In recent weeks, one of the biggest stories in the British media has produced startling headlines and endless analysis. This is what has become known as the Afghan data breach crisis. It has developed following news of the inadvertent leaking by the British government of information in its own database about thousands of Afghans who had been working for British forces during the Afghanistan war.

In assessing the seriousness of this, it is probably wise to take into account the customary hyperbole of the UK press which all too often likes to proclaim every new drama as the greatest scandal ever. But the serious heavyweight newspapers seem to be in broad agreement about this crisis. Some are saying that the repercussions of this leak, by mistake through human error so that the information is now in the public domain, have not been handled very well by the sitting Labour government or its predecessor. One well-known commentator has even gone as far as to say that “it marks a new low for shameless Starmer”, the British prime minister.

Others, however, offer a more considered view that the actions of both the Conservatives and Labour in response to the leak – over a period of several years that straddled the change of government at the 2024 general election – were, in the circumstances, defensible.

The facts are clear and incontrovertible. Briefly, in February 2022, a spreadsheet containing the personal details of about 19,000 people who had asked to come to the UK in order to flee the Taliban – after it had retaken control of the country following the abrupt withdrawal of international forces in 2021 – was accidentally leaked by an official working at UK Special Forces Headquarters. According to reports, the official concerned emailed the document outside the government team processing Afghan relocation applications and it made its way into the public domain.

In the leaked document were the names, contact details and family information of people who had been associated with British forces during the Afghanistan war and could therefore be in danger of retribution by the Taliban. However, the leak only came to light in August 2023. At that time, it was feared that, taking account of family members, as many as 100,000 people could be affected.

The UK government, therefore, set up a new Afghan Response Route scheme to offer people sanctuary. This new secret route was separate from a main relocation scheme which had earlier been established. It also became known that details of over a hundred British operatives involved in Afghanistan, including special forces and some working undercover, had become publicly available accidentally.

Reportedly, in total about 36,000 Afghans have moved to the UK since the 2021 Western withdrawal. It is not clear whether anyone in Afghanistan has been harmed as a direct result of the leak. However, a government review earlier this year found that the leaked document “may not have spread as widely as initially feared”.

The review also cast doubt on previous assessments that the information would have been of great value to the Taliban. Concerns about widespread retribution had therefore diminished. Nonetheless, those included in the document were said to remain fearful of the increased risk to them and their families; and many believe that the risks are still very real.

Faced with difficult choices when the breach came to light, government ministers opted for what was known as a “super injunction” in order to suppress the story and thereby limit any spread of the knowledge of the existence of the database. The government did not know whether the Taliban had seen the list. But, it was argued that, if they were not aware of it, they would not have gone looking for it – hence the injunction.

It has also been contended most recently that, if the government had not tried to suppress the story – and the list had been more widely disseminated and fallen into the hands of the Taliban and those on the list had been murdered – there would have been justifiable public outrage in Britain. Through its negligence, the UK government was responsible for endangering those who helped its armed forces at considerable risk to themselves, and it therefore had a moral obligation to support and protect them.

Nonetheless, mounting a two-year cover-up – not least over the numbers of Afghans being resettled and the huge costs involved – and using a super injunction like this through the courts is unusual – if not unprecedented – in Britain. Most agree that, in a parliamentary democracy, keeping the media, the public and elected representatives in the dark in this way should only be done very rarely because it could be used as cover for illegitimate state power.

When reporting all this to Parliament last week after it had been decided that the super injunction should be lifted, the secretary of state for defence, John Healey, said “no government wishes to withhold information from parliamentarians, the public or the press”. But that is exactly what has happened in this case and as a deliberate action by both governments. It happened under the Tories’ watch but Starmer let it continue for another year.

Bad as all this has been – a terrible and expensive mistake and misleading the public – there are those in Britain who are saying that overall the data breach has not been the unmitigated disaster that many are claiming. Significantly, perhaps, prime minister Starmer, who is under siege on so many different fronts, is now being criticised for seeking political gain out of the debacle by saying that the Tories have got a lot to answer for when presumably he himself could have ended the super injunction. But, above all at this stage, there is surely a need to reconcile extreme public anxiety about immigration with a moral duty to help those placed at risk as a result of the government’s own actions.

New Anglo-German pact

After this month’s state visit to Britain of French president Emmanuel Macron, how interesting it was to see the brief visit to London this past week of Germany’s new chancellor, Friedrich Merz. This follows up Macron’s successful visit by signalling greater cooperation and coordination between what Merz himself calls Europe’s top three nation states that hold most power and influence. This is particularly important at a time of threats to Europe and uncertainty about the US as an ally. For the UK, Merz’s visit was also a symbol of its desire to reset relations with the main European Union member states after its departure from the bloc in 2020.

Germany is the most populous country in Europe and has its largest economy. It is often regarded as the EU’s economic leader while France and Britain, which are both permanent members of the UN Security Council, tend to lead in defence and foreign policy matters. Despite leaving the institution of the EU, Britain remains in various ways very much part of Europe.

The German chancellor was in London primarily to sign a bilateral treaty of cooperation covering a range of issues from security and defence, including the defence industry and exports, to the economy and other trade, and working together in a host of different ways.

At a separate meeting at Downing Street with Starmer, the two leaders explained that this treaty was a practical work plan setting out more than 15 projects, like new direct rail links and youth exchanges, in which the two countries would work together to improve people’s lives. Merz also committed to taking action in Germany to make it illegal to assist people smugglers – making it clear that tackling illegal and irregular migration was a priority – and to ease travel for British visitors at German ports of entry.

This was the first bilateral agreement of its kind for the two countries. It is called the Kensington Treaty because it was signed at the Victoria & Albert museum in South Kensington which was co-founded by Queen Victoria and her husband, Albert, who was, of course, of German origin.

During the talks at Downing Street the two leaders reflected on the importance of the Treaty in demonstrating that the UK and Germany were the closest of strategic partners ready to tackle shared challenges together and to cooperate whenever possible. The Treaty would form the basis of a new bilateral relationship in which ties would be deepened in the face of threats in Europe.

Merz commented that, while regretting the UK departure from the EU, a new era of bilateral cooperation would help to cement the ties between the two nations. This was particularly important in light of doubts about whether the US was still committed to its NATO Article 5 obligation to defend its European allies. Reportedly, the two leaders also discussed plans to supply more weaponry to Ukraine, especially long-range strike systems.

Interestingly, the new chancellor revealed during a BBC interview that he had travelled often to the US during his previous business career and now spoke regularly to the US president on the telephone. He said that he had realised for some years that the US was becoming increasingly oriented towards Asia and that it was inevitable that it was now pressing Europe to take greater responsibility for its own security. He also said that many European nations were ready to coordinate efforts to reduce levels of immigration. He emphasised that he wanted Germany to be at the centre of European political discourse – and he was glad to be able to work closely with Britain.

Chancellor Merz seems to have gone down well during his brief visit to the UK. To use the nautical vernacular, people seemed to “like the cut of his jib”.

Lowering voting age in Britain

Some people in England are reportedly alarmed at controversial government proposals last week to lower the voting age for all elections to 16. It was lowered to 18 years by an Act of Parliament in 1969. The ruling Labour Party committed to lowering the voting age further in its manifesto at the general election last year.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has insisted that this change, which already applies in Scotland and Wales, is important because 16-year-olds are mature enough to work and “pay in” through tax so ought to have the opportunity to say how their money should be spent. But not everyone in the country is buying that argument, with many saying this move is simply related to what some say is the mistaken belief that young people are more likely to vote Labour.

So critics say that Starmer is simply trying to rig the political system to his advantage. Moreover, the polls show that some 50 percent of this age group do not agree that they should be given the right to vote and only 18 percent say that they would anyway definitely vote.

Other critics point out that in Britain those under 18 years old are deemed to be too young to buy alcohol or a lottery ticket, smoke cigarettes, get married (in England), serve in the military or sit on a Jury. What is more, they cannot even stand in the elections in which they would be voting.

From afar, this looks to be somewhat confused. It will be interesting to watch developments.