KEVIN Hollinrake has denied that the previous Conservative administration extended the super-injunction on the Afghan data leak to avoid embarrassment ahead of the General Election.

Speaking on the Camilla Tominey Show on GB News, the Shadow Levelling Up Secretary said: “I don’t think it’s protecting people’s reputations. It protects people’s lives. That’s what it was there for.

“Now I’m not close enough to that particular decision to decide whether Grant Shapps was right or the Labour government was right to extend it eight times, but I’m sure they did it for the right reasons to try and protect people’s lives. That’s why they did it.

“That’s easy for you or anybody else standing on the sidelines and criticising but these judgments are difficult, these decisions are difficult, and I have no doubt that Grant Shapps and Ben Wallace made those decisions in the right interests of UK security and the safety and security of those individuals.”

Asked about public concern over the issue, he said: “I’m concerned about it too, and we’re concerned about it too, which is why we put the checks and balances in place and those things were prioritised over bringing people from Afghanistan to the UK. The £6 billion figure you quote is for the entire scheme, not just for the people that were the subject of this super-injunction.

“But of course we’re concerned about that, which is of course why we put the checks and balances in place to make sure those people were not members of the Taliban and wouldn’t pose a threat. But in terms of your overall question, should we make sure these people that are residing in the UK today are not a threat to the UK? Of course we should, and if they are, they should be deported.”

He said he was concerned about a working group that is looking at the definition of Islamophobia: “This is effectively a working group that’s chaired by Dominic Grieve, who is in favour of a definition of Islamophobia, which I am not.

“The other four people in the working group are all Muslims, and there’s nothing wrong with moderate Muslims in this country. We’re not talking about Islam here. But nevertheless, here, looking at this from one side of the equation, I’m very concerned that we end up with a definition of Islamophobia which shuts down free speech and any criticism of a religion that should never happen.

“Of course, we should protect individuals of the Muslim faith. The law currently does that. Various different laws do that in this country. What I do not want to see is a situation in this country where you cannot criticise a religion. I am very critical of some of the practices as some of the some of the Muslim communities in this country, cousin marriage, for example, sharia councils, very critical of those things.

“I should be able to be critical of those things. I fear this new definition will mean I cannot be critical without being criticised as being an Islamophobe.

“The most pernicious effect of this, of course, is when public sector organisations implement this kind of definition, it will end up shutting down free speech and making sure people in this country are not all treated equally. Some will be more equal than others.”

On if he was concerned about losing his job in a rumoured Shadow Cabinet reshuffle, he said: “I have no idea if they’re true or not, and whatever Kemi is asking me to do, or if she asked me to do nothing, I’m very happy to support the team.”

Asked if he was saying he is happy to be sacked, he said: “Of course. If Kemi Badenoch thinks there’s somebody better to do my job, that’s her decision to make.”