According to Dame Harriet Harman, Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle was aware of the Afghan data leak and should have compelled ministers to inform MPs. Speaking on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast with Beth Rigby, Harman, who ran for the Speaker position in 2019, suggested that Hoyle should have ensured a key select committee was informed.
A spokesperson for the Speaker explained that he was under a super-injunction and thus faced legal restrictions that prevented him from disclosing the information.
The massive data breach by the British military, which was only revealed recently, exposed the personal details of nearly 20,000 Afghan individuals, putting them and their families at risk. The leak occurred in February 2022 during Boris Johnson’s tenure as prime minister but was not discovered by the military until August 2023.
Despite efforts to keep the breach under wraps with a super-injunction, the UK government only notified those affected this week, three-and-a-half years after the incident.
Harman criticized the Speaker for prioritizing the super-injunction over parliamentary accountability, suggesting that he should have allowed the Intelligence and Security Committee to scrutinize the situation.
The previous Conservative government established a covert program in 2023 to relocate Afghan individuals affected by the breach who were not eligible for existing relocation initiatives for those who had worked with the British government in Afghanistan. Approximately 6,900 Afghans, including 1,500 individuals and their dependents, are being relocated to the UK under this program.
Harman expressed disappointment in the Speaker’s handling of the situation, suggesting that he had neglected his duty. She also acknowledged the awkwardness of criticizing someone who had won an election she had competed in.
For further details on the Afghan data breach timeline and information on voting rights for sixteen and seventeen-year-olds in the next general election, read more.
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle and the Afghan Data Leak: A Controversy Unfolds
In a recent episode of the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Labour peer Dame Harriet Harman raised concerns about Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle’s knowledge of the Afghan data leak. Dame Harman, who previously ran for the Speaker position in 2019, suggested that Sir Lindsay Hoyle should have taken action to ensure that a key select committee was informed about the leak.
The Speaker’s spokesperson responded to these claims by highlighting the legal restrictions imposed on Sir Lindsay Hoyle due to a super-injunction that he was under. This injunction severely limited his ability to speak about the matter. The data breach in question, which was only made public recently, exposed the personal information of nearly 20,000 Afghan individuals, putting them and their families at risk.
The breach occurred in February 2022 during Boris Johnson’s tenure as prime minister, but it was not discovered by the British military until August 2023. A super-injunction was then imposed in September of that year to prevent the reporting of the mistake. Despite efforts to keep the leak secret, a secret scheme was set up in 2023 by the previous Conservative government to relocate Afghan nationals affected by the breach.
Dame Harriet criticized the Speaker for not prioritizing parliamentary accountability in the face of the data leak. She argued that Sir Lindsay Hoyle should have ensured that the Intelligence and Security Committee was informed about the breach and given the opportunity to hold the government accountable. With the breach now public knowledge, the Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to review all relevant documents from the Ministry of Defence.
When asked if she believed the Speaker had failed to do his job, Dame Harriet affirmed her stance, acknowledging the delicate nature of her criticism given that Sir Lindsay Hoyle had won the Speaker election over her. However, she emphasized the importance of the Speaker’s role in upholding parliamentary scrutiny and ensuring government accountability, especially when specialized committees are in place to fulfill these duties.
The Speaker’s spokesperson clarified that the super-injunction placed legal constraints on Sir Lindsay Hoyle’s ability to address the matter publicly. Despite these restrictions, the Speaker managed to grant four Urgent Questions related to Afghan refugees and resettlement schemes between the imposition of the injunction in September 2023 and the 2024 general election. It was also noted that under the Justice and Security Act 2013, the Speaker does not have the authority to refer matters to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle’s knowledge of the Afghan data leak highlights the complexities of balancing legal constraints with parliamentary accountability. As the fallout from the breach continues to unfold, the role of the Speaker in ensuring transparency and scrutiny within government processes remains a topic of ongoing debate. Keep the exact anchor texts of the links on
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle knew about Afghan data leak and should have made ministers tell MPs, Dame Harriet Harman has claimed.
Speaking to Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, the Labour peer said the Speaker – whose job she ran for in 2019 – should have asked for a key select committee to be made aware.
A spokesperson for the Speaker said he was «himself under a super-injunction» and so «would have been under severe legal restrictions».
A massive data breach by the British military that was only made public this week exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 Afghan individuals, endangering them and their families.
Successive governments tried to keep the leak secret with a super-injunction, meaning the UK only informed everyone affected on Tuesday – three-and-a-half years after their data was compromised.
The breach occurred in February 2022, when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but was only discovered by the British military in August 2023.
A super-injunction which prevented the reporting of the mistake, was imposed in September of that year.
The previous Conservative government set up a secret scheme in 2023 – which can only now be revealed – to relocate Afghan nationals impacted by the data breach but who were not eligible for an existing programme to relocate and assist individuals who had worked for the British government in Afghanistan.
Some 6,900 Afghans – comprising 1,500 people named on the list as well as their dependents – are being relocated to the UK as part of this programme.
Dame Harriet said: «The Speaker was warned, ‘If somebody’s going to say something which breaches this injunction, will you please shut them up straight away if an MP does this’, and he agreed to do that.
«But what he should have done at the time is he should have said but parliamentary accountability is important. I’m the Speaker. I’m going to stand up for parliamentary accountability. And you must tell the Intelligence and Security Committee and allow them to hold you to account.
«What’s happened now is now that this is out in the open, the Intelligence and Security Committee is going to look at everything. So, it will be able to see all the papers from the MoD [Ministry of Defence].»
Pressed on whether she meant the Speaker had failed to do his job, Dame Harriet replied: «Yes, and it’s a bit invidious for me to be saying that because, of course, at that time, Lindsay Hoyle was elected a speaker, I myself ran to be speaker, and the House chose him rather than me.
Read more:
Afghan data breach timeline: The fallout behind the scenes
Sixteen and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in next general election
«So it’s a bit bad to make this proposal to somebody who actually won an election you didn’t win. But actually, if you think about the Speaker’s role to stand up for parliament, to make sure that government is properly scrutinised, when you’ve got a committee there, which is security cleared to the highest level, appointed by the prime minister, and whose job is exactly to do this.»
A spokesperson for the Speaker said: «As has been made clear, Mr Speaker was himself under a super-injunction, and so would have been under severe legal restrictions regarding speaking about this.
«He would have had no awareness which organisations or individuals were and were not already aware of this matter.
«The injunction could not constrain proceedings in parliament and between being served with the injunction in September 2023 and the 2024 general election, Mr Speaker granted four Urgent Questions on matters relating to Afghan refugees and resettlement schemes.
«Furthermore, as set out in the Justice and Security Act 2013, the Speaker has no powers to refer matters to the Intelligence and Security Committee.»
, don’t translate or change.
SOURCE