Parliament gagged by super-injunction?

This week we examine one of the most troubling intersections of Government secrecy, national security, and parliamentary accountability in recent memory. Thousands of Afghans who had worked with British forces were placed at risk of Taliban revenge attacks after a catastrophic Government data leak in 2022 exposed their details. In response, ministers secured a “super-injunction” – so secret that even its existence could not be reported – effectively silencing public debate and preventing parliamentary scrutiny for almost two years. The breach, only revealed this week, has already cost taxpayers millions of pounds as part of a covert resettlement scheme. Legal expert Joshua Rozenberg joins us to unpack the legal and constitutional ramifications.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey.

___

Joshua Rozenberg explains the legal context to the granting of the super-injunction and how it persisted under both Conservative and Labour governments. We discuss how parliamentary privilege meant those MPs aware of the breach could have raised the issues in the House of Commons Chamber because they were protected by parliamentary privilege, but any MP who knew about the issue would have had to weigh national security concerns and respect for the courts against their right to free speech.

This case raises profound questions about ministerial accountability to Parliament. In light of the constitutional implications, we discuss whether the chairs of key select committees should in future be confidentially briefed when national security results in court action that blocks normal parliamentary scrutiny processes in order to provide some degree of democratic oversight. We also explore the political and constitutional fallout: How many current and former MPs were subject to the super-injunction? Was the National Audit Office subject to the super-injunction and was it made aware of the costs of the secret Afghan relocation programme? Should there be a new Joint Committee of both Houses or a sub-committee of the overarching Liaison Committee to look at the issues and draw the constitutional threads together? The case was not raised at Prime Ministers Questions so is there a risk that MPs will simply shrug off such a significant breach of accountability? And has this set a precedent for future governments to shield embarrassing or costly errors behind injunctions?

Sticking to the theme of parliamentary privilege we also discuss the sensitive issue of whether unpublished evidence given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 2009 should be released to the Omagh bombing inquiry. Joshua Rozenberg explains how parliamentary privilege protects witnesses who give evidence to MPs, allowing them to speak freely, often in confidence.

We then turn to other parliamentary controversies, including Labour’s decision to withdraw the whip from welfare rebels. Will this help Keir Starmer to restore his authority or deepen internal rifts within his party? And we discuss the Government’s plan to lower the voting age to 16, a move some hail as democratic renewal while others question whether it will truly engage younger voters.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy & Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.