Thousands of Afghans won't receive compensation from UK over data breach
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it will 'robustly defend' an expected legal bid for compensation, adding it is 'highly unlikely' those on the leaked spreadsheet were targeted as a result.
The MoD will also not proactively offer small compensation payments to those affected by the breach.
The data breach saw details of 18,714 applicants for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released in 2022.
It exposed up to 100,000 Afghans to potential reprisals from the Taliban, cost the UK taxpayer billions and prompted a two-year cover-up through the use of an unprecedented superinjunction.
It also saw the establishment of a secret scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR), to bring some of those affected to the UK.
But the MoD spokesman pointed to an independent review which found there is now little danger that appearing on the leaked spreadsheet would be enough to result in being targeted by the Taliban.
Hundreds of data protection claims are expected to be lodged, with the High Court hearing earlier this week that a Manchester-based firm already had several hundred prospective clients.
Previous Afghan data breaches led to the MoD compensating people whose details were leaked.
Earlier this month, before the superinjunction preventing reporting of the 2022 leak was lifted, armed forces minister Luke Pollard announced £1.6m in compensation for a separate incident involving the release of Afghan nationals' data.
Mr Pollard said the MoD had agreed to pay up to £4,000 to each of the 265 people whose details were mistakenly copied into emails sent by the Government in September 2021.
That breach also saw the Government fined £350,000 by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).
But the ICO has said it will take no further action in relation to the larger 2022 breach, with Information Commissioner John Edwards saying there was 'little we could add in this case' given the 'high degree of public scrutiny' the MoD was already facing.
In total, the Government expects 6,900 people to be brought to the UK under the ARR scheme, with costs reaching £850 million.
Along with the Afghan nationals, the breach saw details of more than 100 British officials compromised, including special forces and MI6 personnel.
Hundreds of MoD data breaches have now been revealed as questions intensify over its ability to keep sensitive information safe in the wake of the Afghan leak.
The latest MoD figures show there were 569 incidents in 2023-24 – up from 550 the previous year – which included electronic devices being lost and protected documents not being disposed of properly.
In one incident last year, the details of 272,000 staff – including names and bank details – were breached when one of its systems, run by an external contractor, was hacked by a 'malign actor'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Football supporters now have a bigger say in how their clubs are run
The Football Governance Act has officially become UK law after receiving royal assent, establishing an independent regulator for English football. This landmark legislation introduces a watchdog for the top five tiers of the men's game, aiming to ensure clubs are run sustainably and are accountable to their supporters. The new regulator will possess 'backstop' powers to impose financial settlements between the English Football League (EFL) and the Premier League if they fail to reach an agreement. The Act's journey to law was prompted by the attempted European Super League breakaway and numerous instances of clubs facing financial distress and mismanagement. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy highlighted that the Act delivers on promises to fans, protecting cherished clubs and their vital role in communities.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
How realistic is Nigel Farage's promise to cut crime in half?
N igel Farage claims that he has a plan to 'cut crime in half, take back control of our streets, [and] take back control of our courts and prisons '. The Reform leader says that 'we are facing nothing short of societal collapse', wants to build emergency 'Nightingale prisons ' on Ministry of Defence land, and has semi-promised to send convicted murderer Ian Huntley to El Salvador (admittedly a bit of a vote winner). It's an ambitious package, but there are questions about its viability... Is Britain facing societal collapse? No. If it was, you wouldn't get back alive from the pub or be able to get petrol or bread. Is crime up? On some measures and in some places, against certain given periods of time, it is up; on other measures, it's down. The variations in the way crime is measured are one issue – it's risky to go by the number of crimes recorded by the police, because people will sometimes not bother to report them, especially the less serious matters, so statisticians treat these figures with caution. The other way of measuring crime rates, which should also be adjusted for changes in population, is by conducting surveys among the public – but not everything is included. Somewhat confusingly, Farage seems to think that the survey data is unreliable because people have given up telling the police about, for example, thefts that might affect their insurance. That doesn't make sense. Types of crime also necessarily change over time; there are very few thefts of car radios or bank blags these days, but there's massively more cybercrime and fraud. Even in London, described by Farage as 'lawless', not all crime is up; there's a long-term trend down in murder and rape, for example, and there are still plenty of tourists. So fact-checking any politician on the subject of crime is virtually impossible. All such claims need to be treated with the utmost care. What about the costings? Farage presented a 'costings sheet' that purports to show that the whole massive package – recruiting 30,000 more police, opening new 'custody suites', restoring magistrates' court operations, building prisons, paying rent for offenders deported to prisons in El Salvador or Estonia, and the rest – would come to £17.4bn over a five-year parliament: a mere £3.48bn per annum. The costings seem to be optimistic, based on some arbitrary assumptions such as always being able to cut costs to a minimum. They are not independently audited by, say, the Institute for Fiscal Studies – and if it were really all so cheap to do, the Tories and Labour would surely have taken the opportunity to transform the crime scene and turn Britain into a paradise long ago. As for funding even the admitted £17.4bn, there are no specific named savings elsewhere, just some recycled claims about the (contested) cost of net zero and the supposed economic miracle wrought in Argentina by President Milei. Probably not enough to calm the bond markets under a Farage government. Is the UK 'close to civil disobedience on a vast scale'? So Farage claims. His critics say that his 'I predict a riot' remarks tend to have a self-fulfilling quality to them, as seen in the 'Farage riots' in Southport and elsewhere a year ago. Essex Police, who are currently dealing with violent unrest in Epping – perpetrated by 'a few bad eggs', as Farage terms it – won't thank him for his comments. And the anecdotes? Uncheckable, just as Enoch Powell's were in the infamous 'rivers of blood' speech in 1968. We may never know whether, for example, a former army sergeant was denied a job as a police officer because the force was 'having trouble with its quotas' or for some other reason. Reform's tactics are also reminiscent of the Trump playbook, demonstrating an obsession with incarceration and policing by fear. If Farage could build a British Alligator Alcatraz on a disused RAF base in Suffolk, he probably would. But using grass snakes, presumably. Can Farage cut crime in half in five years? It feels implausible. If he could, then presumably he could abolish crime altogether if he were given a decade in office. The 'zero tolerance' approach sounds fine, but if the pledge that every shoplifting offence, every whiff of a spliff, and every trackable mobile phone theft has to be investigated is taken literally – as he seems to intend – then even 30,000 more officers wouldn't be sufficient, and the expanded court and prison system would collapse. Much the same goes for 'saturation' levels of policing deployed on stop-and-search exercises in high-knife-crime areas. Sending many more people to jail is also very costly, but, more to the point, the recent Gauke report explains why prison doesn't work and just makes everything worse. To get crime down under Reform UK, we'd need to turn the UK into a police state.
Scotsman
15 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why Afghan data breach cover-up is a genuine scandal
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The scandal that landed last week over the cover-up of a massive data breach of not only tens of thousands of potential Afghan refugees but also British intelligence agents and special forces personnel will run deeper and longer than the headlines and outrage it generated. We have come to expect significant data breaches, be they through incompetence and error of administrators, the criminal exploits of organised crime or political agents of foreign powers intent on bringing down our democratic freedoms. What continues to shock many people, however, is when the politicians and officials we expect to look after our interests go to extraordinary lengths to cover-up their failures, be they innocent or guilty of the original misjudgment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Our political class appears to find no difficulty in being prepared to sign-off not just millions or even hundreds of millions – but billions of pounds to make problems we were not even aware of appear to go away. Large numbers of Afghans fled the country when Western forces withdrew and the Taliban took over Kabul in 2021 (Picture: Master Sgt Donald Allen/US Air Forces Europe-Africa) | U.S. Air Forces Europe-Africa vi Democratic scrutiny denied As if that is not a scandalous enough breach of public trust, some politicians then travel down the road of using legal processes such as super-injunctions to prevent public knowledge of their department's administrative failure to protect them from political embarrassment. The use of a super-injunction means the reporting of the actual injunction itself is not possible – so only a limited few are aware of the scandal and the legal cover-up that has taken place. It means the ordinary democratic processes of public scrutiny and accountability are automatically denied and the democratic order of making elected representatives responsible for their judgments and actions is bypassed. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad One might think the natural order of actions having consequences in a democracy would be restored when there is a change of government but, as is so often the case, the poor decisions of previous governments are very often picked up by new administrations who see there is advantage in continuing with the same approach as they too might suffer some blow-back and might want to avail themselves of the same secret protections. Veterans at risk To sum up, when the real life-threatening failure for many of sending personal data to the wrong person was discovered, a conspiracy between ruling politicians, government officials and then opposition politicians who became the new rulers resulted in several billions being committed to accepting 25,000-30,000 refugee applicants into our country. The possibility that some of those might actually not be who they appeared to be, but have criminal histories and intentions or be agents of terrorist groups cannot be discounted. Meanwhile the new government, aided by many activist lawyers working through lawfare, take it upon themselves to instigate processes that put our veterans at risk of prosecution and spend a great deal less on veterans' welfare such as housing. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Unsurprisingly, these revelations have led to recriminations about the role of some previously respected politicians who were thought to be on the side of veterans and seen as hawks in the pursuit of protecting our all-too-porous borders. Politicians such as the former Secretaries of State for Defence, Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps, have been forced to justify their actions at the time. Of course, when a scandal breaks under the pressures of competitive politics, naïve confusion and wilful misrepresentation abounds. Some politicians who were not in office at the time and had no responsibility for a particular error – such as the application for a super-injunction or the establishment of potentially costly refugee schemes that could be open to abuse – are smeared by the accusations and recriminations. Super-injunction may have backfired Establishing a timeline of when decisions were taken, whom they were taken by and what the consequences were becomes crucial in determining if the policies pursued were justifiable. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the case of the mistaken release of data, there is now good reason to believe the pursuit of the super-injunction – while thought at the time to be necessary to protect lives – only served to elevate the importance of the data and make it more valuable to the Taliban. Sadly this type of misjudgment without consequences is all too prevalent in British establishment circles. We should recall how in June 2021, Angus Lapsley, a British official, left behind classified Ministry of Defence documents at a bus stop in Kent. They were found by a member of the public, dripping wet from the rain and handed in to the BBC. The papers included PowerPoint presentations and e-mails that revealed sensitive military recommendations regarding the UK's military presence in Afghanistan; details about the British military's response to Russia's reaction to HMS Defender's passage through disputed Ukrainian waters; further plans for a possible UK military presence in Afghanistan; details of service numbers around Kabul and arms export campaigns. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Lapsley was not dismissed or prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act but had his security clearance suspended and was redeployed to the Foreign Office. Yet this year he was appointed Britain's permanent representative to Nato. In contrast, another senior civil servant, Richard Jackson, was fined £2,500 under the Act for leaving sensitive papers about al-Qaeda on a train in 2008. Politicians must trust public Cover-ups and sometimes consequence-free misjudgments appear all too easy in our parliaments. If our political discourse and decision-making – including whom we choose to elect – is to improve, then we need to be better informed. Treating the public as children rather than adults only ever results in child-like behaviours and outcomes. For our people to make considered choices and be able to trust our politicians requires far more trust in the public from the politicians themselves. When Prime Ministers make promises before general elections, they should be expected to do everything in their power to deliver them – or learn not to make pledges they cannot keep. When politicians fail, they should be ready to accept responsibility, and only those that do should be given the opportunity for redemption – rather than shielding those who have hidden the truth from us for years and even decades.
