenge to the election of Alistair Carmichael as the MP for Orkney and Shetland.

The Cabinet Minister is currently under investigation by Westminster's standards commissioner on whether or not he broke the MPs' code of conduct in approving the leak. It is not thought the watchdog will report until the autumn.

The memo was an account of a private conversation weeks earlier between the First Minister and Sylvie Bermann, the French Ambassador to the UK.

The official note claimed Ms Sturgeon had said she wanted Mr Cameron to remain as Prime Minister and that Ed Miliband was not up to the job - opposite to what the SNP leader had been saying in public.

But the memo was wrong. Swiftly after its publication in the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph, the FM strongly denied its contents, saying they were "100 per cent untrue" and the French Embassy also made clear the note of the conversation was inaccurate.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, launched an investigation, which reported after the election, and found the memo had been leaked by Euan Roddin, Mr Carmichael's special advisor, but with the then Secretary of State's approval.

He concluded: "No-one else had any involvement in the leaking of the memo."

Using the Freedom of Act, The Herald asked not only who had seen the leaked memo but who had been made aware of it and whether those who knew of its contents included the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, any of their officials or special advisors, Scotland Office Minister David Mundell and the Advocate General Lord Wallace, the Liberal Democrat peer.

The Cabinet Office said the information sought was exempt under Section 31(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information Act, explaining: "The information contains details about the leak investigation, which would assist a person to avoid detection in the future.

"The release of information following a Government-led leak investigation would seriously impact on future investigations. These investigations rely on staff to participate and co-operate in the process.

"Staff are requested to speak freely and openly about all aspects of the leaked material and do so with the understanding that this will be kept in confidence."

The Cabinet Office noted that the exemption being used was a qualified one, taking into account whether or not the balance of the public interest favoured releasing or withholding the information.

While it stressed that "openness in government may increase public trust in and engagement with the government", it decided in this case the stronger public interest was in the "prevention, detection and ability to investigate future acts of improper conduct".

The Cabinet Office also said the information was being withheld because it would contravene another part of the Act, which "provides that personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully".

But Tommy Sheppard, the SNPs' Cabinet Office Spokesman, said: "It's really not good enough. There needs to be full disclosure.

"We need to know who did what and when in order than we can get to the bottom of this and that the public can be reassured such things won't happen again.

"People deserve better than Yes Minister-style obfuscation."

The legal challenge at the Court of Session is being brought under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which makes it a criminal offence to release a ''false statement'' about the character and conduct of an election candidate.

The case is thought to be the first election petition brought in Scotland since 1965. The trial is usually held in the constituency where the election took place, unless the court is satisfied there are special circumstances for it to be held elsewhere.

But in a preliminary hearing before Lady Paton at the Court of Session, Jonathan Mitchell QC, representing the petitioners, said the case should be heard in Edinburgh rather than the court travelling to Orkney.

Lady Paton continued the case until next Wednesday at 9.30am at the Court of Session.