Why the Afghan data breach isn’t just a Tory problem
The Ministry of Defence's superinjunction to silence reporting on a data breach affecting 18,000 Afghans has been lifted - but the questions over accountability are just beginning - and they span party lines.
Listen to this article
Read time: 2 minutes
A catastrophic data leak. An unprecedented superinjunction. 18,000 Afghans at risk.
Questions are still mounting after The News Agents broke the story that The Ministry of Defence imposed a superinjunction on us - which was lifted yesterday (15 July) - to stop reporting on the data breach.
The superinjunction was introduced in August 2023 - under the previous Conservative government, but it was upheld for almost a year when Labour took over.
After Lewis Goodall questioned Defence Secretary John Healey on The News Agents about why it took so long to lift the injunction, whether one could ever be imposed again and why Afghans who were originally deemed to be at risk, which was the original argument for the superinjunction, seemingly no longer are, something stood out in the response.
“I've been inundated over the past 24 hours on social media with this anger that we are blaming Labour for a Tory problem,” Lewis Goodall explains on The News Agents.
He believes that the Conservatives bear the heaviest burden of responsibility for creating this mess in the first place.
The questions for them are damning: "Why you took it out in the first place, why you allowed it to become a super injunction, why you kept battling against it being discharged so many times, why it was what the basis was of the intelligence assessment that it would be so dangerous, which now appears to have just completely disappeared."
But the reality is far more complex than simple party-political point-scoring.
"It's also true that Labour maintained it," Lewis points out, "and it is perfectly fair to say that there are different questions for the different sides."
The most obvious question for Labour, is why did it take so long to lift the superinjunction?
More critically, Lewis says: "it is John Healey and this government, not the Conservatives, who have made this decision to close the relevant schemes which were designed to compensate for the data breach in the first place, to bring people over who had suddenly been put in danger."
Accountability doesn’t stop at the Labour front benches or the previous Tory government.
"I think there are questions for the civil service as well, about how the breach could have happened, what IT systems are in place, why this went on for months without ministers being aware of it," argues Jon Sopel.
How much Grant Shapps, who had only been defence secretary for a matter of days when the superinjunction landed, knew about it when he took on the role, is also a question that remains unanswered.
At this moment in the political landscape, transparency from political parties and institutions is more crucial than ever.
"We're living in an age where the public's faith in our democratic systems has never been lower," warns Lewis.
“There are populists out there. There are people who are looking to take advantage of that corrosive cynicism by often peddling lies and suggesting that the whole state is out to get you.
“And, to be honest, with regards to this story, it's hard to argue with quite a bit of that analysis, and that is why it's so important that the public know that when there are mistakes like this, the government is honest about it.”
Lewis adds that modern politics has created a culture whereby people often refuse to acknowledge their own side's failings.
"People's willingness to listen when their own side has questions to answer feels like it's never been lower," he says.
"People start to put their fingers in their ears and just hear no evil and see no evil when their own side is in the dock or has those questions."